Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / California Man Convicted of Killing - DA Says Crimes Were “Pure Evil”

Transcript

California Man Convicted of Killing - DA Says Crimes Were “Pure Evil” · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Deep Dive. Our mission here is to
0:02
take a dense stack of sources, articles, court documents, investigation
0:06
notes and distill the critical knowledge and surprising insights, giving
0:11
you the shortcut to being truly well informed.
0:14
Speaker 2: And today we are tackling a case that is incredibly difficult.
0:20
It's heartbreaking, but it's also profoundly significant in the history
0:23
of cold case investigations.
0:25
Speaker 1: We're talking about the conviction of Paul Allen Perez. This
0:28
deep dive is going to focus on the harrowing timeline
0:31
of a multi county infanticide case and crucially, the revolutionary
0:35
role of forensic genetic genealogy in bringing these hidden crimes
0:39
to light decades later.
0:41
Speaker 2: It's a heavy subject, for sure, but it's a case
0:43
that perfectly illustrates the convergence of persistent old school police
0:47
work and truly cutting edge science. The core narrative we're
0:50
pulling from the sources, it spans over thirty years. It
0:52
goes from the first suspected murder back in the early
0:55
nineties all the way to the final verdict in twenty
0:58
twenty six.
0:58
Speaker 1: And this isn't just a story about solving one.
1:00
Speaker 2: Murder, not at all. It's about exposing a decade's long
1:04
pattern of systemic violence against the most vulnerable victims you
1:07
can possibly imagine.
1:08
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's establish the necessary facts right at the
1:11
top for everyone. The subject is Paul Allen Perez, a
1:15
transient man sixty three years old when he was finally
1:17
convicted in Yolo County, California. That was on January sixth,
1:20
twenty twenty six.
1:22
Speaker 2: And the complexity here it comes from the duration and
1:25
the sheer scope of his crimes.
1:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, the timeframe is essential to understanding why this was
1:31
so hard for investigators to piece together.
1:33
Speaker 2: It really is. We are looking at the murders of
1:35
five of his own infant children, and this spans nearly
1:38
a decade between nineteen ninety two and two thousand and one.
1:41
Speaker 1: Crucially, these crimes were also geographically distributed. They weren't all in.
1:44
Speaker 2: One place exactly. That's what allowed the pattern to remain
1:47
hidden for so long. He was moving between Merced Fresno.
1:51
And then eventually the whole thing was linked back through
1:53
evidence found of all places in Yolo County.
1:56
Speaker 1: The legal closure based on the conviction summary, it's total
2:00
multiple council murder. It ensures life.
2:02
Speaker 2: With that parole it does, and before we get into
2:04
the details of the investigation, I think it's necessary to
2:07
underscore the gravity of what the Yolo County District Attorney
2:10
Jeff Reisig said after the verdict.
2:12
Speaker 1: His quote really stands out.
2:13
Speaker 2: It's not typical legal language. He stated, these crimes involved
2:18
pure evil. The defendant should die in prison pure evil.
2:22
Speaker 1: That's a powerful statement from a prosecutor. It speaks to
2:25
the profound emotional impact and the calculated nature of the
2:29
crimes that were proven a trial.
2:31
Speaker 2: That statement really sets the tone for our entire discussion.
2:35
Our goal for you, the listener, is to move past
2:37
the headlines and really understand the intricate timeline of this investigation,
2:42
and to.
2:42
Speaker 1: Understand the psychological shadow cast by decades of domestic violence,
2:46
and maybe most importantly, the exact mechanisms of the forensic science,
2:50
the genetic genealogy that was required to finally break this case.
2:54
Speaker 2: Open and to shatter that wall of silence.
2:56
Speaker 1: Right and to truly appreciate that scientific triumph, we have
3:00
to start with the silent, almost random discovery that first
3:03
put this case on the map for Yolo County. This
3:06
was years before anyone knew its true scope.
3:08
Speaker 2: We need to go back back to two thousand and seven,
3:11
specifically March twenty ninth. The location was the quiet agricultural
3:16
waterways of Yolo County, just a few miles east of
3:20
the town of Woodland, California. And you have to understand
3:23
this was a completely isolated event. It was far removed
3:27
from where the family was known to be active, like
3:29
in Merced or Fresnow.
3:31
Speaker 1: So this is fifteen years after the first victim's death.
3:34
Speaker 2: And six years after the last. It was a ghost.
3:37
Speaker 1: And the specific story about the discovery, the one in
3:40
the source material, is crucial because it really highlights the
3:43
sheer luck involved here.
3:44
Speaker 2: It's unbelievable. Really. We're talking about a local fisherman named
3:47
Brian Roller. He was out bowfishing for karp in the
3:50
murky waters of a place called the Conway Slow.
3:52
Speaker 1: So he's just out there, engaged in a sport totally
3:55
disconnected from law enforcement or crime solving completely.
3:58
Speaker 2: And this is where the source matter gets so specific.
4:01
It's cinematic. His arrow missed the carp he was targeting,
4:04
and instead it struck something metallic, something resting deep on
4:07
the canal bed, and he was able to get it
4:09
out yeah. When he managed to retrieve the object, he
4:12
found a sealed metal cooler.
4:14
Speaker 1: A cooler, a cooler.
4:16
Speaker 2: And the chilling, highly relevant detail investigators focused on immediately
4:21
was the deliberate attempt at concealment. This thing wasn't just floating.
4:24
Speaker 1: There, No, it was weighted down.
4:26
Speaker 2: It was weighed down with bricks, large rocks, and other
4:28
heavy items. I mean it was deliberately engineered to keep
4:32
it submerged and hidden forever.
4:34
Speaker 1: That detail alone speaks volumes about intent and intent to
4:39
conceal a crime, likely, prominently.
4:41
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And when law enforcement eventually opened the cooler, the
4:45
contents were They were the badly decomposed remains of an
4:49
infant and.
4:49
Speaker 1: The details of how the child was found inside.
4:51
Speaker 2: It's heartbreaking. The child had been wrapped tightly in a
4:55
Winnie the Pooh blanket and then sealed within multiple layers
4:59
of plastic being placed in that cooler.
5:01
Speaker 1: So the initial investigation, led by the Yolo County Sheriff's Office,
5:05
immediately classifies this as a homicide right away.
5:08
Speaker 2: And despite the decomposition, the coroner's office and the investigators,
5:12
they did everything by the book. They preserve the available
5:14
DNA evidence.
5:15
Speaker 1: This is two thousand and seven.
5:16
Speaker 2: This is two thousand and seven. We're talking pre revolution
5:19
in forensic DNA processing. So the immediate roadblock was simple.
5:24
Without a match in the standard law enforcement databases like COTIS,
5:28
which contains profiles of known offenders, there was nowhere to go.
5:31
The child's identity was completely unattainable. The case had a
5:35
dead end almost instantly and went cold for over a decade.
5:39
Speaker 1: So you have this perfect if heartbreaking piece of evidence,
5:42
the victim's DNA, but for eleven years, there's no key
5:47
to unlock its identity none. And that brings us to
5:50
twenty eighteen. So okay, let's unpack this. How did investigators
5:54
finally find the key? What was the scientific leap that
5:57
allowed them to break open a case that had just
5:58
been sitting in a file for So this.
6:00
Speaker 2: Is really the crux of our deep dive. This is
6:03
the intervention of modern science, specifically forensic genetic genealogy or FGG.
6:08
The breakthrough timing is definitely after twenty eighteen, and it's
6:10
important to understand how different this is. Traditional DNA comparison
6:14
relies on codis. It's looking for exact matches or maybe
6:18
immediate parent child matches among known felons.
6:21
Speaker 1: FGG is different.
6:22
Speaker 2: FGG is a whole different ballgame. It leverages the massive
6:26
voluntary public genealogy databases that millions of people use to
6:31
trace their ancestry.
6:32
Speaker 1: And people often confuse this with standard familial DNA, but
6:36
FGG is far more complex. We need to be clear
6:38
for our listener. This isn't just a simple database.
6:40
Speaker 2: Query, right, absolutely not. The science had to overcome huge
6:44
hurdles here. First. You have to remember, the DNA from
6:48
the infants remains had been in water for years. There
6:51
was significant degradation.
6:53
Speaker 1: So you couldn't get a full clean profile.
6:55
Speaker 2: Not at all. Instead, they relied on these sophisticated new
6:59
techniques to generate what's called a single nucleotide polymorphism profile
7:03
or a SNP.
7:03
Speaker 1: Profile, the SNP profile.
7:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, and think of it this way. Traditional CODIS profiles
7:08
use only about twenty genetic markers. SNP profiles read hundreds
7:12
of thousands of markers. It allows for much much more
7:14
nuanced genetic mapping.
7:16
Speaker 1: And that higher resolution map is what you need to
7:18
look for distant cousins, right, not just a brother or
7:20
a father.
7:21
Speaker 2: Precisely, once they developed that high resolution SNP profile, investigators
7:27
usually through specialized labs and using databases like gematch. They
7:32
began the search.
7:33
Speaker 1: But they weren't looking for the murderer directly, no.
7:36
Speaker 2: Or even the victim. They were looking for distant relatives, second, third,
7:39
maybe even fourth cousins, people who had voluntarily uploaded their
7:43
DNA just to help build their family tree.
7:46
Speaker 1: And this specific technique it gained massive public attention after
7:50
the twenty eighteen arrest of the Golden State killer. That
7:54
case proved FGG was viable even with decades old DNA.
7:57
It did that success must have been the proof of
8:00
concept that Yolo County needed to move forward.
8:02
Speaker 2: It was the operational blueprint. The source material really highlights that.
8:06
In twenty eighteen, Yolo County demonstrated incredible foresight by establishing
8:10
its own dedicated DNA cold case division.
8:13
Speaker 1: So they made a conscious investment in.
8:15
Speaker 2: This, a huge one. This wasn't cheap or easy. It
8:17
represented a strategic decision to adopt this new scientific capability
8:21
to solve their most difficult cases. They were actively betting
8:24
on FGG, and.
8:25
Speaker 1: That bed paid off incredibly fast.
8:27
Speaker 2: Within a year of establishing that unit, by October twenty nineteen,
8:32
forensic experts had a positive identification for the infant from
8:35
the cooler. The child had a name, Nico Lee Perez.
8:38
Speaker 1: And with that name came more.
8:39
Speaker 2: Details, identifying Nico le Perez born November eighth, nineteen ninety six,
8:44
in Fresno, California, and determined to have been about one
8:47
month old at the time of his death. That was
8:50
the essential breakthrough. But here's where the investigation pivots. It
8:53
goes from solving a single cold case to exposing a
8:57
systemic pattern.
8:58
Speaker 1: Right because the genetic profile didn't just name the child.
9:01
Speaker 2: It provided the first clear genetic link to the biological parents.
9:05
Speaker 1: This is where it gets so deeply disturbing. The genetic
9:08
analysis didn't stop at just identifying Nico and his parents.
9:11
It immediately triggered a huge red flag based on public
9:14
records and further investigation.
9:16
Speaker 2: Correct The subsequent familial DNA analysis showed that Nico had siblings,
9:20
multiple siblings, and they had also died under suspiciously similar,
9:24
unconfirmed circumstances. They had just vanished shortly after birth across
9:28
that same general central California region.
9:31
Speaker 1: So this one piece of evidence, Nico's recovered body, it
9:34
immediately pointed the finger at Paul Allen Perez as the
9:37
biological father of not just Nico, but of several other
9:40
children who had gone missing without.
9:41
Speaker 2: A trace over a nine year period. The science revealed
9:45
a devastating pattern of serial infanticide that law enforcement hadn't
9:49
even known existed as a connected series of crimes.
9:52
Speaker 1: That's incredible. The moment that familial match was made, investigators
9:56
went from looking for a single unidentified murderer to confirming
9:59
its sdemic pattern across multiple county jurisdictions.
10:02
Speaker 2: Which is an administrative and legal nightmare.
10:05
Speaker 1: I can only imagine the sources.
10:07
Speaker 2: Reveal this, this pattern of systematic murder. Perez is believed
10:10
to have killed each child shortly after their birth, methodically repeatedly,
10:15
and he leveraged his transient lifestyle, moving between Mercett and Fresno,
10:19
to ensure that no single county, social services or law
10:23
enforcement would flag a pattern of multiple infant deaths.
10:26
Speaker 1: I think we have to take a moment here and
10:28
list the five innocent lives that were cut short. We
10:32
need to trace the agonizing timeline that prosecutors had to
10:34
piece back together. None of these children survived past six
10:38
months of age.
10:39
Speaker 2: The list is a somber chronology of a decade of
10:42
violence in silence. The first known victim was Cato Alan Perez.
10:46
He was born in Merced County in nineteen ninety two.
10:49
He was the first instance where this cycle of violence,
10:51
death and then concealment began.
10:54
Speaker 1: Then three years later mika Elena Perez born in nineteen
10:57
ninety five, also in Merced County, and.
10:59
Speaker 2: Her remains, tragically have never been recovered. This highlights the
11:03
immedia complexity the prosecution faced. How do you prove murder
11:07
when there is no body You have to rely on
11:09
testimony from co conspirators or survivors.
11:11
Speaker 1: Then comes the victim whose body cracked the entire case
11:14
wide open. Nico Lee Perez born in Fresno County in
11:17
nineteen ninety six. He is the child whose remains were
11:20
found in that weighted cooler in the Yolo County slough
11:23
in two thousand and seven. And here's a detail that
11:25
is just intensely chilling. It suggests a profound lack of
11:29
remorse or maybe a pathological compulsion. The fourth victim, born
11:35
just one year after the first Nico's death, was also
11:37
named Nico Lee Perez.
11:39
Speaker 2: He was born in nineteen ninety seven in Fresno County,
11:42
and his remains also were never recovered.
11:44
Speaker 1: That repetition of names, I mean Nico Lee and then
11:48
the last victim's first name, Cato.
11:50
Speaker 2: That repetition is a profoundly significant piece of psychological evidence
11:54
in this investigation. It's far beyond just, you know, reusing
11:58
a family name in the contact of serial familial violence.
12:02
Repeating the name of a murdered child suggests a pathological pattern.
12:05
Speaker 1: What does that pattern suggest to you?
12:07
Speaker 2: It could be an attempt to erase the memory of
12:09
the previous victim by immediately replacing them. Or it could
12:12
be a twisted form of control, something designed to mimic
12:14
a return to normalcy after a horrific violent act.
12:18
Speaker 1: It suggests the actions were systematic and detached. They weren't
12:21
just isolated crimes driven by, say, desperation or postpartum crisis exactly.
12:26
Speaker 2: The final victim, born four years later in two thousand
12:28
and one, was Cato crow Perez, also in Fresno County,
12:32
and his remains were also not recovered.
12:34
Speaker 1: So the tragedy is immense. We have distressed that only
12:38
one set of remains, that of the first Nico Lee,
12:41
was ever recovered. Four children remain missing. Their resting places
12:46
are known only to their.
12:47
Speaker 2: Murderer, and the investigative triumph here lies in improving a
12:50
pattern of five distinct murders over nearly a decade, crossing
12:54
multiple jurisdictions. This makes it one of the most extreme
12:57
cases of familial violence in modern California history, just based
13:01
on the sheer number of infant victims.
13:03
Speaker 1: Given that four of the five victims had no recovered remains,
13:07
what was this specific legal hurdle the prosecution faced in
13:10
bringing those four counts of murder? Was the mother's testimony
13:14
alone enough to establish the crime?
13:15
Speaker 2: That's an excellent critical question in American law. Proving a
13:19
homicide without a body is incredibly challenging. You have to
13:22
establish the corpus delecti, which means the body of the crime.
13:25
You have to prove that a crime actually occurred.
13:28
Speaker 1: So the prosecution couldn't just rely on the mother's word
13:30
that these children existed and.
13:31
Speaker 2: Then vanished, not on its own. The key was the
13:34
one recovered body, Nico Le Perez, and the subsequent forensic
13:38
identification linking him genetically to Paul Perez, that established the
13:43
modus operandi. It proved the perpetrator's willingness to conceal infant
13:47
bodies violently, so the.
13:49
Speaker 1: Recovered remains essentially validated the context for the mother's later testimony.
13:54
Speaker 2: Precisely, once the corpus stelicty of one murder was firmly
13:58
established with physical evidence, the mothers detailed emotionally devastating testimony
14:03
about the other four deaths. I mean, she detailed the
14:05
systematic violence, the threats, the methods of disposal. That testimony
14:10
became compelling evidence of the broader pattern.
14:13
Speaker 1: The FGG breakthrough was the physical foundation that supported the
14:16
entire testimonial structure of the case exactly. So let's talk
14:19
about that specific path to justice, which began with the
14:22
arrest of Paul Allen Perez. The timing, as we mentioned earlier,
14:25
was almost miraculous.
14:27
Speaker 2: It was the very definition of a timely intervention. Perez
14:29
was arrested in January twenty twenty, but he wasn't tracked
14:33
down on the street. He was already incarcerated at Kern
14:35
Valley State Prison right.
14:37
Speaker 1: Serving time for an unrelated conviction.
14:39
Speaker 2: An unrelated conviction for assault with intent to commit rape,
14:43
which further solidifies this long standing pattern of violence and
14:46
predation in his history.
14:48
Speaker 1: But the most critical detail here, the one noted in
14:50
the police reports, is that his arrest for the infanticides
14:53
came just days before his scheduled release date on that
14:56
assault charge. Days.
14:59
Speaker 2: Had that Yolo the County Cold Case Unit not acted
15:02
in that incredibly tight window between getting the DNA match
15:05
in late twenty nineteen and his planned release in early
15:08
twenty twenty, he would have likely been out. He would
15:11
have been transient once more, vanishing back into the population
15:14
he had hidden in for so long.
15:16
Speaker 1: The FGG result delivered the identity and the warrant just
15:19
in time to physically detain him.
15:21
Speaker 2: It prevented the case from potentially falling back into the
15:23
cold file, maybe forever.
15:25
Speaker 1: The subsequent trial in Yolo County Superior Court was, as
15:28
you'd expect, intense. It lasted nearly two months, and the
15:31
emotional centerpiece, as we discussed, was the testimony of the
15:35
children's mother, Yolanda Perez.
15:37
Speaker 2: Her testimony wasn't just helpful, it was the mechanism that
15:41
defined the prosecution's case against a man who had left
15:44
so little physical evidence behind.
15:46
Speaker 1: It provided the human, horrific narrative behind all the forensic
15:51
data it did.
15:52
Speaker 2: She described years of relentless domestic abuse of intimidation and terror,
15:57
and critically she detailed the mechanism of control pers used.
16:01
She testified he would inflict fatal injuries on the infants,
16:04
often in moments of pure rage, but always, she said,
16:07
to assert absolute control over her life and her actions.
16:11
Speaker 1: The sources outlined the beginning of this pattern after the
16:13
death of the first victim, Cato Allen, back in nineteen
16:16
ninety two.
16:16
Speaker 2: Yes, after that first death, no funeral was held. There
16:19
was no public acknowledgment of the death. It was just
16:21
immediate silence and concealment, and that set the standard for
16:24
the next nine years.
16:25
Speaker 1: And the mechanism for enforcing that silence was just existential fear.
16:29
Speaker 2: Absolutely, Yolanda testified that Paul Allen Perez threatened her life
16:33
if she ever spoke to anyone about the deaths. The
16:36
single chilling quote that emerged in court reports, it perfectly
16:39
encapsulated the level of terror and submission he demanded.
16:42
Speaker 1: I remember reading it.
16:43
Speaker 2: She said, he said he'd snap my neck because he can.
16:46
Speaker 1: Because he can. That specific phrase, it removes any ambiguity
16:51
about the power dynamic. It's not just a threat, it's
16:54
a statement of effortless capability of absolute ownership of her
16:58
life and their children's lives.
16:59
Speaker 2: And testified to living in constant fear, not just for herself,
17:03
but for their only surviving child. With their daughter, Brittany,
17:05
who also took the stand, she also testified about the
17:09
atmosphere of abuse they both endured in that toxic and
17:11
lethal household.
17:13
Speaker 1: Now we have to acknowledge the complex legal and ethical
17:16
reality surrounding Yolanda Perez. Here we do. While she was
17:20
the key witness for the prosecution and she testified to
17:23
being a victim of extreme, prolonged domestic abuse, she was
17:26
still held accountable by the justice system for her role
17:29
in failing to protect her children.
17:30
Speaker 2: That's right. She previously pleaded guilty back in twenty twenty
17:33
two to five counts of child endangerment. She faces up
17:36
to ten years in prison.
17:38
Speaker 1: That creates a deeply challenging situation for the courts and
17:41
for public perception of justice. The state recognized her as
17:44
a victim of abuse who provided crucial testimony, and.
17:48
Speaker 2: Yet they still found her culpable for the failure of
17:51
parental protection.
17:52
Speaker 1: What does that legal complexity tell us about the cycle
17:55
of violence in these kind of cases.
17:57
Speaker 2: It tells us that the law often struggles to find
17:59
a middle ground in cases of long term coercion and abuse.
18:02
The prosecution acknowledged that without her testimony, getting justice for
18:06
four of the five victims might have been.
18:07
Speaker 1: Impossible, but the legal standard is still there.
18:10
Speaker 2: The legal standard requires all parents to protect their children.
18:13
The fact that six children were born to this couple
18:16
and only one survived it indicates an extended period where
18:19
institutional protections failed and where her actions, even under duress,
18:24
led to the deaths.
18:26
Speaker 1: So her plea deal was a compromise.
18:28
Speaker 2: It was a legal compromise securing a maximum ten year
18:31
sentence instead of potentially facing murder charges herself. That was
18:35
the compromise necessary to ensure the primary perpetrator faced maximum accountability.
18:40
Speaker 1: And ultimately, the combination of the indisputable forensic evidence from
18:44
niko Le's recovered body, combined with that devastating and detailed
18:48
testimony from both Yolanda and their surviving daughter, it just
18:51
proved overwhelming for the defense.
18:53
Speaker 2: Which brings us to the final judgment. The verdict was
18:56
delivered by the jury on January sixth, twenty twenty six.
19:00
Speaker 1: Jury presided over by the Honorable Judge Daniel Walk They
19:03
deliberated for about four days.
19:06
Speaker 2: Which, given the complexity of the evidence spanning over thirty
19:09
years and involving four missing bodies, four days indicates the
19:12
jury was very methodical. They were deeply analyzing the evidence,
19:16
not just rushing to a judgment.
19:18
Speaker 1: Let's break down the convictions because the distinctions the jury
19:21
made between the counts of murder gives some crucial insight
19:24
into how they analyze the circumstances of each child's death.
19:27
Speaker 2: Okay, so the jury found Paul Allen Perez guilty of
19:30
one count of first degree murder. This is the most
19:32
serious charge in California. First degree murder requires a finding
19:36
of willful, deliberate, and premeditated intent to.
19:39
Speaker 1: Kill, and the evidence strongly suggests this specific finding related
19:43
to Nikoli Perez, the child whose body was found in
19:46
the cooler.
19:47
Speaker 2: Exactly because the elaborate steps taken to conceal the body,
19:51
weighing it down with bricks sealing it. That suggests the
19:54
calculated plan behavior necessary to prove premeditation.
19:58
Speaker 1: And then three counts of second degree murder? What does
20:01
that distinction imply about the circumstances surrounding the other three
20:04
successful murder counts.
20:06
Speaker 2: Second degree murder still requires the intent to kill, but
20:09
it lacks that necessary element of premeditation. It often relates
20:13
to impulsive acts of violence or a killing during a
20:16
moment of profound rage, where the intent is formed suddenly, which.
20:20
Speaker 1: Aligns perfectly with Yolanda's testimony.
20:22
Speaker 2: It does it aligns with her testimony that he would
20:25
inflict fatal injuries on the infants, often during moments of
20:27
rage or to assert sudden, volatile control. The jury seems
20:32
to have analyzed those three deaths as intended killings, but
20:35
not necessarily planned weeks in advance, contrasting with the premeditation
20:39
suggested by the concealment of Nico's body.
20:42
Speaker 1: He was also found guilty of one count of assault
20:44
on a child under eight with force likely to produce
20:48
great bodily injury resulting in.
20:50
Speaker 2: Death, which confirms the jury accepted the evidence that the
20:53
deaths were a result of direct, violent physical abuse. Furthermore,
20:58
the court included a crucial legal finding. A special enhancement
21:02
for multiple murders was found true. This is key for sentencing.
21:06
Speaker 1: Can you elaborate on the significance of that special enhancement?
21:09
Speaker 2: Sure this isn't just an emotional label. It's a critical
21:12
statutory mechanism. In California, when a special circumstance like multiple
21:17
murders is proven, it legally mandates the most severe penalty,
21:21
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
21:24
Speaker 1: It takes parole completely off the table.
21:26
Speaker 2: It bypasses all other parole considerations. It's a guarantee he
21:29
will die in prison.
21:30
Speaker 1: Now, there was a note on a partial mistrial. The
21:33
jury couldn't reach a unanimous verdict on an involuntary manslaughter
21:37
charge related to the nineteen ninety two death the very
21:39
first victim.
21:40
Speaker 2: Right, But as you say, the overall outcome was unaffected.
21:44
That procedural detail is minor in the face of the
21:46
overwhelming convictions on the other counts. The multiple murder findings
21:50
on the other four victims rendered that one deadlock charge
21:53
irrelevant to the final sentence.
21:55
Speaker 1: So Paul Allen Perez faces life without parole and his
21:58
official sentencing scheduled for April sixth, twenty twenty six.
22:02
Speaker 2: And the fact that the jury achieves such a comprehensive
22:05
series of guilty verdicts spanning three decades and relying on
22:08
such complex forensic evidence is a profound statement about the
22:12
enduring quest for justice.
22:14
Speaker 1: The scale of this tragedy is perhaps best summarized by
22:17
that statement from Sheriff Tom Lopez back in twenty twenty.
22:20
He said, in my forty years in law enforcement, I
22:23
cannot think of a case more disturbing than this one.
22:25
There can be no victim more vulnerable and innocent than
22:27
an infant, and unfortunately this case involves five.
22:31
Speaker 2: That really drives home why this case demanded such an
22:33
intense multi agency effort.
22:35
Speaker 1: So if we connect all this to the bigger picture,
22:37
what does this case teach us? It forces us to
22:40
reckon with some profound lessons, both in scientific triumph and
22:44
societal failure.
22:45
Speaker 2: I think the most obvious takeaway is the revolutionary and
22:48
permanent impact of genetic genealogy on solving cold cases.
22:52
Speaker 1: You really can't overstate the shift. Before twenty eighteen, this
22:55
case was permanently cold. After twenty eighteen, it was solvable.
22:59
Speaker 2: Without those higher resolution SMP profiles and the familial DNA matches,
23:03
the truth would have stayed buried with that one child.
23:05
They recovered. The science provided the foundational proof necessary to
23:10
build a case around the four missing siblings.
23:12
Speaker 1: The scientific triumph here is that it provides a voice
23:15
to the voiceless decades after the fact. It proves that
23:18
time degradation and careful concealment don't always erase biological evidence.
23:23
Speaker 2: That's right, the single set of remains preserved by the
23:26
Slew's cold water. It essentially held the DNA key for
23:29
eleven years, just waiting for the technology to catch up.
23:33
And once that technology arrived in Yolo County, the years
23:36
of institutional silence just shattered almost instantly.
23:39
Speaker 1: But that triumph sits in direct tension with a significant
23:43
societal failure.
23:44
Speaker 2: It does.
23:45
Speaker 1: This tragedy raises incredibly difficult questions about hidden domestic violence
23:50
and the challenges of policing infant deaths within families that
23:54
are constantly moving, crossing county lines and living transiently.
23:58
Speaker 2: That transient lifestyle was Paul pres Shield. When a family
24:01
moves frequently, crossing county jurisdictions Merced, Fresno, and so on,
24:06
there is often no centralized system. There's no mechanism that
24:09
mandates cross county reporting or flag coordination for multiple infant
24:13
deaths or vanishings.
24:14
Speaker 1: Social service agencies and law enforcement departments they operate in silos.
24:19
Speaker 2: They do so if a child dies shortly after birth
24:21
and is immediately concealed, and the family moves on the
24:24
next county, is completely unaware that a pattern is already established.
24:27
Speaker 1: The sources suggest that the anonymity provided by this constant
24:30
movement became effectively a temporary statute of limitations for these
24:35
horrific crimes.
24:36
Speaker 2: It did it allowed the abuse cycle and the killings
24:39
to repeat for nearly a decade without attracting the centralized
24:42
scrutiny that's necessary for intervention.
24:44
Speaker 1: This really highlights some profound systemic gaps.
24:47
Speaker 2: We have to ask what social service checkpoints were missed?
24:50
Were their routine doctor visits, birth certificates, where school or
24:54
immunization records flagged for a child who just disappears. The
24:58
fact that five children could be worn and then vanish
25:01
over nine years without a cross county alert suggests a
25:04
failure in monitoring vulnerable populations, particularly those who are transient
25:09
and live outside of established institutional frameworks.
25:12
Speaker 1: This analysis really places the Perez case within a unique
25:15
and terrifying category of crime. While tragically instances of infanticide occur,
25:21
this specific instance stands out for its duration nearly a
25:25
decade and the sheer number of victims.
25:27
Speaker 2: It separates itself from, say, crimes of postpartum mental health
25:31
crises or single acts of desperation. This will sustained systematic
25:35
control and pathology, and that's reflected in the mother's testimony
25:38
about rage threats and the calculated method of disposal. It
25:41
speaks to a deeply ingrained criminal pattern that sought to
25:44
use the vulnerability of the system and the mobility of
25:47
the family unit to its advantage.
25:49
Speaker 1: The conviction ultimately does bring a measure of closure for
25:52
the surviving family members, Yolanda and their daughter Brittany, and
25:55
to the communities haunted by that discovery back in two
25:58
thousand and seven.
25:58
Speaker 2: The goal now is to ensure are the names of
26:00
these five children, Kato Allen, Mika Alana, Nico Lee, the second,
26:05
Nico Lee, and Kato Crow will be remembered as a catalyst,
26:08
a catalyst for necessary changes in how law enforcement approaches
26:12
both cold cases and the systemic monitoring of familial violence.
26:15
Speaker 1: As DA Rising powerfully summarized justice required that the defendant
26:19
be held accountable for crimes of pure.
26:21
Speaker 2: Evil, and the technological advances from the preservation of that
26:25
initial evidence in two thousand and seven to the FGG
26:27
breakthrough in twenty nineteen ensured that even thirty years later,
26:31
accountability was finally delivered in twenty six.
26:34
Speaker 1: So to review the key takeaways from our deep dive,
26:37
we started with the initial accidental discovery of that single
26:40
set of remains in the Conway Slough in two thousand
26:42
and seven. That evidence went cold until Yolo County's investment
26:46
in a dedicated cold case unit leveraged forends of genetic
26:49
genealogy in twenty nineteen, which.
26:50
Speaker 2: Led to the shocking discovery of a systemic crimespree spanning
26:54
from nineteen ninety two to two thousand and one across
26:56
three different California counties.
26:58
Speaker 1: We analyze the signific into the emotional trial, the complexities
27:02
of the mother's testimony, and of course the final conviction
27:04
in twenty twenty six, which ensured Paul Allen Perez has
27:08
spend the remainder of his life incarcerated, and this leads us.
27:10
Speaker 2: To the final thought for you, Tom all Over. The
27:13
Perez case is rightly celebrated as a monumental triumph of
27:16
forensic science. It proves the enduring quest for justice. The
27:21
FGG technology was instrumental in solving the tragedy long after
27:25
it occurred.
27:26
Speaker 1: But this reliance on genetic data is fundamentally reactive.
27:29
Speaker 2: It is it focuses on identification and prosecution after the
27:32
system has already failed five times. The real challenge this
27:36
case raises for policymakers and social service agencies as this
27:40
How does this increasing reliance on high tech, expensive post
27:44
facto solutions redefine our governmental and societal approach to preventing
27:48
familial violence and neglect in vulnerable transient populations. We can
27:53
solve the oldest cases, but what mechanisms are required to
27:56
ensure science isn't needed decades later to uncover another hidden cataste,
28:00
that gap between scientific remediation and societal prevention that remains
28:04
the enduring challenge of the startcase