Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Pastor’s Wives Died Years Apart. Now Both Cases Are Under Investigation

Transcript

Pastor’s Wives Died Years Apart. Now Both Cases Are Under Investigation · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: So I want you to imagine, just for a second,
• 0:02
  looking at a family photograph, Okay, like one you've seen
• 0:05
  a thousand times, right, you know the faces, the smiles,
• 0:08
  you know the exact way everyone is standing.
• 0:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you practically have it memorized exactly.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: But today, for whatever reason, your eyes just kind of
• 0:16
  drift past those smiling faces and you look at the background.
• 0:20
  Oh wow, right, and suddenly you realize the background is
• 0:24
  completely different than what you've believed your entire life.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: Everything shifts, The whole.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: Context of everything in that frame just shatters. And today
• 0:32
  we are stepping into a story that does exactly that
• 0:35
  to an entire community's reality.
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: We really are. It's a heavy one.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: It is. We are looking at the life of John
• 0:42
  Thomas Bridges. He's an eighty six year old retired minister
• 0:46
  currently living out his twilight years in a small town
• 0:48
  in Missouri.
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: Right, And on paper, you know, his life reads as
• 0:52
  this incredible testament to faith and well and tragic endurance.
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: Yeah, tragic is the word. I mean. The man has
• 0:58
  outlived four of his five.
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: Wives, which is just a staggering statistical anomaly on its own.
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: But and here's the hook for you modern investigators, just
• 1:07
  took a really hard look at the background of that
• 1:10
  seemingly quiet life. They definitely did, and they have officially
• 1:14
  reclassified two of those deaths as homicides. Two deaths that
• 1:19
  happened twenty one years apart in completely different states, and
• 1:22
  we're both originally ruled as tragic accidents.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: It's just wild to even process.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this because our mission for this deep
• 1:30
  dive isn't just to like walk you through a standard
• 1:33
  true crime timeline.
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: Right, We're going way deeper than that.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: Exactly. We are dissecting the evolution of medical legal death
• 1:40
  investigations over half a century. We're looking at the crazy
• 1:44
  intricacies of cross jurisdictional cold.
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: Case work, and maybe most importantly, the unsettling psychology of
• 1:50
  what happens when a trusted spiritual authority falls under suspicion.
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: Because that spiritual angle changes everything.
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: It really does. I mean, we are dealing with a
• 1:58
  timeline that forces us to look at time itself not
• 2:01
  just as a variable, but like a mechanism.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: What do you mean by mechanism.
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: Well, in most investigations, time is the ultimate adversary, right.
• 2:10
  It degrades biological material It totally erodes human memory.
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: Right, evidence just scatters.
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: Exactly, But looking at the source material for these concurrent investigations,
• 2:20
  time actually acts more like a centrifuge.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: Oh, that's an interesting way to put it.
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, because early on, like right after death, the truth
• 2:27
  is just mixed up in this cloudy, agitated liquid of
• 2:31
  community rumors, biases from the initial responders, just.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: The sheer chaos of grief.
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: Right exactly. But if you let that centrifuge spin for
• 2:40
  fifty years, the heavy, dense, undeniable physical facts eventually settle
• 2:45
  right to the bottom.
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: The passage of time actually allowed the science to catch
• 2:50
  up to the evidence. It gave modern forensics the exact
• 2:53
  precise tools they needed to see what was completely invisible
• 2:56
  to investigators decades ago.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: That is, Yeah, that mechanical set operation of truth from
• 3:00
  initial bias, that is the exact lens we need to
• 3:03
  apply to the very beginning of this whole anomaly. I
• 3:06
  have to start at the beginning, right, because to understand
• 3:09
  the gravity of the warrants being served in the summer
• 3:11
  of twenty twenty six, we have to travel back over
• 3:14
  fifty years, back to nineteen seventy two.
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: Which was practically the dark ages for this kind of forensics.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: It really was we have to immerse ourselves in a
• 3:23
  world where forensic protocols were just fundamentally unrecognizable by today's.
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: Standards, totally unrecognizable.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: So's July five, nineteen seventy two. John Bridges reports finding
• 3:34
  his first wife, Joyce Bridges, though she went by Mabel
• 3:38
  unresponsive at their home.
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: This was on bent Oak Court in Louisville, Kentucky.
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, ben Oak Court. And this is the detail
• 3:44
  that just completely stopped me in my tracks when I
• 3:47
  was reading the sources.
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: I know exactly what you're going to say.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: There is no immediate nine to one one dispatch NOP.
• 3:52
  There is no fleet of EMTs rushing to the scene
• 3:55
  to establish a perimeter. Joyce is transported to Peewee Valley
• 3:58
  Hospital in the pass your seat of a personal vehicle.
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: Which is just mind blowing to think about today.
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: Wait, I really want to isolate this nineteen seventy two
• 4:06
  detail because it breaks my brain a little bit.
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, let's get into it.
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: So what does this all mean? How does a person
• 4:11
  just put a deceased spouse in the passenger seat of
• 4:14
  a car, drive to a local hospital and the medical
• 4:17
  staff just accepts the narrative of an accident.
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: It's hard to fathom, I know.
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: Like without triggering an immediate, full scale crime scene lockdown.
• 4:25
  If I drove a deceased person to a hospital triage
• 4:28
  desk today, the doors would lock and homicide detectives would
• 4:33
  be swarming my vehicle before I could even open my mouth.
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: Oh one percent, you'd be in cuffs in five minutes.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: Was there literally zero legal requirement for an in depth
• 4:42
  scene analysis back then?
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: Well, it's not that there were zero requirements, but they
• 4:45
  were highly subjective, and they depended heavily on the visual
• 4:50
  presentation of the body and honestly, the social standing of
• 4:53
  the person delivering it.
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: Wow, the social standing.
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we have to remember the modern acceptation of a
• 4:59
  high choreographed emergency response. It simply didn't exist in the
• 5:03
  same way.
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: Right, The nine to eleven system was barely.
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: A thing merely in nineteen seventy two. The infrastructure for
• 5:09
  medical legal death investigation leaned super heavily on a coroner system,
• 5:13
  and that system was often deeply decentralized.
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: So it varied from town to town.
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: Vastly, and it occasionally lacked, you know, rigorous medical oversight.
• 5:23
  In many counties back then, a coroner wasn't even required
• 5:26
  to be a forensic pathologist.
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: Wait, really, who were they then?
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: They were often just selected officials, sometimes funeral home directors
• 5:33
  or local physicians who had absolutely no specialized forensic training.
• 5:36
  That is terrifying, it is so private. Conveyance of a
• 5:40
  body to a clinic or hospital was surprisingly common, especially
• 5:44
  in cases that lacked the really explicit theatrical hallmarks of
• 5:49
  a crime.
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: Theatrical hallmarks you mean, like obvious blood everywhere.
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: Right, If there was no obvious gunshot wound, no defensive lacerations,
• 5:57
  no overt signs of a huge struggle, a local doctor
• 6:01
  could and frequently would, just sign off on an accidental
• 6:04
  or natural death.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: Certificate just based on the husband's word.
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: Basically, yeah, the medical legal anchor bias was incredibly strong.
• 6:11
  The doctor is presented with this grieving husband, the super
• 6:14
  tragic narrative, and a body lacking obvious trauma.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: So they just take the path of least resistance exactly.
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: The path of least resistance is to validate the narrative.
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: And that anchor bias essentially sanitizes the scene before an
• 6:29
  investigation can.
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: Even start, because the scene is already gone.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: Right, The death is stamped accidental, and that house on
• 6:35
  Benot Court is literally never treated as a crime scene.
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: Never.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: The only friction in the whole narrative is this unverified rumor.
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: From a neighbor ah, the bathtub rumor.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah, a neighbor later recalled hearing that Joyce had quote
• 6:49
  mysteriously drowned in a bathtub. But obviously a neighborhood rumor
• 6:53
  doesn't generate a search warrant. No, of course, not so
• 6:56
  officially the record stays closed for forty three years. Just
• 7:00
  let that sink in until twenty fifteen. The sources note
• 7:04
  that Louisville Police received new information, and the exact nature
• 7:08
  of that information is actually still protected.
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: Which is standard for an active ongoing case.
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: Right, But it provided enough probable cause to secure a
• 7:16
  judge's order to exhume Joyce's body.
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: Which is a massive, massive deal.
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: I really want to drill down into the sheer physical
• 7:23
  reality of that, a twenty fifteen exhumation of a nineteen
• 7:27
  seventy two burial, because digging up a grave isn't just
• 7:31
  this legal hurdle. It's a massive scientific gamble, isn't it.
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: Oh, it is an enormous gamble. It's governed by this
• 7:37
  really complex science called tefonomy toughonomy, Yeah, the study of
• 7:41
  how organisms decay over time. Okay, right, When a judge
• 7:45
  signs an exhumation order after four decades, the forensic pathologists
• 7:49
  are fully aware they are in a race against the
• 7:52
  local soil chemistry because there might be nothing left to
• 7:54
  examine exactly. The preservation of remains from nineteen seventy two
• 7:58
  depends entirely on the burial micro environment.
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: What kind of factors go into that.
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: They're considering everything the acidity or alkalinity of the Kentucky soil,
• 8:07
  the fluctuating water table in that specific cemetery, the structural
• 8:11
  integrity of the casket seal.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: Wow, so if the seal broke in the eighties, they're
• 8:15
  out of luck pretty much.
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: But they also look at the specific chemical composition of
• 8:19
  the embalming fluids that were used during the Nixon administration.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Does that really make a difference the era of the
• 8:25
  embalming fluid.
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: A huge difference. Embalming fluid from that era was super
• 8:29
  heavy and formaldehyde and sometimes they even used arsenic or
• 8:32
  other heavy stabilizer.
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: Oh wow.
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and that stuff essentially cross links the proteins and
• 8:37
  the tissue. It can preserve soft tissue for decades. It
• 8:40
  creates the state called atipacere adipocere right, also known as
• 8:44
  grave wax, and that wax can actually lock in physical trauma.
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: So the embalming process, which is ironically just designed for
• 8:53
  like a cosmetic funeral presentation.
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: Just to make them look peaceful for the family, right,
• 8:57
  that process inadvertently freezes the forensic evidence in a time
• 9:01
  capsule exactly. It's incredible, And even if the soft tissue
• 9:04
  has completely mineralized or decayed away, modern osteological analysis can
• 9:10
  read the skeletal structure in ways that a nineteen seventy
• 9:12
  two coroner couldn't even conceptualize.
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: Osteological meaning the bones.
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: Yes, now, we hear a lot in the media about
• 9:19
  blunt force trauma to the skull, but in cases involving
• 9:22
  suspected foul play in a domestic setting, especially with rumors
• 9:25
  of drowning or suffocation, the focus almost always narrows down
• 9:29
  to the intricate structures of the neck, specifically the hyoid bone.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: The high ode bone. I feel like anyone who consumes
• 9:37
  true crime content has heard that term. But what is
• 9:39
  it exactly?
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: It is the absolute focal point in these historical exhumations.
• 9:45
  It's this small U shaped bone situated right at the
• 9:48
  root of the tongue in the front of the neck.
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: And what makes the biomechanically unique is that it is
• 9:53
  the only bone in the human body that does not
• 9:56
  articulate with or connect directly to any other bone.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: Wait, it just flows pretty much.
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: It is suspended entirely by ligaments and muscles.
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: Oh wow, I didn't know that.
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah. And because of its shielded position under the jawline
• 10:07
  and its free floating nature, it is incredibly difficult to
• 10:11
  fracture through a standard accidental impact.
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: So if you just fell, it wouldn't break.
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: Right. A person slipping and hitting their neck on the
• 10:18
  edge of a bathtub is highly highly unlikely to generate
• 10:21
  the specific localized lateral pressure required to snap the cornw
• 10:25
  the corner the horns of the hyldebone the little end points, so.
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: A fracture there acts as a glaring biomechanical.
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: Red flag, absolutely glaring.
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: It points away from a broad diffuse impact like a fall,
• 10:37
  and it points directly toward localized sustained compression. Human hands right,
• 10:43
  human hands and it's not just the gross macrofractures they
• 10:46
  are looking for in twenty fifteen.
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: Is it, Oh, not at all. Modern science is utilizing
• 10:50
  microCT scans that can detect you know, fully heeled microfractures,
• 10:55
  or they can analyze the exact angle of the bone
• 10:57
  shear to determine the vector of the force that was apart.
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: That is just science fiction level compared to nineteen seventy.
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: Two, it really is. And beyond the osteology, the toxicology
• 11:06
  advancements are just staggering.
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: Because in seventy two they couldn't test for much, very little.
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: In nineteen seventy two, toxicology required large tissue samples, and
• 11:15
  it was largely limited to identifying super high concentrations of
• 11:18
  common poisons or just significant blood alcohol levels.
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: So if it wasn't arsenic or alcohol, they'd miss it basically.
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: But by twenty fifteen, liquid chromatography mass spectrometry can identify
• 11:29
  the specific metabolites of thousands of compounds, So.
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: Even if the formaldehyde masks certain organic compounds, modern mass
• 11:38
  spectrometry can just vaporize tiny samples of bone marrow or remaining.
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: Hair yes and detect heavy metals. Synthetic toxins pharmaceuticals literally
• 11:48
  down to parts per trillion.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: Parts per trillion. That's insane.
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: The technological leap is profound. Now we do not know
• 11:56
  the precise mechanism of death that the Louisville Medical Examiner
• 11:59
  does discovered upon examining Joyce Bridge's remains.
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: Right because law enforcement is keeping those specific autopsy finding sealed.
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: Exactly to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation. But
• 12:09
  think about this. The evidentiary threshold required to officially amend
• 12:13
  a death certificate from accidental to homicide forty three years
• 12:17
  after the fact.
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: It has to be astronomically high.
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: Astronomically high. The scientific findings had to be definitive, incontrovertible,
• 12:24
  and just entirely irreconcilable with the original nineteen seventy two narrative.
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: That realization by the Kentucky forensics team that an obvious
• 12:33
  crime could be masked for decades by just the presumption
• 12:36
  of an accident and the limitations of aerospecific science. That
• 12:39
  is the exact lens we need to apply to the
• 12:41
  next point on the timeline.
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: Because that twenty fifteen exhumation forces a retroactive audit of
• 12:46
  John Bridge's entire life.
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: Exactly, which brings us to an event almost exactly twenty
• 12:51
  one years after.
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: Joyce's death, to the day, almost.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: Right July twenty, nineteen ninety three. Bridges is now living
• 12:58
  thousands of miles away.
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: In Fresham, Organ completely different environment, and.
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: He places a call to authorities reporting his second wife,
• 13:05
  forty five year old Astrid Bridges, unresponsive outside their home
• 13:09
  on Southwest Overlook Court.
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: It's like lightning striking the same person twice, almost to
• 13:14
  the exact day of the year, but decades and thousands
• 13:17
  of miles apart.
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: That's the perfect analogy, and yet the medico legal response
• 13:22
  in nineteen ninety three Oregon looks vastly different than nineteen
• 13:25
  seventy two.
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: Kentucky, oh completely different. By the early nineties, the nine
• 13:28
  to eleven infrastructure is robust. Police officers and medical personnel
• 13:32
  respond directly to the.
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: Scene, so no personal vehicles to the hospital this time.
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: Right. Detectives canvass the neighborhood, They interview family members, they
• 13:41
  physically document the environment. They are operating within a much,
• 13:45
  much more modern paradigm of scene preservation.
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: But despite that modernized response, the outcome is identical.
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: Which is the crazy part.
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: The neighbors tell the canvassing officers that they assumed Astid
• 13:57
  might have fallen while cleaning the gutters or maybe slipped.
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: From a ladder because she was found outside right.
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: So the medical examiner reviews the scene, reviews the injuries,
• 14:06
  and the official ruling comes down as an accidental death
• 14:10
  again again. And it isn't until decades later, prompted by
• 14:14
  the shifting landscape of Bridges passed and those massive revelations
• 14:17
  from Kentucky, that the Oregon State Medical Examiner's office pulls
• 14:21
  the dusty nineteen ninety three file.
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: They finally reevaluate it.
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: They reevaluate Astrid's injuries using modern friends pathology techniques, and
• 14:29
  the designation flips, just like Joyce. Just like Joyce, Astrid's
• 14:33
  death is reclassified as a homicide, which culminates in the
• 14:36
  Greshia police publicly naming Bridges as a suspect in July
• 14:39
  of twenty twenty six.
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: What's fascinating here is how a fully staffed nineteen nineties
• 14:44
  police response still managed to miss a homicide.
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: Yeah, how does that happen? Because they had detectives, they
• 14:50
  had a medical examiner on scene.
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: It comes back to the immense power of that cognitive
• 14:54
  anchor bias we discussed earlier, but operating on a slightly
• 14:58
  more sophisticated level.
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: So it's not just a lazy doctor signing a paper
• 15:02
  this time.
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: No. In nineteen ninety three, the detectives and the medical
• 15:05
  examiner were not looking at a blank slate. They were
• 15:08
  looking at a scene preframed by the husband's narrative and
• 15:12
  the neighbor's assumptions about a ladder.
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: Oh so the ladder room or poisoned the well.
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: Exactly when the working theory of a scene is established
• 15:19
  as a tragic accident, within the very first hour, the
• 15:22
  entire investigative apparatus inadvertently works to confirm that theory. The
• 15:27
  confirmation bias acts like a literal filter on the physical evidence.
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: Wow, it's like a GPS unit recalculating a route based
• 15:34
  on bad coordinates.
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: That's a great way to look at it.
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: It just forces all the new data onto the wrong road.
• 15:40
  If the EMPs arrive and the story is she fell,
• 15:43
  the emergency room position, the medical examiner, they all look
• 15:47
  for injuries consistent with the fall.
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: Right, they might look at defensive wounds on the forearms,
• 15:51
  like bruising that might indicate fending off an.
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: Attack, and they just inadvertently misclassify them.
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they might view them as scrape marks from catching
• 15:59
  the rungs of a ladder during a descent.
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: That is so deeply unsettling. But how do you prove
• 16:04
  that bias was wrong thirty years later, Well.
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: The biomechanics of trauma interpretation have advanced exponentially to counter
• 16:11
  exactly this kind.
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: Of bias biomechanics.
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: Yes, in nineteen ninety three, a medical examiner observing a
• 16:16
  skull fracture alongside a ladder might just conclude, Okay, the
• 16:20
  kinetic energy transfer is consistent with the height of the fall.
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: Makes sense on paper.
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: But modern biomechanical analysis, utilizing three D photogrammetry to recreate
• 16:29
  that nineteen ninety three scene from archival photos, approaches the
• 16:33
  injuries as mathematical equations.
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: Ah, so they literally rebuild the scene digitally exactly.
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: And the skull is essentially a sphere right when it
• 16:42
  impacts a flat, unyielding surface like a concrete driveway, The
• 16:46
  resulting fracture patterns follow distinct physics, like.
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: The coup and contracoup injuries.
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: Yes, the coup and contracute brain injuries where the brain
• 16:55
  impacts the skull at the site of impact and then
• 16:58
  rebounds to strike the opposite side. It's pure physics, and.
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: If those physics don't align with the environment, the narrative
• 17:05
  just collapses.
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: It completely falls apart. If the modern medical examiner looks
• 17:09
  at those nineteen ninety three autopsy photos and identifies, say
• 17:13
  a depressed skull fracture with a very specific geometric.
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: Shape like the shape of a weapon, or.
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: A localized contusion that requires a velocity of impact impossible
• 17:22
  to generate from a simple six foot ladder fall, the
• 17:25
  math simply refuses to support the excident theory.
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: Because gravity only pulls so fast right.
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: The injuries require a specific, localized application of blunt force
• 17:34
  trauma that the environment simply cannot account for.
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: And that is exactly the kind of forensic anomaly that
• 17:39
  shatters the anchor bias.
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: It shatters it completely.
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: When the Oregon medical examiners remove that nineteen ninety three
• 17:46
  narrative filter and just analyze the raw biomechanical data, the
• 17:50
  constellation of injuries undoubtedly pointed toward intentional violence.
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: But establishing that two spouses died via homicide decades apart
• 17:59
  that Onlynswer's the mechanical question of how right, it violently
• 18:03
  introduces the sociological question of why.
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, because we have to talk about how he got
• 18:07
  away with this? Specifically, how does a single individual operate
• 18:12
  within multiple communities experiencing the sudden traumatic deaths of two
• 18:16
  spouses without generating a massive, localized field of suspicion.
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: Any normal person would be under intense scrutiny.
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: Exactly. That is the most glaring dissonance in the source material.
• 18:27
  For me, if an average citizen has two spouses die
• 18:30
  under ambiguous circumstances, the social scrutiny is immediate and relentless.
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: The life insurance policies are audited, the neighbors whisper law
• 18:38
  enforcement inherently rows them with extreme prejudice.
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: But John Bridges navigated these tragedies without early detection, and
• 18:44
  that points directly to the insulating armor of his profession.
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: Yes, the profession is key.
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: Here's where it gets really interesting. Does a title like
• 18:52
  pastor create a societal halo effect that actively blinds investigators, neighbors,
• 18:59
  and even sure leadership?
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: It does, and the occupational shield he carried is arguably
• 19:04
  the most critical component. Of his entire timeline. Bridges was
• 19:08
  not just a participant in a church. He was a
• 19:11
  foundational pillar of its hierarchical structure.
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: He was a Seventh Day Adventist minister right.
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: And his curriculum vitae within the denomination is extensive. He
• 19:20
  operated as a teacher, an ordained pastor, a traveling evangelist,
• 19:24
  and a departmental director.
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: He wasn't just stuck in one parish.
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: No, this wasn't a static position in a single town.
• 19:30
  His career was defined by immense geographic.
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: Mobility, moving all over the country.
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: Exactly Tennessee in the late sixties, Kentucky in the early seventies,
• 19:39
  up through New England, down to Arkansas as a senior
• 19:42
  pastor in nineteen eighty six, over to Oregon, and even
• 19:45
  recorded preaching in California as recently as twenty twenty five.
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: See that mobility's fascinating because it constantly resets his social baseline.
• 19:52
  That's a great point. Every time he moves to a
• 19:54
  new congregation, he arrives with the fully formed authority of
• 19:58
  the pulpit, but none of them the historical baggage of
• 20:01
  the previous town.
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: He's a blank slate to them. But clothed in authority,
• 20:05
  and the.
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: Optics he presented to these congregations they were flawlessly engineered
• 20:09
  to align with the core tenets of Adventism.
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: Very heavily engineered.
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: The source material references church publications from the mid eighties
• 20:17
  that paint this idyllic, almost Rockwellian picture of the Bridges family.
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: They look perfect on paper.
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: Astrid was a registered nurse. They had three kids, Lenny, Julie,
• 20:28
  and Monty, and they are depicted skiing, camping, gardening, performing music.
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: Together right, which projects the absolute pinnacle of Adventist valures.
• 20:37
  The denomination places a massive emphasis on community health, familial integrity,
• 20:42
  and moral purity.
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: So if you're the pastor projecting that you're untouchable.
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: You really are. We have to analyze the psychology of insular,
• 20:50
  high trust religious communities to understand why those optics are
• 20:54
  so impenetrable.
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: What's the psychology behind that?
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: Well, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, like many close knit denominations,
• 21:02
  operates on a profound foundation of affinity bias.
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: Affinity bias, Yeah.
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: When someone shares your deepest theological beliefs, when they observe
• 21:10
  the same Sabbath, adhere to the same dietary health guidelines
• 21:14
  and lead your community in prayer. Your brain categorizes them
• 21:18
  as the ultimate in group member.
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: You inherently trust them unconditionally.
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: So the cognitive dissonance required to look at your spiritual
• 21:26
  shepherd and see a violent predator is psychologically agonizing.
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: It essentially forces the brain to bypass its own threat
• 21:33
  detection center, doesn't it exactly.
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: The amygdala might register something slightly like a harsh tone,
• 21:39
  a controlling behavior, maybe a strange narrative about a ladder.
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: But the conscious brain just shuts it down.
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: The prefrontal cortex immediately suppresses the alarm because questioning the
• 21:49
  pastor means questioning the entire spiritual scaffolding of the community.
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: It's a survival mechanism for the collective worldview.
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: Yes, it operates on the exact same psychological tread as
• 22:00
  affinity fraud in financial crimes, you know, where a con
• 22:04
  artist uses the shared identity of a church or ethnic
• 22:06
  group to bypass normal due diligence.
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: To hear the stakes are lethal lethal.
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: When tragedy strikes the pastor's home, the community's immediate defense
• 22:16
  mechanism is to rationalize the event to protect the halo.
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: They say things like God is testing pastor.
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: Bridges or Satan is attacking the leadership. The communal grief
• 22:27
  morphs into a protective barrier against external scrutiny, and.
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: I imagine law enforcement is not immune to this halo
• 22:33
  effect either.
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: Oh not at all. A detective interviewing a grieving respected
• 22:38
  pastor in nineteen ninety three is far less likely to
• 22:41
  utilize aggressive interrogation tactics or challenge minor inconsistencies in the
• 22:45
  timeline than they would with, say, a known criminal element.
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: The uniform of the cloth provides a presumption of innocence
• 22:52
  that borders on complete immunity.
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: It really does. But the source material also highlights a
• 22:57
  profound shift in how the Adventist community is handling this
• 23:00
  revelation in the present day.
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: Oh right, because they aren't hiding it now.
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: No, the denomination's media outlets are actively reporting on the
• 23:08
  cold case investigations. They are not circling the wagons or
• 23:11
  attempting to bury the warrants. They are documenting the dissonance
• 23:15
  in real time.
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: I found that so surprising, but also really commendable. That
• 23:21
  transparency is a crucial evolution in institutional accountability.
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: It is Historically, institutions facing the catastrophic moral failure of
• 23:30
  a leader often resort to institutional self preservation, right, minimizing
• 23:35
  the damage through silence.
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: We've seen it one hundred times exactly.
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: So the fact that the Adventist publications are confronting the
• 23:41
  warrants head on indicates that the denomination's core values of
• 23:45
  integrity are currently overwriting the instinct to protect the individual's legacy.
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: They are maintaining the legal presumption of innocence, obviously because
• 23:52
  he hasn't been.
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: Charged, right, But they are refusing to let the halo
• 23:55
  effect obscure the reality of the forensic warrants.
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: But you know, the shaft uttering of that halo effect
• 24:01
  is a public spectacle for the church, but it is
• 24:03
  an intensely private psychological nightmare inside the home.
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: It's unimaginable.
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: This brings us directly to the most visceral, immediate perspective
• 24:12
  in the entire Deep Dive, and that is the experience
• 24:15
  of Bridge's fifth and current wife, sixty five year old
• 24:18
  Janie sue.
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: G wrote her inclusion in the source material is just
• 24:22
  it's a real time case study in how a person
• 24:25
  dismantles decades of cognitive dissonance in a single afternoon.
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: I mean, imagine living in a house for five years,
• 24:32
  feeling completely safe, only to have detectives knock on your
• 24:35
  door and tell you the foundation is built.
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: On quicksand the psychological whiplash she experiences is almost incomprehensible.
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: We really have to put ourselves in her exact position
• 24:45
  to understand the gravity of her reaction.
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: Let's do it.
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: You are sixty five years old. You enter into a
• 24:51
  marriage with the retired minister, osensibly seeking a quiet, stable
• 24:55
  companionship for your later.
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: Years, just a peaceful retirement.
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: Right. You live with this man for five years in
• 25:01
  a quiet Missouri town. Your baseline reality is absolute security.
• 25:06
  Then Gresham organ detectives knock on your door out of nowhere,
• 25:10
  out of nowhere. They sit at your dining room table,
• 25:13
  and they inform you that the man you share bed
• 25:16
  with is the primary suspect in the murder of his
• 25:18
  second wife, and that his first wife's death has also
• 25:22
  been reclassified as a homicide.
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: The foundation of your life doesn't just crack, it vaporizes, and.
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: Her response to that vaporization is a masterclass in psychological pragmatism.
• 25:33
  Under acute trauma.
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: It really is based on the quotes provided in the sources.
• 25:38
  She does not spiral into hysterical denial.
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: Nor does she paralyze with fear. She immediately demands that
• 25:44
  Bridges leave the home.
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: Her specific phrasing is incredibly revealing. Do you have the quote?
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: Yes? I do, She said quote, I am not afraid
• 25:52
  of him, and I don't think he would come back
• 25:53
  to hurt me. But I don't want to sleep with
• 25:55
  a man who is under suspicion of murder. I don't
• 25:58
  want to be stupid.
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: I don't want to be stupid. That is such a
• 26:01
  profoundly raw and honest articulation of self preservation.
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: It's incredibly powerful. Yeah, she is actively separating the man
• 26:09
  she thought she married from the threat profile presented by
• 26:12
  the detectives.
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: She is overwriting her own emotional investment with pure logic.
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: But the quote that truly caught my attention, the one
• 26:19
  that gave me chills, is when she mentions realizing that
• 26:22
  quote the truth doesn't come easy for John.
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that part, and she expresses.
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: This deep regret over ignoring what she specifically calls her
• 26:31
  spiritual intuition regarding early red flags in the relationship.
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: The concept of spiritual intuition in this context, we really
• 26:39
  need to unpack that psychologically.
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: Please do, because it's such a fascinating term.
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: In clinical terms, we often refer to this as subconscious
• 26:46
  pattern recognition. The human brain is constantly processing thousands of
• 26:51
  microdata points in.
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: Our environment, like body language and tone exactly.
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: Micro expressions on a spouse's face, slight hesitations in a story,
• 27:00
  the subtle ways someone deflex accountability or baseline deviations in
• 27:04
  their emotional responses to stress.
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: Little things you don't even realize you're noticing.
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: Yes, And when those data points don't align with the
• 27:11
  person's presented persona, the subconscious mind sends up a flare.
• 27:16
  We experience it as a gut feeling, a sense of unease,
• 27:19
  or in growths vocabulary, as spiritual intuition.
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: But because of the immense social and emotional cost of
• 27:26
  acknowledging that intuition, we just actively suppress it.
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: We push it down. Because if Groat acknowledges the red
• 27:32
  flags early on, like maybe inconsistencies in how he described
• 27:36
  the deaths of his previous wives, it requires her to
• 27:39
  blow up her own life, her marriage, and her security.
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: So we convince ourselves we are being overly critical or
• 27:46
  paranoid or uncharitable.
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: We weaponize our own empathy against our survival instincts just
• 27:51
  to maintain the peace.
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: Wow, we weaponize our own empathy. That is brilliantly stated.
• 27:57
  Speaker 2: It's what happens. We rationalize the micro deviations to put
• 28:00
  the macro narrative of the relationship.
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: So Grot's realization is that terrifying moment when the subconscious
• 28:05
  alarm bells are suddenly validated by an external, undeniable authority.
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: By detective sitting in her dining room.
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: She realizes the fragmented, incomplete stories about his past weren't
• 28:15
  just the eccentricities of an old man. They were active camouflage.
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: And that realization forces us and the investigators to look
• 28:22
  at the entirety of his marital timeline. Because remember, Grot
• 28:25
  was wife number.
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: Five, right, which means there are two others we haven't
• 28:29
  talked about yet.
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: We have established the anomalies with wives one and two,
• 28:33
  but a pattern investigation demands rigorous scrutiny of the entire set, which.
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: Brings us to the necessary complication of the intervening years.
• 28:41
  Bridge's marital history is dense, and we have to clarify
• 28:45
  exactly what law enforcement is prioritizing and what they are
• 28:49
  intentionally excluding.
• 28:50
  Speaker 2: This is a crucial distinction.
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: So after Astra dies in nineteen ninety three, Bridges marries
• 28:55
  his third wife, Tama Joe Bridges. Okay, she passes away
• 28:59
  in twenty eleven. However, the coroner's report for Tama Cho
• 29:04
  explicitly lists the cause of death as hypertensive and atherosclerotic
• 29:08
  cardiovascular disease basically heart disease. Right, a definitively natural cause,
• 29:12
  and local authorities have definitively stated they are not reopening
• 29:15
  her case.
• 29:16
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: Furthermore, there's wife number four, Gaelhope Mozel. She died very
• 29:20
  recently twenty twenty four, down in Texas.
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: But there's a caveat there, right, a big one.
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: Groat clarifies in the source text that Bridges and Mozel
• 29:29
  were already divorced before Grote even entered the picture. Mozel
• 29:33
  died of cancer, and Texas authorities confirmed they have not
• 29:36
  investigated her death and there is no record of an autoxy.
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: So wives three and four are not part of the
• 29:41
  active criminal investigation.
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: Right, so I have to look at the investigative logic
• 29:45
  here when you are trying to build a circumstantial case
• 29:48
  around a pattern of behavior, do the verified natural deaths
• 29:52
  of wives three and four degrade the prosecutor's narrative?
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: That's a really good question.
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: Does the presence of natural mortality in the timeline make
• 30:00
  it harder for investigators to prove a compulsion or does
• 30:03
  it actually serve to sharply isolate and highlight the violent
• 30:06
  anomalies of the nineteen seventy two in nineteen ninety three cases.
• 30:09
  Speaker 2: Well, from a behavioral analysis perspective, the intervening natural deaths
• 30:14
  do not necessarily negate the hypothesis of a serial offender.
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: Really, even with decades between incidents.
• 30:20
  Speaker 2: Even with decades, the popular culture understanding of a serial
• 30:23
  offender is often a compulsion loop that constantly accelerates, Right,
• 30:26
  they can't stop.
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what movies teach us.
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: But in reality, particularly in domestic or intimate partner violence
• 30:33
  that escalates to homicide, the triggers can be highly highly.
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: Situational, situational triggers. What does that look like?
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: An offender might only act when specific external pressures like
• 30:44
  financial ruin, the threat of exposure, or the desire to
• 30:48
  exit a marriage without social stigma aligned with their internal
• 30:52
  psychological state.
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: Oh so, if he wanted out of a marriage but
• 30:55
  didn't want the stigma.
• 30:56
  Speaker 2: Of divorce exactly, especially in a conservative religious case community,
• 31:00
  if wives three and four did not trigger those specific
• 31:04
  environmental or psychological catalysts, their natural deaths do not exonerate
• 31:09
  the suspect for previous actions.
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: So it's not a metronome of violence. It's a reaction
• 31:14
  to specific situational geometry.
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: Exactly the right way to frame it if we connect
• 31:19
  this to the bigger picture. Strategically, for the detectives in
• 31:22
  Louisville and Gresham, the natural deaths are largely irrelevant to
• 31:25
  their immediate evidentiary burden.
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: Because they aren't trying to prove a psychological theory in
• 31:30
  court right.
• 31:31
  Speaker 2: They are not attempting to prosecute a lifelong behavioral pattern
• 31:35
  in a vacuum. They are building highly specific, forensically driven
• 31:39
  cases around the physical evidence of nineteen seventy two and
• 31:43
  nineteen ninety three.
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: Their focus is completely tethered to the biomechanics, the toxicology,
• 31:50
  and the reevaluation of those historical crime scenes.
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: Yes, which brings us to the operational mechanics of how
• 31:56
  two police departments separated by two thousand miles actually coordinate
• 32:01
  a fifty year old cold case because.
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: That cross jurisdictional linkage is the true triumph of modern
• 32:08
  law enforcement architecture.
• 32:09
  Speaker 2: Here, it really is, because in nineteen seventy two, and
• 32:12
  even largely in nineteen ninety three, the silo effect of
• 32:14
  American policing was absolute.
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: What do you mean by the silo effect?
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: I mean a detective in Gresham Oregan dealing with the
• 32:20
  latterfall in nineteen ninety three had absolutely no streamlined mechanism
• 32:24
  to discover that this grieving husband had a wife drown
• 32:27
  in a bathtub in Louisville, Kentucky two decades prior.
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: There was no Internet database for that none.
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: The databases were highly localized, they were paper based, and
• 32:34
  they were entirely reliant on human memory.
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: So how did they eventually connect the dots?
• 32:39
  Speaker 2: The evolution of systems like the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program
• 32:43
  or VISCAP fundamentally altered that landscape.
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: VISCAP, I've heard of that.
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it was originally designed to track transient serial killers
• 32:51
  by connecting behavioral signatures, but the underlying architecture of that
• 32:55
  information sharing eventually permeated all levels of cold case investingations.
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: So when the twenty fifteen exhumation in Kentucky changed Joyce's
• 33:04
  death to a homicide.
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: That data point entered a digitized, searchable ecosystem.
• 33:09
  Speaker 1: Oh wow. So years later, when Oregon authorities eventually reevaluated
• 33:13
  Asterid's nineteen ninety three death, the historical query wouldn't just
• 33:17
  return a blank.
• 33:17
  Speaker 2: Slate exactly, it would flag the twenty fifteen reclassification in Kentucky.
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: And suddenly these completely isolated tragedies snap into this horrifying alignment.
• 33:27
  Speaker 2: The system worked exactly as it was designed.
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: To, and the source material shows exactly how closely these
• 33:32
  agencies are currently collaborating. It's not just emails, no, it's
• 33:35
  boots on the ground. Gresham detectives didn't just make a
• 33:38
  phone call. They physically traveled to Missouri in the summer
• 33:42
  of twenty twenty six to his current house. Right they
• 33:45
  served a search warrant at Bridges residence alongside local authorities.
• 33:49
  Gresham detective Adam Wright explicitly confirmed that they were working
• 33:53
  side by side with the Louisville cold case unit.
• 33:56
  Speaker 2: They are pooling all their historical data, sharing the modern
• 33:59
  forensic analyses and presenting a unified investigative front.
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: And detective rights public statements provide incredible insight into their
• 34:08
  current tactical position.
• 34:09
  Speaker 2: Which is rare because law enforcement is generally exceptionally tight
• 34:13
  lipped during an active, uncharged investigation.
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: Very rare, but Wrights specifically noted that they are not
• 34:18
  rushing to judgment. He acknowledged the immense complexity of proving
• 34:23
  a case that relies on historical memory and degraded evidence.
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: He's managing expectations, and.
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: More poignantly, he addressed the collateral damage, noting that family
• 34:32
  members are quote understandably conflicted.
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: We really have to pause and recognize the absolute psychological
• 34:38
  devastlation occurring within the family dynamic right now.
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the kids Lenny Julian Monty.
• 34:43
  Speaker 2: The children from the Idyllic Church publications in the eighties.
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: They're adult men and women now being forced to retroactively
• 34:50
  process their entire childhood.
• 34:52
  Speaker 2: It's heartbreaking. They have to reconcile the memory of the
• 34:55
  father who taught them to ski and led them in prayer,
• 34:58
  with the mounting for forensic evidence that he may have
• 35:01
  brutally murdered their mother.
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: And potentially another woman before her.
• 35:05
  Speaker 2: The cognitive dissonance we discussed with the church community is
• 35:09
  magnified exponentially for those children, their foundational reality is fracturing.
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: It is an unimaginable burden of ambiguous grief. But you know,
• 35:18
  Detective Right also provided a highly specific, chilling qualifier regarding
• 35:23
  the immediate threat assessment.
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: I remember this part.
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: It was very deliberate, very When asked if Bridges posed
• 35:29
  a danger to the public at large, Wright stated he
• 35:32
  did not regard him as a general threat, but he
• 35:34
  appended the sentence with quote other than maybe a current wife.
• 35:38
  Speaker 2: That is an incredibly pointed threat profile for a detective
• 35:41
  to state on the record.
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: It strips away any ambiguity about how law enforcement views
• 35:45
  the operational methodology of this suspect.
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: They are explicitly isolating the danger zone to the intimate partner.
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: Space, which entirely validates Growth's decision to remove.
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: Him from the home completely. It communicates to the public
• 35:57
  and honestly, perhaps directly to the SUSA, that they understand
• 36:01
  exactly what the pattern is, even if they are still
• 36:03
  meticulously assembling the physical evidence required for an indictment.
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: Which brings us to the exact status of the investigation
• 36:11
  as of August twenty twenty six.
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: Where things stand right.
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: Now right, John Thomas Bridges is eighty six years old,
• 36:17
  He is currently free, He's not been formally charged with
• 36:20
  a crime, and he is maintaining complete public silence in
• 36:24
  the face of the swirling media coverage.
• 36:26
  Speaker 2: He hasn't said a word publicly.
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: His fifth wife has removed him from her life, guided
• 36:31
  by the grim validation of her spiritual intuition, and on
• 36:35
  both sides of the country, in Kentucky and Oregon, detectives
• 36:38
  are moving into the final critical phase of cold case methodology.
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: And that phase is actively soliciting the public for the
• 36:46
  microscopic fragments of memory that forensics cannot provide.
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: Because the science can only map the physical reality of
• 36:52
  the trauma right, it cannot rebuild the behavioral timeline leading.
• 36:56
  Speaker 2: Up to it exactly. Law enforcement is not expecting a
• 36:59
  witness to come forward who magically saw murder in nineteen
• 37:02
  seventy two or nineteen ninety three.
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: That's not what they're looking for.
• 37:05
  Speaker 2: No, they are hunting for behavioral anomalies. A neighbor who
• 37:09
  recalls a strangely heated argument days before a death.
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: The former church member who noticed a fleeting inconsistency in
• 37:16
  how Bridges described an accident.
• 37:18
  Speaker 2: Or a coworker of asterids who remembers a comment about
• 37:21
  marital tension.
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: When you take those tiny, seemingly insignificant human fragments and
• 37:27
  layer them over the undeniable, hard mathematics of the modern
• 37:31
  forensic analysis.
• 37:32
  Speaker 2: You construct the exact scaffolding required to secure conviction in
• 37:36
  a court of.
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: Law right and to that end, Louisville has established a
• 37:39
  dedicated tip line at five oh two five seven four.
• 37:43
  Speaker 2: LMPD and Gresham authorities are pleading with anyone possessing fragments
• 37:47
  of information from the early nineties to step forward as well.
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: They're banking on the idea that the centrifuge of time
• 37:53
  hasn't just separated the physical facts, but that fifty years
• 37:56
  is enough time for people to finally speak the truths
• 37:59
  they suppressed to protect the halo of a pastor.
• 38:01
  Speaker 2: Time reveals what people were too afraid to say back then.
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: This entire timeline the transition from private conveyances and unverified
• 38:09
  rumors in nineteen seventy two to three D biomechanical modeling
• 38:13
  and cross country task forces in twenty twenty six. It
• 38:17
  proves something deeply unsettling.
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: It really does.
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: It proves that official government sanctioned determinations, the facts written
• 38:25
  on death certificates, accepted by entire communities and file away
• 38:29
  in archives for half a century, are not always the
• 38:32
  final draft of history.
• 38:34
  Speaker 2: The truth can be buried literally and metaphorically, under the
• 38:37
  weight of authority and the limitations of an era, and
• 38:40
  still relentlessly find its way back to the surface.
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: It's a testament to the fact that time is patient,
• 38:45
  very patient. So I want to leave you with a
• 38:47
  thought to mull over long after this deep dive ends.
• 38:49
  Think back to that family photograph we discussed at the
• 38:52
  very beginning.
• 38:52
  Speaker 2: The one with the changed background.
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the one where you finally notice the background and
• 38:56
  the entire context of the memory fractures. If modern science
• 38:59
  and the sheer persistence of investigators can completely unravel a
• 39:03
  fifty year old fact like an accidental death certificate.
• 39:05
  Speaker 2: What else could be unraveled?
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: Exactly? What accepted facts in our own personal histories or
• 39:10
  in our societal narratives might completely unravel if we simply
• 39:14
  had the courage and the modern tools to look at
• 39:17
  the background with fresh eyes. Today.
• 39:19
  Speaker 2: That's a haunting question.
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: What truths are we actively accepting right now, simply because
• 39:24
  the halo is too bright and we haven't looked closely
• 39:27
  enough at the shadows behind it.