Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / The Dental Impression of a Murder Weapon

Transcript

The Dental Impression of a Murder Weapon · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: Imagine a brutal crime going completely unsolved for ten years,
0:06
and not because the evidence wasn't there, you know, but
0:08
because the system just completely failed to see it, that is,
0:11
until a tube of dental putty changed forensic history forever.
0:15
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's the absolute definition of institutional blindness meeting just
0:18
you know, pure scientific ingenuity. Right.
0:21
Speaker 1: So today's deep dive is examining the really gripping documentary
0:26
on the murders of Clifford and Almah Merk in Bakersfield, California,
0:30
which is a heavy one, it really is. And we've
0:32
parsed all the original case files, the forensic breakdowns, trial transcripts,
0:36
you name it, and our mission today is to explore
0:39
that profound tension between well human error and scientific persistence exactly.
0:45
Speaker 2: We're going to uncover how a case can literally freeze
0:47
solid for a decade because of sheer incompetence and then
0:51
get resurrected by a detective who just refuses to give
0:53
up and.
0:54
Speaker 1: A forensic scientist who you know, decided to borrow a
0:56
tool from a local dentist's office of all places. So
1:00
let's unpack this. We really need to set the scene first,
1:03
because the geography and I guess the culture of this
1:06
place heavily inform the whole investigation. We're looking at Bakersfield, California, right.
1:11
Speaker 2: Which isn't your typical California postcard.
1:14
Speaker 1: No, not at all. If you're listening and you're unfamiliar
1:16
with the region, you've got to separate this from the
1:19
coastal imagery, right, No beaches here, this is the central valley.
1:24
Speaker 2: Yeah. It's defined by oil fields, huge agricultural expanses, just
1:28
wide open spaces exactly.
1:30
Speaker 1: And the summers are intensely hot. They just bake the
1:33
landscape for months on end. And the local law enforcement,
1:36
specifically their crime investigation unit, they operate with this really aggressive,
1:41
proactive posture. I mean, they're the kind of department that
1:44
publishes their most wanted criminals directly online for the public.
1:48
Speaker 2: They definitely treat crime with a blunt, hard nosed approach. Yeah,
1:52
and that geographic and cultural context it's vital. I mean,
1:56
it's a tough, working class city. The police force really
2:00
prides itself on a relentless pursuit of suspects, which makes.
2:03
Speaker 1: It so crazy that this case stump them.
2:06
Speaker 2: Exactly, the fact that this particular case stop them cold
2:10
for a decade is striking. It really highlights a critical
2:13
vulnerability in law enforcement because even in an environment where
2:18
detectives are super motivated and aggressive, structural blind spots within
2:22
the forensic labs can just completely derail an investigation.
2:25
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, And when you look at the victims in
2:29
this case, Clifford and Olma Mark, they were completely disconnected
2:34
from the criminal element that the police usually dealt with
2:37
out there.
2:37
Speaker 2: They were just a retired couple, yeah.
2:38
Speaker 1: Living on the south side of the city, and the
2:40
source material paints this really specific, peaceful picture of their
2:44
daily routine. They had these big shade trees in their
2:47
front yard, right, and their primary activity in the summer
2:51
was literally just sitting on their front porch under the trees,
2:55
escaping that Baker's field heat and just watching the neighborhood.
2:58
I mean, it was a deeply tranquil.
3:00
Speaker 2: Existence and establishing that baseline of tranquility that's super important
3:04
for grime scene analysis. Well, the victims weren't engaged in
3:08
high risk behaviors, you know, no drug trades, no associations
3:12
with known felons. So the sheer randomness of the violence
3:15
that invaded their home is what initially confused the investigators.
3:19
So that makes sense, right, because when a violent crime
3:21
happens in a sanctuary like that, it forces detectives to
3:25
immediately cast a huge net. The motive just isn't obvious.
3:29
Speaker 1: At all in that sanctuary. I mean, it was shattered
3:31
on just a random Saturday morning. Their son, Robert Murk,
3:34
he stops by for a routine visit, right, But the
3:37
second he walks up to the house, he finds the
3:40
back door wide open, and before he even crosses the threshold,
3:44
he detects a highly distinct, just foul odor.
3:48
Speaker 2: Oh man.
3:48
Speaker 1: Yeah, and he doesn't go searching through the house like
3:51
in the movies. He immediately backs away, turns to his
3:53
wife and tells her to cross the street and call
3:55
the sheriff.
3:56
Speaker 2: Honestly, that reaction, it's such a deeply visceral detail, Robert's
4:00
physical recoil from the smell in the open door. It
4:03
really speaks to that biological instinctual recognition of decomposition.
4:08
Speaker 1: Right like an alarm bell exactly.
4:10
Speaker 2: Humans are just hardwired to recognize that specific olfactory trigger
4:17
as a sign of danger and death. And you know,
4:20
by retreating and calling the authorities immediately, he inadvertently did
4:25
something crucial.
4:26
Speaker 1: He preserved the scene.
4:27
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, he preserved the scene, and forensic investigations the
4:31
first forty eight hours are absolutely critical and scene preservation
4:36
is the whole foundation of that window. If you had
4:38
walked through the house looking for them, he could have
4:40
you know, tracked trace evidence out or brought foreign contaminants in.
4:44
Speaker 1: Oh totally. So the authorities arrived shortly after, and Jim Christofferson,
4:49
he's one of the first responders on the scene. And
4:51
the interior of the house it's described as just total chaos.
4:55
It's entirely ransacked, Like every single chair is flipped up
4:58
to say down. Every drawer in the house has been
5:00
pulled out and tipped over with all the contents just
5:02
dumped onto the floor. I mean, it's a portrait of
5:04
violent destruction.
5:05
Speaker 2: And what's fascinating here is the behavioral signature that the
5:08
perpetrators left behind.
5:09
Speaker 1: Okay, unpack that for us.
5:11
Speaker 2: Well, when criminal profilers evaluate a RAN vaccine, they're trying
5:15
to figure out the psychological state of the intruders, right, So,
5:18
a systematically searched house where drawers are opened, sifted through gently,
5:23
and left open, that suggests a cool, calculated burglar looking
5:28
for specific valuables. They know what they're doing, right, they're organized.
5:31
But when you find chairs physically flipped and every single
5:35
drawer ripped out and dumped like that, that suggests a
5:38
disorganized defender. It indicates frenzy, panic, anger, or you know,
5:43
potentially the influence of narcotics.
5:45
Speaker 1: Right, And this is where it gets so weird. The
5:48
state of the victims complicates that profile significantly because Clifford
5:53
is found lying across his bed and his hands and
5:55
feet are bound with cord and he's been shot twice
5:58
in the head. Yeah, and right next to him is
6:00
a pillow with two bullet holes in it, which the
6:02
killers clearly use to muffle the sound of the gunshots.
6:06
And then Alma is found in a second bedroom. She's
6:09
hidden behind a sliding panel and a wardrobe. She had
6:12
been shoved into this closet with a telephone cord tied
6:14
around her neck and strangled to death.
6:16
Speaker 2: It's horrific, and that combination of methods it gives investigators
6:21
immense pause because you have an execution style shooting of
6:25
Clifford muffled by a pillow. Yeah, that plays cold detachment, right, Yeah,
6:29
a desire to control the auditory environment, so the neighbors
6:32
don't hear a.
6:33
Speaker 1: Thing, right, very calculated, exactly.
6:35
Speaker 2: But then you have the strangulation of Alma, which is
6:38
a highly intimate, physically demanding way to kill someone. Trangulation
6:43
requires sustained physical effort and close proximity.
6:46
Speaker 1: It's completely different, which brings up this bizarre contradiction in
6:50
the killer's behavior because listen to this. They thrash the
6:53
house in a chaotic frenzy, dumping every drawer, But the
6:56
crime scene investigators note that there are absolutely no spent
7:00
shell casings in the bedroom where Cliff was shot. Not
7:02
at all, right. The killers took the time to meticulously
7:06
pick up their brass from the floor before they left.
7:08
I mean, it's like a tornado hit the room, but
7:10
somehow vacuumed up its own mess on the way out.
7:13
How do those two behaviors even coexist in the same suspect.
7:17
Speaker 2: They rarely do. And that's the paradox that makes this
7:20
specific crime scene analysis so difficult to parse. Taking shell
7:25
casings shows forensic awareness, right. It tells investigators that the
7:29
killer understands that a casing can identify the caliber of
7:32
the weapon, the type of ammo, and potentially the specific
7:36
gun via firing pin and ejector.
7:38
Speaker 1: Mark impressions, so they know the science.
7:40
Speaker 2: Yes, deliberately denying investigators that evidence is the hallmark of
7:45
an organized, experienced defender, but that heavily contradicts tearing up
7:50
a house like a frantic amateur, and you know, improvising
7:53
a murder weapon out of a telephone cord.
7:55
Speaker 1: It doesn't fit.
7:56
Speaker 2: No, So the scene really suggests two possibilities. The perpetrator
8:00
experienced a massive shift in their psychological state light moving
8:03
from sheer panic to cold calculation. Or there were two
8:07
perpetrators with very different levels of criminal experience operating in
8:11
the same space.
8:12
Speaker 1: Okay, so if you're a detective standing in that wrecked bedroom,
8:14
the mixed signals are just deafening. Oh, absolutely, But they
8:17
process the scene and they do identify some initial clues.
8:21
They figure out that Almah's jewelry is missing, and they
8:25
also discover that Clifford's handguns are gone, specifically his point
8:29
to five caliber pistols.
8:31
Speaker 2: The theft of firearms from a murder scene immediately focuses
8:34
the investigation. The big question becomes, did the perpetrators bring
8:40
their own weapon or do they use the victim's weapon
8:43
to commit the murder, right.
8:44
Speaker 1: And that question gets partially answered at the autopsy. The
8:48
medical examiner extracts two point two five caliber bullocks from
8:52
Clifford's skull, so the caliber matches the guns stolen from
8:55
the house. So investigators form this working theory. Right, Clifford
8:59
attempted to defec himself, the intruders took his weapon and
9:02
used it to execute him.
9:03
Speaker 2: And you know, the forensic utility of a point two
9:05
to five caliber round in this scenario is pretty notable.
9:08
Speaker 1: Oh really? How so?
9:09
Speaker 2: Well, a point two to five caliber pistol is a
9:11
very small, low velocity pocket weapon. It lacks stopping power,
9:15
which is exactly why the bullets remained lodged inside the
9:18
skull rather than passing entirely through ah I see right.
9:22
So for forensic scientists this is highly beneficial. The skull
9:25
essentially acts as a containment vessel, preserving those bullets for
9:29
future microscopic comparison.
9:30
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay, And alongside the bullets, the investigators do have
9:35
some trace physical evidence at the house. They actually lift
9:38
two foreign fingerprints.
9:39
Speaker 2: Okay, that's huge.
9:40
Speaker 1: Yeah. One is located at the back door, which they
9:43
presume is the point of entry and the other is
9:45
on a sewing tray in the living room. Plus they
9:48
get a tip a neighbor report seeing two men lurking
9:51
around the Murks home a few days prior to the murders,
9:54
though they eventually lost sight of them behind some trees.
9:57
Speaker 2: So now the investigators have a classic triad of evidence
10:01
to work with. Yeah, they have stolen property to track down.
10:04
They have traced physical evidence at the scene. With those
10:07
prints and a potential eyewitness sighting, that provides a really
10:10
solid foundation for the early days of an investigation.
10:14
Speaker 1: And it pays off because two months later, this massive
10:16
break occurs. The police execute just a routine drug bust
10:20
in town and they arrest an individual he's referred to
10:24
in the files as Dan Jones, and during the search
10:27
they recover a point two five caliber pistol right out
10:32
of his pocket.
10:32
Speaker 2: Wow.
10:33
Speaker 1: But this is where Clifford Merk's personal habits become incredibly crucial.
10:38
Clifford meticulously etched his own initials into his property with
10:42
an engraving tool just for identification purposes.
10:45
Speaker 2: So smart right, and.
10:46
Speaker 1: Etched directly into the handle of this recovered gun are
10:49
Cliff's initials.
10:50
Speaker 2: Oh Man, that is a phenomenal stroke of luck, driven
10:54
entirely by the eccentric habits of the victim.
10:56
Speaker 1: Totally.
10:57
Speaker 2: In forensic science, the ultimate goal is in individualization. You're
11:01
trying to tie a piece of evidence to one specific,
11:04
unique source. With mass produced items like handguns, investigators usually
11:09
have to rely on serial numbers, which criminals frequently just
11:12
file right off. But a hand engraved set of initials
11:16
that is a unique identifier that immediately establishes a chain
11:19
of custody straight back to the crime scene exactly.
11:22
Speaker 1: So, the police interrogate this drug dealer Jones, demanding to
11:25
know where he got the weapon, and looking to mitigate
11:27
his own drug charges. He tells them he bought the
11:30
gun from an acquaintance named Robert Cohen.
11:32
Speaker 2: Cowen, and that name immediately registers with the Baggersfield Police,
11:36
hasn't it.
11:37
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Robert Collen and his brother Gerald are very
11:40
well known local criminals. They have extensive records for narcotics possession,
11:45
robbery's assaults. I mean, they perfectly fit the profile of
11:48
offenders who would commit a sloppy, frantic home.
11:52
Speaker 2: Invasion right because the development aligns perfectly with the behavioral
11:55
analysis of the crime scene we talked about, the Cowens
11:58
are opportunists, not criminal masterminds. This completely explains the disorganized
12:03
ransacking of the Merks home.
12:05
Speaker 1: Yep. So the police secure a search warrant for the
12:08
Cowens property and they find an absolute trove of evidence.
12:12
They recover Almah Mark's stolen jewelry, they find a wallet
12:15
taken from the house, and they even find social security
12:18
checks belonging to the marks that the brothers were actively
12:20
trying to fence. So here's where it gets really interesting.
12:24
Right to any armchair detective listening right now, looking at
12:27
this evidence board, you have the stolen jewelry in the
12:30
suspect's possession, you have a direct pipeline from the Cowens
12:34
to the victim's stolen gun, and the Cowens physically match
12:38
the general description of the guys seen lurking by the neighbor.
12:41
Right solid This appears to be an open and shut case.
12:45
So why doesn't the investigation end right here with murder charges?
12:49
Why isn't this the end of the story.
12:52
Speaker 2: Because the justice system demands proof of this specific crime charged,
12:57
not merely proof of related bad behavior. Right, the police
13:00
have overwhelming, circumstantial evidence that the Cowan brothers are thieves
13:05
or at least receivers of stolen property. However, possession of
13:09
a deceased woman's jewelry only proves that you stole it
13:12
or you bought it from the guy who stole it.
13:13
Speaker 1: Yeah, that makes sense.
13:14
Speaker 2: It does not definitively prove that you are the individual
13:17
who wrapped a telephone quart around her nettek.
13:19
Speaker 1: Wow. Yeah, that's a huge distinction exactly.
13:22
Speaker 2: To charge them with double homicide, the prosecutor requires physical
13:26
evidence that places the brothers inside the house at the
13:29
time of the killings or links them directly to the
13:32
active murder itself.
13:34
Speaker 1: So they need to bridge the gap between strong suspicion
13:37
and actual scientific proof, so they turn to the forensic lab.
13:42
They have cliffs engraved gun, which they suspect is the
13:45
murder weapon. The forensic team takes it down to the
13:47
ballistics lab to test it, and they begin by firing
13:51
the gun into a large tub of water. Let's establish
13:54
why water is the medium of choice here for a second,
13:56
because if you fire a test bullet into a block
13:59
of wood or a wall, the impact violently deforms the lead,
14:03
completely crushing the microscopic markings that the examiner needs to
14:06
analyze precisely.
14:08
Speaker 2: Water basically acts as a gentle, high density decelerator. The
14:12
fluid dynamics slow the bullet down rapidly without crushing it
14:16
at all, which allows the forensic examiner to retrieve a
14:18
perfectly intact test bullet.
14:20
Speaker 1: Okay, so they have the intact test bullet. What exactly
14:23
are they analyzing when they compare it to the bullet
14:25
pulled from Clifford's skull? Like, what are they looking for?
14:28
Speaker 2: Well, it comes down to the manufacturing process of the
14:30
barrel itself. When a gun manufacturer creates a barrel, they
14:35
bore a smooth hole through a solid rod of steel. Okay,
14:40
but a smooth hole would cause the bullet to tumble
14:42
erradically in flight, completely destroying its accuracy. So to stabilize
14:47
the projectile, they utilize a tool, usually a brooch cutter
14:50
or a button rifling tool, to carve spiral grooves into
14:55
the interior wall of the barrel.
14:56
Speaker 1: Ah okay.
14:57
Speaker 2: These grooves force the bullet to spin as it try travels,
15:00
much like a quarterback throwing a tight spiral with a football,
15:04
and the raised areas of steel left between those grooves
15:06
are known as lands.
15:08
Speaker 1: Right, So the interior of the barrel is textured with
15:11
the spiral pattern. And because a bullet is typically made
15:14
of lead or copper, which are significantly softer than the
15:16
steel barrel, the expanding gases of the gunpowder force the
15:20
bullet violently through that really tight space. Yes, so the
15:23
steel lands and grooves physically dig into the sides of
15:26
the bullet, scratching a spiral pattern right into the metal.
15:29
Speaker 2: Exactly that process leaves class characteristics, so the specific number
15:35
of lands and grooves and the direction of the twist,
15:38
which tells you the make and model of the gun.
15:40
But more importantly, the steel cutting tools used by the
15:43
manufacturer they wear down on a microscopic level with every
15:47
single barrel they produce. Oh wow, right, Therefore, even two
15:52
guns made consecutively on the exact same assembly line will
15:55
possess tiny microscopic imperfections inside their barrels that are in
16:00
entirely unique.
16:01
Speaker 1: Like a fingerprint for the gun.
16:02
Speaker 2: Exactly, when a bullet passes over these imperfections, it picks
16:05
up microscopic scratches known as striations. It acts as a
16:09
baballistic barcode unique to that specific weapon.
16:12
Speaker 1: Okay, so the examiner takes the bullet from Clifford's skull
16:16
and the pristine bullet fired into the water tub and
16:18
places them under a comparison microscope. They're looking for those
16:21
matching microscopic extorations to interlock perfectly, but the result comes
16:26
back negative. The striations do not match. The lab concludes
16:31
that the bullets extracted from Cliff's head were not fired
16:34
by the engraved gun they recovered. The gun is mathematically
16:38
eliminated as the murder.
16:39
Speaker 2: Weapon, which is just a devastating blow to the momentum
16:42
of the investigation. Oh totally, the most direct physical link
16:46
connecting the Cowens to the execution of Clifford Merk has
16:50
just evaporated in an instant. It forces the detectives to
16:54
adopt a totally new working theory that the Cowens stole
16:58
the engraved gun. Sure, but the actual murder weapon was
17:01
a different point two five caliber pistol that they just
17:04
haven't found yet.
17:05
Speaker 1: Right. But despite this massive setback, the investigators still have
17:09
the fingerprint evidence. Yes, they have those latent prints lifted
17:13
from the back door and the sewing tray, So they
17:15
submit the Cowen brothers' fingerprint cards to the lab for comparison.
17:19
Expecting this to be the anchor that finally places them
17:21
inside the crime scene. However, the fingerprint examiner returns with
17:25
another negative result. They conclude that the prints at the
17:28
scene do not belong to either Robert or Gerald Cowen.
17:31
Speaker 2: The investigation hits a massive, impenetrable wall. If we look
17:35
at this from the detective's perspective, it is a profoundly
17:39
frustrating reality. I mean, their investigative instincts, the circumstantial timeline,
17:44
and the possession of all that stolen property all indicate
17:47
that the Cowens are the perpetrators. It's so obvious to them, right,
17:52
But the objective sciences of ballistics and fingerprint analysis are
17:56
directly contradicting their theory.
17:58
Speaker 1: And the detectives they're bound by the science. The neighbor
18:02
couldn't make a positive identification. The Cowans just invoke their
18:05
right to remain silent naturally, so without physical evidence placing
18:09
them at the scene or linking them to the murder weapon,
18:12
the district attorney just cannot file murder charges. They are
18:16
limited to charging them with possession of stolen property. And
18:19
that's it.
18:19
Speaker 2: Wow.
18:20
Speaker 1: The individuals responsible for binding and executing a retired couple
18:24
in their own home, slipped through the cracks of a
18:26
system that requires absolute certainty.
18:28
Speaker 2: And this initiates the most difficult phase of any investigation.
18:32
When leads dry up like this, the institutional momentum just
18:36
stalls out. The original investigators attempted to keep the case alive.
18:40
You know, they confiscated numerous point two five caliber pistols
18:43
across Kerran County in hopes of finding a ballistic match,
18:47
and notably, the ballistics expert actually refused to return the
18:51
bullets from Clifford's skull back to the main property room.
18:54
Speaker 1: Wait really, yeah.
18:56
Speaker 2: He kept them secured right on his own desk, operating
18:59
on the belief that the true weapon would eventually cross
19:02
his path. That is dedication, it is, but the reality
19:05
of high volume police work eventually sets in. New homicides occur,
19:10
fresh evidence demands processing. The merk files are gradually pushed
19:13
to the back of the queue, eventually boxed up and
19:15
placed in the archives.
19:16
Speaker 1: Right, and the murder of Clifford and Almah Mark just
19:19
becomes a cold case. It remains completely untouched for ten years.
19:23
Speaker 2: And a decade is an absolute eternity in criminal investigations. Oh,
19:27
I'm sure witnesses relocate or they pass away. Memories degrade,
19:32
and physical evidence can get misplaced, and the psychological toll
19:36
on the family during that period is just immense. You
19:39
have Almah's son living with the daily knowledge that the
19:42
perpetrators are free, while this system seems to have simply
19:46
stopped looking.
19:47
Speaker 1: But you know, time also brings personnel changes. Jim Christofferson,
19:51
who was the first responder who initially discovered that ransacked.
19:54
Speaker 2: Scene, right, the guy who walked in first.
19:56
Speaker 1: Exactly, He is eventually promoted to homicide detect and the
20:01
cruelty of the Mert cases just haunted him for a decade.
20:04
So upon his promotion, he retrieves those archived boxes and
20:08
reopens the investigation.
20:10
Speaker 2: And this highlights the vital importance of meticulous initial documentation
20:14
because when Christofferson opens those files, he inherits a massive
20:18
foundation of information gathered by the original team.
20:21
Speaker 1: All those notes, right.
20:22
Speaker 2: They documented hundreds of interviews and maintained a rigorous chain
20:25
of custody. This allows Christofferson to apply a completely fresh
20:29
analytical perspective to a fully preserved historical record.
20:33
Speaker 1: So Christofferson focuses on the timeline shortly after the murders.
20:37
He zeros in on the moment the Cowans sold Clifford's
20:41
engraved gun to that drug dealer. Jones Okay, Reviewing the
20:45
old interview notes, he notices there were peripheral individuals present
20:49
in the room during that transaction who were never really
20:52
deeply questioned, like hangers on exactly. So he tracks down
20:55
these individuals a whole decade later, and one of them,
20:59
an informant, recalls a specific, highly unusual detail. He tells
21:04
Christofferson that during the sale, the Cowens were bragging. They
21:07
explicitly warned the drug dealer that the gun had been
21:10
used in a crime, and.
21:11
Speaker 2: Criminals boasting about their exploits is a very common catalyst
21:15
for breaking cold cases. The ego frequently just overrides the
21:19
instinct for self preservation totally. But the drug dealer's reaction
21:22
to this information is the true pivot point of the
21:25
investigation here.
21:26
Speaker 1: Oh, it really is, because hearing the weapon is tied
21:28
to a crime, the drug dealer obviously wants to protect
21:31
himself from being implicated in whatever the Cowns did. Right,
21:34
according to the informant, the dealer takes a metal screwdriver,
21:39
inserts it down the barrel of the point two five
21:41
caliber pistol and just violently reams it out. Oh, he
21:45
intentionally gouges the interior of the barrel to destroy the
21:49
manufacturer's rifling and alter the ballistic signature.
21:52
Speaker 2: That is wild.
21:53
Speaker 1: So what does this all mean for you as the listener?
21:56
Let's just pause here. We are relying on a ten
21:59
year old memory from an informant involved in the narcotics trade,
22:03
recalling an action performed in a brief window a decade ago.
22:07
Human memory is notoriously fallible. We all understand that memories degrade,
22:12
they are subject to suggestion, and they often reconstruct events inaccurately.
22:17
Isn't this just an incredible leap of faith for Detective
22:19
Christoffersen to base a homicide investigation on a foggy memory
22:22
of a screwdriver.
22:23
Speaker 2: Well, this raises an important question regarding the evaluation of
22:26
historical witness testimony. Right, Yeah, The Ebbing House Forgetting curve
22:31
demonstrates that we rapidly lose mundane information.
22:34
Speaker 1: Right like what you had for breakfast exactly.
22:37
Speaker 2: However, memory degradation is not uniform across the board. The
22:41
brain tends to encode and retain novel intense or highly
22:45
unusual actions with much greater fidelity.
22:48
Speaker 1: Okay, that makes sense.
22:49
Speaker 2: So witnessing an individual take a steel tool and violently
22:53
mutilate a firearm just to avoid a murder charge, that
22:56
is a highly specific mechanical action. It stands out see
23:00
significantly from the baseline routine of a standard drug transaction.
23:03
Speaker 1: It's definitely not something you see every day.
23:05
Speaker 2: Right. Furthermore, investigators don't just accept such testimony as absolute fact.
23:10
They treat it as a hypothesis.
23:12
Speaker 1: I see.
23:12
Speaker 2: So Christofferson uses this testimony to form a new theory
23:15
that the barrel was intentionally altered post murder, and he
23:19
takes it to the forensic lab to see if the
23:21
physical evidence can actually corroborate that memory.
23:23
Speaker 1: Right. So Christofferson takes the engraved gun back to the
23:26
lab and he brings it to forensic scientist Greg Leskowski.
23:30
Leskowski examines the barrel under magnification, and he actually confirms
23:34
the informants account. Yeah, the crown of the barrel, which
23:37
is the exit point at the muzzle, is visibly mutilated.
23:41
The steel lands and grus are just heavily chewed and
23:43
gouged out. However, the screwdriver only reached roughly an inch
23:47
into the barrel Okay deeper inside, closer to the firing chamber,
23:51
the original pristine rifling carved by the manufacturer remains entirely intact.
23:57
Oh Man.
23:58
Speaker 2: This discovery confirms that the original ballistic barcode still exists.
24:03
It's still in there, it is, but the problem lies
24:05
in accessing it through traditional testing methods, because when a
24:09
test bullet is fired, it has to travel the full
24:12
length of the barrel right, so it will pick up
24:14
the pristine striations in the rear portion, but as it exits,
24:17
it must scrape across the ruined gouged out metal at the.
24:20
Speaker 1: Muzzle, which would just destroy the markings exactly.
24:23
Speaker 2: This ruined section basically acts like heavy grit sandpaper, completely
24:27
erasing the pristine microscopic marks and leaving only the chaotic
24:31
random scratches created by the screwdriver.
24:33
Speaker 1: So Laskowski realizes he needs a method to examine only
24:36
the unaltered portion deep inside the barrel without allowing any
24:40
medium to touch the ruined tip. He starts contacting major
24:44
crime labs across the country right including state facilities and
24:48
federal agencies, seeking a protocol for this specific issue and
24:52
what do, They say, the consensus is that no such
24:55
method exists. They literally just wish him good luck. It
24:58
is a complete scientific void.
25:00
Speaker 2: And honestly, this is the environment where true scientific innovation occurs.
25:04
It happens when an expert encounters a novel physical limitation
25:08
that existing protocols just cannot bypass. Laskowski cannot fire a bullet,
25:14
and optical cameras cannot capture the precise three D topological
25:17
depth required for a microscopic striation.
25:20
Speaker 1: Comparison, So what does he need?
25:22
Speaker 2: He requires a perfect three dimensional physical replica of the
25:25
interior of the metal tube, stopping just short of the damage, which.
25:28
Speaker 1: Leads to this incredibly pragmatic solution. Laskowski recalls a different
25:32
type of forensic analysis tool mark impression gathering. When investigators
25:37
need to capture the microscopic marks left by, say a
25:40
crowbar on a door frame, they use a sparalized casting
25:43
material called microsill. But here's the catch. Microsill was not
25:48
originally developed for police work. It's a dental casting material. O. Yes,
25:54
it is the exact substance dentists utilized to take ultra
25:58
precise molds of teeth for crown and prosthetics.
26:01
Speaker 2: That is a brilliant example of cross disciplinary application right
26:05
because dentistry and forensic tool mark analysis they share a
26:08
fundamental requirement, the necessity to capture microscopic topographical details with
26:14
absolute physical fidelity without chemically bonding to or damaging the
26:19
original surface.
26:20
Speaker 1: So let's break down the chemistry of how Les Gusky
26:22
actually applies this to a murder weapon. Microsol is a
26:25
two part silicone polymer system. It consists of a base
26:28
paste containing the polymer chains and a catalyst containing a
26:31
cross linking agent. When Laskowski mixes them together, it initiates
26:35
a chemical reaction that links the polymer chains into a
26:38
three dimensional network. He injects this viscous putty deep into
26:42
the breach end of the gun barrel, pushing it only
26:44
as far as the pristine rifling and completely avoiding the
26:48
gouged muzzle. He then allows it fifteen minutes to cure
26:51
at room temperature.
26:53
Speaker 2: And the material properties of the silicone are what make
26:55
this viable oh so well. As it cross links and cures,
27:00
it becomes a firm, flexible rubber with really high tensile strength.
27:05
But crucially, silicone has a very low surface energy, meaning
27:10
meaning it does not form chemical bonds with the steel
27:13
of the barrel. It flows into every single microscopic scratch
27:16
at a submicron resolution, but it does not adhere at all.
27:19
So when Leskowski goes to extracts the cast, it slides
27:22
out easily, carrying a perfect negative impression of the barrel's
27:26
interior topography.
27:27
Speaker 1: It's like an egg on a teflon pan. Yes, I
27:29
think the best way to visualize this process for you
27:31
listening is to think about footprints in mud. Imagine someone
27:35
steps in soft mud, leaving a perfect footprint. Then someone
27:38
else comes along and drags stick through the heel of
27:41
the print, ruining that half. Okay, great visual, but the
27:44
toe section is still perfect. Now, if you pour plaster
27:47
into the whole thing to make a cast, you capture
27:49
both the perfect toes and the ruined keel. Right, But
27:52
Leskowski essentially figured out how to inject his casting material
27:56
only into the toe section, letting it dry and pulling
27:59
it out with how Ever, touching the ruined heel, he
28:02
isolated the pristine evidence. It's absolute genius.
28:05
Speaker 2: That analogy accurately captures the isolation of the evidence, and
28:08
after extracting the cured silicone cast, Laskowski performs basically a
28:14
physical amputation, okay, how he uses a scalpel to slice
28:18
away any portion of the rubber that might have come
28:20
into contact with the screwdriver damage. So he is left
28:23
with a pristine, three dimensional rubber cylinder that bears the
28:26
exact negative impression of the unaltered drive flene.
28:29
Speaker 1: Wow. So Laskowski places the silicone cast under his comparison microscope.
28:34
He positions it alongside the actual lead bullets extracted from
28:37
Clifford merk Skull those years ago. When he adjusts the
28:41
lighting and aligns them the microscopic striations, so the scratches
28:47
on the bullet and the corresponding raised ridges on the
28:49
rubber cast they interlock flawlessly. It is an undeniable definitive match.
28:55
Speaker 2: And this marks a historic president in forensic science.
28:58
Speaker 1: It really does.
28:59
Speaker 2: It is the very first time a cast of the
29:02
interior of a firearm barrel is used to positively identify
29:06
a murder weapon in a criminal investigation. It fundamentally shifts
29:09
the trajectory of the.
29:10
Speaker 1: Entire case, because the engraved gun they had sitting in
29:13
the evidence room for ten years, the exact weapon they
29:16
eliminated through standard water tub testing in month two was
29:20
the murder weapon all along?
29:21
Speaker 2: All along?
29:22
Speaker 1: It proves that Clifford's own gun was used to kill him.
29:25
And because the detectives documented the chain of custody so well,
29:28
tracing that specific weapon from the drug dealer back to
29:31
the Cowen brothers, they have successfully anchored the murder weapon
29:35
to their prime suspects.
29:36
Speaker 2: It is an incredible triumph of analytical persistence. From a
29:40
legal standpoint, the prosecution still faces a massive hurdle.
29:44
Speaker 1: Wait, really, what's missing?
29:45
Speaker 2: Well, the ballistics cast proves the weapon was at the scene,
29:49
and it proves the Cowens possessed the weapon shortly afterward. Right,
29:52
but it still does not place Robert or Gerald Cowan
29:55
physically inside the house at the time the murders occurred. Ah,
29:59
I see, A defense attorney could easily argue that the
30:01
Cowens simply purchased a stolen gun on the street from
30:05
the actual killers the following day.
30:07
Speaker 1: Wow. Yeah, that is the vulnerability of circumstantial evidences exactly.
30:12
Speaker 2: A jury requires evidence that anchors the suspect to the
30:15
interior of the crime scene. They need the one piece
30:18
of evidence that proves the Cowens were inside that ransacked house.
30:22
Speaker 1: They need the fingerprints, but the fingerprint analysis ten years
30:26
prior concluded that the Prince didn't match the Cowens. It
30:29
was a dead end.
30:30
Speaker 2: And this is where the narrative shifts from a celebration
30:32
of scientific innovation to a deeply infuriating examination of institutional
30:37
failure and cognitive bias. Well, boy Christofferson, armed with the
30:41
undeniable ballistics match, just refuses to accept the old fingerprint report.
30:45
Speaker 1: He knows something is wrong.
30:47
Speaker 2: Right, so he orders a complete audit of the original
30:50
forensic work.
30:50
Speaker 1: Okay, and the audit reveals a massive violation of standard
30:55
operating procedure from a decade ago. To understand what happened,
30:59
we really need to look at how fingerprint comparison actually works.
31:03
It utilizes a methodology known as ACEEV that's analysis, comparison,
31:08
evaluation and verification. The examiner looks at the friction ridge details,
31:13
the loops, whirls, and specific minu ship points like ridge
31:17
endings and bifurcations.
31:18
Speaker 2: Yes, and the original examiner from a decade ago was
31:21
analyzing latent prints lifted from a crime scene, which are
31:24
rarely perfect.
31:25
Speaker 1: They're usually smudged right exactly.
31:27
Speaker 2: They're often partial distorted by pressure or smudged by sweat
31:31
and oils, And the audit revealed that this particular examiner
31:34
was simply in over his head.
31:36
Speaker 1: He just didn't know what he was looking at right.
31:37
Speaker 2: He lacked the expertise to confidently analyze the highly distorted
31:41
minu ship points on the sewing tray and the back door.
31:44
Speaker 1: But instead of asking a senior examiner for assistance or
31:48
just admitting the prints were too complex for a skill level,
31:50
he bypassed the v in acev entirely.
31:53
Speaker 2: He skipped verification.
31:55
Speaker 1: He skipped the verification phase. He simply declared the prints
31:58
not a match, close the file, and never had a
32:01
supervisor review his exclusionary conclusion.
32:04
Speaker 2: And this is the crux of the tragedy. In forensic science,
32:07
the primary defense against human error and cognitive bias is
32:11
peer review.
32:12
Speaker 1: It has to be.
32:13
Speaker 2: It is the gold standard protocol in crime labs. Every conclusion,
32:18
particularly an exclusionary finding in a double homicide case, must
32:23
be independently verified by a second qualified examiner. But this
32:27
examiner allowed pride or perhaps a fear of appearing incompetent,
32:31
to override structural laboratory protocol.
32:34
Speaker 1: We have to pause here because the implications of this
32:36
are just staggering. A family lived in agonizing limbo for
32:40
a decade. A brutal killer was allowed to remain free
32:42
in the community. The police department expended thousands of hours
32:46
chasing false leads, and all of this occurred because one
32:48
guy in a lab coat was too proud to ask
32:51
supervisor to double check their homework. How do we trust
32:53
a justice system that is so vulnerable to the ego
32:56
of a single employee.
32:58
Speaker 2: If we connect this to the bigger picture, it really
33:01
dismantles the public myth of infallible robotic forensic science totally.
33:06
Science itself is an objective methodology, but its application is
33:10
entirely dependent on human operators, and humans are subject to pride, fatigue,
33:15
and incompetence.
33:16
Speaker 1: We make mistakes.
33:17
Speaker 2: Exactly this failure serves as a profound cautionary tale regarding
33:22
institutional accountability. Protocol is not just bureaucratic red tape. It
33:27
is the load bearing architecture of the justice system. When
33:31
an individual decides they are exempt from protocol, the whole
33:34
system collapses.
33:35
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, following the audit, Christofferson resubmits the original latent
33:39
fingerprint cards. This time the ACEEV protocol is followed strictly.
33:44
A highly qualified examiner analyzes the prince, and a supervisor
33:48
independently verifies the evaluation.
33:50
Speaker 2: And what do they find.
33:51
Speaker 1: The conclusion is absolute. The prints lifted from the sewing
33:55
tray and the back door are a definitive, unquestionable match
33:58
to Robert Cowan.
33:59
Speaker 2: The final peace said, the evidentiary puzzle locks into place.
34:02
The investigators now possess the stolen property, the ballistics matched
34:06
to the murder weapon, and the absolute physical proof that
34:10
Robert Cowan was inside the victim's home.
34:12
Speaker 1: So Christofferson brings Robert Cowen into the interrogation room. And
34:16
you have to consider the gravity of this moment. For
34:19
a detective who has literally carried this case for a.
34:22
Speaker 2: Decade, it must have been surreal, right.
34:25
Speaker 1: He sits across the table from Cowen, presents the verified
34:28
fingerprint report, shows him the scientific proof that his hands
34:32
touch the interior of that house, and just demands an explanation.
34:36
Speaker 2: And how does Cowen react.
34:37
Speaker 1: Cowen does not scream, he doesn't offer an alibi, and
34:41
he does not confess. He simply shakes his head and
34:43
remains entirely silent.
34:45
Speaker 2: It is the silence of an offender who recognizes they
34:48
have no avenues left.
34:49
Speaker 1: He's cornered exactly.
34:51
Speaker 2: There is no narrative he can construct that explains his
34:53
fingerprints inside a murdered couple's home that doesn't implicate him
34:57
in the crime. The weight of the physical evidence has
35:00
completely neutralized his ability to deceive.
35:02
Speaker 1: Robert Cowen is arrested and formally charged with two counts
35:06
of first degree murder. The prosecution finally has the forensic
35:10
foundation to present a cohesive narrative timeline to the jury
35:14
based on the newly analyzed evidence. They construct the final
35:17
moments of the mrks lives. The Cowen brothers break him
35:20
through the back door, leaving that latent print. They begin
35:23
tearing the house apart in a disorganized frenzy, looking for valuables.
35:26
Speaker 2: Right the ransacking, Clifford.
35:28
Speaker 1: Murk retrieves his etched point two five caliber pistol to
35:32
defend his home. Robert Cowen overpowers the elderly man, disarms him,
35:37
and uses a pillow to muffle the sound before executing
35:40
him with his own weapon.
35:42
Speaker 2: Brutal.
35:43
Speaker 1: They bind him, then turn their attention to Almah, and
35:46
rather than simply fleeing, they wrap a telephone cord around
35:49
her neck, force her into a dark wardrobe closet, and
35:53
leave her to suffocate.
35:54
Speaker 2: The timeline really emphasizes this senseless escalation of the violence.
35:58
As the prosecutor noted during the the cruelty is what
36:01
defines the crime. The Cowens possessed the element of surprise
36:04
and youth, they could have easily subdued the couple completed
36:08
the robbery and just fled. Instead, Robert Cowan made the
36:12
deliberate choice to execute Clifford and subject Almah to a terrifying,
36:16
prolonged death in a dark closet.
36:18
Speaker 1: The jury convicts Robert Karen on two counts of first
36:20
degree murder and he is sentenced to death. The documentary
36:24
actually captures the emotional response from Almah's son.
36:27
Speaker 2: Oh I remember that.
36:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, He expresses deep relief that Cowen is facing justice,
36:32
adding a really raw visceral statement noting that if the
36:36
state would allow it, he would throw the switch himself.
36:38
Speaker 2: Wow.
36:39
Speaker 1: It is a moment where ten years of compressed grief
36:42
and rage finally find an outlet.
36:44
Speaker 2: And securing a conviction provide a definitive answer to the
36:47
agonizing question of who is responsible. But you know, the
36:51
justice delivered by the court system is rarely perfectly neat.
36:54
Speaker 1: Yeah, which brings us to the fate of the brother
36:57
Gerald Cowen. He was the partner in the break in.
37:00
He was seen lurking near the property, He assisted in
37:03
fencing the stolen jewelry, and was present when the murder
37:07
weapon was sold to the drug dealer. He is initially
37:10
arrested alongside Robert for the murders. However, the prosecution eventually
37:14
drops the murder charges against Gerald.
37:17
Speaker 2: They dropped them.
37:18
Speaker 1: They dropped the charges because while they found Robert's fingerprints
37:21
inside the house, they found absolutely no trace forensic evidence
37:26
placing Gerald inside the crime scene.
37:29
Speaker 2: This is the cold, objective calculus of the legal system
37:32
in action. The police likely knew Gerald was deeply involved
37:36
in the events that led.
37:37
Speaker 1: To the murders. Hey, everyone knew, but the legal.
37:39
Speaker 2: Standard requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for each specific defendant.
37:43
Without trace evidence placing Gerald inside the home, a defense
37:46
attorney would just argue that Gerald simply waited in the vehicle,
37:50
or that Robert gave him the stolen goods after the.
37:52
Speaker 1: Fact, which is so frustrating.
37:54
Speaker 2: It is the stringent evidentiary standards designed to prevent wrongful
37:57
convictions meant they lacked the physical proof to prosecute Gerald
38:00
for the homicides.
38:02
Speaker 1: It presents such a chilling irony. The exact same strict,
38:06
unforgiving forensic standards that finally condemned Robert Cowan are the
38:10
very standards that allow Gerald Cowen to walk free. And
38:14
the tragic aftermath of this legal reality is that Gerald Cowan,
38:17
after escaping a double homicide charge, goes on to kill
38:21
someone else. Unbelievable, he is later convicted of manslaughter for
38:25
killing his own father in law, and due to the
38:28
nature of the manslaughter conviction, he serves just two years
38:31
in prison before being paroled.
38:33
Speaker 2: It is a deeply unsettling reality of the justice system.
38:37
It is an imperfect instrument. Clearly, it's heavily weighted toward
38:41
protecting the innocent by setting an incredibly high bar for conviction,
38:45
and the unavoidable byproduct of that high bar is that
38:48
sometimes guilty individuals are not held fully accountable. Gerald's subsequent
38:52
crime is just a painful reminder of the collateral damage
38:55
that occurs when the system cannot meet its own burden
38:57
of proof.
38:58
Speaker 1: It leaves a really heavy complex legation, but as we
39:01
synthesize all the elements of this investigation, we really have
39:03
to look at the broader scientific impact.
39:05
Speaker 2: Here right, the positive takeaway out.
39:07
Speaker 1: Of a senseless, brutal tragedy on a quiet porch in
39:10
Baker's field, a brand new forensic methodology was born. Greg
39:14
Leskowski's pragmatic solution utilizing dental silicone did not merely solve
39:20
the mirk case. The microsill barrel casting technique became a standardized.
39:24
Speaker 2: Procedure, which is amazing.
39:26
Speaker 1: It's now utilized in crime laboratories globally whenever investigators encounter
39:30
a firearm barrel that has been intentionally altered or obstructed.
39:34
Speaker 2: And that is the ultimate triumph of this narrative. Forensic
39:37
science is inherently iterative. It advances by encountering physical obstacles
39:42
and developing novel solutions. The cross disciplinary ingenuity required to
39:46
bypass the mutilated barrel expanded the diagnostic toolkit for every
39:50
future firearms examiner. It proves that when human persistence meet
39:54
scientific rigor, historical truths can be unearthed, even after a
39:57
decade of complete stagnation.
39:59
Speaker 1: Summer Riz this investigation we started by examining a tranquil
40:03
home that was violently transformed into a chaotic crime scene.
40:06
We watched the momentum hit a massive wall built by
40:09
human arrogance and a failure to follow basic laboratory protocol.
40:13
We saw the case language in the archives for ten years,
40:15
only to be finally broken open by relying on a
40:18
drug dealer's memory of a screwdriver and a scientist's willingness
40:21
to experiment with dental silicone. It highlights the devastating consequences
40:26
of institutional laziness alongside the incredible power of relentless scientific curiosity.
40:32
Speaker 2: It serves as a reminder that physical evidence alone does
40:35
not solve cases. Evidence only speaks when an investigator is
40:39
willing to ask the correct questions, and more importantly, when
40:43
the institution demands that the answers are rigorously double checked absolutely.
40:47
Speaker 1: And that leads to a final lingering thought for you
40:49
to consider before you go. We just examined how a
40:52
single arrogant decision by one fingerprint examiner to bypass peer
40:56
review allowed a double murderer to walk the streets for
40:59
time ten years. Consider the archives of every police department
41:03
across the country. How many other unsolvable cold cases aren't
41:07
actually waiting for the invention of some futuristic DNA technology.
41:10
How many of them are simply sitting in cardboard boxes
41:13
right now, perfectly solvable, patiently waiting for a humbler set
41:17
of eyes to open the file and double check the
41:19
old evidence.
41:20
Speaker 2: It's as so bring thought.
41:21
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us on this deep dive into
41:23
the source material. Keep questioning the information around you, and
41:27
we'll see you next time.