Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Murder of Farmer’s Wife Shocks Small Iowa Town

Transcript

Murder of Farmer’s Wife Shocks Small Iowa Town · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: You know, there is this very specific image that you
0:02
Speaker 1: probably have in your mind when you think of the
0:04
Speaker 1: American heartland.
0:05
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely.
0:06
Speaker 1: Right. Picture yourself just like driving down a two-lane highway
0:10
Speaker 1: in rural Iowa. You see the endless expanse of corn
0:14
Speaker 1: and soybean fields, massive grain silos standing like monuments in
0:18
Speaker 1: the distance, gravel roads kicking up dust behind your tires.
0:21
Speaker 2: Yeah, those pristine farmhouses sitting way back from the street.
0:24
Speaker 1: Exactly. It was the quintessential Norman Rockwell painting. A place
0:29
Speaker 1: where the illusion of safety is just so deeply woven
0:32
Speaker 1: into the fabric of the community that, you know, people
0:34
Speaker 1: leave their keys in the ignition of their trucks.
0:36
Speaker 2: And their front door is completely unlocked at night.
0:38
Speaker 1: Yeah. It just feels completely insulated from the chaos of
0:42
Speaker 1: the outside world.
0:43
Speaker 2: It's an aesthetic of pure security, really. We naturally associate
0:48
Speaker 2: open spaces and tight-knit farming communities with a kind of
0:52
Speaker 2: moral sanctuary. Right. The assumption is that the violence of
0:55
Speaker 2: the city just stays in the city. When a crime
0:58
Speaker 2: does happen, the initial community reaction isn't suspicion. It's just
1:02
Speaker 2: total disbelief. Right.
1:03
Speaker 1: But, you know, illusions only hold up until reality violently
1:07
Speaker 1: crashes through them. And today we are looking at exactly
1:10
Speaker 1: what happens when that sanctuary is shattered by two brutal,
1:14
Speaker 1: seemingly completely disparate crimes decades apart.
1:18
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:18
Speaker 1: We are diving deep into our source material today. We're
1:21
Speaker 1: unpacking the 2015 murder of a beloved farmer's wife named
1:25
Speaker 1: Shirley Carter. and the 1979 cold case murder of an
1:28
Speaker 1: 18-year-old high schooler named Michelle Martinko.
1:31
Speaker 2: And we aren't just recounting these tragedies. We are going
1:35
Speaker 2: to look under the hood of the justice system itself.
1:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the mission of this deep dive.
1:39
Speaker 2: Exactly. We are going to explore how the burden of proof,
1:43
Speaker 2: the evolution of forensic science, and the tactical psychology of
1:46
Speaker 2: criminal investigations really dictate the reality of justice.
1:50
Speaker 1: It's fascinating.
1:51
Speaker 2: We have a profound contrast here. On one hand, A
1:54
Speaker 2: modern case built entirely on circumstantial evidence that creates just
1:57
Speaker 2: absolute legal chaos.
1:59
Speaker 1: Total whiplash. Yeah.
2:00
Speaker 2: And on the other hand, a 40-year-old ghost story saved
2:03
Speaker 2: by the absolute cutting edge of genetic science.
2:06
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this. Because to really understand how wild
2:09
Speaker 1: the legal chaos gets, we need to head to the
2:12
Speaker 1: Carter Farm in Lacona, Iowa. The date is June 19, 2015. Right.
2:17
Speaker 1: We have Shirley Carter, who is 67 years old. By
2:21
Speaker 1: all accounts from the sources, she is the matriarch of
2:24
Speaker 1: a sprawling agricultural empire.
2:26
Speaker 2: She really was.
2:27
Speaker 1: She and her husband, Bill, have been married for 52 years.
2:30
Speaker 1: They run a 900-acre soybean and corn operation. And Shirley
2:34
Speaker 1: isn't just like managing the books in the background.
2:36
Speaker 2: No, not at all.
2:37
Speaker 1: She is out there driving her own John Deere tractor.
2:41
Speaker 1: She's raising grandkids. She is the engine of this entire family.
2:45
Speaker 2: She represents a very specific kind of American grit. I mean,
2:48
Speaker 2: 52 years of marriage, working side by side on 900 acres.
2:51
Speaker 2: That is a lifetime of shared labor, you know, shared
2:54
Speaker 2: financial risk and shared legacy. When a woman like that
2:57
Speaker 2: is murdered in her own kitchen in the middle of
2:59
Speaker 2: the day, it doesn't just devastate a family.
3:01
Speaker 1: It paralyzes the whole community.
3:03
Speaker 2: Completely. The entire foundation of what they believe about their
3:06
Speaker 2: safety just vanishes instantly.
3:08
Speaker 1: And the scene of this crime is horrific. It's Shirley's
3:12
Speaker 1: younger son. Jason Carter, who calls 911. He claims he
3:16
Speaker 1: just walked in and found his mother on the kitchen floor.
3:18
Speaker 2: Right.
3:19
Speaker 1: Before the police even arrive, Bill Carter, her husband of
3:23
Speaker 1: over half a century, he rushes in. And he finds
3:26
Speaker 1: her laying face up, her hands crossed over her chest.
3:29
Speaker 2: That detail is so important.
3:30
Speaker 1: It really is. Bill actually says to Jason, in that
3:34
Speaker 1: moment of just unimaginable grief, he says, it had to
3:37
Speaker 1: be somebody that loved her.
3:38
Speaker 2: Wow.
3:39
Speaker 1: He saw how she was positioned. and thought, you know,
3:43
Speaker 1: you don't naturally fall that way when you die. It
3:45
Speaker 1: looked deliberate. It looked like she had been posed.
3:47
Speaker 2: Which is a remarkable observation for a grieving husband to
3:50
Speaker 2: make in the first seconds of shock. But it highlights
3:53
Speaker 2: something crucial about crime scenes.
3:55
Speaker 1: What's that?
3:56
Speaker 2: The physical environment speaks before anyone ever opens their mouth.
4:00
Speaker 2: Lead detective Mark Ludwick, he's listening to Jason's 911 call
4:03
Speaker 2: on his way to the farmhouse, and his investigative radar
4:06
Speaker 2: is immediately going off.
4:07
Speaker 1: Just from the audio.
4:08
Speaker 2: Just from the audio. Not because of what the scene
4:11
Speaker 2: looks like yet, but because of the specific linguistic choices
4:15
Speaker 2: Jason is making on the phone.
4:16
Speaker 1: Yeah, Jason's phrasing on that call is incredibly bizarre. He says,
4:21
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened. But then he completely contradicts
4:25
Speaker 1: that confusion by volunteering this hyper-specific medical timeline.
4:30
Speaker 2: Right.
4:31
Speaker 1: Jason tells the dispatcher that his mom has been dead for, quote,
4:34
Speaker 1: two hours.
4:35
Speaker 2: Which is wild.
4:36
Speaker 1: If I walk into a room and find someone I
4:38
Speaker 1: love on the floor... I am not running a mental
4:41
Speaker 1: forensic calculation. I'm screaming for an ambulance.
4:43
Speaker 2: Precisely. In the field of investigative statement analysis, this is
4:47
Speaker 2: a glaring red flag. When someone discovers a loved one
4:51
Speaker 2: violently murdered, their psychological state is rooted entirely in present
4:55
Speaker 2: tense panic.
4:56
Speaker 1: They're just reacting.
4:57
Speaker 2: Exactly. The brain does not instantly shift into the role
5:00
Speaker 2: of a medical examiner calculating lividity or rigor mortis. Right.
5:04
Speaker 2: Volunteering that two hours detail is what investigators call a
5:07
Speaker 2: linguistic tell. It suggests the caller isn't experiencing the event
5:11
Speaker 2: in real time.
5:12
Speaker 1: What are they doing then?
5:13
Speaker 2: They are attempting to proactively introduce a narrative to plan
5:17
Speaker 2: a timeline before the police even ask a single question.
5:21
Speaker 1: The best analogy I can come up with is that
5:23
Speaker 1: Jason Ario's behavior at this crime scene is like an
5:26
Speaker 1: escape room player who knows all the answers before the
5:29
Speaker 1: clues are even found.
5:30
Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it.
5:32
Speaker 1: Right. He's pointing things out that a person in shock
5:35
Speaker 1: just shouldn't be noticing.
5:36
Speaker 2: That is exactly how an investigator views it. He is
5:39
Speaker 2: guiding the narrative. And it doesn't stop at the timeline.
5:43
Speaker 1: No, it doesn't. When Bill arrives, Jason immediately says, Dad, look,
5:47
Speaker 1: somebody's robbed you. He points out that his father's office
5:50
Speaker 1: drawers have been pulled out and dumped on the floor.
5:52
Speaker 2: Yeah.
5:52
Speaker 1: He takes him into the bedroom and shows him that
5:55
Speaker 1: Shirley's dresser drawers are open. He's instantly pointing out bullet
5:58
Speaker 1: holes in the floor and in the refrigerator.
6:00
Speaker 2: It's a lot.
6:01
Speaker 1: But I have to play devil's advocate here. Couldn't a
6:04
Speaker 1: grieving son just be in severe shock Trauma does weird
6:08
Speaker 1: things to the brain. Couldn't he just be desperately scanning
6:11
Speaker 1: the room for answers and blurting out what he sees?
6:14
Speaker 2: You always have to account for shock. Investigators are trained
6:18
Speaker 2: to recognize that genuine trauma-induced erratic behavior can sometimes look
6:23
Speaker 2: like deception.
6:24
Speaker 1: Right. People act weird when they're traumatized.
6:26
Speaker 2: They do. However, Ludewig's assessment goes deeper than Jason simply
6:30
Speaker 2: being observant. It addeth the nature of what Jason is
6:34
Speaker 2: pointing out. combined with the physical realities of the scene.
6:37
Speaker 1: Okay, walk me through that.
6:38
Speaker 2: Well, a person in shock finding their mother in a
6:42
Speaker 2: pool of blood does not typically conduct a ballistic trajectory
6:46
Speaker 2: survey of the kitchen appliances.
6:48
Speaker 1: Yeah, that makes sense. And the robbery narrative falls apart
6:51
Speaker 1: the second you look at the physical evidence. Completely. They
6:53
Speaker 1: go into the bedroom, the drawers are dumped, but nothing
6:56
Speaker 1: of value is actually taken. The most glaring piece of
7:00
Speaker 1: evidence is Shirley's purse. It is hanging right there, On
7:03
Speaker 1: a grandchild's high chair in plain sight.
7:05
Speaker 2: Just sitting there.
7:06
Speaker 1: It has credit cards in it. It has $ 140 in
7:09
Speaker 1: cash sitting right inside, untouched. What kind of burglar bypasses
7:15
Speaker 1: a purse full of cash hanging on a high chair
7:16
Speaker 1: to go pull out underwear drawers?
7:18
Speaker 2: A burglar who isn't a burglar at all. Let's dive
7:22
Speaker 2: into the psychology of staged crime scenes for a second.
7:24
Speaker 1: Please do.
7:25
Speaker 2: This is a classic manifestation of what investigators call the
7:29
Speaker 2: adolescent mindset. When an amateur tries to stage a robbery
7:33
Speaker 2: to cover up a murder, they usually base their staging
7:37
Speaker 2: on what they've seen on television or in movies.
7:39
Speaker 1: Like, oh, I need to make a mess.
7:41
Speaker 2: Exactly. They think a robbery means tossing drawers and making
7:44
Speaker 2: a mess, but they lack the actual psychology of a thief. Right.
7:50
Speaker 2: A real burglar is driven by efficiency, risk aversion, and greed.
7:55
Speaker 2: They grab the cash on the high chair, they grab
7:57
Speaker 2: the jewelry box, and they get out before they get caught.
8:00
Speaker 1: They aren't lingering to dump out random drawers while leaving
8:03
Speaker 1: the easiest cash in the house behind.
8:05
Speaker 2: Exactly. The staging here was performative. It was designed to
8:09
Speaker 2: look like a crime rather than to actually be a crime.
8:12
Speaker 2: It's a theatrical production of a burglary directed by someone
8:16
Speaker 2: who doesn't understand the motivation of a burglar.
8:18
Speaker 1: And the curtain on that theater falls pretty quickly because
8:20
Speaker 1: there was a massive glaring secret that the police uncover
8:24
Speaker 1: almost immediately.
8:26
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah.
8:26
Speaker 1: We're talking about a family that runs a multimillion dollar
8:29
Speaker 1: farming operation. But beneath the surface, there is intense financial
8:34
Speaker 1: and emotional friction.
8:35
Speaker 2: Very intense.
8:36
Speaker 1: Jason is drowning in debt, somewhere between $ 100, 000 and $ 150, 000
8:41
Speaker 1: in the hole.
8:42
Speaker 2: Financial distress of that magnitude within a family business structure
8:45
Speaker 2: is a tremendous psychological stressor.
8:48
Speaker 1: I can't even imagine.
8:49
Speaker 2: Bill Carter, the father, he wanted to bring Jason into
8:52
Speaker 2: the main farming operation to bail him out. He wanted
8:55
Speaker 2: to consolidate the debt and save his son. Right.
8:58
Speaker 1: But surely... The matriarch who managed the books vehemently opposed it.
9:03
Speaker 2: She did.
9:03
Speaker 1: She saw the reality of Jason's irresponsibility clearer than anyone,
9:07
Speaker 1: and she was the immovable object standing between Jason and
9:11
Speaker 1: his financial salvation.
9:12
Speaker 2: And there is a chilling detail in the sources that
9:14
Speaker 2: completely shatters this idea of a happy family.
9:17
Speaker 1: Oh, the quote from the salesman.
9:19
Speaker 2: Yes. A local farm equipment salesman, a guy named Brandon Smith,
9:22
Speaker 2: who knew the family well, recounted a conversation he had
9:25
Speaker 2: with Jason. He asked Jason why he didn't just farm
9:29
Speaker 2: together with his dad to fix his money problems. And
9:32
Speaker 2: Jason's response was, quote, I can't because my mom is
9:35
Speaker 2: a bitch.
9:36
Speaker 1: Man. When you combine crushing debt with that level of
9:40
Speaker 1: intense personal animosity, you have the foundational elements of a
9:44
Speaker 1: powerful motive.
9:45
Speaker 2: You really do.
9:46
Speaker 1: It reveals a toxic resentment that had been brewing for
9:49
Speaker 1: a long time. But here's where it gets really interesting.
9:52
Speaker 1: The debt wasn't his only secret.
9:55
Speaker 2: Not by a long shot.
9:56
Speaker 1: The police search Jace's truck, and they pop the hood.
10:00
Speaker 1: Hidden inside the fuse box of the engine compartment, they
10:03
Speaker 1: find a burner phone.
10:04
Speaker 2: Just tucked away.
10:05
Speaker 1: This wasn't dropped by accident. It was deliberately concealed in
10:08
Speaker 1: a place his wife would never look. And on that phone,
10:11
Speaker 1: they uncover evidence of a torrid, ongoing extramarital affair Jace
10:15
Speaker 1: was having with a local woman.
10:16
Speaker 2: The burner phone changes the entire landscape of the investigation.
10:20
Speaker 1: How so?
10:20
Speaker 2: Suddenly, the motive expands exponentially. It's no longer just about
10:24
Speaker 2: the farm debt. It is about a man desperate to
10:26
Speaker 2: keep his entire life from collapsing.
10:28
Speaker 1: Because if Shirley found out?
10:30
Speaker 2: Exactly. If Shirley, who was already blocking his financial bailout,
10:35
Speaker 2: found out about the affair, the fallout would be catastrophic.
10:38
Speaker 1: She would have cut him off completely.
10:39
Speaker 2: Jason stood to lose his marriage, his children... and any
10:43
Speaker 2: chance of inheriting a piece of that $ 6 million Carter farm.
10:47
Speaker 2: The affair was the accelerant.
10:49
Speaker 1: So just three days after the murder, the police bring
10:52
Speaker 1: Jason and his wife, Shelley, into the local sheriff's office
10:56
Speaker 1: for questioning. They separate them.
10:58
Speaker 2: Standard protocol.
10:59
Speaker 1: Right. They put Shelley in this small makeshift courtroom down
11:02
Speaker 1: the hall, and they drop the bomb on her. They
11:04
Speaker 1: tell her that the husband she is fiercely defending has
11:07
Speaker 1: been carrying on a secret affair.
11:09
Speaker 2: This is where we see the psychological pressure cooker of
11:12
Speaker 2: a police interrogation take shape.
11:13
Speaker 1: Yeah.
11:14
Speaker 2: Detective Ludwig goes into the room with Shelley and he
11:17
Speaker 2: employs a highly aggressive, high stakes tactical approach. According to Shelley,
11:22
Speaker 2: Ludwig explicitly threatens her.
11:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, the bus comment.
11:25
Speaker 2: Right. He tells her she needs to, quote, get on
11:28
Speaker 2: the bus with the police investigation or he is going
11:31
Speaker 2: to make sure she gets thrown under the bus.
11:33
Speaker 1: Which is terrifying.
11:34
Speaker 2: He is actively trying to leverage her pain and betrayal
11:38
Speaker 2: over the affair. to turn her into an asset against Jason.
11:41
Speaker 1: I have to pause here because human behavior is just
11:44
Speaker 1: so fascinating to me. Shelly learns her husband is cheating
11:48
Speaker 1: on her. The police are heavily implying he murdered his
11:51
Speaker 1: own mother.
11:51
Speaker 2: Yeah.
11:52
Speaker 1: She is sitting in a sheriff's office. Her entire reality
11:54
Speaker 1: is collapsing. And yet she refuses to turn on him.
11:58
Speaker 2: It's remarkable.
11:59
Speaker 1: She gets furious at the police instead. She later said,
12:02
Speaker 1: I could have been a scorned wife because that's what
12:04
Speaker 1: Mark Ludwig wanted me to be. But it wouldn't be
12:07
Speaker 1: right for me to say you cheated on me Now
12:09
Speaker 1: you can pay for your mom's death. I don't understand
12:13
Speaker 1: that level of compartmentalization.
12:15
Speaker 2: It speaks to a very complex loyalty. From an investigative standpoint,
12:19
Speaker 2: Ludwig miscalculated.
12:20
Speaker 1: I pushed too hard.
12:21
Speaker 2: He did. He assumed the revelation of infidelity would instantly
12:25
Speaker 2: override her baseline belief in her husband's fundamental nature. But
12:30
Speaker 2: Shelley separated the two betrayals.
12:32
Speaker 1: Interesting.
12:32
Speaker 2: To her mind, being a terrible husband who cheats does
12:35
Speaker 2: not automatically equate to being a monster who executes his
12:39
Speaker 2: own mother.
12:39
Speaker 1: Right.
12:40
Speaker 2: She dug her heels in on the principle of the
12:42
Speaker 2: murder charge, refusing to let her marital anger be weaponized
12:45
Speaker 2: by law enforcement to secure a homicide conviction she genuinely
12:50
Speaker 2: believed was false.
12:51
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, down the hall, Jason is enduring an intense 11-hour interrogation.
12:57
Speaker 1: 11 hours.
12:59
Speaker 2: That is a marathon.
13:00
Speaker 1: And during this session... He agrees to take a polygraph test.
13:04
Speaker 1: The results come back showing deception. The police tell him
13:07
Speaker 1: straight to his face, you were deceptive.
13:10
Speaker 2: Let's pull back the curtain on this for the listener.
13:12
Speaker 2: How does a polygraph actually work, and why do police
13:15
Speaker 2: use them if they aren't even allowed in court?
13:17
Speaker 1: To understand the polygraph, you have to understand that it
13:20
Speaker 1: is not a lie detector.
13:21
Speaker 2: Oh, really?
13:22
Speaker 1: No, it does not detect deception. It detects physiological arousal.
13:26
Speaker 2: Okay, how does it do that?
13:27
Speaker 1: When you sit in that chair, they wrap pneumograph tubes
13:29
Speaker 1: around your chest to measure your breathing rate. They put
13:32
Speaker 1: a blood pressure cuff on your arm to measure cardiovascular activity.
13:36
Speaker 1: And they put galvanometers on your fingertips to measure galvanic
13:39
Speaker 1: skin response.
13:40
Speaker 2: Which is what exactly? Which is essentially how much your
13:43
Speaker 2: fingers are sweating, indicating changes in the electrical resistance of
13:47
Speaker 2: your skin.
13:48
Speaker 1: So they are measuring your fight or flight response.
13:50
Speaker 2: Exactly. The theory is that when you lie, the fear
13:53
Speaker 2: of getting caught triggers the sympathetic nervous system, causing your
13:57
Speaker 2: heart to race, your breathing to change, and your palms
14:00
Speaker 2: to sweat.
14:02
Speaker 1: That makes sense in theory.
14:03
Speaker 2: It does, but legally, courts have almost universally ruled that
14:07
Speaker 2: this science is too unreliable for a jury.
14:10
Speaker 1: Because you could just be nervous.
14:11
Speaker 2: Right. An innocent person who is simply terrified of the
14:14
Speaker 2: police might trigger the exact same physiological response as a
14:18
Speaker 2: guilty person lying.
14:20
Speaker 1: So if it's scientifically shaky and legally inadmissible... Why on
14:24
Speaker 1: earth do detectives spend hours administering them?
14:27
Speaker 2: Because the polygraph is one of the most effective psychological
14:30
Speaker 2: crowbars ever invented.
14:31
Speaker 1: Oh, I see.
14:32
Speaker 2: Law enforcement doesn't primarily use them for the paper readout.
14:35
Speaker 2: They use them for the post-test interview. You sit the
14:38
Speaker 2: suspect down, you point to the machine, and you say,
14:40
Speaker 2: The machine says you are lying. Science proves it. The
14:44
Speaker 2: jig is up. It is designed to induce a sense
14:46
Speaker 2: of absolute hopelessness in a guilty suspect. The goal is
14:50
Speaker 2: to break their resolve and extract a confession.
14:53
Speaker 1: It's essentially a theatrical prop designed to break you.
14:56
Speaker 2: Very so.
14:57
Speaker 1: But it didn't break Jason. He vehemently denied the results,
15:00
Speaker 1: got incredibly angry, told the detectives they were going to hell.
15:05
Speaker 1: And when Shelly demanded he leave, he just stood up
15:07
Speaker 1: and walked out.
15:08
Speaker 2: Just left.
15:09
Speaker 1: He walked right out of the sheriff's office, an uncharged
15:12
Speaker 1: free man.
15:13
Speaker 2: Which is the inherent risk of the tactic. If a
15:16
Speaker 2: suspect is stubborn enough to call your bluff and walk out,
15:19
Speaker 2: You are left with zero physical evidence and a suspect
15:22
Speaker 2: who knows exactly what you suspect him of.
15:25
Speaker 1: Which leaves Bill Carter, the grieving father, in an unimaginable purgatory.
15:30
Speaker 1: He lost his wife of 52 years, and now he
15:32
Speaker 1: is slowly, agonizingly coming to the conclusion that his favorite
15:36
Speaker 1: son pulled the trigger.
15:37
Speaker 2: It's a tragedy on every level.
15:39
Speaker 1: The police haven't made an arrest, so Bill takes an
15:41
Speaker 1: unprecedented step. He hires his own private detective to reexamine everything.
15:45
Speaker 1: And they focus on a missing weapon. a Remington bolt-action.
15:49
Speaker 1: 270 rifle that had completely vanished from a gun safe
15:54
Speaker 1: in Bill's basement.
15:55
Speaker 2: The gun safe is a pivotal piece of circumstantial evidence.
15:58
Speaker 2: When confronted about the safe, Jason and Shelley adamantly claimed
16:02
Speaker 2: they didn't even know it existed.
16:03
Speaker 1: They just lied about it.
16:04
Speaker 2: They flat-out denied any knowledge of a gun safe in
16:07
Speaker 2: the basement.
16:08
Speaker 1: But Bill knew that was a lie, because Jason and
16:11
Speaker 1: Shelley had actually bought him that specific gun safe for Christmas. Right. Furthermore,
16:16
Speaker 1: Investigators later found a photograph of Jason and his toddler
16:19
Speaker 1: son actually assembling that very gun safe on Christmas morning.
16:23
Speaker 2: You can't argue with the photo.
16:24
Speaker 1: Exactly. It was a verifiable, documented lie about the location
16:29
Speaker 1: of the likely murder weapon.
16:30
Speaker 2: It's the accumulation of these lies that pushes Bill over
16:33
Speaker 2: the edge. You have the motive, the stage scene, the
16:36
Speaker 2: burner phone, and now a documented lie about the missing weapon.
16:39
Speaker 1: More than a year passes. Jason is still out there
16:43
Speaker 1: planting his fields, Harvesting his crops, living his life. And
16:47
Speaker 1: Bill decides he can't wait for the state anymore. He
16:50
Speaker 1: sues his own son for wrongful death.
16:52
Speaker 2: Unbelievable.
16:54
Speaker 1: We are talking about a father dragging his child into
16:57
Speaker 1: a civil courthouse in Marion County, Iowa, and putting the
17:01
Speaker 1: murder of his wife on public display. How is he
17:05
Speaker 1: able to do this if the state hasn't pressed criminal charges?
17:08
Speaker 2: This is where we get into a fascinating aspect of
17:10
Speaker 2: the American legal system. We have two entirely separate justice systems,
17:14
Speaker 2: criminal and civil.
17:15
Speaker 1: Okay.
17:16
Speaker 2: And they operate on completely different legal standards of proof.
17:18
Speaker 2: To understand why, you have to look at what is
17:20
Speaker 2: at stake. In a criminal court, the state is trying
17:23
Speaker 2: to take away your liberty or even your life.
17:25
Speaker 1: Right, you go to prison.
17:27
Speaker 2: Because the stakes are so high, the system demands the
17:29
Speaker 2: highest standard of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury
17:33
Speaker 2: has to be almost absolutely certain.
17:35
Speaker 1: But a civil trial isn't about prison. It's about money.
17:38
Speaker 2: Precisely. In a civil trial, no one is going to jail.
17:41
Speaker 2: It's a dispute over liability and financial damages. Because liberty
17:45
Speaker 2: isn't on the line, the burden of proof is much lower.
17:48
Speaker 1: What's it called?
17:48
Speaker 2: It's called a preponderance of the evidence. If you picture
17:52
Speaker 2: the scales of justice on a table, you only have
17:54
Speaker 2: to tip them a fraction of an inch to win
17:56
Speaker 2: a civil case. You just have to prove that it
17:58
Speaker 2: is 51% likely more probable than not that Jason caused
18:02
Speaker 2: Shirley's death.
18:03
Speaker 1: So the hurdle is incredibly low compared to criminal trial.
18:07
Speaker 1: And during this civil trial, Jason takes the stand. By
18:11
Speaker 1: all accounts from the sources, he performs terribly.
18:13
Speaker 2: He did.
18:14
Speaker 1: He comes across as insincere, shiftless, and defensive. The jury
18:18
Speaker 1: looks at the financial motive, the missing gun, the bizarre
18:22
Speaker 1: 911 call, and the documented lies, and they make their
18:24
Speaker 1: decision remarkably fast. Very fast. Two hours. It takes a
18:28
Speaker 1: jury just two hours to find Jason Carter liable for
18:31
Speaker 1: his mother's death, and they order a staggering $ 10 million
18:34
Speaker 1: judgment against him.
18:35
Speaker 2: And this civil verdict acts as the catalyst. The state prosecutor,
18:39
Speaker 2: Ed Bull, had been sitting in the gallery of the
18:41
Speaker 2: civil trial taking notes the entire time.
18:43
Speaker 1: Oh, really?
18:44
Speaker 2: Yes. He was essentially using the civil trial as a
18:47
Speaker 2: dry run to see how a jury would react to
18:49
Speaker 2: the circumstantial evidence. The moment that $ 10 million verdict drops,
18:53
Speaker 2: the state pounces.
18:54
Speaker 1: They finally arrest him.
18:55
Speaker 2: Detective Ludwig gets to put the handcuffs on Jason in
18:58
Speaker 2: front of his teenage son, reportedly calling him a coward
19:02
Speaker 2: in the process. Jason is officially charged with first-degree murder.
19:06
Speaker 1: Now the stakes are ultimate. It's no longer about a
19:09
Speaker 1: financial judgment. It's about Jason Carter spending the rest of
19:12
Speaker 1: his natural life in a concrete cell without the possibility
19:15
Speaker 1: of parole.
19:16
Speaker 2: Yeah.
19:17
Speaker 1: And the defense, led by attorney Christine Branstad, knows they
19:21
Speaker 1: have to completely flip the script. They know the state
19:25
Speaker 1: has no physical evidence connecting Jason to the crime. No fingerprints,
19:29
Speaker 1: no murder weapon, no DNA.
19:30
Speaker 2: Nothing physical.
19:31
Speaker 1: And here is where the criminal trial takes a massive turn,
19:34
Speaker 1: because the defense pulls out a trump card. They produce
19:37
Speaker 1: surveillance video from a Cargill grain elevator located a full
19:41
Speaker 1: hour's drive away from the Carter farm.
19:42
Speaker 2: This is huge.
19:44
Speaker 1: And this video shows Jason Carter in his semi-truck pulling
19:47
Speaker 1: away from the elevator right around 10 a.m.
19:49
Speaker 2: This is the critical moment where the burden of proof
19:53
Speaker 2: shifts heavily. The defense brings in a medical expert who
19:56
Speaker 2: testifies that based on the state of Shirley Carter's body
20:00
Speaker 2: when she was found, the lividity and the initial stages
20:03
Speaker 2: of rigor mortis she had been dead for approximately two hours.
20:06
Speaker 2: That places the time of death squarely between 9 a.m.
20:10
Speaker 2: and 10 a.m.
20:11
Speaker 1: Which is the exact window when Jason Carter is demonstrably
20:15
Speaker 1: on video an hour away from the farm. It's an
20:18
Speaker 1: ironclad alibi for that specific time window.
20:21
Speaker 2: And the defense doesn't just rest on the alibi. They
20:23
Speaker 2: go on the offensive against the police investigation itself. They
20:27
Speaker 2: utilize a tactic often called putting the police on trial.
20:32
Speaker 1: Okay, what does that look like?
20:33
Speaker 2: They put Detective Ludwig, the lead investigator for the state,
20:36
Speaker 2: on the witness stand as a defense witness.
20:38
Speaker 1: Which is a wild move.
20:39
Speaker 2: It is, but it has highly effective in circumstantial cases.
20:43
Speaker 2: They grill Ludwig about the rumors that were flying around
20:46
Speaker 2: town by noon on the day of the murder.
20:48
Speaker 1: Rumors about what?
20:48
Speaker 2: Rumors about a burglary gone wrong involving three specific local
20:52
Speaker 2: men who all had extensive criminal records.
20:55
Speaker 1: So the defense's strategy here isn't necessarily to prove Jason
20:58
Speaker 1: is a saint. It's to prove the police did a
21:00
Speaker 1: bad job.
21:02
Speaker 2: Exactly. When you are fighting a purely circumstantial case under
21:05
Speaker 2: the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, your goal is
21:08
Speaker 2: simply to introduce a single viable thread of alternative logic.
21:13
Speaker 1: Just one seed of doubt.
21:14
Speaker 2: Right. By establishing that three known criminals were operating in
21:18
Speaker 2: the area and that the police essentially got tunnel vision
21:21
Speaker 2: on Jason and failed to fully vet these alternative suspects,
21:25
Speaker 2: the defense provides the jury with a different narrative.
21:28
Speaker 1: They argued the police built a case against Jason rather
21:31
Speaker 1: than building a case to solve a crime.
21:33
Speaker 2: Precisely.
21:34
Speaker 1: Jason doesn't even take the stand this time. His lawyers
21:37
Speaker 1: refuse to let the prosecutor tear him apart like the
21:39
Speaker 1: civil lawyers did. The jury goes into deliberation. And I
21:43
Speaker 1: have to admit, when you look at the raw mechanics
21:46
Speaker 1: of this, it is bewildering.
21:47
Speaker 2: It really is.
21:48
Speaker 1: How does a jury find him liable for $ 10 million
21:51
Speaker 1: on a Tuesday and a totally different criminal jury lets
21:54
Speaker 1: him walk free on a Thursday? Because that is exactly
21:57
Speaker 1: what happens. Not guilty.
21:59
Speaker 2: It perfectly illustrates the profound danger of circumstantial evidence when
22:03
Speaker 2: it isn't tethered to forensic science. Without a smoking gun,
22:08
Speaker 2: without DNA or a confession, a jury in a criminal
22:11
Speaker 2: trial is forced to wrestle with that incredibly high standard
22:14
Speaker 2: of proof.
22:15
Speaker 1: Right.
22:16
Speaker 2: The defense successfully weaponized the timeline. They weaponized the lack
22:20
Speaker 2: of physical evidence. They weaponized the uninvestigated alternative suspects.
22:24
Speaker 1: And it worked.
22:25
Speaker 2: Under the strict umbrella of beyond a reasonable doubt, the
22:28
Speaker 2: jury felt they had no choice but to acquit.
22:31
Speaker 1: It is a staggering legal whiplash. The state says they
22:35
Speaker 1: are certain they have the right guy, but the system
22:38
Speaker 1: says he is innocent. It leaves Bill Carter completely devastated,
22:42
Speaker 1: and Shirley Carter's murder officially becomes a cold case once again.
22:46
Speaker 2: Just heartbreaking.
22:47
Speaker 1: The truth is just out of reach, lost in this
22:49
Speaker 1: fog of family testimony and circumstantial guesswork. Bill Carter was
22:53
Speaker 1: left with a cold case because circumstantial evidence couldn't bridge
22:56
Speaker 1: the gap of reasonable doubt. But what happens when that
22:58
Speaker 1: dynamic is completely inverted? What happens when you have zero
23:03
Speaker 1: circumstantial evidence, zero suspects, but a mountain of undeniable, brutal
23:10
Speaker 1: physical science?
23:11
Speaker 2: That's a whole different ballgame.
23:12
Speaker 1: You don't just get a court battle. You get a
23:14
Speaker 1: ghost story.
23:15
Speaker 2: To understand how paralyzing a lack of technology can be,
23:19
Speaker 2: we have to rewind the clock and shift the paradigm entirely.
23:22
Speaker 1: Right.
23:22
Speaker 2: We were moving from a case with too many circumstantial
23:25
Speaker 2: clues and no physical evidence to a case with terrifying
23:29
Speaker 2: physical evidence and zero technological tools to process it.
23:33
Speaker 1: We are going back to 1979. We need to paint
23:36
Speaker 1: the picture of America and specifically Cedar Rapids, Iowa during
23:39
Speaker 1: this era.
23:40
Speaker 2: It was a very different world.
23:41
Speaker 1: 1979 was a tumultuous time. You had the Iran hostage crisis,
23:45
Speaker 1: the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, people waiting in massive
23:48
Speaker 1: lines for gasoline. There was a palpable sense of anxiety
23:51
Speaker 1: in the country. and crime rates were climbing.
23:53
Speaker 2: But in a place like Cedar Rapids, there was still
23:55
Speaker 2: this lingering innocence. People felt insulated from the violence they
23:59
Speaker 2: saw in the evening news.
24:01
Speaker 1: It was an era where the local shopping mall was
24:03
Speaker 1: the absolute epicenter of community life.
24:05
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely. The mall was the internet before the internet.
24:08
Speaker 1: Exactly.
24:09
Speaker 2: It was safe, brightly lit, and it was where teenagers
24:12
Speaker 2: went to socialize. In Cedar Rapids, the brand new Westdale
24:15
Speaker 2: Mall had just opened. It was massive, featuring over 100 stores.
24:21
Speaker 2: And in the weeks leading up to Christmas, it was
24:22
Speaker 2: packed with families experiencing it for the first time.
24:25
Speaker 1: That brings us to 18-year-old Michelle Martinko. She is a
24:29
Speaker 1: senior in high school, a beautiful, vibrant girl. Her friends
24:33
Speaker 1: described her as a girly girl, someone who loved clothes,
24:37
Speaker 1: sang in the concert choir, and just had this magnetic,
24:40
Speaker 1: friendly personality.
24:41
Speaker 2: She had her whole life ahead of her.
24:43
Speaker 1: She was her parents' miracle baby, born when her mother
24:45
Speaker 1: was 44. On the night of December 19th, 1979, she
24:50
Speaker 1: leaves a school choir holiday banquet all dressed up and
24:53
Speaker 1: heads over to the brand new Westdale Mall to do
24:55
Speaker 1: some Christmas shopping.
24:57
Speaker 2: She was carrying $ 180 in cash in her purse, which
25:00
Speaker 2: in 1979 was a significant amount of money for a
25:02
Speaker 2: teenager to be carrying around.
25:04
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a lot of Christmas money.
25:05
Speaker 2: She spent the evening wandering the mall, talking to friends,
25:08
Speaker 2: entirely unaware that the illusion of safety in this new
25:11
Speaker 2: community hub was about to be shattered in the most
25:14
Speaker 2: horrific way imaginable.
25:16
Speaker 1: She never comes home. At 4 a.m. the next morning,
25:19
Speaker 1: police find her car in the mall parking lot. The
25:21
Speaker 1: scene is a nightmare.
25:23
Speaker 2: It really is.
25:24
Speaker 1: Michelle has been brutally murdered. She was stabbed over 20
25:28
Speaker 1: times in the chest, neck, and arms. There were defense
25:31
Speaker 1: wounds on her hands showing she fought desperately for her life.
25:34
Speaker 2: Yeah.
25:35
Speaker 1: And I want to draw a direct parallel here.
25:37
Speaker 2: To the Carter case.
25:37
Speaker 1: Yes. Put yourself in the shoes of that original investigative team.
25:41
Speaker 1: You open the car door, and there is Michelle's purse.
25:45
Speaker 1: The $ 180 in cash is completely untouched. just like Shirley
25:48
Speaker 1: Carter's purse on the high chair. What's the first thing
25:50
Speaker 1: you rule out?
25:51
Speaker 2: You instantly rule out a crime of opportunity or a
25:54
Speaker 2: robbery gone wrong. When you find an untouched purse full
25:57
Speaker 2: of cash in a mall parking lot, the motive shifts dramatically. Furthermore,
26:02
Speaker 2: the medical examiner found no evidence of sexual assault. When
26:05
Speaker 2: you remove robbery and you remove sexual assault from the
26:08
Speaker 2: equation of a brutal stabbing with over 20 wounds, you
26:11
Speaker 2: are left with a purely personal, intensely violent attack.
26:15
Speaker 1: It's just rage.
26:16
Speaker 2: It's just rage. A frenzied knife attack is intimate. It
26:20
Speaker 2: suggests the killer wanted to destroy the victim, not take
26:23
Speaker 2: from her.
26:24
Speaker 1: It is terrifying to think about this happening at the
26:26
Speaker 1: brand new mall just days before Christmas. The community was
26:30
Speaker 1: in absolute shock. But here is the agonizing reality of
26:34
Speaker 1: 1979 police work. They had essentially nothing to work with.
26:39
Speaker 2: Nothing at all.
26:39
Speaker 1: Think about the mall you grew up in compared to today.
26:42
Speaker 1: There are no security cameras in the parking lot. There
26:44
Speaker 1: are no cell phone towers to ping a suspect's location.
26:47
Speaker 1: And most importantly, DNA testing as a forensic tool simply
26:50
Speaker 1: does not exist yet.
26:52
Speaker 2: If we connect this to the bigger picture, investigators in
26:56
Speaker 2: 1979 were operating with their hands tied behind their backs
26:58
Speaker 2: by the limitations of their era. They had to rely
27:01
Speaker 2: entirely on shoe leather detective work canvassing, conducting basic interviews,
27:06
Speaker 2: chasing down rumors and trying to break alibis. They were
27:09
Speaker 2: hunting a phantom using analog tools.
27:11
Speaker 1: Just guessing, almost.
27:12
Speaker 2: And the statistical reality of homicide investigation even back then
27:16
Speaker 2: dictates a very specific starting point. Statistically, victims of violent
27:21
Speaker 2: personal attacks are almost overwhelmingly killed by someone they know.
27:26
Speaker 1: Which explained exactly why the police immediately zeroed in on
27:29
Speaker 1: her inner circle. It seems like they got absolute tunnel
27:32
Speaker 1: vision on two specific young men.
27:34
Speaker 2: Yeah, they did.
27:35
Speaker 1: First, you have Andy Seidel, Michelle's ex-boyfriend. They had recently
27:38
Speaker 1: broken up, and it wasn't a clean break. The police
27:42
Speaker 1: and Michelle's own family immediately leaned into the classic if
27:45
Speaker 1: I can't have her, no one can theory.
27:47
Speaker 2: It's the most common motive in the history of domestic homicide.
27:51
Speaker 2: It's entirely logical for investigators to start there. You always
27:54
Speaker 2: work from the inner circle outward. But when the ex-boyfriend's
27:58
Speaker 2: alibi holds up, or at least can't be definitively broken,
28:02
Speaker 2: they have to cast the net to the next closest
28:04
Speaker 2: point of contact. They ask, Who was the last person
28:08
Speaker 2: to see her alive?
28:10
Speaker 1: And that was a young man named Kurt Thomas. He
28:12
Speaker 1: was a friend of Michelle's. They'd been in a school
28:14
Speaker 1: play together. And he worked at a men's clothing store
28:16
Speaker 1: right there in the mall.
28:17
Speaker 2: Okay.
28:18
Speaker 1: He spent time talking to her that night. Yeah. He
28:21
Speaker 1: actually walked her to the mall exit as she was
28:24
Speaker 1: bundling up to leave. And he recalled vividly decades later
28:29
Speaker 1: that as she walked out into the cold parking lot,
28:31
Speaker 1: she turned and gave him what he called the Michelle smile.
28:34
Speaker 2: That moment, that final friendly interaction became the anchor of
28:38
Speaker 2: a 40-year nightmare for Kurt Thomas.
28:40
Speaker 1: Because he saw her last.
28:41
Speaker 2: Because he was the last known contact, he became the
28:43
Speaker 2: prime suspect. And the police utilized the only tools they had,
28:47
Speaker 2: aggressive psychological interrogation.
28:49
Speaker 1: That sounds awful.
28:50
Speaker 2: Thomas described being hauled into the police station before he
28:53
Speaker 2: even knew Michelle was dead. He endured intense good cop,
28:58
Speaker 2: bad cop routines constantly. With detectives leaning over his chair,
29:02
Speaker 2: screaming in his face, demanding to know why he killed her.
29:05
Speaker 1: I mean, is that standard practice to just relentlessly hound
29:08
Speaker 1: the ex-boyfriend and friend without any physical evidence? Or would
29:12
Speaker 1: the police just desperate for a quick, close to a
29:14
Speaker 1: high profile case?
29:16
Speaker 2: It is a combination of both standard practice and desperation.
29:20
Speaker 2: You have to understand the immense pressure on a police department.
29:23
Speaker 2: when a beautiful teenager is slaughtered at the town's new
29:26
Speaker 2: cultural center right before Christmas.
29:28
Speaker 1: The public must have been furious.
29:30
Speaker 2: The community is demanding an arrest. The statistical playbook says
29:34
Speaker 2: it's the ex or the friend. So the police apply
29:37
Speaker 2: maximum pressure, hoping someone cracks. Right. It is a valid
29:40
Speaker 2: initial strategy, but it becomes a dangerous trap when you
29:43
Speaker 2: are dealing with a stranger on stranger crime. The statistical
29:46
Speaker 2: truth blinded them to the anomaly.
29:49
Speaker 1: The toll this took on the living is heartbreaking.
29:51
Speaker 2: Yeah.
29:52
Speaker 1: Kurt Thomas was essentially haunted for his entire adult life
29:55
Speaker 1: by the guilt of not walking her all the way
29:57
Speaker 1: to her car. and by the shadow of suspicion hanging
30:00
Speaker 1: over him.
30:01
Speaker 2: And her parents.
30:02
Speaker 1: Yeah, the deepest tragedy belongs to Michelle's parents, Albert and
30:06
Speaker 1: Janet Martinko.
30:07
Speaker 2: The collateral damage of an unsolved murder is immeasurable. The
30:11
Speaker 2: Martinkos didn't just lose their miracle child, they lost their
30:14
Speaker 2: peace entirely.
30:16
Speaker 1: They were harassed, right?
30:17
Speaker 2: They were subjected to horrific, cruel crank calls from people
30:20
Speaker 2: laughing and asking terrible questions about their daughter. They lived
30:24
Speaker 2: in a purgatory of suspicion, constantly wondering which of their
30:27
Speaker 2: daughter's friends was secretly a monster.
30:30
Speaker 1: Janet Martinko actually kept a diary as the years went by,
30:33
Speaker 1: agonizing over who could have done this. She wrote down
30:36
Speaker 1: Andy's name. She wrote down Kurt's name, circling it with
30:39
Speaker 1: question marks. Both of Michelle's parents eventually died, never knowing
30:43
Speaker 1: the truth, going to their graves, believing that one of
30:46
Speaker 1: the boys from their daughter's inner circle got away with murder.
30:49
Speaker 2: It's just so incredibly sad.
30:51
Speaker 1: Decades pass. The millennium comes and goes. We get into
30:54
Speaker 1: the era of forensics we know today. But in Cedar Rapids,
30:57
Speaker 1: the Martinko case... It's just gathering dust on a shelf.
31:00
Speaker 2: Until the science finally catches up to the crime scene.
31:03
Speaker 1: Exactly.
31:03
Speaker 2: In 2006, the Cedar Rapids Police Department makes a pivotal move.
31:08
Speaker 2: They take the dormant physical evidence specifically, Michelle's dress and
31:12
Speaker 2: some swabs from the gear shift of her car, and
31:15
Speaker 2: they submit them for modern DNA testing.
31:17
Speaker 1: And what happens?
31:18
Speaker 2: They find it. They isolate a distinct male DNA profile
31:22
Speaker 2: mixed intimately with Michelle's blood. They finally have the genetic
31:26
Speaker 2: blueprint of the killer.
31:27
Speaker 1: The first thing they do is go straight back to
31:29
Speaker 1: the original suspects. They go to Andy Seidel. They swab him.
31:32
Speaker 1: And he is not a match. He is completely clear.
31:35
Speaker 2: Wow.
31:35
Speaker 1: Then they go to Kurt Thomas, who is now living
31:37
Speaker 1: out of state, married to a judge. And Kurt is
31:40
Speaker 1: so traumatized by his treatment in 1979 that he initially
31:43
Speaker 1: balks at giving his DNA.
31:45
Speaker 2: I don't blame him.
31:46
Speaker 1: His lawyer tells the police no. And the detective on
31:49
Speaker 1: the phone literally hangs up and announces to the precinct, quote,
31:53
Speaker 1: We got our fiffing killer because refusal looks like guilt.
31:57
Speaker 2: It's a natural human assumption. If you are innocent, why
32:00
Speaker 2: wouldn't you provide the swab to clear your name?
32:02
Speaker 1: Right.
32:03
Speaker 2: But from Kurt's perspective, the police had already tried to
32:05
Speaker 2: frame him once. Psychologically, why would he trust them with
32:08
Speaker 2: his biology?
32:09
Speaker 1: Exactly.
32:10
Speaker 2: However, reason prevails. He eventually provides the sample. And in
32:15
Speaker 2: a shocking moment for the detectives who had chased him
32:17
Speaker 2: for decades, he is not a match.
32:20
Speaker 1: Unbelievable.
32:21
Speaker 2: Neither of them were. The statistical playbook had been completely wrong.
32:24
Speaker 2: It was a stranger.
32:25
Speaker 1: Which leaves the police with a massive problem. They have
32:28
Speaker 1: the killer's DNA. But if that killer has never been
32:32
Speaker 1: arrested for a felony and entered into the National CODIS database,
32:36
Speaker 1: that DNA profile is just a meaningless string of letters.
32:40
Speaker 1: It's a key without a lock.
32:41
Speaker 2: Yeah, you need something to match it against.
32:43
Speaker 1: Enter Detective Matt Denlinger in 2015. He takes over the
32:47
Speaker 1: cold case. He is staring at 7,000 pages of dead-end reports.
32:53
Speaker 1: And the breakthrough comes from the most mundane suburban source imaginable.
32:57
Speaker 1: His wife's Christmas present.
32:59
Speaker 2: This is where the story shifts from a tragedy into
33:01
Speaker 2: a masterclass on the future of criminal investigation.
33:04
Speaker 1: So what does this all mean?
33:06
Speaker 2: Denlinger's wife receives an Ancestry.com DNA kit as a gift
33:10
Speaker 2: to explore her family tree. And Denlinger has this absolute
33:15
Speaker 2: lightbulb moment. Yeah. He realizes that commercial genealogy databases are
33:19
Speaker 2: aggregating millions of DNA profiles from ordinary citizens who are
33:23
Speaker 2: just looking for their heritage.
33:24
Speaker 1: Right. Millions of data points.
33:26
Speaker 2: What if they could take the killer's DNA and run
33:28
Speaker 2: it through a similar system, not looking for the killer himself,
33:31
Speaker 2: but looking for his cousins?
33:34
Speaker 1: How did that actually work mechanically? How do you take
33:36
Speaker 1: a bloodstain from 1979 and find someone's cousin?
33:40
Speaker 2: It relies on a specific unit of genetic measurement called
33:43
Speaker 2: a centimorgan. Okay. When you submit DNA to a specialized
33:47
Speaker 2: database used for law enforcement like GEDmatch, which allows users
33:51
Speaker 2: to opt in for law enforcement searches, the system looks
33:54
Speaker 2: for shared blocks of DNA.
33:56
Speaker 1: Right.
33:56
Speaker 2: If you share a large number of centimorgans with someone,
33:58
Speaker 2: you are closely related. If you share a small number,
34:01
Speaker 2: you might be third or fourth cousins. The genealogists take
34:05
Speaker 2: the killer's DNA profile and find a distant relative, say
34:08
Speaker 2: a third cousin. They then used traditional genealogical research census records,
34:14
Speaker 2: birth certificates, marriage licenses, and obituaries to painstakingly build that
34:19
Speaker 2: person's family tree backward in time.
34:22
Speaker 1: Just going through endless paper records.
34:24
Speaker 2: Exactly, to find the common ancestors, like great-great-grandparents. Once they
34:28
Speaker 2: find the common ancestors, they reverse direction and build the
34:31
Speaker 2: tree forward, tracing every single descendant of those ancestors until
34:35
Speaker 2: they find a branch of the family that lived in
34:37
Speaker 2: the right place at the right time, with the right
34:40
Speaker 2: physical characteristics.
34:41
Speaker 1: That is an incredible amount of mathematical and historical triangulation.
34:46
Speaker 1: It means the birth of genetic genealogy in law enforcement.
34:49
Speaker 2: It really is a game changer.
34:50
Speaker 1: They partner with Parabon NanoLabs, a pioneer in this field. Now,
34:54
Speaker 1: instead of waiting for a suspect to get arrested to
34:56
Speaker 1: check his DNA, the DNA itself builds a map to
34:59
Speaker 1: the suspect.
34:59
Speaker 2: Which is incredible.
35:01
Speaker 1: The lab finds a partial match, a distant relative of
35:04
Speaker 1: the killer living in Washington state. And genealogists used that
35:08
Speaker 1: tiny genetic thread to build a massive family tree, tracing
35:12
Speaker 1: the branches all the way back to a town of 5,000 people, Manchester, Iowa,
35:18
Speaker 1: just 45 minutes away from the murder scene.
35:20
Speaker 2: It is a monumental paradigm-shifting moment in policing. Traditional police
35:24
Speaker 2: work operates outside in. You find a suspect through motive
35:27
Speaker 2: and opportunity, and you test their DNA to confirm.
35:30
Speaker 1: Right, like they did with the ex-boyfriend.
35:32
Speaker 2: Yes. Genetic genealogy operates inside out. The DNA identifies the
35:36
Speaker 2: suspect's family, and you work your way down the branches
35:39
Speaker 2: until you find someone who fits the profile of the killer.
35:41
Speaker 1: And who did they find?
35:42
Speaker 2: In this case, the family tree narrowed the entire global
35:45
Speaker 2: population down to just three brothers living in Iowa. Jerry, Kenneth,
35:49
Speaker 2: and Donald Burns.
35:50
Speaker 1: Three brothers. Completely ordinary, family-oriented businessmen. No criminal records. No
35:56
Speaker 1: known connections to Michelle Martinko or the Westdale Mall.
35:59
Speaker 2: Nothing obvious.
36:00
Speaker 1: So how do you find out which one is the
36:01
Speaker 1: monster without tipping them off and causing them to flee
36:05
Speaker 1: or destroy evidence? You execute a covert DNA heist. The
36:10
Speaker 1: detectives lock down their operation in total secrecy.
36:13
Speaker 2: The tradecraft here is fascinating because of the legal hurdles.
36:17
Speaker 2: The Fourth Amendment protects Sissons from unreasonable searches and seizures.
36:22
Speaker 2: You cannot just walk up to these men and demand
36:24
Speaker 2: a mouth swab without probable cause.
36:26
Speaker 1: Because they haven't done anything yet, legally. Right.
36:29
Speaker 2: However, the Fourth Amendment does not protect abandoned property. Once
36:32
Speaker 2: you throw something away or leave it in a public place,
36:35
Speaker 2: you forfeit your expectation of privacy. Law enforcement uses this
36:39
Speaker 2: legal standard to gather what is known as surreptitious DNA.
36:43
Speaker 1: The detectives start tailing the brothers. They follow Kenneth Burns
36:46
Speaker 1: to a golf course clubhouse. They wait for him to
36:48
Speaker 1: finish his lunch, and the moment he leaves, they swoop in...
36:51
Speaker 1: and bagged the straw from his drinking glass.
36:53
Speaker 2: Wow.
36:54
Speaker 1: They rush into the state crime lab. A few days later,
36:57
Speaker 1: the results come back. Not a match. One brother down.
37:00
Speaker 2: Okay, two left.
37:01
Speaker 1: Next, they head to Davenport, where Donald Burns lives. They
37:04
Speaker 1: stake out his house, wait for garbage day, and dig
37:07
Speaker 1: through his trash at the curb to find a discarded
37:10
Speaker 1: glass and a toothbrush. They test it. Not a match.
37:14
Speaker 1: Two brothers down.
37:15
Speaker 2: By the process of elimination, the statistical certainty narrows to
37:19
Speaker 2: a razor's edge. It leaves the brother that the detectives
37:21
Speaker 2: originally felt was the least likely suspect, based on his
37:24
Speaker 2: quiet demeanor, Jerry Burns, a 64-year-old businessman in Manchester, Iowa.
37:30
Speaker 1: They tail Jerry on his lunch break to a local
37:32
Speaker 1: Pizza Ranch buffet. They sit and watch him eat, and
37:35
Speaker 1: when he gets up and walks away from his table,
37:37
Speaker 1: leaving his trash behind, a detective simply walks over and
37:40
Speaker 1: pockets the plastic straw from his drink.
37:42
Speaker 2: Just casually pockets it?
37:43
Speaker 1: That piece of plastic, pulled from a suburban Pizza Ranch,
37:46
Speaker 1: is rushed to the lab. When the phone rings, the
37:49
Speaker 1: lab technician tells them the news that drops their jaws
37:51
Speaker 1: to the floor. It is a 1 in 100 billion match.
37:55
Speaker 2: Incredible.
37:56
Speaker 1: The DNA from the straw matches the DNA found on
37:58
Speaker 1: Michelle Martinko's dress 40 years earlier.
38:01
Speaker 2: To put that in perspective, a 1 in 100 billion
38:04
Speaker 2: probability is as close to absolute scientific certainty as you
38:08
Speaker 2: can achieve on planet Earth. There are only about 8
38:11
Speaker 2: billion people alive. Right. It meant that after four decades
38:14
Speaker 2: of false leads, ruined lives, and a shattered community, They
38:18
Speaker 2: finally had their man. But, you know, having the DNA
38:21
Speaker 2: is only half the battle.
38:22
Speaker 1: You still have to prove it in court.
38:24
Speaker 2: You still have to confront the suspect, navigate a trial,
38:26
Speaker 2: and secure a conviction.
38:28
Speaker 1: Which leads to December 19th, 2018. Highlight that specific date
38:32
Speaker 1: in your mind because it is exactly, to the day,
38:36
Speaker 1: the 39th anniversary of Michelle's murder.
38:38
Speaker 2: That is not a coincidence.
38:39
Speaker 1: The police did not choose that date by accident. Detective
38:42
Speaker 1: Demlinger and a retired detective walk right into Jerry Byrne's
38:45
Speaker 1: office in Manchester wearing hidden cameras. They sit down, play nice,
38:49
Speaker 1: and slowly spring the trap. Denlinger shows Jerry a picture
38:52
Speaker 1: of Michelle. Jerry flatly denies knowing her, denies being there,
38:56
Speaker 1: denies everything.
38:57
Speaker 2: The undercover recording is a masterclass in reading criminal psychology.
39:00
Speaker 1: Oh, so?
39:01
Speaker 2: Jerry Burns appears completely unflappable. When Denlinger finally leaves his
39:05
Speaker 2: cards on the table, saying, I already have your DNA,
39:08
Speaker 2: I know it's going to match, Jerry doesn't panic, he
39:11
Speaker 2: doesn't sweat, he doesn't confess, he remains entirely stoic.
39:15
Speaker 1: That is chilling.
39:16
Speaker 2: Even later, when he is arrested and sitting in the
39:18
Speaker 2: back of the police cruiser, Dellinger presses him again. Jerry
39:23
Speaker 2: makes a chilling, deeply revealing statement. He suggests, quote, you
39:27
Speaker 2: block things out, your memories.
39:29
Speaker 1: It's like he is testing out a defense strategy in
39:32
Speaker 1: real time, floating the idea of amnesia rather than admitting guilt.
39:35
Speaker 2: Yeah.
39:36
Speaker 1: But he goes to trial, facing life in prison without parole.
39:40
Speaker 1: And this courtroom battle pits the emotional weight of a
39:43
Speaker 1: 40-year tragedy against complex genetic science. The defense attorney, Leon Spies,
39:49
Speaker 1: knows he cannot deny the DNA match. You can't fight
39:51
Speaker 1: a 1 in 100 billion statistic.
39:53
Speaker 2: No, you can't.
39:54
Speaker 1: So he has to explain how the DNA got there innocently.
39:57
Speaker 2: This raises an important question. How do you defend the indefensible?
40:00
Speaker 2: You attack the mechanism of the evidence. The defense relies
40:04
Speaker 2: entirely on an expert witness, Dr. Michael Spence, who introduces
40:07
Speaker 2: the jury to the DNA transfer theory. This is rooted
40:11
Speaker 2: in a real forensic concept called Locard's exchange principle. which
40:14
Speaker 2: states that every contact leaves a trace.
40:17
Speaker 1: Right, if I hug you, I leave fibers from my
40:19
Speaker 1: sweater on your jacket.
40:20
Speaker 2: Exactly. But modern forensics has expanded Lockhart's principle to include
40:24
Speaker 2: secondary transfer, often involving touch DNA.
40:28
Speaker 1: Okay, what is that?
40:29
Speaker 2: The theory is that DNA can be transferred without direct contact.
40:32
Speaker 2: You shake someone's hand, they touch a door handle, someone
40:35
Speaker 2: else touches the handle, and suddenly your DNA is at
40:38
Speaker 2: a crime scene you never visited.
40:39
Speaker 1: I see.
40:40
Speaker 2: Dr. Spence testifies that it is plausible that... that Jerry
40:43
Speaker 2: Burns' DNA ended up on Michelle's dress through a sneeze,
40:47
Speaker 2: a cough, or some innocent brushing contact at the mall
40:50
Speaker 2: earlier that evening.
40:51
Speaker 1: Wait, I have to push back on this. Could someone
40:53
Speaker 1: really sneeze on a dress, walk away, and 40 years
40:56
Speaker 1: later get convicted of a brutal 20 stab wound murder?
41:00
Speaker 2: It sounds absurd when juxtaposed with the brutality of the crime,
41:03
Speaker 2: but legally and scientifically, the defense had no other play.
41:07
Speaker 2: They had to offer the jury an alternative narrative to
41:10
Speaker 2: explain the physical evidence.
41:12
Speaker 1: Right. Going for reasonable doubt.
41:14
Speaker 2: Is DNA transfer real? Yes. In highly controlled laboratory settings,
41:18
Speaker 2: secondary transfer is a documented phenomenon. Is it plausible that
41:23
Speaker 2: a random sneeze in a crowded mall deposited enough DNA
41:27
Speaker 2: to survive funny years mixed intimately in the victim's blood
41:31
Speaker 2: on the fabric of her dress?
41:32
Speaker 1: It seems impossible.
41:33
Speaker 2: That strains credulity to the breaking point. But remember, the
41:37
Speaker 2: Carter case, a defense attorney only needs to plant a
41:39
Speaker 2: seed of reasonable doubt. They were hoping the jury would
41:42
Speaker 2: lash onto the sheer weirdness and complexity of the science.
41:46
Speaker 1: What the jury didn't know is almost as wild as
41:48
Speaker 1: what they did know. The prosecution was legally blocked by
41:51
Speaker 1: the judge from showing the jury Jerry Burns' internet search history.
41:55
Speaker 2: This is a huge point.
41:57
Speaker 1: When they seized his computers, they found horrific graphic searches
42:01
Speaker 1: involving necrophilia, violence against blonde women, and assault. Stuff like
42:07
Speaker 1: blonde molested after getting strangled and sex with freshly dead person.
42:12
Speaker 1: Why would a judge keep that from a jury? Isn't
42:14
Speaker 1: that the ultimate proof of his mindset?
42:16
Speaker 2: It's incredibly frustrating for prosecutors, but it is a fundamental
42:20
Speaker 2: safeguard in the justice system, specifically governed by what is
42:23
Speaker 2: known as Rule 403.
42:25
Speaker 1: Okay, what is Rule 403?
42:26
Speaker 2: Rule 403 states that evidence can be excluded if its
42:29
Speaker 2: probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice.
42:33
Speaker 1: Meaning, if the jury hears it, they'll hate him so
42:36
Speaker 1: much they won't even look at the facts of the crime.
42:38
Speaker 2: Exactly. The judge ruled that while the search history suggested
42:41
Speaker 2: a dark, pathological mindset, it was highly inflammatory. If the
42:45
Speaker 2: jury heard about necrophilia searches, they might convict Jerry Burns
42:49
Speaker 2: for who he is, a person with grotesque fantasies, rather
42:52
Speaker 2: than convicting him strictly based on the physical evidence of
42:55
Speaker 2: what he did in 1979. It deprived the prosecution of
42:58
Speaker 2: a clear motive, the psychological thrill of the kill. But
43:01
Speaker 2: it ensured the trial remained focused on the scientific facts
43:04
Speaker 2: of the Martinko case.
43:06
Speaker 1: Even without the search history, the prosecution brings in a
43:09
Speaker 1: jailhouse informant, Michael Allison, who shared a cell block with Jerry.
43:13
Speaker 2: Yeah.
43:14
Speaker 1: And Allison testifies that Jerry was incredibly arrogant behind bars,
43:17
Speaker 1: calling him favorite, son, and actually autographing a newspaper article
43:22
Speaker 1: about his own murder trial for him. He said Jerry
43:25
Speaker 1: felt like he won because he got to live 40
43:27
Speaker 1: years of a free life with his family before getting caught.
43:30
Speaker 2: That testimony shattered the defense's portrait of Jerry as a gentle,
43:34
Speaker 2: ordinary businessman who might have accidentally sneezed on someone in 1979.
43:39
Speaker 2: It showed a chilling level of narcissism and detachment.
43:42
Speaker 1: It really did.
43:43
Speaker 2: When you combine the arrogance of the jailhouse behavior with
43:46
Speaker 2: the irrefutable reality of the DNA match, the defense's secondary
43:50
Speaker 2: transfer theory simply couldn't hold water.
43:53
Speaker 1: The jury agreed. After a long trial, it took them
43:56
Speaker 1: just three hours to return a verdict. Guilty of first-degree murder?
44:00
Speaker 1: Jerry Burns was sentenced to life in prison without the
44:03
Speaker 1: possibility of parole.
44:04
Speaker 2: It's amazing it finally ended.
44:06
Speaker 1: Michelle Martinko's family finally got their answer, even if her
44:10
Speaker 1: parents weren't alive to hear it.
44:12
Speaker 2: It is a profound resolution that perfectly illustrates the shifting
44:15
Speaker 2: landscape of truth. In the Shirley Carter case, we saw
44:19
Speaker 2: how relying on family testimony, circumstantial financial motives, and shifting
44:23
Speaker 2: timelines resulted in a devastating lack of closure.
44:26
Speaker 1: Right. The truth was lost in the legal maneuvering between
44:30
Speaker 1: civil and criminal thresholds.
44:31
Speaker 2: But with Michelle Martinko, a single microscopic drop of DNA
44:36
Speaker 2: combined with the revolutionary power of genetic genealogy... managed to
44:41
Speaker 2: reach across four decades to pull the truth into the light.
44:44
Speaker 1: It's like science fiction.
44:45
Speaker 2: The science succeeded where human intuition and analog police work failed.
44:50
Speaker 1: It really makes you question the nature of proof and
44:52
Speaker 1: how many cold cases are just waiting for the right
44:54
Speaker 1: piece of technology to unlock them. But before we wrap
44:57
Speaker 1: up today, I want to leave you with one final,
45:00
Speaker 1: incredibly chilling thought to mull over.
45:02
Speaker 2: Oh, this is the craziest part.
45:04
Speaker 1: Something that wasn't a major focus of the trial, but
45:07
Speaker 1: is sitting right there in the facts of the case today.
45:09
Speaker 1: Defying mathematical probability. Think about the dates surrounding Jerry Burns.
45:15
Speaker 2: Right.
45:15
Speaker 1: He murdered Michelle Martenko on December 19th. 39 years later,
45:20
Speaker 1: Detective Denlinger chooses to confront and arrest him on December 19th.
45:24
Speaker 2: Yeah.
45:24
Speaker 1: But here is the piece that will keep you awake tonight.
45:27
Speaker 1: Jerry's own cousin, a man named Brian Burns, vanished off
45:31
Speaker 1: the face of the earth on December 19th in a
45:33
Speaker 1: completely unsolved disappearance.
45:35
Speaker 2: It's just too weird.
45:37
Speaker 1: Add to that the fact that Jerry Burns bears a striking,
45:40
Speaker 1: almost twin-like physical resemblance to the composite sketch of the
45:43
Speaker 1: suspect in the famous 1995 unsolved disappearance of Iowa news
45:47
Speaker 1: anchor Jody Heisentree.
45:49
Speaker 2: It's terrifying to think about.
45:50
Speaker 1: It makes you wonder as you picture that idyllic Iowa heartland.
45:54
Speaker 1: Did the science just stop a man with one victim
45:56
Speaker 1: from 1979? Or did that plastic straw from a pizza
46:00
Speaker 1: ranch interrupt a multi-decade serial killer hiding right in plain
46:04
Speaker 1: sight behind a small-town smile? Protected for years by the
46:07
Speaker 1: very illusion of safety we all want to believe in.
46:10
Speaker 1: Keep questioning what you know.