Latest / The Knife: A True Crime Podcast / Special Episode: Solving Cold Cases with DNA

Transcript

Special Episode: Solving Cold Cases with DNA · The Knife: A True Crime Podcast

0:00
Speaker 1: This story contains adult content and language. Listener discretion is advised.
0:22
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Knife. I'm Hannah Smith. I am Haitia Eaton.
0:26
Speaker 1: It's a very special day today. We have an episode
0:29
Speaker 1: out and it's not Thursday.
0:31
Speaker 2: What how wild? How wild and unpredictable of us.
0:35
Speaker 1: I know, you know, we loved this conversation so much
0:38
Speaker 1: that we decided to go ahead and just release it
0:40
Speaker 1: even though it's not Thursday. In this episode, we talk
0:43
Speaker 1: with Alan lance Lesser about solving cold cases with new
0:46
Speaker 1: DNA technology and genetic genealogy.
0:49
Speaker 2: Eilan is the host of America's Crime Lab, and she
0:52
Speaker 2: tells us about a cold case that was solved after
0:54
Speaker 2: more than forty years. In the beginning, we'll talk a
0:58
Speaker 2: little bit about genetic genie, which we thought was important
1:01
Speaker 2: to try to understand how this all works. But stick
1:04
Speaker 2: with us because we get into a cold case that
1:07
Speaker 2: is truly fascinating. Enjoy the episode, Alan, Welcome to the Knife.
1:17
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I'm so excited to be here.
1:19
Speaker 2: We're really excited to talk to you today.
1:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, we've been listening to your podcast and we're obsessed,
1:24
Speaker 1: so we are excited to get into it. So a
1:27
Speaker 1: little bit about your bio. You co wrote, produced, and
1:29
Speaker 1: co hosted The Turning, which listeners might be familiar with.
1:33
Speaker 1: It's excellent, an award winning documentary podcast that intimately explores
1:37
Speaker 1: insular groups with blurry power dynamics. And there are three
1:41
Speaker 1: seasons out now. But we're actually here to talk to
1:44
Speaker 1: you about your other podcasts, America's Crime Lab, and that
1:48
Speaker 1: show covers cases that are oftentimes unsolved for a long time,
1:53
Speaker 1: some current cases as well, but that are all solved
1:56
Speaker 1: with the help of DNA testing and genetic genealogy in
2:00
Speaker 1: all cases that Authrum Labs have worked on. That name
2:04
Speaker 1: might sound familiar because Authram has been connected to some
2:08
Speaker 1: very high profile cases, the Golden State Killer investigation, for one,
2:13
Speaker 1: but there have been many so America's Crime Lab. It's
2:17
Speaker 1: a collaboration between Kaleidoscope, iHeart and Authrum Labs. And I'd
2:20
Speaker 1: love to hear about you know, how the show came
2:22
Speaker 1: about and were you already really interested in, you know,
2:26
Speaker 1: DNA use in criminal cases, Like how did this all happen?
2:31
Speaker 3: Well? I feel like it was one of those providential
2:34
Speaker 3: things where it all came together. I personally have always
2:37
Speaker 3: been a true crime fan in the sense that I
2:40
Speaker 3: just love human stories, and I think when people face
2:44
Speaker 3: such horrors, it's like you just see the basis of humanity.
2:49
Speaker 3: And so I'm someone who's always consumed that media. Basically,
2:53
Speaker 3: it was really like a team effort for how it
2:55
Speaker 3: came to be, Like you mentioned Kaleidoscope and iHeart and
2:59
Speaker 3: Authrom kind of together, We're like, let's make this podcast
3:02
Speaker 3: where we can spread the word on this new technology
3:05
Speaker 3: that a lot of people either literally don't know about
3:08
Speaker 3: or who have vaguely heard about that is changing the
3:12
Speaker 3: way crimes are being investigated. And I think what's exciting
3:15
Speaker 3: about our show is that it explains the science in
3:18
Speaker 3: a way that I think is pretty relatable. Like I'm
3:20
Speaker 3: not a genetic scientist as the host, and I feel
3:24
Speaker 3: like I'm kind of getting it now, and I think
3:26
Speaker 3: it's helpful to be able to consume other media about
3:30
Speaker 3: true crime. So they kind of conceived of this podcast
3:34
Speaker 3: idea together. They're like, we want this information to go
3:38
Speaker 3: out into the public because the more people know about it,
3:40
Speaker 3: the more detectives across the country could reach out to
3:44
Speaker 3: AUTHORAM and use the technology. Like a huge barrier to
3:48
Speaker 3: it being used as people just not knowing about it.
3:50
Speaker 3: So then because I had worked with some of the
3:52
Speaker 3: team at Rococoa Punch that's working with Kaleidoscope to make
3:56
Speaker 3: the podcast on the Turning and other shows, and I
4:00
Speaker 3: knew I had a background in psychology. I actually have
4:02
Speaker 3: my PhD in clinical psychology and did a lot of
4:05
Speaker 3: therapy and all that gave therapy before switching careers. They're like,
4:10
Speaker 3: we know you like true crime, like would you host
4:12
Speaker 3: this show with us? And I was like, are you serious?
4:15
Speaker 3: This is a dream come true because it is something
4:17
Speaker 3: I'm so passionate about and it just felt truly providential
4:22
Speaker 3: to be able to work on this.
4:24
Speaker 1: That's so cool. Yeah, So we're going to talk about
4:27
Speaker 1: a specific case that you cover on the podcast. But
4:30
Speaker 1: first you mentioned, you know, authoram is bringing this like
4:33
Speaker 1: very new technology, and I've sort of been interested in
4:37
Speaker 1: Authoram for a while. I've listened to some podcasts with
4:40
Speaker 1: David Middleman, the founder. I've been trying to understand like, Okay,
4:44
Speaker 1: DNA testing has been around since like the eighties or
4:48
Speaker 1: somebody has been used in criminal cases, but what author
4:51
Speaker 1: is doing seems really different and new. And so I've
4:55
Speaker 1: heard David Mindleman kind of explain how the technology works.
4:59
Speaker 1: To be honest, still don't really understand it. There's a
5:01
Speaker 1: reason I'm a podcaster, not like a scientist. I do
5:05
Speaker 1: love the way that you talk about like the technology
5:08
Speaker 1: mean explained through your podcast. Things are always easier to
5:11
Speaker 1: understand through storytelling in my opinion. But you know, what
5:14
Speaker 1: have you learned about it from working on this case,
5:17
Speaker 1: like the very layman's explanation of why what authorm is
5:21
Speaker 1: doing is so new and important.
5:24
Speaker 3: Honestly, I could go on and on about this, so
5:26
Speaker 3: it may take us a bit to get to the case,
5:29
Speaker 3: but just kidding. Basically, it's this new technology that you know.
5:34
Speaker 3: The old DNA technology, while totally great and has helped
5:38
Speaker 3: solve so many cases, it would look at twenty markers
5:42
Speaker 3: to create a DNA profile, whereas this new type of
5:45
Speaker 3: DNA technology takes between one hundred thousand to a million
5:50
Speaker 3: markers and gives basically way more information in that DNA profile.
5:58
Speaker 3: Whereas before the old DNA profile with twenty markers, you'd
6:01
Speaker 3: run through CODIS, which is that national database that maybe
6:05
Speaker 3: your listeners have heard of before, and you'd look for
6:08
Speaker 3: a match with someone who is already in CODIS, someone
6:11
Speaker 3: who is convicted of a serious type of violent crime,
6:15
Speaker 3: so you'd need to have already arrested them and taken
6:19
Speaker 3: their DNA from another crime in order to get a match.
6:23
Speaker 3: So that's really helpful if you have that match, but
6:27
Speaker 3: also extremely limiting. And then it is true with COTIS,
6:30
Speaker 3: I think there are certain relationships other than the match,
6:33
Speaker 3: like a sun or something that maybe you can glean
6:36
Speaker 3: from too. I won't get into those details though, just
6:38
Speaker 3: to be correct about it, I want to acknowledge that.
6:40
Speaker 3: But then with the new technology, because there's so much
6:44
Speaker 3: more information, you can plug that information into these databases
6:49
Speaker 3: that are genealogical websites basically, you know, like where you
6:54
Speaker 3: get a swab of your mouth and send it off
6:56
Speaker 3: for DNA testing to get to know your ancestry. Well,
7:00
Speaker 3: some of those sites have consented to forensic investigations, not
7:05
Speaker 3: all of them, but some of them, and basically they
7:09
Speaker 3: can use those genealogical websites to build out a family
7:13
Speaker 3: tree from the profile, and rather than it just being
7:17
Speaker 3: a hit and codis, you can literally slowly go through
7:20
Speaker 3: the family tree see what bits of their profile matches
7:24
Speaker 3: and whittle down, often to a single name of who
7:28
Speaker 3: they're pretty sure left the DNA at the crime scene
7:31
Speaker 3: or possibly like among a few siblings or something. So
7:34
Speaker 3: it basically provides you a lead. And that's something that
7:37
Speaker 3: AUTHRM explains a lot and investigators who've worked with this
7:41
Speaker 3: type of DNA. What this really does is it creates
7:45
Speaker 3: a lead. It's not a slam dunk. It doesn't mean
7:47
Speaker 3: you have a conviction or you have your case. And
7:50
Speaker 3: it's not saying, oh, if you left your DNA at
7:53
Speaker 3: a crime it means one hundred percent you committed it.
7:55
Speaker 3: It's just giving you a name to investigate. So then
7:58
Speaker 3: you have to go back and do your due diligence,
8:01
Speaker 3: figure out if the person has an alibi. You got
8:04
Speaker 3: to figure out other evidence, whether circumstantial or other links
8:08
Speaker 3: to the crime, and really do the good old fashioned
8:12
Speaker 3: detective work that we're familiar with. But then on top
8:16
Speaker 3: of it, if you have enough DNA, you also can
8:19
Speaker 3: run the old type of DNA, and then if you
8:21
Speaker 3: have this suspect, you can take a sample and run
8:25
Speaker 3: it against using the old technology to doubly confirm like
8:28
Speaker 3: this is the person. So it basically provides another type
8:33
Speaker 3: of DNA to test the old kind of DNA against,
8:36
Speaker 3: and it also creates new leads that were simply never
8:40
Speaker 3: possible before.
8:41
Speaker 2: And DNA gets into CODIS from either someone who has
8:45
Speaker 2: submitted it to you know, ancestry dot com or one
8:49
Speaker 2: of these sorts of websites, or I guess I don't
8:52
Speaker 2: know if Ancestry has consented to COTIS, for example, having
8:56
Speaker 2: their DNA records. But like, how does DNA make it
8:59
Speaker 2: into code to begin with? Even if it's like you're
9:02
Speaker 2: connecting a piece of DNA that doesn't flag in CODIS,
9:06
Speaker 2: but maybe flags is like a relative of someone who
9:09
Speaker 2: is in CODIS.
9:10
Speaker 3: This is such a good question actually that you ask,
9:12
Speaker 3: because I think there is a distinction. So this information
9:16
Speaker 3: with the new technology actually isn't typically being used against COTIS.
9:20
Speaker 3: CODIS is separate from the genetic genealogy. So I'm glad
9:24
Speaker 3: you clarified that CODIS is just like the old standard
9:27
Speaker 3: twenty marker profile. So that's a separate thing, okay, And
9:33
Speaker 3: this is using information from genealogical websites, so they're not
9:37
Speaker 3: even touching CODIS in this process, I see. So it
9:40
Speaker 3: could be anyone off the street, So it's often not criminals,
9:43
Speaker 3: but it's people who have consented to having their DNA
9:47
Speaker 3: profile that they uploaded for other reasons provide information to
9:51
Speaker 3: lead someone potentially to a killer, which is.
9:54
Speaker 1: So interesting because then there are cases that we're hearing
9:59
Speaker 1: about now where the person who ends up, you know,
10:02
Speaker 1: the lead that is generated and then it ends up
10:05
Speaker 1: you know through a detective work that it's them. They're
10:08
Speaker 1: not in the system, maybe they've never been caught for
10:10
Speaker 1: a crime, right, and so they've been flying under the radar,
10:12
Speaker 1: and suddenly there's this massive amount of DNA available that's
10:17
Speaker 1: so wild, Like I mean, it's talked about a lot
10:19
Speaker 1: in the true crime space, but it's like, Okay, you know,
10:21
Speaker 1: if you have that aunt or uncle who's like you
10:23
Speaker 1: really shouldn't be doing any of the DNA testing, like
10:25
Speaker 1: nobody do it, It's like that could be what's the
10:27
Speaker 1: motive a red fire? Yeah kidding, but thank you so
10:31
Speaker 1: much for explaining that. It'll really help us as we
10:33
Speaker 1: go through the case. We might need some more like explainers,
10:36
Speaker 1: but totally. You talk about a bunch of interesting cases
10:39
Speaker 1: on the podcast, but one that we want to talk
10:42
Speaker 1: about is one that was a cold case, specifically because
10:45
Speaker 1: we're super interested in cold cases and cold cases being
10:48
Speaker 1: solved through DNA technology. And so this is the case
10:52
Speaker 1: of Carla Walker, a case from nineteen seventy four. And
10:56
Speaker 1: before we get into, you know, the investigation, can you
10:59
Speaker 1: kind of walk us through who Carla Walker was and
11:02
Speaker 1: what was going on with the you know, what happened
11:04
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy four.
11:06
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, as you said, in nineteen seventy four, Carla
11:09
Speaker 3: Walker went missing in the Fort Worth, Texas area, and
11:14
Speaker 3: she was a seventeen year old girl, junior in high school.
11:18
Speaker 3: Was known for having a really fiery, energetic personality, was
11:23
Speaker 3: really silly too, people said. So many people loved her,
11:27
Speaker 3: and she wanted to be a veterinarian. She loved animals,
11:33
Speaker 3: loved her little white dog, whose nails she would sometimes
11:36
Speaker 3: paint pink. So she was spunky and fun, and she
11:40
Speaker 3: was a cheerleader and she was dating the quarterback of
11:45
Speaker 3: the football team. And so in February they were going
11:49
Speaker 3: to go to their Valentine's Day dance and her boyfriend Rodney,
11:53
Speaker 3: picked her up from home. Her family was all gathered
11:56
Speaker 3: there to send her off. Take pictures in from the fireplace,
11:59
Speaker 3: and they say, don't worry, like you don't have a curfew.
12:03
Speaker 3: You can come back when you want. We trust Rodney,
12:05
Speaker 3: we trust you. We'll be waiting up for you to
12:09
Speaker 3: hear how the night went. So they go to the dance,
12:12
Speaker 3: have a good time, and then after the dance, they
12:14
Speaker 3: are hanging out in Rodney's actually his mom's car, because
12:19
Speaker 3: of course they're high schoolers, in the parking lot of
12:22
Speaker 3: a bowling alley, and they're doing what teens do. They're
12:27
Speaker 3: hanging out kissing a little bit, and then, according to
12:31
Speaker 3: Rodney the boyfriend, suddenly the door to the car opens
12:35
Speaker 3: and Carla kind of falls back, and suddenly there's a
12:41
Speaker 3: man or possibly two men there with a gun pointing
12:45
Speaker 3: it to them, and Rodney thinks that he's then shot
12:49
Speaker 3: and becomes unconscious, and when he wakes up, Carla is gone.
12:54
Speaker 3: So according to Rodney, presumably she's been abducted.
12:58
Speaker 2: And Rodney is unconscious for he thinks about how long.
13:03
Speaker 3: I can't remember the exact amount of time, but what
13:05
Speaker 3: is notable is so the next place he goes allegedly
13:09
Speaker 3: is to Carla Walker's family, which.
13:11
Speaker 2: I think is around one point thirty in the morning.
13:13
Speaker 2: Is when he gets to the Walker's house, because they're
13:17
Speaker 2: all still awake waiting for them to get home.
13:19
Speaker 3: Is that?
13:19
Speaker 2: Am I remembering that? Right?
13:21
Speaker 3: Yeah? You are, You're on it. What's interesting is that's
13:24
Speaker 3: roughly like an hour or hour and a half after
13:27
Speaker 3: when the alleged abduction occurred, which is I think what
13:30
Speaker 3: you're alluding to that it's kind of like there's this
13:33
Speaker 3: break in time. What was Rodney doing during that time?
13:36
Speaker 3: When he shows up, they noticed even the blood on
13:38
Speaker 3: his face because he was supposedly hit over the head,
13:41
Speaker 3: maybe with the butt of the gun or something, it's
13:44
Speaker 3: coagulated showing time had passed. So I think eventually investigators
13:50
Speaker 3: kind of wonder about that, what was happening? What was
13:53
Speaker 3: he doing in that hour hour and a half. So obviously,
13:56
Speaker 3: when he does arrive there, he tells the family she's
13:59
Speaker 3: been taken. They are just horrified, you know, they get
14:04
Speaker 3: lease involved. The search begins. The father is so upset
14:08
Speaker 3: he even heads out with a gun to try to
14:11
Speaker 3: find Carla. He's just devastated. What has happened. I want
14:15
Speaker 3: her back, but they can't find her. Rodney is so
14:18
Speaker 3: close to the family they really see him almost as
14:21
Speaker 3: another son or something. He even stays overnight in Carla's
14:25
Speaker 3: bed for a while because they trust him. And they're
14:29
Speaker 3: feeling for him, and that's kind of the center of
14:32
Speaker 3: this investigation at first. Yeah, I was.
14:34
Speaker 2: Actually curious about that piece of this Rodney sleeping over.
14:38
Speaker 2: You know, he was like, like you said, really close
14:40
Speaker 2: to the family, sounds like, and they really trusted him
14:44
Speaker 2: with Carla, and you know, he was almost like a
14:47
Speaker 2: son to them. But do we know anything about Rodney's
14:50
Speaker 2: family situation. I'm picturing like if I'm Rodney's parents and
14:55
Speaker 2: knowing that he just went through this incredibly horrific experience,
15:00
Speaker 2: his girlfriend abducted, he's badly beaten, I would want him
15:03
Speaker 2: home with me. Do we know anything else about why
15:06
Speaker 2: he stayed there?
15:08
Speaker 3: You know, I'm not entirely sure, and I don't want
15:12
Speaker 3: to give you a wrong answer. That's such a good question, though,
15:14
Speaker 3: you would think that he would go home, and so
15:16
Speaker 3: that is almost a little bit suspect. But I do
15:19
Speaker 3: get the sense that that house became like the epicenter
15:22
Speaker 3: where everybody was coming, like the police were coming. He
15:25
Speaker 3: was probably being you know, questioned by police. Maybe they
15:29
Speaker 3: wanted him around, and that's there was like the hustle
15:33
Speaker 3: and bustle was happening there. So I wonder if that
15:35
Speaker 3: was part of the reason.
15:37
Speaker 2: Yeah, because he shows up and he's you know, bloodied
15:40
Speaker 2: and beaten, but they remember him also seeming like genuinely terrified.
15:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was terrified, and he seemed to be so
15:50
Speaker 3: worried about Carla and what happened, and you know, feeling
15:53
Speaker 3: guilt and fear around like what happened? What could I
15:57
Speaker 3: have done to stop this? And who were these people
16:00
Speaker 3: or this person who took her?
16:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I think I took us on a little tangent.
16:05
Speaker 2: But so the police arrive and they go off searching
16:08
Speaker 2: with the dad goes with them. Rodney stays back at
16:11
Speaker 2: the house with Carla's mom and maybe also her aunt
16:14
Speaker 2: and Carla's twelve year old brother. They're all still at
16:17
Speaker 2: the house. What goes on during the search.
16:19
Speaker 3: Yeah, so a lot of people in the community start searching.
16:24
Speaker 3: It takes them days, but eventually three days later, they
16:29
Speaker 3: find Carla's body underneath a cattle culvert basically in the
16:33
Speaker 3: middle of a field, kind of a quasi bridge that
16:36
Speaker 3: cattle can walk across. She's found underneath that, and clearly
16:41
Speaker 3: she was sexually assaulted and murdered. Basically, some of the
16:46
Speaker 3: evidence that the investigators had with the case was, first
16:50
Speaker 3: of all, in the Bowling Alley parking lot, they found
16:53
Speaker 3: a magazine to a gun. Now this is nineteen seventy four, Texas,
16:58
Speaker 3: so it could be unrelated to the crime. But they
17:01
Speaker 3: do their due diligence and try to find anyone who
17:04
Speaker 3: in the area who owned that gun and question them,
17:07
Speaker 3: and they didn't really find many leads. It just kind
17:11
Speaker 3: of seems to stop dead. They don't go anywhere with that, really,
17:15
Speaker 3: And then they also noticed that Carla's promise ring that Rodney,
17:20
Speaker 3: her boyfriend, had actually given her, was strewn next to
17:24
Speaker 3: her body, which some people thought could indicate that maybe
17:29
Speaker 3: Rodney actually had something to do with it, which, of course,
17:32
Speaker 3: statistically that's really common for the boyfriend the spouse to
17:35
Speaker 3: be the one to have committed.
17:37
Speaker 1: The crime something so personal. Yes, because he gave this
17:41
Speaker 1: to her as like a pre engagement or something like
17:43
Speaker 1: an intention to will get engaged someday, I would assume.
17:47
Speaker 3: Exactly he's saying, I'm committed to you one day we'll
17:51
Speaker 3: get married, and this ring is a symbol of that.
17:53
Speaker 3: So it's a very meaningful symbol, I would assume for
17:56
Speaker 3: them both. And so when I heard this, my initial
18:01
Speaker 3: thought was, Hey, maybe it was like Rodney was upset
18:05
Speaker 3: at her for some reason and took off hering and
18:08
Speaker 3: threw it to the side, or she threw it to
18:09
Speaker 3: the side and that led to an escalation of some kind.
18:13
Speaker 3: So who knows what happened, but there simply isn't enough
18:17
Speaker 3: evidence and they're not sure how it transpired. So over time,
18:24
Speaker 3: eventually the case goes cold and it's devastating to the family. Jim,
18:30
Speaker 3: Carla's younger brother, whom you mentioned, was just devastated. He actually,
18:35
Speaker 3: I think lived in that house and kept the family
18:38
Speaker 3: home throughout his adulthood in hopes that maybe someone who
18:43
Speaker 3: knew something would come and tell him what happened. Wow,
18:47
Speaker 3: he truly was haunted by it and counted the days
18:50
Speaker 3: since Carla's subduction years into his life.
19:01
Speaker 2: Listening to Jim talk about witnessing his parents' anguish over
19:09
Speaker 2: Carla's abduction was I think it was life changing and
19:12
Speaker 2: something he never forgot.
19:14
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I have to say that's something I really
19:17
Speaker 3: value about what we were able to do with the podcast.
19:19
Speaker 3: I know you guys do this a lot on your podcast,
19:21
Speaker 3: but talking to family members and really getting up close
19:25
Speaker 3: to what it actually feels like in the moment for
19:28
Speaker 3: those people actually witnessing what happened, I think there's a
19:32
Speaker 3: power and an importance in that.
19:35
Speaker 1: And yeah, yeah, because you talk with Jim in the podcast,
19:39
Speaker 1: and some of it it's edded together. But I imagine,
19:42
Speaker 1: you know, how long did you actually how long was
19:45
Speaker 1: that interview with him?
19:47
Speaker 3: You know, we've done so many I don't know, maybe
19:50
Speaker 3: like an hour or two. Yeah, I think it is
19:53
Speaker 3: important to hear those stories, especially because this is something
19:56
Speaker 3: that still impacts him, you know, to this day, as
20:00
Speaker 3: it impacts so many people in that community. I mean,
20:02
Speaker 3: the whole community I think was really overwhelmed and frightened
20:06
Speaker 3: by what happened. It haunted a lot of people in
20:09
Speaker 3: that community for years to come because they believed it
20:13
Speaker 3: was someone in the community who had perpetrated this crime
20:17
Speaker 3: and they didn't solve it. I mean, how scary for
20:20
Speaker 3: anyone who has children to know that a young seventeen
20:23
Speaker 3: year old has been abducted, sexually assaulted, and killed in
20:26
Speaker 3: this way.
20:27
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it seems like also during this time, there's
20:30
Speaker 2: still a fair amount of people that suspected Rodney.
20:34
Speaker 3: Yes, and it gets so intense all the suspicion around Rodney,
20:39
Speaker 3: that Rodney actually moves away from Texas and goes to
20:43
Speaker 3: Alaska to restart his life. And now that's a question
20:47
Speaker 3: of is he escaping something and doesn't want to get caught,
20:50
Speaker 3: or is he just so haunted by what happened and
20:54
Speaker 3: how people look at him differently and treat him differently,
20:57
Speaker 3: and you know, maybe he just felt he had to
21:00
Speaker 3: leave and kind of start over.
21:02
Speaker 1: It's so like, you know, thinking about that time that
21:05
Speaker 1: passed with him, you know, thinking he was shot, probably
21:09
Speaker 1: hit over the head with a gun potentially, and then
21:12
Speaker 1: there's this time that elapses, and then he comes to
21:14
Speaker 1: the family, and then the promise ring and then leaving
21:18
Speaker 1: for Alaska. All of these things. It's like you could
21:20
Speaker 1: read them two ways. You could read them as suspicious
21:24
Speaker 1: or if he's innocent, then it's horrible because then this
21:28
Speaker 1: person's life is being terribly affected by this, not only
21:32
Speaker 1: the death of his girlfriend, but his community thinking that
21:35
Speaker 1: he's probably done this, which I guess goes to show.
21:38
Speaker 1: I mean, that's one of many examples, speaking with her
21:41
Speaker 1: brother as well, just the way that cold cases don't
21:46
Speaker 1: just go away for people and for communities, and when
21:49
Speaker 1: there's a violent crime that's occurred. It like stays with people.
21:53
Speaker 1: Which I'm sure you've heard this over and over now
21:56
Speaker 1: with doing this podcast, and we've also heard on the
21:59
Speaker 1: Knife Through interview, is that people really care about resolution,
22:02
Speaker 1: Like it means a lot to people and to communities
22:05
Speaker 1: to have that answer. Without it, it's just like things
22:09
Speaker 1: are just left unresolved and people are continuing to hurt
22:12
Speaker 1: for so long. And so before we get into sort
22:16
Speaker 1: of like the next break in the case, did the
22:18
Speaker 1: police have any other suspects? I mean, I assume Rodney was.
22:22
Speaker 1: Was he a suspect at one time? Did they have
22:24
Speaker 1: any other like leads or suspects.
22:27
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there were a number of people they looked into.
22:32
Speaker 3: First of all, Rodney definitely was high on the list.
22:35
Speaker 3: I think it's interesting initially because he was so close
22:39
Speaker 3: to the family, he wasn't thought of, at least in
22:42
Speaker 3: the immediate family as a direct suspect. Again, he like
22:45
Speaker 3: slept over. But then when they spent more time thinking
22:49
Speaker 3: about it and the sexual nature of the crime, where
22:52
Speaker 3: had he been for that hour to hour and a half,
22:55
Speaker 3: they kind of thought, did they get into some kind
22:57
Speaker 3: of argument, could this had led to a murder? And
23:02
Speaker 3: then They also did question all the people who owned
23:08
Speaker 3: the gun that matched the magazine that was left in
23:12
Speaker 3: the Bulling Alley parking lot, and basically one of the
23:17
Speaker 3: people that they questioned didn't have their gun. I think
23:20
Speaker 3: everybody else was able to provide their gun and show
23:23
Speaker 3: it and they were able to kind of cross them
23:26
Speaker 3: off list. There was one person who said his gun
23:29
Speaker 3: had been stolen. They asked him to take a polygraph.
23:32
Speaker 3: He was very willing. He passed the polygraph. Of course,
23:36
Speaker 3: we know polygraphs are not that reliable today, but back
23:41
Speaker 3: then that was considered the gold standard. And also, I
23:44
Speaker 3: mean he was more than willing to take the polygraph test.
23:47
Speaker 3: He just simply didn't have the gun, he said, And
23:50
Speaker 3: so there was kind of nowhere else to go. And
23:52
Speaker 3: then a while later, someone else actually came out of
23:56
Speaker 3: the woodwork and confessed to the crime. Not on the
24:00
Speaker 3: suspect list, and they were really shocked to hear from
24:04
Speaker 3: this person. And he confessed to the crime, but interestingly,
24:08
Speaker 3: he seemed to only no information that had been in
24:10
Speaker 3: the news, didn't really know about Rodney being there, or
24:14
Speaker 3: couldn't remember it. Suspect Yeah, but there was a grand
24:18
Speaker 3: jury and he was indicted and jailed for the crime,
24:22
Speaker 3: but then eventually he recanted and admitted I made it
24:26
Speaker 3: up for some reason. Who really knows why?
24:29
Speaker 1: It's wild that that happens, and how often it happens
24:32
Speaker 1: that people confess to crimes that they didn't do.
24:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And it's just such a waste of resources
24:39
Speaker 2: for all of the investigators and then prosecutors in this
24:43
Speaker 2: case that then have to pursue it, because why would
24:47
Speaker 2: someone come forward and say that they did something so
24:49
Speaker 2: horrific if they didn't.
24:51
Speaker 3: Well.
24:51
Speaker 1: Also, I don't remember if you talked about this in
24:53
Speaker 1: the podcast, but was Jim told like did her family
24:58
Speaker 1: think that he had done it? Like when he was
25:00
Speaker 1: indicted by a grand jury? Like, were people like, oh, yeah,
25:03
Speaker 1: we got the guy.
25:05
Speaker 3: I think a lot of people did think like he
25:07
Speaker 3: must have done it again because he admitted to it.
25:11
Speaker 3: And again a grand jury, which I think a lot
25:15
Speaker 3: of people don't really realize, Like what even is a
25:17
Speaker 3: grand jury? I like only recently realized what it is.
25:20
Speaker 3: But it's like basically a mini trial where they have
25:24
Speaker 3: a kind of jury and they like put forward the
25:27
Speaker 3: evidence that they would put forward in the trial to
25:30
Speaker 3: basically determine do we have enough evidence to go to trial,
25:33
Speaker 3: and that's what creates an indictment. So he was indicted.
25:37
Speaker 3: So even through this legal system, it was determined that
25:41
Speaker 3: there was enough evidence for him to go to trial,
25:43
Speaker 3: but alas it wasn't him. And yeah, it is such
25:47
Speaker 3: a good reminder too in general when we talk about crimes,
25:51
Speaker 3: like you don't know what people's motivations are for really
25:55
Speaker 3: weird or unusual behavior, and that's why the evidence itself
26:00
Speaker 3: is so important, the hard evidence.
26:02
Speaker 2: Do you remember how long after Carla's murder he came
26:06
Speaker 2: forward and said that he had done it?
26:08
Speaker 3: This person I can't recall now off the top of
26:11
Speaker 3: my head. I think it was a long time later though,
26:14
Speaker 3: like they had been investigating for a very long time,
26:17
Speaker 3: and he eventually came forward and possibly again because this
26:20
Speaker 3: case was sort of in the air, it had been
26:23
Speaker 3: in the media, the community was so focused on it. Yeah,
26:27
Speaker 3: and it sounds like possibly the man was having trouble
26:31
Speaker 3: in his marriage and oddly, somehow this was one way
26:34
Speaker 3: to cope with that. I don't know.
26:38
Speaker 1: So the case is still cold or then it goes
26:40
Speaker 1: cold again.
26:40
Speaker 3: Basically, yeah, it goes cold again, and unfortunately it goes
26:45
Speaker 3: cold for forty six years, so almost half a century.
26:49
Speaker 3: We don't know what happened to her until they decide
26:56
Speaker 3: to start doing some DNA analysis on the case.
27:07
Speaker 2: I have to touch on this because I thought this
27:09
Speaker 2: part of the story was, like, so just reminiscent of
27:12
Speaker 2: what I picture of, like small town Texas. Is the
27:16
Speaker 2: Cowtown Cold Case Chicks. Yes, so COVID COVID. They get
27:22
Speaker 2: together online, then they get together at a diner, it
27:25
Speaker 2: sounds like, and they start talking about this case because
27:28
Speaker 2: one of the women in this group, it's.
27:30
Speaker 1: Basically what explained the Cowtown Yeah.
27:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the Cowtown Cold Case Chicks are a group
27:38
Speaker 2: of women who live locally, got online, started talking about
27:43
Speaker 2: cold cases and murders that had happened in the Fort
27:46
Speaker 2: Worth area. They had a rule that you couldn't talk
27:49
Speaker 2: about politics, only murder.
27:51
Speaker 1: Which makes sense. Yeah, totally makes sense.
27:54
Speaker 2: Nothing would get done and twenty twenty, yeah, or any time,
27:57
Speaker 2: I guess, but yeah. And so one of these women
28:01
Speaker 2: went to high school with Carla Walker. They weren't friends,
28:03
Speaker 2: but she knew who Carlo was and has memories of
28:06
Speaker 2: seeing her at school. And then another woman in the
28:09
Speaker 2: group is in twenty twenty married to Rodney's best friend.
28:14
Speaker 1: Oh wow. Yeah, so this is like all deeply connected.
28:18
Speaker 2: Deeply connected, and so they're like, okay, we want to
28:21
Speaker 2: try to solve this, and they put together their own
28:24
Speaker 2: case file.
28:25
Speaker 3: Yeah. No, it is a great story of and what
28:28
Speaker 3: I love is the idea of just these people coming
28:30
Speaker 3: out of the woodwork. They're all they're coming from all
28:33
Speaker 3: walks of life, different backgrounds, maybe different politics, but they're
28:36
Speaker 3: they're brought together from this case and somehow just feeling
28:40
Speaker 3: this emotional connection to it and this personal connection. So
28:44
Speaker 3: they put together just all the information they can glean
28:48
Speaker 3: into a file and they go actually to crime con
28:52
Speaker 3: I think, and they want to get the attention of
28:56
Speaker 3: Paul Hols, who is a very famous investigator. He was
29:00
Speaker 3: heavily involved in the Golden State killer investigation that was solved,
29:05
Speaker 3: and so he's like a big deal in the crime
29:07
Speaker 3: world and he's kind of almost like this star. And
29:10
Speaker 3: he's on stage giving this presentation and afterwards the Cowtown
29:13
Speaker 3: chicks go up to him, hand over the file and say,
29:16
Speaker 3: you need to work this case. I love it. What initiative, seriously,
29:21
Speaker 3: it's amazing.
29:23
Speaker 2: Yeah, And he happens to be working on a show,
29:26
Speaker 2: a TV show and looking for the next case that
29:29
Speaker 2: he's going to investigate, and so he's like, yeah, let's
29:33
Speaker 2: do it.
29:33
Speaker 3: It is funny at how these things just like come
29:35
Speaker 3: together sometimes. But that's a way that they can get
29:39
Speaker 3: the funding to do the DNA testing on the DNA
29:43
Speaker 3: that they have to try to determine who committed this
29:48
Speaker 3: crime after all these years. So Paul Hols does the case,
29:53
Speaker 3: makes the TV show, and they do the testing, but
29:56
Speaker 3: basically they do testing that basically kind of fails, or
30:02
Speaker 3: they do have a profile that they're able to put
30:05
Speaker 3: into codis, like we talked about before, but there's no match.
30:09
Speaker 3: And for some reason, I think with a different lab
30:13
Speaker 3: that they used or something they consumed some of the
30:16
Speaker 3: DNA and they just feel like they're out of luck.
30:19
Speaker 3: They basically couldn't solve this case for the TV show.
30:22
Speaker 2: Because one thing I didn't realize until listening to America's
30:26
Speaker 2: Crime Mob is that when you test the DNA profile,
30:31
Speaker 2: you get one shot and then it's no longer test.
30:34
Speaker 1: You use it.
30:35
Speaker 3: You use it up as you're testing it, right exactly, Yes,
30:40
Speaker 3: it's consumed in the process of the testing, So once
30:43
Speaker 3: you test it, you can't test it again, and if
30:45
Speaker 3: you somehow fail with the analysis, then you're just left
30:47
Speaker 3: with nothing. So they had had some DNA from semen
30:51
Speaker 3: found on a bra strap, which was a good solid sample,
30:55
Speaker 3: but they used it up and they couldn't get the
30:58
Speaker 3: DNA profile that they needed. So they think it's over.
31:02
Speaker 3: They think this is the end of the road. Like,
31:04
Speaker 3: can you just like talk to us a little bit
31:06
Speaker 3: about that? Because I thought that was really powerful in
31:08
Speaker 3: the podcast of you know, Paul stepping in to try
31:12
Speaker 3: to help solve this case, doing his best obviously and
31:15
Speaker 3: then like hitting that roadblock, Like what what must have.
31:19
Speaker 1: That been like for him?
31:21
Speaker 3: I think he was really devastated. I think Paul Holds
31:25
Speaker 3: is someone who takes his cases home with him. He's
31:29
Speaker 3: he really feels them. He talked about like sipping on
31:34
Speaker 3: his beverage of choice of liquor in his basement man cave,
31:38
Speaker 3: just like thinking about this case, feeling like what have
31:43
Speaker 3: we done? We consumed the DNA and now we'll never know,
31:46
Speaker 3: And so I think it kind of haunted him. And
31:48
Speaker 3: you know, he had spent his career working cases like this,
31:53
Speaker 3: and so I think he felt it personally. I think
31:56
Speaker 3: he was like, maybe we shouldn't have even tested it
31:59
Speaker 3: if we weren't sure we're going to get the result.
32:02
Speaker 3: And obviously I would imagine everyone involved. I would imagine Jim,
32:06
Speaker 3: Carla's brother would have been devastated to think that this
32:09
Speaker 3: was our shot at figuring it out, and now we
32:12
Speaker 3: haven't figured it out after all these years. I got
32:14
Speaker 3: my hopes dashed yet again. I think it is that
32:18
Speaker 3: feeling of like with those cold cases, what you guys
32:20
Speaker 3: were talking about before, like this feeling of it being
32:22
Speaker 3: up in the air and that doubt and not knowing.
32:25
Speaker 3: I mean, it's torturous for these people.
32:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it's just like horrible. And obviously it
32:30
Speaker 1: was like, you know, really trying to help and very invested.
32:34
Speaker 1: And then it sounded like, you know, because he had
32:38
Speaker 1: used up a lot of it, that he wasn't sure
32:41
Speaker 1: if anything left was testable? Is that and then like
32:44
Speaker 1: how does so how do we where do we go
32:46
Speaker 1: from here? If it's like there's no more DNA?
32:49
Speaker 3: Right, So it seemed like maybe there weren't any other options.
32:54
Speaker 3: Now there actually was another sample of DNA. The problem
32:58
Speaker 3: was that it was mixed, so DNA that had maybe
33:01
Speaker 3: been mixed with Carla's DNA or like maybe exposed to
33:06
Speaker 3: plants and plant DNA. You know, that's the other thing actually,
33:11
Speaker 3: quick side note about this technology so that your listeners
33:14
Speaker 3: can feel like, ooh, I'm I'm up on this and
33:16
Speaker 3: can explain this to other people. What's cool about the
33:20
Speaker 3: technology that authrom this lab has is that it can
33:24
Speaker 3: take DNA that is way more degraded in way worse condition,
33:31
Speaker 3: with much smaller amounts than you would typically need with
33:35
Speaker 3: an old type of DNA testing, and still come out
33:40
Speaker 3: with an answer with again way more information again between
33:45
Speaker 3: one hundred thousand and a million markers as opposed to
33:48
Speaker 3: like twenty. Part of what authroom does is have a
33:50
Speaker 3: whole process for also determining can we analyze this DNA
33:56
Speaker 3: or not do we have enough? But it's not like
33:58
Speaker 3: the cheek swab that you take when you're setting in
34:01
Speaker 3: your genetics to get your genealogy or something like. That's
34:05
Speaker 3: a nice clean saliva swab, whereas this is like it
34:09
Speaker 3: happened to fall on her bra strap or her dress.
34:13
Speaker 3: It's been sitting out in the sun and the heat,
34:15
Speaker 3: the Texas heat for three days. Then on top of that,
34:18
Speaker 3: in Carla's case, there is this additional DNA on her dress,
34:22
Speaker 3: But again it's mixed with other DNA, so the idea
34:26
Speaker 3: that it can be tested, you know, Paul Hols thinks,
34:30
Speaker 3: I don't think this is possible, and people just think
34:33
Speaker 3: this is the end of the line. However, because of
34:35
Speaker 3: the TV show, two people, Kristen and David Middleman, the
34:39
Speaker 3: co founders of Athram, they see this special on the
34:43
Speaker 3: Carla Walker case and I think one of their children
34:46
Speaker 3: was around the age of Carla at the time when
34:48
Speaker 3: they saw the show, and they were just really struck
34:51
Speaker 3: by the case, personally drawn to what happened, and they said,
34:55
Speaker 3: I bet we can solve it. So they actually reached
34:59
Speaker 3: out to the team and said, hey, is there any
35:03
Speaker 3: more DNA evidence And they said, well, we do have
35:06
Speaker 3: this mixed DNA, a very small sample, like I don't know,
35:10
Speaker 3: I think other people have said, we can't really test it.
35:13
Speaker 3: So they say send it to us, let's see if
35:15
Speaker 3: we can test it or not. They send it on
35:18
Speaker 3: over and it is like the tiniest little bit of DNA.
35:22
Speaker 3: It's I think it's like four nanograms if I'm remembering correctly,
35:25
Speaker 3: which is like just like a handful of cells like
35:29
Speaker 3: so tiny you can't see it with a naked eye,
35:31
Speaker 3: like so small. I don't even know how they do
35:33
Speaker 3: this stuff, and so you know, you'd think you can't
35:37
Speaker 3: test that, but authroam says, we can test it. We
35:41
Speaker 3: think we can test it, and we think we can
35:42
Speaker 3: come out with our result. So they say, okay, move
35:45
Speaker 3: forward with the testing. They move forward with the testing,
35:49
Speaker 3: and I can't remember, but I think it was on
35:51
Speaker 3: a holiday or something. David Mendelman, one of the heads
35:55
Speaker 3: of AUTHROM, calls up Detective Jeff Bennett, who's on the case.
35:59
Speaker 3: And when Detective Jeff Bennett sees that he's getting this
36:02
Speaker 3: call from David Middleman on a holiday, he thinks they've
36:05
Speaker 3: got him. So he picks up the call and they say,
36:08
Speaker 3: we have a name. So basically, they had the DNA
36:14
Speaker 3: profile and through genetic genealogy of looking through the family tree,
36:18
Speaker 3: they were able to narrow it down to Glenn Samuel mccurly.
36:22
Speaker 1: They think this is a name that is the actual suspect,
36:25
Speaker 1: because I know, sometimes when they're doing the family tree thing,
36:28
Speaker 1: it might be like a relative or are they pretty
36:31
Speaker 1: sure it's this guy, or they think it might be
36:33
Speaker 1: someone related to him.
36:35
Speaker 3: They come up with this name. It's a little bit
36:37
Speaker 3: confusing at first they think it's this man, but then
36:40
Speaker 3: it turns out when they look him up, he died
36:43
Speaker 3: maybe two years before the crime was committed. So then
36:46
Speaker 3: they thought, oh, did his DNA somehow get on the
36:48
Speaker 3: dress although it is seaman DNA.
36:51
Speaker 2: Because there is something else right about her sister having
36:54
Speaker 2: worn the dress.
36:55
Speaker 3: Yes, Carlo was re wearing this powder blue dress to
36:59
Speaker 3: the Valentine's Date dance that her sister I think had worn,
37:02
Speaker 3: you know, as you do you share dresses sometimes. And
37:06
Speaker 3: so they thought, okay, well, if this man is dead,
37:09
Speaker 3: maybe by the time of the abduction and murder, like
37:13
Speaker 3: maybe it was actually from a different event. But then
37:17
Speaker 3: they look more deeply into the family tree and they
37:19
Speaker 3: realize that he had three sons and that he does
37:24
Speaker 3: have a son, Glenn Samuel McCurley junior, who may have
37:29
Speaker 3: committed this crime.
37:31
Speaker 1: Wow.
37:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, because they learned that he was Glenn Samuel McCurley junior.
37:37
Speaker 2: Of these three sons, he was the only one of
37:40
Speaker 2: them living in Texas when Carla was murdered, right, So yeah.
37:45
Speaker 1: What a huge break in the case. Like this was
37:47
Speaker 1: like a couple of years ago, right that this happened.
37:50
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was extremely recently. I should know the year
37:54
Speaker 3: or like the exact months of when it was solved.
37:56
Speaker 3: But yeah, like COVID times was like the first break,
37:59
Speaker 3: so and it took a little while for it to
38:01
Speaker 3: get to Authrom after the TV show, Right, So this
38:04
Speaker 3: is all happening in the last few years.
38:06
Speaker 1: Carla was killed in nineteen seventy four, and you know,
38:10
Speaker 1: obviously a ton of police work had gone into this
38:14
Speaker 1: case for many years, and now there's this name which
38:18
Speaker 1: is a huge lead. Though, as you had said before,
38:21
Speaker 1: this is a lead. Like it's not like they can
38:23
Speaker 1: just take this test into a court and say, look
38:27
Speaker 1: at that, like he's the one. So, you know, what
38:30
Speaker 1: do they do with this? Like how does this where
38:32
Speaker 1: does the investigation go from here?
38:35
Speaker 3: You're right, we can't know for sure even if he
38:38
Speaker 3: left his seamen at the crime scene, do we know
38:40
Speaker 3: that he was the one to kill Carla. So they
38:44
Speaker 3: locate him. He's still living in the community, in the
38:47
Speaker 3: same home he's been living in for decades, and they
38:52
Speaker 3: stop by to just check in with him. It's kind
38:55
Speaker 3: of around COVID time, so the investigators kind of pretend
38:59
Speaker 3: that they're just doing like home checks on people, like
39:01
Speaker 3: is everything going okay? Do you need masks? That kind
39:04
Speaker 3: of thing, I think, And they talk to his wife,
39:07
Speaker 3: and I do think one little interesting moment is when
39:11
Speaker 3: they first show up, they say hi to the wife
39:13
Speaker 3: and Glenn is working out back in the backyard or something,
39:17
Speaker 3: and he comes around up front and when he sees police,
39:20
Speaker 3: he immediately throws up his hands and says, oh, it
39:25
Speaker 3: wasn't me. It wasn't me, basically joking that yes, exactly,
39:34
Speaker 3: but like yeah, creepy yeah. And so they go in
39:39
Speaker 3: and they end up asking him like, you know, we're
39:41
Speaker 3: also looking into this crime that happened so many years ago.
39:45
Speaker 3: And anyway, it's confusing because they leave and then they
39:48
Speaker 3: come back again, and I don't need to get into
39:50
Speaker 3: the mechanics of all that, but they come back again
39:53
Speaker 3: and they really think this is the guy. They ask him,
39:56
Speaker 3: you know, where were you the night of Carla's and
40:01
Speaker 3: he says, oh, I was driving my wife around because
40:04
Speaker 3: she can't drive, so I always drive her around. And
40:06
Speaker 3: then the wife, who's sitting elsewhere in the room in
40:08
Speaker 3: they're like living room, kind of says from the table, oh, now,
40:12
Speaker 3: you're wrong about that, Like I was out of town
40:15
Speaker 3: that weekend. Silly Glenn. So his alibi is shot. A
40:20
Speaker 3: little while later, they asked, you know, could we have
40:22
Speaker 3: a DNA sample, and he said, oh, you know, I
40:25
Speaker 3: think back in the day they actually took my DNA sample,
40:29
Speaker 3: so I don't think you need it. But then the
40:32
Speaker 3: wife again in the corner, says, oh, well, you know, honey,
40:35
Speaker 3: back then there were no DNA samples taking. It was,
40:39
Speaker 3: you know, the seventies, So I amazing.
40:42
Speaker 1: He was bluff like just thrown him under the bus.
40:44
Speaker 1: Did she suspect him?
40:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, like what was called?
40:47
Speaker 1: Or maybe she just didn't know.
40:48
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I kind of the things you just had
40:52
Speaker 3: no idea and was just like, oh help these kind
40:55
Speaker 3: police officers out A truth teller, Yes, a true truth teller.
41:00
Speaker 3: So eventually, somehow he agrees to give his DNA. I
41:05
Speaker 3: still don't know how or why he agreed to that,
41:08
Speaker 3: but they take a swab of his DNA and they
41:12
Speaker 3: decide they're going to run it, and they run it
41:16
Speaker 3: and it is a match. So what's also great, quite
41:21
Speaker 3: often when they're checking the DNA, they run it against
41:23
Speaker 3: the old type of technology, because that's like what's typically
41:26
Speaker 3: historically used, So they'll use that twenty marker system I
41:30
Speaker 3: talked about to double check to confirm that what they
41:34
Speaker 3: found with the new technology is correct.
41:36
Speaker 2: Oh that's interesting.
41:38
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's another nice layer to this. Is quite often
41:41
Speaker 3: in these cases it's like a double check of the
41:44
Speaker 3: DNA testing. Often that test is done at the police
41:47
Speaker 3: department as opposed to like at awthroom, so there's also
41:51
Speaker 3: different people doing the testing.
41:53
Speaker 2: That makes total sense because I was wondering, you know,
41:56
Speaker 2: because there's such it's such new technology and they're one
41:59
Speaker 2: of the only labs that is doing it. How do
42:01
Speaker 2: you have your like quality control? But they're comparing it
42:05
Speaker 2: against the twenty marker system that is widely accepted exactly.
42:10
Speaker 1: Okay, did he show up in that system? Like was
42:12
Speaker 1: he in Cotis?
42:14
Speaker 3: So yeah, he hadn't been in Cotis because they had
42:17
Speaker 3: put his NA through Cotis years, Produ's right, I think years.
42:23
Speaker 3: Maybe I'm getting the timeline round here, and they didn't
42:25
Speaker 3: have a match, so he wasn't in Cotis. So they
42:29
Speaker 3: decide to take him in for questioning, and at first
42:34
Speaker 3: he says, no, I didn't do it. He denies it,
42:37
Speaker 3: but after further questioning, eventually he admits to having committed
42:43
Speaker 3: the crime. So what was miraculous is that Glenn Samuel
42:47
Speaker 3: McCurley Junior had been on that list of suspects they had.
42:51
Speaker 3: They had littled it down to like around eighty four suspects,
42:55
Speaker 3: and he was actually on that list because he was
42:58
Speaker 3: actually that man who had had the type of gun
43:03
Speaker 3: that matched the magazine at the Bowling Alley parking lot.
43:07
Speaker 2: He was the one who said it was stolen.
43:09
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly who had taken the polygraph past the polygraph
43:14
Speaker 3: He had another example of how we can't entirely trussed
43:17
Speaker 3: polygraph tests. And they questioned him, we know the gun
43:21
Speaker 3: wasn't stolen. Tell us, Glenn, do you have it in
43:23
Speaker 3: your home? Where is it? And he eventually admits, yes,
43:26
Speaker 3: it's in my home, and he tells them where it's hidden.
43:29
Speaker 3: He actually made this like room addition. He built this
43:32
Speaker 3: addition to his home and hidden in the ceiling plank.
43:37
Speaker 3: You can push it up, he says, and you can
43:39
Speaker 3: find my gun there, wrapped in a towel. And so
43:42
Speaker 3: they go and they find the gun.
43:44
Speaker 2: Wow.
43:45
Speaker 3: So there's another piece of evidence against him.
43:48
Speaker 1: Wow.
43:49
Speaker 2: And he hadn't committed other crimes in this forty six
43:53
Speaker 2: years or did he.
43:54
Speaker 3: As far as getting caught for crimes, Yeah, he was
43:58
Speaker 3: had pretty much clean background and he technically was on
44:03
Speaker 3: the suspect list but had kind of been rolled out.
44:06
Speaker 2: But he wasn't like this known violent offender, no.
44:10
Speaker 3: Wow. He was a part of the community. He had
44:12
Speaker 3: two kids, had this wife, had been living there for years.
44:16
Speaker 3: Was just considered to be, you know, this man in
44:18
Speaker 3: the community, someone that was probably trusted and loved. So
44:23
Speaker 3: I think it was really shocking, and so he did
44:27
Speaker 3: admit to it. So eventually it was deciding, you know,
44:30
Speaker 3: it was going to go to trial, but unexpectedly, initially
44:33
Speaker 3: he said I'm going to plead not guilty. After having confessed,
44:39
Speaker 3: after the DNA evidence and after finding the gun, he
44:43
Speaker 3: still was going to plead not guilty. And so I
44:46
Speaker 3: think a lot of people were very upset about this,
44:49
Speaker 3: and a lot of people even wonder, how can you
44:50
Speaker 3: possibly plead not guilty after all that? But think about it,
44:54
Speaker 3: there might be ways where they can somehow throw out
44:58
Speaker 3: the DNA evidence in court, or somehow find a loophole
45:01
Speaker 3: to throw out the confession or chalk it up to
45:04
Speaker 3: a false confession or something or convince the jury or something.
45:08
Speaker 3: So you know, it is a scary thought. Even if
45:10
Speaker 3: you have the DNA evidence, it's not a slam dunk.
45:14
Speaker 2: Totally, because the jury would have been looking at him
45:16
Speaker 2: as this elderly man, not this like young person who
45:22
Speaker 2: can fight off the star football player and cannop this
45:26
Speaker 2: other young woman they would be looking at. I mean,
45:28
Speaker 2: he must have been in his seventie old.
45:30
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was young at the time of the crime,
45:33
Speaker 3: so I think he was in his seventies forty six
45:36
Speaker 3: years later when they're questioning and jailing him.
45:41
Speaker 1: What ended up happening though with the trial.
45:43
Speaker 3: So eventually though, he unexpectedly changed his plea last minute
45:48
Speaker 3: too guilty, and so he was convicted of the crime.
45:51
Speaker 3: And I think everyone involved was so relieved to know
45:55
Speaker 3: that he was going to prison for probably the rest
45:59
Speaker 3: of his life.
46:00
Speaker 2: Wow. I don't know if you have any information on this,
46:03
Speaker 2: but I think I read that they ended up suspecting
46:05
Speaker 2: him of additional rapes and murders, although he was never charged.
46:11
Speaker 2: Were you able to find anything about that?
46:13
Speaker 3: Yeah, So one interesting thing is when they were interviewing
46:17
Speaker 3: him in that confession, he did describe details of Carla's
46:22
Speaker 3: case and what happened, But he also seemed to be
46:25
Speaker 3: like kind of mixing up stories and in like, for example,
46:29
Speaker 3: what she was wearing and confused it. Potentially they noticed
46:34
Speaker 3: what he described was similar to another murder that had
46:38
Speaker 3: happened nearby of a young woman or girl in the area,
46:43
Speaker 3: and so the detective put two and two together and thought, oh,
46:47
Speaker 3: my gosh, is he confusing different crimes he committed. And
46:51
Speaker 3: so he asked Glenn in that questioning, oh, like, are
46:55
Speaker 3: you confusing different people that you did this to? And
46:59
Speaker 3: Glenn replet lies, I don't think so, which Wow suggested
47:05
Speaker 3: to that detective. I think he's committed numerous crimes.
47:09
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, as devastating as that is to hear,
47:11
Speaker 2: it's like that was one of my first thoughts listening
47:15
Speaker 2: to Like you think about forty six years. You go
47:18
Speaker 2: from in his early thirties, think he was thirty one
47:22
Speaker 2: when Carla was murdered, when he murdered Carla, and then
47:25
Speaker 2: he's living as this like family man, this church going husband,
47:28
Speaker 2: his father forty six years he just what doesn't do
47:31
Speaker 2: that again? I mean maybe, but it's such a brazen
47:35
Speaker 2: and violent offense that it was both, you know, maybe jarring,
47:39
Speaker 2: But I wasn't totally surprised when I read that because
47:42
Speaker 2: it was such a horrific murder to begin with to
47:44
Speaker 2: think that then he just turned his life around highly unlike.
47:47
Speaker 1: Yeah, totally. Well, also, I don't know, it just it
47:51
Speaker 1: sounds like something a serial killer would do, right the
47:53
Speaker 1: type of murder it was. Although did he know Carla?
47:57
Speaker 1: Was she total stranger to him? I can't remember.
48:00
Speaker 3: He didn't personally know her, like it was like his
48:03
Speaker 3: child went to the same school high school as one
48:07
Speaker 3: of Carla's siblings, but that was later after the abduction.
48:10
Speaker 3: So no, he didn't know them personally, but like lived nearby.
48:13
Speaker 2: And did he just happen to be in that Bowling
48:16
Speaker 2: Alley parking lot or was he following them? Did they
48:20
Speaker 2: ever find out?
48:21
Speaker 3: I'm not entirely sure. I can't remember because we do
48:25
Speaker 3: so many cases it's hard to keep track of all
48:28
Speaker 3: those details.
48:28
Speaker 2: No, all good. I was just curious, But yeah, I
48:31
Speaker 2: mean it's just wild.
48:33
Speaker 3: I do get the sense that, you know, his wife
48:35
Speaker 3: was out of town when this happened. I kind of
48:38
Speaker 3: personally wonder if like this was something he would do
48:41
Speaker 3: when his wife was like out of town, and he
48:43
Speaker 3: would just find somebody who seemed vulnerable and like attack
48:47
Speaker 3: them when they're alone, maybe followed them there, or just
48:51
Speaker 3: found someone we thought he could take control over.
48:55
Speaker 1: Should I think his wife's reaction when he's being questioned
48:58
Speaker 1: makes me feel like she had idea. Yeah, like, of course,
49:02
Speaker 1: we're upstanding people. The police are here, We're going to
49:04
Speaker 1: answer the questions.
49:05
Speaker 2: Like why wouldn't you give them DNA.
49:08
Speaker 1: Which must have been so shocking for her to find
49:11
Speaker 1: that out.
49:12
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, totally. Or his children.
49:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh my gosh. But you know, it's something that
49:17
Speaker 1: you talk about on the podcast a lot that I
49:20
Speaker 1: think is so important and interesting and that you mentioned earlier,
49:23
Speaker 1: which is like people do weird things, and it can
49:27
Speaker 1: be really easy when we're talking about a case to
49:30
Speaker 1: think that something is suspicious, or this person acted this
49:33
Speaker 1: way and that's really suspicious. Like Rodney slept over or
49:36
Speaker 1: where was Rodney for that hour and a half, or
49:38
Speaker 1: the fact that he moved to Alaska could all be
49:41
Speaker 1: considered like really suspicious behavior. And you know, when you
49:45
Speaker 1: don't have hard evidence, anybody can become a suspect and
49:49
Speaker 1: like suddenly, it can tear towns apart and families apart,
49:53
Speaker 1: and the fact that this cold case finally got an
49:56
Speaker 1: answer is just incredible. Someone who probably without this would
50:01
Speaker 1: have kept living the rest of his life free and
50:04
Speaker 1: never have faced consequences for this. And that's the heart
50:08
Speaker 1: of what I find so fascinating about DNA technology and
50:13
Speaker 1: genetic genealogy being used to solve cases, especially cult cases.
50:17
Speaker 1: It's just it's mind blowing that we're here, that we're
50:19
Speaker 1: able to do that with technology today. How has that
50:24
Speaker 1: been for you working on these cases.
50:26
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is such a good point that it is
50:30
Speaker 3: what is so amazing about this technology. Not to I
50:34
Speaker 3: don't mean to sound due cliche or like I'm promoting
50:37
Speaker 3: the technology. I just think it's pretty cool. As someone
50:39
Speaker 3: who came into this project and learned about this technology
50:43
Speaker 3: from knowing almost nothing to now knowing so much more
50:46
Speaker 3: about it. It's like it is solving cases that have
50:49
Speaker 3: been stone cold for decades. Candy Rogers another one we
50:53
Speaker 3: had talked about maybe discussing that was called for sixty
50:56
Speaker 3: two years before that was solved as well. These are
51:00
Speaker 3: cases that are considered the mount everest of cases for
51:04
Speaker 3: these communities or these police departments, and suddenly they're just
51:08
Speaker 3: getting solved like that. And I think the impact is
51:11
Speaker 3: that now people can be caught before they perpetrate more
51:15
Speaker 3: than once. You know, I think about the Idaho college
51:18
Speaker 3: student murder case with Brian Coberger. Authram was involved in
51:22
Speaker 3: tracking him down and identifying him through the same DNA analysis.
51:27
Speaker 3: So and that was, you know, a matter of weeks
51:30
Speaker 3: after he perpetrated the crime. And I wouldn't be surprised
51:33
Speaker 3: if he would have gone on to perpetrate other crimes.
51:35
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. Yeah.
51:36
Speaker 3: Yeah. And so just to think that this technology can
51:39
Speaker 3: actually stop potentially serial killers in their tracks, it's miraculous, totally. Yeah.
51:46
Speaker 2: I went to Washington State University in Pullman.
51:49
Speaker 3: Oh wow.
51:49
Speaker 2: So I've spent a lot of time at u of I,
51:51
Speaker 2: and that case blows my mind. And I had read
51:53
Speaker 2: about Authram when that happened and was blown away by
51:57
Speaker 2: it because of course, I'm sure he would have gone
52:00
Speaker 2: on to commit other crimes. I mean, that's just such
52:01
Speaker 2: a horrific attack. And also studying criminology. Yeah, yeah, not
52:06
Speaker 2: a good guy.
52:07
Speaker 3: Yeah.
52:08
Speaker 1: Well, I just had one last question. You had an
52:10
Speaker 1: episode where you mentioned the vast number of unidentified remains
52:15
Speaker 1: that exist in the US and I think you called
52:17
Speaker 1: it a silent epidemic, so I wanted to quickly ask
52:20
Speaker 1: you about that and what is being done to identify
52:24
Speaker 1: those unidentified remains and what you meant by silent epidemic.
52:29
Speaker 3: Well, I think for a lot of us, as we
52:31
Speaker 3: go throughout the world and life, we assume that the
52:35
Speaker 3: government protects us and takes cases of like missing persons
52:39
Speaker 3: or of bodies that are found, remains that are found,
52:43
Speaker 3: and says we're going to at least figure out who
52:46
Speaker 3: this is. Like, let's for a second, forget even solving
52:49
Speaker 3: the murder if it's a murder, Like, let's just figure
52:51
Speaker 3: out who this person is who has passed away and
52:54
Speaker 3: their bodies found. But the reality is that there are
52:57
Speaker 3: tens of thousands of remains existing in the US that
53:03
Speaker 3: are simply unidentified. And for each one of those people,
53:07
Speaker 3: you know, there's a family, a community, friends who have
53:11
Speaker 3: lost that person and just have no idea what happened
53:13
Speaker 3: to them. And so some of the cases we discuss
53:16
Speaker 3: on our podcast are people that have simply been identified,
53:21
Speaker 3: and the huge implications of that are how that potentially
53:24
Speaker 3: opens a murder investigation from there, and what it's like
53:27
Speaker 3: for families to hear. Oh, I lost my dad when
53:30
Speaker 3: I was little, and I never knew what happened to him.
53:32
Speaker 3: I thought he left me and never wanted to speak
53:33
Speaker 3: to me again, but oh, it turns out he died
53:36
Speaker 3: in this very dramatic way. I think it helps people
53:40
Speaker 3: to just know what happened. Even if they you know,
53:44
Speaker 3: it's still a huge loss, probably still traumatic for them,
53:47
Speaker 3: but to just have some kind of knowledge is so important.
53:51
Speaker 3: And it's funny we think of basic things like medical
53:55
Speaker 3: care being something that everybody should have, you know, But
53:59
Speaker 3: it's like I would hope that if if I died
54:02
Speaker 3: and my body was left somewhere, that someone would try
54:05
Speaker 3: to find out who I was. And so luckily it's
54:09
Speaker 3: a lot more to get into than really for right now,
54:12
Speaker 3: but AUTHROAM is partnering with other forensic anthropologists and partnering
54:17
Speaker 3: with different communities to try to identify a lot of
54:22
Speaker 3: these remains, and I think they're also working on legislation
54:26
Speaker 3: to try to get more remains identified and soon.
54:31
Speaker 1: That's amazing, Yeah, so amazing. Yeah, it's important, I think. Yeah,
54:36
Speaker 1: not something I had spent a lot of time thinking about,
54:38
Speaker 1: but yeah, I think it's important as well yeah wow,
54:41
Speaker 1: I mean we could talk to you forever. But Alen,
54:43
Speaker 1: thank you so much for coming on The Knife and
54:45
Speaker 1: talking to us. We love your podcast and we hope
54:49
Speaker 1: that everyone goes and listens to it. America's Crime Lab.
54:52
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Thank you.
54:54
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
54:59
Speaker 2: If you have a store sorry for us, we would
55:01
Speaker 2: love to hear it. Our email is The Knife at
55:03
Speaker 2: exactlyrightmedia dot com, or you can follow us on Instagram
55:06
Speaker 2: at the Knife Podcast or Blue Sky at the Knife Podcast.
55:09
Speaker 1: This has been an Exactly Right production hosted and produced
55:12
Speaker 1: by me Hannah Smith and.
55:14
Speaker 2: Me paysha Eton. Our producers are Tom Bryfogel and Alexis Samarosi.
55:18
Speaker 1: This episode was mixed by Tom Bryfogel. Our associate producer
55:22
Speaker 1: is Christina Chamberlain. Our theme music is by Birds in
55:25
Speaker 1: the Airport.
55:26
Speaker 2: Artwork by Vanessa Lilac.
55:27
Speaker 1: Executive produced by Karen Kilgarriff, Georgia Hardstark and Danielle Kramer.