Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Season Five: Don't Hike Alone, Part Three: Wasting Time
303 Plays4 months ago
In today’s episode, we are continuing a deep dive into and about a notorious serial killer with a stutter from the late 1970s. We are winding down the conversation but also talking about some cold cases solved with DNA and how they relate to the Do Not Hike series.
This podcast was made possible by www.labrottiecreations.com Check out their merchandise and specifically their fun pop pet art custom pieces made from photos of your very own pets. Use the promo code CRIMEXS for 20% off a fun, brightly colored, happy piece of art of your own pet at their site.
Music in this episode was licensed for True Crime XS. Our theme song today is Indestructible by Noah Smith. Additional Music
You can reach us at our website truecrimexs.com and you can leave us a voice message at 252-365-5593. Find us most anywhere with @truecrimexs
Thanks for listening. Please like and subscribe if you want to hear more and you can come over to patreon.com/truecrimexs and check out what we’ve got going on there if you’d like to donate to fund future True Crime XS road trip investigations and FOIA requests. We also have some merchandise up at Teepublic http://tee.pub/lic/mZUXW1MOYxM
Sources:
Various News Sources Mentioned by Name
Ad Information:
New Era Caps: https://zen.ai/dWeCYLHxxANOaZ6NcKocEw
Zencastr: Link: https://zen.ai/SFkD99OGWGNz_plc2c_Yaw
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction & Content Warning
00:00:00
Speaker
This podcast may contain disturbing content for some listeners. It's intended for mature audiences. Listener discretion is advised.
Cold Case Breakthrough: Uncovering Jane Doe's Identity
00:00:38
Speaker
i I don't usually talk about news like right in the middle of a series like this, but there was a piece of news I wanted to bring up that I thought was interesting. and It sort of, in a weird way, like attaches to this like strange piece of DNA news on the trailside, Killer Case. The source today is CBS News because they had a pretty good write-up. and i I think the writer's name is Emily Mae Zachar. It's spelled C-Z-A-C-H-O-R. It was published April 29. The title was Midtown Jane Doe Cold Case Advances After DNA Links Teen Murdered Over 50 Years Ago to 9-11 Victims Mother.
00:01:26
Speaker
I don't know if I could give you any more of a mouthful, but that's the the sort of, that's the headline on the article. Yeah, it's a really interesting case. The article states that authorities have finally identified the remains of a New York City teenager who had been called Midtown Jane Doe. This is after her, they describe it as a violent or grisly murder, depending on what you read, but it's a really long time ago. It's this cold case and investigation has been going on for a while, but ah this goes all the way back to either the end of 1969 or potentially the beginning of 1970.
00:02:05
Speaker
Jane Doe there, Midtown Jane Doe, has been identified as Patricia Kathleen McLoam. She was 16 at the time of her death, and she had previously lived in an attended school in Sunset Park in Brooklyn, New York. The quote that I got here was from a New York City Police Department detective named Ryan Glass. He said that he's worked on the case for two years and he believed that she was murdered sometime during the latter half of 1969, but he reiterates that it could have spilled over into 1970.
00:02:39
Speaker
Now, this case, according to this writer, drew an initial wave of horror and intrigue in 2003 when construction workers discovered human remains buried beneath a Manhattan building that was being demolished. In February of 2003, workers were breaking up the floor of a building to prepare it for demolition and a skull rolled out from under the concrete. A search revealed that There was the skeleton of a young woman in under the concrete that had been wrapped in carpet and then sort of encased around the carpet. But the young woman was in the fetal position and there was an electrical cord there. A medical examiner later determined that she had died from strangulation. Now she had a piece of jewelry on her that had the initials PMCG. It was like a signet ring.
00:03:34
Speaker
and buried with her was a green plastic toy soldier and a dime with a date of 1969 on it. But they didn't have much else in the way of clues to what but had happened here or who she was. So they nicknamed the victim Midtown Jane Doe, and that's because of the location. So this building was in Hell's Kitchen in New York City. Between 1964 and 1969, the building itself was actually a nightclub, and that nightclub was called The Scene. ah Steve Paul was the owner's name on the door there. Now, it made a name for itself as a venue where acts like The Doors and Jimi Hendrix played. In 2017, so 14 years after this victim is found under the concrete,
00:04:28
Speaker
New York City police detectives reopened the case and they began to apply modern test to the forensic evidence that had originally been collected from the crime scene. There was DNA that was lifted from the victim's remains and they developed according to Glass, a suitable genetic profile for comparison. That profile was then put through investigative genetic genealogy and linked to potential relatives. So detectives learned that Jane Doe was born in April of 1953, but both of her parents had died and she did not have any siblings. So they couldn't find a DNA sample that would definitively prove who they suspected was Patricia McLough. So she's a child of these two people and you've got a not so straightforward process because you can't go get DNA from either one of them
00:05:26
Speaker
But genetic experts were able to compare the DNA and find a specific maternal cousin. And they believed that that would identify ah Jane Doe pretty conclusively. So the detectives started conducting a series of interviews with different relatives of who they believed was the Jane Doe across the United States. And they were talking to people that spanned a lot of different ages, multiple generations. they get a comparison where they find a cousin who had died. And the way this goes down is the detective speaks with the cousin's son, and he remembered that his mother had submitted a DNA swab to the New York City medical examiner after his sister, so the cousin's daughter, died on 9-11.
00:06:22
Speaker
So relatives of missing people were submitting DNA to help identify unknown victims in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. Detective Glass goes over and he's able to retrieve the genetic information from the medical examiner's office and use that to confirm that the remains of Midtown Jane Doe belonged to Patricia. So they were able then to start tracking Patricia. They determined that she had been rolled she had been enrolled in a Catholic school um and a public middle school in Sunset Park. But sometime in 1968 or 1969, she starts getting written up as like a runaway or a truant because her school attendance record is spotty. Basically, they don't have evidence that she was attending wherever wherever or however the records were kept. There's holes in them.
00:07:17
Speaker
They found out that Patricia had gotten married around this time and that she stopped keeping in touch with her family. He said police had not found records of missing persons reports related to Patricia that would filed at any particular time after her disappearance. So they've opened up an active homicide investigation.
Homicide Investigation & Suspicions
00:07:40
Speaker
They haven't named any potential suspects, but the detective said that they were able to connect Patricia's former husband to this building and they are asking that anyone who might have known Patricia McClellan or her family or the area around Hell's Kitchen where Steve Paul's the scene was sometime between 1968 and 1970 to contact the ah New York City Police Department so that they can try and solve ah this homicide.
00:08:12
Speaker
It is interesting that they were able to use the DNA sample ah because I'm not entirely sure why they wouldn't have thought that they could have used the sun they were talking with to make that connection. But ah the maternal cousin attribute, maybe that's just something I don't yet understand about DNA comparisons, but it is interesting that that's the only reason the DNA was available was because of 9-11, right?
00:08:45
Speaker
Yeah, I mean, so my guess is, what do you think happens if we don't have this DNA entered into the New York City medical examiners? I can't figure it out. I can't figure out based on this article. So there was no this was not a missing person, right? That's the first thing that was a big deal for me, yeah. Well, right. but And so anytime somebody is not a missing person, now she was 16, but she was not in touch with her parents and she was married, right? um But anytime somebody is not reported as a missing person and, you know, you find out they are in an unidentified remains found, you have to look at the people that are closest to them, right? Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they are
00:09:29
Speaker
going to have to be the suspect or the perpetrator. But you know if they don't have a pretty good reason for not reporting the person missing, that doesn't really make a lot of sense, does it? Because um you know why didn't her husband report her missing? Right. I mean, it's because that's why he's got him on the list. That's why, that's why he's mentioned in this article as being connected to this building, because the truth is he's the most likely suspect that you either need to rule out or we'll live pretty quickly. He's the one that like from everything he can, that this detective can tell should have reported her missing or should have filed paperwork for a divorce or something.
00:10:13
Speaker
right and so it you know As far as what happens without that DNA sample, I'm not sure that she ever gets identified. I don't know. i think i mean they like It's one of those things where advances in technology might change that, but for some reason, and I don't know if you know this or not, so I don't mean to put you on the spot, but like they're looking for this one specific cousin. okay so Somebody made, and I don't know, but i could I can imagine where it might be a thing, but I'm not sure I follow it completely, but in lieu of the fact that she has no sibling um and her parents are both dead and probably depending on when they died, they were able to realize they more than likely didn't have DNA anywhere, right?
00:11:02
Speaker
Anybody that died pre, you know, 2010 or 2005 probably didn't use the ancestry, right? So a maternal cousin would share characteristics. um So that would mean a cousin on her mom's side. If you think about how that builds backwards, a cousin of her mother, would share the same grandparents, right? yeah Because the two cousins' parents would be siblings. And so somehow they must have identified something that they felt was relevant. ah So it was probably part of the mitochondrial DNA. yeah And they were probably looking at something very specific that indicated to an
00:11:58
Speaker
a skilled geneticist or a skilled genetic genealogical researcher that this is where you're going to be able to find that if you can find it, right? yeah That is a little bit more than I am. I personally feel like they could have matched it potentially to the the man they were talking to, you but there could be a reason why that wasn't a possibility. um it It also makes for a much better story that they were able to use the sample that was given to help identify the daughter of the ultimate contributor to this identification because they were identifying remains from 9-11, right?
00:12:47
Speaker
yeah So that makes a really good headline, but I'm glad that, i'm so it seems like for whatever reason, and i don't they don't elaborate here, even though she wasn't a reported missing person, they just say that this is confirmation. So they had information that led them towards this conclusion, I feel like beforehand. It looks like something about this makes them go down this path, but I think this is a case where we don't necessarily have everything in front of us. of how long this has been going on and like what other things made them go this route. But he's clearly, I would say insinuating, but he's flat out saying, like we were trying to confirm who we thought this was. I'm wondering like how wild it would be to try and track down somebody from the late 60s in New York that was missing but not reported missing. That would be a lot. There has to be something to
00:13:47
Speaker
I feel like there's gotta be something more to it because I feel like it would be like impossible to do that. If you don't know the person's missing, why would you assume they were dead, right? Yeah. And then all the cases of people who went, who were missing but not reported missing and who, you know, there was no foul play involved, they're just dead now, right? Yeah. yeah There's all kinds of things that come into play there, but there had to have been more to the story, right? um people People had them. I doubt very seriously nobody knew about this, right? You know, when a body is found, like in this case in 2003, it might have stirred somebody's memory and they might have remembered something and they might have gone to the police with it, and that could have started.
00:14:35
Speaker
I don't know all the ins and outs of this, but they did manage to get to her. At first, I thought maybe it was the ring. But I mean, this isn't a situation where they're just going to see on the police report where she is reported missing that that is a very that is a possibility for the initials to match her name in kind of a weird way. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So that's not the situation here because she wasn't reported missing. I don't know what else there was. I'm not sure how they got on it to begin with, but I would say the husband being connected to the building might have started that little thread, right? We could have, yeah.
00:15:12
Speaker
um because if they go, hey, you know, found this body, it was connected to this guy, and they're going, yeah, well, he had a wife that then he didn't have anymore, right? yeah It is interesting that they ah they have definitely confirmed that. The other thing I thought was they might have said maternal cousin because they had narrowed down the fact that like that was going to be the only link But I'm not really sure. i And I'm not an expert in DNA at all. like I just know what I read. And um I find it interesting that that tactic is said here, but the son would have 50% of his mom's DNA.
00:15:58
Speaker
and maybe they just had determined that wasn't going to be enough. I'm i'm interested, though, in kind of looking into
Trailside Killer's DNA Connection
00:16:04
Speaker
that and seeing. Yeah, I'm interested in that, too, and that was sort of the thing that, so I saw where Midtown Jane Doe disappeared from NamUs, so it's been a minute, but then I, so when I originally read it, it said no further information available on one of the, I don't know if it was Doe Network or where, so I thought it wasn't going to pop again and we weren't going to know who Midtown Jane Doe was. But then I saw this and I was like, oh, that's really interesting. And I'm bringing this up in the middle of us recording the story of the Trailside Killer, primarily because of like this weird thing that happened in that case. And that is, we're
00:16:50
Speaker
kind of repeating some information here, but that's okay because we're we're going into a different part of it. In December of 2009, there was a re-examination by the San Francisco Police Department of an October 21, 1979 murder of Mary Frances Bennett. And she was jogging through Land's End, which is a park at the Golden Gate Recreation Area. and she'd been attacked and stabbed to death. Well, over the course of the next year or two, the police are able to match DNA found on her body with a sample from the trail side killer, David Carpenter. and that's a So Midtown Jane Doe, that's 55 years we've got between her death and identification.
00:17:46
Speaker
So these older crimes, now I know they found her body in 2003, so that sort of splits up the timeline for us, but these older crimes are starting to be solved like that. I had been pretty curious about this murder related to David Carpenter. I pulled an article from the sfgate dot.com from 2010, and this is sort of about Mary Frances, and it gives us an insight into David Carpenter that we've been be talking about in many ways. it's It's got a picture of her from her Montana driver's license at the top. This article is from Jackson vendor bacon.
00:18:24
Speaker
ah who was a Chronicle staff writer in February of 2010. This is specifically from February 24th. And it just says, David Joseph Carpenter, the trail side killer of the early 1980s, whose murders spread fear and the Bay Area's parklands and open spaces have been tied by DNA evidence to a San Francisco slang in which he had long been a suspect. ah Police settled Tuesday. In eight months, in 1980 and 1981, Carpenter murdered six women and one man along trails in Marin and Santa Cruz counties. Many of the women were raped. An eighth would be victim survived to identify him, and Carpenter, at the time of this article, 79 years old, was on San Quentin State Prison's death row.
00:19:09
Speaker
The killing of Mary Frances Bennett 23 in San Francisco in 1979 was one of several other slayings in which authorities suspected carpenter, but were never able to bring a case against them. Prosecutors have not yet decided whether to file charges based on the new evidence. Bennett's body was found October 21st, 1979. She was near the palace of the Legion of Honor it lands in. She had been stabbed at least 25 times in the neck, chest, and back, and her body had been buried beneath a thin layer of dirt and branches. One police officer at the time described her body as having been butchered.
00:19:56
Speaker
and And here's sort of the the idea behind him. Bennett lived on 44th Avenue in the Sunset District. She was wearing a t-shirt, shorts, and running shoes. Police said they believed that she was jogging at Land's End when she was killed. After Carpenter was arrested in 1981, the San Francisco police said at that time they identified him as a suspect in Bennett Slang. But for 30 years, the case laid dormant. Now, Inspector Joe Toomey is the one that ah
00:20:30
Speaker
writer here is reporting on. He says that on Tuesday, Joe Toomey of the Cold Case Unit said that crime-lantic technicians had recovered unspecified DNA evidence from the other collected evidence, and that was in December of 2009. They learned that it matched a sample of carpenter's DNA in the California State felony database. Then the week before this article, San Francisco police crime lab technicians reported that they obtained confirmation.
00:21:03
Speaker
They got it on February the 3rd from Carpenter at San Quentin, and it matched the DNA evidence from this killing. so They were able to go right back to Carpenter and get his DNA, just in case there had been a mistake somewhere else. They got a direct comparison here. She was a Montana native, Mary francecis mary bennet mary Francis She grew up in Deer Lodge, Montana. and She had recently moved to San Francisco after graduating from an accounting school in Montana. She was an intern at a post street accounting firm. and When she was killed, she was wearing a t-shirt that read, Hell's accountant. Bennett's siblings still live in Montana. and According to Inspector Chumi, they were relieved at the at the DNA comparison find. But Chumi said he also believed that he thought it was a shock that the San Francisco police had called them out of the blue to let them know. Bennett's parents had ah passed away.
00:21:59
Speaker
But one of Mary Bennett's three brothers, and he is the oldest of five so surviving siblings at the time of this, um he was 55 years old. And he said that his family had always assumed that Carpenter was responsible based on what police had told them sometime shortly after her murder. He said that he was surprised that police had followed up on the case given the time and expense, but it was nice to know that they know for sure and it's been put to rest and that they have the person and that he was incarcerated.
00:22:31
Speaker
so that's sort of the The link here between these, for me, you know these interesting DNA matches that happen over time, ah they do give us a little more information about Carpenter in this article. We've covered some of this before, but it basically just says Carpenter was gray-haired, bespectacled, and spoke with a severe stutter when he had moved in with his parents on Sussex Street in Glen Park, California in 1979. He had a record of sex crimes that stretched all the way back to 1947. And he had just finished his most recent nine-year stint in prison for rape and parole violations, which is something we talked about, sort of how that went down in the last episode. But during a six-week period in 1980, Carpenter shot five people to death with a .38 caliber pistol at Point Reyes National Seashore and on the slopes of Mount Tam.
00:23:25
Speaker
They talk about Richard Stowers, Cynthia Moreland, Ann Alderson, Diane O'Connell, and Shawna May here. The following spring, Carpenter reaped and shot to death a coworker by Heather Skaggs. And he also killed UC Davis student Ellen Marie Hanson. after she resisted his rape attempt. And this is where they talk about Stephen Hartle. Carpenter was caught because Hanson's boyfriend, Stephen Hartle, whom he had shot in the neck and left for dead, survived to identify him. He was arrested in May of 1981. He was sentenced to death after being convicted of the Santa Cruz murders in 1984 in Los Angeles County, where the trial was moved because of publicity. ah He was later ah sentenced in the Marin killings in 1988.
00:24:12
Speaker
and a judge there sentenced to him to die. That's sort of where we like leave off with Carpenter anyways, but what did you think about this sort of like late to the game confirmation of more crimes with him? I think it's ah it's interesting that they took the effort to do it, like her family had said, because it brought light back to this dude in a way that you know wasn't good. because you know another Because to me, that was a you know a definitive link.
00:24:43
Speaker
not a speculation Based on anything else. Yeah, and she wasn't in his list of actually at this point in time While law enforcement told her family that it wasn't like widely Speculated upon that. She was one of his victims, right? It doesn't take all that much to put two and two together because she was a murder victim that was jogging on a trail in that area at this specific time. right Because she was like right between Etta and Barbara. yeah It does make sense that law enforcement would have suspected that. But you know at this point in time,
00:25:23
Speaker
all those murders are not fresh, available information, you'd have to look pretty hard to make a connection with somebody who was purported to be one of his victims that it wasn't adjudicated. It was really interesting to me that ah She kind of came out of nowhere all these years later as a confirmed victim. I don't feel like it's necessary for them to charge him and take him to trial over it, especially based on kind of what the reporters that the family had stated. I believe it was her brother stated, um because he does already have two death sentences.
00:26:03
Speaker
Yeah. um That would obviously be up to not it would be up to whoever you know decides that kind of thing and resources that would be needed. they probably, there's probably other places that they could go at this point, just based on the fact that he is off the street. I wondered though, if law enforcement, you know, cause if it wasn't him, that would have been a completely different story, right? Yeah, I think so. And that would be why they would be looking at it. Don't you think? Well, I think that they wanted to confirm it one way or the other. And especially if it got the attention that
00:26:42
Speaker
I feel like if I were law enforcement, I would give a case that I knew who did it, but I also knew I had absolutely no evidence and practically no way to get the evidence to make a conviction. Like those cases didn't get a whole lot of attention at the time, right? right Because, you know, it's we've talked about it at length, about how cases that are solved but not adjudicated, they fall under the radar. Because law enforcement all know who did it. Other people know who did it. There's not an active ongoing investigation, and yet the case isn't closed.
00:27:23
Speaker
right It just lingers out there. And so this is one of those cases. And so that would be one of my priorities would be like, because you know because it was assumed he did it, it was nice to get that confirmation. However, it would have been almost devastating to find out it wasn't him. Right. And to have this whole situation where they're needing to find out who did it because, you know, they overlooked this case, chalking it up to the trail side killer when it was a completely different situation. But that's not what happened. Right. They were able to confirm it. It was in fact him. And, you know, this far out, you know, because we're talking 40 odd years out. Well, at that time, I guess it would have been 30 years out because it was in like 20 2010. Right. yeah At that point in time, all the murders that were ever going to happen to young joggers in that area in 1979, it's not like it's an ongoing news story, right? So there's a very finite amount of possible victims having not had anything else indicating otherwise
00:28:33
Speaker
I would really want to make sure that, you know, if something else had come up at some point in time between the time of the murders and now, it could have swayed somebody's opinion. But when you've got all these cases hanging out there like that, you have to wonder, are we ever going to be able to solve this? But to me, even without the adjudication, this is at least widely known now that he's responsible for her murder because there was, in fact, a definitive DNA match. I don't know how that's going to work. I don't know how that works in the long term. Uh, certainly if he wasn't on death row, ah the oldest person on California's death row, uh, he, he would be tried for it. Right. Right. So is he officially the oldest person on death row?
00:29:20
Speaker
Yes, he well, in at least in California, I don't know otherwise, but he's the oldest person on California's death row. And there's like zero chance he's going to be put to death because California's ah governor has a moratorium on the death, on carrying out death sentences at the moment, um which is absolutely their prerogative. It would be it would be like, against the fiber of our country to force the governor to sign death certificates, right? Right. It doesn't change the fact that they're sitting on death row and that it's still a thing. It's just, you know, if you're not willing, I would have to, you know, you should that should be taken into consideration, but it doesn't seem to be a problem. He's going to sit there until he dies more than likely based on the fact that he's 93, about to be 94.
00:30:16
Speaker
Yeah, i we get to the this point and in like these stories where we're kind of like looking back on them. There's a point in time where I wondered if there were two killers operating. There's been a lot of different things that have gone on with him. And and I bring up the trial stuff today because there's a couple of weird nuances to how the state tried him and to what sort of happened. and then There's another part to this that kind of spills over a little bit, I guess would be the word. It's like, what do you do at the end of these stories? So we do have one more episode of this, but I wanted to talk a little bit about the trials today and some of what went down there. So he goes on trial, like I had just said, originally in the first trial kicks off in 1983.
00:31:10
Speaker
It's not a huge deal, but they start moving him. They get concerned about the pretrial public publicity. And ultimately they want to move him away from the people that are close to Mount Tam and the seaside park. And they just want to figure out a way to get him a fair trial because some wild stuff is going on. I'm going to pull from a later article. I just want to like give you this so you can understand what his lawyers were doing to start with. This is a UPN article from May of 1988. And I talked about this a little bit, but I want to tell you what the lawyer says. He says the trail side killer has been wrongly identified. This is in San Diego. So this is Carpenter's lawyer arguing. He says that a key prosecution witness has wrongly identified David Carpenter as a suspect in a string of Northern California slaves. Carpenter was charged with the shooting deaths in Marin County hiking trails,
00:32:07
Speaker
He's been sentenced to death for two 1981, quote, trailside murders. And those were in the previous trial. That's the Santa Cruz County deaths. That's Heather and Ellen. His case had been expected to go to the jury on Friday after defense arguments, a rebuttal from the prosecution and the judge and the judge giving instructions to the jurors. Marin County public defender, Steven Berlin, urged jurors Wednesday to acquit Carpenter if they hold any reasonable doubts about his guilt. A key witness in the trial has been Stephen Hartle, who was wounded in one of the Santa Cruz
David Carpenter's Legal Battles
00:32:43
Speaker
attacks and who the defense asserted may have identified the wrong man in a police lineup before Carpenter was arrested in San Francisco in May of 1981. So, Stephen Berlin tells the Superior Court jury that
00:32:57
Speaker
It's possible that Hartle might have gradually altered his descriptions of the man who attacked him and Ellen Hanson, his companion on the trail in March of 1981. Berlin told the jury, which has not been told of Carpenter's convictions in the Santa Cruz murders, that David Carpenter was out of six people in the lineup, the one who looked most like the trail side killer. For him to come into court and say, this is the man who shot me is in psychological terms, a reinforcing experience, said Berlin. The lawyer said that Hartle's testimony during the trial differed from what he had said in earlier hearings and in interviews with investigators, adding that Hartle had eventually tailored his story to match those stories of other witnesses. I caution you, said Berlin to the jury, against crediting to greatly a witness who says on the stand, yes, that is the man I saw. Other witnesses have testified they saw a man in Marin County parks wearing glasses and a yellow Olympic
00:33:55
Speaker
drinking team jacket with a logo on the front and the name of a Billings Montana saloon on the back. Berlin acknowledged that Carpenter owned a yellow jacket from the western saloon in Billings but said the lettering lining design of the logo and collar were described in different ways by Hartle and other witnesses. So this is a guy throwing like a big hail mary for a client who's already been convicted and sentenced to death. Right, and um so Hartle was shot. ah He was seriously injured. Correct. And his girlfriend was killed right in front of him. Now, so this is the trial, this is the other trial? Yeah, this is, so this is the second trial. So they couldn't, okay, so they couldn't talk about his convictions. Yes. But they brought the witness in from that trial. Correct. Okay, um that's interesting, but whatever.
00:34:49
Speaker
That's why I started where I started, because so, go ahead. Well, I feel like what you just read is like a how to make the jury really not like you. um I can't figure out what he was thinking there, but this is what I landed on. He was out of options. Yes, this is what I landed on. Okay, this guy's guilty. I have to defend him. I can defend him this way because he's never getting out. yeah I guess. um it You're right. Maybe because he had already had that the other conviction, right? Yeah. But under the circumstances, the very last thing you ever want to do is is to undermine the victim.
00:35:36
Speaker
Correct. And in this case, now he doesn't like say, Oh, he's lying. He says like he's mistaken, right? Right. Like he's making this convenient, whatever. However, I don't know what you do in that situation. I just know you don't do that. Yeah. it So for people who think I'm bringing all this up out of order, I am, But that's because all of this goes on for so many years, and I just want to point out that David Carpenter still occasionally makes efforts, either legally speaking or in interviews, to randomly proclaim his innocence. He has never um taken responsibility for these crimes, ever.
00:36:24
Speaker
Right. So we were talking about Lamont McIntyre a few episodes back and how he how his exoneration went down. And then we sort of kept talking about different ways that defendants, you know, take responsibility. Carpenter has taken zero. If you ask him today, he did none of this. It's all a big misunderstanding.
00:36:46
Speaker
Right. And I always question ballistic evidence, right? Yeah. There's so much more to it than that. Um, that just happens to be like this linking factor. Right. But to me, now I'm very confused because I didn't realize that they weren't actually, I did know that I just, I didn't think about it. Like what was the, what was the pertinent to Hartle's testimony if they weren't able to bring up his conviction of the other crimes. Okay. So I'm going to try and get into that here. And it is very confusing. So we have a trial in 83 after his arrest in 81. This is a pretty normal death penalty trial schedule. So
00:37:41
Speaker
Arrested may have anyone trial in 83, he's convicted. We then have a second trial and that trial is in May of 1988. So that's in San Diego. So you had Santa Cruz and Marin County, then you got San Diego. They find him guilty on five counts of murder. He's found guilty of raping two of the women included in those five counts and an attempted rape related to the third. and they sentence him to die as well. So 1988, aside from some very interesting appeals, really this case should go away. It does not. In fact, the court records that I'm gonna talk to you about will kind of explain some of what's going on. They start in 1991. I've pieced them all together. They go to 1995 and then they pop up again in 1999.
00:38:37
Speaker
Okay, so the article that I was reading a second ago is from the second trial that San Diego area Hilmer Anderson is covering that and that information came from may of 1988 it's right before its second conviction It's right before its conviction and sentence of death in the second trial So going back to 1995 for a second im I'm addressing your question in a really roundabout way because I don't have a good answer for
00:39:05
Speaker
There is a habeas corpus filed on behalf of David Joseph Carpenter, may March 6th of 1995. What's happening here is there are a series of rulings and reversals. And if I don't tell you the whole thing, it's going to sound pretty confusing. But I felt like this and the 1999 documents summarize things in a way as I'm going to jump back and forth between them. But like, honestly, they summarize it in a way that will make you understand it from a legal perspective. So they addressed the Santa Cruz Trailside murder case in about eight sentences.
00:39:47
Speaker
In Santa Cruz Superior Court, the people charged David Carpenter with the following offenses committed in that county in the spring of 1981. One, the murder of Ellen Marie Hanson under special circumstances of rape murder lying in wait and multiple murders. Two, the attempted rape of Hanson. Three, the attempted murder of Steven Russell Hartle with a firearm and infliction of great bodily injury. Four, the murder of Heather Skaggs under special circumstances of rape murder and multiple murder. And five, the rape of Skaggs, Carpenter pleaded not guilty.
00:40:27
Speaker
Following a change of venue because of pretrial publicity, a jury trial was held in Los Angeles County. The jury found Carpenter guilty on all charges with the murders in the first degree, and they found each of the allegations true. After the penalty phase, it returned a verdict of death, and the Superior Court imposed that sentence. Carpenter's first automatic appeal to this court related to that is pending. As of this timing in 1995, in a separate action. Here's my next paragraph. This is the Marin case.
00:41:03
Speaker
The one that is underlying in this appeal, the people charge Carpenter with the following offenses committed in Marin County in the fall of 1980. So the first one is the murder of Cynthia Toshiko Moreland with the personal use of a firearm. Two, the murder of Richard Edward Stowers with a personal use of a firearm. Three, the murder of Anne Evelyn Alderson under the special circumstances of rape murder and with personal use of a firearm. Four, the rape of Ann Alderson with personal use of a firearm. Five, the murder of Diane Marie O'Connell under the special circumstance of rape murder and with personal use of a firearm. Six, the attempted rape of O'Connell with personal use of a firearm. Seven, the murder of Shauna Catherine May under the special circumstances of rape murder and with personal use of a firearm.
00:41:59
Speaker
eight The rape of May with personal use of a firearm. The special circumstance of multiple murders was also charged. Carpenter pled not guilty or pleaded not guilty. After the trial for the Santa Cruz crimes and following a change of venue because of pretrial publicity, a jury trial in this case commenced in San Diego Superior Court. Prior to trial, the court ruled on the admissibility of evidence of the Santa Cruz Trailside murders. Both parties theorized that the same person committed both sets of crimes. The issue at trial was whether that person was carpenter.
00:42:33
Speaker
For the guilt phase, the court permitted evidence of the facts underlying these offenses, except those facts against ah in the case against Skaggs. I don't know what they mean there, because it wouldn't be against her. It excluded the Skaggs information as inter alia, substantially more prejudicial than probative under evidence code. Section 352. And for the penalty phase, it permitted evidence of the facts underlying all the offenses. For both ah phases, it barred evidence of carpenters' convictions and death sentences as substantially more prejudicial than probative. Okay. So they're saying here, we can say
00:43:14
Speaker
that we think he committed those murders and we're going to come, we're going to give you evidence of all of these murders, but we can't tell the jury that he was convicted of those murders instead it's to death. Oh, whatever. Okay. Does that make more sense though? I mean, What you said makes sense, yes. Why they did that doesn't, but you're relaying the information. I understand that. Yeah, here's a little bit more information and then it kind of moves into the next part. Throughout jury selection in the trial, the court continually admonished prospective jurors on the jury. So the prospective jurors when they're going through voir d'art and then the jury once they're seated in accordance with Penal Code Section 1122 that it was, quote,
00:44:02
Speaker
their duty not to converse among themselves or with anyone else on any subject connected with this trial or to form or express any opinion they're on until the cause is finally submitted to them and to avoid publicity relating to the case." And that's the end of the quoting section. It admonished them to immediately advise any person attempting to discuss the case with them that ah they could not do so and to immediately report the matter if such person should persist. They're basically telling them, don't talk about this. And if it happens, tell the court so the court can decide what to do about it.
00:44:39
Speaker
Right, and ultimately the point of all that is like you need when you're a juror on a case, you need to pay attention to what's being presented to you and make decisions based on what's presented to you. Not what you talk over with your friends, not what the media has said about it, not what the narrative is. You you have to listen and form your own conclusions based on specifically what the state says, right? This is our case against this defendant. And then what the defense attorney says with regard to you know this is why the state's case against my client is wrong, right? Right. And that's the whole point there. And I feel like regardless of the conversations had a lot of times, it if they just do that, it doesn't really matter, right? Right.
00:45:35
Speaker
Okay, you bring up a good point here, and I just want to i want to warn people, I'm going to say what the prosecution's evidence was. I'm actually pulling from a later appeal, but I think it will explain why I landed where I landed with this case if I read some of it. um And it's about three paragraphs. I apologize, it's a little wordy, but it it says a lot of things here that I feel like are important to understand. Why, when I flip back to that other thing, it's a big deal. Okay, October 11th, 1980. Cynthia Moreland and Richard Stowers were fatally shot in the head near a hiking trail in a heavily wooded area, Point Reyes National Seashore. Hikers heard gunshots in the area sometime around 1 to 2 p.m. This is that day. Moreland and Stowers' bodies were discovered November 29th, 1980, lying face down near each other. Two days after the first shooting,
00:46:28
Speaker
On Columbus day, October 13th, 1980, Ann Alderson was fatally shot in the head from close range at Mount Tam near a hiking trail. A caretaker of a nearby inn last saw her alive around 5.30 that evening. Her body was discovered two days later. Her body was clothed, but the vagina contained sperm indicating there were sexual activity around the time she died. November 28th, 1980, Diane O'Connell and Shawna May are fatally shot in the head at Point Reyes National Seashore. Hikers heard shots in that case around 3.10 p.m. that day. There were more shots about 10 minutes after that, around 3.20 p.m. The next day, O'Connell and May's nude bodies were discovered lying face down, side by side, about 200 yards from the bodies of Moreland and Stowers, who were from the previous month. We've already already talked about that.
00:47:22
Speaker
A pair of panties was in the area of O'Connell's mouth and nose area. There was a blood-stained second pair by her arm. Physical evidence indicated that Diane O'Connell had been strangled, probably while alive, by something like a narrow piece of cord or wire. No sperm was found on her body, but maize body, her orifices is what I'll say, contained sperm, indicating that she had had some level of sexual activity around the time of her death. There was a vague ligature mark on May's left wrist. Prosecution presented evidence March 29, 1981, murder of Ellen Hanson and attempted murder of Stephen Hartle. Those crimes were the subject of
00:48:22
Speaker
this the first trial. In essence, a gunman had confronted Hartle and Hanson on a hiking trail, told them he wanted to rape Hanson, shot them both killing Hanson. The prosecution linked the defendant to the crimes of this case primarily by showing that the defendant shot Hanson and Hartle and that the same person committed both to Santa Cruz and the Marin County crimes. It presented much of the same evidence for identity at the first trial. And then they summarized the evidence for us in a big paragraph. It says, ballistics evidence established that a single gun, a .38 caliber Rossi revolver was used in each of the killings. Documentary evidence showed that the defendant's friend purchased that gun shortly before the first killing. I'm not bringing her up here. You can find her name online, but somebody bought it for carpenter basically.
00:49:17
Speaker
She testified that she bought the gun for the defendant and gave it to him at his request. Two bank robbers, a couple, testified that the defendant gave them the gun, May 31, 1981, which would have been shortly before his arrest on May 15. One of the couple hid the gun in a vacant lot after David Carpenter was arrested and later told the police where they had hid this weapon. the police found the weapon and seized it. Other witnesses also connected said defendant to a similar appearing gun to the 38 caliber Rossi revolver. Other witnesses could not identify anyone at the physical lineup because at the time the defendant was bearded.
00:50:06
Speaker
but they were able to identify him in court. One witness identified a different person at a physical lineup, but did identify the defendant in court. Two witnesses connected the gunman to a red Fiat, similar to one that the defendant owned. Multiple witnesses said the gunman wore a gold jacket containing distinctive lettering. Evidence showed that the day before the shooting of Hartle and Hanson, the defendant had purchased a pair of Nike shoes, that had a size and pattern identical to shoe prints that the gunman had left behind. The jacket and the shoes were never recovered. Early April 1981, the defendant told his girlfriend that he believed the jacket had been stolen from his car. After his arrest, a bag containing an unexpended .38 caliber bullet was found in another one of his cars. And
00:51:00
Speaker
A semen stain was found on Ann Alderson's panties with a type consistent with about 15 to 19% of the Caucasian population, including the defendants. make sense so far for the prosecution side of things? Yes. Okay. Here's the summary of the defense evidence. This is the best place I've found it. I'm giving it just so we have kind of what happened in here, but I need to reiterate. This sort of repeats itself twice so far. At the first trial, the defendant did not contest his identity as the gunman.
00:51:39
Speaker
But he does that at the second trial. So all the same evidence is presented. And for some reason, his attorneys at the second trial, they say that was not him. But at the first trial, it's never mentioned that it's not him. An expert testified that a Nike shoe of the defendant's size that the police purchased for comparison purposes could not have left the shoe prints at the Hartle Hanson crime scene because the shoe prints had 28 ridges in one region while the comparison shoe had 29 ridges. The defendant presented evidence questioning the ability of one witness to observe the gunman in his car and in tried to impeach the testimony of another who connected him to the murder weapon. The defendant presented an expert who claimed the serological analysis of the semen stain on Ann Alderson's panties was unreliable.
00:52:29
Speaker
He presented evidence suggesting that the gunman wore a jacket different from the one from the bar in Montana, and that the .38 caliber bullet in the bag did not actually come from his car. He also presented several witnesses challenging his friend's credibility. This is the friend who bought the gun. It's a girl that bought it for him. Several witnesses testified about seeing a man who could have been the Hartle Hansen gunman. One witness testified that on the day of the shooting, she saw the man a few miles from the crime scene pumping gas into a car that was very different than a red Fiat. Another witness testified they saw the man the morning before the shooting, but he did not look like the defendant. Yet another witness testified
00:53:16
Speaker
She saw a man wearing a jacket like the gunman shortly before 5 p.m. on March 19th, 1981, near the scene of the shooting who did not look like the defendant. Two witnesses testified they saw the man near the crime scene the day before the shooting. They described the man somewhat inconsistently with the defendant's appearance. One said the man appeared unshaven with one or two days growth of Bjorn's face, In court, however, one of these witnesses said the defendant looked similar to the man, and the other one positively identified him as the man he had the witness had seen. One of the defendant's employers testified he was working with her at the business, Jim's of the Golden West in San Francisco, on October 13th until after 4.30 p.m., possibly until 5.30 or 6. Now, October 13th, 1980 would have been the day Ann Alderson was killed. I'm not going to leave that part out.
00:54:09
Speaker
The defendant testified on his own behalf denying any involvement in these crimes. He said that he knew the friend who had purchased the gun but denied receiving that gun from them. He admitted wearing the jacket his girlfriend had brought from Montana, denied telling her that it had ever been stolen. He believed that she lost it one night after she got drunk. He admitted purchasing the pair of Nike's the day before the Hartle Hansen shooting and described in detail his activities during the relevant times. He said he saved receipts and other documents that could establish what he had been doing in cases parole officer ever asked. The de defendant testified on October 11th, 1980, the day of the double shooting of Moreland and Stowers. He took his father shopping and took his mother to a foot clinic. He produced some documents they received that day from the clinic.
00:54:59
Speaker
The documents indicated they left the foot clinic around 11 to 11 30 a.m. And the defendant said they did additional shopping arriving home around 5 45 p.m. On October 13th of 1980 he worked at Jim's of the Golden West until 5 30 or 6 p.m. that went home on the day may and O'Connell died the day after Thanksgiving 1980. The defendant was at his parents house fixing a broken toilet. The defendant said he started growing his beard March 24th of 1981. He spent much of the day of the Hartle Hansen shooting in Redwood City with four men whose real names he could not remember discussing the defendant's idea for a business that involved adult key chains. He went home that day around three o'clock PM. Bank records showed that the defendant's father's credit card was used for a purchase at one of of the places where he said he went shopping on October the 11th of 1980.
00:55:50
Speaker
and the proprietor of the business estimated that the purchase might have occurred around 1.30 to 2.30 PM. I know you've heard all of this before, but does anything there stand out to you as like like he couldn't have done this? No. In fact, most of that just sort of reiterates that there might be a little bit of question of who saw him and when, but I think we can say that like at this point in time, I don't think there's any question that David Carpenter is the trail side killer. Well, Ray, and to me, like none of that even is.
00:56:25
Speaker
ah While I feel like David Carpenter feels like he's establishing that, I don't even think the attorney is thinking that they're establishing that. I mean, they're talking about people that they saw like close to where but it happened, but like the day before, the day after, like these are completely irrelevant statements. Yeah. And so there's rebuttal evidence. There's, uh, I guess it would be sir, rebuttal. where the rebuttal is rebutted by rebuttal. But the ultimate end of this is he's convicted. like He's convicted in both of these cases. I'm giving you the summary of it so that you can see what happened here. Now, there's like a whole other set of evidence that they use that was sort of interesting related to like the prosecution saying,
00:57:16
Speaker
put him to death and the defense trying to say, don't put him to death. But that's not really related to the crimes themselves. That's more related to the person. There's a little bit about the heinousness in there, but the bottom line is these juries all think that he did it. Now we have a major problem. Barbara Dunham was one of the selected jurors in these cases and she ends up becoming the foreperson. I meant to ask you, have you ever been the four person in a jury? I have not. i've I've sat on a jury, but I've not been the four person. I think my dad was one time. I can't remember. I had a conversation with him about it. I cannot imagine being the four person. My husband has been the four person on a jury. Oh, yes. Interesting. Yeah. It wasn't a very interesting case. It wasn't like a murder or anything. Barbara Dome is the, she becomes the four person of the Santa Cruz murders.
00:58:14
Speaker
On initial questioning, this is how prosecutors and defense attorneys determine who's going to be on their jury. They ask them questions. When she was asked about the trail side murders, she stated she had not heard of them. She and the other 11 jurors evidently swore in conformity with the oath prescribed by the statute that she would well and truly try the cause and a true verdict render according to the evidence. These are very standard things that are given to jurors as orders from the court. During the guilt phase, evidence of the facts underlying the Santa Cruz crimes, except the Skaggs offenses featured prominently, but evidence of the verdicts was not presented. The jury found Carpenter guilty on all counts with murders in the first degree,
00:59:11
Speaker
They found all of the allegations to be each true. During the penalty phase, evidence of the facts underlying the Santa Cruz crimes, including Heather Scott, but not the guilty verdicts or the sentences was introduced. The jury returned a verdict of death and the Superior Court imposed that sentence. Now you may be asking, why are we all here and what does this have to do with Barbara Dunne? All right, let's just count up these charges. This guy has been convicted in two different settings of five murders, an attempted murder, two more murders, and a boatload of rapes and weapons charges, and he has been sentenced to death. The most serious penalty you can get. But this juror,
01:00:12
Speaker
becomes the focus of a later hearing.
Juror Misconduct & Appeals
01:00:15
Speaker
The way that this works is David Carpenter's attorneys go into file an appeal or a petition at first for a writ of habeas corpus related to the judgment in the Marin Trailside murder case. So they go to San Diego Superior Court and they challenge the He alleges that juror Durham had committed prejudicial misconduct during the trial. The matter gets the trial judge. He issues an order to show cause why the relief should not be granted. So that places the burden on the other side. After a return, which challenges the jurisdiction of the San Diego Superior Court and denies the allegations of the jurors misconduct,
01:01:06
Speaker
ah and a a traverse were filed. The court orders an evidentiary hearing where they want to understand what the da defense is saying. So the lawyers come in and they present pretty extensive evidence, mainly through the testimony of Michael Lustig and Donna Duran. And the respondent presents extensive evidence primarily through Juror Jurum and her husband Ronald Jurum. And the court describes all of this in the evidentiary hearing as being a classic credibility contest between Lustig and Duran on one side and the Jurims on the other side. The court found that Michael Lustig's testimony was credible in almost all respects and that Jurims' testimony was credible in all respects. It found that there was doubt in the testimony of the Jurims and they found that
01:02:02
Speaker
They found that juror Durham, in general, denying the misconduct allegation against her, ah they found her testimony to be perjurious. Been a while since I've seen that word in the court document. I assume you know what perjurious means, right? Having committed perjury. Yeah. it's ah Her testimony contained her committing perjury or contained perjury, which means she lied. I'm okay. So i I was listening. I promise I just got confused. So who are the two credibles and who are the two are who is and then juror Durham is not credible. So who were the two credibles? Michael Lustig and Donna Duran are the credible testimony. They were presented by David Carpenter's attorneys.
01:02:53
Speaker
OK, well, i I got confused because Duran sounds very close to Durham. I understand. And I haven't I haven't stated who they are yet, because this is like a Alfred Hitchcock novel that he wrote with Angela Lansbury. And what's the other one's name? What's the other one's name? Matlock? No, the the woman. ah Damn it. Agatha Christie. This is like if Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Angela Lansbury all got together to solve a crime. it would like look like this because I read court documents that way. I'm like watching all this unfold in my head. So this is fascinating for me. And I'm sorry if it's not fascinating for everyone out there, but this doesn't happen very often, especially not in a serial killing case. So from all the evidence, the court determined that Barbara Durham had committed misconduct because she had received information outside of court relating to the convictions and death sentence for the
01:03:53
Speaker
first trial crimes related to David Carpenter. By March 26th of 1988, in the middle of the guilt phase, she had received this information from newspaper accounts and either directly from or through her husband. So either directly from sources or through her husband until at least March 26th, 1988, the couple had been receiving delivery of a newspaper at their home. They had falsely stated in their original declarations that they had canceled their subscription around the opening of the guilt phase. Instead, they ordered the cancellation on or as of March 26th, 1988. At all relevant times, they were experiencing drinking problems and marital issues. Ronald,
01:04:37
Speaker
openly criticized the trial as a waste of time and money, having learned that David Carpenter had already been convicted and sentenced to death in the previous trial. The situation was very explosive, presenting an opportunity for a verbal battle between husband and wife while parties had been drinking. On many occasions, he apparently told her when she would come home from this trial, I know so much more about this case than you do. I don't know what would provoke that kind of response unless Mrs. Durham is somehow talking about aspects of this case. He had the opportunity to let his wife know in no uncertain terms, you're just wasting your time on this trial because David Carpenter already got the death sentence and he's been convicted of similar crimes. The Superior Court also found that Barbara Durham had committed misconduct by discussing the case pending before her and Carpenter Santa Cruz convictions
01:05:35
Speaker
and death sentences with non jurors, including Lustig and Duran. On March 26, 1988, Lustig, Duran, and others were having dinner at a resort in San Diego County. Lustig and invited the Durans, who were social acquaintances but not close friends, to his table. Lustig's table, Barbara Durham initiated a five or 10 minute conversation about the Marin case. She stated something like, the jury was not supposed to know this, but Carpenter had already been convicted and sentenced to death for the Santa Cruz crimes. The court found Barbara Durham to be very outspoken and to have no hesitancy talking about her marital problems, even with a virtual stranger.
01:06:18
Speaker
And that's somewhat similar to the fact that she would share with a stranger her confidential information about this case. And she wanted to be the center of attention that night. That kind of disclosure placed her in the center of attention with the Lustig and Duran party. She admitted she had discussed the Maryland case with Lustig and Duran, but denied revealing that that she knew the forbidden information and knew that it was forbidden. The court did not credit her. Having found misconduct, the court ordered a separate hearing on prejudice. and At that hearing, the parties presented extensive arguments but did not introduce any new evidence. In a detailed ruling, the court found for prejudice. It stated at the outset that it was applying the analysis of people v. Martinez, which is a 1978 whole thing, which held that whether a defendant had been prejudiced by a jury receiving evidence outside of the court,
01:07:13
Speaker
depends upon whether the jury's impartiality has been adversely affected, whether the prosecution's burden of proof has been lightened, and whether any asserted defense has been contradicted. The court analyzed prejudice at the penalty phase first and then at the guilt phase. I don't have to go like super deep into all of this, but I want to point out that like this is all happening in crazy pants land. I feel like the statement I made earlier earlier is like super relevant here. That, you know, they say all that stuff in the admonishments to a jury, but ultimately what they're saying is like, use your common sense, use what's put before you here in the courtroom.
01:08:01
Speaker
to make your decisions, right? Yes. um The court outlines like helpful hints, right? I guess to people who, I mean, they just want to get it broken down to a very essential level where they say like, don't talk about this with anybody. But ultimately, you know, people are absolutely capable of like talking about something and not being influenced by it. Right? Yeah. Okay. And so this is, if you have to get to this point, right, where you're arguing the trial was not fair or the verdict was not fair based on juror misconduct, even in the event that the misconduct is egregious, you can still tell whether or not
01:08:53
Speaker
they use the information that was put before them to make the decision that they made. Yes. Okay. I'm just saying like it it's usually even without having to bring forward, you know, this type of situation, it it should be very obvious to a judge if the jury, you know, has missed the boot. And you know, i I read this stuff and like, I'm not always sure like where to go with it in terms of like telling a story about this. Basically, all of this case is about to get kicked because a jury had a member talk. Now the documents that I'm reading you here in 95, 99, et cetera,
01:09:49
Speaker
They end up almost giving getting David Carpenter off for all of these murders. Now, if you want to go read this weekend, you can read stanford dot.edu has it. People versus um carpenter is available in just the US law. There are a pile of documents here that go back and forth and back and forth for years. And it is a fascinating story about how they considered whether or not they could let a serial killer off, not once, but twice. Now, one of
01:10:22
Speaker
the trials here, they they do end up kicking part of the charges, but they reinstate them. It goes back and forth from roughly 1991 until about 1999. But up until then, it looked like this pretty clear cut serial killer could get off. because a juror ran their mouth. This case gets really confusing on the court docket. What is your take on all of this? The defense attorney was clearly exposed.
01:11:07
Speaker
utilizing all the possible defenses. While it does you know it does use resources, it also makes sure that enough eyes have seen the situation and made their appropriate ruling on it. But ultimately, anything that would involve juror misconduct typically Unless it's something to the effect of, like, we were paying the juror to find the person guilty, which wouldn't happen, because if anything, like, the defendant would be paying a juror to find them innocent, right? Right. I'm just saying. Like, it it's going to be really hard to say that the merits of the case warrant, like, a conviction being reversed based on juror misconduct, right?
01:12:03
Speaker
Yeah, that's what I thought too. if So if you hear outside information about this case, or you go reading quick blurbs on the internet, or you go listen to pretty much anything about David Carpenter, it's very confusing. My advice is if you want to know what I'm about to say being as truthful as I can get it, There's a couple of links at stanford.edu about people versus Carpenter. There's some Justia Law. I've mentioned those along the way as sources, encourage people to read them. What I'm gonna say here is my interpretation of it, and this goes to those things being wrong, including like the Wikipedia, a couple of podcasters have gotten some of this wrong when they do one-offs on it. and It's out there wrong in a lot of ways. I think what happens in the David Carpenter case so
01:12:59
Speaker
Best I can tell is 30 years ago, he appeals this conviction on on the basis of juror misconduct. His petition is approved. The court finds what the petition holds for the habeas corpus hearings to be credible side of the defense. They actually kick, in my opinion, what is known as the Marin County trials. which is Richard Stowers, Cynthia Moreland, Shauna May, Diana O'Connell, and Ann Alderson. They kick all of those convictions and the penalties associated with them. And then the attorney general's office, by way of the Department of Corrections, comes back in and they appeal the appeal's results and have the reversal of the conviction and sentence reversed.
01:13:51
Speaker
And so it's reinstated. But because of how this seems to have played out, it's not the convictions for what's related to Ellen Marie Hanson and Stephen Hart of The Witness and Heather Skaggs that is overturned and reinstated. They are the cause Like the knowledge of those convictions and penalties are the cause of the Marin County trial briefly being overturned and then over the course of the process reinstated, both conviction and penalty.
01:14:28
Speaker
Right. And essentially, the court said, yeah, I mean, she shouldn't have done what she did as far as the poor person goes. But there was still plenty of evidence presented to justify the outcome. Right. And this course, like I said, it languishes for years. They actually try and take portions of this up to the Supreme Court. And when you go to the Supreme Court, you don't automatically get to be heard by the Supreme Court. It's a very lengthy process. You've exhausted all your federal options. You file for what's known as a writ of Satoria or petition of Satoria. And the Supreme Court in 1995, as to the juror misconduct issue in the instance we're talking about here, they squish it. Now, that doesn't stop him from keep keeping harping on it. There are attorneys who keep harping on this for many, many years.
01:15:21
Speaker
ultimately The end result is David Carpenter is the oldest death row inmate, we think, is that? In California. In California at least.
Carpenter's Identity & Ongoing Legal Struggles
01:15:34
Speaker
And where we're headed next is a little different. Where we're going to head in the next episode, because I am going to keep talking about David Carpenter for one more episode, is he has one of the most specific timelines of any serial killer I've ever seen. I think you and I have decided that yes, indeed, David Carpenter is a serial killer. You think that's fair to say? Well, we did have questions when we started this process. I think we've gotten over most of our questions, but as usual, there is always one more thing, and that is there's at least one person who's attributed to him in some
01:16:17
Speaker
extraneous materials over the course of years, and I wanna take a look at their case. And then I wanna show you guys what Meg and I did to see if we could find missing persons who potentially could be attributed to him, or if we could find unsolved murders that might be attributed to him, and you are not gonna believe what we came up with. But we'll bring that up in the next episode. Thank you so much for listening today. We'll see you next time.
01:17:15
Speaker
All right, so I'm gonna tell you guys a a few things about some of the folks who are helping sponsor our show.
Podcast Sponsorships
01:17:22
Speaker
Now, Labradi Creations sponsors our show, and you can always use the the crime excess code there. um You can also just message them at Labradi Creations, and they will generally do something for the people who come from true crime excess. They were our very first sponsor. They've done a lot for the show, and that code is crime excess at labradicreations dot.com.
01:17:47
Speaker
The first new advertisers that we have, and i've I've selected all of these guys, I've selected all of these advertisers. So the very first one is Cure. Now, I'm gonna tell you guys about this about Cure as being one of our sponsors.
01:18:05
Speaker
If you're an athlete, you know that proper hydration is key to peak performance, but plain water can be boring and sports drinks can be filled with artificial ingredients and added sugars. That's why we love cure. It's a clean and effective way to stay hydrated and perform at your best. I use it late in the day when I switch out of caffeine mode. Specifically, when I hit the pool or I go play tennis with my wife, I use cure to help me stay hydrated. It helps me recover after a long day. Now, you guys may not know this, but I built it. Right now, I've been building several structures on our property out here. Among those is a new podcast studio space for myself. I do a lot of that work at night and into the wee hours, and I always have some cure with me to go into my aluminum water bottle. Hydration is not just about filling up my aluminum bottle with water.
01:18:59
Speaker
Cure hydration is an oral rehydration solution that contains the perfect balance of electrolytes and glucose to help your body absorb water and rehydrate quickly. Whether I'm building things or or' putting the podcast together or chasing these dogs that you sometimes hear in my studio up and down the trails to get them worn out. Cure hydration is the way that I choose to go. Cure hydration is an oral rehydration solution or an ORS that contains the perfect balance of electrolytes and glucose to help your body absorb water and to rehydrate quickly.
01:19:35
Speaker
The formula is made with all natural ingredients like coconut water, powder, and pink Himalayan salt. It's free from artificial flavors, from sweeteners, and preservatives. Pure hydration is vegan, gluten-free, and non-GMO, making it a great option for anyone with dietary restrictions or preferences. The packets are convenient and easy to use. ah You just mix them with your water and you drink. They're perfect for on-the-go, they're perfect for travel, and anytime you need a quick and effective hydration boost, ready to combat dehydration, then you try cure today and feel the difference for yourself. You can use code TRUECRIMEXS for 20% off your order. That's T-R-U-E-C-R-I-M-E-X-S. I have a link that I'm putting in the most recent episode show notes and True Crime XS will get you 20% off.
01:20:30
Speaker
Our second sponsor for the show today is Laird. Now, Laird has a list of things that they want me to tell you about. They have better ingredients with amazing taste and functional benefits. They have a superfood creamer crafted from the highest quality, all natural, real food ingredients. All Laird products are sustainably sourced and thoroughly tested to ensure that you're incorporating the cleanest, finest fuel into your routine. They have all natural whole food ingredients, and they contain naturally occurring MCTs made from coconut oil. There's no artificial flavors, there's no colors or additives, and there's no sugar from highly refined corn syrup. They want me to talk about my love of coffee, but the truth is, I don't do much with coffee. But let me tell you someone who does. My wife has to have a cup of coffee every day.
01:21:19
Speaker
Now, I've fallen off recently, but one of the big things that I've done since the beginning of our relationship is she used to go and get a Starbucks every morning. I have substituted that out by always trying to make her coffee. It's not gonna be every single day of time from when I met her, but for the most part, almost every day, I make her coffee. I put her creamers together and I make sure that she has a good way to start her day. So with Laird, he started experimenting with his morning ritual almost two decades ago. He found that when he started adding fats to his morning cup, like coconut oil, he had amazing energy throughout the rest of his day. He gradually perfected this recipe for an epic cup of fuel. And he began sharing it with his friends in the surf community. I'm an ocean guy, so I saw this item and I was like, okay, we're gonna try this one out.
01:22:16
Speaker
Are you ready to feel more energized? more focused and supported. Go to layeredsuperfood.com and add nourishing plant-based foods to fuel you from sunrise to sunset. And you can use our promo code at checkout to save 15% off your purchase today. Our offer code for this for Laird is going to be truecrimexs. Pretty much everywhere except for laboratory creations. If you use truecrimexs, that will get you
01:22:49
Speaker
At Laird, they'll get you 15% off. At some of the other places, they'll get you 20%. And the last sponsor I want to tell you about is Zencaster. We're part of Zencaster's creative network. We've been using Zencaster since about midway into our first season. Meg and I experimented with a lot of different ways to put the podcast together. And the truth is Zencaster, an integral ingredient to us being able to bring you this show. It's so easy. It's now super easy. You can record a podcast with Zincaster. You can log in using your browser and you start recording a high quality podcast right away. You can record studio quality sound and up to 4K video with your guest.
01:23:35
Speaker
You get to feel a sense of zen knowing that Zencaster's multi-layered backups ensure you will always have your recordings in the highest quality, even if the connection is unstable. You sound your best. I mean, if you've ever worried about what you sound like, Zencaster's post-production process makes you sound buttery smooth. It automatically removes those ums and ahs in your recordings. It removes those awkward pauses and conversation too. You can set the right podcast loudness and levels while reducing background noise with a click of a button. That's how you don't hear my dogs every ah second of every episode.
01:24:13
Speaker
ZenCaster is all in one. If you've thought about podcasting before and realized that you need a lot of different tools and services, those days are now over. With ZenCaster's all in one podcasting platform. You can create your podcast all in one place, and you can distribute to Spotify, Apple, and other major major destinations. Just go to zencaster.com slash pricing and use my code TRUECRIMEXS. And you're gonna get 30% off your first month of any ZNCaster paid plan. You can also check out the other plans they have available. I want you to have the same easy experiences that I do for all my podcasting and content needs.
01:24:53
Speaker
So zincaster.com slash pricing. The offer code is truecrimexs. And it's time for you to share your story today.
01:25:09
Speaker
ah We are also adding New Era as a sponsor for the show. New Era Cap is a headwear and apparel brand founded in 1920 in Buffalo, New York. Now, I actually have some experience with New York Caps. My dad and I have been through multiple iterations of baseball caps through the years. We collect different styles, different eras, and then my teenager has started his own cap collection and has several new eras as the centerpieces. Our favorite teams may not be the same, but our outfits are all topped with the same new era ball caps. ah We love the quality and the ability to wear what the players are wearing, not to mention new era is the leading headwear manufacturer with quality licensed products. You can support your favorite college or pro team in style from
01:25:57
Speaker
The official headwear provider for the MLB, NFL, and NBA, you can get a stylus accessory for your everyday ensemble and support True Crime XS. Just shop the official headwear and get 15% off when you go to NewEraCap.com. That's N-E-W-E-R-A-C-A-P dot.com slash True Crime XS. You can also use the code TRUECRIMEXS at checkout. That's it. That's all you have to do. And that's 15% off your order using the promo code TRUECRIMEXS.