Speaker 1: What are you waiting for? Come on in. This podcast
Speaker 1: may contain graphic content and strong language. Listener discretion is advised. Hi, Hannah. Oh, sorry,
Speaker 1: I was drinking. Hi, Mary. Well, stop drinking. How the
Speaker 1: hell are you? Fantastic. How are you? Sorry, I was drinking.
Speaker 1: I'm doing fantastic. I can see that. You're drinking. I'm texting, too. Also,
Speaker 1: you're drinking Deliciousness. Oh, my Lord. That is really good, too.
Speaker 1: I know. I love this one. Welcome to Murder, Mischief,
Speaker 1: and Moscato, everyone. I'm Hannah Green. I'm Mary Swartz. What's
Speaker 1: new in your life? Just got our siding done. I know.
Speaker 1: It looks great. It looks good. I know. It looks
Speaker 1: very good. Yeah. Anything else new? We have a ginormous
Speaker 1: frog up north. Aww. He's ginormous. He's so cool. Aww.
Speaker 1: I know. Has Aurora given him a name? Well, the
Speaker 1: first time she just said his name is Froggy. So
Speaker 1: I don't know if his name is going to change. Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: But I did find out that they do tend to
Speaker 1: come back if they find a safe spot. They will
Speaker 1: come back to the same spot every year. Aww. Because
Speaker 1: our original one from last year is back, too. Aww.
Speaker 1: I love that. I know. Yay. I love it, too. Yay.
Speaker 1: And my pear trees are empty. I know. I saw them.
Speaker 1: That's hilarious. I know. Who knew that deer would stand
Speaker 1: on their hind legs and eat the fruit off of
Speaker 1: your trees? I do not know, but it's really awesome.
Speaker 1: They are clever little buggers. I woke up at like 6.45
Speaker 1: one morning when I was up north, and I looked
Speaker 1: out the window, and yeah, she was out there having breakfast. Aw.
Speaker 1: Should have offered her a cup of coffee. They tend
Speaker 1: to get scared away kind of easily. So, yep, I
Speaker 1: just took a couple pictures and a little video of her.
Speaker 1: It's very cute. I know. I know. I love the
Speaker 1: wildlife in my yard up there, though. I do. It's
Speaker 1: a good thing up there. It really is. It is. Alrighty,
Speaker 1: are you ready for a douchebag? Oh. Yes. Yes, I
Speaker 1: guess I'm ready for a douchebag. Okay. Only if I
Speaker 1: can make fun of him. Okay. Or her. It's him,
Speaker 1: and I chose him for his last name. Oh, goody. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Larry D. Hubbard was born on September 2nd of 1952. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Chosen for the name. He also went by the name
Speaker 1: Larry David Barnes and Larry Lamar Ratliff. So he was
Speaker 1: convicted of robbery in Florida in 1974. He escaped from
Speaker 1: prison in 1977. Okay. Okay. So he was literally 22
Speaker 1: when they convicted him and sent him to prison the
Speaker 1: first time. Okay. He remained a fugitive for decades until
Speaker 1: May of 2007. Wow. Okay. That's pretty good. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: Sonia Smith, who was 25, was... Killed on August 19th
Speaker 1: of 1980. Her body was found in an abandoned field
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles. She was found with her wrists and
Speaker 1: ankles tied. She had been sexually assaulted and strangled. Phyllis McClinton,
Speaker 1: she was 25, killed November 4th of 1980 in South
Speaker 1: Los Angeles. She had similar injuries and circumstances to Sonia.
Speaker 1: Vanessa Williams, who was 45, was murdered in Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: on August 11th of 2000 in Pomona, California, and she
Speaker 1: was found strangled in a field. That's quite a span
Speaker 1: of time, though, 20 years in between. Which tells me
Speaker 1: that either he was incarcerated under another name, or he
Speaker 1: was committing other crimes that he wasn't caught for. Or
Speaker 1: he was in a different area. Or he had moved
Speaker 1: to a different area. Yeah. Christine Fields, who was 27,
Speaker 1: was killed on October 14th of 2000. She was also
Speaker 1: strangled and her body was left in a field. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: I would almost say that he was either incarcerated under
Speaker 1: one of his other names or he had actually left
Speaker 1: for maybe two decades and come back. I'm not sure. Yeah, because, like,
Speaker 1: he did two, bang, bang, and then nothing for 20
Speaker 1: years and then another two, bang, bang. Yeah. So he
Speaker 1: actually attacked another woman in November of 2000. She survived
Speaker 1: and identified him as her attacker. So they arrested him
Speaker 1: and eventually his DNA led to the 1980 murders and
Speaker 1: then to the 2000 murders. Good. So he left his
Speaker 1: DNA in all of them. Good. And good on them
Speaker 1: for keeping the DNA from 1980 because that did not
Speaker 1: always happen. So he was also linked to other multiple
Speaker 1: unsolved murders in Southern California, but there was a lot
Speaker 1: of circumstantial evidence. His victims were basically tied together by
Speaker 1: the method of death, the location, their background. All right.
Speaker 1: His death in 2008 ended his criminal career, but there
Speaker 1: are many cases that remain unsolved that they think he committed.
Speaker 1: Which would then make more sense. Yes. So he died
Speaker 1: on January 13th of 2008 from complications of suicide by hanging. Oh,
Speaker 1: gee darn. Yeah. Yeah. Sounds like it wasn't a quick
Speaker 1: death then, and I'm glad to hear that. And I'm
Speaker 1: glad to hear that, too. Wow. Yeah. What a fucking dickwad. Yeah.
Speaker 1: What do you got for us on this day, girl?
Speaker 1: You usually bring us something interesting. It is interesting. It's
Speaker 1: so well known that I'm actually not even going to
Speaker 1: do a deep dive into this one at all. On
Speaker 1: this day in 1945, World War II ended. Oh. Oh. Okay. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it came to an end as the Japanese Foreign Minister
Speaker 1: Shigemitsu Mamoru and General... Yumezu Yoshihiro signed Japan's formal surrender
Speaker 1: aboard the USS Missouri. Okay. It was actually a really
Speaker 1: important date in our history. In everybody's history. Yeah. But
Speaker 1: I just didn't, like, I could have done. Oh, of course.
Speaker 1: I could do nine weeks worth of podcasts on it
Speaker 1: if I really wanted to. But, you know, at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, it doesn't really matter all the details.
Speaker 1: all the details and the who's and the how's, but
Speaker 1: a ridiculous amount of lives were lost. I think in
Speaker 1: war there usually is a ridiculous amount of lives lost.
Speaker 1: And so, yeah. Why can't we all just get along? Yeah.
Speaker 1: 81 years ago today. Wow. Wow. That's crazy. Yeah. What
Speaker 1: are we drinking? Oh, my gosh. It is amazing, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you that. That's what I know about it. We
Speaker 1: should drink it more often. We should drink more often? Okay. St.
Speaker 1: Julian's Blackberry and Blueberry Hard Cider. This does not have
Speaker 1: the bite that a lot of ciders have. It's super smooth.
Speaker 1: I mean, it has a little bit of tartness to it.
Speaker 1: It does, but, you know, ciders aren't necessarily tart, but
Speaker 1: sometimes you can tell a cider's a cider because it
Speaker 1: has a little back bite to it. Yeah, this is
Speaker 1: just really, really nice. It's very crisp. Yes. It's definitely refreshing,
Speaker 1: which is great because it is a shitty day today.
Speaker 1: It's very muggy. Oh, God. I wouldn't call it shitty,
Speaker 1: but it is super muggy out there. It is so
Speaker 1: humid out that it is raining. How humid is it?
Speaker 1: It's raining from the ceiling in my lab. Oh, maybe
Speaker 1: you guys are in your own little weather zone. Our
Speaker 1: thermostat is set to 63 degrees and it is raining
Speaker 1: from the ceiling in our lab. That's crazy. Yeah. There's
Speaker 1: craziness right there. Absolutely crazy. All right. That's some humidity.
Speaker 1: Speaking of crazy. I have a crazy story to bring
Speaker 1: you today. Oh. I think you're going to like this.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I find those stories and I intentionally write them
Speaker 1: with you in mind. I love it when you write.
Speaker 1: I know. Hold on. Wait. I have a question. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 1: Are there mannequins? Nope. There are no mannequins. Okay. There
Speaker 1: are no mannequins. Not a single one in sight. Okay.
Speaker 1: All right. Not even a single one out of sight.
Speaker 1: But I should write one of those soon. I haven't
Speaker 1: done that in a long time. You did for a
Speaker 1: while have this streak of mannequin stories. I got you
Speaker 1: good with the last one. Oh, my God. Oh, I
Speaker 1: got you so good with the last one. That was great.
Speaker 1: You got me really good with a couple of them.
Speaker 1: That was so great. Um, I've titled this one, The
Speaker 1: Woman Without a Face. Okay. So here we go. Our
Speaker 1: story begins in 1993 with a very simple burglary in Austria.
Speaker 1: Nothing unusual. Routine burglary and a routine investigation. I don't
Speaker 1: know what they burgled. I don't know who they burgled.
Speaker 1: They just, somebody burgled somebody. Okay. Investigators took photographs, they
Speaker 1: dusted for fingerprints, and they swabbed for any DNA that
Speaker 1: may have been left behind by the person responsible or
Speaker 1: the people responsible for the invasion and theft of of
Speaker 1: someone else's belongings that they had no right to take. Okay. Now,
Speaker 1: being Austria, they do do things a little bit differently
Speaker 1: than we do, but, you know, that's okay. They, everything
Speaker 1: I read, you know, they did a super thorough investigation.
Speaker 1: They are super thorough investigators. And I'm immediately thinking, they
Speaker 1: took DNA. Well, they swab for DNA. Right, right, right.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, you think about how many people come into
Speaker 1: your house and how long DNA can stick around for.
Speaker 1: That could be a lot of people that you might
Speaker 1: have to try to eliminate. Well, and the thing is,
Speaker 1: like I said, I didn't, like, focus on the burglary itself.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if, like, somebody broke into the house,
Speaker 1: had a snack, took a shower. Stole some jewelry, stole money,
Speaker 1: took a wallet. I don't know. Cut themselves on the glass. Right.
Speaker 1: I don't know. No, I can go there with you.
Speaker 1: I'm just thinking, man, if they swabbed every surface that, like,
Speaker 1: people would touch coming in and out of your house,
Speaker 1: think about that. Well, like, if they, if they, because
Speaker 1: we've read about burglars stopping and getting a snack. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: Then if you knew that they had done that, you
Speaker 1: would definitely swab for DNA in that kind of circumstance. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: And like you said, if they'd gone through a window
Speaker 1: and cut themselves, you would definitely swab for DNA. Yes.
Speaker 1: But we're still talking 1993, so DNA is pretty, pretty, um,
Speaker 1: pretty new. Yeah. Still in its infancy. Yeah. After all
Speaker 1: of the very routine investigating as normal, all they really
Speaker 1: came up with is a very, very small amount of DNA. Okay.
Speaker 1: Nothing else was found at the scenes. No fingerprints, no
Speaker 1: shoe prints. Hmm. They had no witnesses. They had no suspects.
Speaker 1: All they had was a genetic fingerprint, which is the DNA,
Speaker 1: and eventually through testing, they would learn that it belonged
Speaker 1: to a woman. Oh, that's unusual. I feel like more
Speaker 1: burglaries are done by men than women usually. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's an assumption. No. Because I don't know.
Speaker 1: It's not something I've ever looked into. And I really,
Speaker 1: you know, didn't think about checking that out. Right. But
Speaker 1: when you read about burglaries. When you think about a burglar,
Speaker 1: it's generally a male, too. And when you read about
Speaker 1: them more often than not, it's a male. Yeah. Although
Speaker 1: sometimes it's couples. Like a pair. Yes. A team. So
Speaker 1: they ran it through the multiple databases that they had available.
Speaker 1: And they got no hits on this DNA that they had. Right.
Speaker 1: So apparently their perpetrator either did not have a criminal
Speaker 1: history or simply had never left any DNA behind in
Speaker 1: any of their possibly previous crimes. Or whatever they had
Speaker 1: done previously had not resulted in their DNA being taken
Speaker 1: and put into the database. Could be, yeah, because at
Speaker 1: one point in time, they only took DNA for, like,
Speaker 1: murders or felonies or something super serious. Right. Eventually, um, okay.
Speaker 1: Little did the investigators know at that time that their
Speaker 1: DNA fingerprint would make another appearance. Oh. Or two. Oh.
Speaker 1: Or three. Oh. Or 40. Wow. Somebody's been a busy girl. Eventually,
Speaker 1: the DNA would be given its own moniker. Oh. Which
Speaker 1: is a nickname, which is basically just a nickname, but
Speaker 1: in the reference we're using it, it's a nickname given
Speaker 1: to a serial criminal. Okay. Because monikers are actually just nicknames. Yes.
Speaker 1: But because we do crime, that's how we know it as.
Speaker 1: This criminal mastermind would evade authorities for an extremely, extremely
Speaker 1: long time and would eventually be tied to at least
Speaker 1: 40 crimes, including murders, assaults, and break-ins. Oh. Wow. All right.
Speaker 1: In 1993, so the same year, this is after the burglary,
Speaker 1: A 62-year-old woman, Liselette Schlinger, was murdered in Idar-Oberstein, Germany. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 1: So the burglary was in Austria. Now we're in Germany. Gotcha.
Speaker 1: Investigations found the unknown woman's DNA at the scene of
Speaker 1: the murder on a teacup. Oh. Okay. I know that
Speaker 1: Austria and Germany aren't that far apart. And I didn't, like,
Speaker 1: check into that. So, you know, teacup. Were they having
Speaker 1: tea together? Did they know each other? Right. Or did
Speaker 1: she have a snack afterwards? I don't know. Are you
Speaker 1: checking to see how far apart they are? Yes, I am.
Speaker 1: If I could spell, it would help, though. It's Austria
Speaker 1: and Germany. It is, just generically, if you were driving it,
Speaker 1: it's a little less than eight hours. Oh, that's not
Speaker 1: too bad. At whatever their... Right. And it could be
Speaker 1: less if one's on the very edge of this one
Speaker 1: and one's on the very edge of that one. Yes,
Speaker 1: because they do actually border each other. Oh, okay. So
Speaker 1: I went kind of from the middle of Germany to
Speaker 1: the middle of Austria. That's still not that long. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So over the next decade, her DNA appeared at scenes
Speaker 1: of violent assaults, chaotic attacks. There were home invasions. There
Speaker 1: were robberies on the streets. There were break-ins involving weapons.
Speaker 1: There were break-ins without weapons. There were assaults with multiple perpetrators.
Speaker 1: And all of these crimes occurred all over Europe. You
Speaker 1: can take a train from Munich to Salzburg, Munich, Germany
Speaker 1: to Salzburg, Austria in an hour and a half. So
Speaker 1: it's like it really is not a very long distance. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Munich to Vienna takes four hours. Okay. So. There are
Speaker 1: Female perpetrator had no set pattern for her crimes. And, like,
Speaker 1: I don't know how long it took the investigators from
Speaker 1: different areas to put this together. Right. Like, I don't
Speaker 1: know if they actually communicated with each other or they had,
Speaker 1: because it's another country or other countries, that they had, like,
Speaker 1: a database that everybody put their shit into. Yeah, because,
Speaker 1: I mean, like, here we have CODIS. Yes. And I
Speaker 1: don't know if CODIS is international. No. But I do
Speaker 1: know that Interpol has an international database. That is true.
Speaker 1: Their female perpetrator had no set pattern for her crimes.
Speaker 1: She seemed to choose random victims at random times. Oh, fantastic. Opportunity, maybe.
Speaker 1: Sometimes she worked alone. Sometimes she worked with partners. She
Speaker 1: committed crimes in different countries. Some crimes were very high-value burglaries.
Speaker 1: Others were petty thefts like shoplifting. Or bicycle theft. Interesting.
Speaker 1: Small-time break-ins. Investigators began to believe that she was highly
Speaker 1: mobile and a highly dangerous offender. Well, she's willing to
Speaker 1: murder people. Of course she's highly dangerous. Someone capable of
Speaker 1: slipping across borders and leaving absolutely no trace except for
Speaker 1: that genetic signature. That DNA. She was given the moniker
Speaker 1: the Phantom of Halbron. And she's clearly not... doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to be very concerned about leaving DNA. But back then,
Speaker 1: I don't know if people really understood so much. No,
Speaker 1: I don't think until the early 2000s that it really
Speaker 1: started coming out how valuable this tool was for law enforcement.
Speaker 1: And how easily you could leave your DNA behind. With everything, yeah.
Speaker 1: So some people referred to her as the woman without
Speaker 1: a face. Okay. And she wasn't even close to being done.
Speaker 1: In the 1960s, so we're going to jump backwards. We're
Speaker 1: going to go backwards. In the 1960s, a Swiss chemist
Speaker 1: by the name of Friedrich Meischer first identified DNA in
Speaker 1: his preparations of white blood cells that he had extracted
Speaker 1: from the pus in some surgical bandages. Interesting. I didn't
Speaker 1: know it was that long ago. Around 1863, Gregor Mendel,
Speaker 1: he had some pea plant experiments. And his pea plant
Speaker 1: experiments established some of the principles of inheritance of DNA.
Speaker 1: How DNA is passed through generations. Which is how they
Speaker 1: can deal with albatross and take it backwards. Yes. To
Speaker 1: identify people. In 1902, Francisca Rojas was the first criminal
Speaker 1: to be found guilty using fingerprint evidence when she murdered
Speaker 1: her two children. In 1902? Yeah. Wow. Which to me
Speaker 1: is very astonishing. In 1912, William Henry Bragg and William
Speaker 1: Thomas Bragg, father and son, brought us the X-ray. In 1915,
Speaker 1: Thomas Hunt Morgan used fruit flies to establish DNA gene mapping.
Speaker 1: But they didn't know it was DNA back then. They
Speaker 1: just knew it was gene mapping. Right, yes. I don't
Speaker 1: think they called it DNA at that point in time. No,
Speaker 1: they probably called it like inherited genes or something. In 1937,
Speaker 1: Florence Bell took the first X-rays of DNA. Kind of
Speaker 1: ties all together a little bit. But again, they didn't
Speaker 1: realize that what they were seeing was DNA. And it
Speaker 1: seems that every few years after that, small advances were
Speaker 1: being made in the understanding and the usage of DNA
Speaker 1: forensics in law enforcement. And it's really in the last,
Speaker 1: I would say, 15 years that it's really come to
Speaker 1: the forefront. Yeah. Really started to make its mark, leave
Speaker 1: its mark. Well, because now they can actually... Yes. So
Speaker 1: if they have a really, really, really tiny sample, they
Speaker 1: can kind of make... They can copy it. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: was going to say, for lack of a better word,
Speaker 1: they can make photocopies of it. So they can test
Speaker 1: it multiple times. Yes. Yes. Because that was a big thing,
Speaker 1: is if you had a really teeny tiny sample... sample,
Speaker 1: do you test it now? Or, you know, some investigators
Speaker 1: made decisions to wait to test it because the sample
Speaker 1: would be used up. Yes. 1987 was the first time
Speaker 1: that DNA profiling was used to catch a murderer. All right.
Speaker 1: 1993 was the first time it was used to exonerate
Speaker 1: a convicted rapist. Which is also very important. Yes. DNA
Speaker 1: has come a very long, long way. I mean, people
Speaker 1: think of DNA mostly as you get some from your mom,
Speaker 1: you get some from your dad. And it's how you
Speaker 1: convict a criminal. But it also is used so many
Speaker 1: times to identify unknown victims, you know, who they are
Speaker 1: struggling to identify. That is how so many victims have
Speaker 1: gotten their name back in the last dozen years. It's amazing.
Speaker 1: And so many serial killers have been named and convicted
Speaker 1: or named and, you know, like they may have passed away,
Speaker 1: but at least the families have some types of answers.
Speaker 1: So we've never covered this particular serial killer before. Although
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've heard of him. The happy face killer? Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't intend to cover him. Well, here's the thing.
Speaker 1: He's very controversial. That one is very controversial. They just,
Speaker 1: within like the last two weeks, identified his last unknown victim.
Speaker 1: That is awesome. They were finally able to identify her.
Speaker 1: That is fantastic. Through DNA. I love that kind of stuff. Yeah. Um...
Speaker 1: Scientists know that each individual has their own unique DNA.
Speaker 1: So every human shares 99.9% of the same genetic code. Right.
Speaker 1: It's that remaining 0.1% that's different. And the only exception
Speaker 1: to that is an identical twin. Right. But that being said,
Speaker 1: if you go and you get DNA tests done, just
Speaker 1: because your siblings... Doesn't mean that you will automatically have
Speaker 1: like 50% or, you know what I mean? Like match.
Speaker 1: You could have less than that. You could have more
Speaker 1: than that. It's all based on what you each got
Speaker 1: from your mom and what you each got from your dad. Right.
Speaker 1: But they know, they can generally tell how close it
Speaker 1: is though from the percentage of stuff. Oh yeah. And I,
Speaker 1: you know, like I haven't ever dove into that. It
Speaker 1: would be kind of cool to learn some of that stuff,
Speaker 1: but I didn't dive into that. Well, I know that
Speaker 1: you and I matched in like the 40-some percentile, but
Speaker 1: they knew that they could tell that we were sisters.
Speaker 1: When investigators continued to find the phantom's DNA in various
Speaker 1: crime scenes, they knew they were only looking for one perpetrator.
Speaker 1: They found her DNA on jewelry boxes, cash registers, tools
Speaker 1: that had been used to break into homes, stolen items,
Speaker 1: car interiors, the teacup. Interesting. Murders, assaults, burglary, small thefts,
Speaker 1: large thefts. Her crimes were all over the map. And
Speaker 1: investigators were having an extremely difficult time profiling her. There
Speaker 1: was no rhyme or reason. Right. So do you call
Speaker 1: her disorganized? Or do you not? You know, because she's
Speaker 1: organized to the point where she's never been caught. And
Speaker 1: really there aren't very many witnesses who can describe her.
Speaker 1: But she's all over the map with everything. Right. So
Speaker 1: she disorganized or is she incredibly clever? Right. They had
Speaker 1: never run across a suspected serial killer who also committed
Speaker 1: petty theft and other various crimes. And we know from
Speaker 1: most of our stories that killers don't do petty theft.
Speaker 1: Which almost makes you wonder if this is twins. Is
Speaker 1: this triplets? That's a good thought. That is a good thought.
Speaker 1: Who are all into crime, but are all into... And
Speaker 1: share the same exact DNA. But all are into different
Speaker 1: kinds of crimes. Right. Because we know that a petty
Speaker 1: burglar doesn't commit murder. Not usually. In fact, investigators across
Speaker 1: Europe were baffled. But they knew they were on the
Speaker 1: right track because DNA kept pointing to the same woman.
Speaker 1: And DNA doesn't lie. And we know that. DNA does
Speaker 1: not lie. Right. But there was more. Of course there was.
Speaker 1: The Phantom of Heilbronn's DNA also appeared in some drug-related investigations.
Speaker 1: So let's throw that in there, too. Oh, that's interesting.
Speaker 1: Forensic labs all around Europe found her DNA on some
Speaker 1: drug packaging, drug containers, drug paraphernalia, and even inside some
Speaker 1: vehicles that had been used to transport drugs. Okay, this
Speaker 1: is really weird now. This suggested to investigators she might
Speaker 1: be part of a drug network, maybe a recruiter or handler.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't take into account all the rest of
Speaker 1: the shit. But again, no witnesses could actually identify her.
Speaker 1: No CC cameras ever caught her. No accomplices ever admitted
Speaker 1: they worked with her. In March of 2001, 61-year-old antique
Speaker 1: dealer Joseph Wolzenbach was murdered in Freiburg, Germany. The woman's
Speaker 1: DNA was found at the scene on a kitchen drawer
Speaker 1: in his kitchen, obviously. October of 2001. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if this is how you pronounce this, but it could
Speaker 1: be Huergon. Buehler was found dead in a wooded area
Speaker 1: near Gerolstein, Germany. The woman's DNA was found on a
Speaker 1: syringe near the body, which contained heroin. Oh. So now
Speaker 1: you have the drug thing again. Right. But it's also
Speaker 1: a murder. The lines are just being crossed. October 24th
Speaker 1: of 2001. Budenheim, Germany. A trailer was forcefully opened during
Speaker 1: the night. The DNA... was found on a partial cookie. Interesting.
Speaker 1: That they recovered from the home. Apparently stopped for a snack. 2004,
Speaker 1: Vietnamese gem traders were robbed in Arbois, France. And her
Speaker 1: DNA was found on a toy gun that had been
Speaker 1: used during the robbery. Wasn't even a real gun. Which
Speaker 1: to me makes no sense at all. No, this is
Speaker 1: very bizarre. In May, on the 6th of 2005, two
Speaker 1: brothers got into a fight in Worms, Germany. Investigators found
Speaker 1: her DNA on a projectile that was used in the
Speaker 1: fight by one of the brothers. Okay, something doesn't add
Speaker 1: up here. This is bizarre. The whole story is bizarre.
Speaker 1: Something's really, really off here. October 3rd of 2006, a
Speaker 1: rock was used to smash a window in order to
Speaker 1: enter and burgle a home. In Saarbrücken, Germany, a woman's
Speaker 1: DNA was found on the rock. All right. March 2007,
Speaker 1: an optometry store was broken into. How would you break
Speaker 1: into an optometry store? And burgled. What do you steal?
Speaker 1: Glasses frames? Contact solution? And that was in Upper Austria.
Speaker 1: She wanted the magazines. Her DNA was found inside the store.
Speaker 1: In multiple spots. Okay, I have a question. Okay. These
Speaker 1: are all different labs using... Like, that are finding the DNA, right? Yes.
Speaker 1: Because you've got German, you've got upper Austria, you've got Austria. So, yes,
Speaker 1: you have labs all over Europe who are processing this
Speaker 1: evidence and finding her DNA. Because my first thought was, well,
Speaker 1: not my first thought, but my thought was that maybe
Speaker 1: this is cross-contamination from a lab worker. That would make
Speaker 1: sense if it was just one lab. That's why I asked.
Speaker 1: Because I'm like, this doesn't make any sense. And we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about how they process evidence in these
Speaker 1: labs and the steps they go through to keep it
Speaker 1: sterile and to keep cross-contamination from happening. We're going to
Speaker 1: cover that. Between 2003 and 2007, there were 20 burglaries
Speaker 1: and thefts of cars and motorbikes that they found her
Speaker 1: DNA in. I would almost like to see a map.
Speaker 1: With them. Oh, yeah, that would have been good. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that would have been good. I didn't think about that.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean? So that we could see, like, where...
Speaker 1: Are they all in a circle? Like, around this one
Speaker 1: central area? Because, you know, like... Yeah, exactly. It's like,
Speaker 1: is there one area that's not being hit? I didn't
Speaker 1: think about doing that. Yeah, I just... These thefts occurred
Speaker 1: in three different locations in Germany and two different locations
Speaker 1: in Austria. So maybe a couple in this town and
Speaker 1: a couple in this town. Yeah. On August 25th of 2007,
Speaker 1: policewoman Michelle Kieswetter and her partner Martin Arnold were shot,
Speaker 1: execution style, while they were on duty. Oh, God. They
Speaker 1: were sitting in their parked patrol car in Heilbronn, Germany.
Speaker 1: Michelle was shot dead. Her partner was critically injured. Both
Speaker 1: officers' handcuffs and handguns had been stolen from the scene. Okay, that's, wow.
Speaker 1: The woman's DNA was found on the vehicle. When investigators
Speaker 1: questioned the witnesses, they didn't see a woman. Some of
Speaker 1: them described a man. Others described multiple attackers. But the
Speaker 1: DNA was there, and the DNA doesn't lie. We also
Speaker 1: know that witnesses are notorious for not seeing what's right
Speaker 1: in front of their eyes. Especially in a situation like that.
Speaker 1: Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate up to 75% of the time. Yep.
Speaker 1: And that doesn't mean they're lying. It could depend on
Speaker 1: how close they were, how much attention they were actually
Speaker 1: paying when whatever was occurring was occurring. Right. It could
Speaker 1: depend on the stress levels that were involved. It could
Speaker 1: depend on how much time elapsed between the time they
Speaker 1: saw it and the time they were questioned by investigators.
Speaker 1: And in my opinion, I would also think that it
Speaker 1: would depend on whether or not they discussed the event
Speaker 1: with anyone else, I feel like that would be a
Speaker 1: key factor in how accurate their statements were. Yeah. Because
Speaker 1: if you and I saw the same thing, we'd probably
Speaker 1: see different things. We would remember different stuff. But if
Speaker 1: we talked about it, and one of us was far
Speaker 1: more sure than the other, we would probably both end
Speaker 1: up with the same thing. Probably. So I don't think
Speaker 1: that witnesses were lying. I don't think they were just
Speaker 1: me leading them. I think they saw what they thought
Speaker 1: they saw and they were being helpful as best they could. Right.
Speaker 1: The attack on the police and the murder of Michelle
Speaker 1: turned the phantom from a mere criminal curiosity that made
Speaker 1: no sense into a national threat for all the investigators. Well, yeah.
Speaker 1: She's willing to go after cops that are literally sitting
Speaker 1: in their patrol car doing nothing. Right. On January 30th
Speaker 1: of 2008, three Georgians were murdered. in Heipenheim, Germany. Her
Speaker 1: DNA was found on the car that was used to
Speaker 1: transport their bodies from the scene of the crime. Okay.
Speaker 1: Her DNA was found in a disused public swimming pool
Speaker 1: after it was broken into and burgled on March 22nd
Speaker 1: of 2008. What do you steal from a disused swimming pool?
Speaker 1: I don't know, because I didn't, like, dive into the
Speaker 1: circumstances of the fact. Right, I know. I'm just thinking
Speaker 1: about this. Stop a minute and think about that. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: but how recently was it? Was it very recent so
Speaker 1: they thought maybe there was still equipment inside? I don't know. Like,
Speaker 1: I just don't know. Were they looking for a place
Speaker 1: to sleep? Were they looking for a place to count
Speaker 1: their spoils and divvy it up? I don't know. Her
Speaker 1: DNA was found in four home invasions in three different
Speaker 1: cities in Germany in March and April of 2008. Her
Speaker 1: DNA was found in an apartment that was broken into
Speaker 1: during the night of April 9th, 2008. She's been a
Speaker 1: very busy girl. She's all over the fucking place. May
Speaker 1: 9th of 2008, a woman was robbed in a clubhouse
Speaker 1: in Saarholzbach, and her DNA was left behind at that
Speaker 1: scene also. I don't exactly know where they found the
Speaker 1: DNA there. Okay. At the end of October 2008, and
Speaker 1: we're not sure exactly the date, 45-year-old auxiliary nurse Diana
Speaker 1: Pavlenko was murdered in her car near Weinsberg, Germany. She
Speaker 1: likes to murder people in their cars. And the woman's
Speaker 1: DNA was found inside the car. Yes. Yes, it does
Speaker 1: sound like she likes to murder people inside her cars.
Speaker 1: Their cars. One of the strangest parts of the Phantom's
Speaker 1: supposed criminal career was her list of accomplices. Her DNA
Speaker 1: appeared at crime scenes that involved Slovaks, Serbs, Romanians, Albanians,
Speaker 1: and Iraqis. Interesting. These individuals, they never found any connection
Speaker 1: to any of these individuals to each other. Huh. All
Speaker 1: these people had very different backgrounds. They had very different
Speaker 1: criminal histories. They seemed to come from different regions. So
Speaker 1: the investigators began to imagine her as a mastermind. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't even know what's going through their head. How
Speaker 1: do they even figure this woman out? Right. They imagined
Speaker 1: her as a shadowy figure that coordinated criminals across Europe.
Speaker 1: A female mob boss type who accompanied her gang to
Speaker 1: some of the crimes. Many of the crimes. All the crimes.
Speaker 1: If this was true, imagine how many of the crime
Speaker 1: scenes she wasn't at if she was masterminding. The numbers
Speaker 1: could potentially be astronomical. Hmm. But with this scenario, as
Speaker 1: well as all the others, there was no evidence of
Speaker 1: her leadership. Right. No one saw her. No one could
Speaker 1: describe her. And all of these accomplices, they... They've identified
Speaker 1: some of them, but they don't. But none of them
Speaker 1: fingered her. None of them ratted her out. How crazy
Speaker 1: is that? It's insane. It's insane. They also never found
Speaker 1: her fingerprints. Which is weird. So she either doesn't have fingerprints,
Speaker 1: like she burned them off, or she is really good
Speaker 1: at wearing gloves. Which then leaves behind, what kind of
Speaker 1: DNA is she leaving behind that they're able to find,
Speaker 1: but they're not finding fingerprints? Right. I don't know. Like,
Speaker 1: I don't know if it was skin cells. I would
Speaker 1: imagine it was skin cells or something. But you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying? But I don't know. I don't know,
Speaker 1: because we know some of the places they found them. Right.
Speaker 1: You know, cash register drawers, the teacup, lock boxes. Things
Speaker 1: that you would touch. That's the thing. Cars. Things that
Speaker 1: you would touch. But if they're not finding fingerprints, but
Speaker 1: they're finding DNA, that's weird. Almost, yeah, maybe like she
Speaker 1: burned her fingerprints off. Interesting. Some people do that, and
Speaker 1: I don't know... Like, I don't know how successful it is.
Speaker 1: I understand it's really painful, but I don't, like, I've
Speaker 1: not deep dove into that. Right. By 2009, her criminal
Speaker 1: resume looked pretty impossible. They could connect her to six murders,
Speaker 1: more than 40 crimes ranging from petty theft to homicide
Speaker 1: across three countries with dozens of unrelated accomplices. So crazy.
Speaker 1: No eyewitnesses, no camera footage, and no physical presence except
Speaker 1: for her DNA, which doesn't lie. Well, and you think,
Speaker 1: I mean, even back in 2008, businesses and CCTV camera, yeah,
Speaker 1: they were getting more prevalent. Yeah. But I don't know, like,
Speaker 1: in Europe, if it was the same, if they took
Speaker 1: a little bit longer or a little faster. I don't know.
Speaker 1: There was a reward of 300,000 euros offered for clues
Speaker 1: regarding the whereabouts of the phantom. Or, again, as some
Speaker 1: people called her, the woman without the face. Right. Now,
Speaker 1: collecting DNA from a crime scene is painstaking. It's a
Speaker 1: laborious procedure. It's not like you see on TV at all.
Speaker 1: They don't just swab it, stick it in a little envelope,
Speaker 1: and send it to the lab. It doesn't work that way.
Speaker 1: Investigators collect any evidence that they believe may have been
Speaker 1: touched or worn by perpetrators involved in a crime. And
Speaker 1: the best evidence occurs when a person's DNA is found
Speaker 1: where it's not supposed to be. Collection could include underclothes, bedding,
Speaker 1: fingernail scrapings, cups, bottles, cigarette butts, toothpicks, toothbrushes, hairbrushes, facial tissues, condoms, tape, ligatures, stamps, envelopes.
Speaker 1: And so many other things. Oh, yeah. But, you know,
Speaker 1: basically anything you can lick, spit, touch, have your hair
Speaker 1: fall on, brush against with your arms. Forensic technicians use
Speaker 1: several standard methods to secure biological material for laboratory analysis. So, like,
Speaker 1: the detective goes, but they're not usually the one that
Speaker 1: collects the evidence. No, they have technicians for that. So
Speaker 1: when your technician gets there... If it's a dry substance, say,
Speaker 1: you know, it's blood and it's on cement, they will
Speaker 1: use a sterile blade to carefully dislodge the flakes into
Speaker 1: a specialized paper container called a bindle. Okay. When biological
Speaker 1: stains are found on porous materials like upholstery, clothing, batting,
Speaker 1: forensic investigators will remove a small portion of the fabric
Speaker 1: itself to preserve the sample in the original state. Right. Okay.
Speaker 1: Now they may use a sterile swab, which is the
Speaker 1: most common technique to absorb biological fluids. Or if they
Speaker 1: think there's skin cells on a surface, they'll use a
Speaker 1: swab to do that. Um, and occasionally the swab is
Speaker 1: moistened with sterile water for the lifting if necessary. Right.
Speaker 1: Now your sterile water is in a container that's sealed.
Speaker 1: Your sterile swabs come from a sealed container. Um, And
Speaker 1: they're only used once. They're never, ever, ever used. It's
Speaker 1: all single use. The last method is to recover the
Speaker 1: entire object and transport it to the lab for examination
Speaker 1: if the other methods are not feasible. Okay. Take the
Speaker 1: whole damn thing. Each method of evidence recovery, no matter
Speaker 1: which one is chosen, must be collected by a technician
Speaker 1: wearing protective gear, such as clean gloves, face masks, contamination suits,
Speaker 1: using sterile equipment and new disposal tools for each individual sample. Yes.
Speaker 1: They are not allowed to touch, sneeze, or cough near
Speaker 1: the evidence while they're collecting. Right. Which makes sense. Yep.
Speaker 1: DNA analysts, the people that analyze all this stuff, must
Speaker 1: be accredited by a recognized organization, and they must meet
Speaker 1: specific educational and training requirements in order to do this job.
Speaker 1: You don't just, you know, go in there and take
Speaker 1: an eight-hour course and ta-da, now you can do it. What?
Speaker 1: They must have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in biology, chemistry,
Speaker 1: or a forensic science-related area. Yep. In addition, the analyst
Speaker 1: must complete a specific number of hours in coursework in biochemistry, genetics,
Speaker 1: molecular biology, and population genetics. All of those areas. Yes.
Speaker 1: While working in a lab, analysts who are actively employed
Speaker 1: are also required to meet continuing education requirements. Right. the
Speaker 1: evidence testing must occur in a lab with a dedicated
Speaker 1: facilities and equipment that meets the FBI's stringent requirements which
Speaker 1: makes sense you can't just have a lab anywhere so
Speaker 1: breaking it down into a simplified form for those of
Speaker 1: us who might be challenged in this area DNA samples
Speaker 1: undergo an extraction process, which releases the DNA from the cell,
Speaker 1: and then the quantification process, which tells the analyst how
Speaker 1: much DNA they have to work with. Next, the sample
Speaker 1: is amplified, which is the process of producing multiple copies,
Speaker 1: which we talked about. The DNA is then separated, and
Speaker 1: then it is analyzed, it is interpreted, and then Quality
Speaker 1: Assurance reviews the testing reports for any for all technical accuracy. Right.
Speaker 1: So it's not like just one person does this. Nope.
Speaker 1: All of their work is reviewed by somebody else. The
Speaker 1: results can then be entered into CODIS, which will perform
Speaker 1: an immediate search and then weekly searches after looking for
Speaker 1: matches to the DNA. So with these rules and regulations
Speaker 1: and requirements, it's not like just anybody can collect and
Speaker 1: analyze the DNA evidence from a crime scene. Right. There's
Speaker 1: like so many steps and it's so... Yes. After collection,
Speaker 1: it doesn't just go to the lab and get analyzed.
Speaker 1: All biological samples are thoroughly air dried at room temperature.
Speaker 1: The evidence is then stored in paper bags or envelopes
Speaker 1: to prevent accumulation of moisture and the growth of any
Speaker 1: bacteria which could destroy the DNA. I did not know
Speaker 1: any of that. That actually makes perfect sense. It makes sense.
Speaker 1: The samples are then kept in cool, dark environments to
Speaker 1: protect them from heat. and any ultraviolet lights which would
Speaker 1: break down the molecular structures over time. Also makes sense.
Speaker 1: DNA collection is thorough. It has to be. It is
Speaker 1: done with the intent of preserving evidence properly so that
Speaker 1: the law enforcement can use it to convict criminals once
Speaker 1: they're captured and charged. So it's not like any of
Speaker 1: these investigators from any of these countries or any of
Speaker 1: these towns or counties. I mean, I can't see all
Speaker 1: of them being slack. I can't. No, and... Has it
Speaker 1: happened where there has been contamination from a lab worker? Yes.
Speaker 1: Which is what made me think of it. Yes. But
Speaker 1: you're talking so many labs. So many, many, many labs.
Speaker 1: And that was why I questioned it because it was like, okay,
Speaker 1: so do you have a lab where everything's being done
Speaker 1: and you have one worker who's just not doing their
Speaker 1: job properly? But if it's so many labs in three
Speaker 1: different countries, then clearly that's not the answer. So what
Speaker 1: was the problem with all the investigations from the numerous
Speaker 1: departments who were chasing this phantom criminal? It was almost
Speaker 1: as if she wasn't real, like she didn't really actually exist.
Speaker 1: But they knew she did. Right, because of the crimes.
Speaker 1: They had her DNA. They had her DNA over and
Speaker 1: over and over and over again. Why couldn't they find her?
Speaker 1: Why couldn't they get a picture of her? Why couldn't
Speaker 1: they get eyewitnesses who agreed on what she even looked like?
Speaker 1: Because some of them said she was a man. And
Speaker 1: why will the accomplices not figure it out? That's right.
Speaker 1: How in the hell can she commit so many crimes
Speaker 1: in so many areas and not one single investigator even
Speaker 1: knew where to look for her? Because everybody knows the
Speaker 1: DNA doesn't lie. If they had it, she was real. Right.
Speaker 1: Something wasn't adding up. Yeah. Something is weird here. The
Speaker 1: break came in March of 2009. Investigators were trying to
Speaker 1: identify a corpse in France. Okay. We're in France now. Jesus.
Speaker 1: The burned body of a female corpse had been found
Speaker 1: in France. What do you think they found on the body?
Speaker 1: Her DNA. They found the woman's DNA. On a burnt body,
Speaker 1: which is pretty impressive. Not only did they find it
Speaker 1: on the body, they found it on, and I don't,
Speaker 1: like I didn't, again, I didn't deep dive. Okay. I'm
Speaker 1: going to assume that this paper was found near the body,
Speaker 1: was related to the body. Okay. Okay. They found it
Speaker 1: on an asylum seeker's application who was a male. Like
Speaker 1: they had applied for asylum in France. Right. But it
Speaker 1: was a man who had made the application. This is weird.
Speaker 1: They found a woman's DNA there. After 16 long years,
Speaker 1: investigators started to notice the pattern. Okay. Her DNA appeared
Speaker 1: only on evidence collected with a specific type of cotton swab. Oh.
Speaker 1: Not on weapons. Not in blood. and fingerprints only on
Speaker 1: the swabs from one single female factory worker. Interesting. The
Speaker 1: manufacture of crime scene kits involves very specialized assembly, strict
Speaker 1: quality control, you would think, and clean room packaging that
Speaker 1: ensures forensic tools and collection materials remain sterile and uncontaminated.
Speaker 1: To eliminate human contact. That's pretty important. The production of
Speaker 1: collection components, like your swabs, your tubes, your vials, is
Speaker 1: heavily automated now. Right. Wasn't always, so. Okay. Plasticware is
Speaker 1: injection molded, cooled, and packaged by machines without any human handling.
Speaker 1: So all your vials and all of that stuff, no
Speaker 1: humans ever touch anymore. Any factory worker who maintains the
Speaker 1: machinery must submit a DNA profile. which is called an
Speaker 1: exclusion database, which allows forensic labs to filter out profiles
Speaker 1: from factory people if contamination does occur. Okay. This happened
Speaker 1: before those rules were in place. Gotcha. Personnel that work
Speaker 1: in these factories wear heavy personal protective equipment, including full
Speaker 1: body suits, dual layer gloves, and face masks. Components are
Speaker 1: assembled and packed in certified clean rooms. Now it says
Speaker 1: they're typically ISO class 5 to class 7 environments, which
Speaker 1: is an extremely, extremely, extremely clean. Clean rooms use positive
Speaker 1: air pressure to ensure that air blows out when the
Speaker 1: door is open, preventing outside contaminants from coming in. Once
Speaker 1: the components, like your cotton swabs, your tubes, your vials,
Speaker 1: are placed in their individual plaster packs, they undergo destructive
Speaker 1: sterilization by... Two methods. Okay. They use ethylene oxide gassing. Okay.
Speaker 1: This gas penetrates through the packaging to disrupt and destroy
Speaker 1: any lingering microbial or cellular DNA. Interesting. The components then
Speaker 1: go through gamma irradiation, which is used to break down
Speaker 1: any potential DNA molecules that are left. They didn't do
Speaker 1: that before. That's wild. They used heat before. Right. Because
Speaker 1: we know heat kills everything. No, it doesn't. Before a
Speaker 1: batch of kits can be released to law enforcement or
Speaker 1: forensic labs, random samples are pulled for quality testing. That's
Speaker 1: how they do it now. Quality control labs test the
Speaker 1: components using highly sensitive quantitative, they're called PCR, and short
Speaker 1: tandem repeat analysis, which is the same kind of technology
Speaker 1: used by crime labs. The batch is only approved and
Speaker 1: labeled as forensic DNA grade if there is zero detectable
Speaker 1: human nuclear DNA. They used to use heat. Right. Approved
Speaker 1: components are bundled into final kits, which contain gloves and
Speaker 1: distilled water, evidence tape, barcode tracking labels, vials, swabs, tubes.
Speaker 1: They are sealed in tamper-evident medical-grade barrier pouches, and this
Speaker 1: guarantees that they remain completely sterile until a detective breaks
Speaker 1: the seal at a crime scene. Before 2009, crime scene
Speaker 1: kit materials were sanitized by heat, which would kill off
Speaker 1: any residual bacteria that may have gotten on the Tufts
Speaker 1: kit components. But it didn't break down DNA. They didn't
Speaker 1: realize that heat does not kill human DNA. Upon discovery
Speaker 1: of the contaminated swabs in 2009, protocols changed and sterilization
Speaker 1: of the kits now happens with the ethylene oxide gassing
Speaker 1: and the gamma irradiation. Two different steps. Right. So also,
Speaker 1: there was also less automation and more human interaction with
Speaker 1: producing the kids than there is today. Okay. Because we
Speaker 1: used humans for everything. Right. So you had 16 years
Speaker 1: of investigations that was built on a ghost. And the
Speaker 1: consequences of that contamination were enormous. It's 16 years of
Speaker 1: wasted investigative effort. Yeah. Over 2 million euros wasted. was
Speaker 1: spent and wasted. There were more than 16,000 hours of
Speaker 1: overtime that were paid on these investigations, not to mention
Speaker 1: the regular time. Right. Dozens of real criminals who slipped
Speaker 1: through the cracks and were never caught. All of the
Speaker 1: families and the victims who never got answers or closure
Speaker 1: or peace of mind. That's awful. This case exposed a
Speaker 1: critical flaw in forensic science. Sterilization kills bacteria and viruses,
Speaker 1: but it does not remove human DNA. Remember that if
Speaker 1: we ever commit crime. I will try to keep that
Speaker 1: in mind. We can't just bring the hair dryer anymore.
Speaker 1: Damn it. We gotta do better. Heat gun? You know what?
Speaker 1: I'm thinking maybe we should bring the UV light or something.
Speaker 1: I don't think the UV light's gonna cut it. So
Speaker 1: this revelation led to the creation of ISO 18385, which
Speaker 1: is the first international standard designed to prevent... Human DNA contamination.
Speaker 1: in forensic consumables, and it changed forensic science forever. Think
Speaker 1: about this. A serial killer who never existed reshaped forensic
Speaker 1: science worldwide. That's actually really amazing. The real killers of Michelle...
Speaker 1: His sweater was accidentally discovered in November of 2011 following
Speaker 1: a bank robbery. Good. It was a botched bank robbery.
Speaker 1: Her murder and the attempted murder of her partner was
Speaker 1: committed by... I don't know how to say this. It's
Speaker 1: U-W-E is how... They're both their first names. U-W-E? Both
Speaker 1: of their first names were spelled that way, so we'll
Speaker 1: just call them U. I don't know. U-Mundlos and U-Bondhart. U-Bondhart. Interesting.
Speaker 1: They were leaders of a neo-Nazi group, Nationalist Socialist Underground.
Speaker 1: The NSU had carried out a series of racially motivated
Speaker 1: killings between 2000 and 2006, targeting mostly Turkish heritage individuals.
Speaker 1: Michelle's murder was the 10th and final confirmed NSU killing.
Speaker 1: On November 4th of 2011, Manhart and Mundlos robbed a
Speaker 1: bank in the town of Eisenach. Police responded to the
Speaker 1: scene rapidly and tracked the two men down to their
Speaker 1: getaway mobile home. Realizing they were completely surrounded and trapped
Speaker 1: by law enforcement, the two men set fire to the
Speaker 1: mobile home, got into their vehicles, and both committed suicide
Speaker 1: in order to evade arrest. There was a lot of
Speaker 1: evidence inside the mobile home that didn't end up getting
Speaker 1: burned up. Thank God. When investigators searched the charred remains
Speaker 1: of the mobile home, they found both service weapons and
Speaker 1: both sets of handcuffs that had been stolen from Michelle
Speaker 1: and her critically injured partner. Ugh. And evidence of other stuff. Right. Like,
Speaker 1: they found a pair of blue jeans that had Michelle's
Speaker 1: blood on it. And they found other evidence, too, for
Speaker 1: other crimes. Right. So, that one was definitely solved. Good. Although,
Speaker 1: you know, the guys killed themselves. Yeah. But there were
Speaker 1: a lot of them that probably were never solved. Right. Absolutely. Absolutely. Wow.
Speaker 1: That's crazy. Yeah. It is. It is. And that DNA
Speaker 1: just belonged to a factory worker. I get it, but
Speaker 1: it's still mind-boggling. It is. It is. But you figure
Speaker 1: if your sterilization process is sterilizing your components, you don't
Speaker 1: worry so much about, I'm going to touch it because
Speaker 1: everything I might leave on it. Or even if they're
Speaker 1: wearing gloves, maybe her skin cells were falling off. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Right. I didn't dig deep into that. You know?
Speaker 1: You figure heat kills, and they used intense heat. They did. Obviously,
Speaker 1: it doesn't kill enough. Yeah. That's crazy. Yep. Never even existed.
Speaker 1: Swim and they chased for 16 years. Wow. Yep. But
Speaker 1: it definitely makes a lot of things... Makes sense. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It definitely puts things in a whole different perspective. It does.
Speaker 1: It makes things... It does. Unfortunately, you know, many, many,
Speaker 1: many criminals got away. Murderers got away. Burglars got away.
Speaker 1: I wonder how many of those crimes were incidentally solved
Speaker 1: later down the road. I mean, because I don't know.
Speaker 1: I didn't really find anything. Like, I didn't find a
Speaker 1: lot of information. Like, I didn't really find any information
Speaker 1: on how many crimes that were attributed to her turned
Speaker 1: out being solved. Because it wasn't very many. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: kind of crazy. Yeah. Mm-hmm. And can you imagine? I mean, like,
Speaker 1: then her DNA ends up in, like, all these databases.
Speaker 1: As a criminal. As a criminal. Yeah. But she wasn't
Speaker 1: a criminal. Right. Either that or. I think she didn't
Speaker 1: try to leave the country and go, you know, like.
Speaker 1: Either that or she's the smartest criminal that ever existed.
Speaker 1: I don't see that. She'll say it. I mean, what
Speaker 1: better way to get away with it? It's crazy. It
Speaker 1: is pretty crazy. A lot has changed because of this case.
Speaker 1: It's unfortunate that it came about that way, but... The
Speaker 1: changes were good, but yeah, like all the families, all
Speaker 1: the victims. Yeah. Who never got any kind of peace, closure, justice... Answers. Answers. Yeah. Wow. Mm-hmm. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And the poor officers who spent all this time and
Speaker 1: this effort and... And they genuinely worked these cases as
Speaker 1: hard as they could because that was their job. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And you're told by what the lab says. Yeah. You know,
Speaker 1: if the lab says that we found her DNA, then
Speaker 1: you're looking for this woman because her DNA's been found
Speaker 1: at this crime, and, you know, you were going to
Speaker 1: catch her. You don't worry about, you know, well, we
Speaker 1: have this guy that just got out of jail, and,
Speaker 1: you know, he was known for assaulting people with bricks
Speaker 1: or something. Right. Wow. Yeah. That was a good story.
Speaker 1: I kind of enjoyed it. Yeah. Kind of enjoyed watching
Speaker 1: you guys. It's very interesting. I wasn't all that far off. No. No,
Speaker 1: you weren't. You weren't. But... But you were looking at
Speaker 1: one lab. Well, that's why I, like, had questioned it,
Speaker 1: because I was like, man, how else would that even
Speaker 1: be possible? But it makes sense. It does now. Because
Speaker 1: your theory, you just, um, you had it in one spot.
Speaker 1: You just had it in the wrong spot. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: wasn't thinking all the way back down the chain. Right. Right.
Speaker 1: Because you assume... You assume... That when the forensic analyst,
Speaker 1: you know, opens that package, that everything in there is sterile. Right.
Speaker 1: So he's collecting actual evidence. And that's the way it's
Speaker 1: supposed to be. So, yes, I, just like the officers,
Speaker 1: assumed that it was sterile. Yeah. Yeah, and it was
Speaker 1: kind of interesting diving into... How they process these things,
Speaker 1: how they go about packaging, how they manufacture them. Like,
Speaker 1: I dove into all of that stuff, and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of really cool information there. Right. There really is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: very cool. I learned a lot of cool stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm really sorry that so much time was wasted, but,
Speaker 1: you know, you can't go back and change it. You
Speaker 1: just learn from it. Yeah, that's all you can do.
Speaker 1: So what else you got for us today? Oh, I
Speaker 1: was just thinking about a final thought. Okay. So, our
Speaker 1: final thought for today is this. Your life is as
Speaker 1: good as your mindset. We have known that for years.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's easy to lose track of that, though. It
Speaker 1: absolutely is. You're correct. You are correct. I think that
Speaker 1: many people... forget just how blessed they are every single day.
Speaker 1: We're all blessed in many different ways. Yes, but I
Speaker 1: think that there are a lot of us out there
Speaker 1: that forget that. I think we all forget that occasionally, honestly.
Speaker 1: Because we are blessed. We're very blessed in many, many,
Speaker 1: many ways. Every single day, no matter how hard the
Speaker 1: day is, there were blessings in it, even if you
Speaker 1: couldn't see them. There were alibis. They're always a blessing. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: And we love them. We love all of them. All right.
Speaker 1: Happy soon-to-be Labor Day, guys. Oh, my God. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: so close to being upon us. I know. We hope
Speaker 1: that you have a happy and safe Labor Day. Yeah,
Speaker 1: be safe. If you live in a country where it's
Speaker 1: not Labor Day, we still hope that you have a
Speaker 1: happy and safe week. Absolutely. We love you all, and
Speaker 1: we will talk to you later. Bye. Bye.