Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Pathway Chili. I'm Robin, I'm.
Speaker 2: Jules, and I'm Ashley. Let's dive right into this week's case.
Speaker 3: September fourth, nineteen ninety three, Plano, Texas. While attending a
Speaker 3: soccer game at a park with her family, seven year
Speaker 3: old Ashley Estal goes missing. The following day, Ashley is
Speaker 3: found strangled to death next to a dirt road. The
Speaker 3: investigation soon leads to a paroled sex offender named Michael Blair,
Speaker 3: who's subsequently convicted of Ashley's murder and sentenced to death. However,
Speaker 3: the evidence against Blair turns out to be faulty, and
Speaker 3: DNA testing eventually exonerates him of the crime, but Ashley's
Speaker 3: real killer is never found.
Speaker 1: After that, the path went Chile. So today we're going
Speaker 1: to be exploring a brutal crime which led to all
Speaker 1: sorts of controversy, the nineteen ninety three murder of seven
Speaker 1: year old Ashley Estelle. I'm sure all of you know
Speaker 1: that our own Ashley is particularly passionate when it comes
Speaker 1: to discussing wrongful convictions. But this story is unique because
Speaker 1: it shows that even bad people can sometimes be screwed
Speaker 1: by the system. In this particular case, a suspect named
Speaker 1: Michael Blair would be convicted and sentenced to death for
Speaker 1: Ashley Estell's murder, and since he was a convicted sex
Speaker 1: offender who had been paroled after serving less than two
Speaker 1: years for his other crimes, this led to the passing
Speaker 1: of some new legislation called Ashley's Laws, which sought stronger
Speaker 1: punishment for criminals who harm children. But in an ironic twist,
Speaker 1: it would later turn out that this legislation was based
Speaker 1: around a wrongful conviction, as the man said to death
Speaker 1: row for Ashley Estell's murder wound up getting exonerated by
Speaker 1: DNA testing. Now, even though he did not actually kill Ashley,
Speaker 1: Michael Blair was most definitely a dangerous sex offender who
Speaker 1: deserved to be locked up. But this story is a
Speaker 1: case study on the dangers of tunnel vision, as law
Speaker 1: enforcement was so convinced of his guilt that they likely
Speaker 1: ignored other potential leads. As a result, the real killer
Speaker 1: of Ashley Estelle has never faced justice. So on this episode,
Speaker 1: we're going to explore how things went horribly wrong.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm looking forward to hearing more details about this case. First,
Speaker 2: how incredibly tragic. You have a little seven year old
Speaker 2: who is killed, and then you have her family and
Speaker 2: the community and other people at large who are now
Speaker 2: at risk because of this wrongful conviction, right, and more
Speaker 2: and more grief on top of the already existing pain
Speaker 2: of losing Ashley in general. So one of the things
Speaker 2: my students will often say to me is they'll say, hey,
Speaker 2: you know who cares when we talk about wrong with convictions.
Speaker 2: He was a bad guy, he got locked up, he
Speaker 2: was going to be locked up anyway. Who cares? And
Speaker 2: I have to very quickly rewind and say, listen, you care.
Speaker 2: Whether you know it or not, you care because twofold one.
Speaker 2: You want our system to work efficiently and properly, because
Speaker 2: if it doesn't work in this case, then it's not
Speaker 2: working in other cases. And there's a potential that someone
Speaker 2: who like you, right, like one of us, ends up
Speaker 2: on the other side and they are not given their
Speaker 2: constitutional rights and protected by a justice system. Whether they
Speaker 2: are quote bad or not, that is their right. And
Speaker 2: so you want to make sure that everyone in our
Speaker 2: system is given their rights so that you are one day,
Speaker 2: someone you care about is one day, and because if
Speaker 2: they're not, their conviction can be overturned when they actually
Speaker 2: did do something wrong. So you want to make sure
Speaker 2: our system's always working the way it should. But also,
Speaker 2: if they lock Michael Blair up and he's a quote
Speaker 2: bad guy and he's off the streets, that's fine. But remember,
Speaker 2: if Michael Blair is locked up for this crime, somebody
Speaker 2: else is not. And so I tell them you've allowed
Speaker 2: a dangerous offender, someone who could kill a seven year
Speaker 2: old baby and hurt her. I'm sure I'm going to
Speaker 2: learn more details of how if you are going to
Speaker 2: be okay with Michael Blair being locked up, then you're
Speaker 2: saying you're okay with the real perpetrator walking. And I
Speaker 2: don't think a single person when they stop and pause
Speaker 2: and think of it from that perspective, can say who cares?
Speaker 2: So I'm so interested in hearing more about how this
Speaker 2: tunnel vision begins and about poor Ashley and her family,
Speaker 2: so sad that they lost their child, had to go
Speaker 2: through a court process, are convinced by everyone involved, I'm
Speaker 2: sure that the right person has been caught, and then
Speaker 2: all of the sudden it unravels and their grief comes
Speaker 2: twentyfold again because it starts all over with nobody being
Speaker 2: held accountable.
Speaker 1: And this is a particularly interesting case because if you
Speaker 1: go back into the perspective of it being nineteen ninety three,
Speaker 1: like if you were following this trial live as it happened,
Speaker 1: you would probably automatically assume that Michael Blair was the
Speaker 1: right guy because he was a sex offender. But it
Speaker 1: would later turn out that lot of the evidence used
Speaker 1: to convict him turned out to be junk science by
Speaker 1: today's standards. So I'm sure that many of the people
Speaker 1: in law enforcement and the victims' families pretty much assumed
Speaker 1: that they had done it right and that they were
Speaker 1: getting a dangerous offender off the street. But you can
Speaker 1: find out though, that, like I said in the intro,
Speaker 1: if you have tunnel vision, you might wind up pointing
Speaker 1: towards the wrong men, and that ignoring other potential leads.
Speaker 3: So our story begins in nineteen ninety three in play Though, Texas,
Speaker 3: a large suburb located twenty miles north of downtown Dallas.
Speaker 3: Our central figure is seven years old Ashley nicol Estelle,
Speaker 3: who lives with her parents, Dick and Diana Estelle, and
Speaker 3: her twelve year old brother Brett. Ashley was originally born
Speaker 3: in Des Moines, Iowa, before the family moved to Texas
Speaker 3: in nineteen ninety eight. On Saturday, September fourth, which happened
Speaker 3: to be Labor Day weekend, the Estelle family went to
Speaker 3: Carpenter Park for a soccer tournament as Brett would be
Speaker 3: playing in one of the games. At around eleven twenty,
Speaker 3: while her parents were watching the game, Ashley went off
Speaker 3: alone to play on a swing set of a playground
Speaker 3: which was located a few yards away. Her family soon
Speaker 3: noticed that Ashley was no longer there, and after being
Speaker 3: unable to find her, they reported Ashley missing to the
Speaker 3: Plano Police department at twelve fifteen pm. Even though a
Speaker 3: large crowd of over one thousand people were in the
Speaker 3: park to watch the tournament, it seemed like Ashley had
Speaker 3: vanished without anybody seeing anything. As a result, a massive
Speaker 3: search effort was launched to find Ashley, which involved law
Speaker 3: enforcement and thousands of volunteers. While there would be tragic
Speaker 3: news around noon the following day, as Ashley's body was
Speaker 3: discovered in a ditch next to an isolated dirt road
Speaker 3: located six miles from Carpenter Park. Even though the police
Speaker 3: never publicly disclosed if Ashley had been sexually assaulted. Her
Speaker 3: body was partially clothed. The cause of death was determined
Speaker 3: to be strangulation with a rope or wire. Since Ashley's
Speaker 3: own fingernail marks were found on her neck, it seemed
Speaker 3: likely that she had struggled and made an attempt to
Speaker 3: free herself from the item used to strangle her. The
Speaker 3: crime had a devastating impact on the community, as Plano
Speaker 3: was known for having the lowest crime rate in the state,
Speaker 3: but it wasn't long before investigators turned up a promising suspect.
Speaker 2: So I have to put myself, as a mom in
Speaker 2: this position, and I can't even fathom the emotions that
Speaker 2: would come with something like this. It's so normal for
Speaker 2: what happened that day. We're at a soccer game and
Speaker 2: we're watching big brother play. There's a little park right
Speaker 2: there on the athletic field right where you can go
Speaker 2: over and play. They have that at almost every single
Speaker 2: little league baseball park and soccer field in America. Right
Speaker 2: there's a little jungle gym off the side that littles
Speaker 2: can go play on. And so any parent would say, sure,
Speaker 2: we're at an athletic complex. Look at all these families around. Sure,
Speaker 2: you can go play over there, Ashley while we finish
Speaker 2: watching Brett. And then all of a sudden, that feeling
Speaker 2: that you get when you can't locate your child or
Speaker 2: put eyes on your child hits and something that should
Speaker 2: have been so normal becomes absolutely devastating when you describe
Speaker 2: the fact that this baby just disappears in the midst
Speaker 2: of such a busy location and then is found the
Speaker 2: way she is, specifically with those mail marks in her neck,
Speaker 2: which means that angel was sitting there fighting an adult
Speaker 2: who's hurting her. I cannot even put into words how
Speaker 2: that makes my heart feel. It's devastating. The fact that
Speaker 2: this community realizes that not only has this child been killed,
Speaker 2: but she's also been most likely sexually assaulted, and she's
Speaker 2: also been physically abused in a torturous way before she's killed,
Speaker 2: absolutely horrifying. And all these parents are sitting there thinking
Speaker 2: the same thing. It could have been our children. We
Speaker 2: also let our kids go play at the playground. We
Speaker 2: also let our child go up to the concession stand.
Speaker 2: We also let the kids go under the bleachers and play.
Speaker 2: It's just normal. And this family, that normal day turned
Speaker 2: out to be the most horrific that anyone could ever imagine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, these are the worst cold cases I can think of,
Speaker 1: involving missing and murdered children, where they just go missing
Speaker 1: from public places where there are a lot of people around,
Speaker 1: and their parents or guardians just take their off them
Speaker 1: for like a few minutes or so, thinking well, there's
Speaker 1: so much people here, there's no way that she could
Speaker 1: be abducted without anyone seeing anything. Yet in this case,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what happened, and it still blows my mind
Speaker 1: that this person was able to get away with it,
Speaker 1: getting Ashley out of the area without any witnesses seeing anything.
Speaker 1: So in September the tenth, some evidence technicians from the
Speaker 1: Plano Police Department were working at the location where Ashley's
Speaker 1: body was found when they happened to notice a vehicle
Speaker 1: driving through the area which passed by the scene several times.
Speaker 1: They finally decided to follow the vehicle and pull it
Speaker 1: over for a traffic stop. The driver turned out to
Speaker 1: be Michael Blair, a twenty three year old carpet cleaner
Speaker 1: who was originally born in Thailand and had a criminal record.
Speaker 1: In November of nineteen eighty eight, Blair had broken into
Speaker 1: a Dallas apartment and attempted to sexually assault an eleven
Speaker 1: year old girl while she was sleeping, but he fled
Speaker 1: the scene after she put up a struggle. Well, one
Speaker 1: week later he actually returned to the same apartment, and
Speaker 1: this time he attempted to kidnap the girl by reaching
Speaker 1: in through the bedroom window and trying to pull her
Speaker 1: out of bed. Blair wound up were seeing a ten
Speaker 1: year prison sense for burglary and indecency with a child,
Speaker 1: but was paroled in nineteen ninety after serving only eighteen months.
Speaker 2: Now, I'm mad, okay, so you haven't even told me
Speaker 2: some of the things that are happening with Blair. But
Speaker 2: Blair has this history of trying to assault children, to
Speaker 2: kidnap children, and he only serves eighteen months. To me,
Speaker 2: when you are an adult and you have some kind
Speaker 2: of affinity for children, you have a history of taking
Speaker 2: a child. It is such a deep crime against humanity,
Speaker 2: and when it shows such a sickness of that person,
Speaker 2: how they get such short sentences blows my mind. I
Speaker 2: think that you have to really step back and think
Speaker 2: about these offenders, that this is not hey, I was
Speaker 2: pursuing an another forty year old you know, or another
Speaker 2: twenty five year old, and I missed some signals and
Speaker 2: I didn't get You know, it's equally horrible. Do not
Speaker 2: get me wrong, But when they are seeking out a
Speaker 2: innocent child that should not have any attraction or value
Speaker 2: in any kind of relational way to them, there's got
Speaker 2: to be something so mentally off that I don't understand.
Speaker 2: How did he only serve eighteen months?
Speaker 1: Well, we'll talk more about this later on in the episode,
Speaker 1: but the State of Texas was undergoing a major overcrowding
Speaker 1: problem in their prison population at that time, which meant
Speaker 1: that a number of violent offenders who should have been
Speaker 1: locked up wound up being let go much earlier than
Speaker 1: they should have. Though to this day, I don't know
Speaker 1: why they decided to select Blair, because obviously, a guy
Speaker 1: who returns to the same bedroom and tries to abduct
Speaker 1: the same child twice in the same week is not
Speaker 1: someone that you want out in society. But I know
Speaker 1: that the parole board would receive a major back once
Speaker 1: it came out that Blair was now a suspect in
Speaker 1: the murder of a seven year old girl.
Speaker 3: And let's not forget the impact that something like that
Speaker 3: would have on that little girl in her family, because
Speaker 3: the first time that it happens, I'm sure that her
Speaker 3: parents were telling her, this is so awful and this
Speaker 3: shouldn't have happened to you, but this is never going
Speaker 3: to happen again. And then when he returns to the
Speaker 3: scene of the crime and tries to take her for
Speaker 3: that second time, I cannot imagine the trauma and the
Speaker 3: impact on that entire family. And then it's made worse
Speaker 3: by this light sentence of eighteen months. I'm sure that
Speaker 3: they were in fear of him coming back and trying
Speaker 3: a third time. Anyway, Blair instantly captured the police's attention
Speaker 3: during his traffic stop, as he had a flyer and
Speaker 3: newspaper clipping about Ashley's case inside his vehicle. Blair claimed
Speaker 3: that he'd volunteered to participate in the search for Ashley
Speaker 3: on the morning of September fifth. He said he had
Speaker 3: a fascination with cases in which children went missing or
Speaker 3: were murdered, which is why he felt compelled to visit
Speaker 3: the location where Ashley's body was found. Blair was subsequently
Speaker 3: taken to the police station for questioning. He gave him
Speaker 3: consent to search his vehicle and Some of the items
Speaker 3: they found included a stuffed toy bunny, a knife, a blanket,
Speaker 3: and three hares. Blair was interrogated for ten hours, but
Speaker 3: denied any involvement in Nashy's murder since there was no
Speaker 3: evidence to implicate him at this point, Blair was eventually
Speaker 3: allowed to leave, though the police kept him under twenty
Speaker 3: four hour surveillance and started building a case against him.
Speaker 3: At the time, Blair was sharing an apartment with his boss,
Speaker 3: but he wound up getting kicked out for unknown reasons
Speaker 3: and moved into a motel. On September fourteenth, investigators showed
Speaker 3: up at Blair's motel room door, where he was arrested
Speaker 3: and charged with capital murder. It was announced that the
Speaker 3: hair fiber evidence were used to link Blair to the
Speaker 3: c If convicted, Blair would face the death penalty, so
Speaker 3: he was offered a deal in which he could plead
Speaker 3: guilty and be sentenced to life imprisonment. Will Blair maintained
Speaker 3: his innocence and turned the deal down.
Speaker 2: Okay, that speaks volumes when you have somebody who has
Speaker 2: a criminal record, who knows that he hasn't gotten away
Speaker 2: with crimes before, and he knows how the system works,
Speaker 2: and he knows that his life is about to be
Speaker 2: on the line, and he says, I am not pleading
Speaker 2: guilty to that. Yes, I've done some horrible things. Yes
Speaker 2: I've committed crimes, and yes, my car that you searched
Speaker 2: is clearly a prep kit for louring children. You have
Speaker 2: a stuffed tweet bunny, which gives me the chills and
Speaker 2: makes me so furious. You have a knife, a blanket,
Speaker 2: and then there are some hairs there. It shows that
Speaker 2: he had intent to hurt someone else, or he had
Speaker 2: this prepared just in case he had an opportunity. But
Speaker 2: in his case, when he's held to the fire and
Speaker 2: they say, look, you're under arrest for capital murder, he
Speaker 2: knows exactly what's come in his way. And they say,
Speaker 2: if you had plead guilty, we'll go ahead and reduce
Speaker 2: it to a life sentence. If not, eh, we're going
Speaker 2: after you for the death penalty. He says, no deal.
Speaker 2: To me, that's pretty powerful. Doesn't mean that everyone who
Speaker 2: does that is innocent, but it definitely for a seasoned
Speaker 2: criminal to know that he is not going to get
Speaker 2: away with crimes he's committed because he's been caught before.
Speaker 2: He says no deal.
Speaker 1: Well. Due to the massive publicity surrounding the case, Blair's
Speaker 1: trial would have to be moved to the city of Midland.
Speaker 1: It finally began in September of nineteen ninety four and
Speaker 1: was prosecuted by the Collin County District Attorney's Office. They
Speaker 1: produced numerous experts who would testify above the hair and
Speaker 1: fiber evidence, including a forensic analyst named Charles Lynch. Lynch
Speaker 1: testified that the three hairs which have been found in
Speaker 1: Blair's car had quote unquote same microscopic characteristics as Ashley's hair.
Speaker 1: In addition, two hairs have been found on Ashley's body, and,
Speaker 1: as offensive as this sounds today, Lynch openly described them
Speaker 1: as being of quote unquote mongoloid racial origin, which seemed
Speaker 1: consistent with Blair since he was born in Thailand. A
Speaker 1: connection was also made between the fibers of the stuffed
Speaker 1: body from Blair's vehicle and some fibers from Ashley's body,
Speaker 1: which Lynch described as only having quote unquote subtle differences.
Speaker 1: But it's worth noting that all the testimony from Lynch
Speaker 1: and the other experts was carefully worded, as none of
Speaker 1: them explicitly stated that the hair or fiber evidence was
Speaker 1: a positive match to Blair. There was also controversy over
Speaker 1: a clump of hairs that were rendered in evidence, as
Speaker 1: they had been found during a search of Jack Carter Park,
Speaker 1: which was located two miles away from Carpenter Park. Once again,
Speaker 1: there was expert testimony that the clump of hairs was
Speaker 1: microscopically similar to hairs belonging to both Blair and Ashley,
Speaker 1: but the defense argued that these hairs were irrelevant since
Speaker 1: there was no evidence that either the defendant or the
Speaker 1: victim had ever been in Jack Carter Park.
Speaker 2: Very interesting. This is very difficult when you're looking at
Speaker 2: this evidence because as a juror and as a community,
Speaker 2: if you were to hear that these hairs were similar,
Speaker 2: that they had the same characteristics, if the fibers were
Speaker 2: all but subtly different, you would think with pretty strong
Speaker 2: confidence that this is a match. But back then, especially
Speaker 2: your hair evidence was incredibly subjective and questionable because they're
Speaker 2: not looking at DNA when they look at hair, they're
Speaker 2: looking under a microscope. Is it dyed? Is it worn?
Speaker 2: Is it the right color? Is the shaft, the way
Speaker 2: that the hair is broken similar those kinds of things.
Speaker 2: They're looking for physical similarities, but they're not able back
Speaker 2: in the nineties to do DNA testing on hairs that
Speaker 2: don't have a root. And so if you're just comparing
Speaker 2: at the time the shaft of that hair for color
Speaker 2: and possible ethnic origin, which is also subjective where and
Speaker 2: tear age of the hair, it's a guessing game in
Speaker 2: all honesty. Today we look at that as a form
Speaker 2: of junk science in many cases, because I might see
Speaker 2: it very differently than you see it. And so at
Speaker 2: that level, without performing mitochondrial DNA on a shaft of
Speaker 2: hair that doesn't have a root attached to it, it
Speaker 2: would be very difficult to actually say those hairs were
Speaker 2: a match. However, any juror listening would be quite convinced
Speaker 2: and quite impacted by this testimony, even if they were
Speaker 2: careful in their wording.
Speaker 3: How do they find that clump of hair, Robin? Did
Speaker 3: they Does somebody just happen upon it or were they
Speaker 3: searching just another park because it had no connection to
Speaker 3: the crime insofar as we know, and just somebody comes
Speaker 3: up with this clump of hair and they're like, this
Speaker 3: is similar microscopically, like how did it even get introduced.
Speaker 1: It's so weird to me because they don't really go
Speaker 1: into details in any of the sources I found. I'm
Speaker 1: guessing that when Ashley was missing, they thought, well, she
Speaker 1: went missing from Carpenter Park. Let's go searching in the
Speaker 1: park that's near it, about two miles away, and then
Speaker 1: they just say that they found those clump of hairs there.
Speaker 1: But why did they choose those particular hairs? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a large public place, there's probably hairs around everywhere.
Speaker 1: Did they just think, well, that looks kind of similar
Speaker 1: to Ashley's let's collect it as evidence. But there really
Speaker 1: isn't anything at all to show that it has any
Speaker 1: connection to the case. And Ashley is right, Like from
Speaker 1: today's perspective, if you look at the evidence and some
Speaker 1: of Charles Lynch's testimony, you're rolling your eyes because he's
Speaker 1: being so vague and non definitive about whether this hair
Speaker 1: is a match. But you can totally understand how a
Speaker 1: juror from Texas in nineteen ninety four is going to
Speaker 1: see the testimony from this guy and think, well, he's
Speaker 1: an expert, he must know what he's talking about, and
Speaker 1: then think that all this Hair evidence is totally convincing.
Speaker 3: The prosecution also produced three eye witnesses who testified that
Speaker 3: they'd seen Blair in Carpenter Park on the day Ashley
Speaker 3: went missing. However, the defense questioned the reliability of their testimony,
Speaker 3: as none of the witnesses were asked to identify Blair
Speaker 3: from a photo lineup until after he was publicly named
Speaker 3: a surprime suspect. In fact, two of the witnesses admitted
Speaker 3: that they had already seen Blair's photo on television beforehand,
Speaker 3: and even though these witnesses claimed they saw Blair and
Speaker 3: Carpenter Park, the state was unable to produce anyone who
Speaker 3: saw him together with Ashley. Blair's alibi was that he
Speaker 3: was sleeping inside his apartment during the time period Ashley
Speaker 3: was abducted. Blair and his roommate, who also happened to
Speaker 3: be his employer, had both spent the entire night doing
Speaker 3: a carpet cleaning job, and they did not arrive home
Speaker 3: until six. The roommate claimed that his ex wife showed
Speaker 3: up at the apartment to drop off their kids, and
Speaker 3: when they left together at ten thirty am, Blair was
Speaker 3: sleeping on the couch by the time they returned at
Speaker 3: four thirty pm, he claimed Blair was still asleep on
Speaker 3: the couch. Well, this did not prove Blair couldn't have
Speaker 3: committed the crime. A forensic pathologist testified that, based on
Speaker 3: the decomposition on Ashley's body, he believed the perpetrator kept
Speaker 3: her summer overnight and did not dump her body by
Speaker 3: the road until the morning she was found.
Speaker 2: Okay, clarify that for me. Is the forensic pathologist saying
Speaker 2: that Blair still could be a suspect because maybe he
Speaker 2: grabbed her, let's say, at six o'clock that night and
Speaker 2: kept her overnight. Or is he saying that the night
Speaker 2: prior when Blair's working is when she was likely killed
Speaker 2: and then held overnight.
Speaker 1: This was a defense witness, so he's trying to imply
Speaker 1: that Ashley was still alive when Blair was out on
Speaker 1: his carpet cleaning job, and that she was not killed
Speaker 1: until the following day and then her body was dumped.
Speaker 1: And of course this is when Blair's whereabouts are pretty
Speaker 1: well accounted for, and he supposedly in his apartment with
Speaker 1: his roommate sleeping, which obviously means he couldn't have held
Speaker 1: Ashley captive overnight.
Speaker 2: Very interesting, okay, And like you said, the eyewitnesses had
Speaker 2: already seen him on the news. They had already seen
Speaker 2: his image as somebody, a person of interest or a suspect,
Speaker 2: and so when they're saying, oh, we've seen him, it's
Speaker 2: that confirmation bias, where yes, you've seen him now on
Speaker 2: the news, and maybe you've seen him around town, or
Speaker 2: maybe you saw someone similar to him and you think
Speaker 2: you saw him. You know, I guess there's always a
Speaker 2: chance that his boss was lying. But here you have
Speaker 2: his boss, and later we know the boss kicks him
Speaker 2: out right, So I mean, would the boss really cover
Speaker 2: for him they later have a falling out or aren't
Speaker 2: as close anymore, And so I really doubt that his
Speaker 2: boss would stand up for a man who is a
Speaker 2: sex offender who might have killed a little girl. I
Speaker 2: wonder if after a falling out his back if this
Speaker 2: was not the true story.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, and the boss had kids himself with his
Speaker 1: ex wife, So I really don't think that he's going
Speaker 1: to be defending Blair or making up an alibi to
Speaker 1: cover for him. And I don't know at this point
Speaker 1: if he was aware that Blair had already done time
Speaker 1: in prison for that previous sexual offense of trying to
Speaker 1: kidnap the girl. But I think it's reasonable to assume
Speaker 1: that after he became the prime suspect in his murder,
Speaker 1: that he might have learned some unsavory details about Blair's
Speaker 1: background which made him think, I don't want him living
Speaker 1: with me anymore. I'm kicking him out. So I really
Speaker 1: don't think he would aplied for him for any reason.
Speaker 1: The defense attempted to point the figure at an alternate
Speaker 1: suspect named Josh Crowley, who had been referring to soccer
Speaker 1: games at Carpenter Park on the day Ashley was abducted.
Speaker 1: Like Blair, Crowley was a sex offender who had fled
Speaker 1: to Texas because he was facing a potential tenure prison
Speaker 1: sentence for pending child molestation charges in South Carolina. Crowley
Speaker 1: was briefly questioned by police, but left town immediately thereafter,
Speaker 1: did not even bother picking up his paycheck. Once Blair
Speaker 1: entered the picture, investigators dismissed Crowley as a suspect as
Speaker 1: his previous sexual indiscretions where with boys not girls. By
Speaker 1: the time Blair's trial started, Crowley was serving time in
Speaker 1: a South Carolina prison, and when asked to give a
Speaker 1: videotape deposition about Ashley's murder, he answered every question by
Speaker 1: pleading the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid self incrimination.
Speaker 1: As a result, the court denied the defense's request to
Speaker 1: call Crowley to the witness stand during the trial.
Speaker 2: What's interesting here is that any sexual offender with an
Speaker 2: inclination towards children, male or female, should be someone that
Speaker 2: they think about. But also keep in mind, it doesn't
Speaker 2: have to be someone who's already been caught as an offender.
Speaker 2: So we're often very quick to say, hey, give me
Speaker 2: the list of local sex offenders. It's got to be
Speaker 2: one of them. This is a baby who might have
Speaker 2: been assaulted. This is somebody who was found partially undressed,
Speaker 2: and so it is a natural inclination to say, give
Speaker 2: me your list of child sex offenders. Fair, however, those
Speaker 2: are the people who have been caught. This person is
Speaker 2: very well experienced to be able to lure this child away,
Speaker 2: and hey, they haven't been caught yet, so clearly they
Speaker 2: are possibly somebody who's never been caught and therefore isn't
Speaker 2: on a sex offender registry. So while this is a
Speaker 2: potential lead gender or regardless of the gender of the child.
Speaker 2: Also keep in mind, what if the person has gotten
Speaker 2: away with it because they've never been caught.
Speaker 1: That is true. Yeah, and the fact that this guy
Speaker 1: somehow slipped under the radar even though he had pending
Speaker 1: child molestation charges and was able to get a job
Speaker 1: refereeing children's soccer games does show that how easily a
Speaker 1: lot of these offenders can fly underneath the radar. But
Speaker 1: I think the biggest hole in the idea of Crowley
Speaker 1: being the perpetrator is that it's not clear of his
Speaker 1: whereabouts during the rest of the day, because if he
Speaker 1: was referring soccer game aimes during the time period that
Speaker 1: Ashley went missing, then obviously he couldn't have been the
Speaker 1: one who abducted her without being noticed.
Speaker 3: The jury wound up viewing the videotapes of Blair's entire
Speaker 3: ten hour interrogation by the Plano PD, in which they
Speaker 3: discussed his excessive history of sexual abuse, and this included
Speaker 3: him repeatedly raping a six year old half sister when
Speaker 3: he was sixteen years old. While Blair never confessed to
Speaker 3: murdering Ashley, there was one point during the interrogation where
Speaker 3: he was asked if he was at Carpenter Park at
Speaker 3: the time that Ashley was abducted, and he angrily cried out, quote,
Speaker 3: I don't know if I was there. I just do
Speaker 3: not know. Blair would actually be called to the stand
Speaker 3: to testify in his own defense, and while he admitted
Speaker 3: to having molested preteen girls in the past, he denied
Speaker 3: having any involvement with Ashley's murder. During the state's closing argument,
Speaker 3: the prosecutor referred to Blair as a quote subterranean little troll,
Speaker 3: and it soon became clear that the jury pretty much
Speaker 3: felt the same way about him. On September twenty eighth,
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety four, after deliberating for only twenty seven minutes,
Speaker 3: the jury found Blair guilty on capital murder. During the
Speaker 3: sentencing phase, numerous female witnesses would testify that Blair had
Speaker 3: sexually harassed and assaulted them and made attempts to fondle
Speaker 3: young girls. In fact, Blair's ex wife even testified that
Speaker 3: he had repeatedly raped her. The jury deliberated for ninety
Speaker 3: one minutes before they decided to sentence Blair to death
Speaker 3: via a lethal injection.
Speaker 2: Okay, so no one's going to argue that this man
Speaker 2: has a bad history, that this man is sick, that
Speaker 2: this man's inclination towards abusing and hurting people for power
Speaker 2: and gratification and potentially sexual gratification is awful. However, when
Speaker 2: you look at this and you hear that his ten
Speaker 2: hours investigation is played right, and you hear him exclaimed,
Speaker 2: I don't know if I was there. I just don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know how much the jury would be able
Speaker 2: to perceive. The exhaustion and the manipulation that comes with
Speaker 2: a traditional interrogation. Police officers are trained to get quote
Speaker 2: the truth, but it's the truth at any cost, and
Speaker 2: sometimes they've already decided the truth, and therefore they're using
Speaker 2: legal techniques to manipulate and get somebody to say exactly
Speaker 2: what they want because they believe they're right. And so here,
Speaker 2: I can picture a scenario where let's say our seven.
Speaker 2: You continue to tell me, we know you're at this part,
Speaker 2: we know you were there, we have people putting you there.
Speaker 2: Quit lying to us, quit lying to us. If you
Speaker 2: tell us now, we can help you. I can imagine
Speaker 2: this moment where he just goes like stop, I don't
Speaker 2: know what you're talking about. I don't know if I
Speaker 2: was there, I just don't know. Like he's exhausted and frustrated,
Speaker 2: especially if you consider the fact that this is someone
Speaker 2: who didn't do this crime. So it's difficult for jurors
Speaker 2: to understand that when they don't have a background in
Speaker 2: interrogation practices, when they didn't have Netflix showing wrongful conviction
Speaker 2: cases over and over again, where they didn't have in
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety four podcast where they're exposing these practices and
Speaker 2: wrongful convictions. Here they have a man who is a
Speaker 2: quote subterranean little troll, and he's definitely a dangerous man
Speaker 2: who is a bad guy, hurts people. But we do
Speaker 2: not have the death penalty for sexual abuse. We do
Speaker 2: not have the death penalty for rape in the United States.
Speaker 2: And so because of that, when you take this history
Speaker 2: and you say, is he a sexual deviant? Is he
Speaker 2: a rapist? Is he a child predator? One thousand percent,
Speaker 2: one thousand percent, one thousand percent. Should he have been
Speaker 2: allowed to be walking around knowing that he is as
Speaker 2: to our community. No, Now, when you have the jury
Speaker 2: quickly say that must mean he murdered her, that must
Speaker 2: mean he needs to die when it's that quick and
Speaker 2: you don't have a whole lot of evidence backing it up.
Speaker 2: Keep in mind that conviction right there means somebody else
Speaker 2: was watching and said, well, that guy just took the
Speaker 2: blame for me, and I don't have to be held accountable.
Speaker 2: I can continue to go hurt the next little girl.
Speaker 2: And that's what's super scary about this. It's a lack
Speaker 2: of knowledge. I don't think there's any ill intent by
Speaker 2: the jury. They were doing what they were told to do,
Speaker 2: and they're not educated enough on the topic to know
Speaker 2: a difference.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, and this must be like a very difficult
Speaker 1: case in order to remain objective and unbiased, because you're
Speaker 1: hearing about all this terrible stuff that Blair has done,
Speaker 1: even though he's not on trial for it. He sounds
Speaker 1: like a terrible person, and some of them are probably
Speaker 1: thinking to themselves, if I equit this man, then he's
Speaker 1: going to be out there and he's going to harm
Speaker 1: other children. He may not kill any other children, but
Speaker 1: he's probably going to molest them or sexually abuse them.
Speaker 1: And if these jurors have children of their own, I
Speaker 1: don't think they're going to be thinking about the concept
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt and think, well, is there enough to
Speaker 1: prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed this crime.
Speaker 1: They're just going to think he's a dangerous man and
Speaker 1: try to get him off the street. But, like you
Speaker 1: pointed out, we don't have the death penalty for a
Speaker 1: child molestation or rape. So it's like it seems excessive
Speaker 1: to like sends him to death for murder if you're
Speaker 1: not entirely sure he committed that crime. So before Blair's
Speaker 1: trial even started, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
Speaker 1: had faced a major backlash over the fact that they
Speaker 1: had paroled him after he served only eighteen months of
Speaker 1: a ten year cens Their cover story was that the
Speaker 1: paperwork about Blair's charge for indecency with a child had
Speaker 1: been mistakenly omitted from his file when they received it,
Speaker 1: so they only knew about his burglary conviction when they
Speaker 1: decided to parole him. Well, no one really bought this story,
Speaker 1: and Ashley's parents even went so far as to sue
Speaker 1: the state for allowing Blair's release to happen. Overall, the
Speaker 1: message seemed clear that Ashley's murder could have been prevented
Speaker 1: and the system needed some changes. As a result, Texas
Speaker 1: Senator Florence Shapiro, who resided in Plano, decided to push
Speaker 1: forward new legislation to provide harsher punishments for sexual predators.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety five, then Governor George W. Bush signed
Speaker 1: Ashley's Laws, a series of bills which mandated longer prison
Speaker 1: terms for sex offenders who harmed children, as well as
Speaker 1: mandatory public registration for any offenders who were released from prison,
Speaker 1: so that local law enforcement could warn the community if
Speaker 1: predators like Michael Blair moved into their area. While it
Speaker 1: seemed like Ashley's legacy would live on through these new laws,
Speaker 1: this would not be the end of the story, as
Speaker 1: it soon became apparent that the wrong person may have
Speaker 1: been convicted of her murder.
Speaker 2: What's crazy here is that it took Ashley's murder to
Speaker 2: get this law passed. What I want to know is
Speaker 2: what happens to our serial sex offenders. Why was that
Speaker 2: not enough to say this person hurt multiple children over
Speaker 2: and over again, clearly showing an inclination to be attracted
Speaker 2: to children, to have no regard or control to not
Speaker 2: hurt the children of their community, and that wasn't enough.
Speaker 2: Why did it take Ashley's case? I mean, it's hard
Speaker 2: to say, like, wow, something good came out of this
Speaker 2: wrongful conviction, But why did it take this seven year
Speaker 2: old baby getting murdered? Why weren't the thousands of children
Speaker 2: who were sexually abused over and over again? Why is
Speaker 2: that not enough? Why did it take this case?
Speaker 1: Yeah, because Blair may not have murdered Ashley after he
Speaker 1: got parolled, but we're going to find out that he
Speaker 1: did molest and abuse some other children after getting released
Speaker 1: from prison much earlier than he should have been. So
Speaker 1: they are victims too, And that's a good question. Why
Speaker 1: wasn't their crimes enough to get these laws signed into place?
Speaker 1: Why did they have to wait for a murder to happen?
Speaker 2: And that's what Jules was saying earlier. Imagine the effects
Speaker 2: of those babies who their entire life that's now part
Speaker 2: of their story. And it's heartbreaking to think that a
Speaker 2: child who should be able to trust adults is targeted abused,
Speaker 2: and then their whole presentation of life and what's real
Speaker 2: and true and safe is altered forever. Why that is
Speaker 2: incredibly powerful. It's really sad that this is what it took,
Speaker 2: and that this wasn't something that naturally hit in people's
Speaker 2: mind that said enough enough, if you hurt a child,
Speaker 2: if you have a sickness where you're inclined to be
Speaker 2: attracted to children, we're putting a stop to it, and
Speaker 2: you're going to be known, you're going to be monitored,
Speaker 2: and you're going to be held accountable for your actions.
Speaker 3: Blair's death sentence eventually caught the attention of the Innocence Project,
Speaker 3: who agreed to take on his case. He was originally
Speaker 3: scheduled to be executed in July of nineteen ninety nine,
Speaker 3: but was granted a stay so the DNA testing could
Speaker 3: be performed on a number of pieces of forensic evidence.
Speaker 3: The tests were performed with more advanced technology, which was
Speaker 3: not available at the time of Blair's trial. There was
Speaker 3: a lot of concern about the credibility of forensic analyst
Speaker 3: Charles Lynch, whose testimony about the hair and fiber evidence
Speaker 3: helped convict Blair. It turned out that Lynch was suffering
Speaker 3: from alcoholism and depression at that time and had voluntarily
Speaker 3: checked into a psychiatric hospital before the trial. In fact,
Speaker 3: the stated granted Lynch a temporary release from the hospital
Speaker 3: so he could testify a piece of information which was
Speaker 3: not disclosed to Blair's defense team. During this time period,
Speaker 3: Blair was corresponding with Jackie Hilburn, a journalist writing an
Speaker 3: article about his case for d magazine, and brought up
Speaker 3: an interesting point which was not mentioned at his trial.
Speaker 3: One day, Hilburn opened up a letter from Blair and
Speaker 3: was shocked to discover that it contained a plat stick
Speaker 3: packet containing dozens of skin flakes. Blair claimed that he
Speaker 3: suffered from his skin affliction, which caused him to frequently
Speaker 3: shed small flakes of dry skin. Nothing like this was
Speaker 3: found at Ashley's murder scene, and since the weather was
Speaker 3: brutally hot on the weekend she was abducted, wouldn't Blair's
Speaker 3: skin flakes have adhered themselves to Ashley's body if he'd
Speaker 3: killed her? Well, even without this detail, it soon became
Speaker 3: apparent that the forensic evidence used to convict Blair was
Speaker 3: junk science. Oh.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, when you're looking at just a hair shaft and
Speaker 2: you're looking at fibers, and you know, like you said,
Speaker 2: there should have been other pieces of evidence there that weren't,
Speaker 2: and the ones that were were analyzed in a very
Speaker 2: subjective nature. This was a difficult case. Again, any juror
Speaker 2: listening would be really excited. This is like, you know
Speaker 2: what we saw on NCIS or CSI I think that
Speaker 2: was all out in the nineties.
Speaker 1: But I don't think so. No, not that yet, not
Speaker 1: till two thousand.
Speaker 2: I think, Okay, well, fine, as a naive duror, I
Speaker 2: was listening to a quote scientist brag about these hairs
Speaker 2: and fibers, I would likely just trust what they're saying.
Speaker 2: But that is now, like we said, considered junk science.
Speaker 2: I can't wait to hear more about how they actually
Speaker 2: broke that down. But like you said, we know that
Speaker 2: there should have been other types of evidence there that
Speaker 2: weren't if Blair was the offender, and that just was ignored.
Speaker 2: And so that's also this idea of junk science. You
Speaker 2: should be presenting the entire picture, because again prosecution and
Speaker 2: defense should be wanting to get the right person so
Speaker 2: that Ashley gets justice and all of our babies are safer.
Speaker 1: While the two hairs found on Ashley's body were initially
Speaker 1: believed to be Blair's, DNA testing excluded the hairs as
Speaker 1: belonging to him or Ashley. It also revealed that the
Speaker 1: three hairs found in Blair's vehicle did not belong to
Speaker 1: Ashley either. Further DNA testing was performed on some skin
Speaker 1: cells found underneath Ashley's fingernails. Wowed up on covering the
Speaker 1: DNA profiles of two separate males, and neither of them
Speaker 1: matched Blair. At first, the Collin County District Attorney's office
Speaker 1: held the attitude that the DNA testing did not prove
Speaker 1: Blair was innocent, but they ultimately decided to reopen the
Speaker 1: investigation in two thousand and six and assigned it to
Speaker 1: a cold case squad. Additional DNA testing was performed of
Speaker 1: an on Ashley's shirt, shoes, and the stuffed buddy from
Speaker 1: Blair's car. There was no female DNA found on the
Speaker 1: stuff buddy, and while male DNA was found on the shirt,
Speaker 1: there was insufficient material to link it to anybody. But
Speaker 1: there was a sufficient amount of male DNA on each
Speaker 1: of Ashley's shoes and once again it did not match Blair.
Speaker 1: DNA samples were also taken from Josh Crowley, the soccer
Speaker 1: referee whom Blair's defense team believed was a strong alternate suspect.
Speaker 1: To their surprise, the DNA testing excluded Crowley as well,
Speaker 1: but in the end the results finally convinced Colin County
Speaker 1: prosecutors to request that Blair's conviction be vacated. In August eight,
Speaker 1: I judge dismissed the murder charge against Blair and he
Speaker 1: was finally removed from death row.
Speaker 2: In what year did he go on death row? Nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety four. Oh my goodness. Okay, so this man, albeit
Speaker 2: a bad criminal, sat on death row for fourteen years.
Speaker 2: Here's what's scary, guys. Yes, in America, your timeline on
Speaker 2: death row is more likely than not extremely long. Appeal appeal, appeal, appeal,
Speaker 2: delays in the use of the death penalty, delays in
Speaker 2: the ability to get the materials to carry out the
Speaker 2: death penalty. So you'll see people sitting on death row
Speaker 2: for twenty or thirty years, or you'll see people die
Speaker 2: on death row because it's not carried out. But fourteen years, guys,
Speaker 2: in fourteen years in Texas, this man easily could have
Speaker 2: been executed for the crime of murder when he didn't
Speaker 2: do it. That's scary. When I think about corporate capital
Speaker 2: punishment and I think about the death penalty when you
Speaker 2: look at it through the lends of wrongful convictions and
Speaker 2: you have the reality that we know people who are
Speaker 2: innocent have been sent to death row and have been
Speaker 2: actually innocent aka DNA proves they didn't do it. When
Speaker 2: we've seen that happen over and over and over again,
Speaker 2: who's to say the cases that have been sealed tight
Speaker 2: and put away because the execution was actually carried out
Speaker 2: wouldn't also be cleared from DNA evidence Today, it's scary.
Speaker 2: Fourteen years in Texas, this man is incredibly lucky that
Speaker 2: he wasn't executed. Bad man. Yes, doesn't need to be
Speaker 2: in our community. Absolutely, should anyone's life be taken from
Speaker 2: them when they didn't do the crime that's in front
Speaker 2: of them. No, that's something that at the core every
Speaker 2: person should And so fourteen years guys in Texas, Oh
Speaker 2: my gosh, we're lucky. We're not talking about after the fact, right,
Speaker 2: his DNA probably would have never been tested, and here
Speaker 2: fourteen years later he's he's actually taken off of death row.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I know that Texas is particularly notorious for that
Speaker 1: because they have such a high death row population. So
Speaker 1: it's perhaps inevitable that some of them are later proven
Speaker 1: to be innocent, and we'll talk more about this on
Speaker 1: our next episode. But Texas also had a controversy once
Speaker 1: with none other than Henry Lee Lucas, who was nearly executed.
Speaker 1: But the problem was he was sentenced to death for
Speaker 1: one murder he probably did not commit, because, as you
Speaker 1: probably know, he was known for falsely confessing to crimes
Speaker 1: he did not commit. And some people would have the mentality, well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. He's a killer anyway, so let's execute him.
Speaker 1: But like you've said many times already, if you execute
Speaker 1: someone for the crimes they don't commit, then that means
Speaker 1: that the real killer gets away with it, and that
Speaker 1: almost happened in Ashley Estell's case.
Speaker 2: Hey, listen to this. This is interesting. So in Texas,
Speaker 2: on average, the time before execution is eleven years. The
Speaker 2: shortest ever was a man named Joe Gonzales Junior, who
Speaker 2: was executed two hundred and fifty two days after he
Speaker 2: was sentenced, and the longest was a man named David
Speaker 2: Lee Powell who spent thirty thirty one years on death
Speaker 2: row before his execution. But eleven years, and Robin, you said,
Speaker 2: you know, like who knows later they might be exonerated.
Speaker 2: I think the silver lining for the state or for
Speaker 2: the capital punishment movement is that once someone's executed, that
Speaker 2: case is done. It is closed, it is put away.
Speaker 2: I don't think you often see anyone digging deeper or
Speaker 2: asking for DNA analysis when somebody has been executed. And so,
Speaker 2: who knows how many people were executed for a crime
Speaker 2: they didn't commit. Again, are they are they pure? Are
Speaker 2: they the person I want to be my neighbor?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: But and if you were holding them to a legal
Speaker 2: justice standard of you're going to be executed for the
Speaker 2: crime you committed of murder of this person, they have
Speaker 2: to have murdered that person, and so eleven years as average,
Speaker 2: and this man was there for fourteen.
Speaker 3: However, even though Blair was off death throw, this did
Speaker 3: not mean that he would get to walk out of prison.
Speaker 3: Remember how we mentioned that Blair had been corresponding with
Speaker 3: a journalist from d magazine, meaning Jackie Hilburn. She conducted
Speaker 3: her first interview with him in nineteen ninety nine, and
Speaker 3: while Blair continued to maintain that he did not kill
Speaker 3: Ashley Estell, he did confess to having molested over a
Speaker 3: dozen other children, both girls and boys. Over the next
Speaker 3: few years, Blair would send Hilburn hundreds of letters, some
Speaker 3: of which contained detailed confessions to his many sexual offenses.
Speaker 3: Blair's victims were not strangers he selected at random, but
Speaker 3: rather children of friends and acquaintances whom he would befriend
Speaker 3: before he abused them. While the statute of limitations for
Speaker 3: most of these crimes had expired, Blair did confess to
Speaker 3: molesting three children in Dallas in nineteen ninety two and
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety three, shortly before he was charged with Ashley's murder.
Speaker 3: When Blair detailed these crimes in a letter he sent
Speaker 3: to the Colin County District Attorney's office, the Dallas County
Speaker 3: District Attorney's Office decided to charge him with four counts
Speaker 3: of aggravated sexual assaults. In June two thousand four, Blair
Speaker 3: agreed to plead guilty to these charges and received three
Speaker 3: consecutive life sentences, as well as a fourth life sentence
Speaker 3: to be served concurrently. So, while being exonerated of ashley
Speaker 3: a Sales murder meant that Blair would not be executed,
Speaker 3: these other charges ensured that he would remain in prison
Speaker 3: for the rest of his life. In spite of this,
Speaker 3: Blair actually attempted to seek one million in compensation from
Speaker 3: the state for his wrongful conviction, but his request was
Speaker 3: denied by the Texas Supreme Court in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 2: Very interesting. So again Blair does agree to plead guilty
Speaker 2: to these certain crimes. A lot of times there's caveats
Speaker 2: to compensation laws, and so people imagine, oh, if you
Speaker 2: spent fourteen years on death row, I bet that you
Speaker 2: would get you know, you'd be loaded. I'd spend time
Speaker 2: on death row.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: I've heard all kinds of people say things, But people
Speaker 2: don't understand that there's a ton of these rules that
Speaker 2: are tied into compensation, many things that will exclude you
Speaker 2: from being able to be compensated. And there's maximum caps
Speaker 2: that are very low in many states where it's hey listen,
Speaker 2: unless it's actual in a sense, which it is here
Speaker 2: and your DNA exonerates you. There's some states that won't
Speaker 2: pay you a dime even if someone else is convicted,
Speaker 2: even if there's a proof you didn't do it, unless
Speaker 2: you're DNA exonerates you. Here. It's I'm sure quite complex
Speaker 2: because there are these other crimes coinciding. He's pleading guilty
Speaker 2: guilty to these other crimes, oftentimes to the caveats of
Speaker 2: if you had any role in helping to incriminate yourself,
Speaker 2: meaning you make a statement during your interrogation, you have
Speaker 2: a record that indicates similar cases, those kinds of things.
Speaker 2: They can actually carve out that they don't owe you
Speaker 2: anything either. So it's never in favor of the person
Speaker 2: who's exonerated. It's there to protect the state and to
Speaker 2: have a face that we provide financial compensation for people
Speaker 2: that we wronged. But really there's so many caveats. Very
Speaker 2: few people walk away with many, and very few people
Speaker 2: get the amount you would think they deserve. Here, I
Speaker 2: don't feel too bad for Blair. He needs to be
Speaker 2: away for life, and therefore he doesn't need compensation to
Speaker 2: create a new life after fourteen years were taken from him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Nobody was shedding any tears over this decision.
Speaker 1: People were actually siding with the state anyway. The new
Speaker 1: investigation by the Collin County District Attorney's Office seemed to
Speaker 1: point towards another suspect who was never looked at by
Speaker 1: police or mentioned at Blair's trial. However, this man has
Speaker 1: never been publicly identified and only was referred to in
Speaker 1: court papers as Suspect number four. By the time Blair
Speaker 1: was exonerated, Suspect number four had been deceased for a decade,
Speaker 1: but one of the most suspicious things which seemed to
Speaker 1: implicate him in the murder is that he specifically bought
Speaker 1: a cemetery plot for himself which was as close as
Speaker 1: possible to Ashley Estell's grave, though it's unclear if he
Speaker 1: was actually buried in it after he died. He also
Speaker 1: joined the same church the Estelle family went to and
Speaker 1: moved into an apartment near where Ashley had lived and
Speaker 1: gone to school. And if that wasn't enough, he had
Speaker 1: also allegedly lied to police by telling them he had
Speaker 1: a child who was abducted from a park, murdered and
Speaker 1: dump near Gravel Road, which sounded similar to Ashley's murder.
Speaker 1: But the evidence to incriminate Suspect number four was not
Speaker 1: conclusive because while he could not be excluded as the
Speaker 1: source of the male DNA found on ashley shoe, DNA
Speaker 1: testing did exclude him as being the contributor of the
Speaker 1: hair evidence and the skin under Ashley's fingernails. Investigators also
Speaker 1: could not uncover any evidence to prove that suspect number
Speaker 1: four was in Carpenter Park or the Plano area on
Speaker 1: the day of the crime. The Collin County District Attorney stated, quote, Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: despite strenuous efforts, the team has been unable to eliminate
Speaker 1: or conclusively connect this person to the offenses end quote.
Speaker 1: Thus far, no plans have ever been made to exhume
Speaker 1: Suspect number four's body for any further forensic testing. All
Speaker 1: anybody knows for certain is that Michael Blair was not
Speaker 1: the perpetrator, and following his exoneration, Barry Sheck, the co
Speaker 1: director of the Innocence Project, stated, quote, in this case,
Speaker 1: the community rushed to judgment because Michael Blair had a
Speaker 1: record as a sex offender, while the apparent real perpetrator,
Speaker 1: who had no record, evaded justice more than just an irony.
Speaker 1: This should give everyone pause about legislating or reaching court
Speaker 1: decisions based on community fear and outrage. As for Ashley Estelle,
Speaker 1: a book she had written in the months prior to
Speaker 1: her death, titled Just Perfect, was published in two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine in order to honor a memory and Proceeds
Speaker 1: from the sales of the book were donated to the
Speaker 1: Children's Advocacy Center of Collin County, which serves as a
Speaker 1: sanctuary for abused and neglected children. But unfortunately, after more
Speaker 1: than thirty years, Ashley's horrific murder continues to remain unsolved
Speaker 1: and we still don't know who is responsible for killing her.
Speaker 1: So I guess you could say the path went Chiley.
Speaker 2: This is incredibly unsettling when you think about this. As
Speaker 2: suspect number four, you had a man sent to death
Speaker 2: row and almost executed, and you have all of these
Speaker 2: different ideas, and yet you were so confident this first
Speaker 2: time that what if you had kept an open mind
Speaker 2: and cast your net further, would you have made more
Speaker 2: progress and maybe had twelve suspects that are sitting there,
Speaker 2: and as DNA advanced, you'd be able to go back
Speaker 2: and and match them suspect For to me, when you
Speaker 2: look at the fact that there is no match to
Speaker 2: the DNA under her fingernails or the hairs, that's incredibly
Speaker 2: problematic to me because that child scraped and scraped to
Speaker 2: try to get that ligature away from her neck. There's
Speaker 2: marks all over her and so to me that DNA
Speaker 2: underneath her fingernails would be pivotal to this case. We
Speaker 2: know what her body was doing. She was losing oxygen
Speaker 2: and trying to stop him and to pull this off
Speaker 2: of her neck. And so the fact that his DNA,
Speaker 2: whoever suspect for is, does not match that. Neither does
Speaker 2: it match the hair and the DNA that later is
Speaker 2: found on those shafts of hair. That's problematic. Yes, interesting
Speaker 2: that this person has a lot of crossover with the
Speaker 2: Estelle family. Yes, it's unsettling that he had access to Ashley,
Speaker 2: But it doesn't sound like you could really confidently do
Speaker 2: anything with that suspect. And then you have to step
Speaker 2: back and look at the great and beauty that Ashley's
Speaker 2: family and the community do after the death of this baby.
Speaker 2: You have this little girl who, years after her death,
Speaker 2: has her little book published. This is seven year old
Speaker 2: guys who writes a book called Just Perfect, which is
Speaker 2: exactly what this little angel was before someone decided they
Speaker 2: had the ability to take her little life from her.
Speaker 2: But I love that the community and the family said
Speaker 2: we're going to turn her story Just Perfect into something
Speaker 2: that benefits the child's Advocacy center and it's going to
Speaker 2: be a home that gets to take care of children
Speaker 2: who are abused and neglected. No solution in her case.
Speaker 2: But this family in the community said, if we can't
Speaker 2: help Ashley, and we can't bring Ashley back, we could
Speaker 2: sure show up for the kids that no one else
Speaker 2: is showing up for. We can sure show up for
Speaker 2: the babies who are being hurt in our community, and
Speaker 2: we can try to make their life and their healing
Speaker 2: a little bit better. I think that's the only beauty
Speaker 2: that you can find in this case, because everything else
Speaker 2: makes you sick to your stomach.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I knew you would appreciate that part of the
Speaker 1: story because you've published children's books yourself. So the fact
Speaker 1: that Ashley was talented enough to write a book at
Speaker 1: age seven and it got published posthumously was a very
Speaker 1: good tribute to her. And I knew you would find
Speaker 1: that to be a very rare ray of sunshine and
Speaker 1: what is otherwise a very dark and disturbing story. So
Speaker 1: I think that about brings an end to Part one.
Speaker 1: Join us next week as we present part two of
Speaker 1: our series about the murder of Ashley Estell.
Speaker 4: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 4: about the Trail Went Cold Patreon.
Speaker 1: Yes, the Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
Speaker 1: years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
Speaker 1: early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
Speaker 1: and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
Speaker 1: with us on Patreon. If you join our five dollars
Speaker 1: tier Tier two, we also offer monthly bonus episodes in
Speaker 1: which I talk about cases which are not featured on
Speaker 1: the Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to
Speaker 1: Patreon and if you join our highest tier tier three,
Speaker 1: the ten dollars tier. One of the features we offer
Speaker 1: is a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsawved Mysteries,
Speaker 1: where you can download an audio file and then boot
Speaker 1: up the original Unsaved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
Speaker 1: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
Speaker 1: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
Speaker 1: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
Speaker 1: first episode that I did a commentary track over was
Speaker 1: the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
Speaker 1: download a commentary track in which I make more smart
Speaker 1: ass remarks about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join
Speaker 1: Tier three.
Speaker 4: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 4: about the jeweles and ashy patreons. So there's early ad
Speaker 4: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Speaker 4: Path Went Chili mini's, which are always over an hour,
Speaker 4: so they're not very mini, but they're just too short
Speaker 4: to turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those,
Speaker 4: so we hope you'll check out those patreons will link
Speaker 4: them in the show notes.
Speaker 1: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
Speaker 1: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 1: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly appreciated.
Speaker 1: You can email us at The Pathwentchili at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: You can reach us on Twitter at the Pathwink. So
Speaker 1: until next time, be sure to bundle up because cold
Speaker 1: trails and chili pass call for warm clothing.
Speaker 3: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy