Speaker 1: Welcome back to part two of our series about the
Speaker 1: murder of Roger Dean. Let's jump right back into the case.
Speaker 1: So many years after Unsaw Mysteries aired, they tried to
Speaker 1: take a fresh look at the case and try to
Speaker 1: solve it because of that wonderful little invention known as DNA,
Speaker 1: which nobody would have been thinking of back in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty five. And the killer, like I said, when they
Speaker 1: fled the scene, threw off their ski mask and left
Speaker 1: it at the house, and they probably thought that that
Speaker 1: wasn't going to be a big deal. It was never
Speaker 1: going to be linked back to them, But they would
Speaker 1: not realize that decades after the fact, that they would
Speaker 1: be able to take samp of hair and saliva from
Speaker 1: the mask and use it to extract DNA. And I
Speaker 1: had to wonder if the killer was following the case
Speaker 1: and kicking themselves for that decision for leaving the masks behind,
Speaker 1: because it would ultimately be their undoing. I know that
Speaker 1: in some articles in the two thousands they talked about
Speaker 1: how they ran the DNA through some criminal databases and
Speaker 1: it failed to match anyone, and that they were collecting
Speaker 1: DNA samples from a whole bunch of potential suspects and
Speaker 1: people from Rogers' personal life, But there were apparently six
Speaker 1: people who refused to provide the DNA voluntarily. They did
Speaker 1: not mention in the article who these six people were,
Speaker 1: but obviously me know that six people were not in
Speaker 1: on this crime. So I guess that's just a lot
Speaker 1: of people who were pair right about not turning over
Speaker 1: their DNA to law enforcement.
Speaker 2: Well, I can understand that to a degree, especially back then.
Speaker 2: I don't know what year that was, but it was
Speaker 2: still early on kind of in the infancy of DNA,
Speaker 2: and so a lot of people thought, like, what sorcery
Speaker 2: is this? This can't be accurate. What if there able
Speaker 2: to like nail me for a crime that I didn't commit.
Speaker 2: There was a lot of unknowns with DNA, and now
Speaker 2: it's really trusted. Even though it's become more complex now
Speaker 2: because of touch DNA and the more sophisticated the technology gets,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of ways that DNA can come into
Speaker 2: a scene that isn't necessarily the DNA at the killer.
Speaker 2: And so moving forward, I mean with people when they're
Speaker 2: committing crimes to think about like what could possibly get
Speaker 2: you nailed? I mean maybe even breathing at a crime scene.
Speaker 2: If they're taking like samples of air, in the future,
Speaker 2: maybe they're able to get DNA from the little bits
Speaker 2: of spittle that like goes into the air that's in
Speaker 2: the in the cloud. Like it's insane to think of
Speaker 2: what type of advances in technology in ten twenty thirty
Speaker 2: years that people now they think they're being careful by,
Speaker 2: you know, wearing gloves and doing all these sorts of things,
Speaker 2: putting back their hair, that they're not leaving anything behind. Well,
Speaker 2: there's going to be things they're leaving behind that they're
Speaker 2: just not even considering, like back in nineteen eighty five,
Speaker 2: thinking oh, it's okay to throw away a mask, like
Speaker 2: it's not a big deal. They're not going to be
Speaker 2: able to trace it to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we have seen so many cold cases from like
Speaker 1: the seventies and eighties get solved where the killer left
Speaker 1: something like a Kleenex or they left a cigarette behind,
Speaker 1: and they're probably thinking, all these years later, damn, I
Speaker 1: wish I hadn't smoked at my murder scene because that
Speaker 1: led to my undoing forty years later. So tragically, DJ
Speaker 1: passed away in August of twenty twenty at the age
Speaker 1: of eighty eight. And it's always sad when family members
Speaker 1: of murder victims die without ever getting any sort of resolution.
Speaker 1: And it's particularly sad here because we finally would get
Speaker 1: some sort of conclusion in this case, only about eight
Speaker 1: months after DJ passed away, So that makes it all
Speaker 1: the more sad that she just didn't manage to live
Speaker 1: long enough to see her husband's killer wrot to justice.
Speaker 2: That's bittersweet. I mean, at least Tammy is alive and
Speaker 2: able to see justice served, but went through so much
Speaker 2: in her life. She experienced more loss than any other
Speaker 2: individual should ever have to bear. And then for her
Speaker 2: to pass away six months before this individual's charged and
Speaker 2: there's some resolution, it just doesn't seem fair.
Speaker 1: It doesn't, know, because it would have been all the
Speaker 1: more satisfying that the hell she was put through to
Speaker 1: finally get to face the her husband's killer in court
Speaker 1: and stuff and finally realize that after thirty five years,
Speaker 1: I am finally safe. He's not out there and he's
Speaker 1: not gonna harm me. So it is just kind of
Speaker 1: bittersweet that she had to pass away like that. So
Speaker 1: let's talk about how they finally solved this case, and
Speaker 1: as you probably guessed, it was through DNA and genetic genealogy.
Speaker 1: When they first started testing the DNA back in the
Speaker 1: mid two thousands, they did not have genetic genealogy, but
Speaker 1: they started using it. They entered the DNA samples into
Speaker 1: a genealogical database and it was eventually traced to a
Speaker 1: suspect named Michael Jefferson, who was now sixty four years old.
Speaker 1: He was only living in New Orleans, but back in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty five he had lived in Colorado, and he
Speaker 1: also had a past criminal record, so he seemed like
Speaker 1: a viable suspect. So of course, when you match up
Speaker 1: evidence to suspects DNA in a database, you can't officially
Speaker 1: arrest them until you can collect a sample of their
Speaker 1: DNA to make a conclusive match. So what they did
Speaker 1: is they put Jefferson under surveillance, and he actually boarded
Speaker 1: a flight to Los Angeles in order to go visit
Speaker 1: his family and was followed by two deputies who stayed
Speaker 1: on the flight kept an eye on him, and when
Speaker 1: they saw him throw out a water bottle, they actually
Speaker 1: went up to the flight attendants collected the bottle and
Speaker 1: preserved it as evidence. And after they landed, they performed
Speaker 1: testing on the DNA on the water bottle, compared it
Speaker 1: to the DNA from the hair samples on the killer's match,
Speaker 1: and it turned out it was a match, so they
Speaker 1: were able to swear at an arrest warrant, go to
Speaker 1: Jefferson's family's home in Los Angeles, and finally arrest him
Speaker 1: and charge him with rogers murder.
Speaker 2: Well, damn, that is a really good use of resources
Speaker 2: to follow him around get that water bottle, and I
Speaker 2: mean got a wonder too. Like a lot of times, killers,
Speaker 2: when they're aware that the authorities don't have their DNA,
Speaker 2: they often are very careful with what they dispose of
Speaker 2: in any public places and even what they touch exactly.
Speaker 1: Like I have no idea if Jefferson was aware of
Speaker 1: how DNA worked, if he knew he was being followed
Speaker 1: or anything, but we have seen like other cases where
Speaker 1: they'll follow a suspect around, they'll go to like a
Speaker 1: fast food restaurant, and after they dispose of their their
Speaker 1: cop or like their wrapper or something, then they'll collect
Speaker 1: it from the garbage to get their DNA. But this
Speaker 1: was an extra mile, like boarding a flight from New
Speaker 1: Orleans to Los Angeles and following him to another state
Speaker 1: just so you can collect something containing his DNA. But
Speaker 1: it did pay off, and I'm sure Jefferson was taken
Speaker 1: by complete surprise when he's staying with his family and
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden they break down the door
Speaker 1: and then finally arrest him.
Speaker 2: That is an incredible amount of commitment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'm glad to see that it paid off well.
Speaker 1: When I first learned this news, I was taken by
Speaker 1: complete surprise when I saw Jefferson's mugshot because he is
Speaker 1: a black man, and for many years it had always
Speaker 1: been put forward that Rogers killer was white. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know that he wore a sche mask throughout the
Speaker 1: whole thing, but unsaw mysteries. They made it look like
Speaker 1: sound like he was white, and they portrayed a white
Speaker 1: actor to play the killer during the reenactments. So this
Speaker 1: completely threw me for a loop. But then I found
Speaker 1: out that on the morning of the murder that a
Speaker 1: little girl who lived in Roger's neighborhood had been looking
Speaker 1: out her bedroom window after she heard the gunshots and
Speaker 1: said she saw a black man running away down the
Speaker 1: street and climbing into a parked car before he drove away,
Speaker 1: so investigators, for whatever reason, were skeptical he tried to
Speaker 1: reenact the situation. So they went up into this girl's
Speaker 1: room and looked down at a white police officer running
Speaker 1: that same route past like a whole bunch of bright
Speaker 1: white snow. And they said that the police officer from
Speaker 1: that angle kind of looked like he was dark skinned.
Speaker 1: So they figured that the girl must have been mistaken
Speaker 1: and that the suspect was white. But it turned out
Speaker 1: it was a black man all along. And they actually
Speaker 1: went back and interviewed this girl who's now an adult,
Speaker 1: and she essentially said, I told you so.
Speaker 2: That is really funny, especially since she remembers that from
Speaker 2: when she was a little kid. And she's like, all
Speaker 2: these adults aren't listening to me. I know what I saw,
Speaker 2: and nobody's listening. They're all thinking of some white guy.
Speaker 2: I think he does throw people when someone's wearing a mask,
Speaker 2: But he disposed of his mask in the home, so
Speaker 2: the other people that saw him, you'd think that they
Speaker 2: would have noticed that he was black.
Speaker 1: I don't think there were any other witnesses. I think
Speaker 1: that girl was the only one who saw him running away.
Speaker 1: There are other people who saw what they described as
Speaker 1: a man sitting in that car, but I don't think
Speaker 1: they saw his face, or they were too far away
Speaker 1: that they couldn't tell his race. And because DJ only
Speaker 1: saw him with the mask and she had duct tape
Speaker 1: put over her eyes, she really didn't get a close
Speaker 1: enough look to discern if it could have been a
Speaker 1: white man or a black man under the mask. But
Speaker 1: for many years, the authorities were operating under the assumption
Speaker 1: that was a white man. And now I'm wonder is
Speaker 1: how many leads did they look at that turned out
Speaker 1: to go nowhere? Because I'm pretty sure that the secretary's
Speaker 1: son was a white guy as well, and I really
Speaker 1: don't think they looked at any black guys. So per
Speaker 1: usual when all these cold cases are solved after so
Speaker 1: many decades, the suspect turned out to be someone who
Speaker 1: was never on the radar at all.
Speaker 2: I guess they were just working with probabilities, right. Usually
Speaker 2: when a crime is committed, if the victim is white,
Speaker 2: then typically the perpetrator is white. Like That's not always
Speaker 2: the case, but more often than not it is. And
Speaker 2: so the fact that they discounted what this little girl said,
Speaker 2: like you said she was the only witness that saw
Speaker 2: somebody running away, and they're like, oh, yeah, from this angle,
Speaker 2: they could have been darker. But it's like you went
Speaker 2: in there trying to disprove what she saw because other
Speaker 2: people may have seen someone who was white. You already
Speaker 2: have this tunnel vision believing that the perpetrator was white,
Speaker 2: and so you actively tried to discount what this little
Speaker 2: girl said and disprove it so that your theory of
Speaker 2: the crime could be the correct one. And to the
Speaker 2: detriment of the case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was definitely confirmation bias here, and I think
Speaker 1: that maybe they would have looked at things from a
Speaker 1: different angle, like maybe they at the time they found
Speaker 1: out that Roger Dean had some sort of personal connection
Speaker 1: with Michael Jefferson, but they completely dismissed him because he
Speaker 1: was a black guy, and they figured the killer was white.
Speaker 1: So I really don't hope that this prevented them from
Speaker 1: solving the case from many decades because of their confirmation bias.
Speaker 1: So here comes the most craziest part. I actually have
Speaker 1: kind of a personal connection to this case. Jefferson's arrest
Speaker 1: was announced by the authorities on April ninth, twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: but they actually arrested him a couple weeks beforehand and
Speaker 1: just did not make it public until that exact date
Speaker 1: because they had to get him. They got him in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, they had to extride him back to Colorado,
Speaker 1: so there was a lot of stuff to do before
Speaker 1: they could make the announcement. Well, a couple weeks beforehand,
Speaker 1: I actually received an email from a who said he
Speaker 1: had listened to my Trail with Cold episode and he
Speaker 1: asked me a specific question. He said, on the episode,
Speaker 1: you mentioned that there were six people who refused to
Speaker 1: give their DNA over during the investigation. Do you know
Speaker 1: who these people were? And I said, sorry, they didn't
Speaker 1: publish their names, so I have no idea who they were.
Speaker 1: I don't really have any information to offer you. And
Speaker 1: then he just casually says, okay, I got a good suspect.
Speaker 1: He was just arrested. And I was like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: how I haven't heard anything about that. What's going on?
Speaker 1: I didn't really pant no mind, but then a couple
Speaker 1: weeks later, I hear the news that Michael Jefferson is arrested.
Speaker 1: I go back and look at this guy's email, and
Speaker 1: guess what his last name.
Speaker 2: Was, Oh, my god, Warder Jefferson. Oh, I'm like, what
Speaker 2: who is his last name? When you're like I've got
Speaker 2: a personal connection, I'm like, his last name wasn't Warder?
Speaker 1: Was it? No? No, it was Jefferson. And when I
Speaker 1: look at the timeline here, I am positive that Michael
Speaker 1: Jefferson was visiting his family and that this guy who
Speaker 1: wrote the email probably witnessed him get arrested. And then
Speaker 1: I wanted to go online to find more information about
Speaker 1: the crime and found my Trail and Cold episode and
Speaker 1: then emailed me, and so I emailed them back saying
Speaker 1: are you related to the Michael Jefferson? And unfortunately he
Speaker 1: never replied. But I'm confident that emailed me and told
Speaker 1: me about Michael Jefferson's arrest before it was made public,
Speaker 1: and that he personally witnessed it and looked at my
Speaker 1: podcast episode.
Speaker 2: That is a wild wow. So I wonder it must
Speaker 2: have been one of his relatives. That seems like who
Speaker 2: else is going to have the inside scoop on this arrest?
Speaker 2: And then you go and look up different podcasts, listen
Speaker 2: to yours and be like, oh, I wonder if you
Speaker 2: know uncle or cousin or whomever was one of those
Speaker 2: people that refused to give DNA. And then later when
Speaker 2: you find out that like, actually somebody got arrested, that
Speaker 2: this person wasn't just making this up out of thin air,
Speaker 2: or they clearly had the inside scoop, that's so wild. Well,
Speaker 2: it's much better than the idea of this person being
Speaker 2: Jefferson Warder, like, oh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, no, not like that. You know, when I
Speaker 1: said personal connection, I meant I had a very loose connect,
Speaker 1: not anyone I knew. But as you know, you've heard
Speaker 1: the story a million times about me and the killer
Speaker 1: of Janelle Matthew Steve Panky that he was one of
Speaker 1: my Patreon subscribers. And this is another weird incident in
Speaker 1: my podcasting career where I hear from the relative of
Speaker 1: a guy who was arrested for murder before it was
Speaker 1: made public. And I remember sharing this story with some
Speaker 1: of my fellow podcasters because this was only like I
Speaker 1: think five or six months after I found out Steve
Speaker 1: Panky was on Patriots. So these they essentially said to me,
Speaker 1: why does this keep happening to you?
Speaker 2: I don't know, You've just somehow attract these people that
Speaker 2: you attract the weird and the wonderful, like the best
Speaker 2: and some of the worst.
Speaker 1: It's true. I've had so many weird stories since my
Speaker 1: podcasting career started, both good and bad, and this is
Speaker 1: one of the weirder ones. So of course, now that
Speaker 1: Jefferson was arrested, I was so anxious for so many
Speaker 1: details because I mean, in so many of those there
Speaker 1: isn't much of a mystery here. If it like involves
Speaker 1: a woman being like raped and murdered, you know that
Speaker 1: the killer was likely a sexual predator and they killed
Speaker 1: her at random, so you don't really have to ask
Speaker 1: a lot of questions about why they did this. But
Speaker 1: with this one, there were so many because I wanted
Speaker 1: to know, did Michael Jefferson no, Roger Dean, was this
Speaker 1: is staged kidnapping? What was his motive? Was Jefferson the
Speaker 1: person who called years later and made the extortion attempt?
Speaker 1: So I was just anxious to learn more details. But
Speaker 1: here we are recording this nearly four years later, and
Speaker 1: he has still not gone on trial because there have
Speaker 1: been like so many complications for years, they didn't release
Speaker 1: anything to the media, Like if you went back and
Speaker 1: googled his name. There was nothing about Jefferson's arrest after
Speaker 1: April of twenty twenty one, So to try to figure
Speaker 1: out what was going on, I kept checking the Colorado
Speaker 1: Court dock at website, and for many times throughout twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, twenty twenty three, I would see Jefferson's trial
Speaker 1: on the court docket, and then it would just keep
Speaker 1: getting inexplicably postponed. And finally I thought it was going
Speaker 1: to happen in like July twenty twenty four, and then
Speaker 1: it just like disappeared from the court docket. And I'm
Speaker 1: just asking myself, what is going on behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: because they're not releasing anything, and why is it taking
Speaker 1: so long for this case to go to trial?
Speaker 2: Okay, so I can understand maybe like the first couple
Speaker 2: of years because COVID, I mean, you've got to write
Speaker 2: to a speedy trial in the US. So the fact
Speaker 2: that this has been incredibly protracted, it seems like this
Speaker 2: is the violation of his rights in some capacity. But
Speaker 2: I guess we don't know the circumstances as to why
Speaker 2: it's been delayed, like maybe there's a health issue, maybe
Speaker 2: it's delayed on his side. I have no idea. But
Speaker 2: I can understand, like twenty twenty twenty, twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two, why it would be delayed, but like
Speaker 2: why now things seem to be moving smoothly.
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean I finally have had learned kind of
Speaker 1: a reason why it kept getting And I do have
Speaker 1: to give them credit for not allowing any leaks to
Speaker 1: get out there, because we've seen with stuff like the
Speaker 1: Doufi murders trial that that was surrounded by so much
Speaker 1: drama from stuff constantly leaking out to the media, but
Speaker 1: this one they kept it tight under wraps. It left
Speaker 1: me really frustrated. But I finally got some new news
Speaker 1: in July of twenty twenty four when they announced that
Speaker 1: there was a scandal going on with the Colorado Bureau
Speaker 1: of Investigation involving a forensic scientist named a Bond, Missy Woods.
Speaker 1: She had worked for them for twenty nine years and
Speaker 1: she had worked on some high profile cases. But I
Speaker 1: think there was a lot of controversy because she was
Speaker 1: apparently like mishandling or fabricating a lot of the DNA
Speaker 1: evidence in a whole bunch of cases, and people were
Speaker 1: afraid to speak out until like an intern in her
Speaker 1: lab finally went to the authorities and they launched a
Speaker 1: full fledged investigation and it's turned into like a major
Speaker 1: disaster here, a scandal where they have actually sent out
Speaker 1: letters to all the inmates in Colorado prisons who have
Speaker 1: had Missy Wood's work on their case and handled the
Speaker 1: DNA evidence, and they have said that you know, how
Speaker 1: have the legal right to look at all the documentation,
Speaker 1: and if you find out that Missy Woods has mishandled
Speaker 1: or fabricated your DNA in any way, you have the
Speaker 1: right to appeal your conviction. And sure enough I found out,
Speaker 1: Oh no, she has handled the DNA in Michael Jefferson's case. Two.
Speaker 2: Oh no. So does that mean in your opinion, that
Speaker 2: they've got it wrong, that somehow there's something wrong here
Speaker 2: or do we just think that like because like when
Speaker 2: you've got corruption in that type of capacity, when you've
Speaker 2: got somebody who's fabricating results, typically it is not every
Speaker 2: single case. It might just be cooking the books for
Speaker 2: something where they couldn't get exactly what they wanted.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, when I first heard this news, I really
Speaker 1: didn't know what to think because they hadn't released any
Speaker 1: details about what other evidence they had against Jefferson. I mean,
Speaker 1: if they had a bunch of other corroborating evidence to
Speaker 1: prove he did this, then I'm like, Okay, then he's
Speaker 1: probably still guilty. But if all they had was the
Speaker 1: DNA match from the genetic genealogy, then that makes it
Speaker 1: a bit more questionable. So I was left hanging there,
Speaker 1: and then I'm checking the Colorado Court doc a website
Speaker 1: and then I see on the dock at there in
Speaker 1: October they have sensing hearing, and I'm like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: is this Are they not even having a trial or
Speaker 1: are they going to dismiss the charges? But then they
Speaker 1: publicly announced that they are offering Jefferson a plea deal,
Speaker 1: and that I know that the former lead investigator has
Speaker 1: gone on the record saying that I am one hundred
Speaker 1: percent certain that Michael Jefferson is the guy. But they're
Speaker 1: so worried about this scandal with Missy Woods that this
Speaker 1: is going to taint the whole trial that I think
Speaker 1: they're worried that they're not going to get a conviction.
Speaker 1: So they have offered him a plea deal and they're
Speaker 1: going to have a hearing about it in January about
Speaker 1: a month after the release of these episodes, so we
Speaker 1: will finally get some conclusive answers about how many years
Speaker 1: he's going to get to what other evidence they had.
Speaker 1: But yeah, this whole thing is been messed up because
Speaker 1: of this whole scandal with Missy Woods.
Speaker 2: So unfortunate. You expect people that work in investigations to
Speaker 2: be beyond reproach, and we know that that isn't true
Speaker 2: because human beings are fallible, they make mistakes. We see
Speaker 2: corruption in law enforcement all the time, and I guess
Speaker 2: that we should expect that the same thing could happen
Speaker 2: with scientists. Just because you've got a background in science
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that you aren't somebody that could be corrupted
Speaker 2: in some capacity. And maybe it's for ego. Maybe it's
Speaker 2: because she's a people pleaser and wanted to shore up
Speaker 2: cases for law enforcement where something wasn't a solid She
Speaker 2: was going to give them what they needed to go forward.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I haven't seen any examples yet of
Speaker 1: any convictions being overturned because of Missy Woods's antics. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's possible that she helped fabricate some evidence against some
Speaker 1: guilty people and hasn't put any innocent people in prison
Speaker 1: yet we just don't know. But in Michael Jefferson's case,
Speaker 1: I know that lead investigator says that he's quite unhappy
Speaker 1: about this, and I know that Tammy hasn't publicly commented
Speaker 1: on the situation, but they have said that Rogers' family
Speaker 1: is not happy as well. It says that the maximum
Speaker 1: Jefferson could receive as a thirty two year sentence, and
Speaker 1: if he does get that, that's essentially a life sentence
Speaker 1: because he's now sixty eight years old. But part of
Speaker 1: me thinks that he probably wouldn't agree to the plea
Speaker 1: deal unless he was assured that he was going to
Speaker 1: get a shorter sentence and that he could get out
Speaker 1: of prison while he is still alive. So the fact
Speaker 1: that he's taking this plea deal makes me think that
Speaker 1: he probably is guilty, But I want to hear more
Speaker 1: details about what corroborating evidence they had, what his motive
Speaker 1: might be, and I do hope that one of the
Speaker 1: terms of this plea deal is that he has to
Speaker 1: go in open court and make a full confession about
Speaker 1: everything that happened here so that we can finally learn
Speaker 1: the full truth about why Roger was killed.
Speaker 2: Because if Michael Jefferson is indeed guilty. There's so many
Speaker 2: hidden variables here, Like I feel like we just we're
Speaker 2: just scratched the surface. It's like the whole Iceberg thing.
Speaker 2: We know ten percent of what actually happened. This wasn't
Speaker 2: just a chance encounter. This clearly seems like Roger was
Speaker 2: expecting him, Like why had he stayed behind that day?
Speaker 2: Why was he sipping his coffee in the garage with
Speaker 2: a garage door open when he would have typically left
Speaker 2: for work? And what were to believe that Michael Jefferson
Speaker 2: just happened upon this house and this was completely by chance.
Speaker 2: It doesn't seem like this was an accident that he
Speaker 2: just stumbled upon this home and just decided to victimize
Speaker 2: Roger and DJ. It's it's just too convenient, do you
Speaker 2: know what I mean?
Speaker 1: I think so yeah, because this was a very nice
Speaker 1: suburban neighborhood that was not known for violent crimes. So
Speaker 1: I find it very unlikely that someone would just park
Speaker 1: there and just go into a random house at seven am,
Speaker 1: which is a time when people are getting up and
Speaker 1: going to work and going to school. So it's a
Speaker 1: risky time to commit a crime like that against random victims.
Speaker 1: So it makes me think he did have some sort
Speaker 1: of connection with Roger, and maybe the police have discovered
Speaker 1: it and have just not released it publicly yet. And
Speaker 1: I would like to know, like, is it possible that
Speaker 1: Roger did hire this guy to stage a kidnapping and
Speaker 1: then went horribly wrong and led to Jefferson shooting him.
Speaker 1: We just don't know, and we're still not entirely sure
Speaker 1: if he was the one responsible for the extortion attempt
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety. I know what investigator has said that
Speaker 1: he believes Jefferson's voice does sound like the voice on
Speaker 1: the phone when they made the threatening calls to DJ.
Speaker 1: But even if he is guilty of that, he won't
Speaker 1: be charged for his role in the extortion because of
Speaker 1: the statute of limitations. But that's another question I want answered.
Speaker 1: Was that Jefferson or was it just an opportunist, like
Speaker 1: say the secretary and her son who just tried to
Speaker 1: capitalize on DJ's tragedy even though they had no actual
Speaker 1: involvement in Roger's murder.
Speaker 2: What can you tell me about Michael Jefferson back in
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty five.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, not a lot has been released. I do know
Speaker 1: that he does have a criminal history, but I don't
Speaker 1: know what it's for. I don't think it's any violent
Speaker 1: crimes like murder. I think has mostly just been stuff
Speaker 1: like robbery or something like that. And they did establish
Speaker 1: that he was living in Colorado in nineteen eighty five,
Speaker 1: and I don't know when he relocated to New Orleans,
Speaker 1: but it would make sense for him to leave the
Speaker 1: state if he was guilty of this crime. But it
Speaker 1: just makes me wonder if him and Roger were in
Speaker 1: on this together, how would they have crossed pass Like?
Speaker 1: How would a guy who runs like a food services
Speaker 1: brokerage firm like have contact with a career criminal like Jefferson, who,
Speaker 1: as far as I know, did not work in this field.
Speaker 2: That was my question was how would these two have
Speaker 2: become acquainted. I just I can't foresee a scenario where,
Speaker 2: like you said, a career criminal is going to be
Speaker 2: mixing with this successful guy. And I don't know in
Speaker 2: Colorado what race relations were like, if there was a
Speaker 2: lot of mixing. I mean, it was a different time
Speaker 2: I'm back then, and I don't know if it was
Speaker 2: very integrated, if everybody really got along. I think Colorado's
Speaker 2: always been fairly progressive, but I can't really speak for
Speaker 2: Colorado as a whole. I know Denver is, but I
Speaker 2: don't really know about the whole of Colorado, so anything
Speaker 2: is possible. It does seem strange that these two would
Speaker 2: somehow become acquainted, but I just can't think of a
Speaker 2: world where this just happened by chance. There's too many
Speaker 2: things that are off the typical routine of Roger to
Speaker 2: let this just be a chance encounter.
Speaker 1: And also the fact that he transferred the thirty two
Speaker 1: thousand dollars to a secret bank account without telling his
Speaker 1: wife like that tells me that he was involved in something.
Speaker 1: I don't know if the thirty two thousand dollars had
Speaker 1: anything to do with Jefferson, but because he said, you
Speaker 1: owe me money, and he told Roger, let's go to
Speaker 1: the bank and get the money out of this account,
Speaker 1: it makes me think that he was well aware of
Speaker 1: it and had some sort of involvement and maybe in
Speaker 1: some business dealings going on the side with Roger. We
Speaker 1: just don't know, but I do know that when he
Speaker 1: was arrested it threw me for a loop because I
Speaker 1: used to be inclined to believe that this was the
Speaker 1: result of the secretary and his son, and that because
Speaker 1: Roger had ended the affair but was still seeing the
Speaker 1: secretary a week before his murder, that maybe the son
Speaker 1: got jealous, tried to extort amount of money and killed
Speaker 1: him even though he didn't plan to. But now we
Speaker 1: know that they're probably red herrings and probably had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with this. And I just don't know how
Speaker 1: Michael Jefferson fits in.
Speaker 2: I guess there's just a lot of information that hasn't
Speaker 2: been released. And if we knew more about his background
Speaker 2: and we could figure out a way how these two
Speaker 2: would have crossed paths. Did they have a mutual friend?
Speaker 2: Was there somebody in Roger's life they could have potentially
Speaker 2: been friends with Michael Jefferson, And maybe Roger had somebody
Speaker 2: close to him that he trusted, that he discussed this
Speaker 2: potential plan with, and Michael Jefferson was suggested as somebody
Speaker 2: who maybe could help him pull this off. I don't
Speaker 2: know what type of like quote unquote like best friends
Speaker 2: Roger had at the time, if there was any close
Speaker 2: confidants or trusted individuals that maybe took that secret with
Speaker 2: them to the grave.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's possible that maybe the people who might know
Speaker 1: the secrets have since passed away. And I've also wondered
Speaker 1: if Jefferson had any personal connection with Tammy as well,
Speaker 1: because he specifically in that extortion note, like mentioned how
Speaker 1: they had been stalking her and following her. And I mean,
Speaker 1: technically we don't know if Jefferson wrote the note, but
Speaker 1: whoever did, did seem to have like a weird obsession
Speaker 1: with Tammy and clearly knew a lot about her personal life.
Speaker 2: I mean, it could have just been one of those
Speaker 2: things where it's easy to focus on the individual who
Speaker 2: is the youngest and the most attractive, and also it
Speaker 2: satisfies two things, right, If they're attracted to her, then
Speaker 2: they're focusing on her thing that they can really talk
Speaker 2: about with ease. But also it's something that's really going
Speaker 2: to get under the skin of DJ because this is
Speaker 2: her only remaining child. She's, like we've said before, it
Speaker 2: lost everybody to tragedy, and so her priority is going
Speaker 2: to be maintaining the health and safety of her surviving daughter, Tammy.
Speaker 2: And to threaten the life of Tammy is to threaten
Speaker 2: the life of DJ, right, because she would literally have
Speaker 2: nothing and nobody left if Tammy were to go, So
Speaker 2: I think it could be strategic, but it also could
Speaker 2: just be one of those situations where they're like, they
Speaker 2: find themselves in this scenario and then they find themselves
Speaker 2: attracted to Tammy. So it's very natural to talk about
Speaker 2: her in that capacity, as creepy as it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would make sense to me. And that's a
Speaker 1: shame about DJ passing away before this took place, because
Speaker 1: she might be able to offer some insight if her
Speaker 1: husband had any dealings with Michael Jefferson, or if she
Speaker 1: knew who he was, or if it was just a
Speaker 1: complete stranger to her. But like I said, the sensing
Speaker 1: hearing is to happen, I think January sixteenth, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: though given all the other delays that have happened in
Speaker 1: this case, I would not be surprised if it happened again.
Speaker 1: But I'm hoping by next year at least I can
Speaker 1: finally share like the full story about what happened to her,
Speaker 1: the conclusion, and we'll finally have some answers because selfishly,
Speaker 1: like I want justice for Roger, but I also want
Speaker 1: to know like the full truth, because this isn't just
Speaker 1: one of those murders where you find the perpetrator and
Speaker 1: that's it. There's an entire story here that we need to.
Speaker 2: Know, absolutely, And I feel like the fact that it
Speaker 2: took this many years, Like people say it's justice, but
Speaker 2: I think when a killer gets away with committing murder
Speaker 2: and they get to live all of their best years
Speaker 2: of their life in freedom, and then when they get
Speaker 2: really old they're sentenced to jail, it's like, is that justice?
Speaker 2: They got away with it for the best years of
Speaker 2: their life.
Speaker 1: That is true, because I have seen some recent cases
Speaker 1: where people have gotten away with it for thirty forty years,
Speaker 1: they're found guilty and sent to prison, and then they
Speaker 1: die just a few months after their sentence, so they
Speaker 1: don't really have to suffer that much in prison. They
Speaker 1: just die shortly thereafter, and it just feels kind of
Speaker 1: like bittersweet and anti climactic. And that's the thing with
Speaker 1: Michael Jefferson is we still don't know what plea deal
Speaker 1: he'll get. So if he gets a sense where he
Speaker 1: can technically walk out, well he's still alive and like
Speaker 1: live and die a freeman, then that's just going to
Speaker 1: be totally outrageous. And that's just one of the damaging
Speaker 1: things about corrupt law enforcement people like Missy Woods.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I mean you could see a scenario where
Speaker 2: if they don't ask for a life sentence, maybe they
Speaker 2: ask for twenty years. If he is to give a
Speaker 2: confession and the details of the crime, they might lower
Speaker 2: the sentence. I mean, I think there's a thirst for
Speaker 2: exactly what happened. Like you said, of course you want
Speaker 2: to see justice for Roger, but like I too want
Speaker 2: to know the details, like how are they connected, how
Speaker 2: did they know each other, what was the purpose of this?
Speaker 2: Did you intend to kill him all along? Was this
Speaker 2: just an accident? And then you were kind of felt
Speaker 2: as though you were forced to go through with murdering him.
Speaker 2: There's just so many questions and like we can't answer
Speaker 2: any of them, and it's so frustrating.
Speaker 1: Yeah, from these past few years, I've been tempted to
Speaker 1: keep emailing Michael Jefferson's relative just to see if he'll
Speaker 1: give me some answers. But I have a feeling he's
Speaker 1: not going to talk to me about it, so he's.
Speaker 2: Probably not going to talk to you. But I mean, hey,
Speaker 2: it couldn't hurt You should send a follow up email
Speaker 2: and just just ask shoot your shot exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if we don't find out the full story about
Speaker 1: what happened, I'll be freaked out. Though if it turns
Speaker 1: out that he was in on the crime together. Knowing
Speaker 1: what happened to Steve Panky, I the least bit surprised.
Speaker 2: Oh, I wouldn't be surprised either, Like nothing surprises me
Speaker 2: when it happens to you anymore, exactly.
Speaker 1: So many weird things in my podcasting career. So uh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's about all I have to say about Roger Dean.
Speaker 1: Like I said, it's a nearly solved mystery where we
Speaker 1: haven't arrest, but we don't have a conviction yet, and
Speaker 1: we still have a bunch of unanswered questions. Do you
Speaker 1: have any further thoughts or questions about the case.
Speaker 2: This is giving me like brainitch where I'm like bothered
Speaker 2: because we just don't have the details, And I'm going
Speaker 2: to constantly go in loops and think about this because
Speaker 2: I have no idea how they knew each other, and
Speaker 2: like that is the one thing that is going to
Speaker 2: really just keep going around and around in my head
Speaker 2: because I just can't think of a world where they
Speaker 2: would run across each other and we just don't have
Speaker 2: those answers. We're not going to. I have to accept
Speaker 2: that unless he goes to trial, and unless we get
Speaker 2: a full confession where he tells all of these details,
Speaker 2: our appetite for that knowledge will never be satisfied.
Speaker 1: Exactly. It's very frustrating when these cases are solved, but
Speaker 1: you still have so many unanswered questions. And I can
Speaker 1: tell you that on the times that I've rewatched the
Speaker 1: Unsolved Mystery segment since its arrest, is just so awkward
Speaker 1: to see it because they do a reenactment with a
Speaker 1: white guy and then now you know, Nope, that's completely inaccurate.
Speaker 1: That's not how it happened.
Speaker 2: I love how that little girl was like I was
Speaker 2: right all along, and just like nobody listened to me.
Speaker 1: I know we got to so many years ago if
Speaker 1: you would just listened to me.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So that about brings an end on our series about
Speaker 1: the murder of Roger Dean. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: watching us, and Jules and I will be back to
Speaker 1: do another series of episodes just the two of us
Speaker 1: next week, So thank you for your support and see
Speaker 1: you next week.
Speaker 3: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 3: 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 Unsolved Mysteries,
Speaker 1: where you can download an audio file and then boot
Speaker 1: up the original Unsolved 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 3: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 3: about the Jules and Nashty patreons. So there's early ad
Speaker 3: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Speaker 3: Pathwent Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so
Speaker 3: they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
Speaker 3: turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those.
Speaker 3: So we hope you'll check out those patreons. We'll link
Speaker 3: 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
Speaker 1: appreciate it. You can email us at The Pathwentchili at
Speaker 1: gmail dot com. You can reach us on Twitter at
Speaker 1: the Pathwent So until next time, be sure to bundle
Speaker 1: up because cold trails and chilly pass call for warm clothing.
Speaker 2: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy