Speaker 1: Welcome back to part two of our series about the
Speaker 1: death of Debbie Race. Let's dive right into the case.
Speaker 1: So the prosecution would bringing an expert to testify that
Speaker 1: the cuts in the bottom of the raft likely would
Speaker 1: have been made by an upward thrust with a knife
Speaker 1: by someone who was underwater, and they also performed a
Speaker 1: number of tests to rule out the possibility that these
Speaker 1: cuts could have been caused by some jagged rocks. They
Speaker 1: were clearly in the shape of like a knife or
Speaker 1: a sharp object. But the big issue with the prosecution
Speaker 1: is that they were unable to produce a knife which
Speaker 1: could have been a conclusive established is having slashed the raft.
Speaker 1: They did find a snake knife inside a toolbox on
Speaker 1: the Jenny Lee, but the problem is that it did
Speaker 1: not match the puncture marks on the raft and there
Speaker 1: were no traces of rubber on it either. And even
Speaker 1: though Larry was known for owning two diving knives and
Speaker 1: neither of them could be found on the boat and
Speaker 1: were unaccounted for. But the explanation here for that five
Speaker 1: and a half hour gap where Larry was supposedly passed
Speaker 1: out is that he could have been disposing of evidence.
Speaker 1: So if he used a totally different knife to make
Speaker 1: those puncture wounds in the raft. He probably went to
Speaker 1: a place to dispose of them where they have just
Speaker 1: never been found.
Speaker 2: At some point during the story, Larry has to ut lucky.
Speaker 2: He's incredibly unlucky with the raft and with his story
Speaker 2: and all of these different lies that he's told along
Speaker 2: the way, or what I believe to be lies, because
Speaker 2: I just don't think that this was an accident. So
Speaker 2: somewhere along the line he has to be successful in
Speaker 2: the way that he planned this or potentially planned this crime.
Speaker 1: Exactly. And also like he doesn't necessarily have to like
Speaker 1: dispose of the knife in the water, like he can
Speaker 1: go somewhere on land and bury it somewhere in a
Speaker 1: wooded area where the coast guard isn't going to search,
Speaker 1: and that could explain why this knife has never been
Speaker 1: found if this is exactly what he did.
Speaker 2: And that's just it right. It's not like you're looking
Speaker 2: for a decomposing body where you're going to bring in
Speaker 2: dogs that could sniff this out, or animals would predate
Speaker 2: upon the remains and maybe dig it up. You're looking
Speaker 2: at burying a knife like no one's ever going to
Speaker 2: find that unless somebody has a metal detector and they're
Speaker 2: looking for something metal and then they go and they
Speaker 2: dig it up. Otherwise, authorities are never going to find something.
Speaker 1: Like that, Yeah, exactly. So I don't think the fact
Speaker 1: that they couldn't find a knife is evidence that Larry
Speaker 1: didn't use it in order to murder his wife. So
Speaker 1: Larry still had to stick to a story that he
Speaker 1: had two life rafts on board the Jenny Lee and
Speaker 1: that the one with the puncture marks was just left behind,
Speaker 1: and that the actual raft that Debbie went out on
Speaker 1: just disappeared. But they got search and rescue teams for
Speaker 1: the coast Guard to testify that they spent days searching
Speaker 1: for it and could not find it. And like I said,
Speaker 1: this is not like a small object like a knife.
Speaker 1: It floats on water. So they pretty much maintained that
Speaker 1: if it was out there somewhere, we would have found it.
Speaker 1: And because the case garnered a lot of coverage in
Speaker 1: the local media, the authorities asked someone to come forward
Speaker 1: if they found a discarded raft anywhere in the area,
Speaker 1: but no one ever did, so I know that they
Speaker 1: also got some of Larry's friends and diving companions to
Speaker 1: testify about his habits who had been on the boat
Speaker 1: with him before, and they said, out of all the
Speaker 1: times we went out with Larry, we do not recall
Speaker 1: ever having seen him with two separate life rafts on board.
Speaker 1: So that just seems very out of character for him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if it's not something that people are used to seeing,
Speaker 2: then I'm much more inclined to believe that. Okay, so
Speaker 2: it was what a year prior where the boat sank
Speaker 2: and he rescued his.
Speaker 1: Daughters, Yeah, like the summer of nineteen eighty one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I believe that if you were going to
Speaker 2: then try to put implement some more security measures and
Speaker 2: have an additional flotation device on there in the event
Speaker 2: that something went wrong with the boat, that you would
Speaker 2: do so right after that. So then that would leave
Speaker 2: me to believe that somebody would have seen this extra
Speaker 2: floatation device. The fact that nobody did is the major
Speaker 2: red flag. And I'm more inclined to believe that the
Speaker 2: floatation device that they found that had the lake water
Speaker 2: in it and had the punctures and the slashes that
Speaker 2: expert said were likely from an upright thrust from a
Speaker 2: knife from somebody who was in the water from underneath.
Speaker 2: Was the life raft, not a second life fraft. I
Speaker 2: don't believe that there ever was a second one. I
Speaker 2: think this was the one, and that Larry somehow managed
Speaker 2: to get Debbie on there and then he cut the
Speaker 2: bottom out while he was in his dry suit.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The only witness who did support the idea that
Speaker 1: Larry could have had two rafts was one of his daughters,
Speaker 1: who claimed that she had been in the garage prior
Speaker 1: to her mother's death and she recalled that she might
Speaker 1: have seen two life on the shelf. And of course,
Speaker 1: Larry's daughters continue to support him throughout this ordeal. They
Speaker 1: did not believe that he was capable of murdering their mother.
Speaker 1: But I think there's going to be a lot of
Speaker 1: bias there because the truth is just too hard to comprehend.
Speaker 1: So of course they're going to support their father at
Speaker 1: every turn because they can't imagine the idea of losing
Speaker 1: both parents.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think we see this a lot with cases
Speaker 2: where just because a child supports a parent, it doesn't
Speaker 2: necessarily mean that parent is innocent, because the way that
Speaker 2: they are with their children can be as different as
Speaker 2: night and day than they were with their partner or
Speaker 2: their spouse, and children perceive things differently than the reality
Speaker 2: of a relationship because parents will often wear masks in
Speaker 2: front of their children and they're not going to exhibit
Speaker 2: the actual reality of the relationship because they're trying to
Speaker 2: protect their children. And I think most parents do this.
Speaker 2: There's a bit of a facade, and I think you
Speaker 2: get to know your parents as an adult, but while
Speaker 2: you're a child, you're seeing what they want to show you.
Speaker 2: So the fact that they support their dad, it really
Speaker 2: doesn't surprise me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is not the first case I've seen where
Speaker 1: like the children of a spouse who was murdered still
Speaker 1: continued to support the other spouse, even if there was
Speaker 1: evidence to suggest that they were responsible. So, like we said,
Speaker 1: the daughters had been on the boat in the summer
Speaker 1: of nineteen eighty one when it sank to the bottom
Speaker 1: of Lake Superior, but Larry wound up raising it to
Speaker 1: the surface and began repair work on it, And the
Speaker 1: first time he went out on the boat after it
Speaker 1: was repaired was actually May the seventh, nineteen eighty two,
Speaker 1: four days before Debbie's death, because he had fitted the
Speaker 1: boat with a rebuilt engine, but claimed that there were
Speaker 1: issues with the exhaust manifold bolt. So when he was
Speaker 1: out there with these other guests, there was a slow
Speaker 1: drip type leak in the engine, but it did not
Speaker 1: appear to pose any risk, and the boat a engine
Speaker 1: seemed to work well in the water without the league worsening.
Speaker 1: So several of Larry's friends would testify that they were
Speaker 1: with him on a diving expedition in the days prior
Speaker 1: to Debbie's death, and they did not recall seeing any issues,
Speaker 1: and they also did not recall seeing two life rafts
Speaker 1: on board. So it just seems to be rotten luck
Speaker 1: that the very next time after that Larry went out
Speaker 1: on the lake with his wife, that's when the boat
Speaker 1: would start to develop all these problems.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm just not buying it. It just seems to
Speaker 2: be utterly convenient for Larry.
Speaker 1: So here's another damning piece of evidence. The defense thought
Speaker 1: this helped Larry and made him look innocent. They actually
Speaker 1: called upon a sheriff's deputy to testify, claiming that three
Speaker 1: days before Debbie's death, he had actually personally spoken to
Speaker 1: Larry because he had gone to the marina while he
Speaker 1: was working on his boat and Larry actually approached him
Speaker 1: and asked him to perform a safety inspection, and while
Speaker 1: the deputy declined, he did provide Larry with a list
Speaker 1: of safety equipment that was required by state law to
Speaker 1: be on the boat. Larry then responded by mentioning that
Speaker 1: he had two life rafts on board, even though the
Speaker 1: deputy could not actually confirm having seen them. So the
Speaker 1: defense would argue, why would Larry ask this guy to
Speaker 1: perform a safety inspection on the boat if he was
Speaker 1: planning to murder his wife, But the prosecute argued, he
Speaker 1: was probably just doing this to kind of establish an
Speaker 1: alibi of sorts and make him look like a responsible
Speaker 1: boat owner, because technically, like, if you see a police officer,
Speaker 1: are you just going to say, by the way, officer,
Speaker 1: I want you to perform a safety inspection on my
Speaker 1: boat which just sank last summer, which runs a huge
Speaker 1: risk of him discovering a whole bunch of safety violations
Speaker 1: which will prevent you from going on the water at all.
Speaker 1: So I don't think just randomly approaching deputies and asking
Speaker 1: them to inspect your boat is something that most people
Speaker 1: are just going to decide to do completelyhead of the blue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like an owner of a restaurant seeing like
Speaker 2: a restaurant inspector on the street and being like, excuse me,
Speaker 2: could you please come in and could you please look
Speaker 2: and see if there's any violations in my restaurant? Like,
Speaker 2: no one is going to do that. Ever, it seems
Speaker 2: like it's a case of Larry doing too much, and
Speaker 2: they're interpreting it as, oh, if I do this, it
Speaker 2: looks like I'm so responsible, and then I've covered my
Speaker 2: bases and like you said, it's like a forensic countermeasure,
Speaker 2: but it's a bad one. It just it's like you're
Speaker 2: drawing attention to you, trying to make yourself appear as
Speaker 2: though you're so responsible, and then when things go awry,
Speaker 2: it's like, look at Larry over there, he's the most
Speaker 2: responsible boat owner. He's got somebody conducting all of these,
Speaker 2: you know, inspections on his boat and he's inviting them on.
Speaker 2: And then this still happened. What a good guy. And
Speaker 2: I think that's the way he thought that it would
Speaker 2: be perceived. He couldn't imagine that it could be perceived
Speaker 2: any other way, and that this would be something that
Speaker 2: would be held against him, which is wild to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, And I find it odd that he specifically
Speaker 1: said to the deputy, I have two life rafts on board.
Speaker 1: And I have a feeling that he probably did have
Speaker 1: two rafts on the boat at that particular occasion, and
Speaker 1: that if the deputy had gone on board and seen
Speaker 1: the rafts, he would have used that at trial and
Speaker 1: they would have said, oh, look at this deputy. He
Speaker 1: saw two life rafts, and he's an officer of the law.
Speaker 1: He's not going to lie about this sort of thing.
Speaker 1: So it was kind of a preemptive attempt to add
Speaker 1: credibility to his story, but because he didn't inspect the boat,
Speaker 1: it did not work. So another key witness for the
Speaker 1: defense was Gene Obino, who was an underwater expert from
Speaker 1: the University of Minnesota who worked as a diving instructor.
Speaker 1: He attempted to debunk the prosecution scenario, testifying that it
Speaker 1: would have required superhuman strength and been physically impossible for
Speaker 1: Larry to have pulled off all the task he was
Speaker 1: accused of when he murdered his wife. So on the
Speaker 1: night this took place, witnesses had reported seeing the Jenny
Speaker 1: Leees lights near the mouth of the Taumadge River between
Speaker 1: eight thirty and nine thirty pm, which was the approximate
Speaker 1: time period when Larry claimed that he and Debbie exited
Speaker 1: the boat to climb into the life raft. However, Debbie's
Speaker 1: body was eventually found washed up on shore seven miles
Speaker 1: west of this location the following afternoon, and Obinau testified
Speaker 1: that Debbie's body would not have been able to drift
Speaker 1: to that spot where she was found during this nineteen
Speaker 1: hour window unless she had been in a raft for
Speaker 1: a period of time, and since she was found wearing
Speaker 1: a life jacket, Obino believed that she only would have
Speaker 1: been able to float a max some of one or
Speaker 1: two miles before she washed up on shore. Well, the
Speaker 1: prosecution's rebuttal to this was that even though the Jenny
Speaker 1: Lee was seen near the Tallmadge River at about nine pm,
Speaker 1: they technically only had Larry's word that Debbie left the
Speaker 1: boat in the raft at this particular point in time,
Speaker 1: as there were no other witnesses who could corroborate seeing Larry,
Speaker 1: Debbie or the raft in the water that night. So technically,
Speaker 1: like if Larry is lying, then Debbie could have climbed
Speaker 1: into the raft at another location miles away, so that
Speaker 1: she only floated a mile or so when she wound
Speaker 1: up at the spot where she washed up on shore.
Speaker 1: So even if John Obino is technically telling the truth
Speaker 1: that she could not have floated seven miles, if Larry
Speaker 1: is lying about the point when she originally went in
Speaker 1: the water, then his testimony is meaningless.
Speaker 2: Yeah, then it's a moot point because we're relying completely
Speaker 2: upon Larry to tell us where she entered the water.
Speaker 2: Then it's kind of pointless if we're believing that he
Speaker 2: set this whole thing up. So I don't know, it
Speaker 2: just seems like Larry is somebody who's knowledgeable about the water,
Speaker 2: and he might have an idea of the sorts of
Speaker 2: questions that could be asked regarding it. I'm just assuming
Speaker 2: this based on the fact that he's a very accomplished
Speaker 2: scuba diver and he seems very into scuba diving and boating,
Speaker 2: so there's a base level of knowledge there. So when
Speaker 2: it comes to how far things can drift or wins
Speaker 2: those types of things, and how far things can be carried,
Speaker 2: I think that he would set up a story so
Speaker 2: that it would sound implausible for her to be in
Speaker 2: a life jacket and to drift that far, I would
Speaker 2: think that would be a variable he would have considered
Speaker 2: when trying to establish where Debbie originally went into the water.
Speaker 2: If that makes sense, Oh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it does to me, because, like I said, even
Speaker 1: though the witnesses saw the lights at that particular location
Speaker 1: at nine PM, and Larry said that Debbie climbed to
Speaker 1: the rat at that point, remember he didn't call the
Speaker 1: coastguard until two thirty am, so we have a gap
Speaker 1: of five and a half hours. So I think Larry
Speaker 1: could have tried to another location before he set off
Speaker 1: this murder plot, so that she only had to float
Speaker 1: about a mile or so. So. Obano also testified that
Speaker 1: Debbie's skin lividity seemed to support the idea that she
Speaker 1: had been in a life raft when she made it
Speaker 1: to shore, because her blood had not sunk to her
Speaker 1: feet when she was found, which should have happened if
Speaker 1: she had been in the water for an extended period
Speaker 1: of time, since her life jacket would have kept her
Speaker 1: an upward position. However, the prosecution claimed that the levels
Speaker 1: of Debbie's skin lividity showed that she had been floating
Speaker 1: on her back for a long time. And this was
Speaker 1: the same position her body was in when she was
Speaker 1: found on shore. So if she was floating in the
Speaker 1: water for like nearly twenty four hours on her back
Speaker 1: the entire time, then this evidence about the lividity doesn't
Speaker 1: really mean anything at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the lividity really means nothing unless we know the
Speaker 2: position that her body was in in the water. And
Speaker 2: if she was found, like you said, she was found
Speaker 2: on shore on her back, yes she was, so we
Speaker 2: can assume that potentially she was floating in that same manner,
Speaker 2: but we can't really know for sure. So to make
Speaker 2: any assumptions and to say that, oh, she had to
Speaker 2: have been in a raft and to not think that
Speaker 2: it's possible that she was floating on her back in
Speaker 2: the water, I think is a bit of a wild assumption.
Speaker 1: It is, Yeah, because we don't really have a verified timeline.
Speaker 1: All we know for certain is that she was found
Speaker 1: at four pm the following day, but we don't know
Speaker 1: when she went into the water, when she washed up
Speaker 1: on shore, and how much she was floating. So the
Speaker 1: defense would produce numerous character witnesses to testify on Larry's
Speaker 1: behalf who spoke highly of him and did not believe
Speaker 1: he was capable of murdering his wife. And of course,
Speaker 1: all three of Larry and Debbie's daughters testified on their
Speaker 1: behalf and did not believe their father was capable of
Speaker 1: harming their mother. But the most surprising thing about this
Speaker 1: case is that Debbie's parents, Frank and Sylvia Selvie, stood
Speaker 1: by him as well, and they were well aware of
Speaker 1: Larry's infidelity, but they still offered their unwavering public support
Speaker 1: and genuinely believed that their daughter's death was an accident
Speaker 1: and believe Larry's story that even though he was a
Speaker 1: lousy husband, that they do not believe he would have
Speaker 1: been capable of killing her. And this even rang true
Speaker 1: like years later, because when they were interviewed on Unsolved Mysteries,
Speaker 1: this was like eight years after the trial, and they
Speaker 1: were still publicly defending Larry, saying that they one one
Speaker 1: hundred percent believed that he was innocent and that Debbie's
Speaker 1: death was an accident. I mean, their support forum went
Speaker 1: so far that during the trial, the judge actually had
Speaker 1: to ask the Selvies to leave the courtroom because they
Speaker 1: were interacting with Larry and openly embracing him. During recesses
Speaker 1: while he was at the table, and the judge felt
Speaker 1: that this might unfairly influence the jury.
Speaker 2: That is wild, and I think it comes down to
Speaker 2: in this case, I don't know what type of character
Speaker 2: and the charisma that Larry had and if he had
Speaker 2: the parents under his spell, but it seems like they
Speaker 2: were really potentially in denial of all of these other things,
Speaker 2: and it feels like it's the convenient thing to defend
Speaker 2: him in a way. You have three granddaughters, and so
Speaker 2: to accept that Larry could have killed Debbie and to
Speaker 2: fight for justice for your daughter, your life looks very
Speaker 2: different because you might not then have access to your granddaughters.
Speaker 2: So what is the remaining piece of your daughter that
Speaker 2: has left those girls? And on some level, it must
Speaker 2: have been a lot easier for them to just ardently
Speaker 2: defend Larry and to be on that side of it
Speaker 2: and to guarantee access to their grandchildren via support for Larry,
Speaker 2: even if this was subconscious, then for them to fight
Speaker 2: against him and then lose access.
Speaker 1: Yes, I have seen this in a lot of cases
Speaker 1: where one spouse is accused of murdering the other and
Speaker 1: the victim's family totally turns on the accused, but they
Speaker 1: also lose access to the granddaughters because they're going to
Speaker 1: defend their parent no matter what. So even though it
Speaker 1: does seem surprising like it'd be one thing if Larry
Speaker 1: had painted himself as the perfect husband throughout the marriage
Speaker 1: and this was out of character, but it's even more
Speaker 1: surprising considering that they were well aware that he had
Speaker 1: cheated on Debbie with no less than four different women.
Speaker 1: But I think you may be onto something there that
Speaker 1: maybe they feared that even if Larry is found guilty
Speaker 1: and sent to prison, if we turn on him, then
Speaker 1: his daughters will want nothing to do with us and
Speaker 1: will cut theirselves off. But at the very least, even
Speaker 1: if they're fighting for Larry's innocence, they will stay with
Speaker 1: us because we will offer their support to them because
Speaker 1: we are standing behind their dad. Even though the defense
Speaker 1: tried to present that this was an accident and that
Speaker 1: Larry was incapable of murder, it sounds like the jury
Speaker 1: did not believe it, because after deliberating for twelve hours,
Speaker 1: they found him guilty at first degree murderer and he
Speaker 1: was given a life sentence at Stillwater State Prison in Minneapolis,
Speaker 1: with no possibility of parole for at least seventeen years.
Speaker 1: So at the trial, on the advice of his attorneys,
Speaker 1: Larry never took the stand and testified on his own
Speaker 1: behalf because they figured that might backfire on him. But
Speaker 1: Larry felt that the verdict may have been different if
Speaker 1: he had been allowed to testify and gave his side
Speaker 1: of the story. So he came to believe that he
Speaker 1: had received inadequate counsel, so as a result, he fired
Speaker 1: his original team of lawyers hired a new team of
Speaker 1: defense attorneys who appealed his conviction on the grounds of
Speaker 1: inadequate council. There were also allegations that the jury had
Speaker 1: discussed Larry's decision not to testify during their deliberations, even
Speaker 1: though the judge had specifically instructed them not to do this,
Speaker 1: and if true, this would have been a violation of
Speaker 1: Minnesota law and his Fifth Amendment rights and it could
Speaker 1: have unfairly influenced their verdict. And Larry also believed that
Speaker 1: since the jury was made up of four men and
Speaker 1: eight women, that they may have been unfairly prejudiced because
Speaker 1: of the information about his extramarital affairs. So a hearing
Speaker 1: was held in which the jurors were questioned about this,
Speaker 1: but the trial judge ultimately decided that there was no
Speaker 1: germist conduct and that Larry had received a fair trial,
Speaker 1: so his conviction was upheld, and Larry's original defense attorney
Speaker 1: started to speak out on this, saying that even though
Speaker 1: he claimed that he should, you would have testified at
Speaker 1: trial that Larry had flat out told his attorneys that
Speaker 1: he did not want to and said, quote, you can't
Speaker 1: make me. So they ultimately decided it was not a
Speaker 1: good idea to put Larry on the stand since he
Speaker 1: had trouble giving direct answers to any questions, so that
Speaker 1: might have made him look bad. So these accusations of
Speaker 1: inadequate counsel were not bought by the judge.
Speaker 2: No, and I think that Larry was actually smart not
Speaker 2: to get on that witness stand because his ever evolving
Speaker 2: story would be brought into question. And so, how are
Speaker 2: we supposed to believe that you're telling the truth now
Speaker 2: when it seems that you have been lying about little
Speaker 2: things and or misspeaking, not telling the truth in some
Speaker 2: capacity misremembering. However, he wants to phrase it, when you
Speaker 2: start painting that for the jury, and you start questioning
Speaker 2: Larry on all of these discrepancies. I don't think that
Speaker 2: it paints a very good picture. And then when you're
Speaker 2: introducing into evidence things like the affairs and having him
Speaker 2: speak on that and why, and then you have him
Speaker 2: talking about how he felt about Debbie, Like if that
Speaker 2: man got on the stand and said there's nothing wrong
Speaker 2: with her in front of the jury, can you imagine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. I'm just trying to visualize him trying to
Speaker 1: put over his loving wife and say that and making
Speaker 1: a bad impression of the jury. But it does sound
Speaker 1: like textbook narcissism that he immediately thinks, well, if I
Speaker 1: had gotten on the stand and told my part of
Speaker 1: the story, the jury would have found me not guilty.
Speaker 1: When an actuality, the attorneys knew what they were doing
Speaker 1: and figured that, yeah, they're probably gonna hate you and
Speaker 1: find you guilty even if the evidence isn't strong enough
Speaker 1: if you testify it. So in nineteen eighty five there
Speaker 1: would be another Appellet hearing which was held based on
Speaker 1: new information as a witness had come forward who had
Speaker 1: purchased the Jenny Lee in the years following Debbie's death
Speaker 1: and claimed that in May of nineteen eighty four, he
Speaker 1: started experiencing problems starting the engine, so an independent mechanic
Speaker 1: was hired to examine the boat's starter and concluded that
Speaker 1: it was worn and could have caused an intermittent starting failure.
Speaker 1: The defense are you that this supported Larry's story, but
Speaker 1: the appellate court argued that two years had since pad
Speaker 1: since the starter issues happened, so this did not prove
Speaker 1: that that jay Lee was experiencing the same engine problems
Speaker 1: on the night that Debbie died, So once again Larry's
Speaker 1: request for a new trial was denied.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just don't think Larry's doing a very good
Speaker 2: job convincing anybody that he was unfairly or unjustly convicted,
Speaker 2: or ineffective counsel. All of these things that he's bringing up.
Speaker 2: It's sort of like it's falling on deaf years because
Speaker 2: it seems like he was well represented. And I think
Speaker 2: for him, he's so lucky that he did not get
Speaker 2: up on that stand, because he's inherently unlikable based on
Speaker 2: his words and his actions that he's taken stepping out
Speaker 2: in his marriage, that he would not have done well
Speaker 2: if he would have gone up on the stand. So
Speaker 2: I just think that, like crying about spilled milk after
Speaker 2: the fact, he's not going to be very successful with this.
Speaker 1: No, definitely not. And he also did not do himself
Speaker 1: any favors when he was in viewed on Unsolved Mysteries,
Speaker 1: who did a final appeal segment about his case in
Speaker 1: December of nineteen ninety one, And I will say I
Speaker 1: watched this one originally aired. I saw it many times
Speaker 1: in the years afterwards, and I always used to be
Speaker 1: on the fence about it because I was thinking, well,
Speaker 1: he's not a likable guy, but could they really prove
Speaker 1: that he was capable of pulling off this very elaborate
Speaker 1: murder plot, which would have required what appeared to be
Speaker 1: superhuman effort. But I covered this one on the Trail
Speaker 1: when Cold a couple of years ago, and I started
Speaker 1: doing full research and found out that some of the
Speaker 1: more damning information against Larry was conveniently not mentioned on
Speaker 1: Unsolved Mysteries. I was reading through news articles and legal appeals,
Speaker 1: and some of the stuff we brought up as being
Speaker 1: particularly damning, like the five and a half hours he
Speaker 1: supposedly passed out, and the fact that he kept changing
Speaker 1: his information about bringing scuba gear on board was not
Speaker 1: mentioned on the final appeal segment, which I'm sure was
Speaker 1: an attempt to add more ambiguity to the case and
Speaker 1: try to see it look like more of a mystery.
Speaker 1: So as as you can kind of tell, we are
Speaker 1: leaning towards Larry being guilty. But if you were to
Speaker 1: just watch the Unsolved Mystery sayingment on its own, without
Speaker 1: looking at any outside sources or information, you would probably
Speaker 1: feel more ambiguity towards them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes sense to me, So like you are
Speaker 2: giving a lot more information than, of course an Unsolved
Speaker 2: Mystery segment is going to give. But I also feel
Speaker 2: like if you're to hear Larry talk about heavy and
Speaker 2: maybe if you're to hear it in the time period,
Speaker 2: it would be different. Now, we've got so many different
Speaker 2: true crime tropes, and we're very well aware of how
Speaker 2: somebody comes across in an interview, and we're more likely
Speaker 2: to analyze it. So I can imagine if you're watching
Speaker 2: this as a child, or watching this at whatever age
Speaker 2: in the nineteen eighties or the nineteen nineties, you're going
Speaker 2: to have a completely different perception than you would watching
Speaker 2: it now, because your knowledge, your depth and breadth of
Speaker 2: knowledge of crime and those who commit crimes is going
Speaker 2: to be infinitely greater than it would be back in
Speaker 2: that time period. So I think if you're watching the
Speaker 2: unsolved mystery segment, you think, Okay, well there could be
Speaker 2: it could go either way. But that's the way they
Speaker 2: produce those segments. They want you to think that it
Speaker 2: could go either way and that there is some mystery.
Speaker 2: So that checks out for me.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah. Like this was originally aired many years before
Speaker 1: the Staircase documentary came out, and may have been my
Speaker 1: first experience seeing an analysis of a case where there's
Speaker 1: ambiguity about whether it was a murder or an accident.
Speaker 1: Like this isn't a thing where oh, someone else killed
Speaker 1: my wife and I've gone to prison. I'm going there.
Speaker 1: He's trying to argue that I went to prison for
Speaker 1: a crime that never even happened, that there was not
Speaker 1: even any murder. So watching it at the time, I
Speaker 1: had a lot more ambiguity about the whole thing. But
Speaker 1: the way they frame it, it makes it look like, oh,
Speaker 1: Larry swam back to his boat and then immediately started
Speaker 1: the engine and then went to shore to call for help.
Speaker 1: But then you read the legal appeals and you find it. Oh,
Speaker 1: he arrived and conveniently passed out for a few hours,
Speaker 1: and then he started the engine, and that looks much
Speaker 1: more damning for him. The Unsault my Mysteries broadcast actually
Speaker 1: led to a new development because a pair of sisters
Speaker 1: came forward who watched the show, who claimed that they
Speaker 1: had once found a discarded raft about a year or
Speaker 1: so after Debbie's death, and they now believed that it
Speaker 1: may have been the missing second raft from the Jenny Lee.
Speaker 1: So at the time they had not heard of this case,
Speaker 1: so they had no idea of the raft's potential significance.
Speaker 1: So one of the sisters wound up taking it home
Speaker 1: and cleaning it so that her children could play with it.
Speaker 1: She remembered stowing the raft in her mother's basement several
Speaker 1: years earlier, but by the time the Unsolved Mystery segment aired,
Speaker 1: she had no idea what happened to it, and they
Speaker 1: were unable to find it. But nonetheless, this revelation was
Speaker 1: used as grounds for a new appeal, and Larry's defense
Speaker 1: team filed another motion for a new trial. However, when
Speaker 1: a hearing was held, the testimony of the two sisters
Speaker 1: proved inconsistent, as they could not even be certain of
Speaker 1: the exact time period they found the raft, going back
Speaker 1: and forth between May of nineteen eighty two and May
Speaker 1: of nineteen eighty three, and they could not even pinpoint
Speaker 1: the exact location they found the raft, as one of
Speaker 1: the sisters said it was near Duluth, but Ben she
Speaker 1: changed her story and said it was in the Saint
Speaker 1: Croix River and got confused about whether the raft was
Speaker 1: found in Minnesota or Wisconsin. So since it could not
Speaker 1: be conclusively proven if the raft these sisters found was
Speaker 1: connected to the case, their testimony was ultimately dismissed and
Speaker 1: Larry's appeal was denied. So I do believe they probably
Speaker 1: were telling the truth about finding a raft at some
Speaker 1: point on the river during the nineteen eighties, but there
Speaker 1: was nothing to indicate that this was the same raft
Speaker 1: from this case.
Speaker 2: They literally don't even know what city or state they
Speaker 2: found the raft in, so I'm a little befuddled by this,
Speaker 2: and I agree with you. It's possible that they found
Speaker 2: a raft, but they don't have any of the details
Speaker 2: surrounding it, which makes me believe that the time is murky,
Speaker 2: the dates murky, The location is murky. So you found
Speaker 2: a raft, Okay. It's like saying I saw a pair
Speaker 2: of shoes on the street at some point during some
Speaker 2: year in some state, Like, Okay, how can you prove
Speaker 2: that that is connected? You can't. And we know how
Speaker 2: fallible eyewitness identification is with anything, and I think this
Speaker 2: just proves it again. It's not doing what Larry thinks it's.
Speaker 1: Doing exactly though I kind of would like to see
Speaker 1: Larry's reaction, Like imagine he's guilty in sitting in prison
Speaker 1: and these people come forward saying, oh my god, I
Speaker 1: found his raft, and Larry's thinking to himself, Oh, I
Speaker 1: didn't even have a raft. This is lucky for me.
Speaker 1: But it still makes me wonder though, if they still
Speaker 1: had the raft in their possession, like, would there be
Speaker 1: a way to be able to prove or disprove that
Speaker 1: this was a raft that was once on the Jenny Lee.
Speaker 1: But because obviously you're not going to be checking it
Speaker 1: for DNA or fingerprints after it's been in the water
Speaker 1: for a while. But I think the fact that they
Speaker 1: could not even pinpoint the location they found it because
Speaker 1: that they had found it in wisconstant. Then obviously it's
Speaker 1: not going to be the same raft. It's not going
Speaker 1: to float all that way. So I think it was
Speaker 1: just a thing where these sisters thought they were being helpful,
Speaker 1: but in actuality, the raft they found had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I happen to agree, And I think there's no
Speaker 2: way to know that it was a raft from the
Speaker 2: Jenny Lee unless it's like one of those booies kind
Speaker 2: of that are like life preservers that are on a
Speaker 2: boat that actually have the name of the boat on
Speaker 2: the life preserver. And I don't think that that was
Speaker 2: the case with these flotation devices, because we would have
Speaker 2: heard that it would have said that on it, or
Speaker 2: that it would have been printed, or it would have
Speaker 2: had it embroidered or something on the life raft so
Speaker 2: that it would be identifiable, and we don't hear any of this. So, yeah,
Speaker 2: the fact that the sisters likely thought that they were
Speaker 2: being helpful and in sharing this information, but it's so
Speaker 2: non specific that it just feels meaningless.
Speaker 1: So Larry eventually exhausted all his appeals and he finally
Speaker 1: got a chance in front of the parole board after
Speaker 1: serving seventeen years, but reportedly he still refused to admit
Speaker 1: guilt and still maintain his innocence, so his parole was denied.
Speaker 1: But in two thousand and five, Larry finally was granted
Speaker 1: parole and released from prison after serving twenty two years,
Speaker 1: and I haven't heard of him admitting any guilt. I
Speaker 1: think he still maintained his innocence, but the parole boards
Speaker 1: still let him free from prison, which they generally don't
Speaker 1: do unless you admit some culpability for your crime, especially
Speaker 1: since he had been originally senced to life imprisonment. So
Speaker 1: I have no idea how this played out. And maybe
Speaker 1: Larry just showed some of that charm of his and
Speaker 1: was able to convince this particular parole board that he
Speaker 1: had been wrongly convicted and railroaded, and they felt he
Speaker 1: was no longer a threat and released him, and as
Speaker 1: far as I can tell, he went back living with
Speaker 1: his daughters. I think he is still alive today, but
Speaker 1: he has never admitted any culpability and still maintains that
Speaker 1: he was wrongly convicted, And of course, since they believe
Speaker 1: that the right man went to prison, the investigation has
Speaker 1: been closed for several decades, so it is kind of
Speaker 1: surprising to me that a guy who still looked like
Speaker 1: he was guilty and never admitted any guilt, was still
Speaker 1: released from prison. So he actually made out better than
Speaker 1: somebody like Tommy Ziegler, who is still in prison to
Speaker 1: this day.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I feel like Florida is a very special state
Speaker 2: when it comes to holding on to those who are
Speaker 2: potentially wrongfully in gard arted. And we very much believe
Speaker 2: that Tommy Zieler is innocent and should be released, especially
Speaker 2: due to his declining health. But LORDA really seems to
Speaker 2: hold on tight. But as far as this case goes,
Speaker 2: he made out okay considering the fact that I personally
Speaker 2: believe that he is responsible for what happened to Debbie,
Speaker 2: and I'm sure that it served him well that his
Speaker 2: family supported him and that Debbie's family continued to support him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, as far as I can tell, they never did
Speaker 1: change their mind and still think he was innocent up
Speaker 1: until their dying day. So yeah, I pretty much feel
Speaker 1: the same thing. Like for years, I was kind of
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty on this case after watching it on
Speaker 1: Saw Mysteries because I felt, well, he's a terrible husband,
Speaker 1: he's not a likable person, but could he have pulled
Speaker 1: this off? But of course, after doing further research for
Speaker 1: my Trail and Cold episode a few years ago, I
Speaker 1: became convinced that he was likely guilty and deserved to
Speaker 1: go to prison. I guess the only ambiguity is, just like,
Speaker 1: what a risky murder plot? This was like the idea
Speaker 1: of making your wife out on a raft and freezing
Speaker 1: cold water and putting puncture marks out there to try
Speaker 1: to have her die of hypothermia. And for most people
Speaker 1: I would kind of think that this kind of murder
Speaker 1: plot is just way too elaborate. But once you read
Speaker 1: about Larry Race's diving background, how frequently he did this,
Speaker 1: and the knowledge he would have had of scuba diving
Speaker 1: and hypothermia, and the fact that he went through a
Speaker 1: similar incident with his daughter one year earlier, I do
Speaker 1: think he would have had the devious mind to brainstorm
Speaker 1: this and figure I'm going to try to kill my
Speaker 1: wife and have her freeze to death of hypothermia and
Speaker 1: make it look like an accident and hopefully I will
Speaker 1: get away with it and collect the insurance money.
Speaker 2: What is wild to me is that he went a
Speaker 2: little bit too far with the life raft. If he
Speaker 2: had this plan that he was going to put Debbie
Speaker 2: into this life raft and then sink the life raft
Speaker 2: so she would have hypothermia and then perish in the water.
Speaker 2: He went a little overzealous. Did you say there was
Speaker 2: five or seven in puncture marks in the life five?
Speaker 2: So I think he made a couple of mistakes there.
Speaker 2: He could have just made one puncture mark in the
Speaker 2: life raft. He could have done one large one and
Speaker 2: then maybe used something that was not a knife, because
Speaker 2: it's pretty easy to tell it's a really clean cut.
Speaker 2: Maybe if he used a rock or something else that
Speaker 2: was sharp but not so identifiable. But then his next
Speaker 2: mistake was having the lake water in that raft and
Speaker 2: then bringing it back onto the Jenny Lee. He could
Speaker 2: have disposed of it somewhere. He could have cut it
Speaker 2: up into little pieces, put it in something and sunk it.
Speaker 2: There is a lot of different ways that he could
Speaker 2: have approached that life raft, but it became a piece
Speaker 2: of evidence that experts were then able to analyze and say, well, no,
Speaker 2: these cuts didn't come from a rock. They came from
Speaker 2: an upward thrust from a knife from somebody underwater, And
Speaker 2: so that opens up that possibility that we've got Larry
Speaker 2: with his scuba gear with his dry suit. He's got
Speaker 2: Debbie into this life raft and he's swimming up underneath her,
Speaker 2: and like a scene out of a movie or out
Speaker 2: of fiction. Like you said, we've got him cutting this
Speaker 2: life reserver and then swimming away and waiting for his
Speaker 2: wife to die. It seems like in that very narrow
Speaker 2: window of time that that would have happened. He's then
Speaker 2: what waiting in the wings for Debbie to get out
Speaker 2: of the life raft and then grabbing the life raft
Speaker 2: and taking it back to the Jenny Lee, because it
Speaker 2: seems like he would have had to have been close
Speaker 2: to Debbie when she was out of the raft or
Speaker 2: when she started to panic or passed out, and then
Speaker 2: went and retrieved that life raft. I feel like had
Speaker 2: no life wrap been found out all, he would have
Speaker 2: been in a better position.
Speaker 1: I think he was kind of too clever for his
Speaker 1: own good, that maybe he should have just left the
Speaker 1: life raft on the lake because Debbie apparently couldn't swim,
Speaker 1: so a more easier way to do it would be
Speaker 1: to drag her out to the middle of the lake,
Speaker 1: knock her out of the raft, and then just wait
Speaker 1: for her to like either drown or die of hypothermia
Speaker 1: and then just leave the rat floating out there, and
Speaker 1: then he could just swim back to the Jenny Lee
Speaker 1: call for help, and then during the search, if they
Speaker 1: found Debbie and the raft floating in the lake, they
Speaker 1: could just assume, well, she fell out and died of hypothermia.
Speaker 1: And even if they became suspicious of Larry, it would
Speaker 1: be much harder to prove murder if you don't have
Speaker 1: puncture marks or anything like that. So I don't know
Speaker 1: why he did that to begin with. I think he
Speaker 1: was just trying to make this look like a movie
Speaker 1: when he could have done it in a much simpler fashion.
Speaker 2: I think he's a coward, is what I think. Okay,
Speaker 2: that for him to go and while Jenny is cognizant
Speaker 2: of what is happening, he could get hurt or sorry, well,
Speaker 2: the Jenny Lee, yeah, Debbie, Well, Debbie is conscious and
Speaker 2: she's aware of what's happening. He's not going to do
Speaker 2: it to her face. It's like the way that he
Speaker 2: conducts affairs. He doesn't directly say to Debbie's face, I
Speaker 2: don't want to be with you, I don't want to
Speaker 2: be in this relationship. I'm not in love with you anymore,
Speaker 2: which his words would lead us to believe that is
Speaker 2: actions would lead us to believe that he doesn't say
Speaker 2: that to Debbie. And so the way that he killed
Speaker 2: her is the same cowardly way he does it behind
Speaker 2: her back. He does it in an indirect way. He
Speaker 2: will not knock her out of that raft would have
Speaker 2: been a lot easier, but he would have had to
Speaker 2: stab her in the front versus stabbing her in the back.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense to
Speaker 1: me that that probably explains why he did it underwater,
Speaker 1: so he didn't have to see her while he was
Speaker 1: doing it, and that explains the puncture marks. But it
Speaker 1: wound up being his downfall, his undoing. And I do
Speaker 1: think that the five and a half hour discrepancy before
Speaker 1: he called the coast guard at two thirty am is
Speaker 1: probably the result of him disposing of evidence because they
Speaker 1: never found the knife, they never found the scuba gear,
Speaker 1: and they never found the gear bag which contained Larry's
Speaker 1: shoes and Jenny's purse. And I know that the coast
Speaker 1: guard did a thorough search, so I think he may
Speaker 1: have traveled outside the search area to get rid of it,
Speaker 1: or maybe he even did it on land. He put
Speaker 1: it in like a wooded area and buried it so
Speaker 1: that they wouldn't even be looking for there. And but
Speaker 1: of course he was too clever for his own good,
Speaker 1: because once they realized that there's this weird discrepancy of
Speaker 1: five and a half hours, he had to come up
Speaker 1: with this implausible story of passing out of exhaustion for
Speaker 1: a few hours. And that's what caused them to just
Speaker 1: build evidence after evidence against him until they finally had
Speaker 1: a prosecutable case to indict him for murder.
Speaker 2: So how do you think that this played out? Do
Speaker 2: you think that, like, because for Larry to go and
Speaker 2: dispose of all of this evidence, to do all of
Speaker 2: these different things, it would require him moving about in
Speaker 2: the water and being able to do so quickly, and
Speaker 2: just swimming around in a dry suit isn't going to
Speaker 2: cut it. So is it likely that he made it
Speaker 2: appear that the Jennie Lee was taking on water and
Speaker 2: was going to go down, and then he basically got
Speaker 2: Debbie into a life raft, pushed her out, and then
Speaker 2: went and swam cut the bottom of the life raft
Speaker 2: and then waited for Debbie to be in the water
Speaker 2: and then fix whatever issue who was on the Jenny Lee,
Speaker 2: dragged the or for dragged the life preserver back, fixed
Speaker 2: the issue that was on the Jenny Lee, made it operable,
Speaker 2: and then went and drove the boat over to wherever
Speaker 2: he needed to go to go dispose of this evidence.
Speaker 1: I think so. I think that it would have taken
Speaker 1: him a couple hours to do all that in the dark.
Speaker 1: And I do think that they left the boat at
Speaker 1: a different location than Larry said, which would explain like
Speaker 1: why she was found seven miles away, because it seems
Speaker 1: implausible she could have floated that a distance, but he
Speaker 1: could have traveled there by boat. And she did not
Speaker 1: actually get into the water at nine pm, It may
Speaker 1: have been much later, and then she floated an hour
Speaker 1: a mile to the spot where she was found. He
Speaker 1: spent the time disposing of the evidence, and then he
Speaker 1: went to shore and called for help with the Coastguard.
Speaker 1: With this whole cover story.
Speaker 2: It's like he thought of half the things, but not everything.
Speaker 2: He took a lot of variables into consideration, but the
Speaker 2: way that he went about doing things, and I think,
Speaker 2: just with his limited knowledge and limited act says to
Speaker 2: the way that investigations were conducted and the way that
Speaker 2: investigators would approach a murder investigation slash an accident. I
Speaker 2: could see, like you'd mentioned earlier, and it resonated with me,
Speaker 2: is that he probably thought that this was just a
Speaker 2: tragic accident, and or he thought that that's how it
Speaker 2: would be perceived, that the authorities would be like, oh,
Speaker 2: my goodness, he had this accident with his daughters, and
Speaker 2: now this has happened with his wife. Poor Larry. And
Speaker 2: look he on a safe boat. He called a deputy
Speaker 2: over to take a look and to make sure that
Speaker 2: it was safe. And look, I've got two life preservers here.
Speaker 2: What a guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah exactly, But like most of these narcissists are not
Speaker 1: as clever as they think they are, and it wound
Speaker 1: up being his undoing. And I think the only reason
Speaker 1: that we've even heard of this case is probably because
Speaker 1: he managed to convince Debbie's parents that he was a
Speaker 1: good guy. It's still not entirely clear to me who
Speaker 1: actually took this case to Unsaw mystery, but it would
Speaker 1: not surprise me if Larry's daughters and Debbie's side of
Speaker 1: the family approached them and they probably thought, well, the
Speaker 1: evidence kind of shows he's guilty. But this is going
Speaker 1: to be an interesting story because of the ambiguity the
Speaker 1: mysterious aspects, so we're gonna put it on the show.
Speaker 1: But if that had not happened, I think this case
Speaker 1: would have elanguished an obscurity and no one outside of
Speaker 1: Minnesota would have even heard about it. But for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: Larry just got very lucky that he managed to convince
Speaker 1: the parole board to release him without admitting guilt, and
Speaker 1: he's going to get to die a free man. So yeah,
Speaker 1: obviously there's not a lot of ambiguity here about how
Speaker 1: we feel about this case. It's not one where we're
Speaker 1: debating guilt or innocence. So is there any further thoughts
Speaker 1: you have on the death of Debbie Race?
Speaker 2: This is just really frustrating because I feel like we
Speaker 2: know Larry because we know him through his actions, and
Speaker 2: so I can I feel like I bought the vibe
Speaker 2: of who Larry is and what he's done, the type
Speaker 2: of person that he is, But there's just so much
Speaker 2: less information about Debbie out there, and so so I
Speaker 2: wish that I knew more about the type of person
Speaker 2: that she was and that who she left behind that
Speaker 2: loved her and the way that they felt about her,
Speaker 2: because it's easy, just like with the Kathleen and Michael
Speaker 2: Peterson staircase murder, it's easy for Kathleen to get lost
Speaker 2: in the chaos, and it's for it to be all
Speaker 2: about Michael and everything Michael related, because he's such a
Speaker 2: big personality and a big character, and I think that
Speaker 2: we're seeing a lot of that in this case. And
Speaker 2: also it doesn't it doesn't really help the situation that
Speaker 2: it was a case from nineteen eighty two. It's like
Speaker 2: forty something years ago, so we aren't going to have
Speaker 2: the information available. And I just truly hope that his
Speaker 2: daughters and that Debbie's daughters and Larry's daughters went on
Speaker 2: to have a really great life and that they spent
Speaker 2: lots of time with their grandparents, and that those grandparents,
Speaker 2: because of their support to Larry for Larry, had access
Speaker 2: to them, and that they had close relationships, because that
Speaker 2: was all that remained of Debbie on this earth, And
Speaker 2: that is my hope in prayer for them, And that's
Speaker 2: pretty much it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, pretty much feel the same way. I do think
Speaker 1: it's a shame that we don't really know much about
Speaker 1: Debbie as a person. Because Larry has been the subject
Speaker 1: in this case, and that even Debbie's own parents and
Speaker 1: during their interviews, spent more time talking about Larry in
Speaker 1: order to support them. But I kind of think that
Speaker 1: Debbie got lost in the mix, and it is kind
Speaker 1: of sad that her legacy is there's nothing wrong with her,
Speaker 1: like that's the most glowing thing anyone has ever said
Speaker 1: about her in interviews. But yeah, you can imagine how
Speaker 1: terrifying it would have been for to be like out
Speaker 1: there on a life raft in the middle of a
Speaker 1: freezing cold lake in the middle of the night, and
Speaker 1: then realize that your husband has betrayed you and slashed
Speaker 1: the raft and that you're going to die like a slow,
Speaker 1: agonizing death in the water. So yeah, you just have
Speaker 1: to feel immense sympathy for her. And I do hope
Speaker 1: that their daughters, even though there's some pretty harsh truth
Speaker 1: about their father, have gone on to live good lives.
Speaker 2: And honestly, like I can't help but think about the
Speaker 2: whole Robert Wagner Natalie Wood case where we see the
Speaker 2: parallels with Debbie being really afraid of the water, and
Speaker 2: we see it being so dark and it would have
Speaker 2: been cold and we know that Natalie would like, for
Speaker 2: those of you who aren't familiar, she had an intense
Speaker 2: fear of water and was scared her whole life that
Speaker 2: she was going to drown or die in water. And
Speaker 2: then she ends up on that boat with it was
Speaker 2: Robert Wagner and it was Christopher Walkin.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it seemed like Robert Wagner was jealous over
Speaker 2: some potential flirtation between co stars Natalie Wood and Christopher Walkin,
Speaker 2: and something might have happened there. And I'm more inclined
Speaker 2: to believe that Robert Wagner did something, in my personal opinion, allegedly,
Speaker 2: but this case, I can't help but get shades of that.
Speaker 2: And my heart breaks for Natalie Wood and my heart
Speaker 2: breaks for Debbie because when you are so deathly afraid
Speaker 2: of something, to have that be the thing that kills you,
Speaker 2: and for it to be at the hands potentially of
Speaker 2: the person that you're supposed to love and trust the
Speaker 2: most is just such a horrific way to have your
Speaker 2: time on Earth end. And that saddens me really.
Speaker 1: Deeply, definitely so at the very least, even though there
Speaker 1: really isn't a case to solve anymore because his investigation
Speaker 1: is officially closed and we believe the right man went
Speaker 1: to prison. At least we can still memorialize someone like
Speaker 1: Debbie and closing, I just want to say the owl
Speaker 1: didn't do it in this particular case. I just want
Speaker 1: to make that clear. So that about brings an end
Speaker 1: to our two part series about the death of Debbie Race.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for your continued support, and we
Speaker 1: will be back next week in order to talk about
Speaker 1: another case.