Speaker 1: Welcome back to this month's Patreon exclusive Miniso.
Speaker 2: I'm Robin, I'm Jules, and I'm Ashley, and we want
Speaker 2: to wish all of you beautiful Patreon a safe and
Speaker 2: happy holiday season. So let's dive right into this month's case.
Speaker 3: April fifth, nineteen eighty five, Great Balls, Montana. After an
Speaker 3: orderous place to a pizza parlor from a residential house,
Speaker 3: one of their drivers, twenty three year old Morris Davis,
Speaker 3: makes a delivery to that address. Morris is fatally shot
Speaker 3: eight times in his delivery while it is stolen, but
Speaker 3: it would turn out the house was vacant and the
Speaker 3: killer had broken inside to wait for Morris to arrive.
Speaker 3: The case features some odd twists and turns, including an
Speaker 3: unlikely series of events involving the potential murder weapon, but
Speaker 3: the identity of Morris's killer remains unknown.
Speaker 1: After that, the path went chilly. So on this month's
Speaker 1: bonus minisod, we're going to be covering a disturbing case
Speaker 1: from Unsolved Mysteries, the nineteen eighty five murder of Morris Davis.
Speaker 1: This is a memorable story which has always struck a
Speaker 1: chord with fans of the show, but unfortunately It's also
Speaker 1: one of those dreaded segments which is currently not available
Speaker 1: for viewing on their official film Rise channel on Amazon
Speaker 1: Prime or YouTube, and that's incredibly frustrating since the case
Speaker 1: is still unsolved after all these years and could use
Speaker 1: the additional exposure. The murder of Morris Davis is a
Speaker 1: particularly senseless crime about a pizza delivery driver who was
Speaker 1: assigned to deliver an order to what turned out to
Speaker 1: be a vacant house, where he was ambushed and shot
Speaker 1: several times. It became apparent that the crime was an
Speaker 1: elaborate setup in which Morris was intentionally lured to this
Speaker 1: address in order to be killed, but the motive remains unclear.
Speaker 1: Since the pizza parlor employed multiple drivers, it's unlikely that
Speaker 1: the perpetrator could have known for certain that Morris would
Speaker 1: be assigned to make this delivery. He may not have
Speaker 1: been specifically targeted and was simply in the wrong place
Speaker 1: at the wrong time. But while robbery could have been
Speaker 1: the motive, only a couple hundred dollars was stolen from Morris,
Speaker 1: So why would the killer go to so much trouble
Speaker 1: to do something like this. The investigation is headed in
Speaker 1: a number of odd directions, and it's possible that one
Speaker 1: of the reasons the original Unsaw Mystery segment is no
Speaker 1: longer available for viewing is because it's spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time focusing on a lead which turned out to
Speaker 1: be quite controversial. But we'll share more details about that
Speaker 1: when we get there.
Speaker 2: Okay, so this investigation is already pointing to the idea
Speaker 2: that someone lured a pizza driver to this vacant house
Speaker 2: to complete a burglary, but with the intention to also
Speaker 2: complete a murder as well. But they couldn't have possibly
Speaker 2: known that it would have been Morris that was coming
Speaker 2: to deliver the pizza. So are there any leads or
Speaker 2: evidence that show there's some way that Morris was actually
Speaker 2: assigned to make this delivery, that someone at the pizza
Speaker 2: parlor could have known to send him. Or do you
Speaker 2: think someone just planned the crime and Morris happened to
Speaker 2: be the one bringing the pizza.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think this was probably a random thrill kill
Speaker 1: of some sort because he whoever did this probably didn't
Speaker 1: even care which driver was sent. They just wanted to
Speaker 1: kill somebody. Because the way this pizza place worked, it
Speaker 1: sounded like, okay, we received the order it's ready, let's
Speaker 1: give it to the first available driver, and it just
Speaker 1: happened to be Morris. So I suspect that no one
Speaker 1: could have known ahead of time that he would be
Speaker 1: the one going to this address.
Speaker 2: And you'd also wonder for the perpetrator. You know that
Speaker 2: they can't carry that much cash on them. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you think about someone who's delivering pizzas, maybe you
Speaker 2: would make three or four stops before returning and dropping
Speaker 2: cash off back at the restaurant. So to me, it
Speaker 2: almost feels as if the intent was actually the murder,
Speaker 2: like you said, Robin, possibly a thrill kill of.
Speaker 1: Some kind exactly because they should have known that he
Speaker 1: was not going to be carrying that much cash on him.
Speaker 3: And I feel like to get several hundred dollars that
Speaker 3: is kind of a win there, because you don't know
Speaker 3: how much pizza this person's going to be delivering, and
Speaker 3: it might only be a couple of different deliveries. And
Speaker 3: this is nineteen eighty five, so how much really could
Speaker 3: a pizza cost. It's not like today where you can
Speaker 3: get a couple of pizzas and it's like one hundred bucks.
Speaker 3: You probably get like two pizzas for thirty bucks, so
Speaker 3: they'd be lucky to get one hundred dollars. That feels
Speaker 3: like a lot of work to put in for a
Speaker 3: hundred bucks, unless it was, like you'd said, Robin, a
Speaker 3: thrill kill. Or this is somebody who had a substance
Speaker 3: use disorder and they were looking for some kind of
Speaker 3: easy mark and any amount of money would have been
Speaker 3: worth it to feed their addiction. Our story begins in
Speaker 3: Great Falls, Montana, in nineteen eighty five. Our central figure
Speaker 3: is twenty three year old Morris Davis Junior, who works
Speaker 3: as a delivery man at a local pizza parlor called
Speaker 3: Howard's Pizza. At eight thirty four pm on the evening
Speaker 3: of April fifth, which happened to be Good Friday, the
Speaker 3: establishment received an order for a pizza delivery to a
Speaker 3: residential house on the northwest side of Great Falls. After
Speaker 3: the pizza was made, it was handed over to Morris
Speaker 3: for delivery and he left it around nine point fifteen.
Speaker 3: After an hour and a half passed by, Morris had
Speaker 3: still not returned, so another driver was sent out to
Speaker 3: look for him and went to the address of Morris's
Speaker 3: last delivery. When the driver entered the house, he was
Speaker 3: shocked to find Morris's body near the front door. He'd
Speaker 3: been shot nine times with a twenty two calibi weapon.
Speaker 3: The police were called, and in a cruel twist of fate,
Speaker 3: one of the paramedics who arrived at the scene was
Speaker 3: Morris's younger brother, Cliff Davis, who entered the house and
Speaker 3: let out a scream when he saw Morris's body on
Speaker 3: the floor. Cliff accompanied his brother in the ambulance to
Speaker 3: the hospital, but Morris was pronounced dead on arrival.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 2: I just got chills up and down my arms and
Speaker 2: my neck. This is horrific. You have a young paramedic
Speaker 2: who's called out to respond to a shooting, and when
Speaker 2: he arrives it's his own older brother who's been executed.
Speaker 2: He's been shot nine times. That seems like such overkill,
Speaker 2: even for someone who's doing this for a thrill or
Speaker 2: doing it as a robbery gone wrong. Nine times by
Speaker 2: the second or third shot, I feel like you would
Speaker 2: be confident that this person was deceased exactly.
Speaker 1: And Cliff is one of the most the victim's family
Speaker 1: members in all the cases I've covered, who I've helped
Speaker 1: most sorry for because I can't think of too many
Speaker 1: others where a victim's family is summoned to a murder
Speaker 1: scene and has no idea what to expect, because I'm
Speaker 1: sure Cliff didn't know ahead of time that Morris was
Speaker 1: going to be delivering to this address, so he wasn't
Speaker 1: sure what he was getting when he was going in,
Speaker 1: and then to see his own brother on the floor,
Speaker 1: but to still maintain enough composure to accompany him to
Speaker 1: the hospital and try to do his job. But I
Speaker 1: can't think of too many other cases in which something
Speaker 1: like this has happened.
Speaker 3: And as you worked on cold cases with cold case investigators,
Speaker 3: so I think you probably have a unique understanding of
Speaker 3: what it's like for first responders when they come upon
Speaker 3: a deceased individual, particularly a murder, and then to add
Speaker 3: the other layers and nuance when you add in the
Speaker 3: victim's family being one of those first responders, like, I
Speaker 3: just can't imagine that type of trauma.
Speaker 2: I can't either. I mean, the reality is is that
Speaker 2: officers will tell you that they're trained in condition to
Speaker 2: separate themselves, same with paramedics. I have to separate myself
Speaker 2: from the situation, but that's not humanly poss if they're vulnerable,
Speaker 2: and they're sharing how they actually feel when there is
Speaker 2: a deceased individual, when there's a murder, when there is
Speaker 2: someone who's hurting, or even the family that you're responding
Speaker 2: to is hurting, empathy takes over and there is a
Speaker 2: connection to that case, whether you know the person or not.
Speaker 2: And then this is someone walking up and seeing their
Speaker 2: big brother literally just riddled with bullets inside this vacant home,
Speaker 2: the trauma that would come with that, where yes, I'm
Speaker 2: supposed to be doing a job, it's supposed to be
Speaker 2: this clinical kind of task that I have, and then
Speaker 2: I'm shocked with the idea that this is my brother.
Speaker 2: And you know that Cliff was pretty confident that his
Speaker 2: brother was deceased at that point or wasn't going to
Speaker 2: be able to make it very long. So he's battling
Speaker 2: that kind of please make this, Morris, please make this,
Speaker 2: trying to do a job to save him, and then
Speaker 2: realizing as they're getting to the hospital that his brother
Speaker 2: didn't make it. I can't even express how much heartbreak
Speaker 2: that causes when you think about Cliff and Morris and
Speaker 2: what that dynamic would have been like.
Speaker 1: So, based on the forensic evidence, investigators theorized that Morris
Speaker 1: was shot when he first entered the house, but still
Speaker 1: tried to make a break for it, but when he
Speaker 1: ran outside, the killer fired another bullet into him, before
Speaker 1: dragging Morris back into the house and shooting him additional times.
Speaker 1: On the surface, it appeared that robbery might have been
Speaker 1: the motive for the crime. Morris's delivery wallet, which contained
Speaker 1: just under three hundred dollars, was missing, though strangely, Morris's
Speaker 1: own personal wallet was left behind. However, whoever committed the
Speaker 1: crime had orchestrated a very elaborate scheme. It turned out
Speaker 1: the house Morris delivered to his vacant, and the killer
Speaker 1: went to the trouble of removing a for sale sign
Speaker 1: from the front lawne. Since the house did not have
Speaker 1: phone service, the killer went to a nearby payphone to
Speaker 1: place the order for the pizza before breaking into the
Speaker 1: house through the back door. He then waited for Morris
Speaker 1: to arrive, shot him after he entered the house, and
Speaker 1: then fled with his delivery wallet. Morris was filling in
Speaker 1: for another driver who had originally been scheduled to work
Speaker 1: that night, and since the pizza parlor employed several drivers,
Speaker 1: the killer could not have known with one hundred percent
Speaker 1: certainty that Morris would be assigned to deliver this order.
Speaker 1: By all accounts, Morris was a very well liked guy
Speaker 1: with no known enemies, so it seemed like he was
Speaker 1: not deliberately targeted and was just a victim of a
Speaker 1: completely random crime.
Speaker 2: Holy cow, when you say that this was a highly
Speaker 2: orchestrated crime, you're not fibbing on that. He literally removes
Speaker 2: a for sale sign from the front yard, makes a
Speaker 2: point to get to a payphone to provide the address
Speaker 2: to the pizza delivery people, and then once Morris comes
Speaker 2: in and is shot, he tries to run, the shooter
Speaker 2: shoots him again and then drags him back into the
Speaker 2: house to continue to shoot him. At what point did
Speaker 2: you just grab the wallet and run instead of having
Speaker 2: these just overkill of poor Morris? You had already hurt him,
Speaker 2: He was already run. It was a vacant house, It
Speaker 2: wasn't registered to you, There was no phone associated with you.
Speaker 2: Why would you have to kill the person? You got
Speaker 2: the money, you injured the person, run, But this killer
Speaker 2: said no, that's not enough. They actually were waiting for
Speaker 2: him to come with a home that they had targeted
Speaker 2: because no one would know who was there. They used
Speaker 2: the payphone. They then drag a shot wounded individual back
Speaker 2: into the house to empty what seven more bullets at
Speaker 2: that point into the body. It's wild. It just blows
Speaker 2: my mind as so far as what would be the
Speaker 2: motivation for this.
Speaker 3: How many bullets does it Guten hold in his clip?
Speaker 1: A good question. I know that there are six shooters,
Speaker 1: but I know that this obviously was not one of them,
Speaker 1: because I'm curious to see if they if he might
Speaker 1: have reloaded, but when he fired, I'll these shots.
Speaker 3: Yeah, did he empty a clip? Did he reload?
Speaker 2: I think it's a pistol. Did it a pistol, Robin?
Speaker 1: Yes? Twenty two caliber?
Speaker 2: Is it a revolver? Robins? I know, yeah, no, semi automatic?
Speaker 1: Possibly they never found the murder weapons. I'm not entirely sure.
Speaker 3: All they know is a caliber bullet and.
Speaker 1: He'd been shot nine times with a twenty two caliber bullet.
Speaker 2: It says anywhere from six to nine for a revolver
Speaker 2: or ten to twenty for a semi automatic, so.
Speaker 1: It's possibly fired the maximum if it holds nine.
Speaker 3: Another question for you, Robin, And this might sound like
Speaker 3: a stupid question, But what happened to the pizza that
Speaker 3: he was delivering. Was the piza just left there? Was
Speaker 3: it taken?
Speaker 1: They never released that information. It's possible that this is
Speaker 1: one of those details that they're not releasing to the
Speaker 1: public to weed out false confessions. We're going to talk
Speaker 1: about this later in the miniso at about another pizza
Speaker 1: related murder where the killer did take the pizza away
Speaker 1: from the scene after they shot the victim. But it
Speaker 1: doesn't specify in this case.
Speaker 3: Because it would seem to be odd to take the
Speaker 3: pizza and just take the delivery wallet, but to leave
Speaker 3: his personal wallet behind. Did he have any money in
Speaker 3: his personal wallet?
Speaker 1: That's another detail that they haven't specified. But I think
Speaker 1: that if his wallet had been empty or had very
Speaker 1: little money, they might have mentioned that. But they keep
Speaker 1: saying how it was very strange that had been left behind,
Speaker 1: which makes me think he did at least have a
Speaker 1: decent amount of cash in there.
Speaker 3: The investigation failed to uncover a solid suspect and remained
Speaker 3: at a total standstill for three years before a very
Speaker 3: strange series of events occurred. On May eleventh, nineteen eighty eight,
Speaker 3: a man was pulled over in another town in Montana
Speaker 3: and arrested for driving in a stolen vehicle, which he'd
Speaker 3: taken from a friend in Oregon. The suspect had also
Speaker 3: stolen a twenty two caliber semi automatic pistol from his friend,
Speaker 3: and a receipt for the gun was found in his
Speaker 3: pocket for a pawn shop in Great Falls, which was
Speaker 3: located one hundred and eighty miles from where he was arrested.
Speaker 3: The Great Falls Police Department recovered the gun from the pawnshop,
Speaker 3: but then remembered how Morris Davis had been shot to
Speaker 3: death with a twenty two caliber weapon, so on a whim,
Speaker 3: they decided to send the gun to the ballistics lab
Speaker 3: for ten To their astonishment, there turned out to be
Speaker 3: a complete match to the bullets from the crime scene,
Speaker 3: and the stolen gun was determined to be the same
Speaker 3: murder weapon which killed Morris. The suspect who had stolen
Speaker 3: the vehicle in the gun was investigated and cleared of
Speaker 3: any involvement in Morris's murder, so the focus now turned
Speaker 3: towards the gun's original owner in Oregon, who'd purchased the
Speaker 3: weapon prior to April of nineteen eighty five. This man's
Speaker 3: name has never been released publicly, but he agreed to
Speaker 3: be interviewed in silhouette on Unsolved Mysteries in order to
Speaker 3: conceal his identity. The show also digitally altered his voice
Speaker 3: when he spoke and referred to him by the pseudonym Rick.
Speaker 2: So this person gets pulled over. They've stolen a car
Speaker 2: from a friend, and I'm assuming this quote, Rick is
Speaker 2: the one who calls in says, my friend stole my car.
Speaker 2: When they discover him, he has a receipt where he's
Speaker 2: dropped all of this stuff off at the pawn shop,
Speaker 2: and they link at that weapon back to Morris's death.
Speaker 2: So of course you're going to go back to Rick
Speaker 2: quote end quote and say that you know you were
Speaker 2: linked to this murder. Explain yourself, where was the gun
Speaker 2: at the time. Does Rick have an explanation as to
Speaker 2: what would have happened with that weapon if he was
Speaker 2: not in possession of it at the time of Morris's murder.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm about to explain that right now. And this
Speaker 1: is where things get really confusing. Your head is probably
Speaker 1: going to explode when I tried to explain what happened here.
Speaker 1: Let's do that, Okay, So Rick denied any involvement or
Speaker 1: knowledge of Morris's murder, and claimed that in April of
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty five he had a newborn son, so he
Speaker 1: was keeping the twenty two caliber pistol safely stowed away
Speaker 1: in a hall closet between some blankets. The problem is
Speaker 1: that nobody else besides Rick and his wife knew the
Speaker 1: gun was kept there, and he did not recall it
Speaker 1: ever going missing. During this time period, Rick was thoroughly
Speaker 1: investigated by the Great False PD, who determined that he
Speaker 1: had rock Slid alibi at the time of Morris's murder
Speaker 1: and they had no reason to believe he was involved
Speaker 1: in the crime. So on the surface, it seemed like
Speaker 1: someone else had stolen the gun from Rick's closet, traveled
Speaker 1: the Great Falls to shoot Morris, and then returned to
Speaker 1: Oregon to somehow place the gun back inside his closet
Speaker 1: without anybody noticing. This lead baffled the hell out of
Speaker 1: everyone for years, but it turned out there was a
Speaker 1: logical or illogical explanation for the whole thing. The Great
Speaker 1: Falls PD simply screwed up the ballistics tests. In nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety five, some new ballistic tests were performed and guess
Speaker 1: what this time, the bullets which were fired did not
Speaker 1: match the bullets from the crime, which meant that Rick's
Speaker 1: gun from Oregon was not actually the murder weapon used
Speaker 1: to shoot Morris Davis. So, unfortunately, this whole series of
Speaker 1: events turned out to be one of the strangest red
Speaker 1: herrings in history. The investigation went right back to square one,
Speaker 1: and after nearly thirty nine years, no one has ever
Speaker 1: been charged with the murder of Morris Davis. So I
Speaker 1: guess you could say the path went chile.
Speaker 2: How do you perform an improper ballistics test? My question
Speaker 2: for you is were these striations on the bullet and
Speaker 2: the markings on the bullet were they true matches or
Speaker 2: is it a personnel problem when they were interpreting the
Speaker 2: striations on the bullet or is it just that actually
Speaker 2: the test was performed in an incorrect way, actually making
Speaker 2: similar mark That doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 1: I'm still confused it by it myself. But they seem
Speaker 1: to have the great false PD a lot of faith
Speaker 1: in the results of these tests, because this was the
Speaker 1: main reason the case got national exposure and unsolved mysteries,
Speaker 1: Because this was a big mystery. How did this gun
Speaker 1: from this guy's closet in Oregon somehow get used in
Speaker 1: a murder of a guy in Montana and make it
Speaker 1: back into his closets. So for years no one could
Speaker 1: explain that. And like I just said, it was not
Speaker 1: until the mid nineteen nineties that they decided to double
Speaker 1: check and realized, oh, these don't match. After all, this
Speaker 1: is not the murder weapons. So I have no idea
Speaker 1: why this was screwed up so badly that I would
Speaker 1: definitely rank this as one of the worst blunders I've
Speaker 1: ever seen in a police investigation.
Speaker 2: Tell me about it. And this is the part with
Speaker 2: junk science where you have you know, yes, there's a
Speaker 2: actual ballistics protocol that allows for good testing, but when
Speaker 2: you have physical evidence being interpreted by human beings, which
Speaker 2: I'm assuming is what went wrong here, it opens up
Speaker 2: the floodgates to say, based on someone's human eye and
Speaker 2: the way that they examine evidence, you can say these
Speaker 2: two things match, lead to rick and actually pin a
Speaker 2: crime on somebody who had a newborn baby and a
Speaker 2: gun locked in a closet at the time. So had
Speaker 2: they not done a thorough investigation and gone back to
Speaker 2: re look at his evidence to say that these bullets
Speaker 2: actually did not match. It's possible that someone could have
Speaker 2: been falsely accused and arrested and served time, and Morris's
Speaker 2: murder that they, you know, that didn't have anything to
Speaker 2: do with it. So it's frustrating that we do have
Speaker 2: human beings who were relied on to make these kind
Speaker 2: of decisions, which is their career, which I know ninety
Speaker 2: nine percent of them pick very seriously. But to me,
Speaker 2: that's the only explanation. It would have been human error
Speaker 2: in interpreting the results, and when examined several years later,
Speaker 2: they said, uh, oh, we made a mistake.
Speaker 3: And in nineteen eighty five, what did ballistics testing look like?
Speaker 3: Would it have been like fingerprint comparison matching where there's
Speaker 3: a lot of subjectivity because you have somebody who's just
Speaker 3: like matching points because there wouldn't have been access to
Speaker 3: computer programs like there are today to be able to
Speaker 3: compare all of those points that is far more accurate
Speaker 3: than our human eye is. So do either of you
Speaker 3: know what ballistic testing looked like in nineteen eighty five?
Speaker 1: Not really, No, I'm assuming it was pretty primitive, But
Speaker 1: I personally think this might have been a case of
Speaker 1: confirmation biased because the recovery of this weapon from the
Speaker 1: pawnshop took place three years after Morris's murder, and they
Speaker 1: had had pretty much zero leads during this time, and
Speaker 1: they were thinking, well, it's another twenty two caliber weapon,
Speaker 1: which is kind of like the weapon in Morris's murder,
Speaker 1: So maybe they just wanted it to match so badly
Speaker 1: so they could solve this case that they maybe just
Speaker 1: misinterpreted the results of the testing and that's how this happened.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that tho striations and the way you
Speaker 2: would indicate would be like you were saying, Jules, I
Speaker 2: would think that it would be very similar to saying
Speaker 2: we're going to match different points. And then that does
Speaker 2: leave a huge you know, I don't know. It allows
Speaker 2: for so much subjectivity and interpretation, and when you say
Speaker 2: can these two match? Do these two things match? You
Speaker 2: do get that confirmation bias where someone wants to help
Speaker 2: and they want to see something that may not be there.
Speaker 1: Well, needless to say, I'm always really bothered by these
Speaker 1: completely random and senseless crimes where an innocent person is
Speaker 1: murdered for something as small as a couple hundred bucks,
Speaker 1: and because of the randomness of these crimes, it's often
Speaker 1: very difficult to figure out who is responsible. In this
Speaker 1: particular case, I have a feeling the perpetrator just wanted
Speaker 1: to kill someone and didn't even care who it was.
Speaker 1: Ibbery was the primary motive. I think there would have
Speaker 1: been simpler ways to go about it, and if this
Speaker 1: person had simply pointed their gun at Morris and told
Speaker 1: him to hand over his money, Morris probably would have
Speaker 1: complied without any resistance. The fact that the gunman would
Speaker 1: commit major overkilled by shooting Morris nine times and didn't
Speaker 1: even bother taking his personal wallet makes me think he
Speaker 1: was more interested in committing a thrill kill than a
Speaker 1: simple robbery. Since Morris was not originally scheduled to work
Speaker 1: that night and the perpetrator couldn't have been certain he
Speaker 1: would make the delivery, this was probably not a personal
Speaker 1: killing and Morris was just a victim who was in
Speaker 1: the wrong place at the wrong time.
Speaker 2: For me, it seems like anybody who carries money the
Speaker 2: policy with your employer would be given to somebody. Right.
Speaker 2: It's nothing is worth losing your life over, and it's
Speaker 2: especially not a pizza delivery man, But I mean anybody
Speaker 2: someone collecting money from banks, someone taking large amounts of
Speaker 2: money from one institution to another. If someone confronts you
Speaker 2: with a gun and says I'm going to kill you
Speaker 2: or give me your money, you give them your money.
Speaker 2: Morris had no need to defend those three hundred dollars
Speaker 2: with his life, especially while he's employed a pizza delivery service.
Speaker 2: So I think you're right, Robin. It seems like this
Speaker 2: person wanted to hurt somebody, and that to me, robbery
Speaker 2: really wasn't necessarily even the motive, because unless they were
Speaker 2: some really, really sick addict who was sober enough to
Speaker 2: plan removing a for sale sign, finding a vacant home,
Speaker 2: going to a payphone, and making a delivery, all that
Speaker 2: is so planned and clear minded that it would be
Speaker 2: hard for me to think that this was an addic
Speaker 2: so strung out that that money was that important to them.
Speaker 2: So for me, it almost feels like hurting the person
Speaker 2: dragging them back into the home, unloading the rest of
Speaker 2: your magazine into them, that that was the priority for
Speaker 2: this person, and they happened to get three hundred dollars
Speaker 2: when they did it, they left his own personal wallet
Speaker 2: that could have been so that they couldn't get caught
Speaker 2: and didn't have a driver's license or credit cards with
Speaker 2: his name or something on it at the time. But
Speaker 2: to me, money was not the priority.
Speaker 3: I agree, And don't you both think that it's possible that? Okay, So,
Speaker 3: say he had his work related pizza delivery wallet in
Speaker 3: one of his front pockets. Say he was shot and
Speaker 3: he fell on his back, and maybe his personal wallet
Speaker 3: was just in his back pocket and the killer didn't
Speaker 3: even know to look for it.
Speaker 1: That is true. Yeah, Like, we don't even know if
Speaker 1: this person had a vehicle, if they had any transportations,
Speaker 1: so they may have felt, well, I fired gunshots, I
Speaker 1: have to get out of the area as quickly as
Speaker 1: possible in case neighbors heard them. So after finding the
Speaker 1: delivery wallet, he just didn't bother checking the personal wallet
Speaker 1: and just ran out of there as quick as he could.
Speaker 3: Sadly, before the days of color id, GPS and the Internet,
Speaker 3: it wasn't uncommon for people to place sony orders like
Speaker 3: this in order to lure delivery people to locations where
Speaker 3: they could be robbed or harmed. For another example of
Speaker 3: a crime like this, there's the murder of Travis robson
Speaker 3: a twenty one year old delivery driver at a Domino's
Speaker 3: pizza outlet in Billings, Montana, on December thirteenth of nineteen ninety.
Speaker 3: Travis was shot to death while attempting to deliver a
Speaker 3: pizza to an address which turned out to be an
Speaker 3: abandoned house, and this time the killer wound up stealing
Speaker 3: a grand total of thirteen dollars and forty cents from
Speaker 3: Travis's delivery wallet, as well as the pizza. What's particularly
Speaker 3: creepy is that the Unsolved Mystery segment about Morris Davis's
Speaker 3: murder had aired only a week earlier, on December fifth.
Speaker 3: Given the similarities between these two crimes and the fact
Speaker 3: that they both took place in Montana, investigators wondered if
Speaker 3: this was a copycat crime or if the show might
Speaker 3: have inspired Morris's killer to strike again. While only one
Speaker 3: week after Travis was killed, two suspects, twenty two year
Speaker 3: old Billy Lamond and eighteen year old Randall Lyon Shows
Speaker 3: were arrested for his murder, and they eventually pled guilty
Speaker 3: and received lengthy prison sentences. The two men were never
Speaker 3: connected to Morris's murder, and it's highly unlikely that they
Speaker 3: were involved, given that they still would have been kids
Speaker 3: back in nineteen eighty five, but it is creepy to
Speaker 3: think that they might have gotten the idea for their
Speaker 3: crime from watching Unsolved Mysteries.
Speaker 2: And again, you had a young kid, you had Travis,
Speaker 2: who is only twenty one years old, murdered as a
Speaker 2: pizza delivery man, And you're right, it's very possible that
Speaker 2: this is a copycat crime motivated by the high exposure
Speaker 2: that they were getting on Unsolved Mysteries in nineteen ninety
Speaker 2: I remember Unsolved Mysteries and Rescue nine one one being
Speaker 2: like the hot shows back to back that I would
Speaker 2: love tuning into. It was really popular, and so at
Speaker 2: the time for an eighteen and twenty year old to think, hey,
Speaker 2: we could get a lot of notoriety by doing something similar.
Speaker 2: That's an easy crime to get away with that I
Speaker 2: could see that inspiring these two zero part of me
Speaker 2: thinks that they could be linked to Morris's because they
Speaker 2: would have been thirteen and eighteen at the time of
Speaker 2: Morris's murder, and that just seems like such a large scale,
Speaker 2: elaborate killing for these two young kids to do.
Speaker 1: And stories like this just make me very grateful that
Speaker 1: in this era of constant food delivery that they're much
Speaker 1: more better safety measures in place, that you can now
Speaker 1: look ahead of time to make sure you're not delivering
Speaker 1: food to an abandoned house, and you have all sorts
Speaker 1: of protections like GPS, and you have cell phones and stuff,
Speaker 1: so we have less of these crimes where delivery people
Speaker 1: get lured out to these remote locations for the express
Speaker 1: purpose of killing them.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Morris's family had reached out to Unsolved Mysteries for
Speaker 3: two years to get his case featured on the show
Speaker 3: before they finally agreed to produce a segment with so
Speaker 3: little evidence to work with. I think the primary reason
Speaker 3: Unsolved Mysteries might have been interested in the story was
Speaker 3: because of the weird series of events involving the twenty
Speaker 3: two caliber pistol which was stolen from Oregon. Robin will
Speaker 3: tell you that when he first watched this segment back
Speaker 3: in the day, he was left completely baffled by the
Speaker 3: whole situation and just could not figure out how this
Speaker 3: gun could have traveled from Oregon to Montana and back
Speaker 3: to Oregon again if it was used in the crime.
Speaker 3: But when Robin learned that the original ballistics test had
Speaker 3: been botched. He felt like banging his head against a wall.
Speaker 3: I mean, my god, how much time and resources were
Speaker 3: wasted investigating this false lead. You had to feel bad
Speaker 3: for the man known only as Rick, the gun's original
Speaker 3: owner from Oregon. It must be pretty terrifying to learn
Speaker 3: that a gun you owned was used to kill someone
Speaker 3: in a different state and you can offer no explanation
Speaker 3: for how this happened. I think the main reason the
Speaker 3: original Unsolved Mystery segment is no longer available on their
Speaker 3: official channel is because it focuses so much on Rick.
Speaker 3: Even when it's mentioned that Rick has been cleared as
Speaker 3: a suspect, Morris's brother Cliff still openly directs suspicion towards
Speaker 3: him as he just cannot understand Rick's gun, as he
Speaker 3: just cannot understand how Rick's gun could have been used
Speaker 3: in the crime without him knowing about it. Thankfully, Rick
Speaker 3: wasn't railroaded and falsely implicated in a murder that he
Speaker 3: had nothing to do with. But then, how frustrating must
Speaker 3: it have been for Morris's family to find out this
Speaker 3: lead was a giant red herring and the investigation had
Speaker 3: reached a dead end.
Speaker 2: Again, Rick is incredibly lucky. Everything would have pointed to
Speaker 2: him at the time right that the Great Rapids Police Department,
Speaker 2: they thought that they were doing a fantastic or Great
Speaker 2: Falls sorry, Great Falls Police Department thought that they were
Speaker 2: doing a fantastic job by linking evidence, which they were.
Speaker 2: They were paying attention to different crimes. It could have
Speaker 2: been related, and they were able to show that ballistics
Speaker 2: matched a gun found at Rick's house, and with that alone,
Speaker 2: they could have implicated Rick in the murder of Morris.
Speaker 2: The reality is, back in the eighties and nineties, there
Speaker 2: wasn't an ability for a lot of extra check and balances.
Speaker 2: Once Rick would have gotten convicted of the crime based
Speaker 2: on faulty science, proving that he's innocent would have been
Speaker 2: nearly impossible. We've seen that in multiple cases throughout the
Speaker 2: United States. And the reality is is that this was
Speaker 2: all for nothing. You had the family convinced that you
Speaker 2: had to lead in the case. You had the United
Speaker 2: States wondering what happened while they watched this unsolved mystery segment.
Speaker 2: And even though Rick was cleared, I guarantee you if
Speaker 2: anyone knew his identity or was able to link somebody
Speaker 2: to this case and say, oh, I think that's quote Rick.
Speaker 2: You know that there would be suspicion around him, even
Speaker 2: though years later the results showed that this test was faulty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are many documented wrongful conviction cases in which
Speaker 1: someone was sent to prison based on faulty ballistics evidence,
Speaker 1: particularly back in the nineteen eighties and seventies before a
Speaker 1: lot of this stuff was kind of exposed as a
Speaker 1: junk science. And I think Rick is just lucky that
Speaker 1: he did not live in Great Falls or anywhere else
Speaker 1: in nearby Montana. So they figured, well, we can place
Speaker 1: him in Oregon in April of nineteen eighty five, so
Speaker 1: we can't pin this crime on him. But if he
Speaker 1: had lived closer than it is very possible he would
Speaker 1: have been charged and sent to prison. However, the investigation
Speaker 1: did eventually uncover another individual who seems like a fairly
Speaker 1: solid suspect in Morris's murder. On October sixth, nineteen eighty six,
Speaker 1: eighteen year old Susette Pritchard was working an overnight shift
Speaker 1: alone at a Great Falls convenience store when she was
Speaker 1: murdered by someone who came in and stopped her twenty
Speaker 1: four times before stealing three hundred dollars. The case went
Speaker 1: unsolved for eleven years before police received information from a
Speaker 1: prison informant about an innate named Donald Dubray. Dubray had
Speaker 1: an extensive criminal history and was serving a twenty seven
Speaker 1: year sentence for rape at Montana State Prison, where he
Speaker 1: had apparently bragged about being responsible for Susette Pritchard's murder.
Speaker 1: After an extensive investigation uncovered evidence to implicate Tobray in
Speaker 1: the crime, he was charged and convicted of robbery, felony, theft,
Speaker 1: and murder. He received a life sentence for the murder,
Speaker 1: plus an additional twenty years for robbery and ten years
Speaker 1: for felony theft. If that wasn't enough, a state district
Speaker 1: judge ordered that five thousand, one hundred and fifty dollars
Speaker 1: be garnished from Dubray's prison wages in order to pay
Speaker 1: restitution to the Pritchard family for the expenses they had
Speaker 1: incurred from Sussette's funeral.
Speaker 2: Okay, so when you talk about the link to Morris's,
Speaker 2: she's this little girl is obviously killed and overkilled for
Speaker 2: three hundred dollars. Do you really think that Debray is
Speaker 2: the one who would have been tied to Morris's crime. Though.
Speaker 2: I mean, you have a stabbing and you have a shooting,
Speaker 2: you have overkilling both, you have three hundred dollars in both.
Speaker 2: But what do you guys think is the possibility that
Speaker 2: there isn't actually a link.
Speaker 3: It's a different victimology, for sure.
Speaker 1: It is like the method is different. But the main
Speaker 1: reason I think they were interested in Debray is because
Speaker 1: it took place in Great Falls, only one year after
Speaker 1: Morris was murdered, and just kind of a similar mo
Speaker 1: where you stab just a regular worker several times or
Speaker 1: shoot them several times, only to steal a couple hundred dollars. So,
Speaker 1: even though they didn't have anything conclusive showing that he
Speaker 1: could have committed Morris's murderer, he definitely was worth looking
Speaker 1: at as a suspect.
Speaker 3: Ash Like, you looked at enough cold cases, don't you
Speaker 3: think that, Like stabbing and shooting is very different, and
Speaker 3: you're looking at completely different victimology, and this one almost
Speaker 3: reeks more of desperation, whereas the other one is a
Speaker 3: lot more organized.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's exactly what I was about to say. You
Speaker 2: also have a male and female victim there's a lot
Speaker 2: of differences here. The three hundred dollars to me, seems
Speaker 2: to be the only thing and the level of overkill.
Speaker 2: But when you shoot someone, you have the luxury of
Speaker 2: having that distance between you and a sense of power
Speaker 2: without having to exert physical power. When you are going
Speaker 2: to go stab someone, there is an intimacy to that.
Speaker 2: Once you insort of blade into someone's skin and then
Speaker 2: you do it twenty four times, you think about the
Speaker 2: psychological power control, the sometimes sexual motivation, the desperation, and
Speaker 2: the rage that would come with that type of killing.
Speaker 2: It's different than this idea of almost toying with someone
Speaker 2: and being more cowardly in the way you execute someone.
Speaker 2: By being able to stand away from the victim, to
Speaker 2: close your eyes, to not have to really look at
Speaker 2: what you're doing, and to have that kind of gap
Speaker 2: in intimacy between the victim and the perpetrator. You have
Speaker 2: a female who's at work and is killed very quickly
Speaker 2: and radically with this twenty four stab wounds. I agree
Speaker 2: that that's more opportunistic and not as planned as the
Speaker 2: person who decided to take a for sale sign out
Speaker 2: of the yard to find a vacant home to make
Speaker 2: a call to this address to get the person in
Speaker 2: to shoot him, let him run, shoot him again, drag
Speaker 2: him back into the home to shoot him another seven times.
Speaker 2: There's just so much more of like a well thought
Speaker 2: out ability to separate yourself from the victim and to
Speaker 2: complete this crime. In the pizza murder versus this girdl
Speaker 2: who's at work, who's stabbed twenty four times.
Speaker 3: It's overkill versus like overkill in both cases in that like,
Speaker 3: you know, shooting someone nine times, you don't need to
Speaker 3: do it that many times obviously to get your desired result.
Speaker 3: And then to stab someone twenty four times feels like
Speaker 3: a loss of control. It feels like a classic organized
Speaker 3: offender in the pizza murder, that the murder of Morris
Speaker 3: versus a disorganized defender in the case where you're murdering
Speaker 3: eighteen year olds, who's that Pritchard and Debray is stabbing
Speaker 3: her twenty four times? It feels opportunistic, It feels messy,
Speaker 3: It feels like he loses control of his emotions and
Speaker 3: almost of his physical body, because to stab someone twenty
Speaker 3: four times takes a lot more energy than to empty
Speaker 3: a clip into somebody.
Speaker 1: Do you think It's might have been different though, just
Speaker 1: because Susette was a woman, Because maybe with Morris he
Speaker 1: was a larger man, it was more impersonal. He just
Speaker 1: wanted to shoot him from a distance, whereas if he
Speaker 1: was a misogynist, I mean, we know he was already
Speaker 1: in prison for rape. Maybe he just hated women so
Speaker 1: much that he wanted to change his mo and like
Speaker 1: unleash all these stabbing wounds on this poor girl.
Speaker 2: That is definitely possible. When you look at stabbing, there's
Speaker 2: an argument of does it, how so have a sexual
Speaker 2: component to it? So does that provide a different level
Speaker 2: of control and harm to the victim that excites the perpetrator.
Speaker 2: So it is possible knowing that there's a more vulnerable
Speaker 2: and smaller, less aggressive victim that might not be able
Speaker 2: to fight you back, that you might attack them in
Speaker 2: a different manner.
Speaker 3: You just open yourself up to making a real mess
Speaker 3: on your physical body, your clothes, but also to stab
Speaker 3: someone twenty four times. Not only will you have the
Speaker 3: blood of the victim on you, you're likely going to bleed
Speaker 3: on the victim because that knife is going to get
Speaker 3: real slippery, the chance of it slipping onto his hand
Speaker 3: and cutting him pretty good chance. I would say to
Speaker 3: stab somebody that many times, but I guess this is
Speaker 3: a time before DNA, so the consideration would be like, okay,
Speaker 3: so what's the most They could do? Blood type analysis,
Speaker 3: which doesn't really It can like rule you in or
Speaker 3: rule you out, but you're not going to be able
Speaker 3: to pinpoint exactly who is like say they were TYPO,
Speaker 3: who's a Type O contributor, just that you can't eliminate
Speaker 3: this person as a suspect. Say Debray had TYPEO, you
Speaker 3: can't eliminate him, but it could be any number of
Speaker 3: the seventy percent of the population that has OH positive
Speaker 3: blood well. In May of twenty sixteen, Debray was found
Speaker 3: dead in his prison cell at the age of fifty five.
Speaker 3: John Cameron, the Great Falls police detective who solved Susant
Speaker 3: Pritchard's murder, has publicly expressed his suspicions that Debray might
Speaker 3: have also been responsible for killing Morris Davis, since the
Speaker 3: crime took place in Great Falls only a year earlier,
Speaker 3: and both cases involved a victim being brutally murdered over
Speaker 3: a robbery of only a couple hundred dollars. Traffic tickets
Speaker 3: placed to Bray in Great Falls shortly before and after
Speaker 3: Morris's murder, and during this time period he had also
Speaker 3: committed a robbery in the town of Browning and shot
Speaker 3: another victim with a twenty two caliber weapon. For years,
Speaker 3: Cameron corresponded with Debray in prison and hoped that he
Speaker 3: might get him to confess to killing Morris, but this
Speaker 3: never happened. Now we have to concede that Detective Cameron
Speaker 3: is a bit of a controversial figure and has faced
Speaker 3: criticism for his tendency to develop tunnel vision in cases
Speaker 3: and focused too much on certain suspects. Following his retirement,
Speaker 3: Cameron published a book about serial killer Edward Wayne Edwards
Speaker 3: and attempted to link him to pretty much every famous
Speaker 3: murder in the past several decades, such as the Black Dahlia,
Speaker 3: the Zodiac Murders, Jimmy Hoffa, Adam Walsh, the West Memphis Three,
Speaker 3: John Manny Ramsay, Lacy Peterson, Reach the hall Bock. And
Speaker 3: I think it goes without saying that not everyone agrees
Speaker 3: with Cameron's assessment.
Speaker 2: I think that when you look at this Detective Cameron,
Speaker 2: he's doing what Edward Wayne Edwards himself did he's trying
Speaker 2: to get kind of this notoriety and excitement around these
Speaker 2: tragic cases and linking them to one person. It doesn't
Speaker 2: make sense.
Speaker 1: Edward.
Speaker 2: Wayne Edwards himself claimed to have all these connections to
Speaker 2: these different famous crimes. But there's just, to my mind,
Speaker 2: no way. There's such different murders, there's such different locations,
Speaker 2: there's such different mos. And then you have this idea
Speaker 2: that you know, Detective Cameron almost effec and goes well. Obviously,
Speaker 2: if he's linked to all these types of diverse murders,
Speaker 2: he could also be linked to you know, this murder itself.
Speaker 2: It's just it's crazy. When you look at Debray, he's
Speaker 2: doing the same thing. He's saying, Debray killed this person.
Speaker 2: Debray did this crime. Yes, these are all very different
Speaker 2: mos and different locations, but I can link them. You
Speaker 2: could do that with almost any criminal who has multiple offenses.
Speaker 2: You could start placing them in locations. You could start
Speaker 2: looking at the method that they use to kill someone.
Speaker 2: There's only so many mos, there's only so many victimologies,
Speaker 2: there's only so many locations to commit crimes. And so
Speaker 2: if you want to find someone and pin them to
Speaker 2: a certain crime without evidence supporting that. It's easy to
Speaker 2: do as a puzzle piece, right, just to find these
Speaker 2: random facts and say, oh, see, you know peace number
Speaker 2: A in this case and Peace number F in this case.
Speaker 2: They all fit together. But it doesn't to me when
Speaker 2: you look at these. Debray is not someone who I
Speaker 2: would say has a diruct connection to Morris, even if
Speaker 2: he was in that location at the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I kept remembering when I was researching this and
Speaker 1: I saw Cameron's theory about Donald Debray, and I was thinking, oh,
Speaker 1: this kind of makes logical sense. Maybe he's onto something here.
Speaker 1: But then I heard about the Edward Wayne Edwards theory
Speaker 1: and how he's pretty much a laughingstock in the True
Speaker 1: Crime Commune because of it. Because you look at the
Speaker 1: Black Dollia and Teresa hallback, those crimes took place sixty
Speaker 1: years apart, so I do not believe an offender is
Speaker 1: going to be killing and committing these famous murders that
Speaker 1: far apart. So that has really affected his credibility.
Speaker 3: I think he overshot with that theory for sure. It's
Speaker 3: sort of like the Smiley Face killers. Those guys I
Speaker 3: believe overshot as well. And so you lose a lot
Speaker 3: of credibility when you try to lump too many things
Speaker 3: together and just make it fit. But even before hearing
Speaker 3: about Cameron's controversial connection to Edward Wayne Edwards and trying
Speaker 3: to group all of those murders together and him being responsible,
Speaker 3: I still just in my gut didn't feel like the
Speaker 3: victimology and the mo O lined up enough. Yes, there
Speaker 3: was three hundred dollars that connected it, but I just
Speaker 3: feel at my very core that these are two very
Speaker 3: different offenders. One that's really opportunistic and disorganized, one that's
Speaker 3: very cold, calculated and organized.
Speaker 2: I'm with you, I think that it's way too much
Speaker 2: of a stretch, way too much stretch in this case.
Speaker 1: However, in twenty thirteen, Morris's brother Cliff actually posted a
Speaker 1: couple of times on the Unsolved Mysteries message board at
Speaker 1: the sitcoms online forum which I'm always referring to. Cliff
Speaker 1: claimed that he also corresponded with Donald Dubray in prison,
Speaker 1: and that he provided very specific details about Morris's murder
Speaker 1: and the house where it took place. At one point,
Speaker 1: Debray apparently told Cliff that he was president at the
Speaker 1: house that night, but he was not the shooter, but
Speaker 1: in spite of this, Dubray never did take responsibility for
Speaker 1: the crime, and no evidence ever linked him to it.
Speaker 1: Some other investigators have expressed skepticism over the idea of
Speaker 1: Dubray being Morris's killer, but if what Cliff posted was true,
Speaker 1: he certainly seems like a compelling suspect. I definitely see
Speaker 1: the parallels between Morris's case and the murder of Susette Prichard.
Speaker 1: Dubray staffed Susette a total of twenty four times, which
Speaker 1: is major overkilled, to say the least, much like how
Speaker 1: Morris was shot nine times. It sounds like Susette's murder
Speaker 1: was something of a thrill kill for Dubray and robbery
Speaker 1: was the secondary motive, And you can also say the
Speaker 1: same thing about what happened to Morris. Unfortunately, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if there is any DNA evidence available in Morris's
Speaker 1: case which could posthumously link Dubray to the crime. But personally,
Speaker 1: my gut does tell me that Dubray might be the killer,
Speaker 1: and if and if so, then it's sad that he
Speaker 1: went on to murder someone else. But he did finally
Speaker 1: get locked up and spent the last chunk of his
Speaker 1: life in prison, so justice was ultimately served. But if
Speaker 1: you happen to have any information on the murder of
Speaker 1: Morris Davis, please contact the Great Falls Police Department at
Speaker 1: four zero six seven two seven seven six eight eight.
Speaker 1: That's four h six seven two seven seven sixty eight
Speaker 1: eight Jules Ashley. Any final thoughts on this case.
Speaker 2: Now, I don't know what poor Cliff had actually communicated
Speaker 2: with Debray about, but he is another victim in this
Speaker 2: crime as a whole. Cliff was the one who responds
Speaker 2: to the emergency cause a paramedic and finds out his
Speaker 2: brother had been killed in this home that's vacant, and
Speaker 2: he rides alongside his brother trying to help resuscitate him
Speaker 2: and losing him as they arrive at the hospital. And
Speaker 2: then you see for decades you have him being a
Speaker 2: lead person fighting for answers in this case. Somehow poor
Speaker 2: Cliff gets connected to Debray. I in my gut, so far,
Speaker 2: with what we've heard today, don't feel like there's a
Speaker 2: link between these two. But if he is communicating with Debray,
Speaker 2: and if Debray's the kind of person who brags about
Speaker 2: his crimes, who wants to be more notorious than what
Speaker 2: he is. That he wants to be this grandiose killer
Speaker 2: or criminal, and he needs attention. He has found in
Speaker 2: Cliff somebody who will correspond with him from prison, so
Speaker 2: it's a friend to him. It's someone that he's sunk
Speaker 2: his hooks into and he's able to say, I have
Speaker 2: a bite into this guy. He's going to communicate with
Speaker 2: me again. I'm going to give him a tiny lead,
Speaker 2: and I'm going to give him another piece of information
Speaker 2: and another piece of information. Debray to me, when you
Speaker 2: look at his crimes, unless he has multiple crimes, I
Speaker 2: haven't heard. He's not typically committing murders with other people.
Speaker 2: Very rarely do two people kill and both of them
Speaker 2: stay silent for decades. I just can't imagine Debray being
Speaker 2: this kind of character who's going to say, I'm actually
Speaker 2: going to help provide relief to Cliff. I'm going to
Speaker 2: give him peace of mind and help him. Because he
Speaker 2: doesn't do that. He doesn't ever give any kind of
Speaker 2: concrete evidence that gives Cliff justice. So to me, Cliff
Speaker 2: is another victim again at Debray's hands, by being someone
Speaker 2: that is communicated with over and over and over again
Speaker 2: and provided information and details that might seem valid and real,
Speaker 2: and instead he's really being played with by someone who's
Speaker 2: a sick criminal.
Speaker 3: I agree. I think that Cliff is such a victim
Speaker 3: in this story, and I cannot imagine what it would
Speaker 3: be like being a first responder going into a murder scene,
Speaker 3: which is incredibly grizzly. There has to be blood everyone where,
Speaker 3: and then you find out that it's your own brother,
Speaker 3: and then, like Ashley said, to basically be tortured by Debray.
Speaker 3: I personally, like I said earlier, in my gut, don't
Speaker 3: feel like he's responsible. I think there are some commonalities there,
Speaker 3: but it just feel like it's a different offender profile.
Speaker 3: The removal of that for sale sign, the dragging his
Speaker 3: body back in the taking of the wallet, it just
Speaker 3: feels so planned out and that the robbery was just
Speaker 3: a secondary part of it, whereas I feel like Debray's
Speaker 3: motives robbery might be the primary motive unless it's a woman,
Speaker 3: and then there could be a sexual component to it.
Speaker 3: So I just think that this is a different offender,
Speaker 3: and I really wish that Debray would have given an
Speaker 3: answer one way or another, just so that Cliff would
Speaker 3: know definitively if it was Debray and if he had
Speaker 3: anything to do with the murder of his brother. But
Speaker 3: clearly that just hasn't happened. And I really hope that
Speaker 3: if anybody has any information about who killed Morris Davis,
Speaker 3: they'll come forward now because the landscape has changed considerably.
Speaker 3: It's been so many years. It's been nearly forty years
Speaker 3: at this point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I still have vivid memories of watching the Unsolved
Speaker 1: Mystery segment when originally aired, and I know during Cliff's interview,
Speaker 1: he talked about Morris being just a wonderful guy who
Speaker 1: was so full of life, and they say that all
Speaker 1: the time about victims on true crime shows. But then
Speaker 1: the segment actually shows this adorable photograph of Morris holding
Speaker 1: up this golden Labrador puppy to his face and like
Speaker 1: smiling with it. And I found out that Morris's nickname
Speaker 1: was Bear because he was described as being like a
Speaker 1: giant teddy bear. So he really did sound like an
Speaker 1: incredibly special guy who was beloved by his family members
Speaker 1: and all of his friends. So it was just a
Speaker 1: complete shock to everyone that he would be murdered in
Speaker 1: such a brutal fashion and was probably just a random
Speaker 1: victim who was in the wrong place at the wrong
Speaker 1: time because he happened to be assigned to deliver pizza
Speaker 1: to this abandoned house by someone who just probably wanted
Speaker 1: to commit a thrill kill. And of course we had
Speaker 1: so much time wasted on this lead, involving the Bosch
Speaker 1: ballistic tests and the gun belonging to Rick and Oregon,
Speaker 1: which I think hampered the investigation. And I do think
Speaker 1: that the Donald Dubray theory is compelling, but it could
Speaker 1: just be I have no idea what Cliff spoke to
Speaker 1: Debray about what information he might have shared. But like
Speaker 1: Ashley says, convicted killers, when they're no they're going to
Speaker 1: be in prison for the rest of their life. They
Speaker 1: like to toy with people because they have nothing left
Speaker 1: to lose. So it's possible he was doing that with
Speaker 1: Cliff and Detective Cameron, and maybe he had nothing to
Speaker 1: do at all with Morris's murder. And if he did,
Speaker 1: it's going to be hard to prove it after all
Speaker 1: this time, since he has since passed away. But I
Speaker 1: remember Cliff when he made those message board posts on
Speaker 1: sitcoms online. He was actually pretty flattered that people were
Speaker 1: still talking about this case all these years later, and
Speaker 1: that people still remembered Morris and wanted to see justice
Speaker 1: for what happened to him. And I'm hoping that can
Speaker 1: still happen someday if it wasn't Braith, and perhaps his
Speaker 1: killer is still alive and out there somewhere and could
Speaker 1: still be charged and convicted of this crime. But it'll
Speaker 1: be difficult because I don't know if there's much forensic
Speaker 1: evidence to work with. But maybe somebody heard an individual
Speaker 1: bragging about murdering a pizza delivery guy back in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty five, and if that's what happened, that they can
Speaker 1: come forward with information and hopefully lead to a resolution
Speaker 1: in this case.