Speaker 1: As has become tradition here on Trace Evidence, we kick
Speaker 1: off a new year of the podcast by taking a
Speaker 1: look back and answering all of your questions and curiosities.
Speaker 1: In today's special Q and A, I'll be answering a
Speaker 1: series of questions submitted by listeners over the course of
Speaker 1: the past few weeks. In addition, at the end of
Speaker 1: the episode, I'll commit some time to addressing the status
Speaker 1: of the podcast, future plans, and a few different ways
Speaker 1: in which you can get directly involved if you're so inclined.
Speaker 1: This is Trace Evidence twenty twenty four wrap up, Q
Speaker 1: and A. Welcome to Trace Evidence. I'm your host, Steven Pacheco.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: When I started pulling questions for this episode, surprised by
Speaker 1: the sheer number. In the interest of time, if I
Speaker 1: saw the same question or a very minor variation of
Speaker 1: the same question, I've just blended it together into one
Speaker 1: to reduce repetition. I obviously can't address every question I
Speaker 1: was asked, but I tried to grab up all of
Speaker 1: the pertinent ones or ones that I haven't been asked
Speaker 1: a lot in the past. In the future, you'll have
Speaker 1: the opportunity to submit more specific questions on a more
Speaker 1: regular basis. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. After
Speaker 1: I finished answering all of these questions, I'll be dedicating
Speaker 1: sometime to a so called state of the podcast address
Speaker 1: where I'm gonna talk about some new things coming down
Speaker 1: the pike in twenty twenty five. But without further ado,
Speaker 1: let's jump right into your questions and kick this thing off.
Speaker 1: All right, we'll jump right in with question number one,
Speaker 1: And just before doing that, a quick preface. If I
Speaker 1: mispronounce your name, I apologize. I'm doing the best I
Speaker 1: can hear. Some of you sent me pronunciations, others didn't,
Speaker 1: so it's sort of a roll of the dice. But
Speaker 1: our first question comes from Margaret. She writes, Hi, Steven,
Speaker 1: I've been a huge fan of Trace Evidence for years,
Speaker 1: and you inspired me to create my own blog, True
Speaker 1: Crime Musings dot com. Well, congratulations, I was wondering if
Speaker 1: you would consider covering the case of release you Rudd.
Speaker 1: She was an eight year old girl who disappeared from
Speaker 1: a Washington, DC homeless shelter in twenty fourteen. We have
Speaker 1: a basic idea of what happened, but the main suspect
Speaker 1: took himself out and the case has been at a
Speaker 1: standstill ever since. Release's case is on my list for
Speaker 1: future potential cases, but that's a list that has over
Speaker 1: three thousand cases on it that I haven't touched yet.
Speaker 1: The simple answer would be to say, yes, at some
Speaker 1: point in the future, I'd like to cover this case.
Speaker 1: The long answer is that it's a little bit more
Speaker 1: complicated than that. A lot of other podcasts have touched
Speaker 1: on this case, and when I dig into it, I
Speaker 1: often see a lot of the same recycled information, and
Speaker 1: then really what it's all about is less about analyzing
Speaker 1: the facts of the case and more about what is
Speaker 1: someone's theory of it? What does someone think happened here?
Speaker 1: And I think this is one of those cases where
Speaker 1: I probably wouldn't be able to provide you with a
Speaker 1: ton more information than what you already know.
Speaker 2: Really, where I would.
Speaker 1: Come into play would be in the second half of
Speaker 1: the episode, when I do the analysis on theories. So
Speaker 1: the only reason I haven't done this case yet is
Speaker 1: because almost every time when I've taken a look at
Speaker 1: it and thought maybe now is the time I want
Speaker 1: to do it, somebody drops a podcast episode on it,
Speaker 1: and then I try and wait a little longer. I
Speaker 1: don't want to step on other people's toes, and on
Speaker 1: the occasions in which I've released an episode about a
Speaker 1: case around the same time as somebody else, I haven't
Speaker 1: really liked that. I like to try and spread it
Speaker 1: out a bit. So that is the case I absolutely
Speaker 1: plan to cover at some point in the future. It's
Speaker 1: going to come down to scheduling if I can find
Speaker 1: new information and something extra to add to it. I
Speaker 1: really don't like doing cases where I have nothing additional
Speaker 1: to tell you, and I'm just giving you information that
Speaker 1: you probably already know. So if I'm able to dig
Speaker 1: into that case and find new information or something, maybe
Speaker 1: an angle that hasn't been looked at, absolutely If not,
Speaker 1: it'll probably wait a little longer. But it is a
Speaker 1: case that I've been looking at for years and one
Speaker 1: that I would love to cover at some point in
Speaker 1: the future. Our next question comes from John the Play,
Speaker 1: who asks will you ever make a video about the
Speaker 1: disappearance of Jennifer Kessey among others that haven't been talked about.
Speaker 1: With last week marking eighteen years since Jennifer Kessey disappeared,
Speaker 1: this was a pretty popular question, and I was asked
Speaker 1: different variations of it from Kevin, Jesus Angela, and Jim.
Speaker 1: The short answer is I would really like to cover
Speaker 1: Jennifer Kesse's case at some point in time, but sort
Speaker 1: of in the vein of my previous answer on Releisia Rudd,
Speaker 1: this is a case where I feel like it's gotten
Speaker 1: extens coverage. There was a standalone podcast on it, there's
Speaker 1: been documentaries made about it, there's been just investigation Discovery
Speaker 1: TV shows about it. There's been a lot poured into
Speaker 1: this case, and for me, when I've watched different things
Speaker 1: on it and listened to different things on it, it
Speaker 1: all kind of comes down to the same basic details
Speaker 1: that everybody knows, but that can't actually lead you anywhere.
Speaker 1: It's like the video they have of the suspect. You
Speaker 1: can watch that all day long, but you can't really
Speaker 1: make out enough to do anything with it. And even
Speaker 1: with the new stuff that they've done where they were
Speaker 1: able to describe what the kind of clothing he was wearing,
Speaker 1: it didn't really answer any questions. So for me, whether
Speaker 1: or not I ever did the Jennifer Kessei case would
Speaker 1: depend on a couple of different things. One would be
Speaker 1: new information coming out I don't want to do an
Speaker 1: episode where I just regurgitate to you what you've already
Speaker 1: heard other places. In addition to that, I would like
Speaker 1: there to be some kind of a lull for lack
Speaker 1: of a better term. I know that we're always talking
Speaker 1: about how cases need to tension, and I agree, but
Speaker 1: there's sometimes where a lull in that attention is helpful,
Speaker 1: and at least for me, I like to do a
Speaker 1: lot of cases when they've kind of dropped into that lull,
Speaker 1: when everyone's sort of moving on and it's not to
Speaker 1: say that they have forgotten about it, but it's not
Speaker 1: getting as much attention as it previously was. Then I
Speaker 1: can come out with an episode and sometimes that jogs
Speaker 1: memories or it makes people go back and look at
Speaker 1: other things. So sorry for rambling here a little bit,
Speaker 1: but yeah, I would love to cover Jennifer Kesse's case,
Speaker 1: but with the volume of information that is available out there,
Speaker 1: I would not want to fall short and fail to
Speaker 1: do it justice. Jennifer Kessey's case is a case that
Speaker 1: you could absolutely do another standalone podcast on, and you
Speaker 1: could probably do ten to twelve hours on it, whether
Speaker 1: or not I could squeeze all of that down into
Speaker 1: an hour and forty five minutes to two hours. I
Speaker 1: probably could, But would I be doing justice to a
Speaker 1: case that's already had probably better, more extensive details than
Speaker 1: I can give. I'm not sure sure, but I'd certainly
Speaker 1: take a shot at one point in time. Our next
Speaker 1: question comes from John Chance, who asks, outside of true crime,
Speaker 1: what kind of TV shows or movies do you watch?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: I don't watch a ton of TV these days, partially
Speaker 1: because streaming has become so bloated and expensive that I
Speaker 1: just don't want to pay for all those different subscriptions.
Speaker 1: I watch Jeopardy almost daily and IDVR General Hospital, let
Speaker 1: it build up for weeks, and then binge the hell
Speaker 1: out of it a few nights in a row. There
Speaker 1: aren't really any new shows that I pay much attention to,
Speaker 1: unless you count wrestling. I mostly spend my time watching
Speaker 1: older shows Seinfeld, Frasier, Three's Company. Currently, I'm on my
Speaker 1: fourth binge of mind Hunter, and I still consider it
Speaker 1: a crime that that show isn't coming back for a
Speaker 1: third season. On the other hand, I'm a huge movie buff,
Speaker 1: although I admit twenty twenty four was kind of a
Speaker 1: lackluster year for new movies. I have a ton of
Speaker 1: favorites I go back and watch from time to time. Tombstone, Halloween, Zodiac,
Speaker 1: just to name a few. In all honesty, I spend
Speaker 1: much of my time on YouTube just watching funny or
Speaker 1: interesting videos. I love psychological analysis videos where they break
Speaker 1: down the how and why of someone's behavior or get
Speaker 1: deep into brain processes in its biology. I also love
Speaker 1: history videos, whether it's discussing specifics of the Revolutionary War,
Speaker 1: one of my favorite periods in time, or where they
Speaker 1: have experts answering questions like what was medieval life really like?
Speaker 1: How accurate is this movie versus that one. I'm kind
Speaker 1: of a nerd, but I embrace it and enjoy it.
Speaker 1: Next we have a question from Krista Bossoni, who asks,
Speaker 1: since you mentioned Evanitz, I was wondering if you would
Speaker 1: look into another case he is connected to the Root
Speaker 1: twenty nine stalker. This is near to me as I
Speaker 1: grew up in the area at the time. Can't tell
Speaker 1: you the number of times I traveled on Route twenty
Speaker 1: nine alone and was about the same age as the victims.
Speaker 1: Gives me a bit of a chill. Well, Christa, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mentioned Richard Evidence in the most recent update episode
Speaker 1: when I was discussing the murder of Justin Turner. Apparently
Speaker 1: he is being looked at as a potential suspect in
Speaker 1: a lot of different cases, and they're working right now
Speaker 1: to try and narrow things down so they can complete
Speaker 1: a full timeline of travel to determine where he was
Speaker 1: and when in regard to several unsolved cases. According to
Speaker 1: some of what I've read, it looks like evidence was
Speaker 1: in the area for some of the crimes, and so
Speaker 1: called insiders say he is very carefully being considered a
Speaker 1: suspect in the Route twenty nine Stocker case. I'd like
Speaker 1: to see a little more detail on that. I know
Speaker 1: some of the cases that are often considered a part
Speaker 1: of that group have been solved over the years with
Speaker 1: different suspects being involved, So I'm curious to see how
Speaker 1: they think evidence fits in and what evidence they have,
Speaker 1: if any, to link him to these crimes. From everything
Speaker 1: I've read about evidence, I wouldn't put anything past him.
Speaker 1: He seems to have been skilled manipulating victims and covering
Speaker 1: his tracks. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to
Speaker 1: find out that he was the Route twenty nine stalker,
Speaker 1: or that he has even more victims under his belt
Speaker 1: than law enforcement currently presume. At some point in time,
Speaker 1: I'd actually like to cover the Route twenty nine Stoker case.
Speaker 1: I've always found it interesting, and I imagine giving your
Speaker 1: personal experience traveling that route, I bet you've got a
Speaker 1: much deeper understanding of it than I ever possibly could.
Speaker 1: That being said, it's one of the cases I'd like
Speaker 1: to dig into this year, along with a few other
Speaker 1: similar ones from around the country. I've held off on
Speaker 1: those in the past because I've always struggled to nail
Speaker 1: down the logistics of writing episodes with so many different victims,
Speaker 1: But I'm hoping to get into some of those this year,
Speaker 1: and the Route twenty nine Stalker could be one of them.
Speaker 1: Our next question comes from Diego Serra, who writes, I
Speaker 1: think that you said that you went to school for psychology.
Speaker 1: Have you ever thought of using what you learned to
Speaker 1: analyze cases or suspects? Well, before we jump the gun
Speaker 1: and give me too much credit, I attended college long
Speaker 1: enough to get an associate's degree, a two year degree,
Speaker 1: but I couldn't afford to continue on with school. I
Speaker 1: did major in psychology, and I took every psychology class
Speaker 1: the school offered, which entailed intro to psych, biological psych,
Speaker 1: abnormal psych, criminal psych, and forensic psych. I'm fascinated by
Speaker 1: the mind, how it works and why, and especially as
Speaker 1: that applies to criminal behavior, particularly those of psycho and sociopaths, narcissists,
Speaker 1: and others with antisocial personality disorders. Obviously, given my earlier
Speaker 1: mention of mind Hunter, I'm into behavioral profiling, and I've
Speaker 1: read some of the works of John Douglas, as well
Speaker 1: as doctor Robert Hares, Without Conscience and The Mask of
Speaker 1: Sanity by Hervey Cleckley, to name a few. But there's
Speaker 1: so many books on these topics today that it's difficult
Speaker 1: to keep track. At the same time, I'm not a
Speaker 1: practicing nor even a fully educated psychologist, and so I
Speaker 1: don't feel it would be proper for me to apply
Speaker 1: those skills, at least directly. Sometimes I apply some psychology
Speaker 1: to suspect analysis for the theories section, since that's the
Speaker 1: part of the podcast where we veer a little away
Speaker 1: from the buy the book matter of fact approach and
Speaker 1: I do a little more speculating. I've certainly utilized psychology
Speaker 1: when trying to figure out patterns of behavior, approaches to crimes,
Speaker 1: and some analysis of seeing details. I try not to
Speaker 1: dig too deep there, though, as it's extremely easy to
Speaker 1: get lost in all of that and find yourself saying
Speaker 1: things that you can't prove, or worse, developing a bias
Speaker 1: that you can't talk yourself out of because you can't
Speaker 1: even see it. Lately, I've been taking a long look
Speaker 1: at geographic profiling, and several folks knowledgeable in that topic
Speaker 1: have been kind enough to provide me with some pretty
Speaker 1: intensive reading materials. It's still a develop helping science, but
Speaker 1: I'm pretty fascinated by it, and I hope at some
Speaker 1: point that I get to try that out in some
Speaker 1: of the cases where that analysis might lend a hand.
Speaker 1: Next up, Jay asks, I've been having a tough year
Speaker 1: managing my relationships whilst focusing on my goals. It feels
Speaker 1: like everything has been going sideways for the past few
Speaker 1: months since you've had your personal ups and downs this year.
Speaker 1: What's your best piece of advice on being positive? Thanks
Speaker 1: for always being a person I can relate to well, Jay.
Speaker 1: I'm really glad that you can relate to me, and
Speaker 1: I try and be pretty open about my struggles, whether
Speaker 1: they're mental health related or physical health or whatever in between,
Speaker 1: because I get a lot of comments and messages from
Speaker 1: people like you who find it helpful. So firstly, I'm
Speaker 1: really sorry to hear that you're having a difficult year.
Speaker 1: I know I'm much that sucks, but try and keep
Speaker 1: focused on the horizon. There's always a new dawn tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I'm certainly no expert on best practices, especially when it
Speaker 1: comes to staying positive, but I might have a few
Speaker 1: ideas that can help. Whenever I'm feeling really down, whether
Speaker 1: it's about something specific or just general depression settling in,
Speaker 1: I try to remember times where I felt better or
Speaker 1: I was happier, and I dramatically increase my physical activity.
Speaker 1: Don't get me wrong, you don't have to hit the
Speaker 1: gym or anything, although that can help, but just getting
Speaker 1: out of the house and into the fresh air could
Speaker 1: make a major difference, whether I go downtown to walk around,
Speaker 1: or take a nice drive and blast music, or even
Speaker 1: get some yard work done. The sun has an amazing
Speaker 1: ability to help increase mood, probably because of all that
Speaker 1: vitamin D, but it does really help also when I'm
Speaker 1: out there doing whatever in my yard. I get to
Speaker 1: listen to some of my favorite podcasts or audio books,
Speaker 1: and that makes a big difference.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: I don't know if this would work for everyone, but
Speaker 1: I found that when I'm really struggling, sometimes the best
Speaker 1: way to pull myself out of the dark is to
Speaker 1: help someone else. It could be simple like sending a
Speaker 1: little gift to a friend or taking someone out to lunch.
Speaker 1: It could be more hands on writing for someone making
Speaker 1: something for them, but it doesn't always have to involve
Speaker 1: money or creativity. Sometimes lending just your time means the
Speaker 1: world to someone else. Find a friend who has a
Speaker 1: hobby or a family member and get involved with it,
Speaker 1: even if it's just.
Speaker 2: For that day.
Speaker 1: Got someone in your life who's always asking you to
Speaker 1: do something and you never want to do it. Give
Speaker 1: it a shot, even if you don't enjoy it, you
Speaker 1: might put a smile on their face. To me, and
Speaker 1: again this is my own personal experience, sometimes the easiest
Speaker 1: way for me to feel good is to go out
Speaker 1: of my way to help someone else feel good, whether
Speaker 1: that's hanging out, doing something together, or even just listening.
Speaker 1: It's really hard to help yourself to shine a light
Speaker 1: on the dark inside of your own head. And your
Speaker 1: own heart. But it's really easy to help someone else,
Speaker 1: and oftentimes you'll be helping yourself at the same time,
Speaker 1: whether you realize it or not. Next up is a
Speaker 1: question from Katerry, who's been a listener and supporter of
Speaker 1: the show since almost the very beginning. Ka Terry writes, Hey, Stephen,
Speaker 1: what John or Jane Doe case would you like to
Speaker 1: see solved? Also, on a personal note, what perspective have
Speaker 1: you gained this year? Thanks for the question, Ka Terry.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of different doughcases that grab my attention.
Speaker 1: I've covered a few, but one I've really found myself
Speaker 1: pulled into over the past year has been the Albuquerque
Speaker 1: Jane Doe. She was founded at a Super eight motel
Speaker 1: in June of nineteen ninety one, and they think she
Speaker 1: might have been from California and could potentially have been
Speaker 1: known as Becca. There's a lot of curious details about
Speaker 1: the scene, including a photo that shows this unknown woman
Speaker 1: and a man who hotel staff identified as the guy
Speaker 1: who rented out the room. The photo was apparently taken
Speaker 1: within days or possibly hours of the unknown woman's death.
Speaker 1: It was thought that the man in the photo was
Speaker 1: named Eduardo it took years to track him down, and
Speaker 1: by the time police found him, Eduardo had passed away.
Speaker 1: Police were surprised, however, when his family was shown the
Speaker 1: photo and they noted that the man in that photo
Speaker 1: was not Eduardo. It's a really weird, sad, and wild case,
Speaker 1: and I'd love to see it solved. At the same time,
Speaker 1: I may end up covering it this year, but there's
Speaker 1: a lot to dig into. Usually when I do Jane
Speaker 1: or John Doe cases, I'm really trying to find everything
Speaker 1: that I can because there's so few details. But the
Speaker 1: Albuquerque Jane Doe has a lot of dedicated researchers looking
Speaker 1: into it, so there's a great wealth of information, even
Speaker 1: though it doesn't provide all the answers. In regard to
Speaker 1: the second half of your question, what perspective I've gained
Speaker 1: this year? Something I've been kind of dealing with is
Speaker 1: that sometimes it's okay to take a breath. I'm really
Speaker 1: hard on myself. I push myself hard, and a lot
Speaker 1: of time that leads me to burn out or just
Speaker 1: to feel absolutely terrible, and it's not good for me
Speaker 1: mentally or physically. There's a lot I want to do
Speaker 1: and a lot I'd like to accomplish, but it's all
Speaker 1: worth nothing if I'm carrying so much frustration, anger, and
Speaker 1: unhappiness with me. I hope in twenty twenty five to
Speaker 1: give myself a little more grace and to transform my
Speaker 1: frustrating work sessions into more fulfilling and productive ones. Next up,
Speaker 1: Robert b asks what are your thoughts on the use
Speaker 1: of genetic genealogy and how it's being used to solve
Speaker 1: so many cases. I don't think it would be stretching
Speaker 1: a truth to say that genetic genealogy has revolutionized both
Speaker 1: cold case and dow case investigations. We've seen a ton
Speaker 1: of cases solved in the last few years through this method,
Speaker 1: and others have pointed towards new and sometimes previously unknown suspects. Personally,
Speaker 1: I find genetic genealogy really interesting and I'd love to
Speaker 1: get involved with it somehow. I'm not sure where i'd
Speaker 1: go for what I could do. But if there's one
Speaker 1: thing I'm really good at, it's researching and finding old
Speaker 1: family information. I do it every week when I work
Speaker 1: on a case. That being said, I've been saying this
Speaker 1: for years. In one of these days it's going to
Speaker 1: come true. But I think that as this approach to
Speaker 1: solving cases becomes more popular and more organizations and labs
Speaker 1: get involved, it's going to become more competitive, and we
Speaker 1: may see that what was once too costly for a
Speaker 1: small police department to deploy may become a regular technique.
Speaker 1: At the same time, I think there will be legal
Speaker 1: challenges going forward. There hasn't been at least that I've
Speaker 1: seen a major precedent or standard set, and it's still
Speaker 1: a little bit of the wild West. But as access
Speaker 1: to DNA becomes more vast and easier to utilize, there
Speaker 1: will come questions about how far your personal rights extend.
Speaker 1: My fingerprints are my fingerprints. You're not finding them at
Speaker 1: a crime scene unless I put them there or they
Speaker 1: were planted. You're not matching them unless I have them
Speaker 1: on the record, or you manage to track me down
Speaker 1: and get a warrant for my fingerprints. However, if you
Speaker 1: have my DNA and you go into one of those
Speaker 1: databases and you connect to an ancestor and work your
Speaker 1: way down to my uncle, do I have any rights
Speaker 1: in that regard?
Speaker 2: Right now?
Speaker 1: It seems the court says no, you share DNA with
Speaker 1: this person, and they allowed their DNA to be searched.
Speaker 1: I'm all on board with that, but I think at
Speaker 1: some point we're gonna see a case that really challenges
Speaker 1: just how much of your genetic data is yours versus
Speaker 1: the person who uploads their own personal genetic profile. Technology
Speaker 1: moves really fast, so fast that oftentimes the courts are
Speaker 1: ruling on things that happened years ago and everything so
Speaker 1: far behind. I'm not a legal scholar, nor am I
Speaker 1: well versed enough to make a cogent argument one way
Speaker 1: or the other. But it just feels like this is
Speaker 1: going to be a hot button topic, especially as it
Speaker 1: begins getting utilized more and more. Twenty twenty five could
Speaker 1: end up being a really interesting year when it comes
Speaker 1: to genetic genealogy. Our next questions come from Patreon supporter Sanade,
Speaker 1: who asks of what percentage of cases you cover or
Speaker 1: don't cover regarding missing people? Do you believe are people
Speaker 1: who simply chose to walk away from their lives and
Speaker 1: start fresh. Also, any chance you'd look into Ireland's Vanishing Triangle.
Speaker 1: Ireland as a country is smaller than South Carolina or Indiana,
Speaker 1: yet many women went missing. I grew up within the triangle.
Speaker 1: My dad used to drive behind me when I drove
Speaker 1: to work and when I returned. I used to think
Speaker 1: the idea that some people leave and start over was
Speaker 1: just an excuse used by law enforcement when they couldn't
Speaker 1: get anywhere in a case. The more I've worked on
Speaker 1: the podcast and invested time into other true crime related material,
Speaker 1: I don't think the numbers as low as we often believe.
Speaker 1: I have no major basis for this. I haven't done
Speaker 1: any studies. It's just my own personal accounting. But I
Speaker 1: think in general, maybe as many as five or eight
Speaker 1: percent of disappearances are self chosen. We've seen several cases
Speaker 1: in the last few years where it turned out someone
Speaker 1: who went missing back in nineteen sixty four really did
Speaker 1: start a new life with a new name, and it's
Speaker 1: only through DNA and genetic genealogy that it's being learned.
Speaker 1: But I also think there's a cutoff. Older cases have
Speaker 1: a higher likelihood. It was easier to start over back then. Today,
Speaker 1: with everything digital and there being so many ways to
Speaker 1: track people and keep tabs on them, it seems more
Speaker 1: difficult post nineteen seventy five. I'd probably say less than
Speaker 1: five percent of cases. Think about all the things connected
Speaker 1: to us now, social security, credit, bank accounts, digital footprint,
Speaker 1: social media, etc. It's kind of hard to just vanish.
Speaker 1: I still in the vast majority of cases, though, believe
Speaker 1: that most people have not chosen to disappear and start over.
Speaker 1: Something probably happened to them. In regard to the vanishing triangle,
Speaker 1: that's something I've been asked to dig into previously. For me,
Speaker 1: it's all about the availability of information. One case having
Speaker 1: one hundred sources and another having only twelve can often
Speaker 1: be the deciding factor in a case whether I'll cover
Speaker 1: it or not. I have to be able to paint
Speaker 1: a mostly complete picture. Otherwise I'll just be sitting here
Speaker 1: reading bullet points and you won't know where I'm going
Speaker 1: or where I've been. I'd love to dig into the
Speaker 1: cases and see what I can make of it. I
Speaker 1: just have to be sure there's enough for me to
Speaker 1: work with and turn over, rather than generalize summaries or
Speaker 1: opinions and speculation. Also, just for the record, just a
Speaker 1: father sounds like a pretty great guy. The next question
Speaker 1: comes from wend Oregon, who asks do you know if
Speaker 1: there are any new updates on missing mom Nancy Moyer?
Speaker 1: This case has baffled me Nancy's case is not what
Speaker 1: I'm overly familiar with, although I do know some details
Speaker 1: and her name appears on my list of future case possibilities.
Speaker 1: For those of you who haven't followed the case, thirty
Speaker 1: six year old Nancy Moyer, mom to two daughters, went
Speaker 1: missing out of Washington State in March of two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine. There haven't been a ton of developments, although
Speaker 1: they did have a confession from a neighbor and co
Speaker 1: worker of Nancy's named Eric Roberts. Roberts claim to have
Speaker 1: murdered Moyer and allowed police to search several properties before
Speaker 1: recanting his confession, and it appears that without additional evidence,
Speaker 1: law enforcement has hit a wall, at least in regard
Speaker 1: to that suspect. There's another known suspect and known killer
Speaker 1: named Bernard Howell, but other than the fact that he
Speaker 1: was a killer active in that area, they don't appear
Speaker 1: to have a ton to tie him to Nancy's case. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I haven't seen any real updates that provide additional information
Speaker 1: or insight. However, there is a possibility I could cover
Speaker 1: Nancy's case this year. It depends what I can get
Speaker 1: out of Washington State. If you've ever noticed, if you
Speaker 1: pay attention or look at where I've covered cases before,
Speaker 1: there are some states where it's just really hard to
Speaker 1: get information out of them, even if you're looking at
Speaker 1: newspaper archives, and Washington State is one of them. So
Speaker 1: fingers crossed, we'll see what I can find next up,
Speaker 1: Alman asks Hi Steven, First of all, thanks for the
Speaker 1: hard work. As always, longtime fan here was wondering if
Speaker 1: you would entertain the idea of having a guest once
Speaker 1: a month, a fellow content creator. I would love to
Speaker 1: have someone like the Missing Enigma or a collaboration with
Speaker 1: him would be cool. Well, first of all, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for listening and being a longtime supporter. I don't
Speaker 1: foresee adding in any kind of guest segment or collaborations
Speaker 1: in the future. I kind of develop my own formula
Speaker 1: for the show and I like keeping it that way.
Speaker 1: Evidence then theories all told from one perspective. I think
Speaker 1: if I were to incorporate guests or collaborates, it would
Speaker 1: be on a different podcast, and right now I don't
Speaker 1: have time to work that out. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: I have appeared on a lot of different podcasts and
Speaker 1: will be appearing on another true crime one soon to
Speaker 1: do a collaboration. I'll keep you all posted about that
Speaker 1: when it becomes more clear. Our next question comes from Danny,
Speaker 1: who asks, how do you think the Deadman family was
Speaker 1: connected to Asia degree through the church? Well, do we
Speaker 1: know for certain that they were connected to Asia at all?
Speaker 1: Most of what I've read, and obviously police have left
Speaker 1: out a lot of pertinent details, but most of what
Speaker 1: I read notes that they don't believe there was a
Speaker 1: major connection between Asia, her family, and the Deadman's I
Speaker 1: don't want to speculate about the case at this time,
Speaker 1: as law enforcement have requested that people keep their pontificating
Speaker 1: to a minimum, but I wouldn't be shocked to find
Speaker 1: out that there was no major, solid connection at all.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, it seems unlikely they'd be involved
Speaker 1: in her disappearance and probable murder without a prior connection.
Speaker 1: But without additional information, it's really hard to say right now. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we're just gonna have to wait and see what they find.
Speaker 1: Our next question comes from Chris Stevenson who asks my
Speaker 1: question and I hope the answer is no, but have
Speaker 1: you ever gotten threats because of your research? And then
Speaker 1: Danny from the previous question threw in, or just family
Speaker 1: members complaining in general. Kind of Sometimes I get angry
Speaker 1: emails or rants from people who tell me they're gonna
Speaker 1: do horrible things to me, or that if I'm not careful,
Speaker 1: I could end up the next victim.
Speaker 2: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: It's not really worth my time, and I don't worry
Speaker 1: too much about it because generally people who are serious
Speaker 1: don't email you in advance to let you know they're
Speaker 1: planning to do you harm. On top of that, I'm
Speaker 1: pretty well armed and a good shot, so if someone
Speaker 1: did decide to come at me, they're gonna have to
Speaker 1: get a little bit more than they bargained for. As
Speaker 1: for family members complaining.
Speaker 2: No, not really. I've had only one.
Speaker 1: Major negative experience with a family member, and that was
Speaker 1: someone who wasn't mad I covered the case. They were
Speaker 1: mad I didn't ask their permission to cover that case.
Speaker 1: This person felt I should have gotten there okay, which
Speaker 1: kind of blew my mind because in that particular case,
Speaker 1: the more exposure you could get the better. Usually when
Speaker 1: I hear from family members is because they want to
Speaker 1: fill in the blanks or talk more about the case
Speaker 1: with me. Which I absolutely am always open to. It
Speaker 1: often sheds light on the circumstances and tells me things
Speaker 1: I didn't know before that give me new perspectives on
Speaker 1: the case. Next up comes out of Miles, who writes,
Speaker 1: why do you insist on continuing to cover up for
Speaker 1: the black market book barn? We deserve an answer? Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: what do you like about Robert Stack and Keith Morrison?
Speaker 1: I'm sure my friend Rob.
Speaker 2: Would love that.
Speaker 1: All these years later, people are still talking about the
Speaker 1: book Baron, so I appreciate the reference. And to those
Speaker 1: of you who don't know it, I released a video
Speaker 1: on social media I don't know a couple of months
Speaker 1: ago of an Unsolved Mysteries segment that I filmed when
Speaker 1: I was in high school as sort of a joke,
Speaker 1: in which we followed a guy who stole books from
Speaker 1: a library who was called the book Baron. Moving on
Speaker 1: to your actual question about Robert Stack and Keith Morrison,
Speaker 1: I think the voices are the number one thing. They
Speaker 1: both have a way of discussing things that draws you in.
Speaker 1: There's this folksy sort of aspect where they make you
Speaker 1: feel like you're not watching a TV show, but maybe
Speaker 1: You're sitting on our barstool next to them and just
Speaker 1: chatting at the same time. Robert Stack's voice also freaks
Speaker 1: me out, and I can't fall asleep to unsolved mysteries
Speaker 1: because of that, unless I want to have nightmares. Next up,
Speaker 1: Chris Stevenson asks have you personally uncovered new evidence in
Speaker 1: a case where the police asked you to keep it secret?
Speaker 1: For now, I realize this is basically a yes or no.
Speaker 1: It's a tough question to answer. I'll give you that
Speaker 1: I've absolutely uncovered things that had not previously been discussed.
Speaker 1: I've been on multiple phone calls with law enforcement in
Speaker 1: different places around the country to discuss certain details. I
Speaker 1: once got a call from a police chief and an
Speaker 1: assistant district attorney who wanted to know how I'd found
Speaker 1: out some of the details I'd uncovered. And to say
Speaker 1: that that was an experience is an understatement. I imagine
Speaker 1: when that case is eventually solved, my name's going to
Speaker 1: be in their records somewhere. I don't know that i'd
Speaker 1: say any police have asked me to keep anything particularly secret,
Speaker 1: but I have picked up on subtle suggestions that it
Speaker 1: might be in the best interest of the case to
Speaker 1: keep things quiet, and I always do. I don't ever
Speaker 1: want to endanger an investigation by talking too much. I
Speaker 1: don't care about the credit or the celebrity. I want
Speaker 1: the case to be solved. While not your question, Another
Speaker 1: interesting thing to ask me might be have I ever
Speaker 1: included something in an episode at the request of law enforcement.
Speaker 1: I'll save you the suspense. Absolutely, and sometimes it's not
Speaker 1: necessarily a fact, but more so something specifically designed to
Speaker 1: get under someone's skin.
Speaker 2: Next up we have.
Speaker 1: Andrew Guarino, another Patreon supporter. Stephen is the staying a
Speaker 1: weekly show. Your comments about it changing are concerning to
Speaker 1: some of us. The shorter answer is, yeah, I plan
Speaker 1: to get it back to being weekly. I don't think
Speaker 1: I've made any comments about changing the show per se,
Speaker 1: just that I have some ideas of adding to it. Look,
Speaker 1: the truth is, things have been really difficult for me
Speaker 1: in the past year year and a half. From health
Speaker 1: issues both physical and mental, to natural disasters and family problems,
Speaker 1: to internet and cable issues. I've definitely been in a
Speaker 1: position where it's been two steps forward and one step backwards.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's hard to pull yourself out of that, and
Speaker 1: when things just keep coming one after the other after
Speaker 1: the other, you can get knocked down and find it's
Speaker 1: really difficult to pull yourself back up. I get that
Speaker 1: it's been frustrating for listeners. It's been frustrating for me too,
Speaker 1: though I greatly appreciate those of you who have lent
Speaker 1: support as opposed to the random, snarky comments I see
Speaker 1: here and there. All of that being said, I'll get
Speaker 1: more into it after the Q and A when I
Speaker 1: address the podcast, but yeah, I aim to get the
Speaker 1: show back to weekly. Pam Fitzgerald asks, do you think
Speaker 1: Zodiac or John Bennet will ever be solved?
Speaker 2: DNA? Maybe?
Speaker 1: Ugh, Zodiac probably not. Even if you did solve it,
Speaker 1: the community of Zodiac investigators and researchers is so snippy
Speaker 1: and beholden to their own ideas that I doubt it'll
Speaker 1: be fully accepted. Short of making a genetic match, a
Speaker 1: fingerprint match, finding items specific to the murders, and probably
Speaker 1: pulling that executioner's hood out, I don't think there will
Speaker 1: ever be an overwhelming acceptance of an identified Zodiac killer.
Speaker 1: It could happen, but after all this time and what
Speaker 1: seems to me to be compromised DNA samples that aren't
Speaker 1: helping anyone. I highly doubt it. As for John Bennet,
Speaker 1: I hold out hope that the case will be solved,
Speaker 1: but it was so bungled up from the first moments
Speaker 1: it's hard to imagine it will be. It's really a shame.
Speaker 1: I would love to see justice for that little girl,
Speaker 1: but I think it's going to be very difficult to
Speaker 1: do much with it. Who knows, maybe new DNA analysis
Speaker 1: will shake things up, but for now, I just don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of optimism. Next up, Georgia English asks
Speaker 1: who do you think killed the Black Dahlia?
Speaker 2: Honestly, I have no idea.
Speaker 1: The only thing I feel like that I really know
Speaker 1: is that ninety nine percent of people who claim to
Speaker 1: know who the killer was, or to be related to
Speaker 1: the killer, or to have found irrefutable evidence always turn
Speaker 1: out to be wrong. Sometimes they screwed up and confused information.
Speaker 1: Other times they blatantly lied. I kind of gave up
Speaker 1: on reading about and researching the case because it feels
Speaker 1: like one where the world has been so flooded with
Speaker 1: bs that it's hard to see the forest for the trees.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like the Zodiac. It's a divisive case,
Speaker 1: and I sincerely doubt we'll ever know for sure who
Speaker 1: was responsible for why they did it. Next up, Diane
Speaker 1: Daly asks are you going to be at this year's
Speaker 1: crime Con in Denver? Well, I can't say for sure,
Speaker 1: but right now it doesn't look good. Don't get me wrong,
Speaker 1: I'd love to attend crime Con again. I've been there
Speaker 1: every year since twenty nineteen, and I've always wanted to
Speaker 1: visit Colorado. It's one of the few states on my
Speaker 1: list that i haven't been to yet. That being said,
Speaker 1: I haven't heard back from crime Con in regard to
Speaker 1: my application, and the person who has always been my
Speaker 1: point of contact hasn't replied to my emails, So at
Speaker 1: this point, I'd say it's up in the air. If
Speaker 1: you'd like me to attend, you can always reach out
Speaker 1: to crime Con via email, on their website, or tagging
Speaker 1: them on social media and letting them know that you
Speaker 1: want to see trace evidence there. The truth of the
Speaker 1: matter is your voices carry a lot more weight than
Speaker 1: mine does when it comes to attending crime con. Our
Speaker 1: next question comes from Mark Kasmirski, who asks do you
Speaker 1: have any favorite murder mystery novels? And or movies, fiction
Speaker 1: or documentary. Honestly, I don't read a ton of mystery novels.
Speaker 1: Usually I give up halfway through because I either figure
Speaker 1: it out early or it's one of those stories where
Speaker 1: they leave out pertinent details just to throw you a
Speaker 1: curveball at the end, which pisses me off and I
Speaker 1: think is just cheap and annoying. While mystery novels aren't
Speaker 1: necessarily my thing, there are some I've enjoyed. I'll always
Speaker 1: recommend The Last House on Needless Street, as well as
Speaker 1: What Came Before He Shot. When I was a kid,
Speaker 1: I read a book called The Dead Man in Indian Creek, which,
Speaker 1: while done in a teen novel style, was really entertaining
Speaker 1: and caught me off guard. It's a teen novel, but
Speaker 1: it definitely goes outside of teen readership. I'd say the
Speaker 1: same thing about The Vandal by Anne Schraff. As for movies,
Speaker 1: I love Zodiac Flawed, though it may be The Frozen
Speaker 1: Ground is a really interesting movie based on the butcher
Speaker 1: baker killer Robert Hansen out of Alaska, though it's fiction.
Speaker 1: I think La Confidential is a really interesting murder crime mystery.
Speaker 1: A documentary I recently came across and found really compelling
Speaker 1: was called Freed to Kill, and it follows the atrocities
Speaker 1: of Kenneth Allen McDuff. Honestly, I could probably go on
Speaker 1: for hours about mystery and murder films and documentaries, but
Speaker 1: I think those are some pretty good starting places. Next,
Speaker 1: Mike R. Rosen asks, Hello, even how are things going?
Speaker 1: My question is do you think there are any episodes
Speaker 1: of yours you think you should re upload because you
Speaker 1: feel it could use the extra exposure and you have
Speaker 1: more listeners, or there is just one little thing that
Speaker 1: could break the case. Honestly, yeah, I think there's a
Speaker 1: lot of episodes that I should not just re upload
Speaker 1: but redo entirely. The extra exposure would be nice, and
Speaker 1: now that I have more listeners, that would expose it
Speaker 1: to more people. But in reality, the truth is there
Speaker 1: are many episodes that I did early in the catalog
Speaker 1: that need to be redone for a lot of different reasons.
Speaker 1: My audio wasn't as good early on. I hadn't yet
Speaker 1: hit my stride in how to do the research or
Speaker 1: how to properly tell a story. If I'm being totally direct,
Speaker 1: I'd like to completely overhaul and redo at least episodes
Speaker 1: one through fifty. I probably wouldn't mind touching up more,
Speaker 1: maybe all the way up into the seventies, eighties, or
Speaker 1: even nineties. I haven't yet figured out how I would.
Speaker 2: Do that, though.
Speaker 1: Would I want to re release the episodes or just
Speaker 1: simply replace the current versions with new and updated ones.
Speaker 1: I also worry that people might get annoyed if I
Speaker 1: started redoing episodes here and there, as folks always want
Speaker 1: something new. It's something I've been thinking about for a while,
Speaker 1: and eventually I'm gonna make a decision on it. I'll
Speaker 1: probably post some kind of a poll or ask for
Speaker 1: listener insight before I make that decision. Though, what do
Speaker 1: you think should I redo some of my earlier episodes?
Speaker 1: Kristin Henderson wrote for The Q and A, What case
Speaker 1: have you covered that you are surprised hasn't been solved yet? Well,
Speaker 1: there's a handful of cases where I can't believe they
Speaker 1: still haven't found the answers or at least made an arrest.
Speaker 1: Off the top of my head, i'd say Robert Wan,
Speaker 1: Garrett Phillips, Missy Beavers, Danielle Imbo and Richard Patron, Lily Aramburrow,
Speaker 1: Logan Schendelman, my Terse Richardson. I could go on, but yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of cases I struggle to accept remain unsolved.
Speaker 1: When there's a lot of evidence and a good suspect
Speaker 1: and a hard working investigator and a dedicated law enforcement agency,
Speaker 1: they can move mountains sometimes though it doesn't matter how
Speaker 1: hard you try, you can't get so much as a
Speaker 1: paper clip to budge. It's pretty crazy how it all
Speaker 1: works out sometimes, but I'm hopeful that many of those
Speaker 1: cases will eventually be solved. Next Chris Stevenson asks some
Speaker 1: of the true crime cases on Unsolved Mysteries used to
Speaker 1: freak me out, especially the police artist drawings. What murder
Speaker 1: case stuck with you the most on Unsolved Mysteries? Mine
Speaker 1: would be forty nine or Hugs case and the girl
Speaker 1: kidnapped while on the phone with her boyfriend. To be
Speaker 1: honest with you, many of the Unsolved Mysteries episodes that
Speaker 1: really stuck with me. I ended up covering Kurt Sova
Speaker 1: was the first episode of the pod, so he certainly
Speaker 1: sticks with me to this day, and I continue to
Speaker 1: research it. I feel like the answer is there, it
Speaker 1: just hasn't been found yet. Beyond Kurt I'd say Norman
Speaker 1: Ladner's is a case that really bothers me, and I
Speaker 1: fully believe that was a murder. Angela Hammond, she was
Speaker 1: the girl kidnapped while on the phone with her boyfriend.
Speaker 1: That one's especially strange given the circumstances and the police
Speaker 1: update released a few years ago suggesting it was a
Speaker 1: case of mistaken identity was bizarre. One that I personally
Speaker 1: am invested in which I don't see getting a lot
Speaker 1: of coverage is the murder of David Cox, who was
Speaker 1: involved in an incident which inspired the film A Few
Speaker 1: Good Men. Our final questions today come from Lucy Dutton,
Speaker 1: and since she asked several, I'm gonna take them on
Speaker 1: one at a time. First, she asked, what motivated you
Speaker 1: to start up your own true crime podcast? Well, it
Speaker 1: was a couple of different things. Primarily, I was really
Speaker 1: into true crime. Grew up as an unsolved mysteries, an
Speaker 1: America's most wanted kid, so the fascination with the unsolved
Speaker 1: has always been there. Mostly though, I started listening to
Speaker 1: true crime podcasts and while I enjoyed them, they always
Speaker 1: felt incomplete. I wanted more detail. I had questions that
Speaker 1: weren't addressed, and so I figured I had two options,
Speaker 1: complain about it or go out and do it myself
Speaker 1: in my own way, and that's what I ultimately decided
Speaker 1: to do. Next Lucy asked, do you have a case
Speaker 1: which you feel particularly connected to or just can't let
Speaker 1: go of?
Speaker 2: Why and what are your theories.
Speaker 1: I do feel really connected to a few different cases,
Speaker 1: but the one that immediately came to mind is the
Speaker 1: kiss and kill murder of Betty Williams. I don't know
Speaker 1: if it's something about the time period in which it
Speaker 1: took place, or having grown up as somewhat of an
Speaker 1: outsider myself well, feeling some connection to this poor young
Speaker 1: woman who was creative, artistic, and talented, but who was
Speaker 1: sort of in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Speaker 1: Even just five years later, and she would have been
Speaker 1: in a completely different scenario. I find it hard to
Speaker 1: accept that people didn't push harder for her to receive justice,
Speaker 1: knowing that she was murdered, whether she allegedly asked for
Speaker 1: it or not. Someone took her life from her and
Speaker 1: he was allowed to just move on. I don't personally
Speaker 1: believe the story, and I one hundred percent believe that
Speaker 1: mac Herring knowingly and maliciously murdered Betty Williams, and I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be shocked at all if there was some kind
Speaker 1: of a pregnancy scare involved in that motive. Lucy then asked,
Speaker 1: do you have any friends in the industry. I do
Speaker 1: have some friends, but not a lot. I don't want
Speaker 1: to put much negativity into this since we're towards the
Speaker 1: end of the Q and A. But like all things
Speaker 1: in life, people are often not what they seem, and
Speaker 1: meeting people you look up to can result in a
Speaker 1: lot of regret and frustration. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: amazing people in true crime podcasting and true crime YouTubers
Speaker 1: and everything true crime, but there's a lot of scum
Speaker 1: out there as well who want to make a quick
Speaker 1: buck and don't care what rules or people they bend
Speaker 1: or break. I mean, remember, I've been plagiarized by a
Speaker 1: podcast that to this day is praised for their amazing work.
Speaker 1: Let me put it this way, if you see me
Speaker 1: interact with another podcaster online or in person, if you
Speaker 1: see me post pictures with one of them, they're one
Speaker 1: of the good ones. I avoid the rest, Like the
Speaker 1: plague and Lucy's final question and the final question of
Speaker 1: this entire Q and A, what part do you enjoy
Speaker 1: most about creating your podcast?
Speaker 2: The research.
Speaker 1: I can spend countless hours, and I often do when
Speaker 1: it gets me into trouble, just digging deeper and deeper
Speaker 1: and deeper. I get a question in my head and
Speaker 1: I don't want to stop until I find the answer.
Speaker 1: I love going through newspaper archives and reading every word.
Speaker 1: I get thrilled when I dig into family trees and
Speaker 1: historical documents and start making connections. I really enjoy running
Speaker 1: background checks on people involved in the case, requesting police
Speaker 1: files and getting to thumb through them when, on rare occasions,
Speaker 1: they actually send me something. There's something so exciting and
Speaker 1: emotional about tracking things down, putting the pieces in place,
Speaker 1: and getting the lay of the land. Honestly, if I
Speaker 1: could make a living researching cases and nothing more, that
Speaker 1: would probably be my perfect job.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: I knew there were a lot of questions, but I
Speaker 1: didn't think theyre'd end up being as many as they were.
Speaker 1: Either that or I might be a little long winded.
Speaker 1: But anyone who's ever listened to an episode of the
Speaker 1: show knows that I like to talk. I really want
Speaker 1: to thank all of you who sent in questions, listen
Speaker 1: to this whole Q and A, and who year after year,
Speaker 1: continue to support me and the show. All of that
Speaker 1: being said, I now wanted to take a couple of
Speaker 1: minutes to discuss trace Evidence and where I'd like to
Speaker 1: take it as we enter our eighth year as a podcast.
Speaker 1: First things first, as I mentioned in one of my answers,
Speaker 1: I would really like to go back and reduce some
Speaker 1: of the early episodes of the show. What I'd like
Speaker 1: to know from you is how you think that should
Speaker 1: be done. Should I release new episodes, like say episode
Speaker 1: two forty seven, as a redo of an earlier episode,
Speaker 1: or should I re record and then go back and
Speaker 1: just replace those earlier episodes with that new recording. So
Speaker 1: in order to hear it you would have to go
Speaker 1: back on YouTube. I have no choice. I have to
Speaker 1: do a new upload because you can't replace files. But
Speaker 1: with the podcast itself, I could replace the original audio
Speaker 1: with new fuller length episodes. Next, I've been knocking around
Speaker 1: this idea of adding a new segment to the end
Speaker 1: of episodes where I answer a few listener questions or
Speaker 1: respond to comments on the previous case. For instance, if
Speaker 1: in an episode, I cover a disappearance and there were
Speaker 1: a lot of questions or comments on it in the
Speaker 1: next week's episode. At the very end, I could answer
Speaker 1: a few of those questions or address a few of
Speaker 1: those comments from the previous episode. So basically, two forty
Speaker 1: six questions would be answered at the end of two
Speaker 1: forty seven, to forty seven questions at the end of
Speaker 1: two forty eight, and so on. I try to reply
Speaker 1: on social media when I can, but I can't always
Speaker 1: keep up with it, and folks often have similar questions.
Speaker 1: So I thought this might be a good idea, and
Speaker 1: I'd be curious on hearing what you think about it.
Speaker 1: Speaking of YouTube, I'm looking into doing the videos a
Speaker 1: little differently. Currently, I do them as a repeating slide show,
Speaker 1: mostly as a time saving effort, and because a lot
Speaker 1: of listeners tell me they don't even watch the videos.
Speaker 1: They just use it like a podcasting platform, put the
Speaker 1: video on and listen through headphones without looking at their phone.
Speaker 1: I never imagine the YouTube channel would get to fifty
Speaker 1: thousand subscribers, let alone the more than one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: I currently have, so I wasn't exactly prepared. I've thought
Speaker 1: of adding in video, whether it be stock footage to
Speaker 1: flesh things out a bit more, or maybe even clips
Speaker 1: of me sitting at my desk discussing the case intercut
Speaker 1: with the photos the way it currently is. I don't
Speaker 1: know why, but for some reason, people really want to
Speaker 1: see you when you're discussing a case. And while I
Speaker 1: don't fancy myself the kind of guy to sit at
Speaker 1: a desk with a green screen behind him, if that's
Speaker 1: what you want, I can probably make that happen. I
Speaker 1: mentioned that I wanted some ways to get you, the
Speaker 1: listener a little more involved in the show, and I
Speaker 1: definitely want to find ways to make that happen. I've
Speaker 1: thought about putting out openings for listeners to record certain
Speaker 1: quotes so I can play them instead of reading a
Speaker 1: quote directly while I record. I've also considered creating some
Speaker 1: kind of a social media team to help promote the show,
Speaker 1: discuss episodes, gather reviews, and so forth. I've been working
Speaker 1: on adding more merch to the shop lately, and I
Speaker 1: had a few listeners make suggestions which I really appreciated.
Speaker 1: Would anyone out there be interested in pitching some merchandise
Speaker 1: designs for the show. We would have to work out
Speaker 1: some kind of a profit sharing deal, though, to be honest,
Speaker 1: merchandise is not really on the charts when it comes
Speaker 1: to actually making money, but it's a start and it
Speaker 1: could get your name out there even if you don't
Speaker 1: have artistic abilities. Just an idea for a design would
Speaker 1: be something I'd be very interested in hearing. What do
Speaker 1: you want want to wear? What kind of shirt would
Speaker 1: attract you, What isn't in the shop that you would
Speaker 1: like to get. Beyond that, I'd also love to know
Speaker 1: what ideas you have to grow the podcast and get
Speaker 1: it more exposure. The landscape of social media and podcasting
Speaker 1: has changed so much. I'm just trying to stay ahead
Speaker 1: of the curve. I started the show in my early
Speaker 1: thirties and now I'm in my early forties, so maybe
Speaker 1: I'm a little behind the curve. I'd also like to
Speaker 1: run some contests this year, maybe do some giveaways, not
Speaker 1: just of Trace Evidence merchandise, but also true crime books
Speaker 1: and movies of interest and who knows what else. Finally,
Speaker 1: I know it's been a difficult year and a half
Speaker 1: and my release schedule has kind of been all over
Speaker 1: the place, and there's been a severe lack of episode releases.
Speaker 1: This is the result of a bunch of different stuff,
Speaker 1: but I do want to say that, despite questions and
Speaker 1: fears of the contrary, I do not plan to keep
Speaker 1: things this way. The ultimate goal is to get back
Speaker 1: to releasing new episodes every week, and I'm on my
Speaker 1: way to making that happen. Episode two forty six is
Speaker 1: as I speak in the final edit, and we'll be
Speaker 1: dropping next week.
Speaker 2: I haven't decided on a release day yet.
Speaker 1: It used to be Thursdays, but I wasn't all that
Speaker 1: crazy about it. I might shift to Wednesday. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'll have to see how it feels. I might even
Speaker 1: change days for a couple of weeks in a row
Speaker 1: until I find one that seems to click right. Regardless,
Speaker 1: I want you to know that as we enter twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, I am dedicated to getting the show back
Speaker 1: on track, getting back to weekly releases, and raising up
Speaker 1: trace evidence higher than it's ever been. I have a
Speaker 1: lot of big ideas, and I want to make them
Speaker 1: come to life. I think with help from amazing listeners
Speaker 1: like you, end a little more time and dedication, there's
Speaker 1: no limit to what can be accomplished. So I want
Speaker 1: to thank you all for listening and for lending your ideas,
Speaker 1: support and care to both the show and myself. Please
Speaker 1: reach out to me on social media, which you can
Speaker 1: find all links to in the link tree in the
Speaker 1: show notes. You can also always email me at tracevidencepodat
Speaker 1: gmail dot com or comment in the Facebook group. I
Speaker 1: want to thank you again for listening and I hope
Speaker 1: you'll join me next week for the first unsolved case
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty five. On the next episode of Trace
Speaker 1: Evidence