Speaker 1: Last week, we dove into part one of the absolutely
Speaker 1: horrifying story of the Wichita horror, and today we're continuing
Speaker 1: on the story with part two. So be sure to
Speaker 1: listen to part one so we can dive into the
Speaker 1: rest of this wicked case together.
Speaker 2: My name's Ben, I'm Nicole, and you're listening to Wicked
Speaker 2: and Grim, a true crime podcasting.
Speaker 1: The following podcast and material intend more mature audience listener discretion.
Speaker 1: Not too shabby, not too shabby at all, how goes it.
Speaker 1: We didn't talk about anything that we needed to go
Speaker 1: over before we started this case, so this little intro
Speaker 1: is just being completely impromptly done.
Speaker 2: You looked at me so oddly when you were doing
Speaker 2: your intro, and I was supposed to be like, I'm
Speaker 2: no cool. Would I do it wrong? No, it was
Speaker 2: just I wasn't ready.
Speaker 1: You weren't ready. Yeah, that's what it was.
Speaker 2: I was actually dazing off, but I woke up right
Speaker 2: before I needed.
Speaker 1: I was needed to cap back to reality.
Speaker 2: I'm actually drinking above Bubbly. Yeah, Bubbly. I'm drinking a
Speaker 2: Bubbly too, And because they have some damn good flavors nowadays,
Speaker 2: they do the bubbly peach. I'm doing watermelon like they're good.
Speaker 1: They are good, and honestly not gonna lie. I kind
Speaker 1: of wanted to be here, but I'm gonna be on
Speaker 1: the golf course all day tomorrow and I'm probably gonna
Speaker 1: have a few then, so I'm saving it for that.
Speaker 1: Probably I will be Let's let's be honest.
Speaker 2: I think I have a challenge for you. No, okay,
Speaker 2: I was like Joe golfing one day without drinking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I knew that would be it. I knew that
Speaker 1: would be I can't that's that's not golfing.
Speaker 2: See, Okay, I'm kind of odd because I okay, I
Speaker 2: would be just as fine golfing with like a drink
Speaker 2: or a bubbly like it would make, or a pop
Speaker 2: even like it would make no difference to me whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I mean it, it's close for me, it's not quite
Speaker 1: the same. Like for me, it's like if you go
Speaker 1: out and you mow the lawn, you sit back and
Speaker 1: you just like, ah, like a cold refreshing beer just
Speaker 1: hits the spot in those certain moments. And there's something
Speaker 1: about golfing where like a beer just hits the spot
Speaker 1: in that moment.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Yeah, I guess I just don't have that.
Speaker 2: Like I just a cold, refreshing drink.
Speaker 1: It's the same to me because it's totally fair. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's times where, yeah, a beer isn't going to do
Speaker 1: it for me. I need like a bubbly or like
Speaker 1: a can of coke, Like cann of coke hits in
Speaker 1: certain moments, you know, yeah, or an iced tea.
Speaker 2: I used to be like that a little bit more
Speaker 2: with wine. Like I'd come home when I had my
Speaker 2: day job and be like, holy shit, like I need
Speaker 2: a glass of wine. But I don't really have that
Speaker 2: so much anymore. Working for myself really well, that's a
Speaker 2: good thing. So apparently my job doesn't make me want
Speaker 2: to drink.
Speaker 1: Maybe I need to be doing more at the home
Speaker 1: to be making you want a drink. I'm not doing
Speaker 1: my husband duties.
Speaker 2: Oh gosh.
Speaker 1: Anyways, we got a few patrons to thank and shout
Speaker 1: out this week for joining over on Patreon, So shout
Speaker 1: out to Junafish, Catherine Davies, Susie DeHart, Shauna. I can't
Speaker 1: tell if it's an iron L. It's either a lowercase
Speaker 1: L or a capital I. Okay, So SHAWNA I'm gonna
Speaker 1: say Shauna and Julian Luellie, but most of all because
Speaker 1: I love this name they used to sign up fine
Speaker 1: girl Brandy right on. So shout out to all you
Speaker 1: guys who signed up a Patreon and are supporting our show.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it, Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Yeah, next week is a Patreon exclusive. Oh right, August
Speaker 2: next week.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, crazy time is flying by.
Speaker 2: It's wild like it's pretty much winter.
Speaker 1: Just kidding, kidding, I'm pretty sure we're saying that every
Speaker 1: week at this point. We're just dreading that coming our way.
Speaker 1: Oh boy, do you remember the case that we're doing,
Speaker 1: the witch Ta Horror?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, I mean I definitely put a little bit
Speaker 2: on it out of my brain because it was terrible.
Speaker 1: It's one of those cases where, yeah, you kind of
Speaker 1: try and forget about it because man, it just it's so.
Speaker 2: Yeahri fine, I think I said this last episode, But
Speaker 2: to like think that we live in a world that
Speaker 2: people will do this to another person is it's it's devastating.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, devastating is a really good word. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: I got a little sum up for you guys, to
Speaker 1: sum up part one. If you listen last, you know,
Speaker 1: last episode on Tuesday or sorry, Friday, today's Tuesday. If
Speaker 1: you listen on Friday and you got a couple days
Speaker 1: in between and you didn't just binge both back to back,
Speaker 1: here's little sum up for you. So in part one,
Speaker 1: we had five friends who were attacked in their Wichita
Speaker 1: home by two brothers by the name of Reginald and
Speaker 1: Jonathan Carr on December fourteenth, in the year two thousand.
Speaker 1: The brothers forced their way in at gunpoint, held the
Speaker 1: group hostage, sexually assaulted them, forced them to sexually assault
Speaker 1: each other as well, and then forced them to withdraw
Speaker 1: money from ATMs. After hours of physical and sexual abuse,
Speaker 1: they drove all five victims to a snow covered field,
Speaker 1: made them kneel, and shot them execution style in the
Speaker 1: back of the head. Four out of the five of
Speaker 1: them were killed. Holly was the sole survivor. She was
Speaker 1: shot in the back of the head but miraculously survived
Speaker 1: because the bullet deflected enough off a hair clip that
Speaker 1: she was wearing, and then she was subsequently run over
Speaker 1: by their vehicle as well that they had stolen from
Speaker 1: the group of friends, and she also survived that while
Speaker 1: playing dead.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's incredible.
Speaker 1: She then walked over a mile for help, gave Pliefs
Speaker 1: enough information to start the manhunt, and by the next
Speaker 1: day both the car brothers or count Reginald at his
Speaker 1: girlfriend's apartment and Jonathan at his own girlfriend's mom's house.
Speaker 1: The stolen truck, engagement ring and other stolen items helped
Speaker 1: tie this whole thing together. And here we have them
Speaker 1: in custody. That's where we left off.
Speaker 2: Well. And the incredible thing too that just kind of
Speaker 2: popped back into my mind was Hally how when she
Speaker 2: got to that house she needed to ensure that she
Speaker 2: told the story before they went about calling the police
Speaker 2: and stuff, because in case she didn't make it or something.
Speaker 2: She was quite worried, right, yes, that this needs to
Speaker 2: be out there and someone needs to know what happened. Like, oh,
Speaker 2: that's incredible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so Holly is one hundred percent or badass of
Speaker 1: the day, honestly, Like, holy shit. So with that all
Speaker 1: being ZETI ready to dive into part two.
Speaker 2: I think so, but I also am very confused. I
Speaker 2: just realized I wonder why they drove them off to
Speaker 2: the field like that and didn't just you know, kill
Speaker 2: them in the house.
Speaker 1: Well, they did go back to the house to do
Speaker 1: some more robbing.
Speaker 2: Oh maybe they just wanted them there and didn't want
Speaker 2: to deal with dead bodies.
Speaker 1: I guess a way of disposing them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's lucky for Holly, really.
Speaker 1: That's true. And honestly as well. You know, gunshots out
Speaker 1: in a little bit more of a field where people
Speaker 1: less likely to hear it rather than you know, a
Speaker 1: suburban area or something.
Speaker 2: Touche. So yeah.
Speaker 1: Now, with Jonathan and Reginald Carr both in custody, investigators
Speaker 1: began the painstaking process of connecting all the horrifying pieces
Speaker 1: of their crime spree together. Detectives presented images of brothers
Speaker 1: in lineups to Anne Wilenta. Now. Anne was a fifty
Speaker 1: five year old librarian and a talented cellist. She was
Speaker 1: currently still fighting for her life in the hospital after
Speaker 1: being shot days before this massacre occurred. It was December eleventh,
Speaker 1: in the year two thousand, during the car Brothers crime spree,
Speaker 1: when she was following her usual driving daily routine on
Speaker 1: her way home from the orchestra practice, when Reginald and
Speaker 1: John Carr approached her vehicle allegedly under the pretense of
Speaker 1: seeking help. She rolled down her car window. One of
Speaker 1: the brothers then shot her three times in her vehicle,
Speaker 1: causing severe spinal injuries.
Speaker 2: I just have to say, I freaking hate that. That
Speaker 2: is like why people are not helpful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're terrified.
Speaker 2: Shit like that happening exactly.
Speaker 1: Now. She was able to immediately immediately identify Reginald out
Speaker 1: of the images that she was presented, and she identified
Speaker 1: him as the man that she had seen shoot her. Now,
Speaker 1: this is an important detail to note. It's important that
Speaker 1: we note that Anne also pointed out other individuals as
Speaker 1: potentially being the second man she saw, though that person
Speaker 1: that she specifically pointed to is being I think that's
Speaker 1: the other guy. That person was actually imprisoned at the
Speaker 1: time of the shooting. This detail later highlighted the challenges
Speaker 1: inherent in witness testimonies. Right, But despite that, Reginald's identification
Speaker 1: was clear, and it became increasingly evident that the car
Speaker 1: brothers were indeed responsible for this brutal attack.
Speaker 2: U huh okay now.
Speaker 1: Hawley also later confirmed Reginald's identity once she was well
Speaker 1: enough to be formally interviewed. Now, as DNA, hair, blood
Speaker 1: and saliva samples were collected from the two brothers. Jonathan
Speaker 1: struck up a chilling conversation with Detective Kelly Otis, one
Speaker 1: of the officers that was on the case. Now, Detective
Speaker 1: Otis recounted that Jonathan inquired about the other quadruple homicide
Speaker 1: that had occurred on December seventh. Now, for reference, this
Speaker 1: homicide had nothing to do with this one. It was
Speaker 1: just like, oh my god, in a week span, there
Speaker 1: was two quadruple homicides, right, yeah, But he asked what
Speaker 1: had happened to the two men that were arrested in
Speaker 1: that case. Now, Detective Otis calmly informed him that they
Speaker 1: were charged with capital murder, which he then had to
Speaker 1: explain to Jonathan meant they could face the death penalty
Speaker 1: if they were convicted. Showing a disturbing curiosity and seemingly
Speaker 1: anticipating a similar fate for himself, right, Jonathan then asked
Speaker 1: how an execution occurs, to which he was told it
Speaker 1: would be by lethal injection. There was a small pause
Speaker 1: in a moment. Later, he asks, quote, do you feel anything?
Speaker 1: Detective Otis simply replied, quote, we've never been able to
Speaker 1: ask anyone, Oh gosh, which honestly is one of the
Speaker 1: most badass lines I've ever heard from an investigator, Like.
Speaker 2: Damn, kind of like it's I mean, he's being very honest,
Speaker 2: but it's kind of a slap in the face a
Speaker 2: little bit too.
Speaker 1: Hey, yeah, like, holy shit, we've never been able to
Speaker 1: ask anyone.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I's thinking quick on your feet there, really yeah,
Speaker 2: So because I feel like a lot of people are like,
Speaker 2: I don't know, yeah, but yeah, his answer was great.
Speaker 1: I just picture him looking at him, not blinking, just monotone,
Speaker 1: and be like, we've never been able to ask anyone,
Speaker 1: Like that's what I.
Speaker 2: Pictured, Just like, oh fuck yeah, just like, clench your
Speaker 2: ash cheeks a little bit.
Speaker 1: I feel like you brought that to a new level.
Speaker 1: But you're not wrong. Now. Tragically, after clinging to life
Speaker 1: for days, an Wallenta would pass away in the hospital.
Speaker 2: Oh no.
Speaker 1: She would officially become the fifth victim of the Car
Speaker 1: Brothers rampage and suffered complications from her injuries that led
Speaker 1: her led to her death on January two, two thousand
Speaker 1: and one, due to pulmonary embolism.
Speaker 2: So did they what was the reason for even hurting her?
Speaker 2: They didn't really have a reason.
Speaker 1: No, okay, well just rolled down her window, and they
Speaker 1: shot her three.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, okay.
Speaker 1: Now. The investigation meanwhile continued to build an undeniable case
Speaker 1: against these two men. When a handgun was discovered along
Speaker 1: Route ninety six near the snowy field where the four
Speaker 1: friends had been executed, the Kansas State Crime Lab confirmed
Speaker 1: it was in fact the same weapon used in the
Speaker 1: murders of Jason, Aaron, Brad and Heather. Crucially, it was
Speaker 1: also linked to Anne's murder and even the shooting of
Speaker 1: Andrew Shriver's tires after his abduction and robbery. Now I
Speaker 1: did mention Andrew in the first part briefly. In part one,
Speaker 1: he saw Reginald's face in the news and instantly recognized
Speaker 1: him and phoned the police to report his incident. Now
Speaker 1: Andrew was a twenty three year old assistant ball coach
Speaker 1: at Wichita State University. On December eighth, in the year
Speaker 1: two thousand, he was just finished running errands. He stopped
Speaker 1: at a convenience store and was about to head home.
Speaker 1: As he got into his car, Reginald and Jonathan Carr
Speaker 1: approached him, one of them pointing a gun at him.
Speaker 1: They forced him into the passenger seat of his own vehicle,
Speaker 1: and took control and took off. Over the next couple
Speaker 1: of hours, they drove Andrew around Wichita at gunpoint, forcing him,
Speaker 1: like the others, to withdraw money from multiple ATMs. They
Speaker 1: also robbed him of his personal belongings, including his wallet, watch,
Speaker 1: and cell phone. Now throughout the ordeal, Andrew remained calm,
Speaker 1: answered their questions and complied with their demands. He also
Speaker 1: later stated that the cars kept asking him questions, questions
Speaker 1: like do you believe in God? What would you do
Speaker 1: if someone had a gun to your head?
Speaker 2: Things like that, Yeah, that would kind of alarm you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a little bit by Now, Eventually, after taking his money,
Speaker 1: the two brothers let him go, leaving him unharmed, but
Speaker 1: shooting out the tires of his vehicle as they left,
Speaker 1: presumably as means of him not getting to police as
Speaker 1: fast and giving them a chance to get away.
Speaker 2: That's surprising that they didn't kill them.
Speaker 1: It is now, as I mentioned, the gun was now
Speaker 1: officially tied to this event too, because I mean they
Speaker 1: shot all the tires, right. So, while the full extent
Speaker 1: of Reginald and Jonathan's crimes during this period was never
Speaker 1: definitively determined, there was now no doubt the brothers were
Speaker 1: responsible for these three separate incidents. Hundreds of items of
Speaker 1: physical evidence directly linked the two brothers to the crimes.
Speaker 1: A wide array of belongings stolen from the Birchwood Drive apartment,
Speaker 1: including a TV, various items of clothing, a credit card,
Speaker 1: they were found in both their homes. One of the
Speaker 1: most damning pieces of evidence was the diamond engagement ring
Speaker 1: taken from the Birchwood home, which was found right in
Speaker 1: Jonathan's pocket when he was apprehended. And that ring was
Speaker 1: of course it belonged to Jason and he was going
Speaker 1: to use it to propose to Holly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just brutal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he stole that right in front of them. Just
Speaker 1: didn't care, not a care in the world.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, Holly obviously had no idea about it, and
Speaker 2: it should have been just a magical time for them,
Speaker 2: And yeah, they took that away.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors even located a watch stolen from Andrew Shibbers at
Speaker 1: the home of one of the brothers as well. Okay, now,
Speaker 1: beyond the stolen possessions, forensic analysis painted a stark picture
Speaker 1: of the situation. Investigator Gary Miller testified that a shoeprint
Speaker 1: found at the Birchwood Drive apartment was a definitive match
Speaker 1: to Jonathan's shoe. He also meticulously detailed how the gun
Speaker 1: found near the highway could be directly tied to all
Speaker 1: three of these incidents, though he clarified that the gun
Speaker 1: itself couldn't be directly linked to either of the car
Speaker 1: brothers specifically, I mean they didn't own the guns or
Speaker 1: register or anything, right, So yeah. Jonathan's DNA and seamen
Speaker 1: were also found at the Bird to a Drive apartment,
Speaker 1: as well as swabs taken from Holly. Additionally, Heather's blood
Speaker 1: was found in Reginald's clothing, though Reginald's lawyer later attempted
Speaker 1: to argue that this blood could have transferred onto him
Speaker 1: after coming into contact with his brother, suggesting it didn't
Speaker 1: prove his presence at the crime scene.
Speaker 2: Okay, did they did it? Just jump over? I mean
Speaker 2: they're probably thinking saying that they hugged or something, but.
Speaker 1: Well, it's more so I mean, we get into a
Speaker 1: little bit later, but the brothers, basically their defense each
Speaker 1: point at the other.
Speaker 2: So seriously basically.
Speaker 1: But we'll get into that now. Even those close to
Speaker 1: the brothers provided key testimony. Tronta Adams, Jonathan's girlfriend, testified
Speaker 1: that she had met up with both brothers on the
Speaker 1: night of Andrew's kidnapping and again on the night that
Speaker 1: Anne Molenta was shot. On that second night, she claimed
Speaker 1: Jonathan gave her a black handgun, one that matched the
Speaker 1: one that was later found, and asked her to clean
Speaker 1: it and keep it for him.
Speaker 2: Okay here, I thought she was maybe giving an alibi,
Speaker 2: but not really no, okay now.
Speaker 1: She further stated that both brothers had visited her on
Speaker 1: the day of the massacre as well, leaving around nine pm,
Speaker 1: with Jonathan calling her around three am that night. With
Speaker 1: this whole sequence of events, it lines up perfectly with
Speaker 1: the timing of the murders and everything that occurred. Reginald's girlfriend,
Speaker 1: Stephanie Donnelly, also testified, stating she was unaware of either
Speaker 1: brother having a job, yet she observed them carrying large
Speaker 1: amounts of money throughout December. She also confirmed that Reginald
Speaker 1: Bought brought several stolen items into her home which were
Speaker 1: later identified as belonging to victims. Having presented nearly a
Speaker 1: thousand pieces of evidence against the two brothers, the prosecution
Speaker 1: confidently rested their case in court no shity. This left
Speaker 1: the two defense teams facing what seemed like an impossible
Speaker 1: challenge if they were to somehow win this case. Now,
Speaker 1: the only reason I kind of talked about some of
Speaker 1: the court proceedings already was just to show you some
Speaker 1: of the evidence that was against them. Right, So, before
Speaker 1: we dive too much more into the legal proceedings, I
Speaker 1: want to back up a little bit all these findings
Speaker 1: that led the investigation to this point. It took the
Speaker 1: investigators a moment and they thought, you know what, what
Speaker 1: if we look into Reginald and Jonathan's background, see if
Speaker 1: we can understand why these two did such a horrific act.
Speaker 1: Both brothers were born in Dodge City, Kansas, already possessed
Speaker 1: with extensive criminal history by the time of this massacre,
Speaker 1: and folded. Their mother. Janice later painted a grim picture
Speaker 1: of their childhood, describing it as utterly quote lacking love
Speaker 1: or warmth.
Speaker 2: That's their mom saying this, yes, okay.
Speaker 1: Their home life was plagued by constant brutal arguments between
Speaker 1: their parents, with their father frequently physically abusing Janie. At
Speaker 1: one point, Janie herself snapped, beating their father with a
Speaker 1: baseball bat in front of their children.
Speaker 2: Dang.
Speaker 1: They had two sisters, A younger one tragically died from
Speaker 1: leukemia at just three years old. Oh my gosh, while
Speaker 1: another older sister later revealed that she had been sexually
Speaker 1: abused by their father. When their parents finally divorced, their
Speaker 1: father completely abandoned and disowned all of his children.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, that does not sound great.
Speaker 1: No, it's not the most functional of homes, that's for sure.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: According to their older sister, their mother's new boyfriend frequently
Speaker 1: abused both Reginald and Jonathan. Janice would later remarry, but
Speaker 1: her second husband proved just as violent as her first,
Speaker 1: even once holding a gun to her head and threatening
Speaker 1: to kill her. Reginald and Jonathan both often found themselves
Speaker 1: sent to stay at their maternal grandmother's house, but she
Speaker 1: was similarly volatile, frequently yelling and screaming at them. Janis
Speaker 1: herself wasn't much better in how she treated her own children,
Speaker 1: often physically punishing them with electrical chords or other improvised weapons.
Speaker 1: This constant exposure to violence and trauma severely impacted both boys.
Speaker 1: In school, they consistently struggled academically and frequently got into
Speaker 1: violent altercations, forcing them to move to eight different schools
Speaker 1: by the time they reached the eighth grade. That's a
Speaker 1: rate of one school a year. It was also suggested
Speaker 1: that Reginald, as the older brother, was somewhat protective of Jonathan,
Speaker 1: sometimes taking the blame for his younger brother's misdeeds to
Speaker 1: spare him any of the punishments. Psychologist Thomas Reid later
Speaker 1: detailed Reginald's early introduction to substance abuse. He was exposed
Speaker 1: to drugs and alcohol at the tender age of six,
Speaker 1: and was drinking heavy liquor by the time he was
Speaker 1: eleven years old. Reginald ultimately dropped out of high school
Speaker 1: in ninth grade after attacking another student, narrowly avoiding yet
Speaker 1: another expulsion. Around the same time, Jonathan tragically attempted to
Speaker 1: take his own life by drinking anti freeze.
Speaker 2: Okay, I mean, I'm just sitting back wide eyed here.
Speaker 1: It's a lot to absorb, Yeah, especially for two kids
Speaker 1: who are so young.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, so he already had a drinking problem at eleven, basically,
Speaker 2: that is correct, Okay, yeah, yeah, that I mean. I
Speaker 2: hate hearing these stories because it kind of like tugs
Speaker 2: at your heart strings a bit. But then it also
Speaker 2: is just like no excuse for what they did. So
Speaker 2: it's a bit tough. You know.
Speaker 1: It goes back to the saying two wrongs don't make
Speaker 1: it right. Just because you were wrong doesn't mean you
Speaker 1: can go and do wrong right. So I understand you
Speaker 1: are a victim at this point, but you go on
Speaker 1: to do bad things yourselves. That's you are victimizing others.
Speaker 2: Well things really yeah.
Speaker 1: Well I'm not saying specific things. I'm just using like
Speaker 1: general situations, right. Yeah, there's many cases that we cover
Speaker 1: where someone has a horrific upbringing and they go on
Speaker 1: to do horrific things or.
Speaker 2: Just the same things or something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, it doesn't justify you went through shitty shit.
Speaker 1: You're a victim, and I feel horrible for that sort
Speaker 1: of stuff, but it doesn't excuse your actions to carry on. Now,
Speaker 1: this whole backstory of the brothers gives us some perspective
Speaker 1: on what you may have occurred and impacted their life.
Speaker 1: But they went on to do some you know, other
Speaker 1: criminal things before this massacre occurred. And while the majority
Speaker 1: of those brothers' criminal records were sealed as part of
Speaker 1: the trial. Some of Reginald's history is publicly accessible, and
Speaker 1: it reveals he served multiple prison stints from the age
Speaker 1: of eighteen onward, primarily for drug offenses and aggravated assault.
Speaker 1: In a chilling twist of fate, however, after being released
Speaker 1: from prison in March of two thousand, Reginald was arrested
Speaker 1: again in November for assault charges not only that, but
Speaker 1: also pro violations and drunk.
Speaker 2: Driving and yeah, clearly should have been held then.
Speaker 1: However, due to a critical paperwork error, he was inexplicably
Speaker 1: released in December of the year two thousand. This catastrophic
Speaker 1: oversight meant he was free to begin his horrific crime
Speaker 1: spree just days after being released, when he should have
Speaker 1: remained incarcerated.
Speaker 2: Holy shit. Yeah, so this very I mean, maybe he
Speaker 2: would have done in a later date. I don't know,
Speaker 2: but this could have been prevented. Some of these things
Speaker 2: could have been prevented.
Speaker 1: It was a literal whoopsie by the system.
Speaker 2: Oh gosh, okay, yeah, it's not good. Holy shit, that's
Speaker 2: not good.
Speaker 1: Now let's get into the trial.
Speaker 2: You're just gonna drop that bomb and be like, okay,
Speaker 2: we're moving back here. Yeah, everyone just like pissed. I'm pissed,
Speaker 2: So what else do you want me to do?
Speaker 1: That's the case.
Speaker 2: I just don't understand that. I hope someone was held
Speaker 2: responsible for that, because you can't just have an oops
Speaker 2: with that kind of shit and then someone is just
Speaker 2: going and murdering people. It's just not okay.
Speaker 1: I know it's not okay. Nicole's about to rage on
Speaker 1: me here, like I'm gonna get punched in the face
Speaker 1: of the thing.
Speaker 2: Ever, you make it seem like I'm abusive and I'm not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she's not abusive, definitely not. But I feel the anger.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I have some anger. Sorry, I'm processing this.
Speaker 2: You process this last week, Well.
Speaker 1: Continue processing it. I'm going to talk about the trial, Okay,
Speaker 1: all right. So getting into the trial, Reginald and Jonathan
Speaker 1: Carr found themselves facing an overwhelming total of one hundred
Speaker 1: and thirteen criminal charges. This staggering list encompassed everything from
Speaker 1: capital murder to various forms of physical and sexual assault,
Speaker 1: also robbery, and even animal cruelty because remember in part one,
Speaker 1: they did kill the dog, Nikki right the dog. Their
Speaker 1: case was assigned to Judge Paul Clark, with District Attorney
Speaker 1: Nola Fulston leading the prosecution alongside her deputy Kim Parker.
Speaker 1: Reginald's defense was handled by Jay Greywall, an experienced former
Speaker 1: public defender, and Val Wakel, while his younger brother, Jonathan's
Speaker 1: legal representation came from Mark Manna and Ron Evans. Now. Immediately,
Speaker 1: the defense teams attempted to have the trials for the
Speaker 1: two brothers separated into two separate trials. Their reasoning straightforward.
Speaker 1: I guess you can call it that, since both legal
Speaker 1: teams planned to blame the other brother, their clients would
Speaker 1: effectively be fighting two opposing forces in the courtroom. However,
Speaker 1: Judge Clark quickly denied this request. He explained that the
Speaker 1: trial was projected to last two months and involved roughly
Speaker 1: seventy witnesses, making it far too expensive to conduct twice over.
Speaker 2: Okay, good for them, good for him deciding that yeah.
Speaker 1: He also noted it was standard practice for co defendants
Speaker 1: to be tried together.
Speaker 2: Okay now.
Speaker 1: The defense also pushed to have the trial moved out
Speaker 1: of Sedwick County. They presented a poll indicating that a
Speaker 1: significant seventy four percent of local residents already believed that
Speaker 1: the car brothers were guilty arguing that a fair trial
Speaker 1: in Wichita would be impossible. This motion was also rejected,
Speaker 1: with Judge Clark stating that no trial had been moved
Speaker 1: out of the county in forty years and he wasn't
Speaker 1: about to make an exception.
Speaker 2: Wow, this guy means business, he does. I like it.
Speaker 1: Jonathan's legal team even tried to have him declared unfit
Speaker 1: to stand trial, but Judge Clark ruled him competent after
Speaker 1: reviewing reports from two mental health experts, okay, shutting him
Speaker 1: down once more.
Speaker 2: Done so, With the.
Speaker 1: Trial date firmly set, both prosecution and defense meticulously questioned
Speaker 1: potential jurors. They systematically excluded individuals based on their views
Speaker 1: regarding the death penalty, anyone too familiar with the intricate
Speaker 1: details of the case, or those who even had a
Speaker 1: vague connection with any of the victims right now. In
Speaker 1: the end, the jury was assembled, consisting of seven men
Speaker 1: and five women, two black individuals and ten white individuals,
Speaker 1: drawn from diverse backgrounds, ready to hear the horrific details
Speaker 1: of the witch to horror. Now, I know race doesn't
Speaker 1: mean anything, However, it actually was brought up in this situation.
Speaker 1: I'll cover it later on having a diverse jury was
Speaker 1: certainly important as to rule out print.
Speaker 2: It is, m okay, so honestly that would be like,
Speaker 2: this would be a case that I'd want to be
Speaker 2: on the jury. Yeah, I mean it would be horrible.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I could handle it.
Speaker 2: It would be so horrible, but it would it would
Speaker 2: be kind of, I guess, like fascinating, you know.
Speaker 1: Wow. Way, I've got the second sentence that I'm going
Speaker 1: to read. Here, we'll tell you exactly why I don't
Speaker 1: think i'd be able to be in on this jury. Okay,
Speaker 1: So the first sentence goes like this. When the trial
Speaker 1: finally commenced on October second, two thousand and two, nearly
Speaker 1: two years after the initial arrest, much of the witness
Speaker 1: testimonies proved profoundly disturbing. And here is why I don't
Speaker 1: know if I would ever be able to be on
Speaker 1: this jury. None of them were more harrowing than the
Speaker 1: accounts given by Holly. In graphic, agonizing details, she recounted
Speaker 1: every assault, robbery, and murder, clearly identifying Reginald as the
Speaker 1: taller gunman responsible for much of the horror. I don't
Speaker 1: don't think I could sit there and listen to Hally
Speaker 1: describe what she went through out breaking the fuck down.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, because you are probably expected just to sit
Speaker 2: there and listen and not really show any emotion or
Speaker 2: like on your face, like you know, just kind of
Speaker 2: indifferent or whatever.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, obviously human people do cry, people do
Speaker 1: leave the courtroom at times, but they do need to
Speaker 1: like go through what was said. You need to read it,
Speaker 1: you need to hear it, you need to watch those
Speaker 1: sort of things. If you need to break, I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: people break, they do that, but.
Speaker 2: But I mean to Golly was the one that had
Speaker 2: to go through it, right, and she's so strong and
Speaker 2: being up there saying all of this to bring these
Speaker 2: guys to justice. Oh, I know what I mean. If
Speaker 2: she can do that, you can probably sit on the jury.
Speaker 1: But even like secondhands, I know it would be it
Speaker 1: would be horrible. It would shatter me. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: if like, if I was on the jury, I'd fucking
Speaker 1: do it.
Speaker 2: But it would yeah, And honestly, yeah, that could actually
Speaker 2: affect your life too. I guess being on the jury,
Speaker 2: if you're going through having to listen to something just
Speaker 2: so horrible.
Speaker 1: Right, I'm sure it does affect many of these people
Speaker 1: who are on traumphic cases in.
Speaker 2: In a trauma way for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now. Sedgwick County Corner Mary Dudley testified about the
Speaker 1: various wounds inflicted upon Holly's four friends. She explained that
Speaker 1: Heather and Aaron had been shot with a gun pressed
Speaker 1: directly against the back of their heads, while Brad and
Speaker 1: Jason were shot from slightly greater distances. Corner Dudley meticulously
Speaker 1: detailed other injuries on the victims as well, emphasizing evidence
Speaker 1: that showed Heather had been sexually assaulted and that all
Speaker 1: three men had been beaten severely throughout the night. Jonathan's lawyer,
Speaker 1: Mark Mann, attempted to get her to concede that the
Speaker 1: shooting distances and lack of a pause in Holly's account
Speaker 1: implied a single person was responsible for the killings, thereby
Speaker 1: suggesting Reginald was the sole killer, but based purely on
Speaker 1: the forensic evidence, doctor Dudley couldn't confirm one way or
Speaker 1: the other. Another witness, doctor Scott Porter, was called to
Speaker 1: explain the extent of Anne's injuries, particularly how one of
Speaker 1: the bullets had severed her spinal cord, leaving her partially
Speaker 1: paralyzed before she had passed away. During his testimony, he
Speaker 1: used a life sized anatomical model to visually demonstrate the
Speaker 1: trajectory of the bullet that entered her body. To make
Speaker 1: his point clear to the jury, he inserted a metal
Speaker 1: rod into the model, following the path that the bullet
Speaker 1: would have taken from the entry wound through to the
Speaker 1: damage in her chest and spine. This vivid and physical
Speaker 1: representation of the internal damage, combined with the clinical details
Speaker 1: of her suffering, was so graphic and intense that one
Speaker 1: of the jurors actually fainted in the courtroom. Oh seriously
Speaker 1: so going along, how it can be tough for jury
Speaker 1: members totally now. Andrew Shribber, the only other survivor besides Hawlly,
Speaker 1: delivered powerful testimony about his own kidnapping and robbery, as well,
Speaker 1: identifying Reginald as one of his two captors. However, like
Speaker 1: other witnesses, he couldn't directly identify Jonathan. Under cross examination,
Speaker 1: Andrew admitted he had been unable to pick either one
Speaker 1: of the brothers out of a photo lineup shortly after
Speaker 1: their arrests. Beyond the gripping testimonies, hundreds of pieces of
Speaker 1: physical evidence were used to directly link the two brothers
Speaker 1: to the murders. As we discussed already, this included a
Speaker 1: wive ray of stolen belongings from the Birchwood Drive apartment.
Speaker 1: You know, TV clothing, credit cards found in both homes.
Speaker 1: One of the most compelling the diamond engagement ring taking
Speaker 1: from the home. It was discovered in Jonathan's pocket. Right.
Speaker 1: The prosecution even located a stolen watch of Andrew at
Speaker 1: the home of one of the brothers. Forensic investigator Gary
Speaker 1: Miller testified about the shoe print and how it matched
Speaker 1: Jonathan's shoe exactly. He also meticulously explained how the gun
Speaker 1: discovered me the highway could be directly tied to all
Speaker 1: three of these separate incidents, though he concluded the gun
Speaker 1: itself couldn't be linked directly to the car brothers because
Speaker 1: it was found in the field, not registered. It was
Speaker 1: only on their It wasn't on their persons, right, Okay,
Speaker 1: So it was only through witness accounts and circumstantial evidence
Speaker 1: that they could say this gun was theirs. Because we
Speaker 1: have people like Holly saying that's the gun. We have
Speaker 1: people like Andrew saying that's the gun. We have people
Speaker 1: like the girlfriend saying that's the gun they made me clean,
Speaker 1: but there's no way of actually saying it is in
Speaker 1: fact belonging to them. Okay, so it is only technically circumstantial.
Speaker 2: That is kind of tough.
Speaker 1: Now. This list of things, of course, goes on much further.
Speaker 1: Having presented nearly a thousand piece of evidence pieces of
Speaker 1: evidence against the brothers, the prosecution rested its case, saying
Speaker 1: it was clear they did this. This left the two
Speaker 1: defense teams facing an almost insurmountable challenge. Let's put it
Speaker 1: that way. Jonathan's lawyer's primary piece of evidence was an
Speaker 1: Amtrak ticket dated for the day of the two murders.
Speaker 1: He claimed that Jonathan had intended to use it but
Speaker 1: got lost leaving Wichita that night. Reginald's team wanted to
Speaker 1: introduce testimony that his brother had supposedly told him he'd
Speaker 1: been with a man who was quote tripping and shooting people,
Speaker 1: and that he'd moved stolen goods to Stephanie's apartment to
Speaker 1: assist his brother. However, this purported evidence was ruled inadmissible
Speaker 1: as hearsay and was quickly dismissed. In all honesty, I
Speaker 1: don't even really understand it. Fully, it seems very weasley
Speaker 1: and like minimal and just trying to point blame and
Speaker 1: it doesn't fully make sense.
Speaker 2: Their grasp and I feel.
Speaker 1: Rasping, that's the best way to put it, because.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they don't have a They don't have enough to
Speaker 2: defend these people really right now, So they're just making
Speaker 2: hit up.
Speaker 1: Maybe they don't have enough, they don't have anything.
Speaker 2: Basically, they're trying to do their job, but they can't.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So now, bizarrely, they even replayed Holly's police interview
Speaker 1: for the jury. This is the defense. They're playing Holly's
Speaker 1: police interview for the jury. This, though, only serve to
Speaker 1: underscore the brutality that she had endured, causing some jurors,
Speaker 1: even Holly herself to leave the courtroom because they found
Speaker 1: it too distressing to watch. The defense had seemingly hoped
Speaker 1: that Holly's momentary vagueness in identifying Reginald in the video
Speaker 1: footage would somehow aid their case. But that was just
Speaker 1: a complete.
Speaker 2: Mistakes, no kidding.
Speaker 1: Their idea is like, see she wasn't sure for a
Speaker 1: second there, That's basically what their idea was. But it
Speaker 1: was like, no, she's doubled for a second, cool.
Speaker 2: That is, that's kind of dumb.
Speaker 1: Yeah, as you said, grasping, yeah, yeah. Now, during their
Speaker 1: closing statements, both defense teams predictably shifted blame onto the
Speaker 1: other brother, each claiming their own client had done nothing
Speaker 1: to do with the horrific crimes, and Jonathan's team focused
Speaker 1: on the various identifications of Reginald, while Reginald's team highlighted
Speaker 1: Jonathan's DNA being strongly linked to the crimes. It was
Speaker 1: a back and forth he did it, he did it,
Speaker 1: not me, not me, I'm innocent, he's yeah.
Speaker 2: He just really quick here, Like, are the brothers on
Speaker 2: board for this or is it just kind of their defense.
Speaker 1: It's just the defense saying like, this is what we're
Speaker 1: going to do. It's the defense pointing back and forth.
Speaker 1: I mean, of course the brothers are being questioned. They're
Speaker 1: going with their defense. I mean they're trying to well, yeah,
Speaker 1: to not go to prison for life or potentially even
Speaker 1: face the death penalty, right, I.
Speaker 2: Guess, But that just also seems kind of bad, you
Speaker 2: know that they're just like turning on each other, but
Speaker 2: they're kind of forced to in a way.
Speaker 1: I guess definitely. Now it was on November fourth in
Speaker 1: the year two thousand and two, when the jury delivered
Speaker 1: its verdict after a long and emotional, a grueling trial,
Speaker 1: both Reginald and Jonathan Carr were found guilty on nearly
Speaker 1: all counts.
Speaker 2: Can you not pause like that? In that tiny second,
Speaker 2: I was just like.
Speaker 1: Oh boy, that's what I'm trying to build the tension
Speaker 1: I know, but yeah, it worked good. I'm glad it
Speaker 1: worked now. They were found guilty on nearly all counts,
Speaker 1: including the most serious capital murder charges. The only charges
Speaker 1: that didn't stick stick were related to Andrew Shibber's kidnapping
Speaker 1: and robbery. Jonathan was acquitted of these specific counts due
Speaker 1: to insufficient evidence directly linking him to that particular incident.
Speaker 1: As they heard the verdicts read aloud in that courtroom,
Speaker 1: neither brother showed any emotion. Reginald was even shackled in
Speaker 1: the courtroom that day due to threats he made to
Speaker 1: deputies during the trial.
Speaker 2: Oh what a winner.
Speaker 1: While being led from the courtroom, reportedly stared intently at
Speaker 1: the victims' families while Jonathan proposed, what what really, that's
Speaker 1: freaking arrogant. He just stared down victims' families.
Speaker 2: Ew that is actually really beyond disrespectful definitely.
Speaker 1: And Jonathan reportedly avoided eye contact. So you have one
Speaker 1: staring him down, one just avoiding eye contact at all.
Speaker 2: Okay now.
Speaker 1: The very next morning, the jury faced the somber task
Speaker 1: of deciding the brothers fate their sentence life in prison
Speaker 1: or death by execution. During the sentence hearing, various witnesses
Speaker 1: and experts presented statements to help guide the jury and
Speaker 1: their difficult decision. Several psychologists testified about the profound damage
Speaker 1: of their childhoods filled with violence and abuse, and how
Speaker 1: it had infected their lives and afflicted their growing up
Speaker 1: and who they became. Forensic psychologist Mark Cunningham, for example,
Speaker 1: claimed their upbringing left both Jonathan and Reginald emotionally detached
Speaker 1: and lacking empathy, making them capable of such brutal acts.
Speaker 1: Yet under cross examination by the prosecution, Cunningham stated that
Speaker 1: the brothers quote unquestionably understood the difference between right and wrong,
Speaker 1: but simply just didn't care. Another expert even presented evidence
Speaker 1: suggesting both brothers had sustained brain damage in their temporal lobes.
Speaker 1: This type of injury has been linked in other cases
Speaker 1: to lack of impulse control and morality, though its precise
Speaker 1: role in this particular case remains unclear. While the two
Speaker 1: defense teams pleaded with the jury to give their clients
Speaker 1: life sentences, Prosecutor Fulston argued passionately against mercy. She urged
Speaker 1: them quote not to show the brothers mercy simply because
Speaker 1: they had troubled upbringings, asserting you know there was no
Speaker 1: excuse basically for their actions. They deserve the death sentence.
Speaker 1: Emotional testimonies also came from those personally connected to the brothers.
Speaker 1: Reginald's ex wife, who he had kids with, spoke at
Speaker 1: the hearing. One even read out a heartbreaking letter from
Speaker 1: his seven year old son expressing his love and begging
Speaker 1: his father to come home. An ex coworker of Jonathan's
Speaker 1: also testified, recalling that he had always been kind, polite,
Speaker 1: and generous when she worked with him. But the most
Speaker 1: impactful statement came from the survivors. Both Andrew and Hawlly
Speaker 1: delivered powerful victim impact statements to the jury. Hally's words
Speaker 1: were particularly poignant. Quote, every day there is a memory
Speaker 1: or a scar that reminds me of that night I
Speaker 1: wake up in sweats from my nightmares. I pace at
Speaker 1: night because of the noises that I think are people
Speaker 1: breaking into my house. And every morning I carefully blow
Speaker 1: dry my hair to c up that spot that can
Speaker 1: no longer grow hair. She went on to describe her
Speaker 1: daily fears of being assaulted again, adding quote, the sentence
Speaker 1: imposed on them will be a much kinder sentence than
Speaker 1: they imposed on me, my friends and family. After several
Speaker 1: hours of deliberation, the jury returned with its recommendation for
Speaker 1: Reginald and Jonathan sentence. Both should receive the death sentence
Speaker 1: for their crimes. Oh okay, did you not like that? Pause?
Speaker 2: I gave it a little extra I kind of thought
Speaker 2: that was the way it was going to go. But
Speaker 2: I just have to say when I was like saying,
Speaker 2: how I would want to be, you know, a juror
Speaker 2: on this, on something like this, having to decide that
Speaker 2: like to have them live or not. Yeah, that is
Speaker 2: pretty tough.
Speaker 1: Hey, yeah, that's in your hands.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean they did the crimes, so but I
Speaker 2: feel like, yeah, having to make that decision would be
Speaker 2: would affect you?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Would yeah?
Speaker 1: Now, before they were formally sentenced to this, Judge Clark
Speaker 1: offered the defendants a chance to make a statement. Oh,
Speaker 1: both declined, Uh, I would never wanting someone else.
Speaker 2: Well though I was going to call them something, but
Speaker 2: I just held it back.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, moving on. Judge Clark then officially sentenced
Speaker 1: them both to death. Once again, neither brother displayed any
Speaker 1: reaction or emotion. In addition to the death penalty, the
Speaker 1: brothers received life sentences for the murder of Anne Wallenta
Speaker 1: with no possibility of parole, plus roughly additional forty years
Speaker 1: each for their other convictions. Outside the courtroom, victims, family members, friends,
Speaker 1: they all embraced each other, along with the prosecutors and
Speaker 1: crime scene investigators. While the families chose not to comment publicly.
Speaker 1: Prosecutor Kim Parker, visibly emotional at the time as she
Speaker 1: hugged Holly, simply stated, quote, justice has been served and
Speaker 1: it is long awaited for the families, the victims, and
Speaker 1: the two survivors. The profound ordeal of the Wichita horror
Speaker 1: was far from over even after the verdict and sentencing
Speaker 1: was done see In Kansas, a death sentence automatically initiates
Speaker 1: an appeal process no which can stretch out over many years. Notably,
Speaker 1: since the state had reinstated the death penalty. In nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety four, every single death sentence handed down had been
Speaker 1: overturned by Kansas's highest court, and no execution had actually
Speaker 1: been carried out since nineteen sixty five. This precedent hinted
Speaker 1: at a very long, challenging legal battle ahead of the
Speaker 1: car brothers case, adding more layers of complexity. In December
Speaker 1: of two thirds thou and four, the Kansas Supreme Court
Speaker 1: made a significant move, ruling to overturn the state's death
Speaker 1: penalty law entirely. However, the Kansas Attorney General quickly appealed
Speaker 1: this decision to the U. S Supreme Court, which subsequently
Speaker 1: stepped in and upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty
Speaker 1: within the state. Then, in twenty fourteen, the Kansas Supreme
Speaker 1: Court once again intervened, overturning Reginald and Jonathan's death sentences.
Speaker 1: Their reasoning this time was that the brother's Eighth Amendment rights,
Speaker 1: which protect against cruel and unusual punishment, had been violated
Speaker 1: when the original trial judge refused to grant them separate
Speaker 1: sentencing hearings. The court believed that each brother deserved individual hearings,
Speaker 1: considering the possibility that one might warrant more leniency than
Speaker 1: the other based on the difference of evidence and level
Speaker 1: of culpability.
Speaker 2: This is annoying me, this part. It should well, I
Speaker 2: really liked that one judge. She was just like nobs. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and because that's exactly what those people deserved. Nobs like
Speaker 2: they didn't deserve these chances or whatever, is what I mean.
Speaker 2: The judge was right.
Speaker 1: I agree, But unfortunately there's more to the legal system
Speaker 1: than just one presiding judge. And so now we're having
Speaker 1: to deal with that in the subsequent following years.
Speaker 2: And he was trying to save some money too, you know,
Speaker 2: taxpayer money.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, in another turn, the US Supreme Court stepped
Speaker 1: in once again in two thousand and six, reversing that
Speaker 1: decision of you know, saying that they didn't have the
Speaker 1: right trial and that you know, overturning their sentencing. This time,
Speaker 1: they asserted that they did not violate the brothers' rights,
Speaker 1: thereby reinstating their death sentences. Commenting on this convoluted legal
Speaker 1: back and forth, prosecutor Nola Falston stated, quote, no one
Speaker 1: is entitled to a perfect trial, only a fair one.
Speaker 1: But this came close to being a perfect trial in
Speaker 1: terms of legal issues and being resolved and how we
Speaker 1: went by trying went about trying this case. End quote
Speaker 1: hashtag Mike drop. No one is entitled to a perfect trial,
Speaker 1: only a fair one, but this came close to being
Speaker 1: a perfect trial. Holy shit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like the amount of back and forth right now
Speaker 2: that's happening. Like they don't deserve this. They got their trial.
Speaker 2: They freaking you know, were sentenced to this done.
Speaker 1: Like, move on, I agree. Now. While on death row
Speaker 1: at the Eldorado Correctional Facility, both brothers secured new legal teams.
Speaker 1: They attempted to leverage this history of legal chaos to
Speaker 1: be granted new resentencing hearings. Both new defense teams heavily
Speaker 1: criticized their original trial lawyers, deeming them inadequate. They also
Speaker 1: tried to claim that the jury, which was predominantly white,
Speaker 1: had been racially biased against them, which is why I
Speaker 1: said earlier it was important that it was you know,
Speaker 1: mixed and everything like that. Yes, So, their legal representatives
Speaker 1: even brought attention to an investigation into various police officers
Speaker 1: at the witch Taught Police Department, an inquiry that revealed
Speaker 1: several officers, including one who had worked on the car case,
Speaker 1: had been disciplined for exchanging racists, sexists, and homophobic texts
Speaker 1: and images. This was presumably an attempt to imply that
Speaker 1: the police had racially targeted the two brothers from the onset.
Speaker 1: Despite all these legal maneuvers and external controversies, the brothers
Speaker 1: themselves continued their pattern of shifting blame on to one another.
Speaker 1: Jonathan's legal team tried to claim that Reginald had sexually
Speaker 1: abused him and wielded significant power over him, forcing him
Speaker 1: to comply with his commands. Meanwhile, Reginald's team once again
Speaker 1: tried to argue that almost all of the forensic evidence
Speaker 1: more strongly implicated Jonathan and not him. Ultimately, their request
Speaker 1: for resentencing, for whatever their reason they had, they were
Speaker 1: denied good. With their death sentences having been deemed constitutional
Speaker 1: by the Kansas Supreme Court and reaffirmed by the US
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, Reginald and Jonathan Carr remain on death row,
Speaker 1: awaiting execution to this very day.
Speaker 2: They'll probably stay like that forever or some time or
Speaker 2: probably yeah. But I mean, for some reason, I just
Speaker 2: had this flash of you, like telling me they were
Speaker 2: out or something, and I would I would like burn
Speaker 2: this tiny home down, I would just be so angry.
Speaker 1: No, I honestly, that was that was hard for me
Speaker 1: to get through too. Like the reading of that, I
Speaker 1: hate that section. You might have even been able to
Speaker 1: hear it in my voice. I was just wanting to
Speaker 1: plow through that, get through that, because I hate the
Speaker 1: fact that they were able to fight the system, able
Speaker 1: to get these old turns and all this sort of
Speaker 1: oh waste that much people time, taxpayers, having victims, you know,
Speaker 1: resurgence of these memories and stuff. Whether they went in
Speaker 1: court or not, I don't know, but even still having
Speaker 1: this come up again is fuck. It pisses me off.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's ridiculous, I mean, and it happens often.
Speaker 1: It really does, way too often.
Speaker 2: It's quite frustrating.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, Now beyond the criminal proceedings, because fuck that,
Speaker 1: let's move on. The victims' families also pursued another form
Speaker 1: of justice. The victims' families, okay, they filed a wrongful
Speaker 1: death lawsuit against the state, arguing negligence stemmed from the
Speaker 1: critical paperwork and the mistake that led Reginald's reliefs from
Speaker 1: prison just days before the massacre when he should have
Speaker 1: remained incarcerated.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, I mean fair enough.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and four, the judge hearing the case
Speaker 1: agreed that the state's actions had indeed failed the victims,
Speaker 1: and the jury subsequently awarded the families approximately half a
Speaker 1: million dollars each. It was a small but significant measure
Speaker 1: of accountability for the devastating bureaucratic error.
Speaker 2: Okay, I mean, yeah, like it's nice to get that
Speaker 2: money and stuff, but yes, it's a probably not even
Speaker 2: really about the money, and I don't like because that
Speaker 2: is nothing compared to them having their loved one around.
Speaker 1: Right, So don't get me wrong. Half million dollars in
Speaker 1: your pocket, that's great, but that's a token for losing
Speaker 1: a loved one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I feel like it's more just about the principle too, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent, trying to ensure that due diligence is
Speaker 1: done moving forward and then it's not going to happen.
Speaker 2: To someone else totally.
Speaker 1: Now, even after many years of the unspeakable events of
Speaker 1: the Witchta Horror, the dark shadows of that week they
Speaker 1: do still linger, yet equally present in this remarkable resilience
Speaker 1: of those it's those people who survived. Now, Detective Rick
Speaker 1: Craig who was among the first officers to arrive at
Speaker 1: the snowy field the four victims were murdered. He later
Speaker 1: shared with a reporter that he has remained close friends
Speaker 1: with Holly ever since the incident. Aw and in a
Speaker 1: truly extraordinary turn of events, Holly herself eventually found love
Speaker 1: and were married. The only other survivor of the Craig
Speaker 1: Brothers crime spree, Andrew Schribber, seriously that baseball player who
Speaker 1: had been abducted and robbed.
Speaker 2: Holy shit, I wasn't expecting that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they got together and they've got married.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's like kind of nice. Actually yay.
Speaker 1: So with each other they forged new life and ultimately
Speaker 1: moved away from Wichita. According to Detective Craig, he occasionally
Speaker 1: visits them with his family, though they mutually avoid discussing
Speaker 1: the traumatic events of that massacre.
Speaker 2: Huh.
Speaker 1: To honor the other victims and ensure their memories endure,
Speaker 1: several scholarships were established. One, for example, was created at
Speaker 1: Saint Thomas Aquinas Catholic School, where Heather Mueller had been
Speaker 1: a Cherist teacher. Another was founded at Wichita State Unions
Speaker 1: in memory of Anne Malinta, who had worked there. As
Speaker 1: a dedicated librarian and was a talented cellist as well,
Speaker 1: known for introducting young African American students into classical music.
Speaker 1: To this day, the Witch toa Horror stands as one
Speaker 1: of the most brutal and shocking true crime cases in
Speaker 1: Kansas history. It's left an undeniable mark on the city,
Speaker 1: simultaneously igniting a deep fear and inspiring and outpouring of
Speaker 1: compassion as well. And that is the story of the
Speaker 1: Witch to Horror.
Speaker 2: H Oh boy. Yeah, that one is just brutal, is
Speaker 2: it ever? There is so much just to kind of
Speaker 2: like reflect on, I guess, yeah. But the fact that
Speaker 2: those two fell in love when they kind of had
Speaker 2: not similar experiences, but like they both have a lot
Speaker 2: of traumatic events that happened to them, and they can
Speaker 2: kind of lean on each other. And you know, I
Speaker 2: was going to say they didn't experience it together, but
Speaker 2: you know, similarities, right.
Speaker 1: So they're both victims of the same monster, the same monster. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, of course we're not comparing what they went
Speaker 1: through any anything, but when they have those incidents of
Speaker 1: fearing those monsters, they can be there for each.
Speaker 2: Other, Yeah, and really kind of know what it feels
Speaker 2: like a little bit. Yeah, right, so that's I don't know,
Speaker 2: that's like incredible. I don't know. I wasn't expecting that
Speaker 2: at all. So huh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't really know what to say after this one.
Speaker 1: I got nothing. This case fucking pissed me off. I
Speaker 1: swore a lot in this one. Sorry for that, but
Speaker 1: it did.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I tried to hold my tongue because sometimes people
Speaker 2: are like, you guys swear too much. But it's like,
Speaker 2: holy shit, what are you supposed to say?
Speaker 1: Sometimes I mean it, it's how we get out of motion.
Speaker 2: Sometimes too, we have people are doing the most horrendous
Speaker 2: things to each other and you're just supposed to be like, okay, well.
Speaker 1: I mean sometimes you do say darn or I say
Speaker 1: ding dang. Sometimes sometimes we try and tone it down
Speaker 1: a bit, but sometimes we can't. Sometimes we got to
Speaker 1: let it out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sometimes you just do. It does help, Actually it does.
Speaker 2: Maybe that's my new wine drinking. I just say the effort.
Speaker 1: You just just a screaming in the bathroom into a
Speaker 1: pillow or something.
Speaker 2: Oh boy, Okay, Well in that, no, I guess let's
Speaker 2: try to get some sleep.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's go to bed. Well, thank you, for being here,
Speaker 1: Thank you for sticking around for part two. Hopefully enjoyed
Speaker 1: the story. Nichole is actually going to be going on
Speaker 1: a bit of a trip here, so we're going to
Speaker 1: pre record an episode or two. So if it comes
Speaker 1: to us pre recording the Tuesday episode, we shout out, patrons,
Speaker 1: don't worry, it's just a pre recorded will shout you
Speaker 1: out on the next actual live one when Nicole is
Speaker 1: actually back in town. Up on that. If Tuesday rolls around,
Speaker 1: you're like, I didn't get called out, it's because it's
Speaker 1: pre recorded. Nicole's on vacation, not actually vacation, she's just
Speaker 1: working in another city. But I digress.
Speaker 2: Well, and there could be a slight delay on that Tuesday,
Speaker 2: but we'll keep you posted on that for Yeah.
Speaker 1: So yeah, Tuesday, it should be there. Tuesday. It might
Speaker 1: be different Tuesday, it might actually commote Wednesday. It might
Speaker 1: be pre recorded, it might not. It'll happen somehow, some way.
Speaker 2: It'll be there, and we'll keep you posted on social
Speaker 2: We will.
Speaker 1: We will, don't you worry. So yeah, until next
Speaker 2: Time, stay wicked