Transcript of S2 Episode 9: The Reversal

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

Previously on Bear Brook Season 2: A True Crime Story….


[mux in]


[Rabia Chaudry] My main goal is to raise the concerns around this conviction to the extent that it would encourage the state to revisit the evidence.


[Cynthia Mousseau] The clerk, who I know, came over to chat with me, and she said that she had been listening to Undisclosed. // She’s like, “You know what, there’s a big box in our basement with Jason Carroll’s name on it.”


[Cynthia Mousseau] Hey. The fucking nail clippings are here.

[voice on the phone] What?!

[Cynthia Mousseau] The nail clippings are here.


[Jason Moon] So the answer to who killed Sharon Johnson is very likely in that envelope right there in front of us?

[Cynthia Mousseau] It is possible that the answer to who killed Sharon Johnson is in this envelope in front of us.


[mux out]



It’s been about 17 months since that day with the box.


The box of evidence from the investigation into Sharon Johnson’s murder.


The box had the clothes Sharon was wearing when she died. The knife police say she was stabbed with. The fingernail clippings from Sharon’s hands, with blood on them – blood that might belong to her attacker.


For 17 months, Jason Carroll and his attorney with the New England Innocence Project have been trying to get that evidence DNA-tested. They think there’s a real shot that evidence could exonerate Jason.


But the state of New Hampshire didn’t. You might remember they said there was “no scenario” where DNA testing could exonerate Jason.


So they objected to Jason’s request for DNA testing.


That is, until just a few days ago.


[JM] So, did you celebrate?

[Cynthia Mousseau] (laughs) Um… yes. I mean, I think, I think… I think I cel – I guess I would say yes, I celebrated. It's weird to say that you would celebrate separately from Jason, right? So, like, the weird thing was that I wasn't able to see Jason that night, so I talked to him on the phone. And so to be able to say, like, celebrating something for someone – it's like celebrating somebody's birthday when they're not there.


[Cynthia Mousseau] So, when I was finally able to talk with him about what happened, he was… shocked. Shocked, I would say. And he essentially said to me, “Half of me feels like crying like a baby and half of me feels like throwing up.” And he said, “It's the best news I've had in 35 years.”

[JM] He said that, the best news in 35 years?

[Cynthia Mousseau] He did! He did.


[theme music in]


This is Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story. I’m Jason Moon.


[theme music up and out]


***** MIDROLL *****


So here’s what happened:


After Jason’s lawyer Cynthia Mousseau found that box of evidence, she filed a petition with the court under a state law specifically meant for just such a moment:


It’s called the “Post-Conviction DNA Testing” law in New Hampshire.


The evidence in question belongs to the court. Remember, the box was hanging out for three decades in their basement. So Cynthia needs a court-order to get this stuff tested.


But the prosecutor on the other side of this case, Charles Bucca, objected. By the way, we requested an interview with Bucca but a spokesperson for the AG’s office declined on his behalf.


So with the state and Cynthia taking different positions, that set up a hearing. The two sides were going to duke it out in front of a judge. And he would decide if testing was going to happen. That’s where we left off in this series.


[Cynthia Mousseau] So, we were scheduled to have a hearing on this motion in December…


That’s December of 2023.


[Cynthia Mousseau] …And about three days before the hearing was supposed to start, we got a call from the prosecutor. And I didn't, I didn’t actually – I missed the call or he had just emailed me maybe and said, “Give me a call?” And I thought that he was going to agree. And I told my co-counsel at the time, “Oh, I, like I wonder if this is it. Like, they're going to agree to testing now.” And we called. And it was clear from, like, the first moment, like his – the tone of voice, that it was not a call about agreeing. That it was a call about something else. And I remember that when he said, “We found another box…”


[music in]


“We found another box.” Another box with more evidence from the investigation into Sharon Johnson’s murder.


[Cynthia Mousseau] …I remember just sitting there being like, “I don't even know what to say.” Like, I think the proverbial, you know, your… your jaw hits the floor is really how I was feeling in that moment. And I think… that was a huge shock to me.

[music post]


This box, let’s call it box #2, was found in the basement of the former headquarters for the New Hampshire Department of Justice. It just so happens, the New Hampshire DOJ is moving offices and the building is being torn down, right now.


So in the process of the big move, someone’s down in the basement and they find this box that says: “DO NOT DESTROY (SHARON JOHNSON CASE).”


[music post]


[JM] Kind of amazing that the very first box at the courthouse – you stumbled on that because this clerk had happened to have listened to the Undisclosed podcast. // And then, the next box is discovered through another sort of happenstance, that, that the, you know, the building in which it's housed is being demolished. And if not for that, you know, maybe this, maybe they wouldn't have found it.

[Cynthia Mousseau] Exactly.


[music up and out]


Remember, Cynthia has been asking the state for all the documents and evidence from the investigation for years. By this point, the state had told her they’d already turned over everything they could find.


In light of box #2, the big hearing that was supposed to happen in December gets postponed. Instead, the two sides meet in front of the judge for what’s called a status conference. Basically a check-in to see what the heck needs to happen now.


And at this status conference, Cynthia… she’s a little annoyed. It’s already been more than a year since she found box #1 and filed the petition for DNA testing. And now, things are getting delayed because of some sloppy housekeeping by the state. Cynthia wants assurances from the prosecutor, Charles Bucca, that this isn’t going to happen again.


[Cynthia Mousseau] I-I’m not asking for a lot. I’m just asking for a reach-out to those three places to ensure that we have everything that exists.

[Charles Bucca] And those three places are Bedford PD…

[Cynthia Mousseau] State police.

[Charles Bucca] Well, the state police we know, because they’re the ones that cataloged this and are involved –

[Cynthia Mousseau] They did, but I would double-check and ask because I have asked you for discovery a lot of times and we didn’t know until we knew, right?

[Charles Bucca] Sure. But I’ve had those conversations with the state police ad nauseam, so the state police have…


Charles is like, “Trust me, we’ve gotten everything from state police.”


[Charles Bucca] If you’d like me to ask them again, I’d be happy to do that, but we already know the answer to that. So, Bedford PD is easy. We can contact them, and make another inquiry. Well, who’s the third?

[Cynthia Mousseau] You! (laughs) Your office is the third. 

[Charles Bucca] I… wha-, what – And what would you like me to do?

[Cynthia Mousseau] I’d like you to reach out and confirm that all of the boxes that were in storage have been cataloged and that there’s no longer any remaining boxes… 

[Judge Delker] Yep.

[Cynthia Mousseau] …that have anything to do with the Sharon Johnson homicide investigation.


Maybe you heard that quiet “yep” as Cynthia was talking. That was the judge, William Delker. He basically agrees with Cynthia and tells the state: “Check everywhere again and file a memo with the details of how you did that.”


[Cynthia Mousseau] And so we were really grateful that the court did that because what ended up happening was that they found, uh, significantly more information.


At the Bedford police department: three more boxes. And from state police? Yep. 400 new pages of lab documents about the forensic evidence from the case.


[JM] And just to be clear, you… do you believe there was any sort of willful hiding of this evidence?

[Cynthia Mousseau] No, no.

[JM] Yeah, OK.


This is bad record-keeping and poor communication, not a coverup.


So – the state turns over all of this new stuff to Cynthia in January and February. And she’s furiously sorting through those boxes and reading through everything to see what it all means. Meanwhile, the big hearing to argue whether the evidence should be DNA tested is rescheduled to the end of April. As in, this April, 2024.



Let’s talk about what was in those new boxes. Some of it was stuff Cynthia already had. Duplicates of police reports from the discovery file – things like that. But it wasn’t just paper.


Inside one of the boxes was a shirt. I’ve seen a photo. It’s a long-sleeved, ribbed, three buttons at the top. Looks like a man’s undershirt. It’s white. Or… it was. It’s covered in stains. Some black, some brown, some yellow.


It was found in August of 1988, just after the murder. A woman saw it lying on the side of the road in Bedford, about two-and-a-half miles from where Sharon’s body was found, and called the cops.


[JM] But interestingly, when it was tagged in evidence…They…

[Cynthia Mousseau] They labeled it “victim's shirt.”

[JM] Yeah, they… they labeled it “victim's shirt.” Do you have any idea why that happened? Any guess?

[Cynthia Mousseau] I don't know, I, um… I don't know the answer to that. Yeah, I have no way – I have no idea.


I'm not quite sure what to make of this either. You might remember, the location of Sharon's missing shirt was a big focus of the investigation. When state police interrogated Jason, they asked him about it again and again. They never found it.


But we know what shirt was wearing when she left work that day. And this isn't it. 


Remember, Sharon was seven months’ pregnant when she was killed. She was last seen wearing what was likely a maternity t-shirt with teddy bears and baby rattles on it. Again, this one looks like a man’s shirt. According to the police report, the woman who found the shirt and called police thought it might belong to whoever murdered Sharon.


So I’m not sure how or why it ended up labeled as “victim’s shirt,” but it did.


At any rate, it got added to the list of items Cynthia wants DNA tested. Maybe those stains are blood stains. Or maybe it's just a painter or a mechanic’s dirty work shirt.


Another item that turned up in the new boxes: a knife.


This knife was also found along the side of a road in Bedford shortly after the murder. It was another civilian who came across it, thought it might be involved in the murder, and called police. Just to be clear, the shirt and the knife were found along two different roads in Bedford, by two different people. The two areas are in opposite directions from the crime scene.


But the knife was found less than a mile from where Sharon’s body was found. It’s described as a long blade, wood handle, similar to what you’d find in a kitchen.


[Cynthia Mousseau] So, those were two big pieces of physical evidence, obviously, that we’re really interested in. And then, obviously the lab file has been really interesting for us. // And one of the things that we found in there was that there had been some – a profile generated from Ken Johnson's blood.


Two things I need to point out about this. One: It’s helpful that there’s already a profile of Sharon’s husband Ken’s blood. It’ll make it that much easier to know if any DNA found on the evidence is his. 


The second, and I think a lot more interesting thing, is when this DNA profile of Ken was generated.


[Cynthia Mousseau] It's a very strange scenario. So we had noticed and by “we,” I include you in that. We had talked about this a while ago that we had seen custody logs of Ken's blood tube. Ken had his blood drawn at the Department of Corrections when he was arrested for the crime. And that blood tube had ended up going to the state lab, and you and I had both noted that in 2004, it was sent to the lab and it said “DNA analysis.”


2004. Sixteen years after the murder and 13 years after prosecutors dropped the charges against Ken Johnson, New Hampshire state police were generating a profile of Ken’s DNA.


[music in]


[JM] But why would they be doing that in 2004?

[Cynthia Mousseau] The only reason I can guess that they were doing it in 2004 is because they were going to try and DNA-test things related to this case. I-I don't know what other reason there would be. The only other thing I can think of is that the national database for DNA was sort of getting online at that time, and perhaps they were trying to put Ken's DNA profile into CODIS, but I don't think, I don't know if they would even be able to do that. Ken hadn't been, you know, at that point, he, he hadn't been convicted of anything.


There’s no record of what, if anything, Ken’s DNA was compared to in 2004. The lab report only shows that a DNA profile was generated. And as far as CODIS goes – that’s the national law enforcement DNA database – only people who are convicted of certain crimes get their DNA put into it. That’s why Cynthia is mentioning that Ken hadn’t been convicted of anything in 2004.


Complicating this further is one thing that has always bothered me: I don’t know exactly when Ken Johnson died. According to records from the state, by 2006, they were told he was dead.


So maybe in 2004, Ken was still alive and state police were taking one last crack at connecting him to the murder with DNA evidence? But then, how could it? Ken was Sharon’s husband. It wouldn’t exactly be damning evidence if Ken’s DNA was found on Sharon’s body.


One last thing about this minor mystery of Ken’s DNA. It set up a pretty ironic situation where the state was about to argue in 2024 against post-conviction DNA-testing in this case when they had apparently done it themselves, or maybe were about to, in 2004.


[music out]


Cynthia added the white shirt and the knife to the list of items she wants DNA-tested. The full list was now up to about a dozen, depending on how you count them. It includes the fingernail cuttings, some of Sharon’s clothing, cigarette butts from her car, various samples taken from her body, Jason’s pocket knife (the alleged murder weapon), and bloody soil samples from the crime scene.


Then, she prepared for the hearing. Again.


Cynthia assembled a cast of heavy-hitter expert witnesses to explain what might seem like an obvious point: that DNA-testing could reveal who killed Sharon.


There was Tim Palmbach. Twenty-two years in law enforcement. Connecticut state trooper. Detective. Before he retired, he ran the entire forensic lab for the state of Connecticut.


[music in]


He’s been called as an expert-witness in lots of high-profile cases. Like the murder trial of Michael Peterson – That’s “The Staircase” trial for those who’ve seen the documentary. More recently, Tim testified in the murder trial of former South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh.


There was Karl Reich. Twenty years’ experience in biochemistry. Cornell, UCLA, Harvard, Stanford. Lawyers for Steven Avery, the subject of the “Making a Murderer” documentary, hired him as a consultant.


There was Hayley Cleary. A psychologist, professor, and expert in juvenile false confessions. She knows this case well. She was on Rabia Chaudry’s podcast Undisclosed to analyze Jason’s confession.


Cynthia even consulted with an expert in genetic genealogy. A woman named Barbara Rae Venter. Yes, that Barbara Rae Venter. The one who identified Terry Rasmussen and three of the victims from season one of this podcast.


[Barbara Rae-Venter clip from Bear Brook Season 1] The challenge is going to be getting usable DNA because those bodies were out there exposed to the New Hampshire winters for between five and 20 years.

[music up and out]


[JM] You were ready!

[Cynthia Mousseau] I was ready, yeah. I'm still ready. Yeah, I was ready.


And then, just last Thursday, on the eve of the hearing, the state reversed course. 


It is dropping its objection to DNA testing. But it is still reserving the right to argue about whether any results exonerate Jason. Officially, the deal still needs to be okayed by the judge, but there’s not much doubt he will.


By the way, the fact this just happened is the reason you’re not hearing from Jason in this episode. The logistics of getting on the phone with him can be complicated and there just wasn’t enough time.


I asked Cynthia what she made of the timing of all of this.


[Cynthia Mousseau] This is the thing about the court system is that, like, it's not – it doesn't work the way people think it does. So, all of the things that you, you know, think about court, they aren't real, right? So, like, the reality is, is that, like, deals get made on the night before trials all the time. And it comes down to lots of things. // I have no idea what the actual reason in this particular case was. I'd like to think that it's the fact that, like, we were prepared. 


[music in]


We had given our reports over. The state looked at those, and they realized that, you know, as they said in their motion, that we're going to be prepared to be able to prove those things. And they thought that we were going to be successful in that, and they decided to agree to testing and save us all the trouble of the hearing. Do I wish that this happened… a long time ago? Yeah. You know… it could be 34 years, not 35 years for Jason if we had rewound the clock to when we, you know, originally had filed this petition.


After the break – after 35 years, what happens next?



Hey, a quick reminder: Bear Brook Season 2 took a lot of resources and time. I’ve been reporting this story for more than two years now, and as you can hear, I’m still on it. If you’re in a position to do so, please consider making a donation to New Hampshire Public Radio. To give now, click the link in the show notes – and thank you for supporting local, longform investigative reporting.


[music up and out]


***** MIDROLL *****


The agreement between Cynthia and the state is that the state forensic lab will handle the first stage of the DNA-testing. It’s called quantitative testing. Basically… how much DNA is there on any particular piece of evidence to begin with?


But even getting there will be complicated.


[Cynthia Mousseau] So, for example the shirt, right? You don't just take the shirt and go, “DNA test the shirt.” There's not, like, a machine where you can put the shirt in and then just type in “DNA, please.” And then it gives you the profiles, right? It doesn't work like that. So, we have to figure out the places on the shirt that we think there's most likely to be DNA that we could even collect in the first place.


Forensic experts from both sides will have to go through each piece of evidence one by one and decide: What’s the best place to try and find DNA on this object?


[Cynthia Mousseau] You know, what parts of this, this stuff are we swabbing or cutting or whatever? And then after we do the quant, we figure out what the right method of testing will be.

[JM] And about what kind of a time frame are, are we talking about here? //

[Cynthia Mousseau] It's hard to tell. We asked for a six-month check-in to see, you know, sort of what was going on.


That’s a check-in with the judge in six months. Doesn’t necessarily mean anything will have happened by then. This kind of work can take a long time. Especially if there’s degraded DNA, which is a real possibility given how long this stuff has been sitting around in boxes. There’s also a 10-month backlog at the state lab, the only DNA testing and analysis provider in New Hampshire.


So, it could be a while.


[JM] Alright. The last thing I want to do is briefly talk about some scenarios. // Give me the best case scenario for you.

[Cynthia Mousseau] I think the best case scenario is we get a profile on some of those items that doesn't match Jason, Ken, or Tony. We're able to take that profile and enter it into CODIS, which is the national DNA database. There is a match in CODIS to sort of a known other perpetrator from somewhere else. That obviously has nothing to do with Ken, Jason, and Tony, and we think that that would be pretty clear at that point that Jason wasn't involved.

//

[JM] And what about a scenario where let's say Tony's DNA is found on some of the items?

[Cynthia] Yeah, so there would be a lot of reasons why that could happen that don't have anything to do with Tony being involved, because Tony was involved with the family, right? So, Tony had connections with Sharon's stepdaughter, Lisa. So, there's, like, lots of reasons why we wouldn't be surprised if Tony's DNA was on some things. It's the same with Ken, right? So, like, it wouldn't be a total shock if we found Ken's DNA. Obviously, anything in Sharon's car, because Ken and Sharon were married. So, your DNA can get shed from all kinds of things. It's not just, you know, saliva and, you know, bodily fluids. It's all kinds of stuff. But, you know, those would be trickier scenarios. So in the event that it's something that, you know, we're going to have to make an argument about with the state, what would happen is, you know, we would find out some of these things. Possibly some of that stuff would lead us to further investigation, or have further investigative leads for us and maybe not. Or maybe we would get these DNA results and say, you know, “None of this matches Jason, but there's some things in here that match Ken.” And so, then it's a question of, like, well, what does that mean for the case at large? So, that's going to be a matter for the court to decide, you know, when we get the results back.

[JM] Do you think in that scenario you just mentioned where, you know, Jason's DNA isn't found on anything, is that a strong enough case for you to request a, a retrial? //

[Cynthia Mousseau] If Jason's DNA is not on anything at all… This is a very close contact, very intimate, very violent encounter, so the fact that Jason's DNA wouldn't appear on anything of Sharon's or anywhere near her would be, to my… from my perspective, very strange if you were arguing that Jason was involved in this. So, from my perspective, I think it's certainly arguable that the jury should have known at the time. If, if this would make a difference to the jury, then the jury should know it, and I think he's entitled to a retrial.

//

[JM] So, what if the DNA comes back and it is Jason's? Do you, do you think about that? Do you let yourself think about that possibility? //

[Cynthia] I don't expect it's going to be Jason. It’s such a, It’s such a… That's such a remote possibility for me, from my perspective. Having, like, viewed all the evidence in the case, I just I don't, I don't believe that that's going to be the case. // But if that was to happen, to me, that's not even sort of the worst case scenario. I mean, that would be an end of the case. Obviously, it would be the end of that. But the, the practical reality is it's going to be a lot more anxiety producing for me if there's a scenario where, like, you know, Jason's excluded from everything // because then it's going to be an argument over what does this mean? It's not going to be automatically that Jason gets a retrial. It's going to be like, what does this mean? And then, we're going to have to have an argument over what, you know, what it means. // You know, I believe, I believe Jason and I believe in Jason, and I believe this case, and I, and I would be shocked to find that it was Jason's DNA.

[JM] …And now we get a chance to find out.

[Cynthia Mousseau] That's right. Now we get a chance to find out. Yeah, 35 years in the making. //


[music in]


We didn't go to court and, you know, win in court. We didn't have this dramatic, you know, sort of like, big, like, hearing and, like, a big opinion or any of these things. It's, like, we have this agreement and this agreement is done, right? And that's great. But it feels really, like, less dramatic than sort of those, like, TV shows or whatever that you get. But this is so massive. Like, this is such a massive, massive win for Jason. There was no guarantees here and now, we're going to be able to move forward. This is a gate! You know, the gate’s open. The gate was locked.


The gate was locked.


When we ended this series last year, I said the only question left was whether our system of justice was willing to keep looking for the truth. If it was willing to revisit its own true crime story.


It’s taken 17 months, but now the system – stumbling, a little reluctant – has given us an answer. Yes.


The gate was locked. Now, let’s find out what’s on the other side.


[music up and out]


[theme music in]


Bear Brook Season 2: A True Crime Story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.


It’s edited by Katie Colaneri.


Sara Plourde created our original artwork, as well as our website, bearbrookpodcast.com.


Additional photography and videos by Gaby Lozada.


Bear Brook is a production of the Document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.


[theme music up and out]

Transcript of S2 Episode 8: The Box

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

Previously on Bear Brook Season 2: A True Crime Story….


[Judge Delker] To cut you a break // would utterly undermine the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system.


[Lucy Holt] How do you prove something… How do you prove an “I didn’t do it?”


[Cynthia Mousseau] There’s this belief that, when you’re Catholic and the priest gives you communion, that the bread turns into the body of Jesus, like literal human flesh. This is essentially the same thing as what happens – once this conviction happens, it’s like that story is what happened.


[Karen Carroll] All I– All I could think of was, remember the TV detective, Kojak?


[Fabiana Alceste] The system, the culture that our detectives live in and are made to operate in sets them up for this specific kind of failure of not being able to realize that there’s an innocent person in front of them.



It’s been seven years since Jason Carroll first wrote a letter to the New England Innocence Project. NEIP, as it’s called, is a small nonprofit – only about a dozen people on staff. And for the first three years after Jason wrote, they didn’t even have an attorney based in New Hampshire who could work on his case full-time.


Then NEIP hired Cynthia Mousseau. Jason’s case was on the top of the pile on her desk when she arrived in 2019.


[Cynthia Mousseau] And I remember thinking to myself, even when I started this job, like, how am I ever going to figure out these cases where people are innocent? I was a public defender for a long time. I've only had a few clients claim actual innocence.


And then Cynthia read the documents in Jason’s case.


[Cynthia Mousseau] The way we want to think about our criminal legal system is that we don't have to rely necessarily on stories that people tell. We want to be able to rely on hard evidence and science and observable, objective fact. // So my hope is that when there is a statement made // that statement can be verified by // objective scientific fact. And in Jason's case, that's just not true. The police tried to do that and could not do it. // They tried to focus on the financial aspect. They got Ken's bank records. Those do not show what they thought they were going to show. // You know, they got the knife. They wanted to prove that that was the knife – that wasn't the knife. It couldn't have been the knife. It's just they don't – they don't line up.


But it’s one thing for an innocence attorney like Cynthia to be convinced Jason didn’t do it. It’s another to get the state of New Hampshire to admit they might have gotten this all horribly wrong.


[mux in]


Remember back in episode one - that hearing where Jason asked for an early release from prison? That was one of Cynthia's first moves. It would’ve been the fastest way out of the prison walls for Jason.

But, as you heard, it didn’t work – in part, because Jason has always refused to take responsibility for the crime.


The prosecutors for the state, and the court system that oversaw Jason’s convictions, both stick firmly to the original narrative.


[Judge Delker] You confessed to your participation in, uh, this murder-for-hire plot and you and your accomplice, Mr. Pfaff, kidnapped and murdered a seven-and-a-half-month pregnant woman and you stood by while your accomplice sexually assaulted her as she lay dying – dead or dying there in that gravel pit. And you were paid $5,000 for those inhuman acts – and I don’t say inhumane, but inhuman acts – by the victim’s own husband.


Despite the fact that Tony Pfaff was acquitted and Ken Johnson was never even tried – in the state’s true-crime story, they’re still killers.


[mux post]


Innocence claims are almost always a longshot. The criminal legal system is built on a bedrock of finality. The courts want criminal prosecutions to end at some point – not be endlessly retried. And there are legitimate reasons for that. Dogmatic ones, too.


But in New Hampshire, a state that has never exonerated anyone convicted of a murder – it can feel like the hurdles are even higher than usual. What Cynthia and NEIP are trying to do has simply never been done before.


[mux post]


And so to help challenge the official narrative, NEIP invited someone from the outside to come tell a new one.


[Rabia Chaudry] A lot of times people will say, “Oh, just read the trial transcripts - you’ll see why this person is guilty or innocent.” (scoffs) What gets brought into a courtroom and what gets left out sometimes tells the story much more fully.


This is Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story. I’m Jason Moon.


[mux up & out]




Rabia Chaudry is an immigration attorney, an author, a podcast host. But there’s a good chance you already know her as an advocate for Adnan Syed. In 2013, Rabia brought the story of Adnan’s murder conviction to the people who made the podcast Serial – a series that alerted millions to the existence of podcasts and arguably created a genre of true-crime ones. Not long after, Rabia decided to make her own podcast called Undisclosed. All to try and force the court system to revisit its original narrative in that case – a process that, so far, has taken almost 10 years.


[Rabia Chaudry] It’s like everything that happens in a courtroom is like… it’s like, you know, a fly trapped in tar from hundreds of years ago. Like, that same rotten piece of tar, keeps getting passed from courtroom to courtroom to courtroom as if noth– as if the entire world is static and nothing has changed and no technology has changed and no witnesses have come forward, but we’re just like stuck in time.


[mux in]


As you probably know, the true crime genre ranges widely. From exploitation of personal tragedies to high-minded journalistic exposes to direct advocacy. 


I think Rabia’s work is probably the best example of what you might call the soft-power of true crime.


Rabia started her podcast Undisclosed with two other attorneys, Susan Simpson and Colin Miller. At first, it was all about Adnan’s case. But then, they started looking at others. In each season of their show, they reinvestigate what they believe is a wrongful conviction. They reinterview witnesses who may have changed their story; they track down witnesses police never spoke to; they look for evidence of legal foul play – whatever they can find.


By now they’ve looked at over 20 different cases and by Rabia’s count, they’ve played a role in overturning convictions in about half of them. About a month before Jason Carroll was back in court in the fall of 2022, Adnan Syed walked out of prison. He was a free man for the first time in 22 years, though his legal battles still aren’t over yet.


In another example in Georgia, Undisclosed worked alongside the Georgia Innocence Project and found evidence of juror misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct that recently helped vacate the conviction of Joey Watkins. He’d also been in prison for 22 years.


[Rabia Chaudry] I mean, look, true crime has always been big, but when I was growing up, true crime, it was a different angle, right? It was like getting the bad guy, and investigators getting it right, and the police getting it right, and you know, everything being resolved. But I think after Serial, suddenly it’s shifted a lot. Between Serial, between movements like Black Lives Matter, suddenly folks are like, “Well, maybe it’s not all wrapped up in a nice little bow like that all the time.”


Undoing nice little bows.


That’s exactly what the New England Innocence Project had in mind when they invited Undisclosed to look at Jason Carroll’s case.


[mux in]


In the summer of 2021, Rabia arrived in New Hampshire to start investigating – and I went with her.


[driving ambi]


[Jason Moon] Rabia, do you want to just explain, like, what we’re doing today? Like, what you’re up to?


[Rabia Chaudry] So, today, we’re going to be trying to find some of the original investigators in the case… (fade under tracking)


Rabia brought with her Sarah Cailean – a former police officer turned private investigator, cold case consultant, and true-crime personality.


The two of them followed Google Maps down winding back roads across New Hampshire to reach some of the witnesses in Jason’s case. I sat in the backseat of their rental car with my microphone, getting a little car sick.


[Rabia Chaudry] Where did you say I was turning again? I’m sorry, do you remember?


[Sarah Cailean] Ope, right there where we just passed on the right. (laughs)


I recorded Rabia and Sarah as they recorded interviews.


[Rabia Chaudry] So I kinda want to start at the top and ask you, like, what your relationship was with the Johnsons.


[Unidentified Voice] Well, like I said, I was a coworker with Sharon…


And of course, we talked about true crime podcasts as we happened to drive past the entrance to Bear Brook State Park.


[Sarah Cailean] …that the idea becomes to produce something that has value to society, not just retelling gorey stories. To me, it’s…


[Rabia Chaudry] Although, like, the straight reporting also can have, has plenty of value…


[mux post]


It’s all very meta. I know. But that’s exactly why I was there.


Podcasts like Serial, Undisclosed, and lots of others don’t just reflect reality. They help change it.


I had my own experience with this, when someone who listened to season one of this podcast discovered the names of three of the people found murdered near Bear Brook State Park.


[Becky Heath] And I kept stopping and going back. I was like, // you know what, listening to this podcast makes me think it is this person – this… these… these girls!


This is actually how I first became interested in Jason Carroll’s case. Before I’d read thousands of pages of police reports and trial transcripts, before I’d heard the interrogation tapes, before I fell down the scientific rabbit hole on false confessions – all I knew was a famous true-crime podcast with millions of listeners was about to land in my backyard.


The official narrative was about to be challenged by a new story. And more than a year later, it is still changing things – in ways I never expected.


[mux out]


Rabia and Sarah ended up speaking to more than a dozen people connected to Jason’s case. Some of whom you’ve heard from in this podcast, and some who wouldn’t talk to me – like one of the detectives who investigated the case before Roland Lamy took it over.


And they talked to Lamy, too. Who told them he was a: surprised Jason was still in prison, and b: had no problem with the idea of DNA testing in Jason’s case.


But in the end, Undisclosed did not find new evidence to test or new legal grounds for Jason to appeal on. No smoking gun alternate suspect and no airtight alibi for Jason on the night of the murder.


After all, more than 30 years had passed in between Sharon’s murder and Undisclosed’s investigation. People’s memories had gotten hazier every passing year. And it was unclear whether the physical evidence in the case still even existed.


But with the facts they did have, Undisclosed put forward a new theory.


[mux in]


Or actually, it was an old theory: the one the original investigators had before Lamy took over the case.


Rabia and Sarah think that Ken Johnson was responsible for Sharon’s murder. But only Ken.


[Sarah Cailean] I think he did it and he acted alone. It was just him. // He killed her by himself and brought her to that site and dumped her there and then couldn’t get his story straight.


The theory is partly based on the same things that made police suspicious of Ken back in 1988. Ken changed his story about where he was the night of the murder. His gambling debts were a plausible motive. His ex-wife said he’d been violent with her.


But Undisclosed also points out major oversights in the police’s investigation of Ken. Like how in the days following the murder, police got a search warrant for Ken’s car – but there’s no record they ever made any attempt to search the house Ken and Sharon shared.


Rabia and her team also offer an alternate explanation for how Sharon ended up at a construction site.


It’s an idea based on what Ken and others told police about Sharon and Ken’s sex life. Ken told police he and Sharon had a very active sex life. He said they’d often meet during the middle of the day and drive to a gravel pit to have sex. Ken called it a “noonie.” The Undisclosed theory is that Ken took Sharon to the construction site where her body was found under the pretense they were going there to have sex.


[mux out]



When the Undisclosed season on Jason Carroll came out in the fall of 2021, I waited in the wings, ready to document the fallout.


I was a little naive. The podcast came out. Millions of people did listen. But if you weren’t one of those listeners, it would’ve been hard to tell that anything had happened. There was no local outcry. No op-eds in the local papers or local politicians making Jason’s innocence their cause, and no pushback from the state.


All seemed quiet. At least on the outside… But not for the people closest to the story.


For Jason, Undisclosed was exciting. It was validating. For the first time in decades, a new version of the story had been told. And people believed in his innocence.


[Jason Carroll] And then you know, like, the response, from people around the world on whatever it was, Spotify or Twitter, whatever they were responding to, to have the people out there and them being like, “Holy shit, you know, how come we’ve never heard about this before?” Or, “How does this even happen?” Or, like, you know, “It’s horseshit, let him out!”


Ironically, Jason hasn’t actually heard the podcast himself. He doesn’t have access to podcasts in prison. But he also told me he doesn’t want to hear it – or this podcast for that matter. He doesn’t want to relive any of this again.


[mux in]


I expected Jason’s lawyer, Cynthia Mousseau, would feel excited about the podcast, too. After all, her office pitched Jason’s case to Undisclosed. But for Cynthia, it wasn’t that simple. Of course, she likes that this new narrative says Jason is innocent. But, as a former defense attorney, it also raised questions for her about when it’s OK for true-crime storytellers to say someone else is guilty.


[Cynthia Mousseau] We’re very appreciative of the attention Jason’s case has gotten from Undisclosed. And I would never underestimate the impact of the support to Jason. // I think the podcast is on the whole been beneficial for Jason. But I'm always very skeptical of… You know, Jason, you and I have been talking for a long time. You know that I always say it's just like, I'm anti-hunch.


It’s true. Cynthia had told me many times how dangerous she feels hunches can be in the criminal justice system. As far as she sees it, everything that went wrong for Jason was the result of a hunch - Detective Roland Lamy’s hunch.


And even though Undisclosed’s theory includes the idea that Jason had nothing to do with the murder, the way it points the finger at Ken… I think for Cynthia it feels too close to the way the finger got pointed at Jason.


[Cynthia Mousseau] And in that way, I don't personally agree with that theory. It’s just not based on concrete observable facts. It's based on assumptions about human behavior and theories about human behavior.


[Jason Moon] You felt that, that their theory was a little too hunch-y? If that's a word.


[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah, a little too hunch-y. Yeah, I think it's based on: Ken is not a good guy, so it must be Ken, because there was really nobody else. And I don't… I don't know Ken. And, uh, I don't know who did it.


But for Rabia, it seemed only natural that their story provide an answer to what happened to Sharon.

[Rabia Chaudry] For me, every innocence case is also a murder mystery. It is justice that still needs to be served for the victim. And so, I think it would be really weird and irresponsible and just bad storytelling to just tell part of it. These are the reasons Jason is likely innocent, but also we're just not going to try to at all figure out what happened to the victim. I think it – you're not telling the whole story then.


What is the whole story? Even for two people who believe in Jason’s innocence, it’s not an easy question to answer.


[mux post & fade out]


Meanwhile, for those who don’t believe in Jason’s innocence, it can feel like the whole story is being missed.


[Jason Moon] So can you just start by telling me your name and who you are?

[Melonie Eaton] Melonie Eaton. Daughter of Sharon – to me, Eaton – but, Johnson.


Melonie Eaton was 14 years old when her mother Sharon Johnson was murdered.


Melonie cherishes the stories she has of growing up with her mom. Like the time she says her mom bought her a few pet mice.


[Melonie Eaton] Well, the people lied to her and it was a boy and girl, not two girls. So we came home one day // and they had babies. And the babies… got out. // And then we saw some on the floor and my mom’s like, “Oh my god!” So we’re hurrying up, trying to catch ‘em. I found some in my bedroom, in my closet, all over the place. They were everywhere!


[mux in]


Melonie remembers the time she woke up to an asthma attack and her mom soothed and guided her through it. She remembers the funny little dances she says her mom would do to make her laugh. The time her mom let her drive the car.


[Melonie Eaton] I think of my mom every time I see a yellow rose. My mom planted – she made a garden box on the side of the house and she planted roses and when she found out she was pregnant with my sister, who I also never got to meet, there was one single yellow rose growing. And so every time I see yellow roses, I think of my mom because to her that meant something special.


[mux post]


Melonie feels like her whole life has been shaped by her mother’s murder. She imagines the different paths it might’ve taken if she’d only had her mom. She’s logged all the moments her mom wasn’t there for.


[mux fade out]


[Melonie Eaton] When my son was born, he was born July 24, 1992. Almost exactly four years to the day. And I was petrified I was going to have him on that day. And I can’t have a happy day on a bad day. Begging the doctors, “Please, I can’t have a happy day on a bad day.” My son was born, he was only born with a 2% chance of life. // It would’ve been really nice to have my mom there, to tell me it’s going to be ok.


For decades, Melonie tried to live with this pain. But now, new stories are reopening the wounds.


In 2021, Melonie got a call from Rabia Chaudry. They talked and Melonie’s voice was included in the Undisclosed season about Jason Carroll. But when the podcast came out, Melonie says she felt duped.


[Melonie Eaton] She didn’t clarify. // She just said, “I’m working on the case, I’m going through it, I have your transcripts from when you talked to the police. Do you mind looking at it and then talking to me about it?” She wasn’t forthright at all, saying, “Hey, I’m actually an attorney trying to get Jason Carroll out of jail and I want you to answer some ques–.” I would’ve been like, “No, screw you, kiss off,” right away. But she wasn’t forthright and then when I found out later on, it infuriated me.


Rabia disputes this. She says she made it very clear who she was and what her aims were.


And Melonie says she didn’t actually listen to Undisclosed. Just like Jason, she said it would be too difficult.


[Melonie Eaton] For me, Jason Carroll is where he belongs, where he deserves to be, and he needs to stay there. He has no… no… Why- why should he be out and have his life to live when he was part of taking away my mother’s? He took away my mother’s life, my life, he took away the chance for all my children to meet their grandmother. // Took it all away. Why should he have a life?


My colleague Lauren Chooljian was in the room with me and Melonie for this conversation. And as we talked about Melonie’s experience with another true crime podcast, Lauren asked a question.


[Lauren Chooljian] What’s different about what’s Jason doing from what they’re doing?

[Melonie Eaton] I’m not entirely sure because Jason is, from my understanding, trying to get the entire story, in its whole, out to everybody, which includes how we all feel, the victims.


I’m not playing you this tape of Melonie as a way to suggest my story is somehow morally superior to Rabia’s. And I’m not even sure Melonie would agree that it is.


I did tell Melonie that I thought what she and others who loved Sharon are going through was an important part of this story. And I hope I’ve honored that.


But no matter how carefully we craft our stories, we can’t fully control how people hear them… or what they’ll lead to.



By the fall of 2022, about a year after the Undisclosed season on Jason’s case came out, I had begun to think that the impacts of the newest version of this true-crime story had all played out.


Undisclosed had brought new attention to the case. It had reopened wounds and stirred hopes. And maybe that would be it.


And then I got an unexpected call from Jason’s lawyer Cynthia.


[Jason Moon] Um, so, can you just tell me what happened again?


[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah, so I went to court today with Jason’s sister, Jackie because… 

(fade under)


This was in October 2022, about a month before Jason had his hearing where he requested early release. Cynthia explained that this day, she took Jackie Carroll, Jason’s sister, to the courthouse for a kind of dry-run. Just to show Jackie the courtroom, the judge – so it wouldn’t be all new to her the day of Jason’s hearing.


[Cynthia Mousseau] So we were sitting in the courtroom and I haven’t been there in years because I, you know, I was a public defender years ago. So the clerk, who I know, came over to chat with me, and she said that she had been listening to Undisclosed // 


[mux in]


[Cynthia Mousseau] She’s like, “You know what, there’s a big box in our basement with Jason Carroll’s name on it.” And I was like, “Like an evidence box in the basement?!” And she said, “Yes!” And so Jackie and I looked at each other and my mouth was wide open. Like, I was shocked! // It is standard practice in criminal cases for the court to issue a letter to the state and the defense after trial’s over, saying come get these evidence exhibits or we’re going to destroy them. So for them to be there after 30 years is… a small miracle!


A small miracle. For months, Cynthia – and separately I – had been asking the state what evidence remained from the investigation into Sharon’s murder. The fingerprints taken from the car. Photos and video of the crime scene. Sharon’s belongings. The alleged murder weapon. 


And especially important: Sharon’s fingernail clippings. The nails with blood under them. Blood that could belong to Sharon’s attacker. Blood that was never DNA tested. I asked the state in June of 2022 if those fingernail clippings still existed. They still haven’t responded.


But what public records requests did not reveal – a true-crime podcast had. A mystery box of evidence in a courthouse basement. What was inside?


[Cynthia Mousseau] My pie-in-the-sky hope is that the fingernails are there. My realistic belief is that they are not. But my hope is that they are. But there is– anything that’s evidence in this case is useful to me. //


[Jason Moon] I’ve never heard you this excited, Cynthia.


[Cynthia Mousseau] (laughs)


[mux post]


After the break: the box.


[mux out]


A quick reminder: Bear Brook Season 2 took more than a year to report and lots of resources – and as you’re about to hear, this story is not over. If you’re in a position to do so, please consider making a donation to New Hampshire Public Radio. To give now, click the link in the show notes – and thank you for supporting local, longform investigative reporting.


************************MIDROLL***************************


In my mind, I pictured Cynthia brushing aside cobwebs and blowing off years of dust in a dank basement to see what was inside the box.


Instead, when we arrive, we’re shown to a quiet, mostly empty courtroom. And the mystery box had already been unpacked – its contents spread across the two tables attorneys would sit at during a trial.


There’s a clerk and a bailiff in the room keeping an eye on us. This evidence is in their custody, so it’s not like Cynthia can take anything with her.


[Jason Moon] Alright. Want to just describe what we’re looking at here?


[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah, so // when we got here the box was open and the exhibits are out, so we’re taking a look at all the stuff that’s on the table. (fade under)


There were stacks of documents, a pile of plastic zip-lock bags with things inside, large brown paper bags, photographs, a vhs tape. More than I ever expected.


(fade up)


[Cynthia Mousseau] Do you have a garbage can somewhere? 


[Clerk] Yes.


[Cynthia Mousseau] I’m just gonna… I’m going to be throwing out glove after glove after glove here.


(fade down)


Cynthia knows DNA is Jason’s best shot. She doesn’t want to contaminate anything, so she wears gloves and changes them between each piece of evidence that she touches. The clerk brings over a trash can. I decide I’m not touching anything.


Cynthia reaches for one of the large brown paper bags.


[Cynthia Mousseau] I want to know what’s in here. So we’re going to look at DJE-4. (rustling) That's – that’s the jeans.


[Jason Moon] That’s Sharon’s jeans?


[Cynthia Mousseau] That’s Sharon’s jeans.


[Jason Moon] Wow.


Sharon’s jeans. With an elastic waistband and an ‘80s acid wash. Still covered in the dried mud her body was found in. I wasn’t expecting this. To be this intimately close to Sharon’s death.


[mux in]


The room feels heavier. Cynthia becomes methodical. She’s brought with her a large roll of white paper. She rips off big sheets of it to put underneath pieces of evidence to catch any dirt or dust that falls off.


(sound of paper ripping)


The jeans are just the beginning. Inside another bag is the bra Sharon was wearing when she died. Cut open in the front, still stained with blood. There were Sharon’s shoes: Tan, moccasin-style slip-ons. There was the watch she was wearing. Bits of paper found in Sharon’s car, like a shopping list for coffee and cheez-its. A ziploc bag full of cigarette butts from Sharon’s car.


(sound of paper ripping)


Then, there was Jason’s pocketknife. Small, with a brown handle. Like any old pocketknife you might take camping or have in a junk drawer. Cynthia carefully placed it on a new sheet of white paper, unfolded the blade, and then photographed it next to a ruler.


There was a yellow spiral notebook that belonged to Ken Johnson. Full of handwritten scores to sports games from the ‘80s. Evidence of Ken’s gambling habit.


There were the fingerprint cards taken from Jason and Tony at age 19. On one side, every finger was printed individually, on the other side their full hand print was taken.


[mux out]


For about 30 minutes, Cynthia has been making her way through each piece of evidence. Examining them, taking pictures of them, carefully placing them back how they came.


Then, she opens a large ziploc bag with a bunch of other ziploc bags inside of it. Inside each of the smaller bags are tubes and slides and other things that look like they belong in a lab.


[Cynthia Mousseau] Sand from abdomen… Sand from back… // What are you?


[Jason Moon] “Medical specimen, please rush.”


[Cynthia Mousseau] Alright, we’re going to look at that in a minute.


(both gasp)


[Cynthia Mousseau] That is the nail clippings.


[Jason Moon] Oh my gosh.


[Cynthia Mousseau] This is the nail clippings. This is the nail clippings. (gasps) // I need to stop for a second.


Cynthia walks away from the table. Her eyes are filling with tears. She takes out her phone and calls her boss at the New England Innocence Project.


[Cynthia Mousseau] Hey. The fucking nail clippings are here.


[voice on the phone] What??


[Cynthia Mousseau] The nail clippings are here.


[voice on the phone] (gasps) Amazing!


[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah.


Cynthia abruptly hangs up and then walks back to the table. The nail clippings are in two normal-size paper envelopes – one envelope for the nail clippings from each hand. Each envelope has a strip of red tape with the word EVIDENCE printed three times in all-caps.


Cynthia holds one envelope up to the light. I can see the silhouettes of the nail clippings inside, like tiny crescent moons.


[Cynthia Mousseau] I don’t know if I’m shaking, Jason.


[Jason Moon] A little bit.


[Cynthia Mousseau] A lot. (laughs) //


[Jason Moon] So the answer to who killed Sharon Johnson is very likely in that envelope right there in front of us?


[Cynthia Mousseau] It is possible that the answer to who killed Sharon Johnson is in this envelope in front of us. These two envelopes. And we have been looking for these. And now we know where they are. And we only know where they by a chance encounter in court… (sighs, laughs) I feel like I’m going to cry.


[Jason Moon] These have just been sitting here for 33 years.


[Cynthia Mousseau] I am going to cry. (laughs) Yep, these have been sitting here for a long time.


[Bailiff] Take some tissues?


[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah, I’m gonna – yeah, I’ll take some tissues.


[mux in]


The bailiff, who’s been looking over with an interested expression ever since Cynthia found the envelope, comes over to offer a box of tissues. The clerk is on her feet, too. She’s writing down the exhibit number of the nail clippings to make sure they’re preserved.


The courtroom is now filled with excitement. A feeling that’s reaching across the professional boundaries in the room. The bailiff says out loud, “This is incredible!”


[Bailiff] This is incredible.


[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah, and you guys were here for this. This was history in-the-making.


[Bailiff] This is like what you see in a movie.


[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah. Maybe your job is boring sometimes… Not today.


[Bailiff] No, not today.


[mux post & out]


A few weeks after that day at the courthouse, Cynthia filed a motion with the court for DNA testing.


She asked the court to order testing for the nail clippings and six other pieces of evidence found in the box that have also never been DNA tested. Those include fingerprint lifts from inside Sharon’s car, the cigarette-butts from Sharon’s car, and Jason’s pocket knife.


Cynthia had hopes prosecutors for the state might agree to the testing. After all, it could prove Jason’s guilt or his innocence. She waited days to hear whether they’d agree. Then weeks.


Finally, the state filed a document with a court. They were objecting to DNA testing.


[mux in]


The state’s objection to DNA testing in Jason Carroll’s case begins with yet another re-telling of the official narrative.


The state then argues there is NO scenario under which DNA testing would exonerate Jason. I had to reread that sentence a few times when I first saw this document. No possible scenario where DNA testing proves Jason’s innocence.


This means that even if DNA tests on the evidence came back and there was no DNA of Jason’s and there was, say, DNA from a known serial killer, the state’s position is that that would not exonerate Jason.


I tried to talk with Charles Bucca, the prosecutor who wrote the objection. I wanted to ask what makes him so absolutely certain of Jason’s guilt. But he declined.


It seems for Charles and the state of New Hampshire, they already know what happened, Jason is guilty. He confessed. And it seems nothing – not even a DNA test – can undo that story. Like bread becomes flesh, that story is now their truth.


As of this moment, the decision on whether or not DNA testing will happen is in the hands of Judge William Delker. The same judge who denied Jason’s request for early release.


[mux out]


Even if DNA testing is granted it will likely still take a long time to play out. There could be fights over which items get tested, which kinds of tests get run, and which lab should do the testing.


Then, of course, the results could be argued over. If the DNA tests come back as not-Jason, but don’t point to anyone else, a judge might decide that’s not enough. If the DNA tests come back as Ken Johnson, the state could argue that confirms Jason’s conviction.


It could all take months, if not longer.


And in the meantime, Jason Carroll is inside the New Hampshire State Prison for Men, about five minutes from me.


I talked to Jason again in January of 2023. His lawyer, Cynthia, was in the room with me.


[Jason Carroll] I am tired of being looked at like I’m // some fucking kind of animal. And I’m just tired of being looked at like, you know, “Oh yeah, well, you were convicted.” And I get how the court systems work, but people don’t understand the shoddiness and shittyness that happened with this.


Jason has been riding an emotional roller coaster the past several months. Appearing in court again for the first time in decades, having his request for early parole denied, learning about the discovery of the evidence box, and now finding out the state is objecting to DNA testing. It’s been a busy time.


Still, Jason seems clear-eyed about the road ahead. He says they’ve lost some battles, but the war can still be won. He tells Cynthia he’s ready to keep fighting. Ready to be the first man in New Hampshire to ever be exonerated after being convicted of murder.


[Jason Carroll] I’m kinda like the, uh, I’m kinda like the plow right now for people that are behind the wall.. in a sense.


[Cynthia Mousseau] What do you mean by that? Say more about that.


[Jason Carroll] Well, for what you and I have got going on, you know, with your organization, which has never been done before, there are people in here who need it. There are people in here, like me, that don’t belong here. There’s not many. But there are some here. And the thing is, the state’s never had it before. So, I mean, you and I are like, you know, we’re trying to make history. It’s tough. But, like I said, we’re the snowplow that’ll open up a path for everybody else. 


For a few moments, I stopped interviewing and just listened as Jason and Cynthia talk to each other. They’ve known each other a few years now.


[Cynthia Mousseau] Jason, can you talk about, like, how – What’s it been like, like, you put your faith in the system originally, right? And then the system fails you.


[Jason Carroll] Of course.


[Cynthia Mousseau] How have you felt about trying to put your faith in the system again? Like, how has that been?


[Jason Carroll] You know, it’s not putting my faith so much into the system. It’s putting my faith into you.


Cynthia fights back a smile. A look of embarrassment, pride, heartache, and heavy responsibility blooms across her face.


[Jason Carroll] That’s what I put my faith into. It’s not the system. System sucks, let’s just face it... System’s trash.


[mux in]


A word about that system that Jason just mentioned. The public institutions that are supposed to act on our behalf. The ones we pay for with our taxes.


That system is not always built on science. 


The number one recommendation of false confession experts is that interrogations should be recorded in their entirety. More than half of all states in the U.S. require police to do this. New Hampshire is not one of them. 


In response to our question about this, a spokesperson for the New Hampshire Department of Safety said they do consider it “best practice.” We talked to more than a dozen defense attorneys and local police officials, who told us interrogations with suspects in New Hampshire are often recorded, though not universally. A bill to require recording police interrogations in most circumstances is pending in the state legislature. 


Since 2002, close to 100 so-called conviction integrity units have opened across 27 states. These are units within prosecutor’s offices tasked with revisiting their own convictions to make sure they still hold up. Less than half of those units have actually recorded exonerations, but across those who have, 668 people have been cleared of crimes they did not commit. A conviction integrity unit played a role in the exoneration of Huwe Burton, who you heard from in the last episode. There are no conviction integrity units in New Hampshire.


Some law enforcement agencies are abandoning the Reid technique because of the risk of false confessions. In 2015, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, sort of the Canadian-FBI, said they were switching to a less accusatory technique. And believe it or not, a sergeant with the RCMP described the new technique to a reporter this way: “Less Kojak and more Dr. Phil.”


[mux post]


For now, this is as far as I can take you. The road to answering who killed Sharon Johnson – and whether Jason Carroll will be exonerated ends here, for the moment.


In my true crime story, I can’t tell you whether Jason is truly innocent. The truth is, I don’t know – at least not yet.


I do know this: In the late 1980s all we had to go on were a few clues and words on tape. Today, in 2023, with a box full of evidence that can now be DNA tested, and more than 30 years of science on confessions, we finally have a real shot at getting to the truth. The only question left is whether our system of justice is willing to keep looking for it.


[mux up & out]


A True Crime Story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.


It’s edited by Katie Colaneri.


Additional reporting and research by Paul Cuno-Booth.


Editing help from Lauren Chooljian, Daniela Allee, Sara Plourde, Taylor Quimby, Mara Hoplamazian, and Todd Bookman. 


Our News Director is Dan Barrick. Our Director of Podcasts is Rebecca Lavoie.


Fact-checking by Dania Suleman.


Sara Plourde created our original artwork, as well as our website, bearbrookpodcast.com.


Additional photography and videos by Gaby Lozada.


Special thanks to Maria Savarese, Mary McIntyre, Gaby Healy, Sarah Nathan, Dan Tuohy, Zoey Knox, Jeongyoon Han, and Ruby Baer.


Original music for the series was created by me, Jason Moon.


Bear Brook is a production of the Document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of S2 Episode 7: This Side of the Line

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

Previously on Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story:

 

[Cynthia Mousseau] I could point out how Jason’s statements were so inconsistent with the undisputed forensic evidence in this case, that it was more probable that he was guessing in response to interrogation questions, than he had any actual knowledge. In fact, looking at these inconsistencies, it is shocking that Jason was ever even a credible suspect, let alone convicted.

 

[Jason Carroll] I do remember being yelled and screamed at. // and any time I answered the wrong way, he’d be like, “Nope. Nope, nope, nope, nope.” // I remember being so wiped out, I tried to go to sleep under the table, they wouldn’t let me.

 

[Jason Moon] But, ultimately, // were you convinced that Jason was guilty of the crime?

[Tom Dufresne] Oh yeah. He admitted to… // If I recall correctly, he admitted to stabbing her at least once. This was a horrible crime. // I mean, that's… why would you say that if you didn’t do it?

 

 

The first known wrongful conviction in the United States was based on a false confession. Actually, two false confessions – one from each of the two co-defendants.

 

They were farmers in Vermont in 1812. Jesse and Stephen Boorn. They didn’t like their brother-in-law. They thought he was lazy, freeloading off of their family.

 

When the brother-in-law disappeared, the Boorn brothers were easy suspects. Witnesses said they heard the Boorns threaten to kill the brother-in-law. The brother-in-law’s personal items were found in the Boorns’ cellar. Bones were found buried in their field.

 

The Boorn brothers were arrested. A jailhouse informant said one of the brothers confessed to him. Then, Jesse and Stephen Boorn themselves both confessed. In detail, they described murdering their brother-in-law with a club, burying his body, then excavating and moving the remains – twice.

 

Stephen Boorn was scheduled to be executed on January 28, 1820. Then, the brother-in-law arrived in town – alive.

 

[mux in]

 

The signs were all there. The bones found in the field were dog bones, the jailhouse informant had every incentive to lie about his cellmate, and the confessions from the Boorn brothers didn’t match with known facts.

 

But confessions are uniquely powerful as evidence goes. And so for a very long time, it took something like this to exonerate someone who had falsely confessed to murder. A miracle. The victim come back to life.

 

[mux post]

 

Because of this, for a long time, the known examples of false confessions were very few. From 1820, when the Boorn brothers were set free, to 1989 when Jason Caroll was arrested, just 61 people in the U.S. had been exonerated after falsely confessing. That’s 61 known false confessions in 169 years.

 

Then, another miracle: DNA testing. In 1989, for the first time, a DNA test proved someone’s innocence after they were convicted and freed them from prison. Three years later, a group of lawyers founded the Innocence Project – a group devoted to doing more of the same. A flood of exonerations followed.

 

Over the last three decades, that flood has helped expose all kinds of problems in the criminal justice system. Like the unreliability of eye-witness testimony, police using junk forensic science like bitemark or hair analysis, prosecutorial misconduct, and false confessions.

 

Since 1989 – nearly 400 people have been exonerated after they falsely confessed to crimes they didn’t commit. That’s almost 400 known false confessions in just 34 years. Some of those people had been sentenced to death. More than half of all of them were Black.

 

[mux post]

 

The same year all that began, 1989, Jason Carroll was confessing to murder.

 

Jason’s case sits on a bright red line separating what we used to believe, from what we now know about false confessions.

 

And from today’s side of that line, the story sounds different.

 

This is Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story. I’m Jason Moon.

 

[mux up & out]

 

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] People really have a hard time understanding, why would you confess to something that you didn’t commit? Why would you confess to something as horrible as a rape // or a murder, if you didn’t actually do that?

 

Dr. Fabiana Alceste has devoted her career to researching and understanding the answers to that question. She’s a professor of psychology at Butler University. 

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] Being wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime that you did not commit on the basis of your own false confession is just about the worst thing that can happen to someone.

 

I called Fabiana to see what she makes of Jason Carroll’s case. I wanted to know what she hears when she listens to the confession tapes.

 

I’ll spare you the suspense: There are no simple answers here.

 

But there is so much we’ve learned. What was once just a rhetorical question – “why would you confess to a murder you didn’t commit?” – today, it’s actually been answered, thanks to decades of scientific research and the lived experiences of hundreds of exonerees who falsely confessed.

 

[mux in]

 

For the last six episodes, I’ve told you about the ways Jason’s case was argued over as it happened – with the knowledge and ideas people had at the time. Call it another true-crime storytelling choice. I wanted you to hear the arguments the way Tony and Jason’s juries heard them.

 

Now, let’s run the clock forward 30 years. Let’s take a journey into a modern understanding of confession evidence.

 

[mux post]

 

Fabiana’s first lesson for this journey: This is not the land of intuition. Hunches and gut feelings about the way people act or how they sound during a confession, it will not help us here.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] It’s very, very difficult for anyone to distinguish between true and false confessions.

 

There’s one study that illustrates this so powerfully, I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it.

 

It’s from 2005. Psychologists videotaped a group of incarcerated men confessing to the crimes they actually committed. Then, they videotaped them confessing to crimes they did not commit.

 

They wondered: Could anyone tell the difference?

 

They played the tapes for a group of about 60 police officers and another group of about 60 college students.

 

Both groups felt confident they could tell the difference. Both groups were wrong. Overall, their accuracy rate was no better than if they had guessed at random.

 

[mux post]

 

The police officers in the study had an average of 11 years of experience. Many of them had been trained in so-called deception detection.

 

But it didn't matter. Laypeople, trained detectives, you and me – as much as we might think we’d know a false confession if we heard one, we’re probably wrong.

 

[mux out]

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] It’s very hard to reliably tell when people are telling the truth versus when people are lying, using the kinds of behavioral cues that are kind of in the general zeitgeist. So, if I asked you, “How do you know when someone is lying?” What kinds of things would you tell me to look for?

 

Shifting in your seat, looking away, mumbling, making too much eye contact, touching your face. These might be signs of anxiety, but none of these behaviors are reliable ways to tell if someone is lying.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] But unfortunately, these are the kinds of signs that police officers have been trained to look for for a very long time. And they are often told in these trainings that these are scientifically proven ways to identify liars when they are just unequivocally not. And in fact, a lot of scientific evidence shows that this is not the way to identify liars and truth tellers.

 

By the way, Fabiana says there is a better way to catch liars: Have them tell the story backwards. People have trouble with the mental effort required to build a false story in reverse.

 

[mux in]

 

So false confessions are really hard to spot. We can’t rely on our senses or intuition to hear them. But why do they happen in the first place?

 

Well, Fabiana says the answer is not in the confession – it’s in the interrogation.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] Interrogations are not conversations, right? The interrogation is basically a monologue by the interrogator, uh, until the very end where you finally have the suspect verbalize and write their confession.

 

Here, Fabiana is describing a particular method of interrogation common in the United States – something called the Reid technique.

 

The roots of the Reid technique go back to the 1950s. It’s named after the police officer who originally developed it: John Reid. He has since died, but today, the Reid Company continues to hone the technique – and to teach it to all kinds of law enforcement agencies around the world.

 

The Reid technique uses a two-pronged approach: Make it hard for the suspect to deny guilt and make it easy for them to confess it.

 

False confession researchers like Dr. Fabiana Alceste call this maximization and minimization. You might think of it like the carrot and the stick.

 

[mux post]

 

In Reid, the interrogator tells the suspect up front that the evidence already points to them. The interrogator might do this – even if it’s not true.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] What’s called the “false evidence ploy.” This is an interrogation tactic in which an interrogator will tell the suspect that there is irrefutable, ironclad evidence of their guilt, like DNA, fingerprints, an eyewitness, CCTV footage, you name it – even though this is actually false.

 

That’s totally legal in the U.S., by the way. And that’s the first stick: “We already know you’re guilty.”

 

Then the interrogator cuts off any denials. Another stick.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] You kind of put your hand up and you say, “Well, hold on a second. Let me finish, because this is really important.” And you don’t actually let them verbalize their denial.

 

The sticks, or maximization, are meant to make the suspect feel hopeless. Like denying their involvement is a total dead end. “They already know it’s me, they won’t even let me say I didn’t do it, and they’ve got proof.”

 

[mux post]

 

Now come the carrots – minimization.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] So these could be things like blaming the victim, saying that anyone in the suspect’s shoes would’ve done the exact same thing, saying that the crime was committed on the spur of the moment rather than being planned. // The interrogator might be using a kinder tone. Maybe sometimes they’re even whispering all of these excuses to the suspect, telling them, “Hey, I understand. I would’ve done the same thing. You were just trying to protect your family.”

 

Carrots can also be implied. Like, “Hey, if you tell the truth, it’ll be better for everyone.” Which to a suspect might sound like they’ll get a lighter sentence, even if that’s not true.

 

If you imagine the suspect is truly guilty, it’s not hard to see how this might work. The suspect feels the jig is up. “And anyways, even the cops are saying it’s not that bad what I did. I’ll confess and make things easier on myself.”

 

[mux out]

 

The carrots and sticks of the Reid technique do work. The Reid Company once reportedly claimed that their technique yields a confession 80% of the time.

 

The problem, according to the research, is that it can work on guilty people and innocent ones.

 

In research settings, when these tactics are used during an interrogation, the rate of true confessions goes up – but so does the rate of false confessions.

 

The Reid Company responds to these critiques by saying that when false confessions happen, it’s usually because an interrogator has strayed QUOTE “outside of the parameters of the Reid technique.”

 

But Fabiana and other experts on false confession say the Reid technique puts innocent people at risk. Especially when you combine it with other risk factors.

 

Like younger suspects. Children and adolescents are hugely overrepresented in the pool of proven false confessions. Same goes for people with intellectual disabilities.

 

The length of interrogations is another risk factor. According to one study, most interrogations last between 30 minutes and 2 hours. The Reid technique cautions against going for more than 4 hours. One study of 125 proven false confessions found the average length of those interrogations was over 16 hours.

 

So – the Reid technique, young or mentally disabled suspects, long interrogations. The research shows these things all make false confessions more likely.

 

But it can still be hard to wrap your mind around. Surveys show most of us still think we would never falsely confess.

 

Maybe the research isn’t enough to convince us. Maybe we need to hear from someone who lived it… like Huwe Burton.

 

[Jason Moon] Have you ever gone back and watched the taped confession you gave?

[Huwe Burton] Absolutely. // It’s still hard to watch it without breaking down. You’re looking, I can hear the officer’s voice in the back and it takes me right back to that room, 1989. And it takes me right back to the – how terrified I was and I can see the fear in my eyes as I’m looking at my 16-year-old self.

 

1989. The same year Jason Carroll confessed. 

 

One evening, a 16-year-old Huwe came home to his family’s apartment in the Bronx and noticed his mom’s car wasn’t in their driveway. Then, he went inside.

 

[Huwe Burton] And (clears throat) I came in, now I’m taking my things off, I’m walking towards the back of the apartment, toward the bedrooms. I noticed that my parents’ bedroom was open, the door was open. I went into the room, I looked in there, and that’s where I made the discovery. I’d found my mom.

 

His mom, Keziah Burton, was lying dead in her bed. She had been stabbed in the neck. 

 

[Huwe Burton] Immediately called the police. I’m screaming, crying. I couldn’t stay in the house any longer so I ran outside.

 

The police arrived. Huwe answered some questions about what he saw and where he was that day.

 

Huwe’s father was away in Jamaica, visiting Huwe’s grandmother. So Huwe went to stay with his godmother.

 

A few days later, police called Huwe’s godmother. They wanted Huwe to come take a polygraph test.

 

[Huwe Burton] I was only able to sleep 10, 15 minutes at a time. And I’m, you know, I’m just waking up, staring at the ceiling. If I try to eat something, as I eat it, it's coming back up. // I’m drained. I didn’t even want to get out of the bed. My godmother said, “Well, they just want to do this– same questions they asked you that day, they just want to ask you the same thing again. They just want a polygraph test.” And you know, I’d never heard of it before. I don’t know what a polygraph test is. “Alright so, let’s go, if it’ll help you find out who did this to my mom, then alright.” So by the time I get to the precinct, I’m already a mess. I’m already drained.

 

Huwe went into a room alone with the police. No lawyer. No parents.

 

[Huwe Burton] What started as a simple interview, maybe about an hour-and-a-half, two hours into that, it turned accusatory. They told me they had evidence that led them to believe that I was the one who had committed this crime.

 

Huwe was 16, he’d just found his own mother murdered in their home, and now the police were telling him they knew he did it.

 

Stick.

 

[mux in]

 

[Huwe Burton] I started crying immediately, because I still couldn’t process that I just left my mom sitting on the couch and went to school, only to come back and find her murdered in my parents’ bedroom. // I don’t know, I don’t know up from down. And in the middle of that, you tell me that, “We know that you’re the one responsible for it. You did this.”

 

            [mux post]

 

[Huwe Burton] The more I told them I didn’t, the more they told me, “You did and this is the only way this is going to work for you. We know that you didn’t mean to do this, we know that this was an accident. But you need to tell us the truth.” I’m still telling them, “No, I didn’t commit this crime, I didn’t commit this crime, I do not– I didn’t do anything to my mom.”

 

Huwe was telling the truth. He did not murder his own mother.

 

But at the time, the detectives were following a hunch – a theory of the case, that later turned out to be based on a mistake.

 

When police first spoke to Huwe the day of the murder, he told them he went to school as normal. But when the police checked with his teacher, she incorrectly said her attendance records showed Huwe was absent that day. So it looked like Huwe was lying.

 

[Huwe Burton] The theory was that I owed a local drug dealer money. // And I tried to pay with my mom’s car. And I left the keys for this drug dealer and he’s the one who took the car.

 

The interrogators believed Huwe’s mother confronted him about the car. They figured Huwe was high on cocaine, the argument escalated, and in a rage, Huwe accidentally killed his mother.

 

After hours of telling 16-year-old Huwe Burton they know he’s guilty and cutting him off when he denies it, the interrogators have succeeded in pushing him to the point of despair. The sticks, the maximization – it’s worked.

 

[Huwe Burton] They continued with this over and over and over again and in my 16-year-old mind it seemed like an eternity. I felt that I could not leave, although no one told me “you can’t leave,” I was made to feel as if I could not get up and walk out of the, the interrogation room.

 

Now the carrot – minimization.

 

[Huwe Burton] They then began to tell me that, “Look, just tell us that you committed this crime, because, again, we know this was an accident. And if you do, we’ll take you to family court where your dad can come and pick you up and you can put all of this behind you.” // So when they started to suggest that this is the only way that this is going to work, because you’re going to go to jail for this one way or not, when they started talking that language, and now your mind says, “Well, OK, you have to trust them.” // It’s interesting, the people that you look at as authority figures… You know, you’re taught to respect them and you get to a point where you’re almost trying to do the best that you can to make sure that you appease them and that it’s done right. Even with my confession, after we’re going over and over and over it, // in my mind I’m saying, “I have to do it right if I want to just go to family court and see my dad. That’s the only way that I’m going to be released is by doing this thing that they’re asking me to do properly.” // You believe that you’re helping your accusers help you.

 

Huwe started to play along with the detectives’ questions.

 

And remember, the police already had a theory of what happened here. And so they asked Huwe questions based on that theory.

 

This is really important, because it helps explain one of the most puzzling parts of false confessions.

 

Here’s Fabiana again.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] False confessions aren’t just someone breaking down and saying, “I did it.” They’re actually pretty often rich, detailed narratives. // They have statements of motive, they have apologies, they have timelines, they make references to the thoughts and feelings of the confessor, of the victim, of the things going on around them when they’re committing the crime. They sound like stories that come from a person’s memory.

 

[mux in]

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] And so, if we know for an absolute fact that someone is innocent, how is it possible that they could give such a detailed confession with real facts about the crime? // And the answer to that question is contamination.

 

Contamination. Basically, when ideas or facts are leaked from the interrogator to the suspect. It’s usually unintentional – and even though interrogators are trained to avoid it, that can be hard to do, especially over a long interrogation.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] The more frustrated you get or the more convinced that you might become of the suspect’s guilt, kind of the less careful you might be, ‘cause you’re like, “Well, I know that this person did this, why would I care about leaking information to them? Because they already have all the information, because they did it.”

 

Embedded in the questions from interrogators are often details about the crime and an implied narrative about how the police think it happened.

 

[Huwe Burton] And they say, “OK, so, you were on drugs. So then what did you do? Because your mom was stabbed, so what, did you go into the kitchen and then did, did you go get a knife after that?” “Yes, I went into the kitchen.” So, my answers “yes” or “no” to things is them putting the story together and having me remember this.

 

[mux post]

 

[Huwe Burton] They fed me a story and I agreed and I agreed and I agreed. And they kept going over it. “So, let’s – back from the top. So what happened? So you woke up that morning, and you were still high?” “Yeah I was still high.” And after you do it a few times, now it’s– they’re not saying anything, it’s just you. Now the training wheels are off and you can just roll and do this story yourself.

 

[mux out]

 

Contamination in interrogations can be hard to detect. Especially when the interrogation itself is not recorded.

 

That happens a lot in proven false confessions like Huwe’s. The tape recorder isn’t turned on until the end. The interrogation – the contamination – isn’t captured. But the confession is. And so that’s all the jury hears.

 

[Jason Moon] What was that like hearing the verdict from these jurors? I mean, you must’ve been in disbelief.

 

[Huwe Burton] No, I collapsed. My legs gave. I was 18. We stood up and they read the verdict as guilty, second-degree murder. I dropped. I’m crying and screaming, “I didn’t kill my mom! I didn’t kill my mom!” First time I seen my father crying, you know… // And I can remember the judge dismissing the jury and I’m crying, I’m looking at them. They have all of the bailiffs and stuff in the court around me. And I’m asking the jury – just to show you, I’m still a kid, when I’m 18, I’m asking them, where are they going? “Where are y’all going? Like, what about me? Like, what about – you can’t leave. What about me?” I never forget that.

 

[mux in]

 

[Huwe Burton] I couldn’t believe that someone would actually think that I could harm my mom. I… The shock of that, like, you actually believed that? Um… It was a lot. That day was a lot.

 

[mux post]

 

The jury saw Huwe Burton’s videotaped confession and they believed it. Because why wouldn’t they? 

 

[Huwe Burton] Who in their mind – and go back in a time capsule of 1989 – who says that they killed their mother if they didn’t?

 

Huwe Burton spent 20 years and 8 months in prison for a crime he did not commit.

 

He was released on parole and then finally exonerated in 2019 – when he was 46 years old.

 

Huwe and a team of innocence lawyers uncovered serious misconduct by the police and prosecutors in his case.

 

The teacher who said Huwe was not at school the day of the murder – she later called police and told them she was wrong. She just looked at the wrong date in her records. Huwe was at school that day. Prosecutors had that information, but never turned it over to Huwe’s defense attorneys. A serious violation of their constitutional duty.

 

Huwe and his lawyers also uncovered the detectives who interrogated him had extracted false confessions in another investigation just three months before Huwe’s arrest.

 

But even with what the jury heard at trial, there were plenty of signs:

 

Huwe recanted his confession and told everyone it was coerced.

 

Huwe said in his confession he stabbed his mother once. She’d been stabbed twice.

 

There was no medical or physical evidence that Huwe was high on cocaine or that he’d been involved in a struggle.

 

There were even signs, obvious in retrospect, that Huwe’s confession was contaminated. Huwe’s story about the murder was littered with police jargon – things most 16-year-olds would never say. Huwe said he was “stimulated” on cocaine, that he was “associating with a friend,” and that he “proceeded” up a road.

 

[mux out]

 

But these warning signs were nothing compared to the power of Huwe’s confession.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] Confessions seem uniquely positioned as the thing that overpowers all the other factors that you could think of, that you could look at and say, these things don’t seem right. The confession overpowers all of those things. There’s some research that shows that confession evidence can be more powerful // than // DNA that exonerates the confessor.

 

Confessions are so convincing, they can even spill over into influencing other forms of evidence – including forensic evidence.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] You would think that the science is the science and it would be really difficult to bias a scientist who is examining some kind of forensic evidence, like, let’s say a fingerprint. But, actually, what we see in the studies that researchers in this field have conducted is that if a fingerprint examiner knows that there was a confession in the case, they’re more likely to say that that person’s fingerprint is a match to the fingerprint that they found at the scene.

 

Fabiana says this goes for other forensic experts, too, like medical examiners. If they know a confession exists, it can influence their interpretation of the evidence.

 

Confessions can also derail good police work. Once there’s a confession, there’s a tendency for the investigation to come to a halt. “We found the guy, he confessed. What’s left to do?”

 

Six days after Huwe’s confession, police pulled over a man driving Huwe’s mother’s car. This man lived downstairs from Huwe’s family. He had a violent criminal history. He was driving the victim’s car.

 

But police already had their guy – someone who confessed.

 

The man who was driving Huwe’s mother car died before Huwe’s trial. No one, besides Huwe, was ever convicted for Keziah Burton’s murder.

 

[mux in]

 

[Huwe Burton] For many years, I would ask myself, sitting inside there, like, very angry with myself, like, how did you allow them to trick you like that? I was very upset, especially in my early 20s. // It’s one of those things that, you know, you can’t put that kind of pain into words.

 

[mux post]

 

[Huwe Burton] You’re screaming at the top of your lungs that you didn’t do something. And it’s almost as if the world can’t hear you. 

 

Once Huwe was exonerated, the world did hear him. He spoke out in interviews like this one. He says it was partly a way to begin healing – partly because he feels a duty to tell all of us: This can happen. This does happen.

 

Today, Huwe continues to speak out and to move on with his life. In prison, he picked up long-distance running as a way to cope with the pain. In 2019, he ran the New York City marathon as a free man.

 

[mux post]

 

The experience of exonerees like Huwe Burton and the research of psychologists like Dr. Fabiana Alceste, have opened a new world of understanding about how and why false confessions happen.

 

In fact, according to the legal clinic that helped exonerate Huwe, his case marked the first time a court ruled that new understandings about false confessions can constitute newly discovered evidence of actual innocence.

 

After the break, we bring those new understandings to Jason Carroll’s case.

 

[mux out]

 

[CIVICS 101 PROMO]

 

************************MIDROLL***************************

 

I asked Dr. Fabiana Alceste to review the confessions in Jason’s case. The only real evidence against him.

 

Here’s what she saw: five red flags in Jason’s interrogations. Five things that the research shows make a false confession more likely.

 

The first red flag: the length of Jason’s interrogations.

 

Over four days, police interrogated Jason for a long time. Just how long depends on how you count it.

 

Police actively questioned Jason for at least 13 and-a-half hours over four days. Five hours the first day, about six hours the second day, and then more sporadically in the following two days.

 

But if you count up all the time that Jason was with police, as part of the overall psychological burden he was under, the number is 24 hours over four days.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] The longer the interrogation goes on, you see more and more false confessions.

 

The second red flag: Jason’s age.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] Jason was 19 at this time, so legally he wasn’t a minor, but we still would classify him as an adolescent. He’s still a person at this point in time where his brain has not fully developed.

 

Of all people in the U.S. who’ve been exonerated after falsely confessing to murder: their median age at the time they were interrogated was 20 years old.

 

Red flag number three: Jason’s mom, Karen Carroll. Fabiana says Karen’s aggressive involvement in Lamy’s interrogation of Jason supercharged the carrots and sticks. Karen made it even more stressful for Jason to deny and repeatedly communicated that confessing was the only good outcome.

 

[Karen Carroll] The longer you hold off telling the truth… (fade down)

 

Karen says, “The longer you hold off telling the truth the harder it’s going to be, and the worse it’s going to be on yourself. You still have a chance to save your ass. My dear, I don’t want to see you go to prison.”

 

Jason says, “I don’t want to go to prison either, Ma.

 

Karen says, “then tell us every goddamn thing you know.”

 

(fade up)

[Karen Carroll] Then tell us every goddamn thing you know.

 

Remember, when Jason appealed his conviction to the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1994, the judges ruled that if Jason’s mom had been acting as a police officer, the confession would’ve been thrown out. But because they said Karen wasn’t a police officer in that room, her conduct wasn’t relevant to them – since the state constitution doesn’t have anything to say about the way relatives question each other. But to a psychologist looking at whether Karen’s involvement made a false confession more likely, it definitely is relevant.

 

[mux in & post]

 

Red flag number four: maximization tactics – the sticks. Jason’s second interrogation especially is full of them.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] So they say things like, “The jury will tear you apart if you’re not telling the truth here.” They repeatedly tell him that he’s not telling them the whole truth and he’s holding out on them and that they know that for sure.

 

And the fifth red flag: contamination.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] So, we do see the interrogators revealing key details to Jason. And then sometimes almost immediately after that we see Jason incorporate those details into his story.

 

We’re going to spend some time on this red flag because Jason’s knowledge of certain details about Sharon Johnson’s murder was a big point of contention at his trials. Remember, the state argued: Jason could only have known so much if he was actually involved.

 

But Fabiana sees clear evidence that for at least some of those details, Jason likely learned them from the interrogators.

 

Here’s one example:

 

During Jason’s second interrogation, detectives ask him, why did Ken Johnson want his wife murdered? Jason says, “I wasn’t briefed on that.” His mother pushes him for an answer. Then Jason says, “Because she knew something that Ken had done.”

 

And then a detective with the Bedford Police Department, Leo Morency, jumps in – and introduces a new idea.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] So he asks, “What had he done, what had Ken done, raped his daughter?” And after that, Jason goes on to use this detail repeatedly. But he had never mentioned anything about Ken raping Lisa before Morency brought that up.

 

You might remember, this was an early theory police had, long before they ever talked to Jason – that Ken Johnson had sexually abused his own stepdaughter, Lisa, and that Sharon caught him doing it.

 

But police later abandoned this theory. Because there’s no evidence for it. Lisa herself denied it. Tony said he was in fact the father of the child. And Tony never mentions it as a motive in his interrogations. By the time of Tony and Jason’s trials, prosecutors say the motive was Ken’s gambling debts – not a rape.

 

But once the idea is introduced to Jason – it sticks. It’s now a part of his story from that point on. Here he is repeating this idea in his third interrogation.

 

[Officer] Did he give you any explanation as to why she was to be killed?

 

[Jason Carroll] He had told me that Johnson, she had caught Johnson raping his daughter and doing some other very – or heard about some very other criminal acts.

 

Fabiana says it’s important to trace the genealogy of each detail in a confession.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] Is it something that the police had already thought in their theory before they even questioned anyone? Is it a new theory that arose out of the questioning of one of the suspects or witnesses? Where does each thought and fact and detail come from? Who states it first? Is it actually true?

 

The idea that a rape was the motive for the murder was not reported on in the news. So if that idea isn’t true, and it wasn’t in the news – where else did Jason get it from if not the detectives? And if that happened with this detail, couldn’t it have happened with others?

 

[mux out]

 

If you trace the origin of other important details in Jason’s confession, you see a similar trajectory: Detectives introducing ideas, Jason incorporating those ideas into his story.

 

Like with the murder weapon. Even after Jason has admitted to stabbing Sharon, he gives a handful of different answers about where the murder weapon is. He says he doesn’t know. The detectives say that’s wrong. He says he burned it in a fire. They say that’s wrong. He says he threw it in a river. Wrong again.

 

And finally, Detective Lamy introduces the idea that the knife is at Jason’s house. QUOTE “It’s at your house or you got it,” he says. Then, Karen introduces the idea of the specific knife. “Is it a small brown pocket knife?” Jason simply agrees with them.

 

Or how about the amount Jason was paid? According to police, before anything was tape-recorded, Jason said he was paid $500. Then, Lamy says, “I suspect that is not the accurate amount you got.” Jason changes his answer to $2,000. Then, later, to $5,000.

 

There’s Sharon’s bra – which, remember, was cut open in the front with a knife. One of those supposedly hidden details that only the killer would know. But Jason makes no mention of the bra until his third interrogation, when the idea is first introduced by police.

 

And then when Jason gets the answer wrong (he says the bra was unsnapped), listen to the detectives give him multiple choice answers to try and help him match up his story to the evidence:

 

[Neal Scott] How was the bra taken off?

 

[Jason Carroll] The bra? It was unsnapped.

 

[Neal Scott] Unsnapped or torn? Do you recall?

 

[Officer] Cut, torn, unsnapped, pulled over her head?

 

[Jason Carroll] To me– to me, the way it was going, it seemed like it was unsnapped.

 

[Officer] Snapped in the front or the back?

 

[Jason Carroll] In the back. From what– it seemed like he was reaching around her to the back.

 

So, not only does Jason not mention the bra until police specifically ask him about it – when he does incorporate the idea into his story, he does so in a way that gets the evidence wrong.

 

[mux in]

 

There’s even evidence that detectives were willing to show Jason pictures of the crime scene. It happens during the interrogation with his mother.

 

Near the end of the tape, after Jason has already said he stabbed Sharon, Lamy asks Jason about Sharon’s rings. You might remember Sharon’s rings were found lying on the ground at the construction site.


Lamy says, “Who took the rings off of her hand, you haven’t told us anything about that. Why didn’t you tell us about that?”

 

Jason replies, “Because I didn’t know of any rings being on her hands.”


Lamy says, “Well, they were on her hands. Who took them off? You were there. Think clearly, think clearly now. They were found on the ground. Who took them off and why were they off?” 

 

And then Lamy asks, presumably of one of the other detectives, if they have a picture they can show Jason.

 

And from that moment on, the rings are part of Jason’s story.

 

[mux out]

 

[Jason Moon] So, (sigh) alright, but so a jury could hear this and think, “Well, whatever, he gets some of the details wrong and the details change and they get more incriminating – not because it’s what cops want to hear, but it’s because it’s the things that he doesn’t want to say.” // So why isn’t this evolution of details just a, a kind of slow, like, surrendering to the reality of what he’s done? // Why can’t we say that’s what’s happening here?

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] I think the hard part is that we can’t say that’s what’s not happening… We can’t prove just by analyzing what is going on in the interrogation – we can’t prove that this is a false confession just by anything that he has said or that the interrogators have said.

 

            [mux in]

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] All we have are the red flags. All we have are the red flags and what they amount to and how they interact with each other. // They provide a reason to be skeptical of these interrogation practices and the confessions that resulted from them.

 

            [mux post]

 

After all this, we’re back to the original problem of false confessions – they’re so hard to detect.

 

Even for the interrogator. Fabiana says they often do not realize they’re planting the details of a false story.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] The majority of police officers and interrogators and detectives out there, when they’re interrogating someone and they are getting a confession and they are contaminating and they are making this person rehearse the confession over and over again, it’s because they really think that the person did it. // And so, that is not always the case. I can point to some very specific people and instances where there have been set-ups by the police and the police knew that they were taking a false confession, and I think that that is rare. I think that is the exception.

 

Fabiana says the problem here is not about the intentions of individual interrogators. It’s bigger than that.

 

In 2012, the Attorney General for the state of Nebraska apologized and offered $500,000 in taxpayer money to a man who’d been wrongfully convicted. Darrel Parker had been coerced into a false confession in 1955… by a detective named John Reid. The most commonly used interrogation technique in the U.S. is named after a detective who extracted a false confession.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] The system, the culture that our detectives live in and are made to operate in sets them up for this specific kind of failure of not being able to realize that there’s an innocent person in front of them because it is so guilt-presumptive. It is such an accusatory and confirmatory process. // And so I think that they’re just // doing what they have been trained to do. They are doing what their police departments have done for decades and decades and decades.

 

This is why recording interrogations from start-to-finish is the number one recommendation from experts like Fabiana to avoid convictions based on false confessions.

 

In total, about an hour-and-a-half of Jason’s interrogations were tape-recorded. That’s about 11% of the time Jason was questioned by police.

 

None of this is to say we should never trust any confession. Confessions can have green flags as well as red ones.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] One thing that you should be looking for are details that can be independently corroborated that the police did not know about beforehand. So if a confession leads the police to new evidence, that’s a good sign that this might be a true confession.

 

For instance, if Jason had led police to the location of Sharon’s shirt or her pocketbook, which were never found, it would’ve been strong evidence he was telling the truth.

 

But Jason didn’t. In fact, there’s not a single verifiable fact that comes from Jason’s confessions that police didn’t already know about in advance.

 

 

In criminal trials, the standard for convicting someone is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It’s the highest burden of proof in our court system. It’s also notoriously vague. What makes a doubt reasonable? And what if doubts that seemed unreasonable in the early ‘90s, become reasonable 30 years later with new science? What do we do then?

 

[mux in]

 

In the courts, new doubts are often not enough to undo a conviction. So what does it take?

 

A new telling of the story?

 

[Rabia Chaudry] My main goal is to raise the concerns around this conviction to the extent that it would encourage the state to revisit the evidence. // And we have been lucky with other past cases that, almost in every case, we’ve been able to find something. A witness who’s never talked before – just something. And that could happen, that could happen here, too.

 

Or does it still take a miracle?

 

[Cynthia Mousseau] What are you? // (Gasp) // I need to stop for a second.

 

That’s next time, on Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story.

 

[mux up & out]

 

Special thanks this episode to all of the scientists and lawyers whose work we relied on: They include Saul Kassin, Steven Drizin, Thomas Grisso, Gisli Gudjonsson, Richard Leo, Allison Redlich, Brandon Garrett, Emily West, Vanessa Meterko, Jennifer Perillo, Christian Meissner, Rebecca Norwick, Katherine Kiechel, William Crozier, Deryn Strange, Sara Appleby, Lisa Hasel, Kristyn Jones, Timothy Luke, Johanna Hellgren, Aria Amrom, the National Registry of Exonerations …and of course, Fabiana Alceste.

 

In 2022, 30 people in the U.S. were exonerated after convictions based on false confessions. The median amount of time they spent incarcerated was 24 years.

 

A True Crime Story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

 

It’s edited by Katie Colaneri.

 

Additional reporting and research by Paul Cuno-Booth.

 

Photos and production help on this episode by Sarah Nathan.

 

Editing help from Lauren Chooljian, Daniela Allee, Sara Plourde, Taylor Quimby, Mara Hoplamazian, and Todd Bookman. 

 

Our News Director is Dan Barrick. Our Director of Podcasts is Rebecca Lavoie.

 

Fact-checking by Dania Suleman.

 

Sara Plourde created our original artwork, as well as our website, bearbrookpodcast.com.

 

Additional photography and videos by Gaby Lozada.

 

Original music for the series was created by me, Jason Moon.

 

Bear Brook is a production of the Document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of S2 Episode 6: 'Don't Roll the Dice'

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

Previously on Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story:

 

[Roland Lamy] The jury is listening to you! You sound like a criminal, not a guy that made a terrible mistake!

[Jason Carroll] Sergeant, it’s not that easy. I hope you can understand that.

 

[Karen Carroll] I’m just thinking, this is my son, they’re trying to pin this murder on him and the word immunity is rolling around in my head.

 

[Mark Sisti] If we could dump it on Jason Carroll to get our guy off, we would’ve, but we didn’t even go in that direction. I mean, that confession was terrible.

 

 

[Jason Moon] I mean what was the first indication you got that something was going on?

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] First indication was… // Jason was not in the house. And it’s like, where’s Jason? All three of us kids kept asking that.

 

This is Jackie Carroll Hughes, Jason Carroll’s sister. The youngest of 4 children in the Carroll family. The night her brother was arrested, Jackie was 12 years old.

 

That night, Jackie didn’t know that police had interrogated her oldest brother over the last four days. She had no idea he’d been accused of murder. No idea he’d confessed.

 

She just knew something was up. Her parents were acting weird. And her brother wasn’t around.

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] It wasn’t until our mom came home the night he was arrested from the Bedford PD, // and we all came up off the couch at the same time and, “Where’s Jason?” She goes, “Just get your jackets on and let’s go” and we went down to the police department.

 

Jackie says the three kids – about 12, 14, and 16 years old – were led into a room with Jason and state police.

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] Jason’s handcuffed in the front, didn’t even take his handcuffs off, said you have five minutes, and we’re trying to give goodbyes as best we could. And, literally, five minutes, that’s all we got. And I want to say it was Roland Lamy that grabbed, you know, Jason by the upper arm and ushered him to a side door to take him out and I followed. You know, I always could go with Jason. And another man grabbed me and said, “No you can’t go.” And he was gone.

 

[mux in]

 

Jason’s arrest for the murder of Sharon Johnson and her unborn baby was all over the news. Karen Carroll says people vandalized their house. Jackie says she and her siblings were bullied at school.

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] And for me, it was not just the kids, but one of my teachers. // We were having a test and the bell rang and she’s the teacher that wants you to hand her the papers. // I handed her mine. I was one of the last ones and I handed her mine and it was a tug of war. And I’m like, “Fucking just take it,” you know? (laughs) And she just leaned into me and that’s when she said, “I hope he rots in hell.” And that was over with.

 

According to Jackie, she actually punched her teacher.

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] I took a couple swings at her.

 

[mux post]

 

A few years after Jason’s arrest, the Carroll family moved to South Carolina. Jackie was able to talk with her brother less and less.

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] I truly felt like we were abandoning Jason. And I still feel that way.

 

Jackie says her parents didn’t make it easy for her to stay in touch with Jason. It always bothered her. So in 1995, after she graduated high school, Jackie made up her mind to get in her car and visit Jason on her own.

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] That was our first physical reunion. My first solo road trip. (laughs)

 

[Jason Moon] Where did the idea for that come from? Like, how did that happen?

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] I just said, “Fuck it. I’m going to see Jason again.” I had friends up here, I could still stay with them. And that’s what I did. //

 

[Jason Moon] What was it like to see Jason again?

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] It was awesome. It was so awesome. The last time I had touched him - he has this thing he does with his toes to aggravate me. He purposefully will sit beside me, wiggle his toes, and I would just grab and frickin’ twist ‘em. So that was the last contact I had with him until March of ‘95 and it was like – it was awesome. I didn’t want to leave. If I could’ve stayed with him, I would’ve stayed. //  I think I cried all the way back as far as New York.

 

Through all of this, Jackie says she knew very little of what had actually happened in her brother’s case.

 

Jackie says this is because her parents, Jack and Karen Carroll, just didn’t really talk to the rest of the kids about what was going on with Jason. According to Jackie, she learned more about her brother’s case from the news on TV.

 

[Jason Moon] What do you make of that? I think people will be confused to hear that, like–

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] I’m confused, too. My mom and I have had discussions as adults. She swears that she spoke to us. My sister and I don’t recall it. We would’ve had a better understanding. // I mean we were always a quiet family. And then when this happened, we moved away, it was even more quiet. It was deafening, it was so silent.

 

Jackie knew a place where she might find some answers. A place many kids know to look in for the things adults don’t want them to see: their parents’ closet.

 

Jackie knew there was a copy of the discovery documents from Jason’s case in her parents’ closet. Huge three-ring binders with thousands of pages of police reports and court papers.

 

Jackie says one day, she marched into her parents’ room and claimed it.

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] Back then, the room that’s off-limits is your parents’ bedroom. // And it was me and my dad home that day. And I just got up and I went in there where they kept ‘em in the closet, and he’s watching ‘cause it’s off limits, and I came out and he saw what I had and he didn’t say a word to me. And that’s where it started.

 

For the first time, Jackie was able to look directly at what led to her brother’s arrest. It was part grieving and part mystery-solving.

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] I just picked up a book and started reading. I knew something wasn’t right, but I didn’t know what wasn’t right.

 

Studying the documents became an obsession. Jackie read and re-read the binders. She took notes and dog-eared pages.

 

The binders survived year after year, move after move. I got the feeling if the house had ever caught fire, Jackie would’ve saved the binders first. She felt, somehow, the answer to all of this – or at least the breadcrumbs for how to find it, were somewhere in those pages.

 

[Jason Moon] Was there a part of you that was anxious when you first started looking at the discovery documents that, like, maybe I'm going to find evidence of Jason's guilt in here?

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] I wasn't thinking that way. I don't think my anxiety had even kicked in. I was just reading and laying out the case. // I put the relationship aside and I just started investigating. If he's guilty, he's guilty. If he's not, we're going to prove this.

 

This is Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story. I’m Jason Moon.

 

[mux up & out]

 

 

By 1992, pressure was mounting on New Hampshire state prosecutors to hold someone responsible for the murder of Sharon Johnson. Ken Johnson and Tony Pfaff were walking free. Detective Roland Lamy’s credibility was being questioned in the press.

 

The trial of Jason Carroll might be their last chance to notch a win.

 

[mux in]

 

So far, it seemed like everything was going the defendants’ way. But Jason’s lawyers were anxious. They knew the state would learn from what happened at Tony’s trial.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] I always thought that the defendant that went first, that was found not guilty, I think the state figures out the problems they had with the case and if you’re second in line, I always thought that was a disadvantage.

 

[Eric Wilson] I agree. Hung juries, too. The state changes, tweaks their case or they recognize the weaknesses of their case, and they get a practice run.

 

This is Cliff Kinghorn and Eric Wilson, two of the attorneys who represented Jason.

 

You met Cliff earlier - he had that big argument with Jason’s mom. Eric, who is also a former marine, worked under Cliff back in 1992.

 

[Eric Wilson] I was working for Cliff and Steve. I was still in law school at the time. I was in my second year of law school.

 

The third member of the team was Steve Maynard, Cliff’s partner at their law firm. Cliff once told a reporter, at the end of every day he and Steve would sit down together and have a beer. “And we always only have one beer,” Cliff joked. Steve Maynard died last year, so you won’t hear from him, but you will hear more about him.

 

So: Cliff, his partner and friend Steve, and Eric the apprentice. Together, they went into Jason’s trial in February of 1992.

 

[mux out]

 

In many ways, Jason’s trial was a rehash of Tony’s. Many of the same witnesses testified. And the same lack of physical evidence meant – again – everything would rest on whether the jury believed Jason’s confession tapes.

 

But it wasn’t exactly the same. There were some key differences that strengthened the prosecution’s hand.

 

Remember how in Tony’s trial, Jason’s confession was some of the defense’s best evidence? Tony’s lawyers pointed out all the differences between the stories Jason and Tony told about the murder.

 

Jason’s attorneys wanted to do the same thing. They wanted Jason’s jury to hear Tony’s confession.

 

[Eric Wilson] We tried to get his statement in // to Jason’s jury so they could see how the two confessions to the same crime just didn’t match // and Judge Murphy ruled it was not admissible.

 

Tony’s confession was not admissible as evidence in Jason’s trial. It was hearsay.

 

Remember, the hearsay rule generally does not allow into a trial statements made outside of court. Tony’s lawyers were able to sidestep this because police interrogated Tony after Jason. Tony’s confession was shaped by Jason’s and so Tony’s jury got to hear both. Jason’s lawyers couldn’t use that argument, since Jason’s confessions were taped first.

 

The upshot of all this is that Jason’s jury did not hear Tony’s confession. They did not learn about the differences in their stories. They heard Jason’s confessions on their own.

 

[mux in]

 

Another key difference: Detective Lamy. During Tony’s trial, he played right into the defense’s strategy when he got caught breaking the rule about not speaking to other witnesses. Lamy was not going to make the same mistake twice.

 

The judge did tell the jurors in Jason’s trial that Lamy had violated a court order in an earlier proceeding, but it didn’t have the same impact.

 

            [mux post]

 

Still, Jason’s lawyers tried to run largely the same defense that had acquitted Tony: There’s no physical evidence, the confession can’t be true, and it was all thanks to an intimidating and reckless detective.

 

[Eric Wilson] How can you undercut that confession? To show the confession was coerced and it was not reliable. That had to be – there really is no other defense to a confession case other than the confession’s a false confession.

 

There were a number of things Jason said in his confessions that just didn’t line up with the physical evidence.

 

I’m going to walk you through five of them. Five problems the defense said made Jason’s confessions unreliable.

 

[mux post]

 

Problem one: the knife.

 

The state medical examiner originally estimated that the length of the knife used to murder Sharon Johnson was “probably at least in the neighborhood of four inches. Perhaps could be longer.”

 

There were two blades on Jason’s pocketknife. The longer one was 2 ⅛ inches long.

 

[mux post]

 

Now, the medical examiner made his original estimate based on the depth of the wound in Sharon’s back – the deepest of the 14 stab wounds.

 

But during Tony and Jason’s trials, he backs out of that estimate. He says his measurement may have been imprecise because Sharon’s lung had collapsed.

 

And he maintains that the stab wounds in Sharon’s chest are consistent with Jason’s pocket knife.

 

The implication from Jason’s attorneys: the medical examiner was conveniently changing his scientific opinion to fit the state’s narrative about Jason’s pocket knife as the murder weapon.

 

[mux post]

 

Problem two: the lineup.

 

[Officer] Jason has been shown two folders with eight photographs of eight white males in same, all numbered.

 

During Jason’s final recorded interrogation, police show him a photo lineup. One of the eight photos is of Ken Johnson.

 

[Officer] Of the eight people in that lineup, Jason has recognized and pointed out the male subject in number five. And can you tell me again Jason why you focused your attention on the individual in number five?

 

[Jason Carroll] Because I remember the black beard.

 

Jason says number five is Ken Johnson. Only number five is not Ken Johnson. Ken did not have a beard the day of the murder. Jason could not identify the man who allegedly paid him to murder his wife. Who Jason told police was there during the murder.

 

I’ve seen the photo lineup. Ken is number two – the photo right above the one Jason picks.

 

[mux out]

 

Problem three: the diagrams.

 

On the day in between Jason’s two taped confessions, police had him draw a diagram of the area where Sharon’s body was found. Jason drew three.

 

I’ve seen all three of Jason’s drawings, I’ve seen aerial photographs of the scene, I’ve seen a videotape of the scene. There is just no way to make Jason’s drawings map on to reality. He never draws the pond that Sharon’s body was found at the edge of. He draws a foundation that doesn’t exist. He draws a road running by the area that in reality is more than a mile away from where Sharon’s body was found.

 

[mux in]

 

Problem four: the stereo.

 

You might remember Jason originally said he spent the money Ken paid him for the murder on marijuana. But later, he said he used the money to buy new tires and a stereo system for his truck.

 

Jason didn’t own his truck, he leased it on a handshake deal with a guy he once worked with. That guy testified at Jason’s trial. He said he had to repossess the truck because Jason couldn’t make the payments. And when he took it back, he said the truck did not have new tires or a new stereo. In fact, he says it was in terrible shape.

 

[mux out]

 

And then, there was problem number five: the diary.

 

[Debbie Dutra] When all this happened and Jason got arrested, I went to my father and I’m like, “Dad, there’s no way – we were gone this weekend.”

 

Debbie Dutra was friends with Jason in the summer of 1988, the summer of the murder. By the way this is a different Debbie – not the one who met Jason cruising on Elm Street. This Debbie’s best friend was Jason’s girlfriend at the time.

 

[Debbie Dutra] He hung out with us all the time. I mean, we were always together, all of us.

 

When the news of Jason’s arrest broke, Debbie could not believe it – at first, because she just couldn’t imagine her friend doing something like that. But then, she really couldn’t believe it because she remembered she was with Jason just a few days after the murder.

 

[mux in]

 

Sharon was murdered on a Thursday night. According to the final version of Jason’s confessions, he and Tony went to Ken’s house on Saturday morning to collect their payment.

 

But Debbie remembered that Saturday, Jason was with her, and two other people, on a trip to a lake about an hour north.

 

So Debbie, who’s around 18 at the time, tells her father she’s going to call the police.

 

[Debbie Dutra] I said, “I gotta say something, Dad.” I said, “I can’t not say anything.” And so my father listened on the other end, // we had the landlines, // and I said, “Listen, this is what’s happening. I know he wasn’t there because he was with us.” And that’s why Lamy showed up at our door.

 

[mux post]

 

When detectives first questioned her about this trip, Debbie says they tried hard to convince her she was confused. According to Debbie, they kept saying she must be thinking about a different weekend. And she says eventually she caved and said she must’ve been thinking of Labor Day weekend.

 

But privately, Debbie still thought she was right. And then, she remembered she had proof: her diary. It confirmed - Jason was with her that Saturday morning.

 

[Debbie Dutra] My biggest concern with it was I didn’t want it being publicized. That’s like a diary, you know, a girl’s diary. It had stuff in there I didn’t want anyone to know.

 

Debbie eventually did turn over her diary. She was the defense’s first witness at Jason’s trial.

 

And it wasn’t just Debbie’s diary that undermined Jason’s story about getting paid. In his confession, Jason says he and Tony got to Ken’s house around 11 or 11:30 that Saturday morning to get the money.

 

But that morning, the police were also at Ken’s house. They were staked out outside, surveilling the house, and making a log of everyone who came and went.

 

But – prosecutors seized on the fact that the police surveillance didn’t start until 11:30 a.m. And Debbie’s diary didn’t say exactly what time they left for the lake that morning. So in theory, it is still possible that Jason and Tony went to Ken’s earlier in the morning before the police were watching the house and before Jason went to the lake with his friends.

 

[mux out]

 

 

The knife, the lineup, the diagrams, the stereo, the diary. Jason’s lawyers made their case for why the confession simply could not be true.

 

Now, they turned their attention to Detective Lamy.

 

Steve Maynard tells the jury Lamy fancies himself a QUOTE “Kojak throwback.”

 

Cliff says you can hear how Lamy coerced Jason right there on the tapes. 

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] There are so many inconsistencies. // I mean, even in Jason’s statement. “Who stabbed her first?” “Ken did.” “You sure it was Ken?” “No, it was me.” I mean Jason just kept flipping. You could see the pressure he was under. Whatever they wanted to hear, Jason was going to tell them. // They could’ve asked him at that point in time if he believed in Santa Claus, he probably would’ve said yes if he thought that’s what they wanted to hear.

 

But the defense didn’t rely simply on the tapes. They also had a witness. A person they argued could’ve easily been sitting where Jason was because Lamy used all the same tricks on him.

 

[mux in]

 

The witness’s name was George Scott McDonald. George worked with Jason and Tony at High-Tech Fire Prevention, the restaurant exhaust cleaning company. George was a manager at High-Tech. And about 8 years older than Jason and Tony.

 

George was actually an important witness for both sides. George testifies the night of Sharon’s murder, he thinks he saw Jason drop off Tony for work. The state liked that because it put two of the three alleged conspirators together the night of the murder.

 

But the defense liked George because of what he had to say about Detective Lamy. George tells a story about Lamy that sounds an awful lot like what Tony’s – and now Jason’s – lawyers say happened to them.

 

[mux post]

 

George, like Tony, had some preexisting legal problems when Lamy first talked to him in October of 1989 – the month before police interrogated and arrested Jason and Tony. George had a habit of giving cops fake names when they pulled him over so they wouldn’t arrest him for driving without a license. He was also fraudulently collecting workers’ comp payments.

 

After their first meeting, Lamy knew all of this about George – told him he knew – but didn’t have him arrested for his outstanding warrants.

 

The implication from Jason’s lawyers was that Lamy was holding the charges over his head as leverage – just like what Tony’s lawyers said happened to him.

 

And just like with Tony, Lamy does make some of the charges against George disappear.

 

[mux post]

 

George also testifies that before Jason and Tony were arrested, Lamy told him he suspected them both. And if that’s true, it would mean that Lamy already thought Jason was involved in the murder before that first interrogation at the armory. Lamy denies this in his own testimony. He says Jason was not a suspect before their first meeting.

 

[mux post]

 

George testifies, eventually, Lamy began to suspect him of being involved in the murder, too. George says over a series of 10 to 12 meetings, Lamy accused him of taking part in the murder. In his testimony, Lamy denies this.

 

But George says that one time, Lamy even drove him out to the construction site where Sharon’s body was found and asked him if the area looked familiar to him. Lamy denies this.

 

[mux post]

 

Even after Jason and Tony gave confessions that do not include mentions of George whatsoever, George says Lamy continued to suspect him of being involved. He says Lamy told him the two boys weren’t smart enough to pull this off on their own. He must’ve helped them plan it.

 

[mux out]

 

According to George, Lamy even told him that Jason implicated George in his confession, which is not true. Again, Lamy denies ever accusing George of the murder.

 

But George says Lamy told him he knew he was guilty, he should confess and things would go easier for him. George says he was scared by all this. But ultimately, he didn’t confess like Tony or Jason.

 

Jason’s lawyers said that was because George was older, had more experience dealing with cops. In short, they argued he was less vulnerable to Lamy’s pressure campaign than the two 19-year-olds who worked under George.

 

[mux in]

 

So that was the defense Jason’s lawyers put on: problems with the confession that made it impossible. And an overbearing detective whose theory of the case always seemed to come before the evidence to support it.

 

But just as they’d feared, the state had learned from Tony’s trial.

 

This time around, prosecutors were better prepared to fight back against the onslaught of inconsistencies in the confession. This time, they zeroed in on their own set of moments from the confession tapes.

 

Prosecutors said there were two moments in particular – two things Jason said that did line up with reality in a way that was so damning, it proved he committed the murder.

 

[mux out]

 

It’s important to point out that most of the information about Sharon’s murder was in the news before Jason was interrogated.

 

And that allowed the defense to argue that that’s where Jason could've gotten the info from. He knew details about the murder, not because he was there, but in the same way you know details about the murder – from a journalist.

 

But not everything was reported.

 

Prosecutors said investigators intentionally withheld two facts: that Sharon was stabbed in the back AND that her bra had been opened. Those were things, prosecutors said, only the killer would know. And Jason included both in his confessions.

 

It is a little more complicated than that.

 

At first, Jason says there were two stabs in Sharon’s back. So he’s right about a stab in the back, but at least at one point, he’s wrong about the number.

 

And the bra? Here’s how Jason describes what happened with Sharon’s bra in his final taped interrogation. Keep in mind here the correct answer is that Sharon’s bra was cut open in the front with a knife.

 

[Neal Scott] How was the bra taken off?

 

[Jason Carroll] The bra? It was unsnapped.

 

[Neal Scott] Unsnapped or torn? Do you recall?

 

[Officer] Cut, torn, unsnapped, pull over her head?

 

[Jason Carroll] To me– to me, the way it was– it seemed like it was unsnapped.

 

[Officer] Snapped in the front or the back?

 

[Jason Carroll] In the back. From what– it seemed like he was reaching around to the back.

 

[mux in]

 

What was more convincing? The problems in Jason’s confession, or the allegedly hidden facts in Jason’s confession? Was Jason coerced and intimidated by Lamy and his mother? Or was he coerced and intimidated by his own conscience?

 

After a trial that lasted about a week, it was now up to the jury to decide. Could they be certain Jason was guilty?

 

[Tom Dufresne] The deliberation, after the trial with the jurors, that was somewhat tense. We had a couple of people – we had both ends of the spectrum.

 

Juror Tom Dufresne says, at first, he was somewhere in the middle.

 

On the one hand, he didn’t find Detective Lamy to be credible at all.

 

[Tom Dufresne] I still to this day wouldn’t believe him if he told me it was, you know, 11:30, you know? // And just his whole attitude and demeanor, you know… You're dealing with people's lives here and he just acted like he was so nonchalant. That was not credible to me.

 

But, on the big question…

 

[Jason Moon] But ultimately, did you find– were you convinced that Jason was guilty of the crime?

 

[Tom Dufresne] Oh yeah, he admitted to… if I recall correctly, he admitted to stabbing her at least once. This was a horrible crime. //  I mean, that's… why would you say that if you didn’t do it?

 

Mark Phaneuf was another juror. He didn’t see any problem with Lamy – thought he was entirely credible. And the fact that Jason didn’t have an alibi helped convince him.

 

[Mark Phaneuf] Maybe at the beginning there were some people who thought that he wasn’t involved, but as we spent more time with the evidence, I think everyone came to the thought that he was there, but couldn’t be definitive whether he physically was involved.

 

It seems the jury was convinced Jason was involved, but for some reason, they weren’t convinced he was the one who actually stabbed Sharon.

 

Tom says the way the story read to him, of the three alleged murderers, Jason was the least responsible. To him, it seemed like Jason was a decent kid who got roped into this by the real villains: Tony and Ken.

 

[Tom Dufresne] We kind of knew that there were other people involved, but they weren't being, they weren't in this trial. And Jason's participation in it was certainly at the least, I guess he did admit to stabbing the woman, but he shouldn't have had the full weight of punishment put on him, I don't think.

 

Whether it was because they weren’t certain if Jason had actually swung the blade himself, or that they just felt sympathy for him, the jury could not agree on the first degree murder charge.

 

[Mark Phaneuf]  We went back to the judge // and we asked if we could find him guilty of a lesser crime and we were told no.

 

The jury didn’t have discretion on the murder charge, but that wasn’t the only thing Jason was charged with. He was also charged with kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder.

 

And so a conflicted jury came down with a conflicted verdict: Deadlocked on the charge of first-degree murder. Not guilty on the charge of kidnapping. Guilty on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder.

 

[mux in]

 

If you’re confused by this, so am I. The evidence for these charges is the same: Jason’s confession. If you believe Jason’s confession, he was guilty of all three.

 

But juries are human. And as much as the court system may claim to be a venue for finding absolute truth, at the end of the day, in a criminal jury trial, the truth is really just what 12 people can agree on.

 

[mux post]

 

Jason was now a convicted felon. He would later be sentenced to 6-14 years in prison on this charge. The state had finally held someone at least partially responsible for Sharon’s murder.

 

But the jury deadlocked on the most serious charge. And that meant the state would retry the case. The stories would be told again. And another jury would get to decide what was true.

 

[Debra Carr] We took a vote right off the bat and it was pretty much split down the middle.

 

That’s after the break.

 

[mux out]

 

************************MIDROLL***************************

 

One night in the spring of 1992, after Jason’s first trial, Jason’s lawyers, Cliff and Steve were leaving the jail after talking to Jason. In the car on the drive back, they got into a heated discussion.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] Steve and I never had harsh words and Steve told me that night on the way back. He said, “You crossed a line today.” He said, “You really leaned on him pretty hard.” And I said, “You know, Steve, you’re probably right. I probably did cross the line. But it was a line I didn’t mind crossing.”

 

[mux in]

 

Cliff and Steve had just told Jason about a major new development. The state was offering him a new last-minute plea deal.

 

Prosecutors were making another play at getting Jason to testify against Ken.

 

The lead prosecutor, Michael Ramsdell, wouldn’t talk to me, so I can’t corroborate this. Jason told me he can’t remember much of anything about his trials, including this moment.

 

But as Cliff remembers it, the state was offering only a handful more years in prison for Jason, if he would just testify against Ken.

 

Cliff says Jason refused.

 

[mux post]

 

Ironically, it was the kind of deal that Karen Carroll says Lamy had promised them in the beginning. But this time, it was official. And Cliff knew - it was by far the best deal Jason would ever get. Losing at trial could cost him another 40 years or more. So he begged Jason – take the deal.

 

[mux out]

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] If that’s the truth, what you told Lamy and your mother, if that’s the truth, why would you want to take the risk of spending 30, 40 years in the New Hampshire State Prison? // For the love of god, don’t roll the dice! I’m begging you, don’t roll the dice!

 

Many defense attorneys don’t worry about the actual truth of their client’s guilt or innocence. Their job is the same either way: provide the best defense for their client. But for Cliff, when Jason refused to take this deal before his second trial – it affected him. He couldn’t shake the thought that the only reason Jason would refuse this deal was if he was really innocent.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] And I always said to myself, that statement can’t be true. Something’s wrong here. Something’s… // Why the hell would you not want to testify? “I’m not testifying. I’m not going to do it.” He never, ever changed – and when he made that mind up, he never changed it, in any way shape or form.

 

[mux in]

 

Jason’s second trial went much the same as the first. The defense pointed at Lamy, pointed at the problems in Jason’s confession. The prosecutors pointed at the hidden facts in Jason’s confession. And they also actually embraced the errors in what Jason said.

 

In his closing argument of the second trial, prosecutor Michael Ramsdell says if this was all a set-up by police, why wasn’t the confession more consistent? Why does Jason get things wrong if the cops are telling him what to say? To Michael, it was like the mistakes in Jason’s confessions were the coffee stain on the paper that proved it wasn’t a counterfeit. To him, the hidden facts that Jason knew proved he was there. And the public facts Jason got wrong proved he wasn’t set up by police.

 

Michael argued the other reason the jurors should believe Jason’s confession: the emotion. He told the jurors to re-listen to the entire tape of Jason confessing to his mother. To really listen. To feel it. Michael said the emotions in the tape make clear what’s going on: a young man admitting a terrible secret to his own mother.

 

[Karen Carroll] If you put a knife… If you put a knife in that woman, I want to know. You stabbed her, didn’t you?

 

[Jason Carroll] Yes I did, BLEEP.

 

[Karen Carroll] How many times did you stab her?

 

[Jason Carroll] I stabbed her three times.

 

[Karen Carroll] Alright.

 

[Roland Lamy] Who else stabbed her? Who else stabbed her, truthfully?

 

(Jason cries)

 

[mux in]

 

Michael Ramsdell told the jury, “That emotion is powerful. It's compelling. It allows you to feel with every fiber in your body he did kill Sharon Johnson.”

 

[mux post]

 

Steve Maynard argued the closing for Jason. He pointed to that same emotion as the reason the jury shouldn’t believe the confession. Steve called Jason’s interrogation a “psychological bludgeoning.” He said, “There is no way you can listen to that tape and believe that kid had anything left – any free will left. He was destroyed. He was destroyed by his mother. He was destroyed by Sergeant Lamy.”

 

[mux out]

 

[Dan Philie] We listened to that recording many, many times, over and over, that I remember.

 

The jurors in Jason’s second trial deliberated for four days. Dan Philie was one of them.

 

As Dan remembers it, he and the rest of the jurors all believed Jason’s confession was the truth. But another juror, Debra Carr, remembers it differently.

 

[Debra Carr] We took a vote right off the bat and it was pretty much split down the middle.

 

Debra says some of the jurors had concerns about the way the police interrogated Jason.

 

[Debra Carr] We did all agree that it was coerced, it was pressured. He had his mother and the, I believe it was the state police detective hounding him, so we didn’t even take that into consideration.

 

But despite her belief that Jason’s confession was coerced, Debra, like Dan, still thought it was the truth.

 

[Debra Carr] I don’t think it was false, but I do believe that he was pressured into confessing. // The defendant knew something that wasn’t out in the public eye. // It was something only somebody who had been there would’ve known.

 

[mux in]

 

The day before they started deliberating, the judge agreed with state prosecutors that the jury could have the option of finding Jason guilty of second-degree murder – instead of first-degree. First-degree murder is premeditated. Second-degree is not.

 

Now to the state, the truth was that Jason accepted money to commit a murder – clearly first-degree. But prosecutors were willing to have Jason convicted, even if it wasn’t on their theory of the case.

 

As jurors like Dan and Debra were trying to come to consensus, Jason waited in a holding cell at the courthouse. When I asked him what he remembered about waiting for the verdict, he told me a story about a spider.

 

[Jason Carroll] I’d be laying down and then one day I noticed a spider on the floor walking towards me.

 

Jason says in the long hours of waiting, alone, to find out what was going to happen to his life, a spider kept walking towards him.

 

[Jason Carroll] So it kept coming my way and I’m not a big fan of spiders. So I got up and went to the bench on the other side of the holding cell. And I’m sitting there and the next thing I know, there’s that damn spider coming at me again from the other direction. 

 

At first it was just a nuisance, just a spider that he happened to be trapped with. But the longer it went on, the more Jason started to think, “Is this what the rest of my life is going to be?”

 

[Jason Carroll] And I remember thinking to myself, “What’s this, a sign to come or something? You know, I’m going to counting bricks and spiders all day long?”

 

 

[Jason Carroll] And then they bring you upstairs because they found a verdict. And then… you stand up and they find you guilty and you’re looking over at them and they’re crying… And…it didn’t even seem like I was standing there… I couldn’t believe it.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] Jason took it just the way I would’ve expected him to. He wasn’t shocked. // He took it on the chin, but I mean, he didn’t become emotional about it… I always thought Jason should’ve been in the Marine Corps for god sakes. He could be so stoic sometimes, it drove me crazy. Sometimes it was hard to get him to be emotional.

 

After 30 hours of deliberation, the jury found Jason Carroll guilty of second-degree murder. Later, a judge sentenced him to 40 years to life in prison – in addition to his earlier sentence.

 

Here’s juror Dan Philie again.

 

[Dan Philie] That’s a big accusation for someone to come out and admit that they did something when they didn’t do it. You know, robbing somebody or, you know, stealing something out of a grocery store is one thing, but, you know, the consequences are heavy here, so you want to really think about that. I don’t think that someone would just come out and say, “Yeah, OK, I did it.”

 

Juror Debra Carr says in the years since Jason’s trial, she’s come to understand that people do falsely confess to crimes they didn’t commit. Debra spoke with my colleague Paul Cuno-Booth at her home. The dog was in the next room.

 

[Debra Carr] I don’t think that happened here.

 

[Paul Cuno-Booth] Why not?

 

[Debra Carr] I just believe that he was part of that. That he was there and he was part of it. They strangled her and stabbed her.

 

After the jury convicted Jason, they were allowed to learn for the first time that Tony and Ken had not been convicted. For some, it was a shock.

 

[Dan Philie] It was kinda… It kinda takes you back a little bit. I mean, here’s this one individual who seemed to be like a straight-going guy being convicted of this and the actual person who hired him to do the deed got away. // You know, it was just kind of frustrating to see that somebody like this actually got away with it and this individual got // life in prison or whatever it was, 30 years or whatever.

 

It’s something I heard from jurors in Jason’s first trial, too. Like Tom Dufresne. A sense of imbalance in the justice that was meted out.

 

[Tom Dufresne] I remember having a conversation with a couple of gentlemen as we left, and saying, that is, it’s not right, you know? // I remember telling people the kid got screwed. I was not happy with the results after the fact, but given the circumstances, I don’t think I’d change my mind today. But, especially the fact that he’s still in prison – that’s ridiculous. That’s… That ain’t right.

 

But this was exactly why the jurors weren’t allowed to know this information. In the eyes of the court, justice shouldn’t be relative.

 

Although - sometimes it can seem arbitrary.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] After the jury returned its verdict about a year or so afterwards, the second jury, I was at Southern New Hampshire for a medical, a minor medical procedure and the nurse that was working with me said to me, “Do you remember me?” And I said, “No, I'm sorry. I don't.” She said, “I was one of the jurors on the second Jason Carroll murder case.” // She said, “I was on, I was chosen as an alternate. I didn't take part in the deliberations.” And she said, “I have to tell you, if I had been on that jury, hell would have frozen over before I would have convicted that kid.” I'll never forget that as long as I live. That's the luck of alternates. She said, “I listened to that confession. I listened to him sobbing, and I have a young son and I just said, ‘There's no way I'm going to pay any attention to that.’”

 

[mux in]

 

In 1994 the New Hampshire Supreme Court took up Jason’s case on appeal. Jason’s lawyers argued his confession should never have been allowed in because he was coerced by his mother.

 

[Eric Wilson] And the decision that the Supremes came down would they acknowledge, had Karen been acting as a police officer, then Jason's will would certainly have been overborne. But they… they said that she was acting in the capacity as a mother, not a police officer.

 

In their decision, the state Supreme Court writes:

 

“Without Karen Carroll’s frenzied, emotional, and insistent questioning of her son, the defendant may well not have confessed. Consistently, it was her questioning, not Lamy’s, that reduced the defendant to tears and preceded his crucial admissions. Our constitution would not tolerate such conduct by a State actor, but here, Karen Carroll conducted herself in her private capacity as a mother.”

 

Jason says he was outside on the prison baseball field when he found out in the newspaper that the appeal had failed. His options had run out.

 

[mux out]

 

For the next few decades, virtually nothing happened with Jason’s case. Cliff, Steve, and Eric didn’t represent him anymore. He couldn’t afford to hire anybody. As far as Jason could tell, it was over.

 

But outside the prison walls, it was not. 

 

[mux in]

 

Two things were in motion that would lead us to where we are now.

 

One: Jason’s sister, Jackie.

 

She helped push Jason to write to the New England Innocence Project. When the lawyers showed interest - Jackie knew what she had to do. The binders of discovery documents. The symbols of what had happened to her family - that Jackie had obsessed, grieved, and pored over. It was time to let them go.

 

In 2016, Jackie packed the binders in a car and made a road trip from Texas, where she lived at the time, to Massachusetts to meet with the innocence lawyers. She brought her eldest daughter with her.

 

[Jackie Carroll Hughes] When she finally realized, when these four women approached us in the lobby, she realized just exactly what I was handing over. This was, like, my life’s work and she knew what that meant to me. And she looked at me, and she literally had tears in her eyes. She says, “Mommy, are you sure?”

 

Jason’s attorney with the New England Innocence Project tells me the fact that Jackie saved the discovery documents was huge. In cases this old, documents often go missing. The binders jump-started the work on getting Jason’s case back into court.

 

[mux post]

 

The other thing in motion over the past 30 years: our understanding of confessions.

 

While Jason sat in prison, a revolution was underway. Alarming evidence - from research and real-life examples - was teaching us how and why and how often, people were falsely confessing to crimes they didn’t commit.

 

Things we simply did not know when Jason was on trial.

 

[Dr. Fabiana Alceste] What has to happen? What is the order of events? What kinds of situational pressures do you have to face in order to do something that goes against your own self-interest so much that you confess to a crime – to the police – that you did not actually commit, that you had nothing to do with?

 

Like genetic genealogy transformed how cold-cases would be solved, this science transformed what we believed was possible about confessions.

 

Thirty years later, could it amount to new evidence in Jason’s case?

 

That’s next time on Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story.

 

[mux up & out]

 

A True Crime Story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

 

It’s edited by Katie Colaneri.

 

Additional reporting and research by Paul Cuno-Booth. And an extra shoutout to Paul this episode for doing most of the work it took to track down jurors from Tony and Jason’s trials.

 

Editing help from Lauren Chooljian, Daniela Allee, Sara Plourde, Taylor Quimby, Mara Hoplamazian, and Todd Bookman. 

 

Our News Director is Dan Barrick. Our Director of Podcasts is Rebecca Lavoie.

 

Fact-checking by Dania Suleman.

 

Sara Plourde created our original artwork, as well as our website, bearbrookpodcast.com.

 

Additional photography and videos by Gaby Lozada.

 

Original music for the series was created by me, Jason Moon.

 

Bear Brook is a production of the Document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of S2 Episode 5: Trial in a Trial

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

Previously on Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story:

 

[Neal Scott] Alright from the top again, Jason. When were you first contacted?

[Jason Carroll] July 27, 1988.

[Neal Scott] To do what?

[Jason Carroll] Kill Sharon Johnson.

[Neal Scott] [Officer] By whom?

[Jason Carroll] Tony Pfaff.

 

[Roland Lamy] I want you to explain to the jury if you will and I know it’s very difficult to do this but I must ask you // how does Tony Pfaff feel about having participated in the murder of Sharon Johnson?

[Tony Pfaff] I feel bad. And I’m sorry it took place. And I wish it’d never even happened.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] Karen basically said to me, // “All kinds of promises have been made to him and I trust Roland Lamy explicitly” and we got into kind of a heated discussion. // I never doubted for a minute that she was made promises. Lamy made promises to her that he could never possibly keep.

 

 

By the year 1991, the state of New Hampshire had their story of who killed Sharon Johnson. They had arrested three people and charged them all with capital murder.

 

Ken Johnson, Tony Pfaff, and Jason Carroll waited in separate jails for their day in court. None of them could afford to pay for their own attorney, so the court assigned them each a different team of lawyers.

 

A judge also decided to try each of them separately. They faced different sets of charges in addition to capital murder. For instance, Jason and Tony were charged with kidnapping, since it was they who allegedly abducted Sharon from the mall. And Tony alone was charged with sexual assault for allegedly touching Sharon’s breasts during the attack. Though that particular charge was later dropped.

 

And so the stage was set for three trials. Each with a different defendant, a different set of defense lawyers, and a different jury. Ken was scheduled to be tried first. Then, Tony. Then, Jason.

 

[mux in]

 

For the defense teams, it was a complicated situation. Their interests were aligned – but only so long as they were all pleading not guilty and not testifying against each other. At any time, one of the three could try to cut a deal with the state and turn on the others.

 

Ken was represented by Buzz Scherr and Jim Moir.

 

[Buzz Scherr] What would you do in that circumstance if you were Carroll or Pfaff? You know, I think the odds were that one of them would flip rather than they’d both hang tough.

 

[Jim Moir] Right.

 

[Buzz Scherr] I mean, that was the anxiety on our part. It’s – it would be hard to believe when faced with a capital charge that you’re not going to flip to save your life.

 

[mux post]

 

But by the fall of 1991, about two years since they were all arrested, Jason and Tony hadn’t flipped.

 

One possible reason for that: the three defense teams joined together and successfully argued that New Hampshire’s death penalty law, as it was written then, was unconstitutional.

 

Back then, only juries could impose the death penalty in New Hampshire. So if a defendant pled guilty before trial, before a jury was seated, they’d be sentenced by a judge, and therefore escape the death penalty. The defense lawyers argued - and the courts agreed - that undermined defendants’ constitutional right to a trial by jury since by definition, that was the more dangerous route for them.

 

So the death penalty was now off the table for Ken, Tony, and Jason.

 

[mux out]

 

Ken’s trial was scheduled to start in just a few weeks. And the prosecutors were in a real bind. Unless Jason or Tony agreed to testify as witnesses, the state could not enter their confessions as evidence against Ken.

 

That’s because the sixth amendment to the constitution gives criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses who testify against them. If Jason or Tony words were going to be used to say that Ken was guilty, Ken’s lawyers had a right to cross-examine Jason and Tony.

 

But Jason and Tony didn’t have to testify because of the fifth amendment to the constitution – the right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves.

 

The lead prosecutor told a reporter he and his staff spent countless hours trying to find a way around this. But in the end, they couldn’t.

 

So in October of 1991, prosecutors did something they really, really did not want to do. They dropped all the charges against Ken Johnson. No matter how convinced they were that Ken was guilty, without Tony or Jason's testimony, they just didn’t have a case.

 

[Jim Moir] The reason I remember this so well is that we picked him up from the jail, they were releasing him. And (sighs) my car was in the shop that day and I had borrowed my mother’s car. And my mother’s car had a unique license plate, it said “GRANNY.” And so we jumped in the car, // we went to pick him up from the jail, and there’s press all outside. // I’m in the car waiting, like the getaway car, and I think, Buzz, you got out and said, “Come on, Kenny, let’s go” and for some reason, Ken decided instead of getting in the car and driving away, walking across the street to Dunkin’ Donuts, with the press following him – the cameras, everything, following him. And we’re saying, “Come on, come on.” He got himself a cup of coffee.

 

Jim says Ken said nothing to the reporters. He just calmly bought a cup of coffee, and then walked back to the car.

 

[Jim Moir] My mother then saw it on channel 9 news that night and saw her car. She was really pissed. “What are you putting murderers in my car for?!”

 

Even the mother of Ken’s lawyer seemed to think he was guilty. But the state knew they couldn’t win at trial, so they let him go.

 

Ken, the state’s lead suspect almost from the moment Sharon was murdered, was a free man.

 

Now, it was just Tony and Jason - each facing life in prison.

 

This is Bear Brook Season 2: A True Crime Story. I’m Jason Moon.

 

[mux up and out]

 

 

[Mark Sisti] What did we walk into? // The fact-pattern was horrendous. I mean, a kidnapping, a brutal murder of a pregnant woman and you know, this is something that…  You’re starting basically with two-and-a-half strikes against you before you step in the box.

 

This is Mark Sisti, one of the lawyers who defended Tony Pfaff. I talked with him and his former partner Paul Twomey. They worked together for decades. By their count, they defended as many as 80 people charged with murder. Talking to them feels like talking to two brothers who grew up together. They have lots of stories. Like the time their office burned down.

 

[Paul Twomey] The fire was a good story, too.

 

[Mark Sisti] Oh god…

 

[Jason Moon] Well, go on. //

 

[Paul Twomey] One of our clients is reputed to have set it, who –

 

[Mark Sisti] Was looking for something.

 

[Paul Twomey] No, no, no, he wanted a continuance – we were his sixth lawyers and the first five quit because they were afraid of him. And we were the stupid ones who took number six!

 

[Mark Sisti] Sure, we’ll take the case! (laughter)

 

[Mark Sisti] We took it on a Thursday and it burned down on like a Monday… (fade out)

 

[mux in]

 

For a time - and probably still today - Mark and Paul were among the most famous defense attorneys in New Hampshire.

 

Mark wears a ponytail and silver spectacles. Picture a Ben Franklin grizzled by dozens and dozens of homicide trials. It feels like he’s always on his feet in a conversation – always quicker than you are.

 

And Paul… Paul somehow managed to operate a small farm on his property while also practicing as an attorney. His tall face looks out at you from beneath a head of thick silver hair.

 

For years, all the high-profile cases seemed to go to Mark and Paul. Just a few months before they were to set to defend Tony Paff in trial, they defended Pamela Smart, who you might’ve heard of. Smart was accused of conspiring with teenage boys to kill her husband.

 

[Prosecutor] Do you want this jury to understand that Bill Flynn decided to kill your husband because you broke up with him?

 

[Pamela Smart] I want this jury to understand the truth.

 

Her trial attracted national attention. It was the first murder trial in the U.S. to be televised live from start-to-finish – which meant Mark and Paul were on TV a lot. People knew them.

 

And now, once again, Mark and Paul were appointed to a case where someone was accused of conspiring with teenagers to kill their spouse.

 

[mux out]

 

Tony’s trial would all come down to his confession. That’s because there was no other evidence against him.

 

Police found no physical evidence linking Tony to this crime. No fingerprints in Sharon’s car. No shoe impressions at the construction site. Nothing that proved he’d been with Sharon or was at the site where her body was found.

 

Police also couldn’t find evidence to corroborate key parts of Tony’s confession. Like the idea that Tony was paid by Ken to commit the murder. Or that Tony and Ken had talked on the phone in the days before they killed Sharon. Police couldn’t find any bank statements or phone records to back up either.

 

No physical evidence. No paper trail. Just Tony’s words on a tape – and whether 12 jurors would believe them.

 

The trial began on December 4th, 1991.

 

[mux in]

 

You already know what the prosecutors say happened. So I’m going to tell you about the case that Mark and Paul put on for the jury. As a story, it had two main themes.

 

One: Tony’s confession is just not true.

 

[Mark Sisti] It wasn’t your typical confession case. Things just weren’t adding up. And it clearly appeared to be a coerced false confession case, right out of the gate. //

 

[Paul Twomey] I mean, it was clearly not true. It was clearly a not true confession.

 

Clearly not a true confession. To convince the jury of that, Mark and Paul directed their attention to parts of Tony’s confession where he says things that just didn’t line up with reality.

 

One example of that comes near the middle of Tony’s taped confession.

 

            (fade up)

 

[Roland Lamy] What happens now?

 

[Tony Pfaff] We get in our vehicles and leave.

 

[Roland Lamy] OK, what vehicles are we talking about now?

           

(fade down)

 

By this point, Tony has told Detective Roland Lamy that he, Jason, and Ken all murdered Sharon at a construction site.

 

Tony says after that, he and Jason got back into Sharon’s green Subaru and drove it right back to the mall.

 

[Roland Lamy] What happens? You get in the car…

 

[Tony Pfaff] I shut the car- we get in the car, we go there back to the mall, we put the car back behind the mall by the food court and Sears, get out of the car, and put the keys in my pocket.

 

[Roland Lamy] Alright.

 

This statement is a big problem for the investigators.

 

Remember the mystery of the car from the early investigation? Sharon was murdered on a Thursday, but her car wasn’t found at the mall until Saturday. And yet, here in Tony’s confession, he’s saying they left it there on Thursday, the same night as the murder.

 

But it’s not just the wrong night. It’s also the wrong location. The part of the parking lot Tony just said he left the car in – between the food court and the Sears – is not the area where Sharon’s car was found. This is a mall parking lot, so it’s huge - goes around the whole building. And in reality, Sharon’s car was found on a whole different side of the mall, near the Sears automotive entrance.

 

So Tony’s story about the car has a few issues. And during the interrogation, it seems like Lamy knows it. A few minutes later, he circles back to this detail about the car.

 

[Roland Lamy] The car was moved again. Can you explain how that happened?

 

[Tony Pfaff] No.

 

            (long pause) (mux out)

 

[Roland Lamy] You took the keys, you said. Where did you park it at the Sears parking lot?

 

[Tony Pfaff] I told one of the officers where I parked it. I don’t remember what aisle it was, but it was not exactly in front of the food court, it was in between the food court and Sears.

 

Again, this is not where Sharon’s car was actually found. Lamy tries again.

 

[Roland Lamy] Now, let me ask you a question, OK? I know you’re having a hard time remembering, and I don’t want to put any words in your mouth, but is it that you don’t remember if you went back and got the car again at this time, or is it that you simply do remember that you only left it there once and took the keys? Did you go back out to the car the next day, that night, later that night into the morning?

 

            (long pause)

 

[Tony Pfaff] (off-mic) I went back to the car. (on-mic) I went back to the car.

 

[Roland Lamy] Ok could you please explain that and with whom?

 

[Tony Pfaff] It was by myself.

 

[Roland Lamy] Alright. Why did you go back to the car?

 

[Tony Pfaff] (off-mic) To make sure I didn’t leave anything– (on-mic) To make sure I didn’t leave anything behind.

 

[Roland Lamy] OK. Did you move it at that time? Did you go for a ride with it? Did you leave it someplace? Did you take it someplace and bring it back another day?

 

[Tony Pfaff] No. I didn’t go anywhere with it.

 

[Roland Lamy] Mmm-hmm.

 

Despite being asked about it repeatedly and despite the hints from Lamy, Tony’s story about Sharon’s car just doesn’t line up with what police know. Tony’s confession puts the car back at the mall on the wrong night and in the wrong location.

 

 

And there were plenty of other examples for his defense attorneys, Mark and Paul, to choose from.

 

Like how, in describing Sharon’s murder, Tony mentions a total of four stabs. Two from Jason, two from him. In reality, Sharon was stabbed 14 times.

 

Or how Tony says Sharon was fully clothed when she was stabbed. In reality, Sharon’s bra had been cut open with a knife in the front before she was stabbed.

 

Or how Tony says he left the keys to Sharon’s car underneath the seat. When police found her car, the keys were nowhere to be found.

 

And then there’s this story Tony tells about meeting with Ken after the murder. It’s maybe the biggest difference between Tony’s confession and the known facts.

 

Tony says sometime after the murder – doesn’t say exactly when – he drove to Ken’s house to talk with him.

 

[Tony Pfaff] And he asked me if I had told anybody and I said, “No, I haven’t told anybody.” And he asked me about Jason.

 

[Roland Lamy] Were you with anyone when you went to his house this time?

 

[Tony Pfaff] Nope, it was by myself. I was driving a ‘81 Malibu Classic.

 

[Roland Lamy] What color?

 

[Tony Pfaff] Blue.

 

Detective Lamy has been trying to pry specifics from Tony this entire tape recording. And here’s a rare instance where Tony delivers: He said he drove his car, a blue 1981 Malibu Classic to see Ken at his house after the murder.

 

Only, Tony definitively did not do that.

 

[mux in]

 

We know that because 12 days before the murder at 3:20 a.m. Tony was pulled over in his blue ‘81 Malibu Classic for a broken tail light. Tony was driving with a suspended license. He was arrested. His car was impounded. And Tony never got the Malibu Classic back.

 

So Tony’s confession includes a scene where he’s driving a car that in reality was held by the police at that time. By the Allenstown Police, in fact. The town that includes much of Bear Brook State Park. The cop handling Tony’s case for that arrest was someone you might remember: Ron Montplaisir.

 

[Ron Montplaisir] You talk about noise complaints, the country music was blaring! [laughs] Not that I don’t like country music. I do like country music…

 

[mux post & out]

 

 

Tony’s confession didn’t line up with the physical evidence. But that wasn’t the only thing Mark and Paul wanted to show the jury.

 

There were also all the inconsistencies between Tony’s confession and Jason’s. As far as Mark and Paul saw it, Jason’s confession was good for Tony’s case. If they were both there, why were their stories so different?

 

But they had a problem. Remember how prosecutors couldn’t bring in Jason’s confessions to a trial for Ken without calling Jason as a witness? Well, Tony’s defense couldn’t either.

 

In Tony’s trial, Jason’s confessions were legally considered hearsay – not allowed as evidence. The basic idea behind the hearsay rule is to keep unreliable gossip from leaking in through someone’s testimony.

 

But the hearsay rule has lots of exceptions and the arguments around them can get notoriously complicated.

 

And during the hand-to-hand legal combat of Tony’s trial, Mark and Paul successfully argued one of those exceptions did apply in this case.

 

[mux in]

 

The judge allowed the jury to hear Jason’s confessions partly because Tony’s confession was recorded after Jason’s. Tony heard Jason’s confession at the construction site, and Lamy referenced what Jason said while interrogating Tony. Mark and Paul argued that influenced what Tony said and whether it was reliable.

 

For the jury to fairly weigh that argument, they needed to hear Jason’s confessions, too.

 

[mux post]

 

And so, with that bit of clever legal maneuvering, Jason’s confessions entered Tony’s trial. It was a bold move for Mark and Paul. The judge told the jury Jason’s tapes were only to be taken to judge the reliability of Tony’s confession, and not for the truth of the matter. But still, the jury was going to hear Jason say Tony stabbed and strangled Sharon. 

 

But Mark and Paul felt it was worth it. The inconsistencies were too glaring. And so they made sure the jury heard lots and lots of them.

 

[mux post]

 

Like the motive for the murder. Tony says in his confession that Ken wanted Sharon killed because he was deep in debt.

 

Jason says, at first, he wasn’t told why Ken wanted his wife dead. Then, later, Jason says it was because Sharon had caught Ken raping his daughter and doing “some very other criminal acts.”

 

At the construction site, Jason says Ken and Sharon had a big argument before they stabbed her. Tony says Ken emerged from somewhere nearby only after Sharon had been stabbed.

 

Then there’s the murder weapon. Jason says the knife they used to kill Sharon was his – a brown, folding pocket knife. Tony says the knife they used was white and silver and belonged to Lisa Johnson, Ken’s daughter.

 

The money. Tony says Ken Johnson paid them $10,000. Jason, at first, says he was paid $500. Then $2,000. Then, finally, he says they split 10 grand. Tony says Ken paid them at his house on the night of the murder. Jason says they were paid in the morning two days later.

 

[mux out]

 

 

Why didn’t Tony’s confession, Jason’s confession, and the physical evidence all line up?

 

To Mark and Paul, the answer was obvious: Detective Roland Lamy. His conduct – his character – that was the second theme of their defense.

 

[Mark Sisti] I mean, the facts he wanted to come out were the facts that he would’ve been comfortable with, with regard to the theory of his case, the way he looked at it. But sometimes that won’t match up with reality.

 

Mark and Paul knew Lamy well. They’d faced off with him before in court. They actually kinda like him. But, according to Mark and Paul, Lamy had a tendency to will his theory of a case into existence.

 

[Paul Twomey] I never got the sense that he tried to convict people that he thought were innocent. I mean, I never got that sense at all. But I think he would do what it took to get confessions and do what it took to convict people he thought were guilty and that’s a dangerous thing – I mean, it is.

 

I talked to a number of other defense attorneys who had clients Lamy investigated. And they all agreed Lamy had this reputation. But none of them could point me to a specific instance where Lamy crossed a line.

 

So whether that reputation was founded, I don’t know. But it’s what Mark and Paul saw here: a detective assured of his own theory, who through intimidation and insinuation, got Tony to confess to that theory.

 

            [mux in]

 

Mark and Paul saw a whole alternate version of the story of Lamy’s investigation. One that answered the question: Why did Tony say all of this if it weren’t true? What would motivate him to do that?

 

That’s after the break.

 

            [mux out]

 

[OUTSIDE/IN “THE UNDERDOGS” PROMO BLOCK]

 

************************MIDROLL***************************

 

Mark Sisti versus Roland Lamy was the main event of Tony Pfaff’s trial. A showdown between two veterans of their trades. Cop versus lawyer. Interrogator versus cross-examiner.

 

[mux in]

 

Mark cross-examines Lamy for hours. One of the things he hones in on is how Tony acted during the investigation. Behaviors that Mark says just don’t make any sense if Lamy’s theory is true.

 

Remember how when Lamy first makes contact with Tony, Tony agrees to help in the investigation and they go down to the motel in Rhode Island and try to get Ken to incriminate himself?

 

I don’t have the audio of Tony’s trial, but it’s not hard to read the sparks into the transcript of the courtroom back-and-forth between Mark and Lamy on this.

 

Mark is basically saying, it’s crazy to think that Tony would volunteer to fly up to New Hampshire to help police catch the guy who paid him to commit murder. Why would Tony be trying to entrap his own co-conspirator, who could just as easily take Tony down with him?

 

Mark says, “That’s absolutely ridiculous isn’t it?” Lamy fires back, it’s not ridiculous if Ken knew police were listening.

 

Mark says, “Okay. Now, we're going to hear some objective fact that Ken Johnson knew the police were listening. Tell the Jury the objective fact.”

 

Lamy says, “It's just a conclusion.”

 

Q. [Mark Sisti] It's a conclusion without any support, right, Sergeant?

A. [Roland Lamy] Pretty much.

Q. [Mark Sisti] Could we - we call that speculation, right?

 

Lamy is forced to answer, “yes."

 

[mux post & out]

 

If Tony really killed Sharon, why did he agree to fly from North Carolina to New Hampshire to help in the investigation – twice? Once in March of ‘89 when he tried to entrap Ken Johnson. And again about eight months later when he walked right into Lamy’s trap at the construction site.

 

Lamy said it was because Tony was conning them – trying to throw police off the scent. But Mark and Paul had a different story about a 19-year-old kid under the thumb of state police. About serious incentives for Tony to make stuff up that were just off-stage in the police’s telling of the story. And about a detective who was willing to lie to make his theory of the case come true.

 

[Mark Sisti] And that was everything. That was the beginning to the end: You’re going to see a lying cop. Can you stick with us on this?

 

[mux in]

 

Let’s rewind the clock and hear the story of Lamy’s investigation as told from Mark and Paul’s perspective.

 

Sharon Johnson is murdered in July 1988. For six months, police can’t solve it. They can’t figure out who this “Bob” is that Sharon was supposed to be meeting the night she was killed, and they can’t figure out who moved Sharon’s car.

 

Lamy takes over the case in January of 1989. By March, he has a hunch that Tony might know something. But he has a hard time finding Tony. So he calls some of his relatives.

 

Lamy talks to a couple: Deborah and George Gagnon. They will become key characters in Lamy’s alleged manipulation of Tony.

 

[mux post]

 

To the Gagnons, Tony was technically an “ex-step-nephew.” But not technically, Deborah and George were like parents to Tony.

 

Deborah Gagnon testified at Tony’s trial that when Lamy called looking for Tony, he asked her “if we thought if Tony was asked to move a car from point A to point B, if he would do it, and I said yes.” In his own testimony, Detective Lamy agreed this is what happened.

 

This means that Lamy had the notion in his head that Tony moved Sharon's car before he ever even talked to Tony. When Lamy finally gets Tony on the phone, lo and behold, Tony tells him Ken asked him to move Sharon’s car.

 

[mux out]

 

But why would Tony say even that much, if it weren’t true? In Mark and Paul’s story, the answer is leverage. Lamy had leverage over Tony.

 

Tony had several warrants out for his arrest when Lamy first called him. Motor vehicle violations that Tony had failed to appear in court for. He also owed child support payments to Lisa Johnson, Ken’s stepdaughter.

 

Mark and Paul argued that all of this provided a powerful incentive for Tony to play along with whatever Lamy had in mind, since Lamy could arrest him at any moment on his outstanding warrants.

 

The implication from Tony’s lawyers was that he was just trying to say or do whatever he thought Lamy wanted so he could avoid consequences. Like, maybe say he moved a car when he really didn’t.

 

And whether this view of events is accurate, once Tony starts cooperating, Lamy does pull strings for him. He calls the local PD that held Tony’s arrest warrants and they put the warrants on an inactive status. Tony learns: Play along with the cops, get favors.

 

And Mark and Paul weren’t arguing here that Lamy was knowingly planting a false story in Tony. Instead, they implied Lamy just got fooled. A kind of confirmation bias. He squeezed Tony. Tony talked. And what Tony said matched Lamy’s preexisting theory.

 

[mux in]

 

And Detective Lamy wasn’t shy about squeezing people, as this next moment shows.

 

In the fall of 1989, Lamy is looking for Tony for the second time. By this point, Lamy believes Tony was directly involved in the murder. He thinks Tony was playing him during their trip to Rhode Island. But again Lamy can’t find Tony.

 

When Lamy calls Tony’s parental figures, Deborah and George Gagnon, they tell Lamy they’re not sure where he is either. But Lamy doesn’t believe them. And to provide a little extra motivation for the Gagnons to find Tony - he lies to them.

 

Lamy tells the Gagnons he thinks Tony has AIDS.

 

[mux post]

 

Remember, this is 1989 when Lamy says this – just a few years before the peak of the AIDS crisis in America. Deborah testifies she was so frightened, she drove her entire family to the doctor’s office and asked to have them tested.

 

By the way, Lamy lying to people like this: totally legal. And, eventually, it seems to work; he does get Tony on the phone again.

 

And Lamy, who still has the same leverage over Tony, the inactive arrest warrants, the child support payments, convinces Tony to come back to New Hampshire once again.

 

Only this time, Lamy is luring Tony into a trap. At the construction site, Tony is confronted by Jason and his confession. Tony says Jason is crazy. He says none of that ever happened. He tries to tell Lamy he didn’t even move the car like he originally said.

 

But now it’s too late. Lamy is convinced Tony is guilty. 

 

[mux up & out]

 

Police interrogate Tony for three hours before they turn the tape recorder on. At one point, Tony asks to see Deborah and George Gagnon. Lamy calls them and they drive to the police station. They arrive about an hour-and-a-half into Tony’s interrogation.

 

At Tony’s trial, Deborah testifies when they arrived Tony’s eyes were wide and bloodshot. She says he looked liked a wild animal. George says he looked like death warmed over.

 

Deborah testifies Lamy kept telling Tony over and over again, “It’ll be easier if you cooperate.” Deborah testifies Tony kept saying he had nothing to confess to.

 

Deborah testifies that at one point during the interrogation, Tony leaned onto her and whispered, “I'm just going to tell them what they want to hear because they're not going to let me out of here unless I do."

 

Finally - and this is according to the police report - Tony threw up his arms and said, “I’m ready.”

 

And that’s when the detectives turned on the tape recorder.

 

[Neal Scott] Tony, are you aware that this is being recorded?

 

[Tony Pfaff] Yes.

 

[Neal Scott] Would you speak up, please?

 

[Tony Pfaff] Yes!

 

[Neal Scott] Thank you.

 

            (fade out)

 

So this is the alternate version of the story that Tony lawyers, Mark and Paul are putting forward during the trial.

 

Lamy bullied a 19-year-old Tony into confessing to his pre-existing theories of the case.

 

It was by no means a sure thing. There’s still a taped confession where Tony Pfaff says he stabbed Sharon Johnson. A lot of what the Gagnons testified to was disputed by police testimony. The inconsistencies in Tony’s confession could be explained as simple mistakes in his recollection. And convincing a New Hampshire jury that a state police detective was a liar? Remember, it’s 1991. It would be hard to pull off today, even harder then.

 

But then Lamy does something that will change the course of the trial. Something that plays right into Mark and Paul’s strategy.

 

After a long day of being cross-examined by Mark, Lamy goes home and takes a phone call.

 

[mux in]

 

At the beginning of just about every criminal trial, the judge issues an order which says witnesses are not allowed to talk to each other until the trial is over.

 

[Mark Sisti] It’s important so that they don’t get together and, you know, meld their stories – make ‘em right.

 

It’s a pretty basic rule, common to virtually every criminal trial. But on this night, when Lamy gets home and picks up the phone, he breaks that rule. He gets a call from another potential witness in the case. His partner, Detective Neal Scott.

 

[mux post]

 

According to Lamy, he and Neal talked about the fact they would be questioned about Jason Carroll – which they were not expecting. Lamy says he told Neal he was going to have to “spend the night reading” their old reports. Lamy said, "I'm afraid I might screw up and not remember the details.” Neal allegedly told Lamy he wouldn’t remember either if he was called to testify. They say they weren’t trying to coordinate their testimony, though at one point, Neal acknowledged they weren’t supposed to be talking about that.

 

We’ll never really know what was said on that phone call. The only reason we know it happened is because the prosecutor handling the case accidentally interrupted it. He called Lamy that night while Lamy was on the phone with Neal. When Lamy switched lines to answer the call from the prosecutor, he said, “Hold on, I’ve got Neal on the phone.”

 

Maybe Lamy blurted that out because he didn’t think it was a big deal. Or maybe he didn’t think the prosecutor would actually tell the judge.

 

But he did.

 

[mux out]

 

[Mark Sisti] It turned into a trial inside of a trial. Which was a great opportunity for us, actually.

 

It became the most significant moment in the trial. Witness testimony was postponed for a week while hearings about this phone call were held. Detectives Lamy and Scott were forced to hire their own lawyers. Mark and Paul tried to have the whole case dismissed – the judge didn’t go for that. But still, it was more than Mark and Paul could’ve hoped for.

 

[Mark Sisti] I think it was huge. I mean our whole thing was that he was a dirty cop, and then he got to prove it in front of the jury. //

 

[Paul Twomey] The judge // he was just furious. And the jury could tell he was furious. And he gave them an instruction that Roland had disobeyed a court order and they were free to disregard everything he said, which, you don’t hear that instruction very often from judges.

 

[mux in]

 

In his closing argument, Mark had no mercy for Lamy. He called him a liar. He said he’d shamed police work. And Mark did not let the jury forget how Lamy had violated the court order.

 

Mark said, “At the beginning of this case, we asserted he couldn't be trusted and guess what? He proved it himself last Tuesday. Not to somebody on the street, but to you, to the judge, to everybody in this court.”

 

The prosecutor, Michael Ramsdell, fought back by arguing Lamy and Neal’s phone call was a moot point since Neal wasn’t even called as a witness. He said the defense had attacked Lamy from the beginning to distract jurors from the real evidence: Tony’s confession.

 

[mux out]

 

And with that, after 15 days, Tony’s trial ended. Now it was up to the jurors.

 

In the legal world, jurors are known as finders of fact. They are burdened with a profound, almost magical power and responsibility to decide what actually happened. To transform a story into a verdict.

 

[Robert Hoglund] And I said– one time, by the way, I had told them that they could take the Robert’s Rules and shove ‘em where the, uh, where the sun don’t shine.

 

Robert Hoglund was not impressed by the magic of being a juror. He especially did not like the way the jury foreperson ran the deliberation.

 

[Robert Hoglund] She said, “You’re out of order” to me one too many times. And I said, “I’m not out of order.”

 

[mux in]

 

According to Robert, when the jury sat down to deliberate, everyone else was ready to acquit. He was the lone holdout.

 

[Robert Hoglund] I thought he was guilty. I thought there was no question about whether he was guilty or not. //  The jury would’ve come back with a not-guilty within 15 minutes if it wasn’t for me.

 

Robert says for his fellow jurors, and even for him, the hang up was Detective Lamy. Mark and Paul’s plan to go after the character and conduct of Lamy – it worked.

 

[Robert Hoglund] This guy was– these people didn’t like that sergeant. And I didn’t like him either. I thought he was an idiot.

 

[mux post]

 

[Jason Moon] Do you think that was the number one factor why they voted not guilty?

 

[Robert Hoglund] Yes. It really was. // There was one person on the jury… Once the jury was handed the case, he walked into the room, he threw his coat down in a corner, got down on that coat and layed there, and said, “You guys can discuss, do whatever you want. Let me know when you’re done. He’s not guilty and I’m not going to change my mind.” // I finally gave in and I shouldn’t have. I knew he was guilty. And I ended up voting not guilty, and that was the final vote. And the judge came in and congratulated us and said we did the right thing and all this crap. And I was sitting there going, shaking my head. //

 

[Jason Moon] So basically, you voted not guilty just cause it seemed hopeless and you wanted to get out there.

 

[Robert Hoglund] Basically.

 

[mux out]

 

After 6 hours and 46 minutes of deliberation, the jury acquitted Tony Pfaff of all charges. He was free to go.

 

In the end, the jury didn’t buy the state’s story about Tony. They didn’t believe his confession. And they didn’t trust what Lamy had to say.

 

And it went beyond the jury. After the acquittal, the Union Leader newspaper, the biggest paper in the state, known for its conservative editorials, published an essay titled “The Lamy Controversy.” The editorial referred to Lamy’s “perceived credibility gap.” It said Lamy’s role in the case should be carefully reviewed. But Lamy’s superiors sprang to his defense. They said he did a QUOTE “excellent job” and that no action would be taken against him.

 

[mux in]

 

Jason Carroll’s trial was scheduled to start just two months after Tony Pfaff’s acquittal. Tony’s lawyers publicly called on the state to drop the case after what happened in Tony’s trial. To them, Jason’s confession was even more problematic than Tony’s.

 

[Mark Sisti] I think that Paul and I think that anybody that knows anything about that case, would say that the big sore thumb sticking out in Carroll’s case is that confession. You can’t shake it. As a professional, you’re looking at, you can’t shake it. I think if you had a police officer today listen to that, they’d go – they’d be horrified. They would never conduct an interrogation like that. // Paul, at the beginning of this, said, “I felt sorry for Jason Carroll.” Now, whether or not he is a murderer or not, OK, I felt sorry for him. And we had a codefendant. And if we could dump it on Jason Carroll to get our guy off, we would’ve, but we didn’t even go in that direction. I mean, that confession was terrible.

 

[mux post]

 

The state’s case was falling apart. Ken was released. Tony was acquitted. The only defendant left was Jason.

 

Remember, in the state’s theory, Jason got involved in the murder plot because of Tony – who a jury just said was not guilty, to carry out a murder for Ken – who the state had just let go because they didn’t have enough evidence.

 

So how does another jury find Jason guilty?

 

That’s next time on Bear Brook Season 2: A True Crime Story.

 

[mux up]

 

A True Crime Story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

 

It’s edited by Katie Colaneri.

 

Additional reporting and research by Paul Cuno-Booth.

 

Editing help from Lauren Chooljian, Daniela Allee, Sara Plourde, Taylor Quimby, Mara Hoplamazian, and Todd Bookman. 

 

Our News Director is Dan Barrick. Our Director of Podcasts is Rebecca Lavoie.

 

Fact-checking by Dania Suleman.

 

Sara Plourde created our original artwork, as well as our website, bearbrookpodcast.com.

 

Photos and videos by Gaby Lozada.

 

Original music for the series was created by me, Jason Moon.

 

Bear Brook is a production of the Document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of S2 Episode 4: 'Promises Have Been Made'

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

[mux in]

 

Previously on Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story:

 

[Karen Carroll, Outline Tape] You told us that Jason had admitted moving the car and was involved somewhat.

 

[tape stop sound]

 

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] The truth. The essence of the truth. I have not seen the breaking point in you.

 

[tape stop sound]

 

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] If you put a knife – if you put a knife in that woman, I want to know.

 

[tape stop sound]

 

[Jack Carroll, Outline Tape] He stood up and he just said it was a bunch of bullcrap. And that anything that he had said wasn’t true.

 

[tape stop sound]

 

[mux out]

 

 

It’s November 27, 1989. The Monday after Thanksgiving. Tony Pfaff lands at the airport in Manchester, New Hampshire.

 

Tony walks off the plane and waves hello to Detective Roland Lamy and the other officers who are waiting for him.

 

[mux in]

 

Tony has no idea that just two days ago, on Saturday, Jason Carroll confessed on tape to murdering Sharon Johnson. Tony has no idea that while he was in the air, police taped a second confession from Jason.

 

[Neal Scott] Alright, from the top again, Jason. When were you first contacted?

 

[Jason Carroll] July 27, 1988.

 

[Neal Scott] To do what?

 

[Jason Carroll] Kill Sharon Johnson.

 

[Neal Scott] [David Eastman] By whom?

 

[Jason Carroll] Tony Pfaff.

 

And Tony has no idea that on both of those tapes, Jason says Tony is guilty, too.

 

When Tony got on the plane in North Carolina that morning, he thought he was coming to team up with detectives again. Just like he had several months earlier, when he wore a wire and tried to get Ken Johnson to admit to the murder.

 

[mux post]

 

Detective Lamy and the other cops lead Tony outside to Lamy’s car. It’s November and there’s snow on the ground. Tony is wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

 

He sits in the front seat. And Lamy says, as a precaution, he’s going to read Tony his Miranda rights – you know, just since they’re going to be talking about the murder. Tony says he understands, it’s just a precaution.

 

[mux out]

 

After about 15 minutes they pull into a construction site. The construction site where Sharon’s body was found.

 

Detective Lamy tells Tony, "There's someone here that has something to say to you.”

 

It’s Jason. He’s standing there in the construction site, surrounded by about a dozen cops. Police cruisers are parked all over.

 

            [mux in]

 

It’s at this moment that Tony must’ve realized - this trip to see the New Hampshire State Police was not going to be like that last one. Last time, Tony was one of the guys. This time, he’d walked right into a trap – a scene staged by Detective Lamy on the very spot where Sharon Johnson’s body was found.

 

That day, Lamy hoped he could turn one confession into two – and finally use that evidence to take down Ken Johnson. 

 

This is Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story. I’m Jason Moon.

 

[mux up and out]

 

 

According to the police reports, Detective Lamy and Tony get out of the car and walk over to Jason.

 

Lamy stands in between Jason and Tony in case it gets physical. He tells them, “I don’t want this turning into a freak show.”

 

Detective Lamy then has Jason repeat his confession to Tony. He’s betting the surprise of being confronted by a co-conspirator confessing to the crime at the spot where Lamy says they committed crime, surrounded by a dozen cops – it will convince Tony the game is over.

 

It was the kind of scene that would make for the perfect climax of a TV cop show.

 

But it doesn’t go according to plan. Tony says he doesn’t even know who Jason is, even though they worked together at High-Tech. He says Jason is crazy.

 

Tony asks what’s going on? Lamy says if he wants to talk about it, he’ll have to come with him to the police station. Tony is standing in a snow-covered construction site in rural New Hampshire, wearing just shorts and a t-shirt, he was flown here on the state police’s dime, he has no car of his own, and no way to reach anyone else. He agrees, and gets back in the car with Lamy.

 

[mux in]

 

Once they get to the Bedford police station, Tony spends three hours in an interrogation room with Detective Lamy and other officers. And then Lamy’s partner turns on a tape recorder.

 

[Neal Scott] This is Sergeant Neal Scott, New Hampshire State Police speaking. The time is 1900 hours. The date is November 27, 1989. The following recorded conversations are that of Anthony Tony Pfaff. Present is Sergeant Roland Lamy of New Hampshire state police and myself, Neal Scott. Tony, are you aware that this is being recorded?

 

[Tony Pfaff] Yes.

 

[Neal Scott] Would you speak up, please?

 

[Tony Pfaf] Yes!

 

[Neal Scott] Thank you.

 

It’s taken detectives a lot of work to get there. But Tony now tells them he’s finally ready to make a confession.

 

[Roland Lamy] You have indicated to me, prior to us turning this tape on, that you are now ready to tell the whole truth so help you god about your involvement in the killing of Sharon Johnson on July 28, 1988. Is that correct?

 

[Tony Pfaff] Yes.

 

[mux post]

 

Tony begins to tell a new story about his involvement in Sharon’s murder. Tony says the story starts with a conversation between him and Ken one week before she was killed.

 

[Tony Pfaff] He asked me if I could help him figure out a way to kill his wife. And I thought–

 

[Roland Lamy] And her name is?

 

[Tony Pfaff] Sharon Johnson

 

[Roland Lamy] OK.

 

[Tony Pfaff] At first, I thought he was kidding. And I suggested a few ways, just playing along, and then he told me he wasn’t joking, he was serious.

 

[Roland Lamy] Mmhmm.

 

Tony says Ken offered him $10,000 to kill his wife. Tony says he thought about it for a day, then agreed to the job. Tony says he then reached out to Jason – and offered him half the money – $5,000 – to help him carry it out.


Tony says it was his idea for Jason to play the role of “Bob.” He says he and Jason met Sharon at the mall.

 

[Tony Pfaff] We met her in the mall. And we asked her to go outside – come outside with us.

 

[Roland Lamy] Where in the mall? //

 

[Tony Pfaff] In the middle of the mall by the food court, somewhere around there, I don’t remember nothing, I don’t…

 

[Roland Lamy] OK.

 

(pause)

 

The mood of Tony’s interrogation could not be more different than what happened with Jason and his mom. There’s no shouting on the tape. In fact, it’s so quiet you can hear what sounds like a clock ticking throughout the whole thing.

 

And Tony – I’m not sure what the right word is to describe his affect. Flat? Unremorseful? Resigned? Exhausted? 

 

Tony can’t seem to remember all that much about the day of the murder. The interrogation is a halting, tedious process. But Lamy, who yelled at Jason to reach his breaking point as Jason sobbed, is patient… even gentle, as he coaxes Tony to keep talking. At one point, Lamy says to Tony, “don’t be ashamed to cry.”

 

[Tony Pfaff] Then we drove. I don’t remember the places we drove. Jason told you where we drove.

 

[Roland Lamy] Mmhmm.

 

[Tony Pfaff] And then… we went down… to uh… (mumbling) I don’t remember the road.

 

[Roland Lamy] Tell you what–

 

[Tony Pfaff] I don’t remember. It’s hard for me to remember things, alright?

 

[Roland Lamy] Well, do your best. This is very serious, as you know… (sigh) I mean, there has to be, you have to explain how it is that that site was chosen because Johnson shows up there and he has to know where it’s going to be. Who chooses that place and how did he get there?

 

[Tony Pfaff] He’s the one that chose it ‘cause I didn’t know where it was.

 

[Roland Lamy] How do you– you don’t just accidentally run into him. How do you people get out there?

 

(long pause)

 

[Roland Lamy] Come on, Tony.

 

(long pause)

 

Tony is not giving police the kind of detailed play-by-play they’re looking for. Still, he is confirming the broad strokes of Jason’s confession.

 

Tony says after they meet Sharon at the mall, they force her into her car. Then Tony says he holds Sharon at knifepoint and makes her drive to the construction site.

 

[Tony Pfaff] Anyway, we got there, she struggled, Jason drove a knife in her back, stabbed her again. I choked her. She fell to the ground. And I, I – her shirt was pulled off, but I didn’t pull it off. I don’t know how it got pulled off, but I didn’t pull it off.

 

[Roland Lamy] How many times did you stab her, truthfully? Truthfully, now, Tony. This is a one-time shot to tell the truth, ‘cause that’s what you want to be doing. You don’t have to have the exact number of times. I want to know how many times that you think you may have stabbed her.

 

[Tony Pfaff] A couple of times.

 

Tony tells police the knife used in the murder belonged to Lisa Johnson. Ken’s stepdaughter. The mother of Tony’s child. Tony says she might’ve known about the plot to kill Sharon, but can’t say for sure. Tony says he got the knife from Ken and then gave it to Jason.

 

That’s all a pretty significant difference from Jason’s confession, where he eventually says the knife was his and never mentions Lisa. Lamy, no doubt recognizing this discrepancy, asks Tony, “Were there two knives used or just one?” Tony says, “Just one.”

 

[Roland Lamy] Was Johnson there? Explain how – where’s Johnson?

 

[Tony Pfaff] Ken Johnson, he did show up. I don’t know where he came from but he was, I mean, I didn’t see which direction he came from, but he was there. 

 

[Roland Lamy] OK and did he come before this began or after? Or during?

 

[Tony Pfaff] He must’ve been there, already, because he came out right after it was over.

 

[Roland Lamy] Oh, he came out after it was over?... OK…. OK, continue. Now, what was said? Was Sharon begging you to stop? Was she crying?

 

[Tony Pfaff] She was c– of course she was crying, she was in hysterics.

 

[Roland Lamy] Tell me things that she was saying.

 

[Tony Pfaff] Why are we doing this to her?

 

[Roland Lamy] What did you say?

 

[Tony Pfaff] I don’t remember.

 

            [mux post]

 

That’s another difference from the story Jason told. Jason said Ken and Sharon had a whole argument before she was stabbed. And now Tony is saying Ken emerged from somewhere nearby only afterwards.

 

Tony says after they killed Sharon, he and Jason drove her green Subaru back to the mall and left it in the parking lot. Then he says they both drove in Jason’s truck to Ken’s house where he paid them the $10,000. At that point, Tony says he and Jason parted ways.

 

Near the end of the interrogation, Lamy uses a technique on Tony that he also used on Jason. He invokes the presence of a theoretical jury that will one day listen to the tape they’re making.

 

[Roland Lamy] I want you to explain to the jury, if you will, and I know it’s very difficult to do this, but I must ask you to express how you feel as a human being, as Tony Pfaff – how does Tony Pfaff feel about having participated in the murder of Sharon Johnson?

 

[Tony Pfaff] I feel bad, and I’m sorry it took place. And I wish it’d never even happened. (pause) And if there was any way I could switch places, I’d do it.

 

[mux out]

 

 

Tony’s taped interrogation finishes around 8 p.m. Tony landed at the airport at 3, so he’s spent five hours with the cops by this point. And it’s not over. Police keep talking to him that night, periodically, though they never turn on another tape recorder.

 

Two hours later, Tony changes his story. Now he says Lisa Johnson was involved in the murder. He says she was there and saw Sharon die.

 

Then, 40 minutes later, Tony tries to recant everything. He says none of it is true. Not even what he told Detective Lamy months ago about moving Sharon’s car as a favor for Ken.

 

It’s somewhere around 11 p.m. Finally, according to the police report, Tony says, “Look, everything I told you on the tape was the truth. I feel bad. I’m tired. That’s why I went backwards. Don’t bother asking me anything more because I don’t remember anything more.”

 

[mux in]

 

All this time Jason has been at the police station, too. He recorded that second taped confession while Tony was flying in. Then, after the showdown at the construction site, police also brought Jason back to the Bedford PD. For the rest of the day, Lamy has been bouncing back and forth between questioning Jason and Tony.

 

Around midnight, Tony and Jason are both arrested. Tony has been with the police for 9 hours this day. Jason, for about 12 hours. By the way, you can see a timeline of all the interrogations on our website bearbrookpodcast.com.

 

But Lamy is not done with Jason yet. He has one last scene to stage with him. This one – down in Rhode Island, with Ken Johnson.

 

[mux post]

 

The next morning, just after 10 a.m., police in Warren, Rhode Island arrive at the Country Inn Restaurant. Ken is apparently at work inside.

 

The Warren police chief told the newspapers, Ken showed “no surprise or shock whatsoever” at being arrested.

 

Ken is brought to the local police station. And not long after he gets there, Detective Lamy arrives from New Hampshire. He’s brought Jason with him.

 

[mux post]

 

Lamy brings Jason into the room where Ken is being held. According to Lamy’s police report, Ken stares at Jason.

 

Lamy then has Jason repeat his confession again to Ken. He gets as far as the part where he says he saw Ken at the construction site. At the mention of this, Ken flings his arms out in disgust and tells Lamy to get Jason out of his sight.

 

[mux post]

 

Over a year after Sharon was murdered, Lamy’s investigation had produced two confessions and an alleged murder weapon – Jason’s pocket knife. And it all pointed to the original prime suspect, Ken, as the mastermind behind the plot to kill Sharon.

 

It was front page news. Tony Pfaff, Ken Johnson, and Jason Carroll were all charged with capital murder. At the time, the penalty was death.

 

Detective Roland Lamy had lived up to his reputation. He’d solved the case. He’d crafted the narrative about who killed Sharon Johson.

 

            [mux up]

 

Thanks for listening to Bear Brook Season 2. This podcast took more than a year to report – and a lot of resources. One way to show how much you value local journalism and longform investigative reporting is by giving to New Hampshire Public Radio. It takes just a few minutes and makes a big difference. To give now, click the link in the show notes – and thanks.

 

            [mux out]

 

************************MIDROLL***************************

 

You’ve now heard the official narrative of Sharon Johnson’s murder. How it was put together out of a few clues and a tangle of changing and sometimes conflicting confessions from two 19-year-olds.

 

To recap, here’s what the police say happened:

 

Ken Johnson wanted his wife dead because he was deep in gambling debt and Sharon’s pension would cover that debt and then some. He hired Tony Pfaff, the 19-year-old who dated his daughter, to kill Sharon. Tony recruited his coworker Jason Carroll to help. The three of them used a story about a fictional “Bob” to lure Sharon to the mall. Tony and Jason kidnapped her there and brought her to a construction site where Ken was waiting. And then, Jason and Tony stabbed Sharon with Jason’s pocket knife and Ken and Tony strangled her.

 

If some of that sounds different than what Jason and Tony confessed to, it’s because it is. Jason made yet more changes to his confession during his final taped interrogation, including that Ken choked, but never stabbed Sharon.

 

But if the state was going to take these confessions to trial, they had to settle on a single narrative. Did Ken stab her or didn’t he? Was Lisa involved or wasn’t she? And so they made some storytelling choices. They made choices about when to use the details from one confession over another when those details conflicted. And they made choices about what statements were true or false when Jason and Tony gave multiple different answers to the same question. So some things got cut, like Ken stabbing Sharon himself or Lisa being involved.

 

And to be clear, as far as Lisa goes – there is no evidence besides Tony’s brief statement that she had anything to do with Sharon’s murder. Lisa wasn’t even living in New Hampshire at the time – she’d moved to Rhode Island a few months before Sharon’s murder. We reached out to Lisa but never heard back.

 

Together, those choices add up to the narrative the state still stands by to this day.

 

But of course, it was not the only version of the story to be told. The official narrative was challenged – just as soon as Jason Carroll got a lawyer.

 

[Jason Moon] Can you talk to me about your first introduction to the case? //

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] The first thing that happened was Jason’s mom came in to meet with me. // And I knew right away there was going to be a problem.

 

[mux in]

 

This is retired judge and criminal defense attorney Cliff Kinghorn. He’s an ex-marine. Got a purple heart in Vietnam.

 

Until Cliff was appointed to represent Jason, no one outside law enforcement really knew what role Jason’s parents had played. How his mom Karen and his stepdad Jack allowed Jason to be questioned by police without an attorney for at least 13-and-a half hours over a four day period. How Karen Carroll actively and aggressively participated in one of Jason’s interrogations.

 

When Cliff learned what had happened, he was horrified. Then he took a meeting with Jason’s parents that stunned him even more.

 

[mux post]

 

In Cliff Kinghorn’s office, Karen and Jack Carroll share a detail no one else knows about. Something allegedly left off the police reports. Something that would help explain why Karen and Jack did what they did.

 

Karen tells Cliff a deal for Jason’s cooperation has already been worked out with police.

 

[mux out]

 

As long as Jason testifies against Ken, Karen says Jason has been promised a very light sentence – something like 7 or 8 years at a federal prison where he could even get a college degree while inside.

 

Karen says she and Jason’s stepfather had been promised this by Detective Roland Lamy.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] And I’m thinking to myself, “What la-la-land are we living in? That’s never going to happen.”

 

[mux in]

 

Cliff and Jason’s parents start to argue.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] Karen basically said to me, we’re going to do this my way. All kinds of promises have been made to him and I trust Roland Lamy explicitly and we got into kind of a heated discussion.

 

Karen and Jack Carroll actually described this meeting with Cliff in the “Outline Tape.” The conversation Karen and Jack recorded with Detective Lamy just 11 days after this meeting with Cliff. And Karen tells Lamy just how terribly the meeting went.

 

[Karen Carroll, Outline Tape] He really started in very hard on me. My being in law enforcement seemed to be quite an issue. How could I possibly sit there and let my son spill his guts and tell everything without consulting an attorney. // Whose side was I on? Was I on Jason’s side or was I on the police’s side?

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] I mean it was basically, “I know he needs a lawyer, I suppose, but I’m calling the shots, we’re calling the shots. We know what we’re doing and this is the way it’s going to be.” And I said, “I’m sorry Karen, but you need to understand something: I don’t represent you, I don’t represent your husband. We’re going to represent Jason and that’s our job.”

 

[Jack Carroll, Outline Tape] We walked out very upset. I don’t think we said three words together, to each other all the way home. // This was supposed to be our defense attorney for our son and we felt that he was going to hang him out to dry. // He was out for his own glory and we didn’t want that. We told him that Jason wanted to turn state’s evidence and he insisted not.

 

[mux out]

 

The argument in Cliff Kinghorn’s office was an epic clash of worldviews. A cop and defense attorney. Each with fundamentally different understandings of how the criminal justice system works. Both believing their approach was in Jason’s best interest.

 

A little context here: Generally speaking, cops don’t have the authority to make promises of immunity – an offer like that can only come from a prosecutor. And it’s also risky for the police. A promise of immunity could render a suspect’s confession involuntary in the eyes of the court.

 

But it matters exactly what is said. A detective who makes an explicit promise of immunity – that’s usually not ok. But a detective who suggests that cooperation might lead to leniency? That’s not uncommon and it’s a legal gray area.

 

Detective Lamy, for his part, flatly denied ever making promises of any kind to Jason or his parents.

 

But the Carrolls would later testify to a jury that Lamy made the promise the morning after Jason’s first interrogation.

 

In that testimony, the Carrolls say immunity for Jason became their objective. And to make that happen, they needed to make sure he cooperated.

 

So later that same day when Karen is brought into the room during Jason’s second interrogation, and Detective Lamy is yelling at him that he’s not telling the truth, Karen said, it scared her. If Jason held something back, he wouldn’t get immunity. He needs to talk. He needs to tell them everything. For his own good.

 

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] These guys are going to help you! We’re not going to sit and jump on your ass and shoot you down!

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] But I feel like I’m getting jumped on my ass and shot down now!

 

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] We want the truth out of you! No one is going to be able to help you any more until you come forth with all of the information that they need!

 

Later in the interrogation, you can hear Karen tell her son, “You still have a chance to save your ass. My dear, I don’t want to see you go to prison.”

 

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] The longer you hold off telling the truth –

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] Come on…

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] – the harder it’s going to be and the worse it’s going to be on yourself. You still have a chance to save your ass. My dear, I don’t want to see you go to prison.

 

Jason says, “I don’t want to go to prison either, Ma.”

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] I don’t want to go to prison either, Ma.

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] Then tell us every goddamn thing you know.

 

Here’s what Karen told me about what she was thinking during Jason’s interrogation.

 

[Karen Carroll] What was going through my mind was, if Jason had something to tell them then he was going to tell them. But it was that word “immunity” rolling around in my head. I’m not thinking that’s got to come from the AG’s Office. I’m just thinking, “This is my son. They’re trying to pin this murder on him.” And the word “immunity” is rolling around in my head.

 

As Jason’s confession changes and becomes more and more incriminating, the Carrolls say Lamy’s promise changes, too. From full immunity to a short prison sentence. Still, to Karen and Jack, it felt like the best option for Jason who otherwise faced the death penalty.

 

When Jason’s attorney Cliff Kinghorn told the Carrolls that Lamy’s promises were a fantasy, they simply didn’t believe that. Karen trusted Lamy. A fellow police officer. The one many considered the best.

 

And so for weeks after that meeting, Karen continued to collude with Detective Lamy. She actively worked to undermine Jason’s attorneys.

 

[mux in]

 

Karen would talk to Jason in jail, learn what his attorneys were telling him, then she’d call Detective Lamy and relay that information to him.

 

She even convinced Jason to write a letter in jail to the prosecutors. In the letter, Jason says he wants to testify for the state, but his attorneys weren’t letting him. Karen dictated the letter to Jason over the phone. With the help of Lamy, Karen delivered the letter by hand to the Attorney General’s office – to the lawyers who were prosecuting her son.

 

[mux post]

 

And then, there’s the “Outline Tape.” 

 

[Roland Lamy, Outline Tape] Today we have prepared an outline on a board in a conference room by which the outline will be utilized to present this taped statement.

 

Lamy hoped the tape would undermine any potential argument from Jason’s attorneys that the confessions were coerced. And Karen and Jack Carroll helped make it.

 

They recorded it with police in December of 1989, just weeks after Jason’s arrest and 11 days after the Carrolls’ big fight with Jason’s lawyer.

 

[Roland Lamy, Outline Tape] You understand that the reason we’ve made this tape today is because we know by other forces and their activity that in the long road ahead, there are going to be continued and repeated attacks // that the police coerced, intimidated, promised, threatened, made deals with Jason at any time during the confession-taking or the confession-decision-making process.

 

Detective Lamy knew the voluntariness of Jason’s confessions would be an issue. (Possibly from the intel he was getting from Karen about the legal strategy of Jason’s lawyers). And so to protect his investigation, Lamy got Jack and Karen Carroll on record, saying that the police made no promises or threats to Jason. The thing Cliff and Karen would later say the whole fight at his office was about – Karen tells Lamy, it never happened. Jack tells Lamy in the “Outline Tape” a promise to Jason wasn’t so much as insinuated. And Karen agrees that when she took part in Jason’s second interrogation, she was acting as Jason’s mother – not as a police officer.

 

These were all statements that would later help the state fight off challenges by Jason’s lawyers to the validity of his confession.

 

[mux out]

 

For Lamy, the “Outline Tape” was a rare instance of two people putting their personal and familial relationships aside in the interest of justice.

 

[Roland Lamy, Outline Tape] I must tell you that it’s extremely rewarding to sit here and listen to two parents who are as conscientious and as fair in their judgment and appraisal of this entire situation as you two have been and we do appreciate that.

 

For people who believe Jason is innocent, the “Outline Tape” is tragic. Here are Jason’s parents — the people supposed to protect him – helping police put the finishing touches on his wrongful conviction.

 

Maybe most damning of all, from this point of view, is how Karen and Jack both describe Jason calling them from jail and again trying to tell them he didn’t do it. To which his parents  basically say, knock it off.

 

[Karen Carroll, Outline Tape] He went on to tell us that he wasn’t guilty. And again his father and I stressed to him the importance of telling the truth.

 

[mux in]

 

[Jack Carroll, Outline Tape] He tried to compromise with the truth. He says, “Well, what would happen if I am really innocent of this and I just go and try to make a deal on that statement?” And he says, “Down the road a year or two, say the state investigators find the real man who did this, what would they do then?” And we tried to explain that to him. At that point, we both knew that he was just pussy-footing around.

 

[mux post]

 

[Jack Carroll, Outline Tape] It’s my opinion – I’m not going to speak for my wife, but it’s my opinion that the boy is guilty.

 

[Roland Lamy, Outline Tape] Right.

 

[Jack Carroll, Outline Tape] And I’ve known him for 19, 20 years now. And it’s my – he is guilty and he needs to be punished.

 

[mux post]

 

People in Jason’s camp today have a lot to say about what his parents did. Most of the criticism is directed at Karen because of her role in the interrogation.

 

[Debbie Dutra] She was a cop. She of all people knows better. My children are 30 and 26. If they were ever hauled off to a police department, the first thing I would say is, “Lawyer up.” Done.

 

[Debbie Richer] I’ve told Jason this, there’s a part of me that doesn’t have a whole lot of respect for his mom. // He had nobody on his side to protect him. Where were his protectors?

 

[mux out]

 

For Jason, the feelings are more complicated.

 

[Jason Carroll] I mean, I still talk to her… but it’s not quite the same, nor will it ever be.

 

Jason says he and his mom have never really been able to talk about what happened, freely. Their only contact since the arrest has been in jail and prison visiting rooms with guards watching. Or on prison phones where they could be listening. Not the best environment for a painful heart-to-heart.

 

[Jason Carroll] The story and the saga is not done between her and I. It’s far from it. For now, it’s just on hold. // What’s going to happen is, if I walk out of here, her and I are going to sit down and have a long, long talk. And she’s probably not going to like some of the things I got to say.

 

Jack Carroll died in 2006. Karen, for her part, now acknowledges the role she played and deeply regrets it.

 

But she lays much of the blame at the feet of Detective Roland Lamy.

 

[Karen Carroll] I was not only a police officer, but I was a mother, you know? And mothers will do whatever they have to do to try to protect their kids. // And things affect everybody differently. And I think he just took full advantage of… my noodle just slipped off the plate into the abyss.

 

[mux in]

 

Cliff Kinghorn, Jason’s lawyer who argued with Karen that day in his office, who once questioned whose side Karen was on, today says this was not her fault.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] You know, Karen helped them, but in my heart I always thought she felt she was doing the right thing for Jason. And // I mean, Roland knew what he was doing. And he realized he had someone that had a great deal of influence on her son that he could use to get what he wanted. // I never doubted for a minute that she was made promises. Lamy made promises to her that he could never possibly keep.

 

[mux out]

 

About seven weeks after the Carrolls had their blow-up with Cliff, the reality of Jason’s situation takes hold. Lamy’s alleged promises of leniency do not come to pass. The state of New Hampshire indicts Jason on charges of capital murder. Lamy and the prosecutors Karen had put her trust in are now trying to execute her son.

 

Meanwhile Jason is back to denying any involvement in the murder – a position he will maintain for the next 34 years. Jason refuses to testify against Ken or Tony.

 

Karen and Jack start to cooperate with Jason’s attorneys. Eventually, they will testify several times as witnesses for the defense.

 

On the stand, they will say that the “Outline Tape” was a huge lie, orchestrated and scripted by Detective Lamy. They will beg a judge and jury, sometimes through tears, to believe them that Detective Lamy promised their son immunity.

 

But it won’t work. The prosecutor will simply point out that the Carrolls are admitting they are willing to lie if they think it will help Jason. And the prosecutor will say, that’s exactly where they’re doing now.

 

Jack and Karen Carroll will be too late to stop what they helped start. Jason Carroll will be convicted of murder.

 

[Karen Carroll] I am like, why did I let this happen? Why wasn’t I stronger? Why couldn’t I see what he was doing? Why, why, why, why?

 

            [mux post]

 

Coming up – in the second half of A True Crime Story.

 

[unidentified voice] I was just reading and laying out the case. // I knew something wasn't right, but I didn't know what wasn't right. 

[Jason Moon] And what did you think it was leading to? Like, did you have an objective in mind as you were doing this?

[unidentified voice] The truth.

 

[unidentified voice] That’s a big accusation for someone to come out and admit that they did something when they didn’t do it.

 

[unidentified voice] I thought he was guilty. I thought there was no question about whether he was guilty or not.

 

[unidentified voice] I mean one of the best things that came out of Pfaff’s mouth was when they were filming him coming out of the police station in the morning // and they were like, “Do you have anything to say?” or something, and he says, “Yeah: not guilty.”

 

[unidentified voice] When they started to suggest that this is the only way that this is going to work, // your mind says, “Well, OK you have to trust them.” // You believe that you’re helping your accusers help you.

 

[unidentified voice] People have a really, really hard time reconciling with the fact that someone would confess to something that they didn’t do. And they assume that if they say that they did it, it’s because they actually did it.

 

A True Crime Story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

 

It’s edited by Katie Colaneri.

 

Additional reporting and research by Paul Cuno-Booth.

 

Editing help from Lauren Chooljian, Daniela Allee, Sara Plourde, Taylor Quimby, Mara Hoplamazian, and Todd Bookman. 

 

Our News Director is Dan Barrick. Our Director of Podcasts is Rebecca Lavoie.

 

Fact-checking by Dania Suleman.

 

Sara Plourde created our original artwork, as well as our website, bearbrookpodcast.com.

 

Photos and videos by Gaby Lozada.

 

Original music for the series was created by me, Jason Moon.

 

Bear Brook is a production of the Document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of S2 Episode 3: The Breaking Point

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

Previously on Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story…

 

[Karen Carroll] I wanted to trust him… I wanted to trust him.

 

[Tom Dufresne] I think he thought he was Telly Savalas. He had a shaved head. He’s sucking on a lollipop, and he’s strutting around the courtroom like he owned it.

 

[Eric Wilson] He had a reputation for solving cases.

 

 

When I first met Jason Carroll inside the prison, I could feel my brain trying to reconcile two different Jasons. The 19-year-old I’d gotten a sense of through interviews with friends and old tapes, and the 52-year-old in front of me.

 

Jason’s bald, a goatee that’s mostly gray. And he’s huge. Like he’s spent the last three decades lifting weights. Which is kinda true.

 

Jason’s not big on reporters. He remembers how the newspapers covered his trials. How they reprinted, again and again, the most damning quotes from his confessions. So it took some time for Jason to relax around me, if only a little.

 

There’s a lot I could tell you about Jason. He’s polite. Despite his obvious physical strength, he has a gentle presence. He’s apparently quite good at handball. He enjoys the woodworking program at the prison; he’s made dozens and dozens of bowls and vases and pieces of furniture – a set of wooden lamps with little animal shapes cut out of them. He gives them away to people he cares about. People like Debbie Richer.

 

[Debbie Richer] I met Jason back in 1989. // And we kinda cruised Elm Street (laughs). Back in the day, that’s kinda what everybody did.

 

Cruising Elm Street. It was something I’d seen references to in police reports and court testimony. But it wasn’t until Debbie explained it to me, that I could really picture it.

 

[Debbie Richer] When you cruised Elm Street, people were cruising Elm Street from anywhere from seven o’clock at night to until one and two in the morning. And then you’d go hang out at Dunkin’ Donuts.

 

            [mux in]

 

[Debbie Richer] If you’ve ever been to a car show, OK? That’s kinda what it was. But you would have cliques everywhere. You would have people who have louder stereos. 

 

[mux post]

 

[Debbie Richer] If you had jeeps, all your jeeps were over here to the right. If you had a camaro, they were to the left. // It was, the guys would hang out at Meineke and they would wait for the hot looking girls to come on cruising by.

 

It was on one of these 1989 cruising nights, when Americana overflowed, that Debbie met Jason.

 

[Jason Carroll] I’m in the passenger seat and there she was, // blond hair flowing, California girl, blue eyes, smiling a big smile // and we’re going down the road and I about broke my neck looking at this woman.

 

[Debbie Richer] Jason was known on Elm Street // as, um, I’m going to put it as a pretty boy. Like, “Oh, wow, he’s hot. Let’s go after him.” ‘Cause he had the nice brown hair, nice smile, tan… So he was a good looking kid. He really was.

 

[mux out]

 

Unfortunately for both of them, Debbie already had a boyfriend. But Debbie and Jason – who she sometimes calls Jay – struck up a flirtatious friendship anyways.

 

[Debbie Richer] We had a lot in common. My dad was military, Jay was military. // We like mechanical things. // Yes, I can put the dress on and the high heels, but I can also get under and get my hands dirty and I think that that’s why Jason and I became friends. Because I wasn’t just that little delicate girl. I was somebody he could relate to.

 

            [mux in]

 

It was around the time Jason and Debbie met, in 1989, that Jason says his life was starting to get on track.

 

Jason’s family had moved to New Hampshire a few years before from South Carolina. Jason’s stepdad, Jack Carroll, was in the military so they moved a lot.

 

Jason was 17 when they got to New Hampshire, and he says he quickly realized his new high school was way ahead academically of his old one, so he dropped out. He says money was tight in the family, so he started working. For a while, he bounced around from job-to-job.

 

[Jason Carroll] I tried going back to school – it just wasn’t happening. Nothing was working for me. So I was like, OK, military it is. And that was the best thing I ever did. And I would’ve made a career out of it.

 

When he was 18, Jason joined the National Guard. He went to bootcamp at Fort Dix in New Jersey, then moved back home to New Hampshire. He got a job as a mechanic at the National Guard Armory in Manchester – the same place his stepdad worked.

 

[Jason Carroll] I was proud. I was proud to serve my country. Even in what little capacity I did. I was proud as a peacock about it.

 

Jason finally felt like his life had a direction. He was fixing National Guard trucks by day, cruising Elm Street and making eyes at Debbie by night.

 

But things at home weren’t always so great. Jason says he and Jack didn’t get along. Jack has since died, but Jason’s mom Karen Carroll told me he treated Jason differently than the other three kids, who were all biologically his.

 

Jason says with a cop for a mom and a soldier for a dad, the house was strict. A lot of “yes-sir”s and “no-ma’am”s. According to one of Jason’s sisters, the family wasn’t great at communicating. She told me things just weren’t discussed.

 

Homelife was bad enough that Jason says he was considering asking his commanding officer to ship him off to Germany – or really anywhere that wasn’t New Hampshire. He was ready for something bigger. Jason’s favorite movie was “Top Gun.” He had dreams of going through the Army’s elite Ranger School.

 

[Jason Moon] And how long were you there, before…

[Jason Carroll] Just a year. I was only in a year – and then all this happened.

 

1989 was the last time Jason was free. He’s spent the last 34 years or so in prison. That’s longer than I’ve been alive. A few more years and Jason will have been inside prison twice as long as his life before it.

 

 

19-year-old Jason was like so many other teenagers – interested in girls, adventure. Jason in his 50s is harder to read. Probably because his life today is so profoundly different than most people’s. He’s separated from the world, literally, physically, but also sometimes emotionally.

 

I got a window into this when I talked with Jason about how he’s handling the renewed attention on his case. How, after living three decades in the obscurity of a New Hampshire prison, the spotlight is on him again.

 

He told me, over the years, most of his family moved out of state. Friends drifted away – and sometimes that was because Jason told them to. He says it was too painful to hear about their lives on the outside, while he was stuck in there.

 

[Jason Carroll] I said, “Listen, you got kids, you got a wife, and I love you to death, you’re my friend, but, go be with your family.” // And unfortunately, I’ve pushed a few people away like that. // It was easier for me and, like, in a sense, selfish, now that I think back on it, because I don’t have to live out there… I don’t have to know what’s going on. I don’t have to hear about, “Oh yeah, we went out and did this, got the motorcycles out, did the” – I don’t want to have to hear about that ‘cause all it does it is brings back – it puts a pit in your stomach.

 

This is part of how Jason has survived in prison. He withdrew – from most other people and from his feelings about what had happened to his life.

 

Of course, he was angry about what he says happened to him. But he couldn’t get by in this new, terrifying world of prison and be mad about it every second. So Jason made a kind of grudging cease-fire agreement with his emotions.

 

[Jason Carroll] You know, you kinda realize after a while nothing’s going to be done, nothing can be done, nobody has – you don’t have the money to do anything, you can’t fight anything, nobody tells you anything… So, you know, you just adapt to the situation you’re in and you go forward.

 

Jason adapted, he went forward. He got used to saying “it is what it is,” to describe his life.

 

And then, Jason heard about the New England Innocence Project from another guy at the prison. It’s a non-profit based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that works to exonerate people it believes are wrongfully convicted across New England.

 

Jason allowed himself to briefly imagine that his life was not simply what it is.

 

[mux in]

 

In 2016, Jason wrote the New England Innocence Project  a letter. The innocence lawyers reviewed his case. They believed him. And now they fight for him. And he’s back in court. And reporters like me are calling to talk with him.

 

And with each step, Jason’s emotional cease-fire gets harder and harder to maintain.

 

[Jason Carroll] I never knew what an anxiety was, and now I have it. There’s just a lot going through my mind – it’s just a whirlwind. Because I thought that you know, this was it, you know, this was done. This is what I’m faced with. And now to have hope for an opportunity to live…? // But it’s hard. You know, you want to invest and put yourself into everything that’s going on, but in the back of your mind you know you can’t.

 

This is Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story. I’m Jason Moon.

 

[mux up and out]

 

 

By the fall of 1989, Detective Roland Lamy suspects Tony Paff had played him. He thinks when Tony wore a wire and talked to Ken Johnson in Rhode Island, they were both acting. He thinks Tony and Ken must both be involved in the murder.

 

So Lamy starts to dig deeper on Tony’s background. And that’s how he ends up looking at work records for a place called High-Tech Fire Prevention.

 

Where Tony worked with Jason Carroll, during the time of Sharon’s murder.

 

[mux in]

 

High-Tech was one of the several jobs Jason had between dropping out of high school and joining the military.

 

It was a dirty job. High-Tech cleaned commercial kitchen exhaust systems at restaurants and fast-food places. One guy who worked there said the chemicals they used could put holes in your skin. And because they could only work when restaurants were closed, the hours could be terrible.

 

Because of all this, it wasn’t unusual for people to quit High-Tech. An employee would later testify that turnover there was always high.

 

But when Detective Lamy got his hands on Tony Pfaff’s work schedule for the week of Sharon’s murder, he noticed something. The night Sharon was killed, Tony and Jason were both scheduled to work together – but Jason never showed.

 

[mux post]

 

So this is why Lamy wanted to talk to Jason.

 

Lamy goes to interview Jason when he’s at work at the National Guard Armory. Their first meeting lasts five hours. Unfortunately, none of it is tape-recorded.

 

But there is another tape about what happened that day.

 

[mux post]

 

A bizarre, astonishing tape made a few weeks later by an unlikely group of people: Detective Roland Lamy, his partner, Detective Neal Scott, and Jason’ parents.

 

[mux out]

 

[Roland Lamy] (coughing) OK, this is Sgt. Lamy, State Police. Today prior to this taping, Sgt. Scott and I met with Mr. and Mrs. Carroll, who came to state police headquarters voluntarily to meet with us. (clears throat) The Carrolls have expressed a concern about Jason’s wellbeing, as well as his safety. // In discussing this entire situation with the Carrolls, a joint decision has been made // to establish a permanent record of all the events that have transpired to-date in this case.

 

A joint decision to make a permanent record, says Detective Lamy.

 

This is another tape I couldn’t wrap my head around when I first heard it. In a case that’s all about the power of words on tape, these words on this tape might be the most powerful – and certainly the most surprising.

 

This tape was recorded a few weeks after Jason’s first meeting with Lamy. After Jason has been arrested for murder. So here’s the lead detective in a murder case, sitting down with the parents of the suspect he just arrested – and they’re all working together.

 

[Roland Lamy] Today we have prepared an outline on a board in a conference room by which the outline will be utilized to present this taped statement.

 

Later, this tape would be dubbed the “Outline Tape,” because of the way Lamy uses an outline on a chalkboard to structure the discussion.

 

Using that outline, Lamy, his partner, Neal Scott, and Jason’s parents together narrate the story of Jason’s interrogations and arrest.

 

They start that story on November 24, 1989. The day of that first meeting between Jason Carroll and Detective Lamy.

 

[mux out]

 

It’s a Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. That afternoon, police arrive at the armory to talk to Jason.

 

Jason’s mom Karen also happens to come by the armory that afternoon to drop off some keys for Jason. Here’s Karen describing this moment in the “Outline Tape” to Detective Lamy.

 

And remember, the “Outline Tape” was recorded just a few weeks after the events Karen is describing.

 

[Karen Carroll, Outline Tape] I asked where Jason was and one of the officers in the office told me that Jason was in the break room with state police. He then proceeded to take me to the break room. I went in and saw Jason sitting at the table with three other individuals.

 

Karen sees her son sitting with three cops – Detectives Dana Finn, Neal Scott, and Roland Lamy. They're sitting around a wooden table that feels a little too big for the room.

 

Remember, Karen’s also a cop in the town where Sharon’s body was found, Bedford. And she already knows two of these guys. Detective Finn is with the Bedford PD, so he’s Karen’s coworker. And Detective Scott with state police had interviewed Karen for a job earlier that year. The only person Karen hadn’t met was Detective Lamy.

 

In the “Outline Tape,” Karen says the detectives told her they were there to talk to Jason about the Sharon Johnson murder. She says they told her she was welcome to stay if she wanted.

 

[Roland Lamy, Outline Tape] And do you remember that Jason was asked if he wanted you to stay or not?

 

[Karen Carroll, Outline Tape] Yes, he was asked.

 

[Roland Lamy, Outline Tape] And do you remember his answer?

 

[Karen Carroll, Outline Tape] I believe he said that he’d be ok. There was no need of me being there.

 

So Karen leaves. Now it’s just Jason and the police.

 

According to the police reports and the officers’ testimony under oath, here’s what they say happens.

 

The interview starts at 1:25 p.m. The detectives tell Jason why they’re there. The Sharon Johnson murder. Tony Pfaff. The night of July 28, 1988.

 

Then Lamy says Jason surprises them all by saying he remembers that night well.

 

Jason says that night, he was hanging out at one of the usual spots – the Meineke Muffler on Elm Street in Manchester. Jason says Tony drove up in a green Subaru – the same kind of car Sharon drove. Jason says Tony told him the car belonged to a girl who worked at the mall. Then Jason says Tony asked him if he’d follow him to the mall so he could leave the car there for this girl when she got out of work. Jason agreed.

 

[mux in]

 

Detective Lamy is hearing what sounds like a first-hand account of Tony driving the victim’s car the night of the murder. This is big.

 

Although, it doesn’t quite line up with what police know about the movement of Sharon’s car. Remember, they didn’t find the car at the mall until early Saturday morning. Here, Jason is telling them he helped Tony move the car to the mall on Thursday night.

 

Jason makes a handwritten statement of this story. It’s just a few paragraphs long.

 

It’s now 3:15 p.m. Almost two hours have passed since the interview began.

 

At this point, Detective Lamy says Jason is acting nervous - he says he looks frightened, shaky. Lamy starts to push Jason for more details. Jason starts to cry. And then Jason changes his story.

 

[mux post]

 

According to police, Jason now says the night before the murder, Tony came to him with an idea to play a practical joke on a woman that Tony knew. Jason says Tony wanted him to pretend to be someone named “Bob.” Jason agreed.

 

Jason says he and Tony met Sharon at the mall. He says Tony convinced her to drive to a construction site. Jason says he drove behind them in his truck.

 

Lamy stops the interrogation. He later testifies this moment stunned him. At the mention of a construction site, the type of area where Sharon’s body was found, Lamy reads Jason his Miranda Rights. Jason waives his rights and continues the story.

 

[mux post]

 

At the construction site, Jason says Tony and Sharon met with two men. Jason says he stayed back by his truck about 75 feet away and watched.

 

Jason says he saw one of the men with a black beard pull out a knife and stab Sharon in the back. Jason says he panicked – he got in his truck and drove away.

 

[mux out]

 

According to the detectives, Jason is shaking and crying intermittently as he tells this story.

 

Detectives ask him to write out the story on paper, but Jason is shaking so badly he can’t. So Detective Neal Scott writes out Jason’s statement for him. Later, Jason copies the statement again in his own handwriting.

 

It’s now almost 6:30 in the evening. Jason’s been talking to the detectives for 5 hours. Jason says he’s tired. He wants to go home.

 

The detectives call Jason’s parents to come pick him up.

 

When Jason’s parents arrive, they talk with the police. Here’s Detective Lamy and Karen Carroll talking about this moment in the “Outline Tape,” recorded just a few weeks later.

 

[Roland Lamy, Outline Tape] Do you remember generally what we told you that Jason had or had not admitted at that point?

 

[Karen Carroll, Outline Tape] You told us that (sigh) that Jason had admitted moving the car and was involved somewhat, as to what degree we didn’t know, but he was involved somewhat with the Johnson murder.

 

[mux in]

 

It’s a Friday night. Jason’s parents agree with police to continue the interrogation on Monday. Then they drive him home.

 

[mux post]

 

Jason Carroll just told police he helped lure Sharon Johnson to the site where she was killed.

 

The next morning, Jason tries to take it back.

 

[mux up and out]

 

************************MIDROLL***************************

[Roland Lamy, Outline Tape] OK, now, on the outline, moving on to the next day, Saturday, the 25th of November.

 

The day after Jason’s first interrogation, Saturday, at about 11 a.m., the Carrolls have something of a family meeting. Jason and his parents, Karen and Jack, all sit down at the kitchen table.

 

Jack Carroll, Jason’s stepdad, recapped the conversation for Detectives Lamy and Scott in the “Outline Tape.”

 

[Jack Carroll, Outline Tape] We just asked him what kinds of questions were being asked and he started telling us. And at that time, he stood up and he said it was a bunch of bullcrap. And that anything that he had said wasn’t true. He just said it because he felt that’s what the police wanted to hear, basically.

 

[mux in]

 

Later, Jack would say he tried to identify with Jason in this moment by saying that, as a Vietnam veteran, he had killed people and that if Jason had killed someone, he should get it off his chest. Jack says Jason became furious at this – slammed his fist on the table, stood up, and said he had nothing to do with it.

 

[Jack Carroll, Outline Tape] So we got concerned. So at that time we tried to call, as a matter of fact Jason tried to call the state police to talk to either one of you two.

 

[mux post]

 

Jason calls Detective Lamy. But it’s a Saturday and he’s not in. So Jason tries the local police department in Bedford. Captain Leo Morency comes to the Carrolls’ house.

 

Jason tells him the story about being there when Sharon Johnson was murdered was “a bunch of shit.” Jason says he made it up from the questions the detectives asked him. Jason says the only part that was true was that he helped Tony move a green Subaru to the mall.

 

Captain Morency tells Jason he doesn’t believe him. Then, the phone rings. It’s Detective Lamy.

 

[mux post]

 

Lamy learns what’s going on. And then he suggests they all meet up at the Bedford Police Department to talk it over. Jason agrees.

 

Jason and his mom, Karen, drive over to the police station together. Jason is brought into a room with detectives, Karen waits out by her desk.

 

The second interrogation of Jason Carroll begins at 1:30 that Saturday afternoon.

 

It starts with Jason telling detectives most of what he told them the day before was a lie. Here’s Detective Neal Scott, Lamy’s partner, describing that moment in the “Outline Tape.”

 

[Neal Scott, Outline Tape] Jason was still standing by his recanted statement. In so much that what he had told us the previous day was a bunch of bull. // We knew that he was now lying.

 

[mux out]

 

For about an hour, Jason tries to convince the detectives that the story he gave them was false. But it’s not working.

 

And then Jason tells the detectives he wants to see his mom.

 

[mux in]

 

Lamy leaves the room to go talk to Karen Carroll. In the “Outline Tape,” Lamy says Jason’s request put him in a tough spot.

 

[Roland Lamy, Outline Tape] This is a situation that, if we allowed her to come into the room we’d be open to scrutiny. And if we didn’t allow her to come into the room, we’d be open to scrutiny.

 

Lamy decides it’s better to bring Karen in than not. She enters the room just before 3:00 p.m.

 

According to the police, Jason’s denials started to waver just before Karen came in. And then:

 

[Neal Scott, Outline Tape] At approximately 3:05, uh, Captain Morency activates a micro-cassette recorder and Jason’s statement and the activities in that room are recorded from that point on.

 

Police interrogated Jason for a total of six hours this day. But only a little more than half an hour was recorded.

 

You’ll remember the audio quality of that recording is not great, and occasionally people’s names are bleeped. So I’ll read some parts of it.

 

From almost the minute the tape recorder is turned on, Karen takes an active role in the  interrogation.

 

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] It’s over and it’s done with. (fade under)

 

Karen asks her son, “Will you tell these three men every last detail? Everything!”

 

Then, Detective Lamy jumps in: “You don't look willing to tell the truth, you don't look as if you've concluded that you have got to let it go. There is that breaking point.”

 

Jason says, “I have got to let it go, I’ve got to.”

(crossfade tracking into tape)

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] I have got to let it go, I've got to.

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] Well, let it go.

 

Lamy tells Jason again and again he knows Jason isn’t telling the truth.

 

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] You’ve got to tell it.

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] That night… no, how do you want me to start it?

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] How did it start? How did the whole deal start?
(fade under)

 

Lamy yells at Jason to tell him how the whole thing started. Jason says, “The whole fucking thing started when I was supposed to be, to play a practical joker as ‘Bob,’ to some woman by the name of Sharon Johnson, who you guys know.” Jason says Tony offered him $500 to do this.

 

He says he and Tony met Sharon at the mall and then Tony talked Sharon into going to the construction site.

 

Jason says Tony and Sharon rode in her green Subaru and Jason followed in his truck. But this time, Jason says when they all arrived at the construction site, he didn't stay back by his truck.

 

Jason says Ken Johnson met them all there. He says Ken and Sharon had a big argument. He says Ken accused Sharon of cheating on him. Then he says Sharon turned away and Ken pulled out a knife and stabbed her in the back.

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] And she turned her back and he pulled out a knife.

 

Jason says he watched as Ken continued to stab Sharon, while Tony took off her shirt and fondled her breasts.

 

Lamy asks if anyone else stabbed Sharon. Jason says Tony did.

 

Lamy doesn’t believe it. He tells Jason he keeps making himself look like an angel in the story. He says, “The jury will tear you apart if you’re not telling the truth, here.”

 

Jason says, “I’m telling the truth, Sergeant. I don’t want to go through no more bullshit. I just want to get this over and out of my life.”

 

Still, Lamy doesn’t buy it. He says, “But, OK, you can help us out more than this. Where is the shirt and where is the knife?” Police hadn’t been able to find either. 

 

Jason says he doesn’t know.

 

Lamy asks, “Who moved the car? Why did the car show up Saturday morning at Sears?”

 

Jason doesn’t have an answer. He says, “I want so much to get this over with.”

 

Lamy is getting frustrated.

 

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] Why in god’s name would you tell us this much and still leave out the truth. The essence of the truth. I have not seen the breaking point in you. What in god’s name is the matter with you? Your mother’s sitting right here. The captain of detectives of Bedford Police Department is here, Sergeant Scott is here, and I’m here! What is it going to take?

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] I was threatened! I was told that if I opened my mouth I would be dead!

 

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] By whom?

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] Johnson!

 

[mux out]

 

Jason says after Sharon was killed, Ken threatened to do the same to Jason if he told anyone. Jason says that’s the reason he’s been scared to tell the whole story. He’s afraid for his life.

 

Detective Lamy and Jason’s mom Karen tell him they can protect him. But, they keep saying, they need the truth.

 

Jason says, “I am trying to be so fucking truthful.” Lamy fires back, “But why don’t you skip trying and just be truthful?”

 

Lamy says, “Come on, Jason, if you were paid $500 by Ken Johnson, you did a lot more than what you told us.” Then, Lamy adds, “And I suspect that is not the accurate amount you got.”

 

Jason says, “That’s right.” And then says, “I got about two grand.”

 

Then, Karen jumps in and asks what Jason did with the money. Lamy says, “Tell us that. Make something believable.” Jason tells them he spent it on marijuana.

 

And here, it seems like Lamy just totally loses his patience. He starts to raise his voice, telling Jason to imagine that a jury is listening. And meanwhile, judging by the sound of Jason’s voice, it feels like that “breaking point” that Lamy keeps mentioning is just around the corner. At one point, Jason is crying on his knees, arms wrapped around his mother’s legs.

 

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] The jury is listening to you! You sound like a criminal, not a guy that made a terrible mistake!

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] Sergeant, it’s not that easy. I hope you can understand that.

 

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] I understand that but what I don’t…

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] It’s not going to be just like I can spit it out. I can’t. I want to so much.

 

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] Then do it! Why can’t you? What are you holding back?

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] I’m scared! I’m fucking scared!

 

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] Of course you’re freakin’ scared! These guys are going to help you! We’re not going to sit and jump on your ass and shoot you down!

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] But I feel like I’m getting jumped on my ass and shot down now!

 

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] We want the truth out of you! Nobody is going to be able to help you any more until you come forth with all of the information that they need! Do you think that I’m going to love you any less?!

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] I don’t know! // I don’t know!  (Jason sobs)

 

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] And I’m going to stand by you through this… You are the link that they need to put Johnson and Pfaff behind friggin’ bars! If you put a knife – if you put a knife in that woman, I want to know. You stabbed her, didn’t you?! 

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] Yes I did, BLEEP.

 

[Karen Carroll] How many times did you stab her?!

 

[Jason Carroll, Interrogation Tape] I stabbed her three times.

 

[Karen Carroll, Interrogation Tape] Alright!

 

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] Who else stabbed her? Who else stabbed her, truthfully?

 

(Jason cries)

 

(fade out)

 

[mux in]

 

[Karen Carroll, Outline Tape] I-I… I just wanted him to be truthful. 

 

Just a few weeks later, Karen described her role in that interrogation in the “Outline Tape.”

 

[Karen Carroll, Outline Tape] And the only way that anyone could help him get over these fears was they had to know the truth so they would know what they were dealing with. And I showed him that no matter what happened, that I still loved him.

 

[mux post]

 

Jason Carroll started the day recanting one confession about witnessing a murder. By the end of the day, he’s given a second confession about committing the murder.

 

It’s one of the many ways Jason’s story changes during his second interrogation. With each change, the story gets more and more incriminating.

 

Detectives ask Jason again and again about the murder weapon. At first, Jason says he destroyed the knife in a fire, along with the shirt Sharon was wearing – the one police never found. Then he says he threw the knife in a river. He says the knife belonged to Ken Johnson. Finally, he says it belonged to him. Jason’s mom asks, “Is it a small brown pocket knife?” Jason says yes. Karen realizes she has the knife at home. She’d recently found it in the laundry.

 

Jason also changes his story about who stabbed Sharon first. By the end of his second interrogation, after being questioned by police for about 11 hours over two days, Jason says he stabbed Sharon first.

 

When asked why Ken wanted to kill Sharon, at first Jason says he doesn’t know. Then he says it was because Sharon had caught Ken raping his adopted daughter, Lisa. Then he adds to that she’d caught him raping his daughter and discovered that Ken had murdered someone else.

 

For the police, all these changes in Jason’s story were evidence of its authenticity. They saw a young man who didn’t want to admit what he’d done. Who was fighting at every stage to not admit to the cops, to his mother, maybe to himself, the full extent of his involvement in a horrific killing.

 

[mux post & fade out]

 

Almost a year after Detective Lamy took over the Sharon Johnson investigation, he finally had the evidence he needed to take down the person he felt was most responsible: Ken Johnson.

 

At one point during Jason’s second interrogation, Lamy even airs his frustration about how Ken had so far eluded him. He tells Jason, “Ken Johnson is on the street in Warwick, Rhode Island laughing in our face with his lawyer… coaching him on how to avoid proper police homicide investigative technique. And that’s a fact of life. That’s what we in the police department have to put up with today.”

 

[mux in]

 

Detective Lamy let Jason’s parents take him home again that night after the interrogation. A pretty remarkable thing for a police officer to do. Two nights in a row, Jason had admitted to some level of participation in a murder, and police didn’t arrest him. They let him go home.

 

The thing is, when people get arrested, the constitution guarantees them lawyers. The first piece of advice any defense lawyer gives to a client who’s held in police custody: Shut up, stop talking to the cops.

 

Lamy of course would’ve known all this.

 

So Lamy let Jason go home that Saturday night, November 25, 1989. It was one of the last nights Jason was free.

 

[mux out]

 

 

It took several conversations before Jason would really talk to me about what happened during his interrogations.

 

[Jason Moon] I know this is a dumb question, but were you scared during that interrogation?

 

[Jason Carroll] Are you fucking kidding me? You’re being accused of first-degree homicide. Wouldn’t you be scared, knowing you didn’t do nothing?

 

I get the feeling that Jason’s emotions about it, even after 34 years, are so raw, so vivid, that he figures it’s just best not to go there.

 

But Jason also knows, for his innocence claim to have a chance, he’s going to have to talk about it. People want to know – if you’re innocent, why did you say all of that?

 

Still, it’s really hard for Jason. The first time he and I talked about the interrogation, I asked him a question that kind of set him off. I’m not going to tell you what the question was, only because it’s about something we haven’t gotten to yet. But just know: The way I asked it – listening back, I get why it got under Jason’s skin.

 

[Jason Carroll] When you’re fucking– you’re constantly being told, you know, you did this and you did this, when you know you didn’t, but you’re being told you did, after and after– see now you’re pissing me off. See, this is where the // PTSD kicks in, Jay. I cannot– I get so frustrated and I get so fucking angry because of what’s been done to me. And nobody gives a fucking shit what this fucking punk bitch did to me! And to sit here and try to describe it and explain it to you? I fucking can’t.

 

The spotlight that has swung back on to Jason’s case, the possibility of finally being believed, my casual sounding questions about possibly the most traumatic event in his life. It all finally broke the cease-fire.

 

There was an awkward silence. I suggested we talk about something else. And we did, or tried to, for a few minutes. But then, Jason wanted to explain more about how he was feeling.

 

[Jason Carroll] So I want to go back to my little outburst. And I guess I want to apologize for that. // Sometimes this is what happens when I try to talk about it. // It’s the scars that I have, and I don’t know– I don’t know any other way… It just frustrates me so much. It just… (sighs). I don’t know. I don’t how to– and it only lasts for a quick second…

 

[Automated voice on prison phone system] You have one minute remaining.

 

The prison phone system, with its terrible timing, reminded us our hour was almost up.

 

[Jason Carroll] This lady is going to cut us off, so, before she does, I hope you have a good day. // And again, I apologize.

 

The next time we spoke, Jason apologized again. Even though I kept telling him he didn’t need to. He told me the anger comes from a place of feeling humiliated by what happened to him.

 

[Jason Carroll] For me, it’s an embarrassing time in my life because, like I told you last time, I let somebody else take my will and bend it to theirs. And I feel embarrassed and I feel fucking ashamed. // You know, they took a fucking kid and they bent it to what they wanted. You don’t know how fucking ashamed I am of that. 

 

[mux in]

 

According to Jason, Detective Lamy started bending his will from almost the moment they sat down together at the National Guard Armory back in 1989.

 

[Jason Carroll] I’m at the armory and they come in. And I’m stuck in a tiny-ass breakroom. And I remember them talking to me about Anthony Pfaff. I said, “OK” // And then the next thing you know, I’m being accused of murder.

 

[Jason Moon] How did it turn to that?

 

[Jason Carroll] I have no idea. You know, I don’t remember, they turn it to… “Your tire tracks down.” I’m like, “That’s impossible.”

[Jason Moon] What did they say about tire tracks?

 

[Jason Carroll] Yeah, they tried to say they found my tire tracks, I’m like, “That’s impossible!”

 

Jason says Detective Lamy told him police found his tire tracks at the construction site, which is not true. At trial, Lamy denied ever telling Jason this.

 

But either way, Jason says that was the dynamic of the interrogations. Lamy had all the answers and he was just guessing at what was right and what was wrong.

 

[Jason Carroll] They were already dead-set – in my opinion, they were already dead-set on tearing me a new ass. // I’m in there on my own. I got no help, no nothing – nothing. I’m trying to dig myself out of something I didn’t do, and nobody’s listening. I was already in over my head.

 

After his parents took him home from the armory that Friday, Jason says his mom gave him a valium to help him sleep.

 

The next morning, when Jason tried to take back his confession at the kitchen table, he says his parents didn’t really believe him. Then Lamy called and Jason and his mom went to the Bedford Police Department for Jason’s second interrogation.

 

[mux out]

 

[Jason Carroll] I do remember being yelled and screamed at. I do remember that asshole asking me questions and any time I answered the wrong way, he’d be like, “Nope. Nope, nope, nope, nope.” // And it just kept going on and on and on. // I remember being so wiped out, I tried to go to sleep under the table, they wouldn’t let me.

 

Jason describes the experience as having his world turned upside down.

 

It didn’t make sense to him. He was a soldier, with a soldier for a dad and a cop as a mom – he was conditioned to revere authority. But now he says they were forcing him down a path that he knew wasn’t right.

 

Jason says the interrogations were more intense than anything he’d ever been through. Including basic training in the military.

 

[Jason Carroll] They take a person, they break you down, and they build you back up. But what I went through with these fucking people… sssshhhhhit. Military got nothing on that.

 

[mux in]

 

Here’s what Jason says he remembers about what actually happened the night Sharon Johnson was murdered.

 

Jason and Tony were scheduled to work together that night at High-Tech. They had a Burger King in Boston to clean out. Tony needed a ride to work, so Jason gave him one. But Jason decided that night – he was done with High-Tech. He decided to quit. So he dropped Tony off, but he didn’t go in himself.

 

[Jason Carroll] I hated that job. And that’s why I remember that part of it because I’d never quit a job… I hated that job.

 

Jason says it’s possible he gave Tony a ride to the mall that night to help him move a car, but he’s not sure. And that’s pretty much all he can remember.

 

Which is either suspicious or totally reasonable, depending on whether you buy his confession.

 

But if Jason didn’t do it, why would he remember that night? The first time he was interrogated about that night was almost a year-and-a-half after the fact. There would’ve been no particular reason to keep a detailed timeline or to have an alibi handy.

 

Or, of course, Jason could simply be lying. Or, of course, Detective Lamy could simply be lying. 

 

But almost always, the word of a cop wins out.

 

[mux post]

 

On the next episode of Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story: another interrogation seems to add to the evidence against Jason and Ken Johnson.

 

[Tony Pfaff, Interrogation Tape] I need some help ‘cause I can’t remember everything that happened.

 

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] OK, well what you do remember–

 

[Tony Pfaff, Interrogation Tape] I don’t– the specific things you want to know I can’t remember.

 

[Roland Lamy, Interrogation Tape] OK. And tell us what you do remember, then, OK? Let’s continue what you were doing–

 

[Tony Pfaff, Interrogation Tape] I remember stabbing her and choking her, that’s the only thing I remember doing, OK?

 

And… Karen Carroll shares an alleged secret that changes everything.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] Jason’s mom came in to meet with me. // And I knew right away that there was going to be a problem.

 

            [mux up & into credits]

 

A True Crime Story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

 

It’s edited by Katie Colaneri.

 

Additional reporting and research by Paul Cuno-Booth.

 

Editing help from Lauren Chooljian, Daniela Allee, Sara Plourde, Taylor Quimby, Mara Hoplamazian, and Todd Bookman. 

 

Our News Director is Dan Barrick. Our Director of Podcasts is Rebecca Lavoie.

 

Fact-checking by Dania Suleman.

 

Sara Plourde created our original artwork, as well as our website, bearbrookpodcast.com.

 

Additional photos and videos by Gaby Lozada.

 

Original music for the series was created by me, Jason Moon.

 

Bear Brook is a production of the Document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of S2 Episode 2: The Pursuit

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

Previously on Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story

 

[Judge Delker] To cut you a break // would utterly undermine the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system.

 

[Cynthia Mousseau] Convictions take on this mythical power. // Once this conviction happens, it’s like that story is what happened.

 

[Connie Howard] Who came up with that version of the story? You know what I mean? Then how do we – who said that, that that’s how it happened? Somebody had to say that that’s how it happened, so, obviously, it happened.

 

 

The larger-than-life detective – it’s such a crime story trope. Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Elliot Stabler – their personalities are as much a part of the story as the crime itself.

 

But as often happens, life imitates art. And in this case, the line separating them is especially blurry.

 

Detective Roland Lamy made an impression on almost everyone I talked to about the Sharon Johnson case. Thirty-odd years later, people forget a lot of the finer points, but they remember the lead investigator.

 

And over and over again, people would compare Lamy to the same guy.

 

[Karen Carroll] All I could think of was, remember the TV detective, Kojak?

 

Maybe you remember Kojak – I didn’t. But thanks to YouTube, I now know that Kojak was a TV detective in the 1970s.

 

            [Kojak theme mux in]

 

Kojak was big, bald, wore nice suits – and seemed to always have a lollipop in his mouth. He was a cop with an attitude. The kind who liked to grab the crooks by their lapels – who didn’t seem too concerned about their civil liberties.

 

[Guy] This is private property!

[Kojak] Ugh, put a zipper on your mouth and shut up!

 

Kojak, and a thousand other shows like it, do their own kind of mythmaking. What some today might call “copaganda.” Sure, Kojak skirts the line, he roughs up suspects – but in the show, he’s always the good guy. The ends always justify the means.

 

[Kojak] …Every foot soldier, every hit man, every streetwalker, they sneeze in the subway – bust their chops! If they ask you for the time of day, you lock 'em up! Let the word go out loud and clear! That’s the way it’s gonna be until Eddie Ryan’s killer is in the tombs!

[Guy] Right on, man!

 

[Debbie Dutra] (slaps table) That is him! Bald guy, glasses… ass.

 

[mux in]

 

I get why people make the comparison. Lamy even looks a lot like Kojak. He’s big, he’s bald…

 

[Tom Dufresne] He had a shaved head, sucking on a lollipop, and he’s strutting around the courtroom like he owned it. // “I’m comin’ in to straighten you all out and this is the way it went down!”

 

Honestly I sometimes couldn’t tell if people’s memories of the TV character, played by Telly Savalas, and the real-life detective had all mixed together. Either way, that’s kinda the point: Roland Lamy was a certain detective – he was also a certain brand of detective.

 

[Jim Lawson] I could see why he would just scare the hell out of somebody. // I think he could intimidate anybody with his bald head. He didn’t look nice.

 

At the center of Lamy’s legend was the idea that he was one of the best. Roland Lamy – though most people just call him Lamy – was the guy New Hampshire state police put on the cases the other detectives couldn’t solve. By 1989, Lamy had been a New Hampshire state police detective for 17 years. He’d worked on roughly 40 homicide investigations – eight as lead investigator.

 

[Eric Wilson] He had a reputation for solving cases.

 

[Cliff Kinghorn] Yeah he had a reputation. He got things done. He had a reputation for getting to the bottom line.

 

You might remember in season one, when a barrel was found in the woods near Bear Brook State Park in 1985, Lamy was one of the detectives not assigned to the case. A fact some people pointed to when we asked why that case took so long to solve.

 

[Kevin Flynn] Probably the best detective of that era on the state police was a guy by the name of Roland Lamy. // And they were over in Hooksett, they weren’t over in Allenstown.

 

And while some people read Lamy as arrogant and intimidating, others saw the attitude of a tough, do-what-it-takes veteran. As in, he didn’t care about being liked. He cared about solving the crime.

 

A newspaper article from 1989 quotes Sharon Johnson’s brother as saying, “[Lamy] could get a rock to talk if he wanted to. I would not want the man after me.”

 

[mux out]

 

That same article describes a moment between Lamy and his partner with the state police, Neal Scott. Scott had written a quote by Daniel Webster on the chalkboard in their office: “There is nothing so powerful as the truth.”

 

[theme mux in]

 

Not Lamy’s style, apparently. He erases the quote. And writes over it his own philosophy – a line from the ancient Greek playwright, Sophocles: “He escapes who is not pursued.”

 

This is Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story. I’m Jason Moon.

 

[theme mux up & out]

 

 

It was a story - true or false - that convicted Jason Carroll. It matters where that story came from, how it was created, who created it.

 

So before we get to why some people are convinced that Jason Carroll is innocent, we need to know the story of why some people are convinced that he’s not.

 

[mux in]

 

Sharon Johnson’s body was discovered in July of 1988. A construction worker found her around 8:30 on a Friday morning. The area was in the early stages of a transformation from forest into housing development. A large clearing had been cut, dirt roads connected a series of housing plots. In some places the ground was freshly chewed by excavators.

 

Sharon’s body was found at the end of the construction site furthest from the main road, at the edge of a small pond that workers were digging.

 

She had been stabbed 14 times and strangled, probably by a light rope or something similar, according to the medical examiner. She was naked from the waist up. Her bra was still draped over her shoulders, but it had been sliced open in the front with a knife. Her shirt and purse were missing. But her watch and three rings were found nearby. 

 

Each detail was its own mystery: Why were her rings off? Why was her shirt missing? Why this construction site?

 

[mux post]

 

The day before Sharon’s body was discovered, a Thursday, Sharon left work at 6:30 p.m. She went to a gas station and cashed some lottery tickets at 6:58 p.m. That’s her last confirmed location. And it’s pretty much all we know for sure about Sharon’s whereabouts after she left work that night.

 

One of Sharon’s coworkers told police she said she was going shopping at the Mall of New Hampshire – a big mall in Manchester, about 30 minutes from her job. But another co-worker later testified Sharon said she was going shopping at the Bedford Mall, a different mall only a few miles away from the Mall of New Hampshire.

 

To make things more complicated, witnesses at both malls told police they saw Sharon, or someone who matched her description, the night of the murder.

 

So on Thursday, Sharon left work, cashed a few lottery tickets, and then maybe went to one or two malls.

 

The construction site, where Sharon’s body was found, is in Bedford, about 15 minutes from the two malls.

 

Whatever happened to Sharon, happened between 7 p.m. on a Thursday, and 8 a.m. on a Friday. By the way, you can see a timeline of Sharon’s last day on our website bearbrookpodcast.com.

 

The early investigators were puzzled by two things in particular.

 

[mux post]

 

The first mystery was about a guy named Bob.

 

One of Sharon’s coworkers said Sharon was going to the mall that day, not just to shop, but also to meet a guy named Bob. According to this coworker, Bob owed Sharon and her husband Ken Johnson $4,000. The coworker said Sharon and Bob had been trying for a few weeks to arrange a time to meet to talk about the money.

 

Bob was an obvious first suspect. But all police had was a first name. Detectives spent months looking for Bob. They put a sketch of him in the newspaper. But they never found him.

 

[mux post]

 

The second mystery was about Sharon’s car, a green Subaru.

 

Sharon didn’t come home on Thursday night. The next day, Friday, her brother said he went and looked for her car at both malls. He told police he scoured the parking lot – looked in every aisle, but didn’t find Sharon’s green Subaru anywhere.

 

[mux out]

 

Then, Saturday morning, police found the car at the Mall of New Hampshire. The car was undamaged, a bit of dirt around the tires, and it was locked.

 

It was parked in an unusual spot: a narrow strip of parking spaces in front of the Sears automotive entrance. You might park there if you were leaving your car for an oil change, but probably not if you were just going shopping inside the mall.

 

A Sears mechanic told police on Thursday, the day Sharon went missing, when he left at 9:30 p.m., there were no cars parked there. On Friday night, he said there was a car there, but couldn’t say for sure if it was a green Subaru.

 

Three different Manchester police officers, who all patrolled the mall parking lot on Thursday and Friday, said they didn't see the car.

 

[mux in]

 

So Sharon went missing on Thursday night, her body was found Friday morning, and yet police were confident her green Subaru wasn’t back at the mall until Friday night at the earliest.

 

[mux post]

 

Who was Bob? Was someone moving Sharon’s car after she was murdered?

 

The early investigators couldn’t answer those questions. But they believed they knew someone who could: Sharon’s husband, Ken Johnson.

 

[mux post]

 

Ken was always the prime suspect. First of all, he was the husband. But police also thought he was faking his grief. And then he didn’t have a solid alibi. And then he changed his story about where he was the night of the murder. And also he had a lot of mud on his car – as in, maybe he’d been driving in an unpaved construction area recently…

 

It wasn’t just the police. Sharon’s family and many of her friends also suspected Ken. They’d been skeptical of him for years. Many of them didn’t understand what Sharon saw in him.

 

[mux out]

 

[Lucy Holt] Nobody liked him. Nobody. Nobody liked him.

 

Lucy Holt was close with Sharon. But when Sharon and Ken were married, Lucy refused to go to the wedding.

 

[Lucy Holt] A lot of her friends did not go. One of them sent her a sympathy card.

 

The police reports are full of interviews with people who do not like Ken Johnson. People thought he was rude, a deadbeat who couldn’t hold a job. Some said he had a drinking problem.

 

Ken always seemed to have some new scheme to make money – that rarely panned out. Like in 1985, when the New England Patriots were in the superbowl, Ken went all in on an idea to resell Patriots t-shirts. Then, the Pats lost, and apparently Ken lost a lot of money.

 

Sharon’s friends and family also said he could be controlling of Sharon. If she was at their house, they say Ken would always call and ask when she’d be leaving.

 

Police tracked down Ken’s ex-wife. She told them he had once grabbed her by the throat. And that when she decided to leave Ken, he said, “It’s too bad the kids will never see you again.” Which she took as a threat on her life.

 

So when Sharon was killed, everyone from Ken’s ex-wife, to Sharon’s friends like Lucy Holt were telling the cops: Look at Ken.

 

[Lucy Holt] And I remember the detectives coming and they said, “Do you think he had anything to do with it?” And I said, “If he didn’t, hands on, then he made sure it got done.”

 

Another friend of Sharon’s, Connie Howard, says after the murder, police asked her to wear a wire and have Ken over for dinner to see if he would incriminate himself. Connie says she was too nervous to wear a wire – but she had her own questions for Ken, so she did invite him over. She remembers being anxious just to have him in her house.

 

[Connie Howard] I didn’t know what he would do or how – what kind of reaction he would have to the questions I was asking him. Just asking him questions about, “How come you didn’t know Sharon was home? And what do you think about everything?” He didn’t have any answers. He was a black, black hole. // And I really didn’t get answers from him, except that I don’t ever want to see this man again. And I never did. Never talked to him after that.

 

[mux in]

 

Unfortunately, you won’t hear from Ken in this story. He died, according to multiple people who knew him. Though, I’ve never found an obituary, so I can’t tell you exactly when.

 

Back in 1988, Ken started off in a bad place as far as the investigation into his wife’s murder went. He was the husband no one liked, with no alibi, and mud on his car.

 

And then police discovered a possible motive. Ken had a gambling habit. Ken’s ex-wife described it as an addiction. She said on their honeymoon, Ken took her to Atlantic City and then gambled the whole time.

 

Ken was into sports betting, which was illegal back then. And police began to suspect he was deep in the hole.

 

[mux post]

 

When police first asked Ken about Bob, the guy who apparently owed him and Sharon $4,000, Ken said he had no idea what police were talking about.

 

The next day, Ken called the police to say he had lied. Police had asked Ken about Bob in front of one of Sharon’s friends, and Ken said he didn’t want to reveal that Bob was actually someone he knew from gambling.

 

Now, Ken told the police yes, he knew Bob, and yes, Bob owed him money – actually $7,000. And yet, Ken had no way of getting in touch with Bob. Didn’t know his last name.

 

Police were suspicious. They talked to another guy who Ken gambled with, who told them that Ken owed him $5,000. This other guy said he’d heard Ken talk about Bob before, would even place bets on his behalf, but he’d never met him.

 

Eventually, police began to suspect that Bob was simply an invention of Ken’s. A fake character that Ken used to help hide his gambling habits, and now maybe to help him get away with murder.

 

[mux out]

 

Out of this tangle of gambling relationships, alleged debts, and possibly fake characters, the original investigators developed a theory: Ken was in much more gambling debt than he was letting on, and he was desperate to get out of it. And his wife Sharon had a pension that would go to him if she died.

 

[mux in]

 

But police didn’t have any direct evidence pointing to Ken. They had no murder weapon. They had no witnesses placing him at the site where Sharon’s body was found or at the mall that night. The forensic lab couldn’t link the mud on Ken’s car to the mud at the scene. There was no blood in Sharon’s car.

 

And key evidence – Sharon’s shirt and pocketbook – were still missing.

 

[mux post]

 

There were some clues from the scene where Sharon’s body was discovered. Drag marks led from Sharon’s body to a pool of blood near some tire tracks. To the original investigators, the marks suggested Sharon’s body had been removed from the trunk of a car, and then dragged to the spot where she was ultimately found. As in, the murder had happened elsewhere and the construction site was simply a place to hide the body.

 

[mux post]

 

There were also clues from Sharon’s autopsy. Her bra had been cut open with a knife in the front before she was stabbed. There was evidence of a fierce struggle. Sharon had a split lip and bruises on her face, and she had defensive wounds on her hands. She also had blood under her fingernails, which could mean Sharon had wounded her attacker.

 

But without more, the police didn’t really have a case – against Ken or anyone else. And they were stuck with those two lingering questions: Was Bob real? And who was moving Sharon’s green Subaru after she was killed?

 

The investigation stalled. After six months, it was turned over to a new detective – Roland Lamy. Within a year, he would have a story that explained it all.

 

            [mux up]

 

Before we take a quick break, a reminder that this podcast is only possible because listeners like you support it. You do that by listening, by telling your friends and family to listen, too – and if you can, by donating to New Hampshire Public Radio. You can click the link in the show notes to give now – and thanks, really.

 

            [mux out]

 

************************MIDROLL***************************

 

Detective Lamy takes charge of the investigation into Sharon’s murder in January of 1989. By March, he’s chasing a lead: a 19-year-old named Tony Pfaff.

 

[mux in]

 

Tony Pfaff was tangentially connected to the Johnson family. He used to date Ken Johnson’s daughter, Lisa Johnson. Lisa was 17. She was Ken’s adopted daughter from his first marriage. And she had just had a baby.

 

As Detective Lamy re-interviewed witnesses and searched for a thread to pull on, he later testified that some people made a disturbing suggestion about Lisa’s pregnancy. Lamy said some people told him they thought Ken had gotten his own adopted daughter pregnant. 

Lamy later testified, “There was a feeling at some point that perhaps Ken Johnson could be the father of Lisa Johnson's baby.”

 

[mux post]

 

It was a salacious accusation. But maybe, Lamy thought, it was the real motive. Maybe Ken wanted Sharon dead because she’d found out.

 

[mux post]

 

So this is why Detective Lamy wants to talk to Lisa’s ex-boyfriend, Tony Pfaff. Maybe Tony will know something about this. Lamy tracks him down in North Carolina. He gets him on the phone.

 

But Tony quickly pours cold water on this theory. Tony says he is the father of Lisa’s child – not Ken. He says Lisa never said anything about being sexually abused by her father.

 

[mux out]

 

The phone call is a dead end for Lamy. But then… something happens. I’m going to read straight from Lamy’s police report here. It’s written in third-person.

 

Sgt. Lamy asked him if there was anything at all about Sharon JOHNSON's murder that he had not reported to the police. Sgt. Lamy told Tony what the possible charges were for any individual who holds back information in a homicide case. PFAFF hesitantly and nervously told Sgt. LAMY the following information:

 

And then Tony drops a bombshell.

 

Tony Pfaff tells Lamy the Friday Sharon’s body was found, he moved the green Subaru.

 

[mux in]

 

Tony says Ken called him at his apartment and asked him to do it as a favor. Before Tony knew Sharon was dead. Tony says Ken asked him to move Sharon’s car from the parking lot of a sporting goods store, to the parking lot of the mall, where it was discovered by police.

 

It was Detective Lamy’s first break. The mystery of the car was finally unraveling.

 

[mux post]

 

Lamy wastes no time. Lamy arranges for Tony to fly up to New Hampshire. He wants Tony to wear a wire and help police ensnare Ken. Tony agrees.

 

[mux post & fade out]

 

Lamy’s trap for Ken will be set in Rhode Island. That’s where Ken moved after his wife’s murder.

 

So Detective Lamy, Tony, another state trooper, and a prosecutor with the Attorney General’s Office pile into a few cars and drive the two-and-a-half hours from New Hampshire to Warwick, Rhode Island.

 

During the trip to Rhode Island, according to the police reports, Tony seems like he’s having a great time. Detective Lamy would later say that Tony would sing. Or he would tell the cops his favorite movie is Scarface, and he can quote the whole thing – and then Lamy says, he kinda does the whole trip.

 

At one point during the drive down, Tony grabs the police radio and does an impression of an old TV cop show called “Highway Patrol.”

 

[Broderick Crawford] 21-50 to headquarters.

[Voice on the radio] Headquarters, bye.

[Broderick Crawford] We’re proceeding to railway station number 9. Have 38-50 meet us at that 10-20. Have 31-70 stay one mile below at junction 40. Alert the emergency crews. Do not approach the station. 10-4?

[Voice on the radio] 10-4.

 

I wish I could tell you more about how Tony Pfaff saw all this. How he saw himself. He died in 2021. But from what people told police about Tony in 1989, and Tony’s own words, a picture emerges.

 

[mux in]

 

Family friends told police Tony’s father had a drinking problem. They said Tony would sometimes call them or move in with them when things got bad.

 

As Tony got older, he developed his own problem with alcohol. He started getting arrested for things like trespassing, driving without a license. At 16, according to police, he took part in an armed robbery for $500. But also according to police, Tony quickly confessed and gave cops the name of the person who had held the gun.

 

[mux post]

 

Tony lived in Manchester, New Hampshire before he moved to North Carolina. And he had a reputation around town.

 

[Debbie Richer] Tony had a big mouth. 

 

Debbie Richer was around the same age as Tony, and knew him back in the ‘80s. She told me what many teenagers told police in 1989: Tony wanted people to think of him as the big-man-on-campus.

 

[Debbie Richer] Anything he did, if he went into a store and he called somebody a jerk, he’d be down to Supreme Roast Beef – “Oh yeah, I saw this guy and I called him a jerk and tut-tut-tut…” He was a loudmouth. He was just somebody who liked to insert himself in // things to make himself feel bigger, larger than life.

 

But as you can maybe tell from Debbie’s voice, Tony's desire to be respected didn’t always pan out. In the police reports, people called Tony “weird.” One high-school senior told police Tony was “heavily into ninja stuff.”

 

A few people told police this one story about how one night Tony was humiliated during a fight on the street in downtown Manchester. According to one person who said they saw it, the other guy was making Tony kiss his shoes, but when Tony would try to, the guy would kick him in the face. A crowd of 20 or 30 kids watched.

 

Later, a friend of Tony’s turned over to the police two letters that Tony wrote when he was 19. They’re addressed only to “Whom It May Concern.” The letters are a window onto Tony’s anguish. Maybe they were cries for help that Tony didn’t know who to send to. In the letters, Tony is reeling – from teenage heartbreak, substance abuse, and ongoing problems with the law.

 

He writes, “I guess it is hard for me to understand and I want to but I don’t know how to ask for help. Why, because everytime I let someone get close, they end up hurting me. Sometimes I feel like blowing my brains out, one day I will get fucked up enough to do it. I feel sorrow all the time and I am tired of feeling it all the time and also getting into trouble, too. Well, that is it for now, thank you for listening, yours truly, Tony Pfaff.”

 

[mux out]

 

So this is the 19-year-old Detective Lamy has brought with him to Rhode Island. Who keeps quoting “Scarface” at them and grabbing the police radio.

 

Once they arrive, they set up shop at a motel in Warwick, Rhode Island.

 

Here’s Lamy’s plan: Tony will call Ken and try to set up a meeting. Tony has a script: Lamy wants him to tell Ken that police have found Tony’s fingerprints on Sharon’s car. That’s not true, but Lamy wants to see if Ken will react and maybe incriminate himself on the phone.

 

[mux in]

 

Tony dials the number. Detectives listen in on another line.

 

But things get off to a bad start. Lisa answers, not Ken. And Lisa is not happy with Tony. They argue about the child support Tony owes. Lisa hangs up.

 

Tony calls several more times over two days. A few times, he does manage to get Ken on the phone. But again, things don’t go the way detectives hope. I don’t have the audio of these calls, but I do have the transcript. Here’s an excerpt of one of the conversations between Tony and Ken. It starts with Tony.

 

[Tony] Hey Ken.

[Ken] Hey what.

[Tony] Uh, I've got to talk to you.

[Ken] About what?

[Tony] Uh, about a car.

[Ken] About what?

[Tony] About the car…

[Ken] About what?

[Tony] About the car.

[Ken] What car?

[Tony] About the car that you asked me to move.

[Ken] Who's this?

[Tony] It's Tony.

[Ken] What car I asked you to move?

[Tony] Sharon's car.

[Ken] What are you talking about?

[Tony] What am I talking about?

[Ken] Yeah.

[Tony] Okay, look, you and I both know exactly what I’m talking about. Uh, they got my prints on the car.

[Ken] Excuse me?

[Tony] They have my fingerprints on the car.

[Ken] Yeah

[Tony] Yeah and I want to know, you know, what to do, I just drove all the way down here to talk to you about it.

[Ken] I don’t understand what you’re talking about.

[Tony] You don’t understand.

[Ken] No, I don’t. I have no idea.

[Tony] Well, on, uh, Friday night, uh, I believe you asked me to move the car for you.

[Ken] I don't, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, the car is sitting right here.

 

It goes on like this for a while. Ken gets mad, tells Tony to stop calling, threatens to get a restraining order against him.

 

Tony, who, remember, is 19 years old, sitting in a motel room with cops all around him, keeps pushing. And eventually he gets Ken to agree to meet him in a motel parking lot.

 

Ken shows up and Tony meets him outside. Detectives, hiding in cars nearby, are filming. But the conversation goes the same as before. Ken says he has no idea what Tony is talking about.

 

After meeting with Tony, Ken goes home and calls the New Hampshire State Police. He tells them what just happened. As in, this 19-year-old who had a baby with my daughter just showed up in Rhode Island and is telling me he moved Sharon’s car. You guys should look into this.

 

[mux out]

 

Detective Lamy’s sting operation with Tony Pfaff is a total bust. Lamy goes back to New Hampshire and Tony eventually goes back to North Carolina, and the two don’t speak again for months.

 

Until eventually, Detective Lamy has a thought. Was Ken Johnson really so clever and disciplined as to not incriminate himself when Tony called? To not react at all?

 

Or was he tipped off?

 

[mux in]

 

Detective Lamy thought he’d been using Tony to fool Ken. But now he wondered, what if the whole time Tony had been playing him?

 

Lamy thought Tony must have slipped word to Ken before they drove down to Rhode Island. The whole thing was a farce – the call from the motel room, the meeting in the parking lot. Tony and Ken were both acting.

 

To Detective Lamy, it was the only explanation. As far as I can tell, Lamy never entertained the possibility that Ken was simply telling the truth on the phone.

 

Remember that quote Lamy wrote on the chalkboard? “He escapes who is not pursued.” Lamy wasn’t about to stop pursuing Ken.

 

[mux post & fade]

 

But the thing about that quote is – just like the evidence in this case, there are different ways to interpret it.

 

The line comes from the play “Oedipus Rex” by Sophocles, written more than 2,400 years ago. The play is a kind of ancient Greek murder-mystery. The king, Oedipus, sets out to discover who killed the previous king, whose murder unleashed a plague on the kingdom.

 

Oedipus gets some advice passed to him from the Oracle, and this is where the line comes. Here’s another translation of it: “Search reveals things that escape an inattentive man.”

 

It’s a subtle bit of foreshadowing. By the end, Oedipus discovers he was the murderer all along. Oedipus was looking for a suspect, when he should’ve been looking at himself.

 

[mux in]

 

But I’m going to go out on a limb and say Detective Lamy was probably not thinking about the overtones of “Oedipus Rex” when he wrote that quote on the board. I could see how this line, which is also used in some law enforcement agencies’ wanted posters by the way, seemed pretty straightforward to him.

 

I asked Lamy to tape an interview. To tell his own story about what happened here. And there were times when he told me he would. But in the end, he didn’t. He didn’t want to be recorded or talk about the details of the Sharon Johnson case on the record. And after I left a message for Sergeant Neal Scott – Lamy called me back, saying he heard I was trying to reach his old partner.

Still, Lamy and I ended up talking a lot over the last year or so – in phone calls and in-person over breakfast at a diner he frequents. Enough to get an impression.

 

Lamy is in his 80s now. He wears a state police baseball cap. The Kojak’y attitude everyone told me about? That’s still there. He told me other detectives were too cautious, too concerned about covering their asses, as he put it. He still carries a big chip on his shoulder about that. Lamy told me, you have to know how to walk up to the line without crossing it.

 

For Lamy, it wasn’t about being reckless, it was about really caring. He said if a detective arrives at a murder scene and isn’t moved by what he sees, he should be out on the highway catching speeders. Sometimes he would gently poke my hands to emphasize a point like that.

 

It all fit with the Detective Lamy I’d gotten to know in the police reports. A guy who led with his intuition. Who wasn’t concerned about stepping on toes. A guy who hates to let a case go.

 

In 1989, Lamy had hit a roadblock, but he trusted his gut.

 

Ken Johnson had motive and opportunity. And now, to Lamy it seemed he had a co-conspirator: Tony Pfaff. In the fall of that year, Lamy sets about trying to find Tony again. But it’s been months since their sting operation. Tony is in the wind.

 

Still, Lamy keeps pursuing and eventually, he finds what he's looking for.

 

[mux up]

 

[Roland Lamy] This is a situation that, if we allowed her to come into the room we’d be open to scrutiny. And if we didn’t allow her to come into the room, we’d be open to scrutiny.

 

[Karen Carroll] I just wanted him to be truthful. 

 

[Jason Carroll] I’m trying to dig myself out of something I didn’t do. And nobody’s listening. I was already in over my head.

 

That’s next time on Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story.

 

            [mux up & out]

 

A True Crime Story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

 

It’s edited by Katie Colaneri.

 

Additional reporting and research by Paul Cuno-Booth.

 

Editing help from Lauren Chooljian, Daniela Allee, Sara Plourde, Taylor Quimby, Mara Hoplamazian, and Todd Bookman. 

 

Our News Director is Dan Barrick. Our Director of Podcasts is Rebecca Lavoie.

 

Fact-checking by Dania Suleman.

 

Sara Plourde created our original artwork, as well as our website, bearbrookpodcast.com.

 

Photos and videos by Gaby Lozada.

 

Original music for the series was created by me, Jason Moon.

 

Special thanks this episode to Paul Christesen, professor of Ancient Greek History at Dartmouth College, Francis Dunn, professor of Classics at UC Santa Barbara, and Kirk Ormand, professor of classics at Oberlin College for their help with the Sophocles translation.

 

Bear Brook is a production of the Document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of S2 Episode 1: Extraordinary

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

A lot of stories have been told about Sharon Johnson. My favorites are the ones told by her friends.

 

Connie Howard met Sharon in 1977. Probably, Connie says, in the laundry room of their apartment building in Manchester, New Hampshire.

 

Connie was 17 and living on her own with a newborn baby. Sharon was 25, another young single mom.

 

[Connie Howard] I think I thought I could maybe learn a lot from her. She was just really smart – and had her act together. You know, she had a good job, she had a nice apartment, and seemed to be climbing the ladder.

 

[mux in]

 

Sharon was an engineer at a computer manufacturing company. Connie says back then, in the late 70s, she’d never met a woman who was an engineer. Sharon had her own car, was saving to buy her own house. To Connie, Sharon just seemed confident, in control of her own life.

 

[Connie Howard] Made you think that you could do it. You know, a 17-year-old girl with a baby, I didn’t have any direction, so it really was a good thing to see another woman like that.

 

The two of them hit it off. Connie felt herself nestling in under Sharon’s wing.

 

[mux post]

 

Connie needed a driver’s license. So Sharon let her borrow her car to take the test. Connie needed a job. So Sharon got her one at the computer company. Connie felt aimless in life. So Sharon gave her a shove.

 

[Connie Howard] She said, “If you don’t have a career, you’ll amount to nothing, so you need to do something.” // It was blunt. // At first, I was kind of hurt by it, but then it motivated me.

 

[mux out]

 

Connie went to school and became a hair stylist. Made a long career of it.

 

[Connie Howard] So I think I did her hair even before I had a license. I think (laughs) we kind of, maybe had a bottle of wine, and I cut her hair. Yeah. // But I think about her a lot. I’ve thought about her a lot over the last 30 years.

 

[Lucy Holt] The absolute laughter that we had when I was learning the computer. I was terrified of that thing!

 

Lucy Holt was another friend of Sharon’s.

 

[Lucy Holt] She would call me up, twice-to-three-times a week, and we would go over another aspect of using the computer. She showed me where to go to play solitaire // and I said, “Oh my gosh it’s in color!” (laughs) // And so I called her the next day and said, “Sharon, guess what? I set up the printer all by myself!” We were just rolling on the floor, laughing so hard. 

 

Lucy, like Connie, viewed Sharon with a mix of admiration and fascination. Sharon could do things that just seemed out of reach to Lucy.

 

[Lucy Holt] I thought she was funny. I thought she was brash. She was one of the guys. // She could tell a raunchy joke. She could just relax with the guys, and they accepted her like that. // She was more… and I can’t say masculine, because she wasn’t. It’s just different than what everybody had been brought up to be at the time. // And I was… I was such a… I could hide in plain sight. Did my entire life – I hid in plain sight, so somebody that open was extraordinary. // I wish I had known her better. I wish I had known her longer. Yeah… 

 

[mux in]

 

In 1988, Sharon Johnson was pregnant with her second child. Her friends were planning a baby shower. Then one day in July, Sharon didn’t come home from work.

 

The next morning, Sharon’s body was found in a wooded, rural construction site in Bedford, New Hampshire. She’d been stabbed and strangled.

 

[Connie Howard] When I heard the news, it was devastating. I had nightmares. I couldn’t sleep. It was horrible. // And then I think about the horror that she must have been going through at the time. When that is being done to you… // I can’t imagine what was going through her… her mind.

 

For the people close to Sharon, it was the beginning of an excruciating time. Over the next few years, as police investigated and news stories were written, and court hearings were held, they learned what happened: Sharon had been killed by her own husband, with the help of two teenagers.

 

[Connie Howard] I always think about how happy she was and how tragic that that happened at the happiest time of her life.

 

Connie and Lucy grieved. For years, then for decades. It’s now been 35 years. Sharon’s friends each figured out, in their own way, how to come to terms with the fact of her death. With the story of how she was killed.

 

[mux post]

 

And now – people are telling them they’re wrong. They don’t know how their friend died.

 

[mux in]

 

Only one of the three men charged with Sharon’s murder is still alive. Jason Carroll. At 19 years old, he confessed to the crime. But for the three decades since, he’s maintained his innocence from inside prison.

 

And now, Jason has a new team of lawyers and advocates, and his case is back in court.

 

For people close to Sharon, it’s a hard thing to swallow. For some, it’s offensive. For some, it’s confusing. I think for all of them it feels like a violation. This is their story. Who are these strangers to rewrite the history of a person they loved?

 

Lucy Holt is wrestling with all of that – and also wrestling with the part of her that’s open to another version of this story. A version where Jason Carroll was not involved.

 

[mux out]

 

[Lucy Holt] I don’t want him to be guilty. // If he says, “I really didn’t do it…” I mean… We all expect proof for things. You know, we expect proof. How do you prove something… how do you prove an “I didn’t do it?” And then, of course, we hear that everyone in prison is innocent. Everyone says, “I didn’t do it… I didn’t do it.” So he really has an uphill fight.

// I hope he understands that it’s not just for himself. // We have been under the understanding that the person who did it was in prison. And we didn’t have to think about it anymore. But if he didn’t… you know, we have to share that guilt… that the wrong person is there. And we can’t be satisfied anymore. // We can’t be satisfied with the endings.

 

[Jason Moon] So the stakes are high for you, too.

 

[Lucy Holt] Yes, they are. It’s our guilt. And it has been right along, we just didn’t know it. We were satisfied – some very happy. Some like, “Yes, we got him!” But what if we didn’t?

 

As for Connie Howard, she’s pretty blunt about how she feels.

 

[Connie Howard] They think none of that ever happened?

 

[Jason Moon] Yeah.

 

[Connie Howard] Hmm…

 

[Jason Moon] How does that make you feel?

 

[Connie Howard] Disgusted. 

 

Connie aims that disgust right at Jason Carroll.

 

[Connie Howard] What are you gonna – nothing ever happened? What happened? She just died? // I think it’s wrong. // ‘Cause it did happen. And you were involved. //

 

[Jason Moon] Why do you believe in that version of the story?

 

[Connie Howard] I don’t know why I believe that. As opposed to…what? As opposed to… Who came up with that version of the story? You know what I mean, then how do we – who said that, that that’s how it happened? Somebody had to say that that’s how it happened, so, obviously, it happened.

 

[theme mux start]

 

In the late 1980s, police and prosecutors told a true crime story about what happened to Sharon Johnson.

 

[unidentified voice] We got there, she struggled. Jason drove the knife in her back.

 

For 35 years, that story has profoundly shaped the lives of many people – from Jason Carroll, to Sharon’s friends and family, to the people who worked on this case.

 

[unidentified voice] There are going to be continued and repeated attacks // that the police coerced, intimidated, promised, threatened…

 

[unidentified voice] Psychologically, I think they ripped him to shreds. // It was just sending a shark out on a bloody piece of bait.

 

[mux post]

 

What happens when the official story is challenged after all these years? When alternate versions are told by new storytellers?

 

[unidentified voice] I just hope there's less complete and utter trust in the system after this series.

 

[unidentified voice] Jason Carroll is where he belongs, where deserves to be, and he needs to stay there. // He took away my mother’s life – my life!

 

[unidentified voice] This story has been told about Jason for 33 years and he cannot escape it. // It’s just a story! It’s just a story.

 

This is Bear Brook Season 2: A True Crime Story. I’m Jason Moon.

 

[theme mux up & out]

 

 

[fade up ambient sound, courtroom]

 

Last November, Jason Carroll was appearing in court for the first time in three decades. I was there, sitting in the back of the courtroom.

 

For over a year-and-a-half, I’d been poring over thousands and thousands of documents in Jason’s case and interviewing many of the people involved – the ones who are still alive. I’d gotten used to thinking of the case as something that had already happened, a story from the ‘80s that I knew all the endings to.

 

But today… was uncharted. Something new was about to happen in Jason’s case.

 

[ambient sound, courtroom]

 

The courtroom was full. Jason’s family and friends. Sharon’s family and friends. It was a kind of tense reunion. Many of them were just kids the last time Jason was before a judge.

 

Before the hearing, the court staff did their best to make sure the two sides didn’t bump into each other in the hallways. But now they’re sitting in the same, small modern-looking courtroom, divided only by the center aisle.

 

[Bailiff] All rise for the honorable court.

//

[William Delker] Good morning, this is the matter of State of New Hampshire vs. Jason Carroll. This is a hearing… (fade under)

 

We’re all here because Jason has applied for early release from prison. You can do that in New Hampshire after you’ve served at least two-thirds of your sentence.

 

The judge who will decide is William Delker. He’s soft-spoken, wears glasses and a bowtie. You could mistake him for, say, a prep-school debate coach. But in reality he’s a former prosecutor, who handled some of the most serious homicides in recent New Hampshire history – including the case involving the state’s only death-row inmate.

 

[William Delker] So why don’t I have both sides introduce themselves for the record, please.

[Charles Bucca] Good morning, your honor. Charles Bucca, appearing on behalf of the state.

[Cynthia Mousseau] Cynthia Mousseau, your honor, on behalf of Jason Carroll who appears to my left.

 

Jason is dressed in a forest green prison jumpsuit. One arm is in a sling from a recent surgery; the other arm is handcuffed to a leather strap around his waist. His bald head reflects the fluorescent lighting.

 

Jason’s lawyer, Cynthia Mousseau, is with the New England Innocence Project. Cynthia is a former public defender. And she’s no stranger to this courtroom. Half the bailiffs and clerks seem to recognize her. Her hair is dyed with deep red streaks. One side of her head is buzzed.

 

Cynthia is the first to speak.

 

[Cynthia Mousseau] This is an extraordinary hearing, for the court to consider whether an extraordinary person, who was involved in an extraordinary case, should be given extraordinary relief.

 

It only takes her a few minutes to tell the court: Jason was wrongfully convicted. And the state is not telling the whole story.

 

[Cynthia Mousseau] …However, this narrative that the state has woven is inaccurate and incomplete.

 

Cynthia says this is a clear case of a coerced, false confession.

 

[Cynthia Mousseau] I could point out how Jason’s statements were so inconsistent with the undisputed forensic evidence in this case, that it was more probable that he was guessing in response to interrogation questions, than he had any actual knowledge. In fact, looking at these inconsistencies, it is shocking that Jason was ever even a credible suspect, let alone convicted.

 

But, Cynthia says, today is not about Jason’s guilt or innocence. It’s about whether he’s ready and whether it’s safe to re-integrate him into society.

 

Jason has a series of witnesses here who say, yes. One of them is a corrections officer, Joseph Laramie, who supervised Jason for over 20 years in the prison.

 

[Joseph Laramie] It was during my time in the North Unit that I began to notice that Jason has become a leader and a mentor. Not the type that preaches to people, but the type that leads by example, through his actions. // One of my duties in the visiting room was purchasing toys. // And Jason would put all the toys together. Groaning and grumbling the whole time he was doing it because he didn’t want to be putting together doll houses, but I could tell he liked it, he enjoyed it, because he knew the kids were going to enjoy it.

 

Another witness for Jason is a man who was incarcerated with him for 13 years, Joseph Lascaze. He’s now a respected advocate with the ACLU of New Hampshire. Joseph says Jason was a mentor to him, who left him with a powerful message the night before Joseph left prison.

 

[Joseph Lascaze] He said “I want you to promise me that you will never come back here. I want you to promise me that you will spend as much time with your family as you can because they’re the most important thing. And I want you to promise me that you’re going to go out there and make a difference with who you’ve become.”

As he says this, he motions to the pews on Jason’s side of the room, where a few young men that Joseph mentored are sitting. 


[Joseph Lascaze] Jay, I’m doing that. I promise you I’m doing everything that you asked me to do. This is proof that it’s working.

 

[mux in]

 

When Joseph finishes his statement, the prosecutor for the state, Charles Bucca, cross-examines him. Charles wears black-framed glasses, his dark hair just graying at the edges. And he uses the moment to make a point that he’ll make again and again during this hearing.

 

[Charles Bucca] Based on what you’ve told us here today, you were convicted of some criminal offenses?

 

[Joseph Lascaze] Correct.

 

[Charles Bucca] And you did your time?

 

[Joseph Lascaze] I did.

 

[Charles Bucca] And you took responsibility for your actions. 

 

[Joseph Lascaze] I did.

 

[Charles Bucca] And in fact, you even actually just told us you apologized to one of the victims of your criminal offenses.

 

[Joseph Lascaze] Correct.

 

[Charles Bucca] And that was helpful to you in taking responsibility, right?

 

[Joseph Lascaze] Yes, that came from the counsel of Jason.

 

[Charles Bucca] And that was helpful for you to move on with your life and become the man you’ve become today.

 

[Joseph Lascaze] That is correct.

 

[Charles Bucca] And be successful reintegrating into society. Is that correct?

 

[Joseph Lascaze] That is correct.

 

[Charles Bucca] And do you think that it would be detrimental for someone who’s trying to reintegrate into society to not accept responsibility for their criminal conduct?

 

[Cynthia Mousseau] I would object to that, judge. He can speak to his personal experience, which he’s done… (fade out)

 

Jason Carroll will not accept responsibility for the crime.

 

In the face of that fact, Charles the prosecutor – and some in Sharon’s family – say Jason’s achievements in prison ring hollow.

 

Thomas Eaton is Sharon’s nephew.

 

[Thomas Eaton] I’ve heard all day how good somebody’s doing in jail and how good they’re helping others. And I can appreciate that. That’s great. But that whole time all that’s been going on, there are two people that are no longer with us. There’s a woman, a young woman, with all the promise in the world, that never had a chance to display any of that. // I was raised to have accountability and responsibility. I have not been perfect in my life, but I certainly would not do this to someone. And if someone does this to somebody, they should take some accountability and responsibility. Thank you.

 

[mux post]

 

After both sides have had their say, Judge Delker calls a recess. He says he’ll come back in a few minutes with his decision. He’s going to decide Jason’s fate right then and there.

 

[mux fade out]

 

I was shocked by this. I think everyone was. The attorneys had written motions that were  hundreds of pages, there was more than two-and-a-half hours of testimony. It wouldn’t be unusual to wait weeks or longer for a decision on something like this.

 

Instead, we waited just 15 nervous minutes.

 

Finally, the bailiff tells us to rise. Judge Delker comes back to his seat. He tells Jason to remain standing to receive his ruling.

 

[Judge Delker] This is to this date one of the most notorious crimes in recent New Hampshire history. You confessed to your participation in this murder-for-hire plot and you and your accomplice, Mr. Pfaff, kidnapped and murdered a seven-and-a-half-month pregnant woman and you stood by while your accomplice sexually assaulted her as she lay dying – dead or dying there in that gravel pit. And you were paid $5,000 for those inhuman acts – and I don’t say inhumane, but inhuman acts – by the victim’s own husband.

 

[mux in]

 

[Judge Delker] Your failure to accept responsibility and to cooperate when you had the opportunity to do so meant that your co-conspirators have escaped justice for this brutal, brutal murder that has taken Sharon Johnson from her family and her loved ones. // To cut you a break // would utterly undermine the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system.

 

[mux post]

 

Jason Carroll’s petition for early release is denied. Judge Delker orders him back to prison. The hearing is over.

 

Sharon’s half of the room lets out a sigh of relief and silent celebration.

 

Just outside the courtroom, Sharon’s daughter Melonie Eaton speaks tearfully to local reporters. Her cousin stands by her, his arm wrapped protectively around Melonie’s shoulder.

 

Melonie says in the run-up to the hearing, too much attention had been paid to Jason and his innocence claims. She feels like her mother had been forgotten.

 

[Melonie Eaton] People need to see the other side of the story. They need to understand, she was a good person – more than anybody will understand. And she deserved to be here, but, unfortunately, she’s not.

 

Meanwhile, Jason’s side of the room is also in tears. Most of them leave quickly and silently after the ruling comes down. When I try to talk to Jason’s lawyer, Cynthia, she tells me, “Not today.”

 

Later though, we did talk on the phone.

 

[Cynthia Mousseau] Jason has never been believed in court. Ever. Ever. Not once.

 

Cynthia was heartbroken. And angry. Cynthia says the ruling was punishment for Jason maintaining his innocence. She says he could’ve lied and shown remorse and he may well have been let out.

 

[Cynthia Mousseau] People perceive that everyone in prison says that they’re innocent. Which is not true. And also that it’s this, like, thing that selfish people do. Jason just lost this hearing because he maintains his innocence.

 

As an innocence lawyer, Cynthia is used to people not believing her clients. But it still stings – the utter confidence many judges, prosecutors, or just people in general have in criminal convictions. For Cynthia, the odds can feel insurmountable. Even metaphysical.

 

[Cynthia Mousseau] Convictions take on this mythical power. // I was raised Catholic, and although I’m not now, I will reference a Catholic… (laughs). There’s this belief that when you’re Catholic and the priest gives you communion that the bread turns into the body of Jesus, like literal human flesh. This is essentially the same thing as what happens – once this conviction happens, it’s like that story is what happened.

 

[mux in]

 

Is the state of New Hampshire’s story, the one Judge Delker just re-told, the one that led to Jason Carroll’s conviction… is that what really happened to Sharon Johnson? Or is it just an illusion?

 

To find out, we have to go back to the beginning.

 

That’s after the break.

 

[mux post & fade]

 

************************MIDROLL***************************

 

I’ll never forget the first time I heard the tape.

 

I’d read the transcripts, but they didn’t hold a candle to actually hearing the words.

 

The tape is a partial recording of a police interrogation of Jason Carroll in 1989.

 

I’ve spent the last year-and-a-half studying it, wondering about it, thinking – even dreaming about it.

 

The tape is memorable partly because of its intensity. Two of the detectives who were there called it one of the most emotional interrogations they’d ever seen.

 

But here’s the biggest reason I’m fascinated by it:

 

For over 30 years, Jason Carroll has been locked in a prison because of the power of the words on this tape. And only the power of words on tape. There is no other evidence that ties him to the murder of Sharon Johnson.

 

So the question of whether you believe what he’s saying in the tape, becomes everything. 

 

Jason is held in a state prison in Concord, New Hampshire that’s about 5 minutes from where I live. Whenever I drive by the prison, I wonder: is every passing day that Jason wakes up inside there adding to the weight of a staggering injustice? Or is Jason simply guilty?

 

Sometimes I think, if I just listen hard enough to the tape – I’ll be able to tell.

 

(fade in tape hiss)

[Officer 1] I’ve told you before, when you tell the truth, you have to want to tell the truth.

[Jason Carroll] I want so much to get this over with.

[Officer 1] But you’re not doing it

[Jason Carroll] It’s not that easy.

            (fade under)

 

The audio quality of the tape isn’t great. So I’ll repeat some parts of it as we go. The tape has also been partially redacted. Sometimes people’s names are bleeped out.

 

In the tape, you can hear Jason being interrogated by four officers. They’re at the police station in Bedford. The town where Sharon Johnson’s body was discovered.

 

The day before, police interrogated Jason for five hours. By this point in the tape, they’ve been at it for another three hours.

 

            (fade in)

[Officer 2] Jason, if you had the friggin knife in your hand and you stabbed her, tell ‘em!

[Officer 1] Yeah, he’s hiding something.

[Officer 2] If you got back with Tony and you guys moved the car later on that night, tell ‘em!

            (fade under)

 

Over the many hours of interrogations, Jason has gone from denying any involvement, to now saying he witnessed Sharon Johnson’s murder.

 

But the police still believe Jason is holding something back. They’re frustrated – they don’t understand why Jason won’t just spit it out.

 

One of the detectives launches into a monologue.

 

[Officer 1] What is it going to take?

            (fade under)

 

The detective asks:

 

What is it going to take? On tape – now listen to me clearly. One day in the future, this tape, which can never be destroyed or altered, will be played before a jury of people that will have, on tape, listen to me clearly, that will have understood the horror of the type of killing that Sharon Johnson was subjected to.

 

(fading up)

[Officer 1] …the horror of the type of killing that Sharon Johnson was subjected to…

            (fading down)

 

They will hear a voice that we will identify as Jason Carroll. A person that we are looking to to help us bring forth those people…

           

Jason jumps in and finishes the detective’s sentence. He says:

 

…Who did it.

 

Then the detective goes on:

 

Who actually did this entire, uh, ugly, unforgivable, horrendous act. And they will have to conclude if Jason Carroll has the decency (crossfade into tape) to express any remorse and that expression must come forth by a willingness to be truthful.

 

[mux in]

 

Why, in god’s name, would you tell us this much and still leave out the truth. The essence of the truth. I have not seen the breaking point in you!

 

I have not seen the breaking point in you, the detective shouts.

 

[mux post]

 

[Officer 2] If you put a knife – if you put a knife in that woman, I want to know. You stabbed her, didn’t you?! 

[Jason Carroll] Yes I did, BLEEP.

[Officer 2] How many times did you stab her?!

[Jason Carroll] I stabbed her three times.

[Officer 2] Alright!

(Jason cries)

[Officer 1] Who else stabbed her? Who else? Who else stabbed her, truthfully?

[Jason Carroll] Johnson! Johnson and Pfaff stabbed her…

(tape fades out)

 

[mux out]

 

 

If you had to pick one moment that started all of this, that was it. Depending on what you believe, this was the moment the truth was wrenched free. Or the moment a lie that refuses to die was born.

 

For the rest of this series, we’re going to unpack that moment. And believe me, there is so much to unpack.

 

Including one thing I haven’t told you yet.

 

One of the cops you heard interrogating Jason Carroll… was his mom.

 

[Karen Carroll] We want the truth out of you. // Do you think that I’m going to love you any less?

[Jason Carroll] I don’t know! // I don’t know.

 

[mux in]

 

People who tell true crime stories (people like me) do this kind of stuff all the time. We save a surprising detail for when we need to make sure you stay interested. It can make for better storytelling. It can be manipulative.

 

In this case, I did it – and I’m telling you I did it – as a demonstration. Because journalists are not the only people who tell true crime stories.

 

Detectives, lawyers, witnesses, suspects – they all tell stories about what happened in a given case. And like every storyteller, they make choices about what to put in and what to leave out. What to emphasize – and what to ignore.

 

And sometimes, those choices… can change everything.

 

[mux up & out]

 

 

How did Officer Karen Carroll end up extracting a murder confession from her own son?

 

In Karen’s version of the story – it’s a lot more complicated than just what you hear in the tape.

 

[Karen Carroll] Ugh. It’s been a nightmare. // A total nightmare.

 

Karen told me, I needed to understand that she was caught between two roles.

 

[Karen Carroll] I was not only a police officer, but I was a mother, you know? And mothers will do whatever they have to do to try to protect their kids.

 

Karen became a police officer in 1984, a few years before Sharon Johnson’s murder. Karen was a patrol officer in Bedford. Back then, it was a mostly rural town in southern New Hampshire.

 

[Karen Carroll] I enjoyed it. Yeah, I enjoyed it. It was different. I am not one that can sit behind a desk at a computer. That’s not for me.

 

Her husband, Jack Carroll was in the national guard. A Vietnam vet. Together, they were raising four kids. Jason was the oldest, Karen’s son from a previous relationship.

 

Then, in July of 1988, Karen’s job at the police station got really interesting. The biggest case the town had ever seen. The murder of Sharon Johnson. The first homicide in Bedford in at least 20 years, maybe more.

 

Karen had a front row seat. The gossip around the station, the flood of tips coming in, the reporters descending on the town.

 

These were dramatic times in Bedford – even if it didn’t have all that much to do with Karen. She was a patrol officer, not a detective. So she didn’t have a part to play…

 

[mux in]

 

…until she met the detective in charge of solving the case – that other voice you heard on the tape. A man named Roland Lamy.

 

[Roland Lamy] …the truth, the essence of the truth. I have not seen a breaking point in you.

 

[Karen Carroll] Sergeant Lamy, // I wanted to trust him. I wanted to trust him. //

 

[Jason Moon] What do you think of Lamy now?

 

[Karen Carroll] (laughs) I can’t say what I think of him. (pause) // He’s just a bald-headed, big feeling motherfucker.

 

That’s next time, on Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story.

 

[mux up & out]

 

A True Crime Story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

 

It’s edited by Katie Colaneri.

 

Additional reporting and research by Paul Cuno-Booth.

 

Editing help from Lauren Chooljian, Daniela Allee, Sara Plourde, Taylor Quimby, Mara Hoplamazian, Jeongyoon Han, and Todd Bookman. 

 

Our News Director is Dan Barrick. Our Director of Podcasts is Rebecca Lavoie.

 

Fact-checking by Dania Suleman.

 

Sara Plourde created our original artwork, as well as our website, bearbrookpodcast.com, where you can see pictures of Sharon Johnson and other materials from the case.

 

Additional photography and video by Gaby Lozada.

 

Original music for the series was created by me, Jason Moon.

 

Bear Brook is a production of the Document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of Episode 7: The In-Between

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

[Jason Moon] Here lies the mortal remains only to God…

[Montplaisir] I would hope that in my lifetime that this case was solved… I’d like to see that. 

[Jason] Their slain bodies were found on November 10th, 1985 in Bear Brook State Park.

[Morgans] Before I die, I’d like to find out who those girls are.

[Cody] You have to know that it’s an uphill climb. A steep uphill climb.

[Taylor Quimby] Previously on Bear Brook.

[Kamenov] What we saw twas that the 3 victims related by DNA… They kind of have the same oxygen isotopic signal. Which tells us that they were all living together. 

[Presser] And in the case involving the four murder victims in Allenstown, we believe we’ve identified their killer 

[Ronda] It was fascinating about Lisa.  and to know his other life, but to still not know who they were and know so much was difficult.

[Peter Headley] I’ll work every lead that I can… until I’ve tapped everything out.

-

[Becky] “Ok. I’m Rebekah Heath. I usually go by Becky. And I work in a research library in the financial services industry.”

[JM] “Ok. So research is -- that’s your wheelhouse.”

[Becky] “Yes.”

Becky Heath is in her early thirties. She lives in Connecticut, in a carefully organized  condo. It almost looks like a magazine cover. Becky chooses her words carefully, too. When she speaks it’s almost like she’s tiptoeing from one word to the next.

[Becky] “I...do….love…mysteries. Any type of real life... murder mysteries.”

Becky is what you might call a websleuth. An amatuer investigator who looks into those real life murder mysteries in her free time.

One of the cases that Becky follows is the Bear Brook murders. She first came across it about 10 years ago, when she was looking through newspaper archives at work. Becky saw an old article from 1985 and realized that the first barrel was found just three days before she was born.

[Becky] “I was like, ‘Oh that’s interesting. I gotta check that out later.’ And little by little, I would look more into it.”

Little by little became more and more -- and by the time police announced in 2017 that they knew who the killer was behind the Bear Brook murders but not the victims, Becky was obsessed.

[Becky] “Oh, that’s when I got a little crazy with it. I would spend...this is kind of embarrassing. I would go to work and I’d come home and I would just research and research and research.”

A lot of that research -- the actual work of web-sleuthing, happens on online forums. Message boards where people are looking for people they’ve lost touch with. Websleuths will pore over these posts to see if one might be connected to a case they’re looking into to.

One of the most popular of these message boards is on ancestry.com. It’s a forum called “Lost Family and Friends.” It has over 30,000 posts in it.

/”I am looking for the daughter of a Nancy LeJohn Warden. She was born Monica Jeanne Pettersson, and her birthday was Feb.4,1973. Her name might have been changed by her mothers mom,who had remarried a Thompson. I am her Aunt and would love to be reunited with her. I have not seen her since she was two.”

/”CHRISTOPHER LEE ELLINGBURG/ BRENDA JEAN GILCHREST/ WILLIAM DAWSEN ELLINGBURG JR.--VVERRRRY IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!

I AM LOOKING FOR MY HALF-BROTHER CHRISTOPHER.--HE SHOULD BE ABOUT 17-18 YEARS OLD NOW.--HIS MOTHER IS BRENDA JEAN GILCHREST, ONCE MARRIED TO MY FATHER WILLIAM DAWSEN ELLINGBURG JR.--CHRIS WAS HIS SENCOND CHILD BY ANOTHER WOMAN(BRENDA G.)---IF ANYONE IS RELATED IN ANY WAY PLEASE E-MAIL ME ---THANX!!!!!!!!”

/”Looking for half brother Jason Wayne Hale. Jason, I am your brother Howard if you read this or anybody out there knows this person please contact me..The only picture I even have of you is when you were a month and a half old and I think one about when you were between 2-5. Would love to meet you someday in the near future.”

/”Looking for my brothers Curtis and Dale Prosise. Please reply with any information that might help my search. Thank You!”

/”Looking for my sister. im looking for Elsa De Jesus, she is my older sister, shes been missing for almost 20 yrs. our fathers name is Eugenio, mother Jesusa, brothers Ramon, Daniel, Robert and me Raul, sisters Lucy who is deaf, and Margarita. Elsa has three children, who miss her dearly. as we do. we used to call her Elsie. any help in locating her would be a blessing. please feel free to e-mail me. 

Scrolling through all the posts at once is overwhelming. It’s like a bulletin board for people missing after a natural disaster, only there was no disaster. Just time passing. People being separated by divorce, by letting a grudge go too far, by just losing touch. What’s so heartbreaking about these posts is that they’re all so unexceptional.

[pause]

Forums like this are kind of the unofficial version of the missing persons reports that police generally rely on. The difference is that the information in the posts isn’t standardized. Some have a lot of info, some have very little. Some are inaccurate and a lot of them are just out of date.

[Becky] “And that’s kind of the tricky part, because you could find a listing and when you follow up on it, it could be like, ‘oh no, no, we found them.’ Or a lot of times with the older ones there are just broken email addresses.”

[JM] “So it’s messier.”

[Becky] “Mmhmm. It’s like the inbetween.”

The inbetween. It’s a space that’s too convoluted, or tedious, or frankly, bleak for most of us to look through.

But Becky did look through it. She combed through thousands of posts -- spent nearly every waking hour outside of her job on it. 

And after months of slogging through the uncertainty of the inbetween, she found something. Three names, that we now know belong to the Bear Brook victims.

Today, authorities in New Hampshire made Becky Heath’s discovery official. You may have heard about it on the news. At a press conference in Concord, New Hampshire, detectives described how DNA tests were finally able to confirm the tip that Becky first submitted back in October of 2018.

We’re going to take you to that press conference and tell you everything we learned from it. But first, I want to walk you through how Becky did it. Because just like every other story about the Bear Brook murders, it does not go the way you think it does.

This is Bear Brook. I’m Jason Moon.

Before Becky set out for her search on the message boards of the inbetween, she looked for things that might guide her.

A date range, for instance. Becky studied what we know of the timeline of the serial killer Terry Rasmussen and the estimated ages of the Bear Brook victims. She settled the late 1970’s. That’s the period right after Rasmussen separated from his wife and kids. And it’s also likely when the two youngest Bear Brook victims were born based on the age estimates.

Next, Becky thought about who would be searching for them. When I think about who might be looking for the victims, I usually think of close family, like the the adult victim’s parents. But if we’ve learned anything through this case, it’s that families are complicated. Becky understood this - so she didn’t limit her thinking that way.

The parents could be dead, or estranged… Instead, it could be a cousin, or step-sibling that’s searching for a long-lost relative… And who knows? They might not be searching for the whole family… maybe they only knew the adult victim, or one of the girls.

[Becky] “So there’s certain terms that I’ll use: step-daughter, step-sister, half-sister, nieces.”

Finally, Becky kept an eye out for posts about missing people from California. That’s an area Rasmussen knew well, and police suspect that he spent some time there just before he came to New Hampshire.

So, with these three stars to guide her, Becky started searching through the posts. Each time she came across a name that fit those three criteria, she would try to rule them out.

[Becky] “I’ll try and look through public records, birth certificates, through different websites and see, ‘ok, can I find a record of this person. And is it recent?’”

If there’s a record of that person from later than 1985, Becky moved on. She did this over and over and over again.

[JM] “So how many of these did you look through?”

[Becky] “[laughs] ...lots. Lots.”

Then finally in the fall of 2017, Becky comes across a post that she can’t easily rule out.

The post is dated February 11, 2000. It’s written by someone searching for their long-lost half-sister. They say the half-sister was born in California in the mid-1970’s.

The person says both of the half-sister’s parents are dead. And that the mother died in a car accident.

Now you might not make much of that, I probably wouldn’t have, but this detail triggered something for Becky. She remembered that a car accident was one of the lies Rasmussen had told about one of his other victims: Lisa’s mother, Denise Beaudin. Becky decided to fact check that story of the mother dying in a car accident. She searched the mother’s name in California death records.

[Becky] “I started looking. I said, ‘ok, if they passed away, they’re going to be in the death index. Hers, there is none.”

Death records are generally pretty easy to find. Pulling up nothing got Becky even more interested. She went back to the post and she keeps reading.

 In 2003 there’s a reply. It’s from a man who is looking for his sister - a woman who fits the age range for the adult victim. And his sister, the man writes, had two children when they lost touch.

So, now we’re talking about three missing people from California, a mother who supposedly died in a car accident, and her two daughters.

In 2013 - a decade later - someone posts the marriage records of the missing mother.

Then, in 2014 there’s another reply. This time, it’s from someone who thinks the missing mother might be her sister. She says she’s been looking for her for years.

Three separate people, rooting around on the internet for someone they’d lost - each of them helping to outline the silhouette of a missing family.

Becky was able to find the dates of birth for each member of the missing family. And they all fit within the estimated age-ranges for the three-related victims: the adult, the oldest child, and the youngest child.

Becky started to think this might be something. Things just kept lining up. Or at least, nothing was ruling it out. So in the fall of 2017 she shared all this with some of her fellow websleuths in a Facebook group. And then...nothing happened.

[Becky] “I don’t know why I didn’t pursue it more. I didn’t really get feedback from anyone so I didn’t pursue it more.”

The post about the half-sister just kind of fizzled. Either the community was focused on something else, or maybe other websleuths just didn’t think it was a very good lead. 

So Becky went back to searching the message boards for other posts that might line up with the Bear Brook case. And for almost a year she didn’t think too much about it.

Then just a few months ago, Becky heard about something that got her thinking about that post again. Becky started listening to Bear Brook.

[EP1] [JMorgan] “When we knocked the barrel over, the top came open a little more but we didn’t see into it or anything...”

Becky knew most of the twists and turns in the case already.  But she listened anyway. Listened closely. For any tiny details she didn’t already know that could help her refine her search. She even kept notes of each episode.

[Becky] ...this is the last podcast, it’s in here somewhere...

And it was Episode 3 - the episode about the isotopic testing, and the updated composite images released by state police… that’s the episode that triggered something. 

[Becky] “I remember stopping the podcast, going back, listening to what he said again, writing it down again.”

[EP3] [Agati] “Our first child victim, also found in the same barrel with her, her age is closer to nine to ten years old.”

[Becky] “Stop. Go over it again.”

    [EP3] [Agati] “Her age is closer to 9 to 10 years old.”

She remembered the post - the one that had fizzled out. The more she listened, the more she remembered - the ages had lined up. The location had lined up. All the little details fit.

[Becky] “Wait did I hear that right?”

    [EP3] [Agati] “9 to 10 years old.”

It was almost as if she was getting the feedback she hadn’t gotten a couple of years before - and what it was saying, was that she just might have a lead.

[Becky] “And then after that one I was like, ‘you know what? Listening to this podcast makes me think it is this person, these girls.’ Just -- it fits, it just fits.”

Becky still had that small specter of doubt - that it would be another dead end. But in the end, she just couldn’t shake the feeling that she was right.

Becky decided to contact the family.

She found someone who she thought might be related to one of the missing children. 

She showed me how the conversation played out on her phone.

[Becky] “So here it says ‘9:04 PM on October 10th,’ a Wednesday night. I came home from class and I looked her up. And I said ‘I’m trying to track down this post, could this be you? And almost instantly, she responded back and said she was the person and she said ‘you have my heart pounding.’ And it was kind of a little sad to me because I’m like ‘oh no, 

As in, “Oh no, I’m not the person you’re looking for.”

Becky quickly explains a bit about who she is.  That she sometimes helps search for missing persons as a sort of hobby.  What she doesn’t explain, is her theory.  Because if she’s right - if she is speaking to the half-sister of the one of the Bear Brook girls… well, it’s not good news.

The family member tells Becky they’ve wondered for years about what happened to their half-sister, but were never able to find any answers.

Then Becky asks if they had any more information about the mother of the missing girl.

[Becky] “And - this is where you can see it, right there. She says, ‘she married again to a man, last name Rasmussen.’”

[JM] “Oh my god.”

[Becky] “That right there. When they say your stomach just like -- like something just hits. And I was like, ‘There is no way, there is no way that’s a coincidence.’ And I was like ‘this is huge.’”

[JM] “Wow.”

[Becky] “I was shaking. I was like oh my god, oh my god, what!?

Becky quickly tracked down the siblings of the missing mother online. She asked them if they knew anything about their sister’s husband.

[Becky] “And of the sisters was like, ‘I think his name was Terry.’  And it was just like, ok there’s no way, like she remembers Terry, this side remembers Rasmussen. That’s too crazy.”

...

[Becky] “So that happened on Wednesday night. And by Friday I was talking with Detective Headley from San Bernardino. And he was saying he wants to retire and the last thing he wants to do is get this case solved. And I as I was talking to him I said, ‘you probably get this all the time, but I truly think that this is the break.’”

Becky spoke to Detective Headley on October 12th. I started hearing rumors about a new tip in the case a few days later and called up Detective Headley myself. I was surprised when he told me that the tip looked pretty good. But he also told me to be cautious. He had been down this road before. Had seen a lot of promising tips go nowhere. For my part, having not heard Becky’s story in full, I couldn’t really bring myself to believe it.

It seemed like nobody wanted to say that this was the one - only to find out that it was another false lead. Some impossible coincidence.

The only way to be sure of this was to wait for a DNA test between the people who posted in that thread and the Bear Brook victims. And so that’s what we did. We waited until we could be sure. Today, we finally are.

Today, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office officially announced that Becky was right.

That after thirty-three years of searching, we now know the identities of three related Bear Brook victims.

The adult name is Marlyse Honeychurch. 

The oldest child name is Marie Vaughn.

The youngest child name is Sara McWaters.

...

After she submitted the tip, Becky stayed in touch with the family of the victims. If she had any doubts about whether these were the correct identities, she says they disappeared once the family sent her some photos.

[Becky] “I wasn’t ready for that. I wasn’t ready for that. It’s really heartbreaking. And seeing pictures of the girls, and how, like...how they look, like that’s -- you just know. It’s insane how close the composites were.”

Becky’s right. The photos of Marlyse and her two daughters bear a stunning resemblance to the composite images released in 2015.

And she’s also right about how heartbreaking it is to see those photos -- to see Marie at her birthday party, ready to blow out candles on the cake. To see Sara as baby, in a diaper and a Mickey Mouse t-shirt. To see their mom Marlyse, with a big smile as she get ready to lick the batter off of a mixing spoon.

[Becky] “It makes it really real.”

[JM] “Really real is a really good way to put it. I’d never imagined. I’d never thought about the day that, ‘oh one day I might see actual photos of them. And now seeing them, it’s like a lot.”

[Becky] “It’s really heartbreaking. I’ve, you know, had this high feeling of ‘oh my goodness, this is going to get solved, there’s going to be closure.’ And the reality is...like what the family is going to have endure....it’s not going to be easy. It’s not a happy ending.”

...

Amazingly, Becky Heath wasn’t the only person to identify the victims. Only one month after Becky spoke to detective Peter Headley on the phone, Barbara Rae-Venter independently identified Marlyse Honeychurch as the adult victim with genetic genealogy. The technique to extract autosomal DNA out of rootless hair had worked.

But as important and powerful as it is to finally know the identities of three of the Bear Brook victims, Becky says the work is not over yet.

[JM] ”So what do you do now, now that you’re not researching. Do you feel like there’s a big hole in your daily routine?”

[Becky] “I cannot stop focusing on the bio-child. That is...she deserves her name back too.”

The bio-child. That’s Rasmussen’s daughter, found in the second barrel. She and her mother are still out there somewhere - at least two more victims whose names we still don’t know.

Transcript of Update 2: Eric Rasmussen

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

Many people know what it’s like to live in the shadow of their parents. But some shadows are longer and darker than others.

Before Terry Rasmussen killed four people and dumped them in the woods near Bear Brook State Park, before he was a serial killer -- the chameleon, he had a family. In my reporting I was able to speak to one of his children, his daughter Diane. You heard from her in episode 6….but he also had a son. 

[Jason Moon] “Could I have you just introduce yourself? Your name and your relationship to this case and why we’re talking?”

[Eric Rasmussen] “My name is Eric. Terry Rasmussen is my father. And I guess we’re talking about it to try and find some answers.”

I couldn’t find Eric when I was first reporting the series. But a few months after we released the podcast, an email sent by someone with the last name Rasmussen caught my eye.

Eric wrote to say that he had listened to the podcast. He said he was glad to hear that, with the breakthroughs in genetic genealogy, at least some good had come from the case.

But listening to it also had him thinking about his father. Ever since he learned about Terry Rasmussen’s crimes, Eric has been holding up an image of his father’s life next to his own. And what he’s seen, has changed him.

This is Bear Brook, update number two: a conversation with Eric Rasmussen. I’m Jason Moon.

A few weeks ago, Eric and I sat down to talk about what this story has meant for him.

I started by asking him about the day this all began for him. Remember, like Diane, Eric grew up not knowing all that much about his father. As far as he knew he was just a deadbeat dad who left him when he was five years old. Since then Eric grew up, joined the Marine Corps then the Army, had some kids, got married and divorced a few times. Then, in 2017, four decades after he last saw his dad, Eric got a phone call from the New Hampshire state police.

[Eric] “I mean it was very surreal. I mean...it’s nothing life prepares you for a phone call like that. I guess the only way I really dealt with it at that first moment was, ‘it just wasn’t true.”

Eric says it didn’t fully sink in until later, when the detective sent him an email with some more information about the case.

[Eric] “It really became real when I clicked on the link to the interview that he did in California...and I heard his voice.”

[Vanner 2002 Interview] “Now I haven’t talked anymore about Eunsoon’s problems or my problems because frankly, you’re not my priest and you’re not my doctor.”

[Eric] “That’s when it really just became 100% real for me. I heard that voice...from the past. It’s hard to explain, you know. I guess the closest I could put it -and forgive me if I go off on a tangent here- is when I was in Desert Storm, we had been across the Kuwaiti border for about a day and we were moving toward Kuwait City and we had camped for the night, basically, with a bunch of tanks laid out and we were digging fox holes and there was machine gun fire that starts up. And then all the sudden there was this call of “gas” because this missile had landed and my gas mask wouldn’t seal. And the sheer terror of that...of your mask not sealing. You think you’re going to die. You’re starting to panic somewhat and you’re trying to keep cool at the same time. And just that feeling that builds up in you of all this stress, this anxiety, this terror. And that’s what I felt when I heard his voice.”

...

[JM] “Let’s go back to that phone call for just a minute. Did he have any questions for you?”

[Eric] “He asked me what I remembered about my father.”

[JM] “And what did you tell him?”

[Eric] “I told him the two prominent memories I have of my father. I remember when he came to visit us in Arizona after my mother had left him.”

Just a reminder -- this was the unexpected visit that Terry Rasmussen made sometime in 1975 or ‘76. It was the last time his family saw him. Terry had with him an unidentified woman who investigators believe may be another victim.

[Eric] “I remember him being with a brunette woman. I remember that. I remember him not saying not much -- he said something to my mother. And that he kind of looked at us. You know, I’m a father myself and the first thing you do when you contact your children after not seeing them for a while is you want to physically be there for them. He just didn’t seem to hold that connection.”

The other memory Eric has of his father is something that Diane also mentioned to me. She said it was the moment that finally convinced their mother to leave Terry.

[Eric] “I remember the day that he burned me with cigarettes. I don’t remember if it was one or two but I remember feeling burnt. And I remember crying. And I just remember the look he gave me. It just... it was just so… it’s hard to describe it was like a dead man looking at you in some ways.”

[JM] “Do you remember how old you were at that time?”

[Eric] “I think I was right about 3 ½ to 4. Right in there.”

[JM] “Any recollection or idea as to -- not that there’s a good reason -- but why he would have been doing that to you?”

[Eric] “You know, that goes to the question I think everybody has: how does a man like that exist? How does a man like that do anything? I guess it doesn’t make sense to me, but I kinda really need to know in a kind of a morbid sort of way.”

This is the shadow that Terry Rasmussen casts over Eric Rasmussen. Ever since he learned about his father’s crimes, Eric has been gripped by questions of how? and why?

Questions that I think we all try to answer when we hear a story like this. But the difference for Eric is that whatever answers he comes to, also say something about him.

Not just because Terry was his father. But because Eric has come to realize that he and his father’s lives have, in some ways, moved along a parallel trajectory.

[Eric] “It’s a really odd parallel, because there were two things that he was heavily interested in. And that was mechanical and electronics. And the way that my -unknowingly- my path directed was exactly down those same ways. I spent time as an auto mechanic. I spent time in the DYNO-field which is heavily electronic. And he went into the Navy. I spent time in the Marine Corps.... I don’t want to be like him, but unfortunately I mean, I kinda am, in a way. And that is a scary thought in itself. That’s the one when I can’t sleep at 3 o’clock in the morning that draws me. You know, I know I’m not going to do what he did. But I don’t want to get anywhere close to that line. And that’s the one that keeps me up.”

It’s not only the outlines of a career path that Eric and Terry share. They also bear a striking physical resemblance. Diane told me that when the state troopers were first breaking the news to her, one thing that helped convince her it was real were the mugshots of Terry -- and how much they looked like Eric.

[Eric] “You know you read about the people that talked to him and the detective in California who said ‘oh gosh, those crystal blue eyes.’ I get that every week. At least once a week somebody says ‘oh my god, you have gorgeous crystal blue eyes,’ and I’m like ‘I just don’t want them.’ But you know, I look like him.”

[JM] “I wonder what was your idea of your father as you were growing up after he had left? What was your sense of him?”

[Eric] “You know my mother, who has never been very forthcoming with a lot of details, constantly reinforced the idea that he was a bad man. But she couldn’t quite say why. Sometimes it would be because he drank. Sometimes it would be because he slept around with all the babysitters. You know, there were sometimes she said to me, ‘you’re just like him.’ Which really is a phrase that kind of drags home now. You know, she would tell me how I looked like him, how I was just like him, and then she would take it out on me physically.”

[JM] “But you were curious despite all that?”

[Eric] “Oh yeah, I mean you’re growing up in a single parent home, you want to know the other half of you.”

[JM] “So has this led to other conversations within your extended family? I mean I know obviously that you’re relationship with your mom is fraught for obvious reasons, but have you found yourself talking to family members from his side or reconnecting with folks?”

[Eric] “I have. I have found a few family members from his side that are willing to talk and the one story that came out that really struck me as intuitive was they were at a picnic and he was maybe 8, 9.”

[JM] “You mean Terry was 8 or 9?”

[Eric] “Yeah. And he chased someone around at the picnic with a knife he’d been using to cut watermelon because he became so angry. So… I talked with other members on that side of the family who talk about a darkness that flows in the Rasmussen family. They don’t call it depression, they call it darkness.”

Hearing stories about Terry’s childhood has helped Eric to fill in some sections of his father’s portrait.

But the more Eric has learned, the more he’s come to place meaning on a different part of Terry’s life: his time in the Navy. It’s a chapter that Eric can relate to, because he recognizes the effects of it in himself. Remember when one of Terry’s coworker’s at the mill in New Hampshire heard him screaming in his sleep?

[Eric] “I mean that’s a PTSD moment. I mean that’s classic, that’s chronic signs. I suffer from that. What did he suffer from? Did that push him across the line?”

Terry Rasmussen served in the Navy from 1961 to 1967, he was stationed at bases along the west coast and also at Okinawa in the Pacific. Eric has been studying his discharge paperwork, a form called a DD-214. It has some details about Terry’s military career. But it also raises a lot of questions. Like how from 1961 to 1964, there’s little mention about what Terry was actually doing. Those were the early years of the Vietnam War, and it was before the Navy trained Terry as an electrician. Eric wonders if that’s when Terry saw something or did something that changed him.

[Eric] “There had to be this diving moment where it all became nothing. When the value of human life became zero with him. Because you don’t -- it’s one thing to shoot a man you don’t know. Trust me on that. It’s another thing to harm someone that you know, that you’re around every day. Something pushed him.”

There’s no proof that Terry Rasmussen ever saw any action. But then, you don’t necessarily have to to get PTSD. There are some clues on Terry’s DD-214 that point to signs of trouble. A few periods classified as “Lost Time” - usually code for being away without leave or being confined in the brig. And his form also has a reenlistment code that basically amounts to the Navy telling him, ‘don’t come back.’

In any case, this idea, that something pushed Terry, is what ultimately convinced Eric to change his life. After learning about all this in the summer of 2017, he left a lucrative career in engineering to work with vets.

[Eric] “You know, he did so many bad things in this world, I had to do something positive. Something good. Not to redeem him, but to redeem myself. So I got a job at the VA. I figured at least I could help other vets. Maybe in an instant, maybe one word, maybe one moment, a handshake, a “hey the coffee is over there,” something would make their day just a little bit more. And maybe they wouldn’t push themselves over the edge.”

[JM] “So how much is Terry on your mind when you’re there and talking to vets? Do you see shades of him or versions of him in the vets you’re speaking to?”

[Eric] “Oh god, there isn’t a day goes by that I don’t see someone in a Navy Seabees hat. And so it’s always on my mind, unfortunately. I wish it wasn’t so much, but it is.”

[JM] “It’s interesting to me because, one thing that we have tried to do in telling this story is not to focus too much on him and his story, in the way that sometimes stories about serial killers can get sensationalized to an extent where it seems to be more about that person’s life than the lives of the victims they had. And in a weird way they can almost end up being glorified. But you’re in a situation where you can’t help but want to know everything you can about him, because it’s, in a strange way, also about you.”

[Eric] “It is about me. It’s about at least half of me. You know, there’s no other thing for me to do except for move forward and try to find at least some answers. Because what I know now isn’t enough for me, and it’s not because I’m fascinated by this killer. It’s because I want to know what drove him. That’s really what I have to know is what drove him.”

[JM] “It almost sounds like that has become the new purpose of your life, if I could put it so bluntly.”

[Eric] “Yeah -- is to not be him. To do whatever I can to not be him.”

For all the ways that Eric seems to be reaching for meaning in all this, it strikes me that there probably are no good answers waiting for him in the thicket his father’s past. No moment of truth in the Navy, no family medical predisposition that could fully explain who Terry Rasmussen was and why he did what he did.

How much of his father is in himself is a question that Eric may always wrestle with.

But then, Eric isn’t just looking for meaning in his father’s life, he’s creating meaning in his own. By having honest conversations like this, by helping other veterans to find themselves. And in that way, the way that matters, Eric has already answered his own question. He’s nothing like his father.

...

Stay subscribed to Bear Brook to hear future updates in the case. We’re hoping to bring you more episodes soon.

Bear Brook is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

Taylor Quimby is Senior Producer.

Editing help this episode came from Dan Barrick, Maureen McMurray, Cori Princell, and Erika Janik.

Special thanks this episode to professor Edward Miller at Dartmouth College.

Original music for this show was composed by me, Jason Moon, and Taylor Quimby.

Bear Brook is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of Update 1: Ripple Effects

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.

Taylor Quimby: I'm producer Taylor Quimby, and this is the first in an unknown number of updates to the story of the Bear Brook murders that we'll be producing to let listeners know about any breaking news in the case. For quick updates, I'm going to be interviewing Jason to find out what is happening and down the road should there be any big breaks. And we expect there will be we will likely put out another full episode of Bear Brook. So just to temper expectations, I want to say off the bat that this is not the information that Jason and I are expecting to come down eventually, which is to say police have not discovered any new victims of Terry Rasmussen, nor have police determine the identities of the unknown Bear Brook victims. The new information that we do have that just came out of the New Hampshire attorney general's office yesterday, November 15th, is that while searching for more possible victims of the serial killer, Terry Rasmussen, police followed a tip that led to the identification of an unconnected murder victim. In other words, someone who was murdered, but not by Rasmussen, a young woman who went missing in Manchester in the 1980s. So, Jason, what did we learn? Who is this woman?

Jason Moon: Yeah, her name is Elizabeth Lamotte. Apparently, she went by Liz. She went missing on November 22nd, 1984, from Manchester, New Hampshire. She was at the Youth Development Center. Today, it's called the Sununu Youth Center. It's basically a juvenile lockup in the state

Taylor Quimby: Okay.

Jason Moon: And she was released for some sort of trip to a baseball stadium in Manchester, and she never returned. And so, again, that was on November 22nd, 1984.

Taylor Quimby: And it was a youth detention center. So how old is she?

Jason Moon: She would have been 17 when she went missing

Taylor Quimby: Okay.

Jason Moon: A missing persons report was not filed until until recently, until 2017, as a result of the investigation into the Bear Brook case. And according to the New Hampshire attorney general's office, it came in the aftermath of that big press conference in January 2017 that we visit in episode five of the podcast, where we were getting all the connections to the California cases for the first time.

Press Conference: We're going to start our presentation by going through a PowerPoint this morning. We're going to do that to try and explain all the new information that we have that pertains.

Jason Moon: Now, during that press conference, police were also asking for any tips regarding other possible victims of Terry Rasmussen. And here's some some tape we didn't actually include in that episode. And something to remember. Police back then were still calling Rasmussen by his New Hampshire alias Bob Evans.

Press Conference: During the time that Mr. Evans had been living at 925 Haywood Street, an interesting note there was some certified mail sent to that residence, and it had been signed for by somebody purporting to be Elizabeth Evans. We don't know who Elizabeth Evans was, whether or not she, in fact was a real person or if the mail had been signed for by somebody else. Also, it's interesting, during the time in the 1980s, Bob Evans had been arrested three different times by local authorities. He was arrested in February and June of 1980, and he gave his spouse's name as being Elizabeth, as you can see here in the in the slide.

Jason Moon: And so sometime after that press conference, they got a tip from someone who said, well, I knew a Liz who went missing from Manchester during that same time period. Liz Lamotte And so I think initially the thinking was could Liz Lamotte be Elizabeth Evans? Once they listed her as a missing person, she her case was uploaded to name, which is sort of the national database of missing persons cases and unidentified bodies. Yeah. And some of Liz Lamotte's family members provided DNA to that database and they did find a match in Name US to a previously unidentified murder victim from Tennessee who was found on April 14th, 1985.

Taylor Quimby: Okay. So less than a year after she went missing in Manchester, New Hampshire, Elizabeth Lamotte's body is found in Tennessee, but then it was unidentified, just like the Bear Brook victims for over 30 years.

Jason Moon: Exactly. So this has been a Tennessee cold case that began in 1985.

Taylor Quimby: God.

Jason Moon: Murdered unidentified woman found along the side of a road. And when her body was found, it appears that it had only been there for maybe 2 to 3 weeks.

Taylor Quimby: How was she killed?

Jason Moon: Blunt force trauma to the head.

Taylor Quimby: Yeah, you can imagine that police would have right away been thinking, what if this is the mother of Rasmussen's daughter? The the the middle child found in the barrels?

Jason Moon: Oh, yeah. And that was basically my first question. When I called the AG's office last night, I spoke with Susan Morrell. She's now the chief of the Cold Case Unit.

Jason (Phone): Are we ruling out that this murder was could have been committed by Terry Rasmussen or is that still an open question?

Susan Morrell: Well, I don't think that there's any information that would connect the two. It just happened that the press conference about Terry Rasmussen and our requests for information about an Elizabeth Evans generated this tip.

Taylor Quimby: So law enforcement is confident that this is not another Rasmussen victim.

Jason Moon: Well, the big reason that it was probably not is the timeline just doesn't quite match up. So she went missing in 1984 from Manchester. According o what we know about Rasmussen's timeline. He was already in California by that time with Lisa. So he's already gone from New Hampshire when Liz Lamotte goes missing. And in terms of the connection to Elizabeth Evans, the evidence that she existed comes from 1980. So that's when the package was signed.

Taylor Quimby: I see. And at that point, Elizabeth Lamotte would have been like 13.

Jason Moon: Exactly. Yeah.

Taylor Quimby: Okay.

Jason (Phone): On the Lamotte case, is there any do we have any leads as to who was responsible for this? Or is that something that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is is going to be handling I assume?

Susan Morrell: Right, now that they have an identity for the victim. They will probably look at this case again and bring more energy and focus to it. They've sent out their own press release in Tennessee, and they're asking for the public's help if they have any information to let them know. And they would be the agency to investigate her death.

Jason (Phone): Okay.

Taylor Quimby: Well, we talked about in episode six how the genetic genealogy that was pioneered in the Bear Brook case. You know, it's had all these ripple effects on all these other cold cases. But it's not just the science, because this is an example of another ripple effect that that hasn't had anything to do with the work of Barbara Rae Venter, who we talk about extensively in the podcast. This is like just plain old tips coming in.

Jason Moon: Yeah, well, it's a ripple effect in terms of the interest that the case has generated. Folks looking into answers in this case have been turning over answers to other cases just through sheer coincidence, you know, sheer coincidence that Liz Lamotte went missing at a similar time frame as some of the other victims. And it's not the only other case that's been solved. There was a missing unidentified child abandoned at an airport that some people thought might have been somehow related to Terry Rasmussen in his trip across the country. Turns out that child abandoned at an airport was this other woman who was adopted after being found in Idaho. And, yeah, she you know, she learned her name basically through because of the interest in work by citizen sleuths, by Web sleuths on the Bear Brook case. So, yeah, here we are again with just like another ripple effect.

Taylor Quimby: Thanks, Jason, for letting us know what's going on.

Jason Moon: You bet.

Taylor Quimby: We'll continue to let you know what's happening in the Bear Brook case, either in the form of these breaking news updates or if there is ever a big enough break in the case, possibly with another full episode of Bear Brook, we really expect that is going to happen sometime in the near future. But, you know, nothing is confirmed yet. We're still waiting on details. And so we can't make any guarantees, but really do stay subscribed. We'll be back as soon as we've got something more to say. Thanks a lot.

Transcript of Episode 1: Hide and Seek

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text. Click here for the audio version of the episode.

You know those 80’s movies where a bunch of kids wander the neighborhood on bicycles and stumble into a mystery? This story starts kinda like that.

[J.Morgan] “Growing up, there was probably a good two-or-three-dozen kids that lived in the park and we just roamed the place like we owned the place.

That’s Jesse Morgan. In the movie version of this story, he’d probably be the leader of the group. The scrappy one. The Corey Feldman.

[J.Morgan] “The way that trailer parks work, I mean there’s a lot of people that come in and go out. I mean, I was one of the few kids that moved in when I was 2 and moved out when I was 18.”

In the summer of 1985 Jesse was 11 years old. It was the year the Nintendo came to North America. New Coke hit the shelves and Calvin & Hobbes started running in newspapers. That year Jesse and his friends came up with a game -- MUSIC OUT It was basically hide-and-seek, except the seeker rode around on a four-wheeler.

[J.Morgan] “All the kids would hide, and the last one that got found would be able to ride the four-wheeler. We played all summer long.”

The trailer park where Jesse grew up - it’s in a town so small that half of it’s Main St. is technically in another village. And right next to the trailer park - covering more than half the entire town - is fifteen square miles of tall red pines and swampy, tangled forest. Bear Brook State Park.

[J.Morgan] “We were able to roam because we weren’t in a city. My parents weren’t worried so much about me because they just figured I was over there or over there. You know, there was only many places to go when we were kids.”

One day, in the middle of this game, something strange happened.

Jesse was riding the four-wheeler. His friends, Scott and Keith, were supposed to be hiding. And then one of them gave himself away by yelling out.

[J.Morgan] “I believe it was Keith had said that he found  a barrel [mux start] that was just out in the woods, you know, there was a barrel out there. [mux start] And so the three of us got on the four-wheeler and I drove out to where the  barrel was.”

The barrel was a blue 55-gallon steel drum. It was covered up with a lid… but whoever closed it hadn’t gotten a tight seal. Something was squeezing through, underneath the top. It was a plastic bag.

[J.Morgan] “Scott and Keith both got off the four-wheeler. And Keith was like trying to pull the top of the barrel off. And when he got the edge of the tarp off, we got hit with, like, this smell of rotten milk.”

The kids weren’t really sure what to make of this. So, they did the only thing a group of 11 year old boys could think to do -- they kicked the barrel over.

[J.Morgan] “When we knocked the barrel over the top came open a little more. We didn’t see into it or anything, but we saw, like, something white was starting to drizzle out of the top of the barrel. And again, I’m thinking it is rotten milk.”

And then...they left. They rode away on the four-wheeler without ever looking inside the barrel.

[J.Morgan] “That was it. That was...we left.”

This…  is the moment where the story stops being like an 80s movie. Jesse and his friends walked away from the mystery.  Had they looked inside the barrel, what they would have found… were two bodies. Heavily decomposed, partially dismembered.

...

This moment in the woods is the first in a case where every convention about how true crime stories usually unfold is upended. Where everything about how a murder investigation is supposed to work, happens in reverse. Where each break in the case seems to raise more questions than it answers. It’s the first clue that this story is not going to go the way you think it is.


[Strelzin] “This is a guy who was able to pick his targets and get what he wanted. And that says that is someone of terrifying intelligence.”

This is the story of a serial killer police would come to know as the Chameleon.

[Elaine] “ I’m sure she fought... I have to believe that she fought.”

The story of victims. Some of them well-remembered, some of them nameless.

[Ronda] “What grandmother let this happen, or what neighbor, or what bus driver -- I mean, where were all of you?”

And it’s the story of a frustrating investigation that after decades of failure led to a forensic breakthrough that has forever changed the science of solving murders.

[Jensen] “I mean this is the biggest step forward for solving crimes since the discovery of DNA itself.”

This is Bear Brook. I’m Jason Moon.

*** Allenstown ***

I am not a crime reporter. Or I wasn’t, until I discovered this story.

I first learned about the Bear Brook murders in late 2015 when I was assigned to cover a press conference about the case. I had only been living in New Hampshire for about 6 months. I didn’t know anything about the case.

At the time I was more concerned with covering the New Hampshire presidential primary. The week before, I was being crushed by a throng of other reporters while trying to follow Hillary Clinton down a hallway.

Aside from the primary, New Hampshire is pretty quiet. There isn’t the same urgency to news that there is in other places. It’s the sort of state where a rogue bear can, and has, dominated a news cycle.

So when I learned that in 1985,  bodies were discovered only 20 minutes or so from the NHPR newsroom -- and that police still hadn’t identified them -- thirty years later-- it stuck with me. How is that possible? With all the DNA testing, and modern forensic techniques - how could they not even know who the victims are?

After the news conference, I filed a short story for the newsroom and went back to my usual beat. But I never forgot about the Bear Brook case… It became a kind of side project - something to look into when I wasn’t sitting at a town hall meeting, or covering the state legislature. And one of the first things I wanted to learn more about was the town where the bodies were found. The town where Jesse Morgan, who found the barrel as kid, grew up. A town with a population just shy of 4300. Allenstown, New Hampshire.

[A.Morgan] “We were only going to be there a few years, and then he started the business and then life went on and before you know it…”

That’s Jesse’s parents, Ann and Kevin Morgan. They moved to Allenstown in the 1970’s. Into a trailer park there called Bear Brook Gardens.

The Morgans have been married a long time. They’re not quite finishing each other’s sentences, but they do have a way of saying their own sentences at the same time.

[K.Morgan] “I mean the only secrets would be behind the walls of - in the homes. But you know, to socialize…”

[A.Morgan] “And you heard things...”

[K.Morgan] “...and we used to have neighborhood parties…”

[A.Morgan] “...you heard things...”

[K.Morgan] “...the neighborhood was always invited, and I would say we partied a little more than I would like my kids to.”

[A.Morgan] “...we um, we heard things that would go around the park.”

In Bear Brook Gardens, the Morgans were the center of gravity for the community. They threw the big barbecues, had all the neighborhood kids over for sleepovers.

[K.Morgan] “We were all just friends. And we helped each other. I can remember helping people cut wood. On a hard winter -- there were winters ten below up there, it was nothing in the winter. And none of the cars in the neighborhood would start. Except maybe one car and that one car would go around and start all our cars so we could get up and go to work. You know, we were all just young families, we didn’t have money [laughs].”

The Morgans don’t live in Allenstown anymore, but they remember it fondly. I think in their minds they picture it like a postcard of country living.

But that’s not exactly how everyone remembers it. Ron Montplaisir was a police officer in Allenstown for 23 years.

[Montplaisir] “It was [laughs] to describe it…on a warm Saturday afternoon, people would start drinking about ten o’clock in the morning.”

Ron wears a beanie. He’s got a big laugh that he covers with one hand.

After retiring in 2002 he opened a cleaning supply shop about 20 minutes from Allenstown. We spoke standing behind the counter of that shop, surrounded by vacuum cleaner parts and bottles of cleaning spray.

Montplaisir enjoys talking about his days on the force. He liked being a cop.

[Montplaisir] “I think every kid in the neighborhood either wanted to be a police officer or a firefighter.”

And he liked Allenstown -- even if wasn’t a model community.

[Montplaisir] “You talk about noise complaints, the country music was blaring [laughs]. Not that I don’t like country music. I do like country music. But as the alcohol flew, the music got louder and louder and the calls started to come in.”

When the calls did come in, Montplaisir answered many of them on his own. Back then, there was usually only one officer on patrol in Allenstown at any given time. One cop for 20 square miles.

[Montplaisir] “That’s a lot of area of patrolling and there’s only one patrolman on and it’s real, real hard to cover everything.”

That was particularly true when it came to the state park.

[MUX]

Bear Brook State Park. It covers more than half of Allenstown. The trailer park where Ann, Kevin, and Jesse Morgan lived hugs the Northern edge of the state park - If you walked out the Morgan’s back door in a straight line, it would be more than five miles before you saw another house.

It’s hard to capture just how dense and tangled the park is. There are some areas of Bear Brook that are easy to get to: a fly-fishing pond, an archery station, a spiderweb of mountain-biking trails. But most of the 15 square miles is thick and marshy. Aside from a couple of viewless hills, much of the park is flat -- so you never have a good idea where you are or where you’ve been. And it’s wild, even for New Hampshire. Officer Montplaisir says his old police chief used to take him out into the park, just for the fun of it.

[Montplaisir] “He used to take me to catch rattlesnakes, timber rattlesnakes. And I never believed that there were rattlesnakes in New Hampshire and sure enough he goes ‘come on we’re going to go catch some rattlesnakes’ and I’m like ‘we are?’ and sure as heck we come back with a couple of timber rattlers.” [fade under]

What he’s trying to say… is this place is big.

*** The Discovery ***

Officer Ron Montplaisir had been on the force in Allenstown for about 5 years, dealing mostly with drunk drivers, domestic disputes and noise complaints. Small town cop stuff. Until 1985.

[Montplaisir] “I was on duty. I was the officer that received the call.”

[JM] “Oh, so you were the first one –”

[Montplaisir] “I was the first one on the scene.”

The call was from a hunter. Montplaisir drove out to meet him at the edge of the woods.

[Montplaisir] “And I met him and he said ‘I think you need to go up on the hill and take a look in the barrel. I think there’s a body up there.’”

Montplaisir remembers that the hunter looked pale. He told him to stay behind with the squad car while he headed out into the woods alone.

[Montplaisir] “I...knowing the area, I knew that a lot of people disposed of their pets back there. Thinking nothing of it, eh it’s probably an animal. It was hunting season, somebody maybe had gotten a deer and brought the carcass out there…”

He struck out through the woods - first along a path, and then eventually bushwhacking a bit through the scrub.

[Montplaisir] “The barrel was on the ground. And there was a bag and when I opened the bag, the decomposed face was looking right at me…. I couldn’t believe that there was a decomposed body looking me right in the face. I can picture it right now. I can picture exactly what that face – how it looked…”

[silence in woods]

It was November, 1985. A few months after Jesse Morgan and his friends had kicked over the barrel. Now Officer Montplaisir was looking at that same barrel. But unlike the kids, he knew what was really inside.

[mux swell]

----[BREAK]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allenstown police officer Ron Montplaisir found himself alone in the woods, confronted by the face of the human remains he had just discovered. The weight of the situation started pressing down on him.

[Montplaisir] “You know this is major; this isn’t somebody parking in the fire lane. You got bodies, you got people.”

Ron says his training from the police academy suddenly kicked in. He knew what to do.

[Montplaisir] “I’m like secure the area.”

He began staking out the perimeter of a crime scene. But aside from the barrell, there wasn’t much else to see. Trees. And how exactly do you stake out a perimeter in a forest this big? How far do you stretch the police tape?  Montplaisir radioed for backup. He was the only patrolman on duty, so Allenstown officers must’ve been called in from their homes… And even then the cops turned to local residents for help.

[K.Morgan] “I think I was still in bed. And I heard a knock on the door and it was the police, and he said: Kevin ‘we need to deputize you to keep the press out. And he told me that they found bodies up at the pit.”

As Kevin Morgan put on his boots to go help the police, his wife Ann was suddenly reminded of something their son Jesse had told her a few months earlier -- about a game of hide-and-seek and a barrel they had found in the woods.

[A.Morgan] “It just came to me, you know: ‘the smell,’ ‘it came out like milk,’ he said.

How long was the barrel lying there? How many times had people walked right by… never realizing what was out there?

[A.Morgan] “And I just knew that, that was the one.”

*** The Early Investigation ***

The barrel contained two bodies. One was a woman, the other a young girl. Investigators haven’t released photos of the remains, so I haven’t seen them. The details they have released, though, are grim. The remains were almost entirely skeletal, they were nude, they were dismembered - apparently to fit inside the barrel, and they were wrapped in plastic tied together with electrical wire.

Their skulls revealed that they were both killed by blows to the head with a blunt instrument.

Based on the level of decomposition, investigators guessed the bodies had been in the barrel for anywhere from several months to a few years.

...

Investigators often say that in a missing persons case, the first 48 hours are the most important. That’s because if you don’t find the person by then, your odds of ever finding them are really small.

In a murder case, the first priority is to identify the victims. Most victims know their killers. But to know who the victim knew, you have to know who the victim is. And just like in a missing persons case, if investigators don’t get this part figured out, their odds of success are really small.

New Hampshire state police took the lead in the Bear Brook investigation. And they immediately began by trying to ID the victims. Their working theory was that, given their ages, the victims were likely a mother and daughter. So they start searching for missing persons report that matched.

Meanwhile, the Allenstown PD started canvassing the town. Montplaisir says that’s usually how crimes in Allenstown were solved. With all those neighborhood barbeques, not to mention all the drinking, gossip had a way of getting around. And he had his ways of getting it out of people.

[Montplaisir] “We used to call it ‘let’s go fishing’. You know, you make a motor vehicle stop and you knew somebody that may know some information about a crime. And my line was ‘you know any good fishing spots?’ And they knew what I was talking about – we weren’t actually going fishing. But that meant the difference between, back in those days, between receiving a warning and receiving a summons, or just helping me out. And there was always somebody who knew a good fishing spot -- always.”

Whether it was a murder or a petty theft, this is how policework went in Allenstown in 1985. No high-tech forensics team. No criminal psychologists coming up with a suspect profile. Just a few patrol officers like Montplaisir rattling the bushes, hoping something would fall out. Only, nothing did.

[Montplaisir] “And that was the first thing that threw me off. It was strange, because everybody knew everything over there.”

Meanwhile, state police were having their own issues. They couldn’t find any reports of a missing mother and daughter. Not in New Hampshire, not in neighboring states, not anywhere. Whoever these people were, it seemed no one was looking for them.

As the months started to roll by, police tried lots of ways to get any sort of a foothold in the case. They checked the records of every elementary school in the state for some trace of the child victim. They examined five years of campground records at Bear Brook State Park. They sent out nationwide bulletins to law enforcement agencies with descriptions of the victims. They looked for matches to the adult victim in FBI databases of dental records. None of it worked.

One corporal in the New Hampshire state police called it the most frustrating case of his life.

In 1986, several months after the barrel was discovered, composite sketches of the victims were made. The artist didn’t have a lot to go on -- just their hair and bone structure, so there was a lot of room for interpretation.

However inaccurate they may be, the sketches do manage to give the victims some measure of identity. Since no one knew what they looked like in life, seeing the drawings was kind of like seeing them for the first time.

The adult victim looks tired. Her face is long, her cheeks a little gaunt. A shadow falls across her face. Detectives estimated she was in her mid-to-late twenties when she died. She was between 5-foot-2 and 5-foot-8. She had wavy light brown hair.

The girl is drawn in profile. She has a small upturned nose. She wears a ponytail of dirty blond hair with bangs swept across her forehead. Detectives think she was somewhere around 9 or 10 years old when she was murdered.

When these sketches were released, calls started coming in. Investigators thought they might have something. But none of the tips panned out.

Back in Allenstown, all anybody could do was speculate. Theories about the victims and who killed them were all over the place, ranging from organized crime to runaways and  carnival workers. Everyone had a guess.

[J.Morgan] “I can’t see them not being local. It could’ve been someone that lived up the street from me.”

[K.Morgan] “I always had it in my mind that it was a trucker living a double life.”

[Montplaisir] “Pure speculation, I mean I’m playing the Ouija board but it’s my gut feeling, you’re gonna find that within a 200, 250 mile radius of New Hampshire and I would say South.”

As the months turned to years, investigators started to run out of ideas. To some, it seemed their best hope was to simply wait for the killer, or someone who knew them, to come forward on their own.

In 1987, less than two years after the barrel was found, state police decided to release the victim’s bodies so they could be buried.

Officer Ron Montplaisir’s chief --the one who had shown him the rattlesnakes in the state park-- organized the funeral. He told a local reporter at the time, “just because we don’t know their names doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the same respect we do.”

Parishioners of St. Jean the Baptiste Church in Allenstown pooled their money and paid for a gravesite at the church cemetery. A Catholic priest and a Methodist minister led a burial ceremony where the bodies were laid to rest in a single steel casket. Just a handful of town officials and reporters were there to see it.

[Montplaisir] “Every time I used to patrol and go by that tombstone, the wheels kept turning… Was I on patrol that night when these bodies were dumped? And all the officers would think that – when did this happen? How did I miss this? You start second-guessing yourself.”

Burying the bodies seemed like the right thing to do, especially given that two years in, the case was going nowhere. But it also must have seemed like law enforcement had given up hope.

[A.Morgan] “I was disappointed. All of the sudden, the next thing I know, the town is getting together to put a headstone on these bodies. And – what the hell? Who are these people?”

For years, Jesse Morgan’s parents kept the sketches of the victims pinned to their fridge. Like a lot of people in Allenstown, they’d always thought of their town as a good place. Now they struggled to reconcile that idea with what happened.

[A.Morgan] “It was like two worlds. Like there was this evil world going on that we had no idea about and there was this good wholesome world that was going on with the families and the children.”

For Jesse Morgan, who, as a kid stumbled across the bodies without really knowing it -- the episode changed the woods of his childhood forever.

[J.Morgan] “I do remember going out myself, like on rainy days and walking around like out there, out where we never went, to see if I could find something. You know, like, is there more?”

Turns out. There was.

*** A Second  Discovery ***

[music fade out]

In 2000, John Cody was a detective in the state police’s major crime unit. The unit handles most of the homicides in New Hampshire and Cody had worked a long time to make it there.

By that time, 15 years had passed since the barrel in Allenstown was discovered, and that mystery was just one on a long list of the state’s unsolved cases.

The way those cold cases were handled back then was pretty informal.

[Cody] “Basically what used to happen is, when you got assigned to the Major Crime Unit you would get assigned one or two or sometimes three cold cases. And when I picked up the Allenstown case, I didn’t know anything about this case.”

Cody was expected to work on the case, basically in his free time, whenever he wasn’t working an active case.

But Cody says the details of the Bear Brook murders just kept gnawing at him.

[Cody] “It’s the type of case where you start reading it – you know it’s sort of like getting into an engrossing book. You start to read the first chapter and you just want to go on to the second, which makes you go on to the third, etcetera.”

Cody decided to get a look at the evidence in person. He went to the evidence storage area, where he saw the blue barrel, the plastic, and the electrical wire. Clues that had been sitting idle for 15 years.

[Cody] “I’m a very visual person. So I decided one day, it was actually a Friday, I said I’m going to go out, I’m going to go see the area and try to get an idea of what it is I’m looking at through words.”

Cody drove out to Allenstown and walked into the woods. He brought the case file with him as a sort of map. First, he tried to find the area where Jesse Morgan and his friends had first found the barrel as kids.

He pictured the kids on the four-wheeler. The barrel in the brush.

[Cody] “I was walking through that and I had been out there for quite a while and then I kinda just widened my area a little bit. Almost like throwing a rock into a pond, you have those concentric rings that come out.”

Cody ventured further and further from the spot where the barrel was found. His eyes scanning the forest floor for anything that didn’t belong.

It was getting late in the afternoon, the sun was sinking behind the hills. The canopy of trees overhead in Bear Brook State Park made it even darker. Cody was thinking about how he might need to go back out to his car for his flashlight.

[Cody] “And that’s when I came across the barrel.”

A barrel was on its side next to a small boulder in some brush. Cody recognized it right away. He had been looking at barrel just like it in evidence storage a few days before. Dark blue. Fifty-five gallons.

Cody decided now was a good time to get the flashlight after all. He made his way back out to the edge of the woods, his mind racing the whole time.

[Cody] “You know, I think I was trying to talk myself out of it the whole way to the car, going ‘this is definitely not what I think it is.’”

When Cody returned with his flashlight, he shined it inside the barrel. All he could see was some kind of plastic.

[Cody] “I tore the plastic away and there was something white that was shining toward me – you know it kind of sticks out with the dark background, and when I looked at it I said this does not look good.”

It was a stunning discovery. One that raised a whole new set of questions -- some of them uncomfortable for police.

John Cody was standing just 300 feet from where the first barrel was found, a full fifteen years before.

Inside the second barrel were two more bodies.

Coming up on Bear Brook:

[TQ] “When you hear the phrase ‘a stone’s throw away,’ this is what they’re talking about.

[K.Morgan] “Why wasn’t that barrel found?”

[A.Morgan] “We don’t know.”

[K.Morgan] “I don’t under- to me that’s…

[A.Morgan] “It’s crazy.”

[Agait] “I want to thank everybody for coming today. We have some new testing results that we want to share with basically the world.”

[Ramos] “I opened the door and saw his face. I had a chill run down my back that I’ve never in my life ever had before.”

[Gruenheid] “Sometimes it’s that dumb luck that you just come across something and it just opens a door for you. And once you open the door it’s like ‘ahh’ the lights come on and you can see everything, you know what I mean? The jigsaw puzzle comes together.”

END OF EPISODE

To support this podcast, donate $20 bucks at bearbrookpodcast.org.  That’ll help us make more podcasts like Bear Brook. In return, we’ll give you access to each episode a week early… ad-free. Episode 2 is available now. All you’ve got to do is go to bearbrookpodcast.org - or click on the link in the show notes, and donate $20 bucks. Thanks.


Bear Brook is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

Taylor Quimby is Senior Producer.

Editing help from Cori Princell, Todd Bookman, Lauren Chooljian, Sam Evans-Brown, Britta Green & Annie Ropeik.

The Executive Producer is Erika Janik.

Dan Barrick is NHPR’s News Director.

Director of Content is Maureen McMurray.

NHPR’s Digital Director is Rebecca Lavoie.

Photography and Video by Allie Gutierrez.

Graphics and interactives by Sara Plourde.

Original music for this show was composed by me, Jason Moon, and Taylor Quimby.

Additional music in this episode from Blue Dot Sessions, and Simple Minds.

To see a timeline of the Bear Brook investigation from 1985 until 2015 … go to our website: bear brook podcast dot org.

Bear Brook is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.


Transcript of Episode 2: Known Only To God

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text. Click here for the audio version of the episode.

[PREVIOUSLY ON BEAR BROOK]

[Jessie] I believe it was Keith said he found a barrel out in the woods. You know there was a barrel out there.

[Montplaisir] The barrel was on the ground, and there was a bag. And when I opened the bag, there was a face, a decomposed face looking right at me.

[Morgans] The next time the town is getting together to put a headstone on these bodies. Who are these people?

[John Cody] When I picked up the Allenstown case, I was trying to almost walk through their footsteps. That’s when I came across the barrel. When I looked at it, I said this does not look good.

*** Two Barrels, Fifteen Years ***

[cue mux]

For fifteen years, the second barrel was sitting just 300 feet away from where the first barrel was found in the woods of Allenstown, New Hampshire.

It was 300 feet away when the Morgan’s son, Jesse, and his friends pushed over the first barrel in the summer of 1985. It was there later that year when a hunter saw the bodies and called the police. It was there, 100 yards away, as detectives searched in vain for clues about the first two victims.

And it was there when the detectives left. When the case went cold and people started to forget. It sat there, as Jesse Morgan grew up and left the trailer park for college. As Ron Montplaisir, the officer who first found the barrel, neared his retirement. It sat there through fifteen New Hampshire winters, the blue paint slowly turning brown with rust.

It sat there until state trooper John Cody … spotted it late one spring afternoon, as dusk was settling in.

[Cody] “One thing I remember very clearly is thinking -- the first thing going through my mind is do we have dump site here? Is somebody using this area to dump the bodies of people they’ve killed. And I was kind of like, ‘no this is New Hampshire we don’t expect this stuff.’”

For people like Anne and Kevin Morgan, who lived on the edge of the park, it was startling to think that police had missed something so important.

[A.Morgan] “I could not believe it had been there that long. I was mortified that it had been there that long. Within...you know, you could probably see it from the first barrel.”

[K.Morgan] “What does that tell you about the investigation. It says something about the investigation. There basically was none.”

[A.Morgan] “Fifteen years. Fifteen years.”

[K.Morgan] Why wasn’t that barrel found?

This is Bear Brook, I’m Jason Moon.

[mux swell and fade]

Before we talk about what happened after the 2nd set of bodies was found, we’re going to spend some time trying to answer that uncomfortable question: Why did it take so long to find?

The second barrel has always been an awkward topic for police in New Hampshire. They know the fact that it took them 15 years to find it doesn’t look good.

Here’s Ron Montplaisir, the officer who found the first barrel in 1985

[Montplaisir] “Kind of… kind of slapped myself saying, wow, why didn’t we do a bigger perimeter but we were just focused on that first barrel.  You have to understand that this is a wooded area, this is a very thick forest and there was a lot of clutter and it was like looking for a needle in a haystack, you know, who would think? You know?”

In case you’re wondering, investigators today are confident both barrels were there in 1985.

But it’s not just Montplaisir who argues that finding the second barrel was easier said than done. Authorities at the state-level who are in charge of the case today will say pretty much the same thing. This came up at a press conference a few years ago, when a reporter with the state’s largest newspaper put the question to Benjamin Agati, a prosecutor with the New Hampshire attorney general’s office.

[Hayward] “It took 15 years to find the second oil drum.”

[Agati] “Mhmm.”

[Hayward] “Um… What happened there? It was only 300 feet away. Was it buried? Was it hidden? Or was it just overlooked? It doesn’t seem like it was that far away.”

[Agati] “Well, I think if we were talking about an area that had more of, let’s say bike trails, where it was more marked, then I could certainly see your point on that. But it was 300 feet away... We’re also talking about an area that’s just heavily wooded. So quite frankly, finding that barrel sooner would change the information that we have to present today.

So either the barrel was only 300 feet away, or it was 300 feet away. As you can hear, your opinion on this is open to interpretation.

[JM] “Ok, so you’re barrel one.

[TQ] “Ok, I’m barrel one.

[JM] “And you’re found…]

So, colleague Taylor Quimby and I went to a local high school football field to get a better idea exactly how far 300 feet really is. He stood at one goal line, while I walked across the field to the other.

[JM] “ Can you hear me!?”

[TQ] “Just barely!”

[JM] “Just barely.”

[TQ] “Well I can definitely see you.”

[JM] “On the other hand you can see me, that’s true.”

At this point, 300 feet was feeling like an absurdly short distance for someone to have missed the second barrel.

But of course, the barrels weren’t found in an open field with clear lines of sight, they were found in the woods.

[TQ] “This will be a good test because we’re both wearing brightly colored flannel.”

I paced out the same number of steps in some woods near the field, with Taylor again staying behind to mark the location of the first barrel.

[JM] “Ok. One, two, three, four... ninety-eight. Ok, turning around and I cannot see Taylor at all.”

In the woods, with trees and brush and boulders in between, 300 feet seemed to mean something different than it did on the football field.

[TQ] “Shout if you see me moving!”

Even when we tried to find our way back to each other, it took a while to figure just where that was.

[JM] “I’m at the top of the hill now, can you see me!?”

[TQ] “I’m not sure! … I can’t see you. Can you see me?

[JM] “Nope!”

[TQ] “ Where the hell are you? I thought your shirt would -- ope, there you are.”

[JM] “In terms of like, how far would I search? -- I’m now thinking that I would never go that far. Like, if I take that distance and then imagine the radius, circling it around in every direction from the crime scene -- that’s huge.”

[TQ] “Well you can’t do it one person.”

[JM] “That’s true. There’s a lot of -- or in theory there should have been lots of people.”

[TQ] “Cause I disagree. I would like to think that if you found two bodies in a barrel, anywhere, you would do at least that much. But I’m picturing a team of people and maybe some dogs. Like I’m picturing this prison break scene where you got a whole bunch of people combing through fields and forests and what have you.”

So it’s definitely much harder to find something 300 feet away in the woods, even when that thing is shouting at you.

But clearly the barrel wasn’t impossible to find. And in the end it was a single investigator -on his first trip to the crime scene- who found it.

Which brings us back to the same question: why didn’t they find it in 1985 with the other barrel? Why weren’t there large teams of investigators walking shoulder-to-shoulder through the woods after the first barrel was found? Why wasn’t it more like that prison break scene Taylor was imagining?

One explanation - maybe you’d call it an excuse - is that the Allenstown PD was just a small town police force -- with few officers and few resources. Remember, they were deputizing local residents just to secure the area.

But then, state police didn’t find it either. And they were the ones ultimately in charge of the investigation.

In either case, there’s a big reason why investigators may have felt in over their heads: just before the first bodies were found in Bear Brook, there was another murder just a few miles away.

[Mux swell]

[JM] Where do we start?

[Flynn}

Kevin Flynn is a true crime author and a longtime reporter in New Hampshire.

[Flynn] “Danny Paquette was a welder who lived in Hooksett, New Hampshire. He was working in his backyard welding a bulldozer and two of his friends were in his garage, repairing and restoring a car. And they heard a noise.”

[Flynn] “They came out and found Danny lying on the ground. They thought that he had electrocuted himself with the arc welder. But he was bleeding from the chest.”

Danny Paquette had been shot and killed. It wasn’t exactly clear from where or by whom, but the only explanation seemed to be that the bullet came from the woods near his house.

When state police first arrived at the scene, they wondered if Danny Paquette had died in a hunting accident. But they couldn’t be sure, so a homicide investigation was opened. That was Saturday. On Sunday, the first barrel in the Bear Brook case was discovered.

[mux swell then fade]

New Hampshire averages only about 15 murders a year, so starting two cases on the same weekend put a real strain on state police. Some of the detectives who started on the Paquette case were called off the next day to go work the Bear Brook murders.

It was the beginning of two parallel investigations. Two separate mysteries that would end up influencing each other for decades to come.

In Allenstown, officers began by interviewing people in town. But no one seemed to know anything.

In Hooksett, people seemed to know a lot. Investigators quickly realized that if Danny Paquette’s death was a homicide, there would be no shortage of plausible suspects.

[Flynn] “Danny was a really interesting character because there were a lot of folks who had reason to want to hurt him. He was a ladies man. He had a black book that will filled with the names of girlfriends and wives of people in town.”

On the Bear Brook case, detectives were going through stacks of missing persons reports, still just trying to identify the victims.

On the Paquette case, police had the victim’s ID and a half a dozen people who might have a grudge against him. They had plausible theories and potential evidence. Lots of potential evidence.

[Flynn] “One of the weirdest details in their investigation was they had found out that somebody had been in hot air balloon and was videotaping the scenery and went right over Danny’s house about the time of the shooting...I saw the videotape, there’s nothing on it, but it’s just like: could this get any weirder?”

The hot air balloon camcorder tape would turn out to be a giant waste of time. But at least in the Paquette case, there was stuff like this to sift through. It had momentum -- where the Bear Brook investigation was spinning its wheels. So maybe it makes sense then that, according to Flynn, the Paquette investigation ended up receiving more attention from state police.

[Flynn] “Probably the best detective of that era on the state police was a guy by the name of Roland Lammy and he was on this case along with John Barthelmes, who is the current commissioner of safety and a former colonel in the New Hampshire state police. Those were the two sharpest guys they had and they were over in Hooksett, they weren’t over in Allenstown.”

Meanwhile the two cases weren’t just dividing the attention of state police, they were also creating false leads for each other.

[Flynn] “There aren’t so many homicides in New Hampshire. And when you have two on the same weekend, a relatively short distance apart, you gotta at least think, could this somehow have one thing to do with the other?”

It wasn’t a totally crazy idea. A mysterious shooting and discovering two bodies in a blue barrel on the same weekend only a few miles apart -- it was a coincidence that couldn't be ignored.

But in the end it was just a coincidence -- and another dead end that detectives found themselves in.

Eventually, after enough of these dead ends, both cases ground to a halt. In the Bear Brook investigation, detectives felt there was nothing else they could try. In the Paquette case, investigators just decided their initial hunch was right: it was a hunting accident. No arrests. Just a stray bullet. Case closed.

For months, the Bear Brook and Paquette investigations had fought over resources. And who knows how things might have gone differently if that hadn’t been the case. But ironically, the same case that distracted investigators from Bear Brook, would later give them hope that it could be solved. That’s because in 1999, 14 years later, the Paquette investigation was reopened. It wasn’t a hunting accident, after all. Danny Paquette was murdered.

The case was solved by a private investigator. He had been hired by the Hooksett police chief, who didn’t have the manpower to assign one of his own detectives to work a cold case full time.

That private investigator found a hole in the alibi of Danny Paquette’s teenage step-daughter and a friend of hers from school. That revelation ultimately led to a confession - and a conviction.

[Flynn] “The Paquette case was sort of a proof of concept that if you took any personnel and just put them on these kinds of cases, kept them away from the urgent, breaking, rush-to-the-scene-with-the-sirens-blazing kind of stuff, that they can go back and look at inconsistencies or find parallels -- that they could do that. There was always sort of the will to do it, and I think that after the Paquette case, there was really a feeling that, you know this could be done -- if the resources were set aside.”

[JM] “Is this the biggest, most famous cold case in New Hampshire, the Paquette case?”

[Flynn] “I think up until yours.”

...

---- [BREAK] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before I started reporting this story, it had never occured to me just how hard it is to solve a murder when you don’t know who the victim is.

That might sound obvious. But I think it’s easy to underestimate just how much of a hurdle it is to finding a suspect. When you don’t know the victim, there’s no motive. There are no neighbors to talk to. No friends or enemies, no disgruntled exes.

There’s a line from a local news article written about the Bear Brook case that reads: ‘police hope to solve the mystery in three steps: learn where they’re from, discover who they are, then find the killer.’

When state trooper John Cody found the second barrel in 2000, police were 15 years into the case, and still very much at step one.

[Cody] I ended up seeing this plastic, and I peeled it back, and I saw what appeared to me to be a bone, and of course you’re trying to talk yourself out of it, saying there’s no way this is happening.

On that day, after he peered into the second barrel with his flashlight, Cody immediately called his superiors. At first, they didn’t really believe him.

[Cody] “You know I think it was one of those things where they figured they’ll come out, they’ll take a look, they know it’s not what I thought it was and they’ll be on their way home. But it just didn’t turn out like that.”

Instead, officers found the remains of two young girls in the second barrel. One was about three years old, the other only about two. The remains were skeletal and wrapped in some sort of plastic. Like the other victims they were killed by blunt force trauma to the head.

This put the total number of victims in the Bear Brook case to four: a woman and three kids. Their estimated ages: late 20’s for the adult, nine for the oldest child, three for the middle child, and two for the youngest child. The adult and the oldest child were found in the first barrel. The two youngest in the second barrel.

[Cody] We’re talking about, how does… an entire family… go missing?

Several years later, DNA testing of the remains would sketch the rough outline of a family. The results showed the adult female is maternally related to the oldest and youngest children. Most likely their mother, though it’s possible she is a cousin or a sister.

But interestingly, those DNA tests showed no relationship between the middle child and any of the other victims. Investigators have speculated that she might have been a step-child or an adoption.

Back in 2000, after state trooper John Cody discovered the second barrel, he and other investigators went back over everything they knew about the case.

They re-interviewed people in town, entertained new theories, and searched again through national databases of missing persons.

Investigators hoped the second barrel would be the key. That one of the new victims would be matched to a missing persons report -- an identity, then a timeline, a list of possible suspects, finally a motive. They hoped it would become like a normal homicide investigation.

Instead it was a tedious case of deja-vu. Investigators in 2000 combed through the same information as detectives in 1985 had, with the same disappointing results.

[Cody] “Couple little specks here and there, which would lead to a couple of other things but it was sorta like getting lost in the city and you take a right, you take a left and you end up on dead end streets or alleyways at every turn and that’s pretty much where this case goes.”

[JM] “Did you guys ever get as far as to have any suspects?”

“No. Not even close.”

As important as Cody’s discovery of the second barrel was, in the end it did little to move the case forward. If anything, it was like the case was moving backwards -- getting worse as time went on. In 1985 there were two bodies in a barrel and no leads. Fifteen years later, all investigators had to show for their efforts were four bodies in two barrels with no leads.

But that didn’t mean that people gave up on the case. In fact the daunting nature of the challenge even attracted new people. While the official investigation into the Bear Brook murders remained pretty much static, an amateur investigator named Ronda Randall picked up the case.

[RR] “Certainly there’s a lot of people looking for people in this country, for some reason or another.

Ronda is someone who knows how to find someone. By day, she’s a social worker. In the rest of her time she’s a genealogist, who specializes in adoption searches -- reuniting adopted people with their biological parents.

[Randall] “In the 80’s when I first started doing it, I didn’t have a personal computer at home. It was a lot of phone calls. I mean there was a time when my phone bill for a month ran at about $1,100 and my husband was like, ‘I don’t know about this hobby.’”

I first met Ronda through her blog, Oakhill Research. It chronicles the history of the Bear Book murders and her own efforts, since 2011, to identify the victims.

I should mention two things here...First, Ronda isn’t really the true-crime type. She wasn’t interested in criminology before this case. She wasn’t binge watching episodes of Forensic Files. In fact, she doesn’t really watch TV. Second, she grew up in New Hampshire but didn’t hear about the murders until later in life -- after she had moved to a town in Maine, about 2 hours from Allenstown. She says she really only became interested in the Bear Brook case after the internet came around and online messaging boards starting making adoption searches too easy.

[Randall] “I think right around the time my kids left home I was looking for something a little different but still in a genealogy and research world and had come across the story of the Allenstown victims and being unfamiliar with it and a genealogist I thought, ‘surely we can turn up some identities for these folks,’ and that’s really where it began.”

Later, Ronda would tell me she had a two-year-old niece who died of leukemia not long before she started on the Bear Brook case. Now she wonders if that may have had something to do with how she felt on that first visit to Bear Brook.

[Randall] “I just thought of the process that our family went through in fighting to keep her alive and then grieving her death and then to think of a little child about her age who nobody seems to be coming forward for. And you know, I’ve looked back sometimes and wondered if the case struck me so hard because I saw those little unidentified children and felt like, ‘who is mourning for them?’”

The way Ronda looked at it, this wouldn’t be all that different from an adoption search. Over the years Ronda says she has identified upwards of 150 people using public records, a phone, and a lot of hard work. In this case, the only difference was that the people she wanted to identity were murder victims.

So, Ronda got to work. I don’t think Ronda would disagree if I said she can get a little obsessive about her research projects. The first time we spoke on the phone she told me she’s just well suited for it. She doesn’t mind doing the kind of grinding, monotonous research that most people hate.

[Randall_sync] “One time I went to the New Hampshire state library and I read the Concord 1984 phonebook. Every name, every page. It took me 14 hours. It took 2 days. And I was motion sick by the end of every day. Like, severely motion sick.”

[Randall_sync] “I’ve been called, whether it’s a compliment or not, a pitbull. [laughs]. I tend to be tenacious. I sink my teeth in something and I don’t let go.”

Ronda began her research on the Bear Brook case with her usual level of dogged interest. But it became something more than just a research project in the summer of 2011. That’s when she decided that she needed to see the area where the barrels were found in person.

[Randall_sync] “I enlisted one of my brothers, Scott Maxwell to accompany me. And we kind of just figured we’d go out to the area and talk to some neighbors and just learn a little bit more about it. But it was that trip that day out there that kind of sparked an obsessive interest in the research on this case.”

[walking in woods]

I wanted to see what Ronda and her brother Scott saw that day went they first visited the crime scene. So one day, we parked on the shoulder of a winding road in Allenstown and then set off into the woods.

[JM] “It’s beautiful out here.”

[Ronda] “It really is. It’s kind of an interesting juxtaposition of a terribly morbid event in a beautiful setting.”

It was December 2015 and I can remember my hand was freezing from holding the mic. But I was also riveted. It was my first trip out here, just a few weeks after I first learned about the case.

[Randall] “The first time I came I think it just had a really profound impact on me. There was kind of a hush out here and I felt...like there was a spirit, kind of a sacred feel to where they were found.”

[walking ambi underneath]

Ronda and Scott led me down a snowmobile trail toward the site of the first barrel. They had pieced together the approximate location based on interviews with retired Allenstown cops like Ron Montplaisir and his former chief, as well as residents of the trailer park like Kevin Morgan who was deputized to keep the press away from the site.

The snowmobile trail led down a slight incline. All around us the forest floor was covered in thick a blanket of leaves. Only a few boulders peaked through here and there.

Then, suddenly, we had arrived.

[Randall] “And by all accounts it was about 20 feet off to the left from this area.”

I was struck by just how quickly we reached the spot. We had set out from the side of a road along the northern edge of the state park. From there it had taken us less than five minutes to reach the site of the first barrel. Bear Brook State Park may be vast and unknowable, but from where the first barrel was found, you can look back toward the road, and catch glimpses of passing cars.

On top of that, I learn, we’re not even technically in Bear Brook State Park. The victims in the case commonly known as the Bear Brook murders weren’t actually found in Bear Brook State Park. They were found on a narrow lot of private property that sits in between the trailer park and the state park.

The lot is small -- not even a tenth of a square mile. On a map, it looks like a little rectangular bite taken out of the top of Bear Brook State Park.

The private lot is owned by a guy named Ed Gallagher. In the early 1980s, he also owned and ran a small camp store on the property. It was called the Bear Brook Store. People camping in Bear Brook State Park could stop in for a couple bags of ice or a case of beer. And people who lived in the nearby trailer park could walk here for a gallon of milk.

[Randall] “So right over there, this dip is where the foundation of the store was…”

The Bear Brook store burned down in 1983, just two years before the first barrel was found. Today, there’s almost no sign of the old store unless you know what to look for. A foundation that’s mostly overgrown. An old disconnected power pole standing in the woods.

Ronda’s brother Scott says the fact that the barrels were found so near the site of the former store, on private property, was one of the things that caught his interest on that first trip out here.

[Scott] “You’ve got hundreds of acres of state park and old logging roads that go in, and why you would choose to come in past a burned out building, so close to a trailer park when you had all that area where -- no fear of anybody seeing you.”

It changed how I thought about the case, too. Before, in the version of the story where the barrels were found deep in the forest, the mystery of the Bear Brook murders seemed impenetrable… like a maze. Standing in the spot where the bodies were actually found, in this place where people used to come and go, I found myself thinking… there must be something that someone remembers, even if they don’t realize it. A name, or a face, or a family that came through the park years ago - some clue that could begin to unravel the case after all these years.

On their first trip here in 2011, Scott and Ronda also knocked on a few doors in the Bear Brook Gardens trailer park and found another surprising detail. Many people who had vivid memories of when the first barrel was found told them they had never even heard about the second barrel.

[Randall] “There were times when I almost felt like we were arguing with people, ‘no really, there were a second set of bodies found.’ And they’d be like, ‘well I’ve lived here 32 years, I think I’d know.’”

They figured that if there were longtime residents of the trailer park who had never even been told about the second barrel, maybe someone who used to live there knew something and just hadn’t been asked the right question.

So Ronda and Scott decided to embark on a massive project: to track down every single person who lived in the Bear Brook Gardens trailer park from 1977 to 1985.

A few weeks after we visited the area where the barrels were found, I took a trip up to Ronda’s home in Maine, about 2 hours northeast of Bear Brook. I wanted to get a better sense of the scale of their project and what they’d been able to find. It didn’t take long to see they had collected an overwhelming amount of information about the case.

[Randall_home] “Because we never knew where it would go, we were never prepared for what happens when you have 5,000 pages of interviews and information and how best to organize it. That’s still a work in progress.”

Hanging on the wall in the dining room of Ronda’s home, is a huge aerial photo of the Bear Brook Gardens trailer park. It’s the sort of thing you’d expect to see in an episode of a police procedural…like those cork boards with strands of yarn connecting all the evidence. The photo is maybe 6 feet across and 4 feet high. It’s black and white, taken sometime in the late 80s. In the photo you can make out each lot in the trailer park -- Ronda and Scott have them labeled with the names of the families and the years that they lived there.

[Randall_home] “You know, lot 27, which became lot 27 Edgewood, we found that in 1979 a George Moore lived there, 1980 Patrick and Alice Moore, and so forth and so we would plug them in for the years we knew they lived there.”

I like to imagine Ronda staring at the map over her breakfast, or maybe pacing in front of it after dark. The excitement of discovering another name, of coming that much closer to tracking them all down.

But Ronda and Scott have been more than armchair investigators on this case. They’ve done a lot of hands on detective work, too -- something police generally discourage.

When it comes to Ronda and Scott and the New Hampshire state police, they actually enjoy a pretty good relationship. I think detectives figured out early on they wouldn’t be able to talk Ronda out of researching the case. And for their part, Ronda and Scott, generally share whatever they find with state police: transcripts of phone calls, photos from the area where the bodies were found. More than a few times, state police have followed up on information they provided.

Over the past 7 years since their first trip to Allenstown, Scott and Ronda’s work on the case has taken many shapes.

When they learned motorcycle gangs were active in the trailer park during the 80s Ronda and Scott passed out flyers with info on the victims at the Laconia Bike Week, an annual event where hundreds of thousands bikers from around the country meet in New Hampshire.

There was the time they flew down to Florida to interview the retired Allenstown Police Chief who told them he never stopped thinking about the case.

They’ve made a number of trips back out to Allenstown, following up on things they’d heard from the former trailer park residents they were tracking down. Ronda shows me a plastic ziplock bag with something she found on one of those trips: a child’s white shoe.

[Randall_home] “You know, just in the leaves and dirt under a tree we see this shoe, an old school little child’s shoe. And I’m sure it couldn’t have lasted for 30 years out there probably, even though it is quite worn. But it still just, it was really ominous to see it. I picked it up and put it in a bag and brought it home and you know I sometimes wonder what it’s story is.”

I’d like to tell you that one of these trips led somewhere. I’d like to tell you that this shoe was the missing key that investigators needed. That it had a worn initial on the inside of the tongue, some small detail that would lead them to ID the Bear Brook victims. Of course that wasn’t the case. Ronda and Scott gathered more information, but it was never the information they needed. The shoe wasn’t even found near where the barrels were. More than anything, it was a symbol of what drove Ronda. Still, she sent photos of the shoe to state police. It’s just the sort of thing she would do. Just in case.

...

All their time spent working on this has changed both Ronda and Scott’s lives.

[Randall_home] “This is my brother, who I probably spoke to once a year on the phone, prior to this, and now sometimes I speak to him like seven times a day.”

If you haven’t noticed, Scott doesn’t talk as much as Ronda. It’s just one of the ways they  seem to balance each other out -- Ronda is always ready to dive in, while Scott is more measured. And somehow those contrasts seem to add to the bond they’ve formed over the case. A bond that can be hard for others to understand.

[Randall_home] “I think for a year or two at family get-togethers, no one wanted to sit near us [laughs], cause that’s all we’d talk about.”

[Scott_home] “Those that know us well know that we have OCD.”

[Randall_home] “Well here’s a picture that might illustrate this a little bit.”

Ronda reaches for a photo and hands it to me. It shows two people standing next to two different size barrels. They were using them as stand ins - in place of the corpses of the victims, so they could get a sense of how you might dismember them to fit inside.

[Randall_home] “So this is Scott’s wife and a friend of the family. And we were trying to figure out what height women, where would you cut to fit in barrels, and you can tell by their face -- they’re standing in this picture next to a 55 gallon drum and 35 gallon drum -- and you can tell they’re just like ‘oh brother, here they go again!’”

When I first spoke with Ronda, to be honest, I wasn’t sure what to make of her or this project. I mean, who reads the phone book for 14 hours? And could her research really be helpful or was it just getting in the way of the real investigation?

But the more I spent time with Ronda and Scott, the more I felt like they were playing an important role. They hadn’t solved the case, but they had done a lot.

They reunited a whole community of neighbors from Allenstown, some of whom didn’t even know about the second barrel, who are now all invested in solving the case.

They’ve collected a huge repository of information about the case on their blog-- all the media coverage, all the theories that have been floated, the fruits of their own research. A lot of my own reporting for this series was built on the work that Ronda and Scott had already done.

Perhaps most importantly, they stepped into the role of victims’ advocate -- something that would usually come from the victim’s family. Today, Ronda and Scott are as close to being the victim’s family as it gets in this case -- pestering police to look into things, handing out flyers about the victims.

Since 2011, they have refused to let anyone forget about this case. Ronda and Scott kept the torch lit.

[Randall_home] “Some days I find myself a little… maybe even angry, thinking what grandmother let this happen, or what neighbor, or what bus driver -- I mean, where were all of you?... You know, where were you?”

I understood Ronda and Scott a little better after I did something that they and others I’ve talked to also felt compelled to do at some point.

[ambi car door / walking]

I paid a visit to where the first two victims were buried back in 1987.

[JM] “Ok well I’m in the cemetery, there’s probably 1,000 gravestones here and…now I just have to find it.”

The Saint Jean the Baptiste cemetery in Allenstown is on a quiet road, lined with tall cypress trees. The headstones are neatly arranged into a grid. I started at one corner and begin making my up and down the rows -- until finally.

[JM] “Oh my god, here it is. Wow… So this is tucked in almost the very back row of this cemetery. It’s a got a rose on top of the headstone. And it reads, ‘Here lies the mortal remains known only to god of a woman age 23 – 33 and a girl child age 8 – 10. Their slain bodies were found on November 10, 1985 in Bear Brook State Park. May their souls find peace in God’s loving care.’”

[JM] “Wow. It’s one thing to know it; it’s another to see this in person.  

Standing there by the grave, I tried to imagine what that day was like in 1987 when the woman and the oldest child were buried here.

And then I tried to imagine the day their bodies were exhumed.

[mux start]

In the fifteen years after the second barrel was found, investigators had failed to find a single solid lede in the Bear Brook murders. But while they were checking databases, and wearing out shoe leather - a parallel investigation was taking place. One that required all four bodies to be held by the state medical examiner. This investigation is more like the high-tech ones you might see on TV crime shows… employing scientific techniques rarely used in criminal cases. And it was this investigation that led to the first break in the Bear Brook murders… 30 years after the first bodies were found.

[Agati] “I want to thank everybody for coming today. We have some new testing results that we want to share with basically the world.”

That’s next time on Bear Brook.

END OF EPISODE

Bear Brook is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

Taylor Quimby is Senior Producer.

Editing help from Cori Princell, Todd Bookman, Lauren Chooljian, Sam Evans-Brown, Britta Green & Annie Ropeik.

The Executive Producer is Erika Janik.

Dan Barrick is NHPR’s News Director.

Director of Content is Maureen McMurray.

NHPR’s Digital Director is Rebecca Lavoie.

Photography and Video by Allie Gutierrez.

Graphics and interactives by Sara Plourde.

Original music for this show was composed by me, Jason Moon, and Taylor Quimby.

Additional music in this episode from Blue Dot Sessions, and Lee ROSE-veer.

To see a video of some of the locations from the first two episodes, like Bear Brook State Park and the cemetery where the first two victims were buried … go to our website: bear brook podcast dot org.

To learn more about the fascinating and complicated story behind the Danny Paquette murder, check out the book Our Little Secret by Kevin Flynn and Rebecca Lavoie.

Bear Brook is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of Episode 2: Known Only To God

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text. Click here for the audio version of the episode.

[PREVIOUSLY ON BEAR BROOK]

[Jessie] I believe it was Keith said he found a barrel out in the woods. You know there was a barrel out there.

[Montplaisir] The barrel was on the ground, and there was a bag. And when I opened the bag, there was a face, a decomposed face looking right at me.

[Morgans] The next time the town is getting together to put a headstone on these bodies. Who are these people?

[John Cody] When I picked up the Allenstown case, I was trying to almost walk through their footsteps. That’s when I came across the barrel. When I looked at it, I said this does not look good.

*** Two Barrels, Fifteen Years ***

[cue mux]

For fifteen years, the second barrel was sitting just 300 feet away from where the first barrel was found in the woods of Allenstown, New Hampshire.

It was 300 feet away when the Morgan’s son, Jesse, and his friends pushed over the first barrel in the summer of 1985. It was there later that year when a hunter saw the bodies and called the police. It was there, 100 yards away, as detectives searched in vain for clues about the first two victims.

And it was there when the detectives left. When the case went cold and people started to forget. It sat there, as Jesse Morgan grew up and left the trailer park for college. As Ron Montplaisir, the officer who first found the barrel, neared his retirement. It sat there through fifteen New Hampshire winters, the blue paint slowly turning brown with rust.

It sat there until state trooper John Cody … spotted it late one spring afternoon, as dusk was settling in.

[Cody] “One thing I remember very clearly is thinking -- the first thing going through my mind is do we have dump site here? Is somebody using this area to dump the bodies of people they’ve killed. And I was kind of like, ‘no this is New Hampshire we don’t expect this stuff.’”

For people like Anne and Kevin Morgan, who lived on the edge of the park, it was startling to think that police had missed something so important.

[A.Morgan] “I could not believe it had been there that long. I was mortified that it had been there that long. Within...you know, you could probably see it from the first barrel.”

[K.Morgan] “What does that tell you about the investigation. It says something about the investigation. There basically was none.”

[A.Morgan] “Fifteen years. Fifteen years.”

[K.Morgan] Why wasn’t that barrel found?

This is Bear Brook, I’m Jason Moon.

[mux swell and fade]

Before we talk about what happened after the 2nd set of bodies was found, we’re going to spend some time trying to answer that uncomfortable question: Why did it take so long to find?

The second barrel has always been an awkward topic for police in New Hampshire. They know the fact that it took them 15 years to find it doesn’t look good.

Here’s Ron Montplaisir, the officer who found the first barrel in 1985

[Montplaisir] “Kind of… kind of slapped myself saying, wow, why didn’t we do a bigger perimeter but we were just focused on that first barrel.  You have to understand that this is a wooded area, this is a very thick forest and there was a lot of clutter and it was like looking for a needle in a haystack, you know, who would think? You know?”

In case you’re wondering, investigators today are confident both barrels were there in 1985.

But it’s not just Montplaisir who argues that finding the second barrel was easier said than done. Authorities at the state-level who are in charge of the case today will say pretty much the same thing. This came up at a press conference a few years ago, when a reporter with the state’s largest newspaper put the question to Benjamin Agati, a prosecutor with the New Hampshire attorney general’s office.

[Hayward] “It took 15 years to find the second oil drum.”

[Agati] “Mhmm.”

[Hayward] “Um… What happened there? It was only 300 feet away. Was it buried? Was it hidden? Or was it just overlooked? It doesn’t seem like it was that far away.”

[Agati] “Well, I think if we were talking about an area that had more of, let’s say bike trails, where it was more marked, then I could certainly see your point on that. But it was 300 feet away... We’re also talking about an area that’s just heavily wooded. So quite frankly, finding that barrel sooner would change the information that we have to present today.

So either the barrel was only 300 feet away, or it was 300 feet away. As you can hear, your opinion on this is open to interpretation.

[JM] “Ok, so you’re barrel one.

[TQ] “Ok, I’m barrel one.

[JM] “And you’re found…]

So, colleague Taylor Quimby and I went to a local high school football field to get a better idea exactly how far 300 feet really is. He stood at one goal line, while I walked across the field to the other.

[JM] “ Can you hear me!?”

[TQ] “Just barely!”

[JM] “Just barely.”

[TQ] “Well I can definitely see you.”

[JM] “On the other hand you can see me, that’s true.”

At this point, 300 feet was feeling like an absurdly short distance for someone to have missed the second barrel.

But of course, the barrels weren’t found in an open field with clear lines of sight, they were found in the woods.

[TQ] “This will be a good test because we’re both wearing brightly colored flannel.”

I paced out the same number of steps in some woods near the field, with Taylor again staying behind to mark the location of the first barrel.

[JM] “Ok. One, two, three, four... ninety-eight. Ok, turning around and I cannot see Taylor at all.”

In the woods, with trees and brush and boulders in between, 300 feet seemed to mean something different than it did on the football field.

[TQ] “Shout if you see me moving!”

Even when we tried to find our way back to each other, it took a while to figure just where that was.

[JM] “I’m at the top of the hill now, can you see me!?”

[TQ] “I’m not sure! … I can’t see you. Can you see me?

[JM] “Nope!”

[TQ] “ Where the hell are you? I thought your shirt would -- ope, there you are.”

[JM] “In terms of like, how far would I search? -- I’m now thinking that I would never go that far. Like, if I take that distance and then imagine the radius, circling it around in every direction from the crime scene -- that’s huge.”

[TQ] “Well you can’t do it one person.”

[JM] “That’s true. There’s a lot of -- or in theory there should have been lots of people.”

[TQ] “Cause I disagree. I would like to think that if you found two bodies in a barrel, anywhere, you would do at least that much. But I’m picturing a team of people and maybe some dogs. Like I’m picturing this prison break scene where you got a whole bunch of people combing through fields and forests and what have you.”

So it’s definitely much harder to find something 300 feet away in the woods, even when that thing is shouting at you.

But clearly the barrel wasn’t impossible to find. And in the end it was a single investigator -on his first trip to the crime scene- who found it.

Which brings us back to the same question: why didn’t they find it in 1985 with the other barrel? Why weren’t there large teams of investigators walking shoulder-to-shoulder through the woods after the first barrel was found? Why wasn’t it more like that prison break scene Taylor was imagining?

One explanation - maybe you’d call it an excuse - is that the Allenstown PD was just a small town police force -- with few officers and few resources. Remember, they were deputizing local residents just to secure the area.

But then, state police didn’t find it either. And they were the ones ultimately in charge of the investigation.

In either case, there’s a big reason why investigators may have felt in over their heads: just before the first bodies were found in Bear Brook, there was another murder just a few miles away.

[Mux swell]

[JM] Where do we start?

[Flynn}

Kevin Flynn is a true crime author and a longtime reporter in New Hampshire.

[Flynn] “Danny Paquette was a welder who lived in Hooksett, New Hampshire. He was working in his backyard welding a bulldozer and two of his friends were in his garage, repairing and restoring a car. And they heard a noise.”

[Flynn] “They came out and found Danny lying on the ground. They thought that he had electrocuted himself with the arc welder. But he was bleeding from the chest.”

Danny Paquette had been shot and killed. It wasn’t exactly clear from where or by whom, but the only explanation seemed to be that the bullet came from the woods near his house.

When state police first arrived at the scene, they wondered if Danny Paquette had died in a hunting accident. But they couldn’t be sure, so a homicide investigation was opened. That was Saturday. On Sunday, the first barrel in the Bear Brook case was discovered.

[mux swell then fade]

New Hampshire averages only about 15 murders a year, so starting two cases on the same weekend put a real strain on state police. Some of the detectives who started on the Paquette case were called off the next day to go work the Bear Brook murders.

It was the beginning of two parallel investigations. Two separate mysteries that would end up influencing each other for decades to come.

In Allenstown, officers began by interviewing people in town. But no one seemed to know anything.

In Hooksett, people seemed to know a lot. Investigators quickly realized that if Danny Paquette’s death was a homicide, there would be no shortage of plausible suspects.

[Flynn] “Danny was a really interesting character because there were a lot of folks who had reason to want to hurt him. He was a ladies man. He had a black book that will filled with the names of girlfriends and wives of people in town.”

On the Bear Brook case, detectives were going through stacks of missing persons reports, still just trying to identify the victims.

On the Paquette case, police had the victim’s ID and a half a dozen people who might have a grudge against him. They had plausible theories and potential evidence. Lots of potential evidence.

[Flynn] “One of the weirdest details in their investigation was they had found out that somebody had been in hot air balloon and was videotaping the scenery and went right over Danny’s house about the time of the shooting...I saw the videotape, there’s nothing on it, but it’s just like: could this get any weirder?”

The hot air balloon camcorder tape would turn out to be a giant waste of time. But at least in the Paquette case, there was stuff like this to sift through. It had momentum -- where the Bear Brook investigation was spinning its wheels. So maybe it makes sense then that, according to Flynn, the Paquette investigation ended up receiving more attention from state police.

[Flynn] “Probably the best detective of that era on the state police was a guy by the name of Roland Lammy and he was on this case along with John Barthelmes, who is the current commissioner of safety and a former colonel in the New Hampshire state police. Those were the two sharpest guys they had and they were over in Hooksett, they weren’t over in Allenstown.”

Meanwhile the two cases weren’t just dividing the attention of state police, they were also creating false leads for each other.

[Flynn] “There aren’t so many homicides in New Hampshire. And when you have two on the same weekend, a relatively short distance apart, you gotta at least think, could this somehow have one thing to do with the other?”

It wasn’t a totally crazy idea. A mysterious shooting and discovering two bodies in a blue barrel on the same weekend only a few miles apart -- it was a coincidence that couldn't be ignored.

But in the end it was just a coincidence -- and another dead end that detectives found themselves in.

Eventually, after enough of these dead ends, both cases ground to a halt. In the Bear Brook investigation, detectives felt there was nothing else they could try. In the Paquette case, investigators just decided their initial hunch was right: it was a hunting accident. No arrests. Just a stray bullet. Case closed.

For months, the Bear Brook and Paquette investigations had fought over resources. And who knows how things might have gone differently if that hadn’t been the case. But ironically, the same case that distracted investigators from Bear Brook, would later give them hope that it could be solved. That’s because in 1999, 14 years later, the Paquette investigation was reopened. It wasn’t a hunting accident, after all. Danny Paquette was murdered.

The case was solved by a private investigator. He had been hired by the Hooksett police chief, who didn’t have the manpower to assign one of his own detectives to work a cold case full time.

That private investigator found a hole in the alibi of Danny Paquette’s teenage step-daughter and a friend of hers from school. That revelation ultimately led to a confession - and a conviction.

[Flynn] “The Paquette case was sort of a proof of concept that if you took any personnel and just put them on these kinds of cases, kept them away from the urgent, breaking, rush-to-the-scene-with-the-sirens-blazing kind of stuff, that they can go back and look at inconsistencies or find parallels -- that they could do that. There was always sort of the will to do it, and I think that after the Paquette case, there was really a feeling that, you know this could be done -- if the resources were set aside.”

[JM] “Is this the biggest, most famous cold case in New Hampshire, the Paquette case?”

[Flynn] “I think up until yours.”

...

---- [BREAK] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before I started reporting this story, it had never occured to me just how hard it is to solve a murder when you don’t know who the victim is.

That might sound obvious. But I think it’s easy to underestimate just how much of a hurdle it is to finding a suspect. When you don’t know the victim, there’s no motive. There are no neighbors to talk to. No friends or enemies, no disgruntled exes.

There’s a line from a local news article written about the Bear Brook case that reads: ‘police hope to solve the mystery in three steps: learn where they’re from, discover who they are, then find the killer.’

When state trooper John Cody found the second barrel in 2000, police were 15 years into the case, and still very much at step one.

[Cody] I ended up seeing this plastic, and I peeled it back, and I saw what appeared to me to be a bone, and of course you’re trying to talk yourself out of it, saying there’s no way this is happening.

On that day, after he peered into the second barrel with his flashlight, Cody immediately called his superiors. At first, they didn’t really believe him.

[Cody] “You know I think it was one of those things where they figured they’ll come out, they’ll take a look, they know it’s not what I thought it was and they’ll be on their way home. But it just didn’t turn out like that.”

Instead, officers found the remains of two young girls in the second barrel. One was about three years old, the other only about two. The remains were skeletal and wrapped in some sort of plastic. Like the other victims they were killed by blunt force trauma to the head.

This put the total number of victims in the Bear Brook case to four: a woman and three kids. Their estimated ages: late 20’s for the adult, nine for the oldest child, three for the middle child, and two for the youngest child. The adult and the oldest child were found in the first barrel. The two youngest in the second barrel.

[Cody] We’re talking about, how does… an entire family… go missing?

Several years later, DNA testing of the remains would sketch the rough outline of a family. The results showed the adult female is maternally related to the oldest and youngest children. Most likely their mother, though it’s possible she is a cousin or a sister.

But interestingly, those DNA tests showed no relationship between the middle child and any of the other victims. Investigators have speculated that she might have been a step-child or an adoption.

Back in 2000, after state trooper John Cody discovered the second barrel, he and other investigators went back over everything they knew about the case.

They re-interviewed people in town, entertained new theories, and searched again through national databases of missing persons.

Investigators hoped the second barrel would be the key. That one of the new victims would be matched to a missing persons report -- an identity, then a timeline, a list of possible suspects, finally a motive. They hoped it would become like a normal homicide investigation.

Instead it was a tedious case of deja-vu. Investigators in 2000 combed through the same information as detectives in 1985 had, with the same disappointing results.

[Cody] “Couple little specks here and there, which would lead to a couple of other things but it was sorta like getting lost in the city and you take a right, you take a left and you end up on dead end streets or alleyways at every turn and that’s pretty much where this case goes.”

[JM] “Did you guys ever get as far as to have any suspects?”

“No. Not even close.”

As important as Cody’s discovery of the second barrel was, in the end it did little to move the case forward. If anything, it was like the case was moving backwards -- getting worse as time went on. In 1985 there were two bodies in a barrel and no leads. Fifteen years later, all investigators had to show for their efforts were four bodies in two barrels with no leads.

But that didn’t mean that people gave up on the case. In fact the daunting nature of the challenge even attracted new people. While the official investigation into the Bear Brook murders remained pretty much static, an amateur investigator named Ronda Randall picked up the case.

[RR] “Certainly there’s a lot of people looking for people in this country, for some reason or another.

Ronda is someone who knows how to find someone. By day, she’s a social worker. In the rest of her time she’s a genealogist, who specializes in adoption searches -- reuniting adopted people with their biological parents.

[Randall] “In the 80’s when I first started doing it, I didn’t have a personal computer at home. It was a lot of phone calls. I mean there was a time when my phone bill for a month ran at about $1,100 and my husband was like, ‘I don’t know about this hobby.’”

I first met Ronda through her blog, Oakhill Research. It chronicles the history of the Bear Book murders and her own efforts, since 2011, to identify the victims.

I should mention two things here...First, Ronda isn’t really the true-crime type. She wasn’t interested in criminology before this case. She wasn’t binge watching episodes of Forensic Files. In fact, she doesn’t really watch TV. Second, she grew up in New Hampshire but didn’t hear about the murders until later in life -- after she had moved to a town in Maine, about 2 hours from Allenstown. She says she really only became interested in the Bear Brook case after the internet came around and online messaging boards starting making adoption searches too easy.

[Randall] “I think right around the time my kids left home I was looking for something a little different but still in a genealogy and research world and had come across the story of the Allenstown victims and being unfamiliar with it and a genealogist I thought, ‘surely we can turn up some identities for these folks,’ and that’s really where it began.”

Later, Ronda would tell me she had a two-year-old niece who died of leukemia not long before she started on the Bear Brook case. Now she wonders if that may have had something to do with how she felt on that first visit to Bear Brook.

[Randall] “I just thought of the process that our family went through in fighting to keep her alive and then grieving her death and then to think of a little child about her age who nobody seems to be coming forward for. And you know, I’ve looked back sometimes and wondered if the case struck me so hard because I saw those little unidentified children and felt like, ‘who is mourning for them?’”

The way Ronda looked at it, this wouldn’t be all that different from an adoption search. Over the years Ronda says she has identified upwards of 150 people using public records, a phone, and a lot of hard work. In this case, the only difference was that the people she wanted to identity were murder victims.

So, Ronda got to work. I don’t think Ronda would disagree if I said she can get a little obsessive about her research projects. The first time we spoke on the phone she told me she’s just well suited for it. She doesn’t mind doing the kind of grinding, monotonous research that most people hate.

[Randall_sync] “One time I went to the New Hampshire state library and I read the Concord 1984 phonebook. Every name, every page. It took me 14 hours. It took 2 days. And I was motion sick by the end of every day. Like, severely motion sick.”

[Randall_sync] “I’ve been called, whether it’s a compliment or not, a pitbull. [laughs]. I tend to be tenacious. I sink my teeth in something and I don’t let go.”

Ronda began her research on the Bear Brook case with her usual level of dogged interest. But it became something more than just a research project in the summer of 2011. That’s when she decided that she needed to see the area where the barrels were found in person.

[Randall_sync] “I enlisted one of my brothers, Scott Maxwell to accompany me. And we kind of just figured we’d go out to the area and talk to some neighbors and just learn a little bit more about it. But it was that trip that day out there that kind of sparked an obsessive interest in the research on this case.”

[walking in woods]

I wanted to see what Ronda and her brother Scott saw that day went they first visited the crime scene. So one day, we parked on the shoulder of a winding road in Allenstown and then set off into the woods.

[JM] “It’s beautiful out here.”

[Ronda] “It really is. It’s kind of an interesting juxtaposition of a terribly morbid event in a beautiful setting.”

It was December 2015 and I can remember my hand was freezing from holding the mic. But I was also riveted. It was my first trip out here, just a few weeks after I first learned about the case.

[Randall] “The first time I came I think it just had a really profound impact on me. There was kind of a hush out here and I felt...like there was a spirit, kind of a sacred feel to where they were found.”

[walking ambi underneath]

Ronda and Scott led me down a snowmobile trail toward the site of the first barrel. They had pieced together the approximate location based on interviews with retired Allenstown cops like Ron Montplaisir and his former chief, as well as residents of the trailer park like Kevin Morgan who was deputized to keep the press away from the site.

The snowmobile trail led down a slight incline. All around us the forest floor was covered in thick a blanket of leaves. Only a few boulders peaked through here and there.

Then, suddenly, we had arrived.

[Randall] “And by all accounts it was about 20 feet off to the left from this area.”

I was struck by just how quickly we reached the spot. We had set out from the side of a road along the northern edge of the state park. From there it had taken us less than five minutes to reach the site of the first barrel. Bear Brook State Park may be vast and unknowable, but from where the first barrel was found, you can look back toward the road, and catch glimpses of passing cars.

On top of that, I learn, we’re not even technically in Bear Brook State Park. The victims in the case commonly known as the Bear Brook murders weren’t actually found in Bear Brook State Park. They were found on a narrow lot of private property that sits in between the trailer park and the state park.

The lot is small -- not even a tenth of a square mile. On a map, it looks like a little rectangular bite taken out of the top of Bear Brook State Park.

The private lot is owned by a guy named Ed Gallagher. In the early 1980s, he also owned and ran a small camp store on the property. It was called the Bear Brook Store. People camping in Bear Brook State Park could stop in for a couple bags of ice or a case of beer. And people who lived in the nearby trailer park could walk here for a gallon of milk.

[Randall] “So right over there, this dip is where the foundation of the store was…”

The Bear Brook store burned down in 1983, just two years before the first barrel was found. Today, there’s almost no sign of the old store unless you know what to look for. A foundation that’s mostly overgrown. An old disconnected power pole standing in the woods.

Ronda’s brother Scott says the fact that the barrels were found so near the site of the former store, on private property, was one of the things that caught his interest on that first trip out here.

[Scott] “You’ve got hundreds of acres of state park and old logging roads that go in, and why you would choose to come in past a burned out building, so close to a trailer park when you had all that area where -- no fear of anybody seeing you.”

It changed how I thought about the case, too. Before, in the version of the story where the barrels were found deep in the forest, the mystery of the Bear Brook murders seemed impenetrable… like a maze. Standing in the spot where the bodies were actually found, in this place where people used to come and go, I found myself thinking… there must be something that someone remembers, even if they don’t realize it. A name, or a face, or a family that came through the park years ago - some clue that could begin to unravel the case after all these years.

On their first trip here in 2011, Scott and Ronda also knocked on a few doors in the Bear Brook Gardens trailer park and found another surprising detail. Many people who had vivid memories of when the first barrel was found told them they had never even heard about the second barrel.

[Randall] “There were times when I almost felt like we were arguing with people, ‘no really, there were a second set of bodies found.’ And they’d be like, ‘well I’ve lived here 32 years, I think I’d know.’”

They figured that if there were longtime residents of the trailer park who had never even been told about the second barrel, maybe someone who used to live there knew something and just hadn’t been asked the right question.

So Ronda and Scott decided to embark on a massive project: to track down every single person who lived in the Bear Brook Gardens trailer park from 1977 to 1985.

A few weeks after we visited the area where the barrels were found, I took a trip up to Ronda’s home in Maine, about 2 hours northeast of Bear Brook. I wanted to get a better sense of the scale of their project and what they’d been able to find. It didn’t take long to see they had collected an overwhelming amount of information about the case.

[Randall_home] “Because we never knew where it would go, we were never prepared for what happens when you have 5,000 pages of interviews and information and how best to organize it. That’s still a work in progress.”

Hanging on the wall in the dining room of Ronda’s home, is a huge aerial photo of the Bear Brook Gardens trailer park. It’s the sort of thing you’d expect to see in an episode of a police procedural…like those cork boards with strands of yarn connecting all the evidence. The photo is maybe 6 feet across and 4 feet high. It’s black and white, taken sometime in the late 80s. In the photo you can make out each lot in the trailer park -- Ronda and Scott have them labeled with the names of the families and the years that they lived there.

[Randall_home] “You know, lot 27, which became lot 27 Edgewood, we found that in 1979 a George Moore lived there, 1980 Patrick and Alice Moore, and so forth and so we would plug them in for the years we knew they lived there.”

I like to imagine Ronda staring at the map over her breakfast, or maybe pacing in front of it after dark. The excitement of discovering another name, of coming that much closer to tracking them all down.

But Ronda and Scott have been more than armchair investigators on this case. They’ve done a lot of hands on detective work, too -- something police generally discourage.

When it comes to Ronda and Scott and the New Hampshire state police, they actually enjoy a pretty good relationship. I think detectives figured out early on they wouldn’t be able to talk Ronda out of researching the case. And for their part, Ronda and Scott, generally share whatever they find with state police: transcripts of phone calls, photos from the area where the bodies were found. More than a few times, state police have followed up on information they provided.

Over the past 7 years since their first trip to Allenstown, Scott and Ronda’s work on the case has taken many shapes.

When they learned motorcycle gangs were active in the trailer park during the 80s Ronda and Scott passed out flyers with info on the victims at the Laconia Bike Week, an annual event where hundreds of thousands bikers from around the country meet in New Hampshire.

There was the time they flew down to Florida to interview the retired Allenstown Police Chief who told them he never stopped thinking about the case.

They’ve made a number of trips back out to Allenstown, following up on things they’d heard from the former trailer park residents they were tracking down. Ronda shows me a plastic ziplock bag with something she found on one of those trips: a child’s white shoe.

[Randall_home] “You know, just in the leaves and dirt under a tree we see this shoe, an old school little child’s shoe. And I’m sure it couldn’t have lasted for 30 years out there probably, even though it is quite worn. But it still just, it was really ominous to see it. I picked it up and put it in a bag and brought it home and you know I sometimes wonder what it’s story is.”

I’d like to tell you that one of these trips led somewhere. I’d like to tell you that this shoe was the missing key that investigators needed. That it had a worn initial on the inside of the tongue, some small detail that would lead them to ID the Bear Brook victims. Of course that wasn’t the case. Ronda and Scott gathered more information, but it was never the information they needed. The shoe wasn’t even found near where the barrels were. More than anything, it was a symbol of what drove Ronda. Still, she sent photos of the shoe to state police. It’s just the sort of thing she would do. Just in case.

...

All their time spent working on this has changed both Ronda and Scott’s lives.

[Randall_home] “This is my brother, who I probably spoke to once a year on the phone, prior to this, and now sometimes I speak to him like seven times a day.”

If you haven’t noticed, Scott doesn’t talk as much as Ronda. It’s just one of the ways they  seem to balance each other out -- Ronda is always ready to dive in, while Scott is more measured. And somehow those contrasts seem to add to the bond they’ve formed over the case. A bond that can be hard for others to understand.

[Randall_home] “I think for a year or two at family get-togethers, no one wanted to sit near us [laughs], cause that’s all we’d talk about.”

[Scott_home] “Those that know us well know that we have OCD.”

[Randall_home] “Well here’s a picture that might illustrate this a little bit.”

Ronda reaches for a photo and hands it to me. It shows two people standing next to two different size barrels. They were using them as stand ins - in place of the corpses of the victims, so they could get a sense of how you might dismember them to fit inside.

[Randall_home] “So this is Scott’s wife and a friend of the family. And we were trying to figure out what height women, where would you cut to fit in barrels, and you can tell by their face -- they’re standing in this picture next to a 55 gallon drum and 35 gallon drum -- and you can tell they’re just like ‘oh brother, here they go again!’”

When I first spoke with Ronda, to be honest, I wasn’t sure what to make of her or this project. I mean, who reads the phone book for 14 hours? And could her research really be helpful or was it just getting in the way of the real investigation?

But the more I spent time with Ronda and Scott, the more I felt like they were playing an important role. They hadn’t solved the case, but they had done a lot.

They reunited a whole community of neighbors from Allenstown, some of whom didn’t even know about the second barrel, who are now all invested in solving the case.

They’ve collected a huge repository of information about the case on their blog-- all the media coverage, all the theories that have been floated, the fruits of their own research. A lot of my own reporting for this series was built on the work that Ronda and Scott had already done.

Perhaps most importantly, they stepped into the role of victims’ advocate -- something that would usually come from the victim’s family. Today, Ronda and Scott are as close to being the victim’s family as it gets in this case -- pestering police to look into things, handing out flyers about the victims.

Since 2011, they have refused to let anyone forget about this case. Ronda and Scott kept the torch lit.

[Randall_home] “Some days I find myself a little… maybe even angry, thinking what grandmother let this happen, or what neighbor, or what bus driver -- I mean, where were all of you?... You know, where were you?”

I understood Ronda and Scott a little better after I did something that they and others I’ve talked to also felt compelled to do at some point.

[ambi car door / walking]

I paid a visit to where the first two victims were buried back in 1987.

[JM] “Ok well I’m in the cemetery, there’s probably 1,000 gravestones here and…now I just have to find it.”

The Saint Jean the Baptiste cemetery in Allenstown is on a quiet road, lined with tall cypress trees. The headstones are neatly arranged into a grid. I started at one corner and begin making my up and down the rows -- until finally.

[JM] “Oh my god, here it is. Wow… So this is tucked in almost the very back row of this cemetery. It’s a got a rose on top of the headstone. And it reads, ‘Here lies the mortal remains known only to god of a woman age 23 – 33 and a girl child age 8 – 10. Their slain bodies were found on November 10, 1985 in Bear Brook State Park. May their souls find peace in God’s loving care.’”

[JM] “Wow. It’s one thing to know it; it’s another to see this in person.  

Standing there by the grave, I tried to imagine what that day was like in 1987 when the woman and the oldest child were buried here.

And then I tried to imagine the day their bodies were exhumed.

[mux start]

In the fifteen years after the second barrel was found, investigators had failed to find a single solid lede in the Bear Brook murders. But while they were checking databases, and wearing out shoe leather - a parallel investigation was taking place. One that required all four bodies to be held by the state medical examiner. This investigation is more like the high-tech ones you might see on TV crime shows… employing scientific techniques rarely used in criminal cases. And it was this investigation that led to the first break in the Bear Brook murders… 30 years after the first bodies were found.

[Agati] “I want to thank everybody for coming today. We have some new testing results that we want to share with basically the world.”

That’s next time on Bear Brook.

END OF EPISODE

Bear Brook is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

Taylor Quimby is Senior Producer.

Editing help from Cori Princell, Todd Bookman, Lauren Chooljian, Sam Evans-Brown, Britta Green & Annie Ropeik.

The Executive Producer is Erika Janik.

Dan Barrick is NHPR’s News Director.

Director of Content is Maureen McMurray.

NHPR’s Digital Director is Rebecca Lavoie.

Photography and Video by Allie Gutierrez.

Graphics and interactives by Sara Plourde.

Original music for this show was composed by me, Jason Moon, and Taylor Quimby.

Additional music in this episode from Blue Dot Sessions, and Lee ROSE-veer.

To see a video of some of the locations from the first two episodes, like Bear Brook State Park and the cemetery where the first two victims were buried … go to our website: bear brook podcast dot org.

To learn more about the fascinating and complicated story behind the Danny Paquette murder, check out the book Our Little Secret by Kevin Flynn and Rebecca Lavoie.

Bear Brook is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of Episode 3: A Smaller Haystack

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text. Click here for the audio version of the episode.

Previously on Bear Brook:

...Here lie the remains Known only to god of a woman aged..… May their souls find peace in god’s loving care...

...How does an entire family go missing?

… What grandmother let this happen? Or what neighbor or bus driver.. I mean where were all you, you know?

...Did you ever have any suspects? Not even close.

...After the Paquette case, you know there was really a feeling that this could be done.. If the resources would be set aside.

… There’s always some link. Someday… somebody will come forward.

*** Press Conference ***

[Room ambi]

[Agati] “...Everybody all set? Ok? Alright... First of all ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you all very much for coming today. My name is Benjamin Agati, I am a senior assistant attorney general here at the Department of Justice. We have some new testing results, some significant testing results that we want to share with the world.”

In November 2015, New Hampshire state law enforcement officials held a press conference.

This is actually how I first learned about the Bear Brook murders. I was one of about dozen or so reporters from New Hampshire and Boston who showed up.

We all crowded into a small carpeted room at the New Hampshire Department of Justice. Benjamin Agati, with the AG’s office, stood behind a podium.

[Mux begins to rise]

To his left was a row of stern looking police officers. To his right, a powerpoint was beamed against the wall.

[Agati] “30 years ago this month, a mystery began when the remains of an adult and what we will found out will be the oldest child were discovered in a bag next to an overturned 55-gallon drum in great Bear Brook State Park. In 2000, the remains of two more victims, both young girls, were found not far away, having been located in a second 55 gallon drum.”

The discovery of the second barrel in 2000 was really the last big development in the Bear Brook case - and that was 15 years ago.

In 2009 the case had been handed over to the state’s new Cold Case Unit. The unit was the first of its kind for New Hampshire with a mandate to focus exclusively on old murders, disappearances, and suspicious deaths. It was formed thanks in part to the investigation into the shooting of Danny Paquette which we talked about in the last episode.

The Cold Case Unit was just as stumped as the investigators that came before them though - so in 2012, they took the Bear Brook mystery to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, called NCMEC for short. NCMEC experts pored over the case alongside New Hampshire authorities, brainstorming ideas on how to move the investigation forward.

Three years later, in the fall of 2015, the New Hampshire Cold Case Unit was ready to share some of the work that came as a result of that collaboration.

[Agati] “These are our new images. And we’ll have individual shots of each of our victims later on.”

They started the presentation with a closer analysis of the information investigators already had on hand. Facial reconstruction experts at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children had created new composite images of the victims. The victim’s faces are rendered in grayscale and they look a little computer generated. But certainly a lot more lifelike than the simple sketches that once hung on the refrigerator at the Morgan’s home in Allenstown.

[Agati] I’d like to go through each one in particular...

Agati clicked through slides of these new images one-by-one.

[Agati] “Our first one is our adult victim. She is is a female, likely to be within her mid-twenties.

The adult victim’s hair looks almost wet, like it was still drying from a shower.

[Agati] Our first child victim, also found in the same barrel with her, her age is closer to nine to ten years old.


The oldest child victim has a few freckles on her nose.

[Agati] She was approximately 4-feet-3-inches tall… Had light brown dirty blonde hair.

Her mouth is slightly parted, like her photo was taken while she was lost in thought.

[Agati] We do not know what her weight was specifically and we do not know her eye color. Child victim number two.

The middle child’s expression reads almost as surprise, like someone just called out her name.

[Agati] Her age is anywhere between two-to-four years old.

Her hair is darker than the others, her eyes set a little further apart -- details that really drive home the fact that she’s not related to the other victims.

[Agati]  She had a dental overbite, and this has been remarked about before, that may be noticeable to others.

The image of the youngest child shows a cute kid. Big chubby cheeks and a tiny little nose.

[Agati] The last child, She had a very large gap between the upper two front teeth...

Wispy strands of dirty blond hair falling down to her shoulders.

[Agati] We are trying to get these images out there. Through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, they have not had one single case like this. With four individual victims that have been unidentified for such a period of time.”

This is Bear Brook, I’m Jason Moon.

[mux fade]

For me, this was my first time hearing about the Bear Brook case, so everything — the barrels, the trailer park, the faces of the victims — everything was brand new to me. But the real showcase of this press conference were the results of long-awaited scientific testing.

[Agati] “Today we want to announce results of new radio-isotope testing that has been conducted on the bones, the teeth, and the hair of our four unidentified persons.”

Radio-isotope testing: it’s a scientific process usually reserved for geologists. Many of the reporters in the room that day, including me, struggled at first to understand it.

But as we slowly came to realize, the technique can offer surprising details about a human life based on nothing more than the type of environment a person lived in.

And almost exactly 3 decades since the Bear Brook mystery began, it finally gave investigators their first lead.

*** Isotopes ***

[Jason]  Hi this is Jason with NHPR, how are you?

[Kamenov]  Getting sick with some kind of virus.

[JM] Oh sorry to hear that, did you get your flu shot?

[Kamenov] I got it, but looks like it’s something else.

[JM] Uh oh.

When George Kamenov was studying to become a geologist, he never imagined he would one day use his training to solve murder cases. But then again, he says, all science is about solving mysteries.

[Kamenov] “What we do in geology is often like forensic chemistry. We’re trying to identify, let’s say, where this water comes from or what this water interacts with. And it’s sort of like this is the same thing now, we’re just applying it to humans.”

Kamenov, who’s with the University of Florida, analyzed the remains of the Bear Brook victims with a technique that relies on the science of isotopes.

Before we get into this, I want to point out just how important forensic science has been to the Bear Brook case. In the absence of witnesses or missing persons reports, the only information that detectives have been able to glean about the victims -what they look like and where they might be from- has come by way of pushing the boundaries of forensic science. Whether that’s cutting edge facial reconstruction, or using a high-tech chemical analysis of the atoms from within the victims remains.

Ok, isotopes.

[cue twinkly mux]

Isotopes are atoms with either too few or too many neutrons. Basically, they’re just different versions of the same element.

You’ve probably heard of radioactive isotopes. But there are also other less-dramatic isotopes that can be really useful for scientists.

A handful of isotopes that are stable and naturally occuring are known as environmental isotopes. Geologists like Kamenov like them because they can be linked to geographic regions.

[Kamenov] “They can be used sort of like an inorganic DNA tracer. They can tell you about geographical place of origin.”

Take oxygen-18, it's an isotope that is heavier than your standard oxygen atom. When rain clouds come in off the ocean, the water with oxygen-18 in it is the first to fall out. That means areas near the coast end up with more oxygen-18 than areas further inland.

So a geologist can look at the amount of oxygen-18 in, say, a rock sample and get a clue about the type of environment the rock was formed in.

But environmental isotopes aren’t found only in rocks.

Plants and animals also absorb environmental isotopes through their diet. So an animal who lived in a region with lots of oxygen-18 will have more of it stored in their bones than an animal who lived elsewhere.

In other words, living things carry an imprint of their environment, recorded in isotopes.

Scientists first started using the technique on human remains in archaeology -- think ancient burials. That’s how Kamenov first started doing this.

[Mux fade]

[Kamenov] “Cause you can do isotope analysis and figure out where these people were from and then you can use that for ancient human migrations and things like that.”

Then one day, in 2012, one of Kamenov’s colleagues, a forensic anthropologist, came to him with a question.

[Kamenov] “She came one day into my office and she asked me if we could apply the same technique to modern cold cases and I said ‘well, let’s try and see what happens.’”

It didn’t take long to see they were on to something. The first case Kamenov looked into involved the remains of a woman found murdered in Florida in 1971.

[Kamenov] “All the leads were exhausted and they could not identify her. And now basically 40 some years later, we can show why that was the case -- because she was not local, she was a foreigner, most likely from Europe. And that’s how basically we started. We tried with one cold case and then we started working on other cold cases.”

Kamenov is quick to point out that isotope testing alone can’t identify individual victims, but it can you give you some broad clues about where to take an investigation. In the Florida cold case, it told investigators they should be looking through missing persons reports from a totally different continent. As one researcher put it, isotope testing doesn’t find the needle in the haystack, it shrinks the haystack down to a manageable size.

With the Bear Brook victims, given what we little knew about them, the haystack was essentially the entire globe. They could have been from anywhere.

But by looking at four isotopes in the bones, teeth, and hair of the victims, Kamenov was able to narrow down the possibilities.

One of those isotopes - came from a source you would never expect.

[Kamenov] “The main reason that works is because for many, many years we used leaded gasoline.”

[cue mux]

That’s right: One of the first real clues about where the Bear Brook victims came from is thanks to leaded gasoline. Here’s how.

From the 1920’s until it started getting phased out in the 1970’s, cars all over the world were using leaded gasoline -- basically spraying lead all over the environment.

[Kamenov] “So wherever you go, let’s say you take soil sample pretty much anywhere in the world, it still will contain tiny amounts of this lead.”

But not all of the lead used in gasoline was the same. In America, the lead came from one mine -- in Mississippi. In Europe, the lead came from a different mine -- in Australia. The two different lead mines have different ratios of lead isotopes, making it easy for a scientist like Kamenov to tell them apart.

Meanwhile, we absorb small amounts of the leftover lead in the environment into our bodies over the course of our lives.

[Kamenov] “So we as live, let’s say you live in New Hampshire, you go around, you drink the water, you eat the food and tiny amounts of this lead that’s in the soil gets recorded in our bodies.”

So basically anyone who lives in North America has lead in their bodies with one isotopic signature while Europeans have lead with a different isotopic signature in their bodies.

This is how Kamenov was able to tell the victim in his first case was European. And this is how we know the Bear Brook victims are from North America.

Ok, not the biggest reveal. But a start.

After lead, other isotopes helped Kamenov narrow down the area even further.

Strontium and carbon isotopes, which hold clues about someone’s diet, helped eliminate Canada and Mexico as possibilities.

Oxygen isotopes shed light on the water they drank, giving hints about how far from the coast they lived and how far north.

It was here that Kamenov started to see something interesting: differences between the isotopic signatures of the victims.

[mux fade]

[Kamenov] “What we saw was that the three victims who are related by DNA, they kind of have the same oxygen isotopic signal. Which tells us that they were all living together. But then the fourth girl that is not related, she shows distinct oxygen isotopes, which tells us that she came from somewhere else.”

Back at the press conference, this was summed up for reporters in two color-coded maps.

[Agati] “The specific areas highlighted in green behind me are the areas in the United States where the adult and the oldest and the youngest child were both raised in and were living in at the time of their death.”

The map for the related victims includes a swath that covers all of New England and stretches down as far as West Virginia.

[Agati] So you can see the area here on the Eastern Seaboard, anywhere in green is a possibility.

It also includes parts of the upper Midwest and West Coast.

The second map, for the unrelated child, highlights four very specific areas In the Northeast.

[Agati] She spent most of her childhood further inland, and likely further North.

Two different regions in upstate New York, one on the border between northern Vermont and New Hampshire, and one in northern Maine. Her map also includes different sections of the Midwest and West Coast than the other victims. But notably, her map does not include the area directly around Bear Brook State Park. Which means, according to the isotope results, she was not from the immediate area.

[cue mux]

I’d like to pause for a moment here to think about what exactly this means. Kamenov had reduced the global haystack to areas within the U.S. equivalent in size to a handful of states.

If this was the starting point of the Bear Brook investigation, it probably wouldn’t have seemed like a lead at all. The areas highlighted on the map - they are home to millions of people. But if you’ve been watching this case gather dust - wondering how on Earth four people could disappear so completely from the world without anybody noticing - this map is the first new piece of information in 30 years.

It wasn’t a slam dunk. Not even close. But it told investigators where to focus their efforts.

And there was one more thing that Kamenov was able to find. A tantalizing clue about how the victims spent the last few weeks of their lives.

---- [BREAK] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isotope testing can tell us a lot about where someone lived thanks to regional variations of isotopes and human pollution.

But while the isotopes themselves are important, scientists can also learn a lot from where the isotopes are found within the body.

For instance, your teeth. The isotopes there only reflect the environment from your early life, since teeth stop forming by your mid-twenties. That means the isotopic signature of your childhood environment is forever locked in your enamel, even if you spent the rest of your life somewhere else.

Isotopes found in hair, on the other hand, tell a different story.

Because hair grows continuously, it provides a record of the recent past. Each strand of hair is like a timeline of the final months of someone’s life. How far the timeline goes back depends on the length of the hair.

And because hair grows pretty quickly, it records changes in someone’s environment with a surprising level of detail.

In a case from Seattle, isotopes from an unidentified victim’s hair showed she had been moving back and forth from two regions several times in last few months before her death. That information helped police match her to a missing persons report and ultimately to identify her.

The hair of the adult victim in the Bear Brook case offered a similar clue about her movements just before the murder.

[Kamenov] “Her hair showed that the last few months before death, she was living in the area. However, about 5-7 months before death, she went somewhere -- either to the North or to the West. To a colder climate where the oxygen isotopes are lower. And what’s interesting is that the unrelated victim, the fourth girl that is not related by DNA, her teeth also show these lighter oxygen isotopes. So one possible interpretation is that that’s the time when the non-related girl joined the group.”

While the isotope maps for the related victims and the non-related child showed they grew up in different areas, testing of their hair showed that all four victims were together for the last two weeks to three months of lives, most likely in New England.

So what happened? Where did the adult victim go six months before she died? Was that when the non-related child joined the family? Was it an adoption? A kidnapping? Where is the non-related child’s family?

...

After that press conference in 2015, I asked Benjamin Agati, the prosecutor assigned to the Cold Case Unit, how they would they would try to answer those questions. Now that they’d inched the case forward with the isotope testing, what was next? What else could they do?

[Agati] “Somebody told me the other day that they saw the photos on the news and said ‘wow, the adult female, the victim, she looks looks like somebody back in highschool. They went to their old yearbook and looked -- they were completely wrong, it wasn’t that person. But the fact that they thought to go look, tells me we’ve got something going down the right road. So, even something like that, if somebody says ‘I’m not too sure.’ Pull out your yearbook. Look up that old friend or person that you knew and see if they are there. Take a look. Is it a possibility that this is a match? Give us a call, let us do the work.”

[begin creepy sound at low volume]

This theory of how the case would be solved seemed totally reasonable to me at the time. Remember, this was the first time I had ever even heard about the Bear Brook murders. But looking back, it must have been hard… calling that press conference, explaining how years of work had resulted in two simple maps and a set of images - putting that information out into the word, and then just hoping for a tip. Nothing useful had come in before - I wonder if they really thought anything would be different this time.

[Agati] If so, we’re encouraging everybody to reach out to us through those contacts, and the people who have been involved in this case, they have been great, they have done that and given that information to the cold case unit, given it to NCMIC and we’re following up it s fast as we can….[pause] Alright , if there are no further questions, I do have handouts for anybody who wants them and they contain the entire presentation.

[News conference ambi plays out, creepy noise grows]

[News conference tape cuts out]

Since we spoke in 2015, Agati has been reassigned out of the Cold Case Unit. But I imagine he still thinks about the Bear Brook case, frustrated that the victims, even now, remain unidentified.

In that sense, all of his work, and the work of investigators at NCMEC, was for nought. The new composite images and the maps went out on the news and people called in, but they mostly gave the same tips that investigators had already ruled out. If there is an old yearbook out there somewhere with a photo of one of the Bear Brook victims, it’s probably still sitting in a closet, or tucked under a bed.

The release of the isotope testing results was in some ways the final hail mary in the Bear Brook case. The Bear Brook investigation was reaching the end of the line.

But meanwhile, another mystery thousands of miles away in California was just beginning to unravel. This case had also stumped police for decades, and it would also push the boundaries of forensic science. And by the end, it would lead all the way back to New Hampshire.

[Ramos] “The minute I met him...I...it was...it was like meeting the devil.”

[JM] “Have you ever felt that way about anybody else?”

[Ramos] “Never. Never in my life have I ever, ever, ever had the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I met somebody.”

That’s next time on Bear Brook.

END OF EPISODE

...

If you have any information about the Bear Brook murders, or if you think you recognize any of the victims, contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-THELOST. That’s 1-800-843-5678.

You can see the latest composite images of the victims and the isotope maps released in 2015 at our website bear brook podcast dot com.

Bear Brook is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

Taylor Quimby is Senior Producer.

Editing help from Cori Princell, Todd Bookman, Lauren Chooljian, Sam Evans-Brown, Britta Green & Annie Ropeik.

The Executive Producer is Erika Janik.

Dan Barrick is NHPR’s News Director.

Director of Content is Maureen McMurray.

NHPR’s Digital Director is Rebecca Lavoie.

Photography and Video by Allie Gutierrez.

Graphics and interactives by Sara Plourde.

Original music for this show was composed by me, Jason Moon, and Taylor Quimby.

Additional music in this episode from Blue Dot Sessions.

Bear Brook is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.


Transcript of Episode 4: Eunsoon Jun

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text. Click here for the audio version of the episode.

*** New Year’s 2000 ***

Elaine Ramos was planning a big party. It was 1999, New Year’s Eve was coming soon, and she wanted to celebrate Y2K with friends and family at her home in Monterey, California. She was excited.

Even more so when her cousin, Eunsoon Jun, called with some big news.

[Ramos] “She called to say that she had met somebody and asked if she could bring him. And I thought sure, this is somebody that she’s finally met that she’s in love with, of course you can bring him.”

Elaine and Eunsoon were close. Their families both immigrated to the U.S. from Korea when they were young and they grew up together.

Elaine knew that Eunsoon had a hard time when it came to dating. So when Eunsoon, now in her mid-40s, called to say she had met someone, it was a big deal. Elaine couldn’t wait to meet him.

Elaine’s house in Monterey sits at the end of a cul de sac in a suburb full of nice ranch-style houses. When Eunsoon and her new boyfriend arrived on the day of the party, Elaine stepped outside to greet them.

[Ramos] “First of all, when they drove up it was in this dirty, white van. It didn’t have windows on it, it was one of those cargo vans. And I thought, ‘wow.’ But then when they came up to the door and I opened the door and saw his face, I had a chill run down my back that I’ve never in my life, ever had before. And he stuck out his hand to shake my hand and I saw the long dirty fingernails that just creeped me out.”

Eunsoon’s new boyfriend, Larry Vanner, looked ragged and dirty. He seemed a lot older than Eunsoon. He was bald on top, with patches of messy brown hair sprouting out on the sides. He wore a mustache, and his voice was a deep drawl. The only thing inviting about him, Elaine remembers, were his eyes. They were a shade of deep blue that seemed to sparkle in the light. Elaine says it was almost like they were made of glass.

Elaine was unsettled by her first impression of Vanner, but she wanted to be supportive.

[Ramos] “Eunsoon was just beaming. She was so happy to introduce him to the family.”

Later in the evening, as the party got going, Elaine tried again with the new boyfriend. She sat across a bar from Vanner and starting chatting.

[Ramos] “And so I asked him, I said ‘what have you done?’ And he just stared at me and said ‘I’m a retired colonel in the army.’ And I said ‘really? Because my boss is a retired full bird colonel and maybe you two know each other because I think you’re about the same age.’”

Vanner leaned over the bar close to Elaine and said:

[Ramos] “Don’t ever question me or ask me again about my past.”

Before Elaine could react, Vanner brightened back up, smiling and making small talk as if it never happened.

It was one of many red flags Elaine remembers from that night.

Vanner claimed to own properties all over the West Coast, but couldn’t explain why he had never taken Eunsoon to see any of them. He said he onced worked for the CIA and could disappear if he ever needed to.

At the end of the night, Elaine offered Eunsoon and Vanner a room to stay in. They had been drinking and she didn’t want them driving home.

[Ramos] “And she goes, ‘no, we’re going to sleep in the van.’ And that’s when we went outside and saw the van and it just had dirty blankets and pillows thrown in the back and I thought ‘‘Eunsoon, you can’t sleep here.’ She goes ‘no, I love it. I’m fine.’”

A few days after the party, Elaine got a phone call from Eunsoon. She wanted to know what she thought of the new boyfriend.

[Ramos] “And I said, ‘Eunsoon, I don’t really know him. I tried to get to know him but he didn’t want to answer my questions.’ I said, ‘please before you get too involved with him, make sure everything he is telling you is the truth. Please do that for me.’ And then she got angry at me. She said, ‘nobody wants me to be happy. I’ve finally found somebody who loves me and nobody wants me to be happy.’ And I said, ‘that’s not it, I just don’t want you to get involved with somebody who isn’t telling you the truth.’ And that was the last time I spoke with her.”

This is Bear Brook, I’m Jason Moon.

*** Eunsoon Jun ***

[Ramos] “Eunsoon was a free spirit. We always said she was like a Bohemian. She loved to explore religions, explore people, different  cultures.”

Eunsoon Jun was a chemist by profession. For years, she worked at a biotech company near Richmond, California. But Elaine says she was more of an artist at heart. She made pottery and loved to travel. She was interested in Buddhism.

[Ramos] “One thing about Eunsoon was, as much as she was spiritual, and loved meeting people, she was lonely. She didn’t find the love of her life. And I think that opened her up to be vulnerable to people who would take advantage of her.”

[JM] “Why do you think that is? Did she have trouble meeting people?”

“I think that for a lot of us that are immigrants, we sometimes don’t feel like we fit in. I think that was harbored in her longer than for some other people who could adjust easier.”

By the time Eunsoon turned 40, pressure was mounting for her to find someone and settle down.

Then she met Larry Vanner. Eunsoon needed some work done on her house and an acquaintance recommended him as a handyman. From there it somehow became a relationship.

After the New Year’s Party, Eunsoon drifted away from her family. Elaine wasn’t the only relative to disapprove of the new boyfriend. A few family members tried to talk to Eunsoon about it, but it only seemed to make things worse.

[Ramos] “Eunsoon’s brother was getting letters and emails from Eunsoon saying that she didn’t want anything more to do with the family. Nobody wants her to be happy, just leave her alone, let her live her life. And...it didn’t sound like her.”

To Eunsoon’s relatives, it almost seemed like she was under a spell.

By 2001, a year later, Vanner had moved in with Eunsoon. Later that year they got married. It wasn’t official, there was no marriage certificate. The ceremony was held in a backyard. It had a Star Trek theme. Elaine wasn’t invited.

Eunsoon wasn’t talking much with most of her family by then. But she was still in touch with her good friend, Renee Rose. Rose was also a potter and the two of them would sometimes go to pottery classes and art shows together. They usually spoke at least a few times a week.

I wasn’t able to speak with Rose for this story. But she did give an interview to a local paper back in 2003. Between that and the account of law enforcement officers who have spoken with her, here’s what we know.

...

In May of 2002, Rose called Eunsoon to work out the details for a trip they had planned for the following week. Eunsoon sounded anxious when she picked up the phone. She spoke quickly and ended the conversation abruptly, saying ‘I’ll talk to you tomorrow.’

But Eunsoon didn’t call the next day and she didn’t show up for the trip they were supposed to take.

Worried, Rose left messages for Eunsoon on her answering machine. After a few days, she got a call back. It was Vanner. He said Eunsoon’s mother was dying and that she had flown to Virginia to see her.

Rose asked if there was a way to reach Eunsoon in Virginia. Vanner said no.

Rose kept calling in the days and weeks that followed. Each time, Vanner’s explanation for why she couldn’t talk to Eunsoon was different. He said she was too emotionally fragile to talk, that her family had made her depressed. He said she was in Virginia, then Oregon. Once, he told Rose that Eunsoon had come home, but only for a day before leaving again.

Still, Rose kept calling. Something didn’t seem right. She wanted to know more about what was going on with Eunsoon. She wanted to know more about what was going on with Vanner. She offered to come over and cook him chili. She offered to clean the house ahead of Eunsoon’s return.

Vanner refused. He seemed annoyed, at times flashing with anger.

Finally, after several weeks, Rose gave Vanner an ultimatum. She was leaving on vacation for 10 days and said she wanted to hear Eunsoon’s voice on her answering machine when she got back. If she didn’t, she would call the police. In the end that’s what she did.

*** Roxane Gruenheid ***

As far as I can tell, Roxane Gruenheid is everything you want in a police officer. She’s tough and smart - and she’s got a real eye for detail.

[Gruenheid] “It was kind of funny, when I was working patrol, when I was first going through the training program, some of my training officers, I would write reports and he would say I’m too detailed.”

I spoke with Roxane just as she was entering retirement. After more than 25 years as a police officer in California, she decided to buy a house on Long Island to be closer to her family. She invited me over to talk so I made the drive a few hours south to catch a ferry.

When I arrived Roxane was still moving in. There was hardly any furniture around and a contractor was installing some new cabinets in the kitchen. Roxane found a couple of lawn chairs for us and she set them up in an empty room that looked out over her new swimming pool. Outside, a soft rain was falling.

Roxane and I ended up spending about two-and-a-half hours in those lawn chairs. She’s a good storyteller. I also noticed she has this verbal quirk.

[Gruenheid] “So it was pretty goofy.”

It’s almost like a catchphrase, something a TV cop might have.

[Gruenheid] “But then there’s this other story...Doing goofy things.”

Whenever something doesn’t quite add up, or she gets a gut feeling about a person or a place - she calls it goofy.

[Gruenheid] “Some stories are goofier than others and um…”

I get the impression it’s sort of a coping mechanism. A view of the world that she’s had to adopt, after working so many years in homicide.

[Gruenheid] “You know, you either talk to your colleagues, you find ways of trying to deal with it, you talk to your spouse, and some gallows humor... and some funny looks from people at parties from things that you think are funny as hell, that other people don’t think are very funny at all! And um goofy stories and you just try to take care of yourself.”

By 1999, Roxane’s attention to detail had gotten her promoted to the homicide division at the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department. Contra Costa is just across the bay from San Francisco. Roxane thrived as a homicide detective, solving not only the active cases assigned to her, but cold cases too.

She likes to tell the story of one those cold cases in particular because it proves how even the smallest detail can unlock a mystery.

The case was an unsolved murder from the 80s: a woman was found shot to death near her car on the side of the road. Roxane dug around and found an old recording of an interview with one of the suspects. It was a betamax tape that she had to take to the local public access TV station to play. In the video, the suspect denies even knowing the victim.

[Gruenheid] “At the end of the videotape, the detective gets up and he goes ‘alright, we’ll take you back to the jail now.’ And the lights go off, so there’s no more video. But there’s still audio, cause they’re standing in the doorway, talking.”

On those last few seconds of tape, Roxane could hear the detective casually ask the suspect what kind of cigarettes he smokes.

[Gruenheid] “And suspect responds, he goes, ‘Pall Malls.’ And he goes, ‘filters or no filters?’ And he goes, ‘no filters.’”

The Pall Malls triggered something Roxane had read in the case file: detectives had taken the contents of an ashtray in the victim’s car into evidence.

[Gruenheid] “And there were like three Pall Mall no-filter cigarettes in her ashtray. And I was like ‘holy crap!’ And I went back and I called the crime lab and was like ‘do you still have these cigarettes?’ ‘Yes we have them.’ ‘Great.’ Put in a request to see if there’s DNA on them. That was his DNA on the cigarettes and that was it. That one little detail opened that case wide open. And he went to prison for murdering that woman.”

Anyways, that’s where Roxane was in 2002, solving cold cases, making a name for herself, when a call came in about a missing woman.

[Gruenheid] “Our patrol division had been contacted by a woman by the name of Rose and she had called the Sheriff’s Office to report her friend, Eunsoon Jun, missing.”

[DETECTIVE] “Do you need another coke?”

[Vanner] “No, I’m fine.”

Within a few days, detectives brought Larry Vanner, Eunsoon Jun’s new live-in boyfriend, in for questioning. The video of the interview shows Vanner sitting in an office chair in a small windowless room in front of a tiny desk. Vanner is wearing a t-shirt and gray slacks. A pair of eyeglasses are propped up on his balding head.

[DETECTIVE] “Maybe she’s hurt herself and you’re concerned about that getting out -- that she’s harmed herself?

[Vanner] “No.”

[DETECTIVE] “There’s no truth to that?”

[Vanner] “If you’re thinking, is she suicidal? No, she’s not...But she’s not as aggressive as she used to be.”

Vanner seemed evasive to detectives. He was willing enough to talk, but when he did he would end up issuing vague platitudes.

[Vanner] “Now I’ve always tried to live by the motto that there’s no defense against the truth. But sometimes it’s hard to find out what the truth is. You’ve got one side, the other side, and something down the middle that some people might perceive to be the truth.”

Or he would tell rambling stories that seemed to be building to a point that never came.

[Vanner] “When these guys get a chance to go work for the forest service for $28.50 an hour paid 24 hours a day plus their meals, even though it’s dangerous, they’re gonna go. They will!”

[DETECTIVE] “Mmhmm.”

[Vanner] “And it used to be, driving through places like that if you had a pair of shoes and you were close to the fire you’d get uh...what would you call it...you’d get volunteered. ‘Park your car mister, you’re gonna be a firefighter.’”

Vanner claimed that Eunsoon was in Oregon. She was overseeing the construction of a cabin on one of his properties, he said. But he wouldn’t give police a way to contact her.

Then later his story changed. He said the real reason Eunsoon was in Oregon was to see a therapist because she’d suffered a mental breakdown. Vanner said a call from police could trigger an anxiety attack.

[Vanner2002Interview] “Now I haven’t talked anymore Eunsoon’s problems or my problems because frankly, you’re not my priest and you’re not my doctor. And bullshit stories have their place. You know, gossip has its place in society sometimes. But I’m just not going to say anymore about Eunsoon or myself right now.”

[Gruenheid] “He played this kind of cat-and-mouse game with them. At one point in the interview I know they provided him with a telephone and he dialed a number and then didn’t talk to anybody and then hung up. But because it was on videotape we could slow it down and get the phone number that he was dialing and when a detective called that number it actually did go to a psychiatrist’s office in Eugene, Oregon. And so we were thinking, ‘ok, maybe.’ You know, he didn’t have a piece of paper. He had this phone number in his head.”

Over the phone detectives asked the psychiatrist if Eunsoon was there. The doctor said federal patient privacy laws didn’t allow them to reveal that.

Detectives looked for a way around the privacy law. Finally, they worked out a compromise with the doctor. They would give a physical description of Eunsoon, and the doctor would say if they were treating a patient who matched it.

After hearing the description, the psychiatrist said ‘no.’

The Oregon story was looking pretty shaky. But there was another reason why detectives were suspicious.

[Gruenheid] “So the goofy thing, the big red flag in the room was the fact that he had given us this name of Lawrence William Vanner with a date of birth.”

Roxane says when they ran that name through the system, instead of coming back with a driver’s license like they would expect, it came back with something called an index number. In California, index numbers are basically placeholders for someone’s identity in official records. They’re assigned to people who don’t have a valid form of ID.

[Gruenheid] “And that’s all we had on him. There was no criminal history, nothing in our -- no prior mention in a police report, there was nothing in any database, there was no driver’s license, there was no -- like nothing. Like nothing.”

Detectives asked Vanner if they could fingerprint him. He agreed.

To do that, they had to take him to a separate facility across town. Roxane volunteered to ride along in the backseat with Vanner while another detective drove.

On the way over, Roxane started chatting with Vanner. She says it was smalltalk with a purpose.

[Gruenheid] “I kinda worked into the conversation to see where I could go with it. You know what I mean? I mean, I’m a detective, right? I’m trying to figure stuff out.

Roxane wanted to see if she could figure out where Vanner was from. She started by talking about accents. She brought up her own Long Island accent. How it was often commented on here in California. Then she said it sounded like he had an accent too, but she couldn’t place it -- where was it from?

[Gruenheid] “He stopped dead in his conversation, looked at me and then got really closer to me, looked me straight in the eye and he says ‘that’s none of your damn business.’”

[mux here]

Vanner then abruptly returned to casual smalltalk. Roxane says the mood change was so fast it was like a lightswitch. The same thing Elaine had seen at the New Year’s party.

Vanner was fingerprinted and then detectives drove him back to the station. By the time they returned, the results of the prints were already waiting for them. They would change everything.

-----[Break] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When detectives got back to the police station with Larry Vanner, they left him alone in the same interrogation room as before. When they came back in the room, one of the detectives was holding a slim manilla folder with the results from Vanner’s fingerprints, which included a criminal record and a list of known aliases.

[Vanner2002Interview]

[DETECTIVE 1] “Alright Larry, your prints came back. You know your other name, right?”

[DETECTIVE 2] “Curtis or Gerald or Gerry or whatever name you’re going by this week.”

[DETECTIVE 1] “Curtis Kimball.”

[DETECTIVE 2] “Curtis Kimball. Or Gerald Mocker… what’s the other one?”

[DETECTIVE 1] “Mockerman.”

[DETECTIVE 2] “Mockerman, right.”

[DETECTIVE 1] “Ring a bell?”

[Vanner] “No.”

[DETECTIVE 1] “Yeah that’s who you are, man.”

Larry Vanner’s fingerprints belonged to a man whose name was not Larry Vanner. The prints came back under the name Curtis Mayo Kimball. In the video, you can actually see the surprise splash across Vanner-slash-Kimball’s face as detectives list off his other names. Detectives assumed that Curtis Kimball was itself an alias, but at this point it was the earliest name they had. For Roxane Gruenheid, it was hard to know what to make of this new information.

[Gruenheid] “Were you thinking… Eunsoon’s probably not ok?” “We still didn’t know. I mean, the goal of any missing persons investigation is to determine where they are, and if they’re ok, you know what I mean. But now we had an added piece to it…  Who is this guy, that’s given us one name… that’s really not even a name… that’s not even him...That is now, purportedly this other guy who has been on parole for 12 years!

That last part - that Curtis Kimball was on parole - was a big deal.  I’ll explain why in a minute. In 1989 Kimball was convicted of child abandonment and spent a year and a half in a California state prison. Then on the day he was released, he skipped town, violating his parole.

[Gruenheid] “And so that was a whole different -- now we had a whole different ball of wax.”

Looking back, Contra Costa detective Roxane Gruenheid thinks that Kimball didn’t know that his prints would come back so quickly. The last time he was in custody was over ten years ago, before the process was handled by computers. She thinks he agreed to get fingerprinted assuming it would take at least a few days for the results to come back. Plenty of time to leave town, adopt a new name, and start over again.

But that plan didn’t work.

[Gruenheid] “So I read him his miranda rights and at that time he chose not to talk to us and he shut down the interview.” Did he have any interaction at all. No nothing, just I want an attorney. And that was it.

In California, parolees and their property are subject to police searches for any reason at any time, no warrant required.

Now that Roxane had Curtis Kimball’s record in hand - and had discovered that he had violated parole - she had a new opportunity. She could legally search his home.

So Roxane and another detective named Mike Costa drove out to Eunsoon Jun’s house where she and Curtis Kimball had been living together to have a look around. Detectives were worried. Whatever this revelation about Curtis Kimball meant, it probably wasn’t good for Eunsoon.

Eunsoon lived in an area called East Richmond heights. It’s a middle class neighborhood, with small houses packed right next to each other along winding roads that work their way up a hillside. From the top of the hill, on a clear day, you can see all the way across the bay to San Francisco.

Roxane and Mike arrived at the house and knocked at the front door. No one answered. Using the keys they’d taken from Kimball, they went inside.

[Gruenheid] “We were working a missing persons case, so we didn’t open any drawers or anything like that because no human being could be in a drawer, you know what I mean? So we just walked around the house to make sure that A, that there wasn’t anybody in there that was going to hurt us, and at the same time just making that if she was in there we would try to find her. So we were looking for somebody human-sized, her human-sized, in the general areas of the house.”

Roxane and Mike went room by room. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary. But that changed as the search moved outside.

[Gruenheid] “We went in the backyard and we found a dead kitten that had been thrown over the fence in the back.”

[Gruenheid] “There was an area inside the shed that looked like it had recently been tried to be dug up inside the shed.

[JM] “Like a dirt floor?”

“Yeah, like a dirt floor inside the shed.”

Roxane and Mike took note of the dead cat, of the disturbed soil in the shed. Then made their way around the outside of the house to the garage. It was the one place they hadn’t looked yet. The sliding garage door had a padlock on it, but Roxane found the key on Kimball’s keychain. She threw up the door and found Eunsoon’s pottery studio.

[Gruenheid] “She had several kilns, like nice big kilns. There was pottery in various stages of being created - fired, glazed.”

The walls of the garage were lined with Eunsoon’s pottery. Bowls, vases, sculpted figures and masks.

Roxane and Mike slowly moved through the space, careful not to touch anything.

In the back of the garage they found a doorway. It led down a few steps to an unfinished part of the house -- a sort of basement crawl space with a dirt floor. It was about 8 by 10, and not quite tall enough to stand up in.

[Gruenheid] “And my partner Mike went in there and he looked around and he goes, ‘you need to come take a look at this.’ And I stepped into that area and looked with my flashlight and I could see that there was a huge pile of cat litter, probably that tall, so a good three feet tall.”

Cat litter. The pile was almost waist-high… and maybe 5 feet across. Enough to fill the bed of a truck.

[Gruenheid] “I’d never seen anything like that. It was perfect. It was just like you’d pile up a pile of sand.”

On the ceiling above the pile, a couple of work lights were clamped onto an exposed beam. The lights were aimed down at the pile, like the cat litter was part of some kind of bizarre home improvement project.

[Gruenheid] “There was some shop kind of tools and equipment there...reciprocating saw, there was a small, not a hatchet small, but like a child’s axe leaned up there, there was some bottles of some green substance, like spray bottles...so it was goofy.”

[Mux swell]

Roxane called for the forensic team. For an hour and a half they photographed the scene in detail. The cat litter, the work lights, the tools. Then, finally, they started to sift through the pile of cat litter.

[Gruenheid] “And within a few swipes of the pile, the thing that emerged was a human foot that was still in a rubber like a flip flop.”

...

[Gruenheid] “But it was mummified, like you’d see in a museum. Like a mummified foot. Human foot, obviously human foot.”

The forensic team found blood splatter on the heating and air conditioning ductwork above the pile of cat litter. It suggested that Eunsoon had been bludgeoned to death there in the crawlspace. They also discovered that her body had been dismembered.

...

[Ramos] “She wanted to be loved that’s all she wanted. I think that she found out about him or found out that something wasn’t right and confronted him. He probably would’ve killed her anyway. But I’m sure Eunsoon confronted him. I’m sure she fought... I have to believe that she fought.”

...

[music fade out]

[Motta] “The case stuck with me because he was so freakin’ creepy.”

Joe Motta was a prosecutor with the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s office for 17 years.

[Motta] “It was just an unusual kind of case, just the nature of it. I’d never seen anything like that.”

In 2003 he had what seemed like an open and shut case against Kimball. He had lied about Eunsoon Jun’s whereabouts. Her body was found in the house he was living in. And Roxane had uncovered lots of evidence that he had been spending Eunsoon’s money after her death.

But as he prepared for trial, Motta was worried.

[Motta] “My opponent was a pretty well-respected public defender, probably their toughest advocate at the time. He was a noble adversary. He was a brawler.”

Motta knew this experienced defense attorney would try to argue that Kimball wasn’t directly involved in Eunsoon’s death. To try to negotiate a plea deal on a lesser charge, like accessory to murder.

[Motta] “My big concern was there’s not enough evidence to show how it went down. There wasn’t. There wasn’t any evidence. There wasn’t a murder weapon. You know, what if she fell down the stairs and he felt bad and he didn’t want anyone to know about it? You know, who knows what they could’ve come up with.”

Motta needed something connecting Kimball to the scene in the basement. He figured their best shot was the cat litter. It was so much cat litter that a store employee might might remember the purchase and who made it. If Motta could show the jury that Kimball had worked to cover up Eunsoon’s death, it would help tie him to the crime itself. It wouldn’t be a smoking gun, but it would help.

He put detective Roxane Gruenheid on the case.

[Gruenheid] “I can’t even imagine, there’s gotta be 1500 dog and cat boutique stores -- you could buy that anywhere, you know.”

Roxane wasn’t sure how she was going to find the right pet store. But then she remembered a detail.

[Gruenheid] “When I was tracking back some of the fiduciary crimes that he was committing, he had used Eunsoon’s ATM card at this ATM down in on the edge of El Sobrante, Richmond area. And I used to work in that beat.”

Roxane realized she knew that ATM. And she knew there was a pet store right next to it.

[Gruenheid] “So I roll up there and I go in and I go to talk to the manager and I go… ‘anybody buy a large quantity of cat litter in the past?’ and he goes ‘yeah! There was this guy!’ And so basically he tells me this story that this old guy, twinkly blue eyes, drives up with his car, bought 10, 25 pound -- and it was the 20 pound with the bonus 5 pounds for free. Pays cash, loads them in his car, and his story to the employees was something to the effect of that he had a little bit of oil that he spilled in the driveway changing the oil in his car. But I was like, ‘anybody ever buy 250 pounds of cat litter?’ And they were like, ‘no that was pretty unusual.’”

The cat litter wasn’t Kimball’s only attempt at covering up evidence of the crime. A neighbor told Roxane that Kimball had been out hosing the driveway one day when he casually mentioned that he was dealing with a rat infestation, and that if there were any strange smells coming from him garage, not to worry about it.

So Motta had more than enough to prosecute the case. But as the trial approached, Roxane kept digging anyways. She got in touch with Kimball’s former parole officer and had all the documents on his criminal record faxed over. Roxane read through them all.

[mux here]

His criminal record began in 1986, about 15 years before he met Eunsoon, with a warrant issued for child abandonment.

According to the police reports, he had left his five year old daughter at an RV park with an elderly couple and then fled. At the time he was using the name Gordon Jensen.

A few years later he was pulled over driving a stolen car. He gave officers the name Gerald Mockerman, but his fingerprints linked him back to the child abandonment charge. He was convicted on that charge and served about a year and a half of a three year sentence in a California state prison before being released on parole. The parole officer told Roxane he never showed up for his first meeting.

Roxane was getting more and more interested in Kimball’s past -- the trail of aliases, his daughter at the RV park. She couldn’t let it go. Even as Kimball headed to court for a murder trial he was sure to lose.

Eunsoon Jun’s cousin, Elaine Ramos, can remember the first day of the trial. It was the first time any of the family had seen Curtis Kimball, a man they had known as Larry Vanner, since the murder.

[Elaine] “As he walked past us -- we all had buttons, pins with Eunsoon’s face on it. And we were all sitting there in the jury box or whatever that is and he passed us by and he just gave us this smirky smile. It was disgusting.”

The trial was hard on Eunsoon’s family. And not just because Kimball seemed to be taunting them. Eunsoon Jun and Curtis Kimball met in November of 1999. He was arrested for her murder in November 2002. During those years, Kimball had so successfully isolated Eunsoon that her family was forced to grieve someone that they didn’t know as well as they once had. The emails from Eunsoon telling her family to leave her alone -- they hadn’t sounded like Eunsoon because it turns out they Kimball wrote them. He made sure that for many of Eunsoon’s relatives, their last conversation with her was an argument about her new boyfriend.

[Elaine] “Everybody felt guilty for not trying harder to protect her. But it’s hard to protect somebody that -- she wanted to be loved. That’s all she wanted.”

...

[Elaine] “Her mother had dementia. So that was a good thing that she never learned what happened to Eunsoon. You know she would ask about her and her daughter would just say that she was busy. And that was a blessing.”

Elaine says most of the family doesn’t like to talk about this anymore. It’s too painful to relive. But Eunsoon is well remembered by her family, often through her pottery.

[Elaine] “I have a couple of pieces in my garden and one piece that when holidays come I use.…[laughing] my husband says it wasn’t very good… And then she made this man. This kind of funny looking man that I have outside. I call her my Eunsoon man.”

[JM] [33:00] “It sounds like, was she, before all this happened, was she was very um… It sounds like she was very loved.”

[Elaine] “She was. I mean there were family issues, but there is with most families. You have your differences and get mad at your siblings. But in the end we all love each other.”

The first day of Curtis Kimball’s trial ended with few surprises. Things were going more or less as Motta had planned. But that changed the next morning on the second day of trial. Kimball stood up and told the judge he wanted to change his plea -- to guilty.

[JM] “When he pled guilty, did it seem like his attorney was caught by surprise?

[Motta] “Oh yeah, his attorney -- he said on the record, I’m pretty sure, that ‘this plea is against my advice.’

[JM] “How unusual is that?”

[Motta] “Pretty darned unusual. Nobody ever pleads guilty to murder.”

Nobody pleads guilty to murder. But Curtis Kimball did. He willingly accepted a sentence of 15 years to life.

Detective Roxane Gruenheid thinks she might know why. The day before, on the first day of trial, she had been talking with Prosecutor Joe Motta during a courtroom recess. She was updating Motta on all the things she was finding in Kimball’s past. Kimball, meanwhile, was sitting not too far away at the defendant’s table. Close enough to maybe overhear.

[Gruenheid] “He wanted me to stop my investigation. Like, he didn’t want me to continue to go down that rabbit hole. And he thought if he pled guilty, maybe I would go away.”

*** Postscript to an Investigation ***

But Roxane didn’t go away. Back at her desk, she kept reading through the old police reports of Kimball’s criminal history. The part she found the most puzzling was the charge that had put Kimball behind bars in the late 80’s: abandoning his own five year old daughter at an RV park. In the files there were photographs of her.

[Gruenheid] “They were xerox copies so they weren’t very clear but she was little. Like she was a little, little tiny girl, you know what I mean. And there was a fingerprint card, like a booking fingerprint card, but with these little tiny fingerprints on them. And footprints, you know because in the hospital because they take the baby’s footprint.”

Roxane became fixated on this little girl. Her name was listed as Lisa. But actually Roxane wasn’t so sure about that.

When Curtis Kimball and ‘Lisa’ were staying at the RV park, he was using the name Gordon Jensen. But Roxane knew that Gordon Jensen was an alias -- that it wasn’t his real name. For that matter, she was pretty sure Curtis Kimball was a fake name, too. This got her wondering -- if he’d been lying about his own name to hide his past, maybe he had been lying about the little girl’s name, too.

Maybe, this “Lisa” didn’t know her real name. Maybe she wasn’t even really his daughter.

[Gruenheid] “I was sitting there at my cubicle and I’m reading all this stuff and I felt like now that I had my homicide case and who this guy was but then there’s all this backstory to him and who the heck is this guy, really? And who is that little girl?”

Roxane wanted to do a paternity test to know for sure. She had Kimball’s DNA from her homicide investigation. And she learned that detectives investigating Lisa’s abandonment had taken a blood sample from her back in the 80s. Roxane convinced the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department to split the blood sample, which they still had, then they FedExed it to her in Contra Costa County. Roxane ordered the paternity test as soon as it arrived.

[Gruenheid] “And I got the report back that was scientifically definitive: this person is not biologically related to this person. And I’m like holy moly! This is crazy right now! San Bernardino has like an Elizabeth Smart. Who is she? \I’m like who is she?!”

[mux swell]

It had taken almost 20 years since Lisa was abandoned for someone to find out that she was a living Jane Doe. That she had a real family and a real name somewhere out there. That she was a missing person.

By ordering that paternity test, Roxane revealed a mystery that was not unlike the one that had mystified police in Bear Brook. Though Lisa was alive, she was just as unidentified as the victims found in those barrels.

It may be hard to see now, but the struggle to find Lisa’s true identity would lead all the way back to Bear Brook State Park. It would also lead to a breakthrough in criminal forensics that is being used right now to solve some of the country’s most notorious cold cases.

That’s next time on Bear Brook.

END OF EPISODE

Bear Brook is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

Taylor Quimby is Senior Producer.

Editing help from Cori Princell, Todd Bookman, Lauren Chooljian, Sam Evans-Brown, Britta Green & Annie Ropeik.

The Executive Producer is Erika Janik.

Dan Barrick is NHPR’s News Director.

Director of Content is Maureen McMurray.

NHPR’s Digital Director is Rebecca Lavoie.

Photography and Video by Allie Gutierrez.

Graphics and interactives by Sara Plourde.

Original music for this show was composed by me, Jason Moon, and Taylor Quimby.

Additional music in this episode by: Blue Dot Sessions, Lee Rosevere, Podington Bear, and Daniel Birch.

To see a timeline of the cases mentioned in this episode … go to our website: bear brook podcast dot org.

Bear Brook is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of Episode 4: Eunsoon Jun

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text. Click here for the audio version of the episode.

*** New Year’s 2000 ***

Elaine Ramos was planning a big party. It was 1999, New Year’s Eve was coming soon, and she wanted to celebrate Y2K with friends and family at her home in Monterey, California. She was excited.

Even more so when her cousin, Eunsoon Jun, called with some big news.

[Ramos] “She called to say that she had met somebody and asked if she could bring him. And I thought sure, this is somebody that she’s finally met that she’s in love with, of course you can bring him.”

Elaine and Eunsoon were close. Their families both immigrated to the U.S. from Korea when they were young and they grew up together.

Elaine knew that Eunsoon had a hard time when it came to dating. So when Eunsoon, now in her mid-40s, called to say she had met someone, it was a big deal. Elaine couldn’t wait to meet him.

Elaine’s house in Monterey sits at the end of a cul de sac in a suburb full of nice ranch-style houses. When Eunsoon and her new boyfriend arrived on the day of the party, Elaine stepped outside to greet them.

[Ramos] “First of all, when they drove up it was in this dirty, white van. It didn’t have windows on it, it was one of those cargo vans. And I thought, ‘wow.’ But then when they came up to the door and I opened the door and saw his face, I had a chill run down my back that I’ve never in my life, ever had before. And he stuck out his hand to shake my hand and I saw the long dirty fingernails that just creeped me out.”

Eunsoon’s new boyfriend, Larry Vanner, looked ragged and dirty. He seemed a lot older than Eunsoon. He was bald on top, with patches of messy brown hair sprouting out on the sides. He wore a mustache, and his voice was a deep drawl. The only thing inviting about him, Elaine remembers, were his eyes. They were a shade of deep blue that seemed to sparkle in the light. Elaine says it was almost like they were made of glass.

Elaine was unsettled by her first impression of Vanner, but she wanted to be supportive.

[Ramos] “Eunsoon was just beaming. She was so happy to introduce him to the family.”

Later in the evening, as the party got going, Elaine tried again with the new boyfriend. She sat across a bar from Vanner and starting chatting.

[Ramos] “And so I asked him, I said ‘what have you done?’ And he just stared at me and said ‘I’m a retired colonel in the army.’ And I said ‘really? Because my boss is a retired full bird colonel and maybe you two know each other because I think you’re about the same age.’”

Vanner leaned over the bar close to Elaine and said:

[Ramos] “Don’t ever question me or ask me again about my past.”

Before Elaine could react, Vanner brightened back up, smiling and making small talk as if it never happened.

It was one of many red flags Elaine remembers from that night.

Vanner claimed to own properties all over the West Coast, but couldn’t explain why he had never taken Eunsoon to see any of them. He said he onced worked for the CIA and could disappear if he ever needed to.

At the end of the night, Elaine offered Eunsoon and Vanner a room to stay in. They had been drinking and she didn’t want them driving home.

[Ramos] “And she goes, ‘no, we’re going to sleep in the van.’ And that’s when we went outside and saw the van and it just had dirty blankets and pillows thrown in the back and I thought ‘‘Eunsoon, you can’t sleep here.’ She goes ‘no, I love it. I’m fine.’”

A few days after the party, Elaine got a phone call from Eunsoon. She wanted to know what she thought of the new boyfriend.

[Ramos] “And I said, ‘Eunsoon, I don’t really know him. I tried to get to know him but he didn’t want to answer my questions.’ I said, ‘please before you get too involved with him, make sure everything he is telling you is the truth. Please do that for me.’ And then she got angry at me. She said, ‘nobody wants me to be happy. I’ve finally found somebody who loves me and nobody wants me to be happy.’ And I said, ‘that’s not it, I just don’t want you to get involved with somebody who isn’t telling you the truth.’ And that was the last time I spoke with her.”

This is Bear Brook, I’m Jason Moon.

*** Eunsoon Jun ***

[Ramos] “Eunsoon was a free spirit. We always said she was like a Bohemian. She loved to explore religions, explore people, different  cultures.”

Eunsoon Jun was a chemist by profession. For years, she worked at a biotech company near Richmond, California. But Elaine says she was more of an artist at heart. She made pottery and loved to travel. She was interested in Buddhism.

[Ramos] “One thing about Eunsoon was, as much as she was spiritual, and loved meeting people, she was lonely. She didn’t find the love of her life. And I think that opened her up to be vulnerable to people who would take advantage of her.”

[JM] “Why do you think that is? Did she have trouble meeting people?”

“I think that for a lot of us that are immigrants, we sometimes don’t feel like we fit in. I think that was harbored in her longer than for some other people who could adjust easier.”

By the time Eunsoon turned 40, pressure was mounting for her to find someone and settle down.

Then she met Larry Vanner. Eunsoon needed some work done on her house and an acquaintance recommended him as a handyman. From there it somehow became a relationship.

After the New Year’s Party, Eunsoon drifted away from her family. Elaine wasn’t the only relative to disapprove of the new boyfriend. A few family members tried to talk to Eunsoon about it, but it only seemed to make things worse.

[Ramos] “Eunsoon’s brother was getting letters and emails from Eunsoon saying that she didn’t want anything more to do with the family. Nobody wants her to be happy, just leave her alone, let her live her life. And...it didn’t sound like her.”

To Eunsoon’s relatives, it almost seemed like she was under a spell.

By 2001, a year later, Vanner had moved in with Eunsoon. Later that year they got married. It wasn’t official, there was no marriage certificate. The ceremony was held in a backyard. It had a Star Trek theme. Elaine wasn’t invited.

Eunsoon wasn’t talking much with most of her family by then. But she was still in touch with her good friend, Renee Rose. Rose was also a potter and the two of them would sometimes go to pottery classes and art shows together. They usually spoke at least a few times a week.

I wasn’t able to speak with Rose for this story. But she did give an interview to a local paper back in 2003. Between that and the account of law enforcement officers who have spoken with her, here’s what we know.

...

In May of 2002, Rose called Eunsoon to work out the details for a trip they had planned for the following week. Eunsoon sounded anxious when she picked up the phone. She spoke quickly and ended the conversation abruptly, saying ‘I’ll talk to you tomorrow.’

But Eunsoon didn’t call the next day and she didn’t show up for the trip they were supposed to take.

Worried, Rose left messages for Eunsoon on her answering machine. After a few days, she got a call back. It was Vanner. He said Eunsoon’s mother was dying and that she had flown to Virginia to see her.

Rose asked if there was a way to reach Eunsoon in Virginia. Vanner said no.

Rose kept calling in the days and weeks that followed. Each time, Vanner’s explanation for why she couldn’t talk to Eunsoon was different. He said she was too emotionally fragile to talk, that her family had made her depressed. He said she was in Virginia, then Oregon. Once, he told Rose that Eunsoon had come home, but only for a day before leaving again.

Still, Rose kept calling. Something didn’t seem right. She wanted to know more about what was going on with Eunsoon. She wanted to know more about what was going on with Vanner. She offered to come over and cook him chili. She offered to clean the house ahead of Eunsoon’s return.

Vanner refused. He seemed annoyed, at times flashing with anger.

Finally, after several weeks, Rose gave Vanner an ultimatum. She was leaving on vacation for 10 days and said she wanted to hear Eunsoon’s voice on her answering machine when she got back. If she didn’t, she would call the police. In the end that’s what she did.

*** Roxane Gruenheid ***

As far as I can tell, Roxane Gruenheid is everything you want in a police officer. She’s tough and smart - and she’s got a real eye for detail.

[Gruenheid] “It was kind of funny, when I was working patrol, when I was first going through the training program, some of my training officers, I would write reports and he would say I’m too detailed.”

I spoke with Roxane just as she was entering retirement. After more than 25 years as a police officer in California, she decided to buy a house on Long Island to be closer to her family. She invited me over to talk so I made the drive a few hours south to catch a ferry.

When I arrived Roxane was still moving in. There was hardly any furniture around and a contractor was installing some new cabinets in the kitchen. Roxane found a couple of lawn chairs for us and she set them up in an empty room that looked out over her new swimming pool. Outside, a soft rain was falling.

Roxane and I ended up spending about two-and-a-half hours in those lawn chairs. She’s a good storyteller. I also noticed she has this verbal quirk.

[Gruenheid] “So it was pretty goofy.”

It’s almost like a catchphrase, something a TV cop might have.

[Gruenheid] “But then there’s this other story...Doing goofy things.”

Whenever something doesn’t quite add up, or she gets a gut feeling about a person or a place - she calls it goofy.

[Gruenheid] “Some stories are goofier than others and um…”

I get the impression it’s sort of a coping mechanism. A view of the world that she’s had to adopt, after working so many years in homicide.

[Gruenheid] “You know, you either talk to your colleagues, you find ways of trying to deal with it, you talk to your spouse, and some gallows humor... and some funny looks from people at parties from things that you think are funny as hell, that other people don’t think are very funny at all! And um goofy stories and you just try to take care of yourself.”

By 1999, Roxane’s attention to detail had gotten her promoted to the homicide division at the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department. Contra Costa is just across the bay from San Francisco. Roxane thrived as a homicide detective, solving not only the active cases assigned to her, but cold cases too.

She likes to tell the story of one those cold cases in particular because it proves how even the smallest detail can unlock a mystery.

The case was an unsolved murder from the 80s: a woman was found shot to death near her car on the side of the road. Roxane dug around and found an old recording of an interview with one of the suspects. It was a betamax tape that she had to take to the local public access TV station to play. In the video, the suspect denies even knowing the victim.

[Gruenheid] “At the end of the videotape, the detective gets up and he goes ‘alright, we’ll take you back to the jail now.’ And the lights go off, so there’s no more video. But there’s still audio, cause they’re standing in the doorway, talking.”

On those last few seconds of tape, Roxane could hear the detective casually ask the suspect what kind of cigarettes he smokes.

[Gruenheid] “And suspect responds, he goes, ‘Pall Malls.’ And he goes, ‘filters or no filters?’ And he goes, ‘no filters.’”

The Pall Malls triggered something Roxane had read in the case file: detectives had taken the contents of an ashtray in the victim’s car into evidence.

[Gruenheid] “And there were like three Pall Mall no-filter cigarettes in her ashtray. And I was like ‘holy crap!’ And I went back and I called the crime lab and was like ‘do you still have these cigarettes?’ ‘Yes we have them.’ ‘Great.’ Put in a request to see if there’s DNA on them. That was his DNA on the cigarettes and that was it. That one little detail opened that case wide open. And he went to prison for murdering that woman.”

Anyways, that’s where Roxane was in 2002, solving cold cases, making a name for herself, when a call came in about a missing woman.

[Gruenheid] “Our patrol division had been contacted by a woman by the name of Rose and she had called the Sheriff’s Office to report her friend, Eunsoon Jun, missing.”

[DETECTIVE] “Do you need another coke?”

[Vanner] “No, I’m fine.”

Within a few days, detectives brought Larry Vanner, Eunsoon Jun’s new live-in boyfriend, in for questioning. The video of the interview shows Vanner sitting in an office chair in a small windowless room in front of a tiny desk. Vanner is wearing a t-shirt and gray slacks. A pair of eyeglasses are propped up on his balding head.

[DETECTIVE] “Maybe she’s hurt herself and you’re concerned about that getting out -- that she’s harmed herself?

[Vanner] “No.”

[DETECTIVE] “There’s no truth to that?”

[Vanner] “If you’re thinking, is she suicidal? No, she’s not...But she’s not as aggressive as she used to be.”

Vanner seemed evasive to detectives. He was willing enough to talk, but when he did he would end up issuing vague platitudes.

[Vanner] “Now I’ve always tried to live by the motto that there’s no defense against the truth. But sometimes it’s hard to find out what the truth is. You’ve got one side, the other side, and something down the middle that some people might perceive to be the truth.”

Or he would tell rambling stories that seemed to be building to a point that never came.

[Vanner] “When these guys get a chance to go work for the forest service for $28.50 an hour paid 24 hours a day plus their meals, even though it’s dangerous, they’re gonna go. They will!”

[DETECTIVE] “Mmhmm.”

[Vanner] “And it used to be, driving through places like that if you had a pair of shoes and you were close to the fire you’d get uh...what would you call it...you’d get volunteered. ‘Park your car mister, you’re gonna be a firefighter.’”

Vanner claimed that Eunsoon was in Oregon. She was overseeing the construction of a cabin on one of his properties, he said. But he wouldn’t give police a way to contact her.

Then later his story changed. He said the real reason Eunsoon was in Oregon was to see a therapist because she’d suffered a mental breakdown. Vanner said a call from police could trigger an anxiety attack.

[Vanner2002Interview] “Now I haven’t talked anymore Eunsoon’s problems or my problems because frankly, you’re not my priest and you’re not my doctor. And bullshit stories have their place. You know, gossip has its place in society sometimes. But I’m just not going to say anymore about Eunsoon or myself right now.”

[Gruenheid] “He played this kind of cat-and-mouse game with them. At one point in the interview I know they provided him with a telephone and he dialed a number and then didn’t talk to anybody and then hung up. But because it was on videotape we could slow it down and get the phone number that he was dialing and when a detective called that number it actually did go to a psychiatrist’s office in Eugene, Oregon. And so we were thinking, ‘ok, maybe.’ You know, he didn’t have a piece of paper. He had this phone number in his head.”

Over the phone detectives asked the psychiatrist if Eunsoon was there. The doctor said federal patient privacy laws didn’t allow them to reveal that.

Detectives looked for a way around the privacy law. Finally, they worked out a compromise with the doctor. They would give a physical description of Eunsoon, and the doctor would say if they were treating a patient who matched it.

After hearing the description, the psychiatrist said ‘no.’

The Oregon story was looking pretty shaky. But there was another reason why detectives were suspicious.

[Gruenheid] “So the goofy thing, the big red flag in the room was the fact that he had given us this name of Lawrence William Vanner with a date of birth.”

Roxane says when they ran that name through the system, instead of coming back with a driver’s license like they would expect, it came back with something called an index number. In California, index numbers are basically placeholders for someone’s identity in official records. They’re assigned to people who don’t have a valid form of ID.

[Gruenheid] “And that’s all we had on him. There was no criminal history, nothing in our -- no prior mention in a police report, there was nothing in any database, there was no driver’s license, there was no -- like nothing. Like nothing.”

Detectives asked Vanner if they could fingerprint him. He agreed.

To do that, they had to take him to a separate facility across town. Roxane volunteered to ride along in the backseat with Vanner while another detective drove.

On the way over, Roxane started chatting with Vanner. She says it was smalltalk with a purpose.

[Gruenheid] “I kinda worked into the conversation to see where I could go with it. You know what I mean? I mean, I’m a detective, right? I’m trying to figure stuff out.

Roxane wanted to see if she could figure out where Vanner was from. She started by talking about accents. She brought up her own Long Island accent. How it was often commented on here in California. Then she said it sounded like he had an accent too, but she couldn’t place it -- where was it from?

[Gruenheid] “He stopped dead in his conversation, looked at me and then got really closer to me, looked me straight in the eye and he says ‘that’s none of your damn business.’”

[mux here]

Vanner then abruptly returned to casual smalltalk. Roxane says the mood change was so fast it was like a lightswitch. The same thing Elaine had seen at the New Year’s party.

Vanner was fingerprinted and then detectives drove him back to the station. By the time they returned, the results of the prints were already waiting for them. They would change everything.

-----[Break] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When detectives got back to the police station with Larry Vanner, they left him alone in the same interrogation room as before. When they came back in the room, one of the detectives was holding a slim manilla folder with the results from Vanner’s fingerprints, which included a criminal record and a list of known aliases.

[Vanner2002Interview]

[DETECTIVE 1] “Alright Larry, your prints came back. You know your other name, right?”

[DETECTIVE 2] “Curtis or Gerald or Gerry or whatever name you’re going by this week.”

[DETECTIVE 1] “Curtis Kimball.”

[DETECTIVE 2] “Curtis Kimball. Or Gerald Mocker… what’s the other one?”

[DETECTIVE 1] “Mockerman.”

[DETECTIVE 2] “Mockerman, right.”

[DETECTIVE 1] “Ring a bell?”

[Vanner] “No.”

[DETECTIVE 1] “Yeah that’s who you are, man.”

Larry Vanner’s fingerprints belonged to a man whose name was not Larry Vanner. The prints came back under the name Curtis Mayo Kimball. In the video, you can actually see the surprise splash across Vanner-slash-Kimball’s face as detectives list off his other names. Detectives assumed that Curtis Kimball was itself an alias, but at this point it was the earliest name they had. For Roxane Gruenheid, it was hard to know what to make of this new information.

[Gruenheid] “Were you thinking… Eunsoon’s probably not ok?” “We still didn’t know. I mean, the goal of any missing persons investigation is to determine where they are, and if they’re ok, you know what I mean. But now we had an added piece to it…  Who is this guy, that’s given us one name… that’s really not even a name… that’s not even him...That is now, purportedly this other guy who has been on parole for 12 years!

That last part - that Curtis Kimball was on parole - was a big deal.  I’ll explain why in a minute. In 1989 Kimball was convicted of child abandonment and spent a year and a half in a California state prison. Then on the day he was released, he skipped town, violating his parole.

[Gruenheid] “And so that was a whole different -- now we had a whole different ball of wax.”

Looking back, Contra Costa detective Roxane Gruenheid thinks that Kimball didn’t know that his prints would come back so quickly. The last time he was in custody was over ten years ago, before the process was handled by computers. She thinks he agreed to get fingerprinted assuming it would take at least a few days for the results to come back. Plenty of time to leave town, adopt a new name, and start over again.

But that plan didn’t work.

[Gruenheid] “So I read him his miranda rights and at that time he chose not to talk to us and he shut down the interview.” Did he have any interaction at all. No nothing, just I want an attorney. And that was it.

In California, parolees and their property are subject to police searches for any reason at any time, no warrant required.

Now that Roxane had Curtis Kimball’s record in hand - and had discovered that he had violated parole - she had a new opportunity. She could legally search his home.

So Roxane and another detective named Mike Costa drove out to Eunsoon Jun’s house where she and Curtis Kimball had been living together to have a look around. Detectives were worried. Whatever this revelation about Curtis Kimball meant, it probably wasn’t good for Eunsoon.

Eunsoon lived in an area called East Richmond heights. It’s a middle class neighborhood, with small houses packed right next to each other along winding roads that work their way up a hillside. From the top of the hill, on a clear day, you can see all the way across the bay to San Francisco.

Roxane and Mike arrived at the house and knocked at the front door. No one answered. Using the keys they’d taken from Kimball, they went inside.

[Gruenheid] “We were working a missing persons case, so we didn’t open any drawers or anything like that because no human being could be in a drawer, you know what I mean? So we just walked around the house to make sure that A, that there wasn’t anybody in there that was going to hurt us, and at the same time just making that if she was in there we would try to find her. So we were looking for somebody human-sized, her human-sized, in the general areas of the house.”

Roxane and Mike went room by room. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary. But that changed as the search moved outside.

[Gruenheid] “We went in the backyard and we found a dead kitten that had been thrown over the fence in the back.”

[Gruenheid] “There was an area inside the shed that looked like it had recently been tried to be dug up inside the shed.

[JM] “Like a dirt floor?”

“Yeah, like a dirt floor inside the shed.”

Roxane and Mike took note of the dead cat, of the disturbed soil in the shed. Then made their way around the outside of the house to the garage. It was the one place they hadn’t looked yet. The sliding garage door had a padlock on it, but Roxane found the key on Kimball’s keychain. She threw up the door and found Eunsoon’s pottery studio.

[Gruenheid] “She had several kilns, like nice big kilns. There was pottery in various stages of being created - fired, glazed.”

The walls of the garage were lined with Eunsoon’s pottery. Bowls, vases, sculpted figures and masks.

Roxane and Mike slowly moved through the space, careful not to touch anything.

In the back of the garage they found a doorway. It led down a few steps to an unfinished part of the house -- a sort of basement crawl space with a dirt floor. It was about 8 by 10, and not quite tall enough to stand up in.

[Gruenheid] “And my partner Mike went in there and he looked around and he goes, ‘you need to come take a look at this.’ And I stepped into that area and looked with my flashlight and I could see that there was a huge pile of cat litter, probably that tall, so a good three feet tall.”

Cat litter. The pile was almost waist-high… and maybe 5 feet across. Enough to fill the bed of a truck.

[Gruenheid] “I’d never seen anything like that. It was perfect. It was just like you’d pile up a pile of sand.”

On the ceiling above the pile, a couple of work lights were clamped onto an exposed beam. The lights were aimed down at the pile, like the cat litter was part of some kind of bizarre home improvement project.

[Gruenheid] “There was some shop kind of tools and equipment there...reciprocating saw, there was a small, not a hatchet small, but like a child’s axe leaned up there, there was some bottles of some green substance, like spray bottles...so it was goofy.”

[Mux swell]

Roxane called for the forensic team. For an hour and a half they photographed the scene in detail. The cat litter, the work lights, the tools. Then, finally, they started to sift through the pile of cat litter.

[Gruenheid] “And within a few swipes of the pile, the thing that emerged was a human foot that was still in a rubber like a flip flop.”

...

[Gruenheid] “But it was mummified, like you’d see in a museum. Like a mummified foot. Human foot, obviously human foot.”

The forensic team found blood splatter on the heating and air conditioning ductwork above the pile of cat litter. It suggested that Eunsoon had been bludgeoned to death there in the crawlspace. They also discovered that her body had been dismembered.

...

[Ramos] “She wanted to be loved that’s all she wanted. I think that she found out about him or found out that something wasn’t right and confronted him. He probably would’ve killed her anyway. But I’m sure Eunsoon confronted him. I’m sure she fought... I have to believe that she fought.”

...

[music fade out]

[Motta] “The case stuck with me because he was so freakin’ creepy.”

Joe Motta was a prosecutor with the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s office for 17 years.

[Motta] “It was just an unusual kind of case, just the nature of it. I’d never seen anything like that.”

In 2003 he had what seemed like an open and shut case against Kimball. He had lied about Eunsoon Jun’s whereabouts. Her body was found in the house he was living in. And Roxane had uncovered lots of evidence that he had been spending Eunsoon’s money after her death.

But as he prepared for trial, Motta was worried.

[Motta] “My opponent was a pretty well-respected public defender, probably their toughest advocate at the time. He was a noble adversary. He was a brawler.”

Motta knew this experienced defense attorney would try to argue that Kimball wasn’t directly involved in Eunsoon’s death. To try to negotiate a plea deal on a lesser charge, like accessory to murder.

[Motta] “My big concern was there’s not enough evidence to show how it went down. There wasn’t. There wasn’t any evidence. There wasn’t a murder weapon. You know, what if she fell down the stairs and he felt bad and he didn’t want anyone to know about it? You know, who knows what they could’ve come up with.”

Motta needed something connecting Kimball to the scene in the basement. He figured their best shot was the cat litter. It was so much cat litter that a store employee might might remember the purchase and who made it. If Motta could show the jury that Kimball had worked to cover up Eunsoon’s death, it would help tie him to the crime itself. It wouldn’t be a smoking gun, but it would help.

He put detective Roxane Gruenheid on the case.

[Gruenheid] “I can’t even imagine, there’s gotta be 1500 dog and cat boutique stores -- you could buy that anywhere, you know.”

Roxane wasn’t sure how she was going to find the right pet store. But then she remembered a detail.

[Gruenheid] “When I was tracking back some of the fiduciary crimes that he was committing, he had used Eunsoon’s ATM card at this ATM down in on the edge of El Sobrante, Richmond area. And I used to work in that beat.”

Roxane realized she knew that ATM. And she knew there was a pet store right next to it.

[Gruenheid] “So I roll up there and I go in and I go to talk to the manager and I go… ‘anybody buy a large quantity of cat litter in the past?’ and he goes ‘yeah! There was this guy!’ And so basically he tells me this story that this old guy, twinkly blue eyes, drives up with his car, bought 10, 25 pound -- and it was the 20 pound with the bonus 5 pounds for free. Pays cash, loads them in his car, and his story to the employees was something to the effect of that he had a little bit of oil that he spilled in the driveway changing the oil in his car. But I was like, ‘anybody ever buy 250 pounds of cat litter?’ And they were like, ‘no that was pretty unusual.’”

The cat litter wasn’t Kimball’s only attempt at covering up evidence of the crime. A neighbor told Roxane that Kimball had been out hosing the driveway one day when he casually mentioned that he was dealing with a rat infestation, and that if there were any strange smells coming from him garage, not to worry about it.

So Motta had more than enough to prosecute the case. But as the trial approached, Roxane kept digging anyways. She got in touch with Kimball’s former parole officer and had all the documents on his criminal record faxed over. Roxane read through them all.

[mux here]

His criminal record began in 1986, about 15 years before he met Eunsoon, with a warrant issued for child abandonment.

According to the police reports, he had left his five year old daughter at an RV park with an elderly couple and then fled. At the time he was using the name Gordon Jensen.

A few years later he was pulled over driving a stolen car. He gave officers the name Gerald Mockerman, but his fingerprints linked him back to the child abandonment charge. He was convicted on that charge and served about a year and a half of a three year sentence in a California state prison before being released on parole. The parole officer told Roxane he never showed up for his first meeting.

Roxane was getting more and more interested in Kimball’s past -- the trail of aliases, his daughter at the RV park. She couldn’t let it go. Even as Kimball headed to court for a murder trial he was sure to lose.

Eunsoon Jun’s cousin, Elaine Ramos, can remember the first day of the trial. It was the first time any of the family had seen Curtis Kimball, a man they had known as Larry Vanner, since the murder.

[Elaine] “As he walked past us -- we all had buttons, pins with Eunsoon’s face on it. And we were all sitting there in the jury box or whatever that is and he passed us by and he just gave us this smirky smile. It was disgusting.”

The trial was hard on Eunsoon’s family. And not just because Kimball seemed to be taunting them. Eunsoon Jun and Curtis Kimball met in November of 1999. He was arrested for her murder in November 2002. During those years, Kimball had so successfully isolated Eunsoon that her family was forced to grieve someone that they didn’t know as well as they once had. The emails from Eunsoon telling her family to leave her alone -- they hadn’t sounded like Eunsoon because it turns out they Kimball wrote them. He made sure that for many of Eunsoon’s relatives, their last conversation with her was an argument about her new boyfriend.

[Elaine] “Everybody felt guilty for not trying harder to protect her. But it’s hard to protect somebody that -- she wanted to be loved. That’s all she wanted.”

...

[Elaine] “Her mother had dementia. So that was a good thing that she never learned what happened to Eunsoon. You know she would ask about her and her daughter would just say that she was busy. And that was a blessing.”

Elaine says most of the family doesn’t like to talk about this anymore. It’s too painful to relive. But Eunsoon is well remembered by her family, often through her pottery.

[Elaine] “I have a couple of pieces in my garden and one piece that when holidays come I use.…[laughing] my husband says it wasn’t very good… And then she made this man. This kind of funny looking man that I have outside. I call her my Eunsoon man.”

[JM] [33:00] “It sounds like, was she, before all this happened, was she was very um… It sounds like she was very loved.”

[Elaine] “She was. I mean there were family issues, but there is with most families. You have your differences and get mad at your siblings. But in the end we all love each other.”

The first day of Curtis Kimball’s trial ended with few surprises. Things were going more or less as Motta had planned. But that changed the next morning on the second day of trial. Kimball stood up and told the judge he wanted to change his plea -- to guilty.

[JM] “When he pled guilty, did it seem like his attorney was caught by surprise?

[Motta] “Oh yeah, his attorney -- he said on the record, I’m pretty sure, that ‘this plea is against my advice.’

[JM] “How unusual is that?”

[Motta] “Pretty darned unusual. Nobody ever pleads guilty to murder.”

Nobody pleads guilty to murder. But Curtis Kimball did. He willingly accepted a sentence of 15 years to life.

Detective Roxane Gruenheid thinks she might know why. The day before, on the first day of trial, she had been talking with Prosecutor Joe Motta during a courtroom recess. She was updating Motta on all the things she was finding in Kimball’s past. Kimball, meanwhile, was sitting not too far away at the defendant’s table. Close enough to maybe overhear.

[Gruenheid] “He wanted me to stop my investigation. Like, he didn’t want me to continue to go down that rabbit hole. And he thought if he pled guilty, maybe I would go away.”

*** Postscript to an Investigation ***

But Roxane didn’t go away. Back at her desk, she kept reading through the old police reports of Kimball’s criminal history. The part she found the most puzzling was the charge that had put Kimball behind bars in the late 80’s: abandoning his own five year old daughter at an RV park. In the files there were photographs of her.

[Gruenheid] “They were xerox copies so they weren’t very clear but she was little. Like she was a little, little tiny girl, you know what I mean. And there was a fingerprint card, like a booking fingerprint card, but with these little tiny fingerprints on them. And footprints, you know because in the hospital because they take the baby’s footprint.”

Roxane became fixated on this little girl. Her name was listed as Lisa. But actually Roxane wasn’t so sure about that.

When Curtis Kimball and ‘Lisa’ were staying at the RV park, he was using the name Gordon Jensen. But Roxane knew that Gordon Jensen was an alias -- that it wasn’t his real name. For that matter, she was pretty sure Curtis Kimball was a fake name, too. This got her wondering -- if he’d been lying about his own name to hide his past, maybe he had been lying about the little girl’s name, too.

Maybe, this “Lisa” didn’t know her real name. Maybe she wasn’t even really his daughter.

[Gruenheid] “I was sitting there at my cubicle and I’m reading all this stuff and I felt like now that I had my homicide case and who this guy was but then there’s all this backstory to him and who the heck is this guy, really? And who is that little girl?”

Roxane wanted to do a paternity test to know for sure. She had Kimball’s DNA from her homicide investigation. And she learned that detectives investigating Lisa’s abandonment had taken a blood sample from her back in the 80s. Roxane convinced the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department to split the blood sample, which they still had, then they FedExed it to her in Contra Costa County. Roxane ordered the paternity test as soon as it arrived.

[Gruenheid] “And I got the report back that was scientifically definitive: this person is not biologically related to this person. And I’m like holy moly! This is crazy right now! San Bernardino has like an Elizabeth Smart. Who is she? \I’m like who is she?!”

[mux swell]

It had taken almost 20 years since Lisa was abandoned for someone to find out that she was a living Jane Doe. That she had a real family and a real name somewhere out there. That she was a missing person.

By ordering that paternity test, Roxane revealed a mystery that was not unlike the one that had mystified police in Bear Brook. Though Lisa was alive, she was just as unidentified as the victims found in those barrels.

It may be hard to see now, but the struggle to find Lisa’s true identity would lead all the way back to Bear Brook State Park. It would also lead to a breakthrough in criminal forensics that is being used right now to solve some of the country’s most notorious cold cases.

That’s next time on Bear Brook.

END OF EPISODE

Bear Brook is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

Taylor Quimby is Senior Producer.

Editing help from Cori Princell, Todd Bookman, Lauren Chooljian, Sam Evans-Brown, Britta Green & Annie Ropeik.

The Executive Producer is Erika Janik.

Dan Barrick is NHPR’s News Director.

Director of Content is Maureen McMurray.

NHPR’s Digital Director is Rebecca Lavoie.

Photography and Video by Allie Gutierrez.

Graphics and interactives by Sara Plourde.

Original music for this show was composed by me, Jason Moon, and Taylor Quimby.

Additional music in this episode by: Blue Dot Sessions, Lee Rosevere, Podington Bear, and Daniel Birch.

To see a timeline of the cases mentioned in this episode … go to our website: bear brook podcast dot org.

Bear Brook is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of Episode 5: Bloodline (Parts 1 & 2)

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text. Click here for the audio version of the episode.

 

Most stories like to be told chronologically. This happened, and then this happened, and so on.

But in so many ways this is not your typical story. The narrative arc is more like a four-dimensional  maze, one that bounces around through time and around the country. It’s all connected… but it’s hard to know where to start. The beginning, middle, and end - they change depending on where you come in.

All of which is to say: we’re going back to the 80’s again, to another beginning of this story. To another mystery, that by the end will lead us back to our beginning... in the woods of Bear Brook State Park.

*** An Unofficial Adoption ***

In 1986, a man calling himself Gordon Jensen arrived at an RV park in Scotts Valley, California. He had a five year old girl with him - a girl he said was his daughter. Her name was Lisa.

Gordon Jensen and Lisa lived out of a small truck camper at the RV park, which was called the Holiday Host RV park. The owners called it that because it was on the site of what used to be a weird theme park named Santa’s Village. In its heyday, Santa’s Village was 25 acres of Christmas on steroids. There were gingerbread houses, a toy factory, even a refrigerated North Pole that kids could stick their tongues to.

But the theme park went out of business and all that had been left to rot. By the time Gordon Jensen and Lisa arrived, it was like a Christmas ghost town in the woods.

Also at the Holiday Host RV park in 1986 was an elderly couple, Richard and Katherine Decker. They were from San Bernardino, California about 7 hours south. They were only staying for a few months - Richard had landed a temporary job with the state.

The Deckers became friendly with Gordon Jensen and Lisa. They had a grandson... he and Lisa became playmates. Before long, the Deckers started keeping an eye on Lisa while Gordon Jensen was busy. They grew fond of Lisa, started to really care for her.

Years later, a detective named Peter Headley would tell the Deckers their relationship with Lisa…  probably saved her life.

[Headley] “She did. They did. If they hadn’t been there at that particular time, said the right things, she would not be here today.”

Headley works in the Crimes Against Children Detail at the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department. It’s a line of work that he sums up in his characteristically terse way.

[Headley] “It can be very difficult.”

[JM] “What do you mean?”

[Headley] “How do I put that in words?… Just seeing the effects on victims -- it’s tough.”

Detective Headley’s understated style strikes me as being at odds with the rest of his life, which involves chasing criminals and his favorite hobby, skydiving.

I should say that Detective Headley would eventually come to play a pivotal role in Lisa’s life… and today, he’s one of the only people who is alive and willing to tell this part of the story.  But back in 1986, when Gordon Jensen and five-year old Lisa first came to the Holiday Host, he had nothing to do with it.

In any case, Detective Headley says that back then, the Deckers were becoming concerned about Lisa. They noticed how thin she looked; that she didn’t seem to have any toys. And living out of that tiny truck camper -- it was hard living for a five year-old.

Gordon Jensen told the Deckers that Lisa’s mother died of cancer when Lisa was just a baby. In fact, Katherine Decker would later tell reporters that he openly cried about it. She says she felt horrible for him. And Gordon Jensen also admitted to the Deckers that he was having trouble raising Lisa on his own.

One day, the Deckers shared with Gordon Jensen that they had an adult daughter back in San Bernardino. She was having a hard time having kids and was considering an adoption. It was a gentle suggestion; a way to subtly suggest that Lisa might be better off with a different parent. Gordon Jensen took the hint and ran with it. A few days later, he offered Lisa up for what he deemed a “trial adoption.”

The idea was that the Deckers would take Lisa to their daughter and her husband down in San Bernardino for a period of three weeks. If things went well, they would come back to the RV park with an attorney and make the adoption legal.

It wasn’t the most well thought-out plan. But Gordon Jensen seemed eager to get Lisa off his hands and the Deckers were confident their daughter could offer Lisa a better life than the one she had. So they went ahead with it. The Deckers headed south to San Bernardino with Lisa. With their new granddaughter.

[Headley] “They were just down here a matter of weeks and they realized that something was very wrong and the she had been molested.”

Away from Gordon Jensen and the RV park, Lisa started showing signs of abuse. She started touching the Decker’s son-in-law inappropriately. And she was beginning to talk about the things Gordon Jensen had done to her.

I don’t know the exact details of the abuse. But one police department would later describe what happened by saying that Lisa was -quote- “severely molested and tortured.”

Getting Gordon Jensen to sign legal adoption papers now seemed more important than ever. But the Deckers soon realized that was no longer an option.

[Headley] “When they tried to re-contact him, he was gone.”

Gordon Jensen had vanished from the Holiday Host RV park.

The Deckers didn’t know what to do. But eventually, they decided to turn to the police. In the summer of 1986 they brought Lisa to the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department. Detectives questioned the Deckers and Lisa.

Then, they took Lisa into protective custody. The Deckers had to say goodbye. Even if they had rescued her, had saved her life, she wasn’t legally their child.

[JM] “As far as you know have they ever reconnected?”

[Headley] “I don’t know if they have. I have talked to Mrs. Decker and told her what had happened afterwards. And I passed on information to Lisa about Mrs. Decker. I don’t know if they ever connected or not.”

Lisa went into foster care and was eventually adopted.

Today, she’s married with three children of her own. She has asked for privacy from reporters, but in a statement released through law enforcement she says she’s living a -quote- “happy and secure life.”

Of course, that’s not the end of the story. Back in 1986, after the Decker’s handed Lisa over to the police, a warrant was issued for Gordon Jensen’s arrest. It was for two charges: child molestation and child abandonment. But when detectives tried to track him down, they quickly hit a dead end. All of the records he left behind at the RV park were fake.

The truck camper he and Lisa had lived out of had a Texas license plate, but it was registered to an address that turned out to be a motel room. The social security number on his job application to work at the RV park was fake. And even the name he’d been using at Holiday Host, Gordon Jensen, was also phony.

Detectives were able to pull a fingerprint from the RV Park. It came back with a different name: Curtis Kimball.

At first they thought they had caught a break. Curtis Kimball had an arrest record from a few months before he arrived at the RV park. It was from Cypress, California near LA. Curtis Kimball was pulled over for drunk driving. Lisa was in the car with him at the time.

But that was it. Beyond that one arrest, the name Curtis Kimball didn’t seem to go anywhere. There was no driver license or real social security number attached to it. Nothing that could tell detectives where he was from. Peeling back one fake name seemed to lead to another. Which left detectives with no idea how to find him.

[Headley] “And it wasn’t until 1988 that those charges were brought up to him.”

In 1988, two years after abandoning Lisa, Curtis Kimball was arrested again. But not because police had tracked him down. He was pulled over for driving a stolen car in San Luis Obispo, California, about three hours south of the RV park. At the time, Kimball gave police another phony name: he said he was “Gerald Mockerman”. Again, here’s Detective Peter Headley.

[Headley] “They got his fingerprints. He was still in custody for the stolen vehicle. So when the prints came back he was still there. And that’s when they found the previous warrant under the other name Curtis Kimball.”

So in 1988, police had figured out that Curtis Kimball and Gordon Jensen were the same guy. And they had him in jail, facing charges for molesting and abandoning Lisa and for a driving a stolen car.

This is an important moment in the timeline, because it’s here that detectives came so close to figuring out the truth. So close to establishing the fact that, as we learned in the last episode, Lisa wasn’t actually his daughter. That she had been kidnapped.

In 1989, an investigator working the child abandonment charge told a reporter -quote- “my guess is he picked her up somewhere and was keeping her as a sex slave.” One  prosecutor even said he would try to force Curtis Kimball into taking a paternity test to establish their relationship once and for all.

But that paternity test never happened. At least not all the way. They got as far as taking a blood sample from Lisa, but they never got one from Curtis Kimball.

I’m not sure exactly why that paternity test was never finished. But my best guess is that it was because Curtis Kimball took a plea deal. In 1989, he plead guilty to child abandonment. In return, the child molestation and stolen vehicle charges were dropped.

This is pretty standard, in case you’re wondering. The vast majority of convictions in America -over 90%-  are the result of plea deals. It helps prosecutors avoid lengthy trials and work through more cases, more quickly. In this instance, it worked out pretty well for Curtis Kimball, too. By avoiding a trial, he avoided that paternity test and further scrutiny into his past.

Curtis Kimball was sentenced to three years in prison for child abandonment. In 1990, about halfway through his sentence, he was released on parole. He fled almost immediately, and became a fugitive. The next time police had him custody was in 2003 … after he had changed his identity once more, to Larry Vanner, and murdered Eunsoon Jun.

It’s hard not to wonder how things might have gone differently if that paternity test had been finished back in 1989. Prosecutors could’ve charged Curtis Kimball with kidnapping and child abduction. Charges which could have put him away for a lot longer than a few years. Maybe most importantly, the investigation into Lisa’s true identity could’ve gotten started right away.

Instead, it wasn’t until 2003, some 14 years later, that the investigation into Lisa’s identity began. And if not for Contra Costa County detective Roxane Gruenheid, it might never have began. Remember she was investigating her own case, the murder of Eunsoon Jun, when she first learned about Lisa. For whatever reason -a hunch, an intuition- she decided to finish that paternity test that detectives had began so many years earlier.

[Gruenheid] “And I got the report back that was scientifically definitive: this person is not biologically related to this person. And I’m like holy moly! This is crazy right now! San Bernardino has like an Elizabeth Smart. Who is she?

Once Roxane saw the results of the paternity test, she called the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department. That was the police department where the Deckers had brought Lisa back in the 80’s, so they had jurisdiction over the case.

But by 2003, the detectives in San Bernardino who first worked on the Lisa case, who had spoken to the Deckers, were gone. The new detectives didn’t know that their predecessors had once openly speculated that Lisa was a sex slave. Roxane says all they knew was the official story that ended up in the case file.

[Gruenheid] “They had a little girl. Her father hurt her, gave her away to this couple. He went to prison. Her mother is purportedly deceased. She goes to foster care and is adopted. For all intents and purposes, back then, their case was closed. And so here I am calling from 20 years later going ‘hey you guys have a -- you gotta work this! You gotta find out who she is.’ And the response at first was like ‘we don’t have an open found child case,’ and I’m like ‘yeah, you do.’”

Remember, at this point, Kimball was serving 15 years for the murder of Eunsoon Jun. So once Roxane convinced police in San Bernardino to reopen the Lisa case, she decided to have one more conversation with Curtis Kimball. She went to the Pleasant Valley state prison in Coalinga, California, and asked him point blank - where did Lisa come from? Where were her real parents?

[Gruenheid] “He knew exactly what he was doing and basically he was just playing us. He was saying stuff like ‘they said I had a daughter back in the day but I don’t remember. They said I gave her away but I can’t imagine I would’ve done that. I’m an alcoholic and I drank a lot and my memory is shot.’ I was just thinking ‘you’re lying your left foot off right now,’ you know what I mean.”

Roxane didn’t get anything useful out of Curtis Kimball. And no one ever would.

That’s because In 2010, Curtis Kimball died at the High Desert State Prison in northern California. According to his death certificate, the cause of death was a mix of pulmonary emphysema, pneumonia, and lung cancer.

His body was cremated. And his ashes were thrown into the ocean off the coast of Santa Cruz.

Curtis Kimball had no visitors while he was in prison. Not even a single phone call. He never tried to make a deal with prosecutors with the information he had. He never bragged about it to other inmates. As far as we can tell, he never told anyone the truth about his life.

Whatever he knew about who Lisa really was or what happened to her mother, he kept it to himself. And when he died, it was gone.

----[BREAK]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2003, when the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department opened a new investigation aimed at finding her true identity, Lisa was 22 years old.

But that investigation quickly went nowhere, for all the same reasons the Bear Brook investigation did. No identity of the victim, nowhere to begin.

For 10 years, there was little movement on the case. Then in 2013, when Lisa was 32 years old, detective Peter Headley took over the case. He’s the understated skydiving detective we heard from earlier.

When detective Headley took over, the road to solving th e case was as steep as ever. Nearly everything Curtis Kimball had said to anyone was a lie. And Lisa was so young when she was abandoned, she couldn’t offer much help to detectives.

Meanwhile, Lisa’s identity wasn’t the only mystery detectives were trying to look into. When case was reopened, detectives had looked back over the story of Lisa’s abandonment with the knowledge that Curtis Kimball was capable of murder. Under this new light, new questions arose. Like, where was Lisa’s mother? Had Curtis Kimball killed her?

And there was also a story that five-year-old Lisa had told detectives back in the 80’s when the Deckers brought her in. A story that in retrospect, seemed much more ominous than it had when Lisa was a child.

[Headley] “When she was first recovered she was asked about other siblings. And she had said that she did have other siblings but they had died while they were out camping from eating “grass mushrooms.”

[JM] “So as an investigator who works in crimes involving children, when you hear that story from Lisa as a child about the mushrooms, what do you hear as an investigator when you hear that?”

[Headley] “There’s more victims.”

So, not only were they searching for Lisa’s identity but for evidence of other potential murders.

Detective Headley started his work on the case by doing pretty much the same thing his predecessors had: trying to find a missing persons reports from somewhere around the country that matched Lisa. Anyone who fit the right age range, who could’ve possibly been in the path of Curtis Kimball at before he pops up in California in the mid 80’s.

Detective Headley found a handful of missing toddler cases from around the country that might be matches. He reached out to the families of the missing children and asked for DNA samples to compare against Lisa. One by one, he ruled them all out.

Detective Headley wondered if maybe the problem was that Lisa had been abducted somewhere outside the U.S. and that’s why she wasn’t showing up in a missing persons report. One of the stories Curtis Kimball had told about Lisa’s mother was that she was a nurse from Canada. Maybe there was some truth in there. So detective Headley reached out to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who told him they had a case of a missing toddler that might match. Again, Headley tracked down a family member, got a DNA test, and ruled it out.

Detective Headley tried switching tacks and turned his focus to Lisa’s mother. At different times, Kimball had told people her name was either Donna or Denise. Headley pored over thousands of records of Canadian nursing licensing boards looking for either of those names. But again, nothing.

Detective Headley tried switching focus again, this time to Curtis Kimball. With him at least there was some sort of paper trail, even if it was full of aliases and fake social security numbers. Detective Headley thought if he could just find one kernel of truth in there, it might eventually lead back to the real Curtis Kimball. His best lead was a set of phone records.

[Headley] “He had made some phone calls from the RV park where he abandoned Lisa. One of them was to an RV park in Texas. And I actually found the previous owner of that RV park and he kept all the records for the park -- all the people that had stayed there. And I figured if he made a phone call there, somebody there knew him and that was a piece farther back in time to track him.”

This could be big. If detective Headley could find somebody who knew Curtis Kimball before he arrived in California, maybe they would know something about where he was from and who he was with.

The former owner of that Texas RV park told Detective Headley he had sold the park to the company Kampgrounds of America. Detective Headley reached out to the company, only to learn they after they bought the RV park, they had thrown away all the records from the previous owner.

[Headley] “So it’s been a very frustrating case, when you’re going back in time on a cold case, cause records are gone, people are deceased, and just can’t remember.”

[JM] “Yeah that must’ve been a rough day, when they told you they’d thrown all those records away.”

[Headley] “I thought I had it. It was a step further back in time and then, yeah, it was a big letdown.”

Throughout all these frustrating dead ends, Detective Headley had been in touch with Lisa.

[Headley] “I have talked to her numerous times during this investigation and she really wanted to know who she was.”

It was during one of these conversations, in 2014, that Lisa offered up a new suggestion to Detective Headley: why not try one of those genealogy websites, like 23andMe or Ancestry.com? One of those sites where you send in a DNA sample, and they tell you where your ancestors came from, and connect you with long lost relatives.

At first, detective Headley dismissed the idea. Genealogy websites probably seemed a little amateurish to him. Something meant for hobbyists and retirees. They had never been used in a criminal investigation, the way Lisa was suggesting.

[Headley] “One day I was just talking to Lisa again and I had made her a promise that I wasn’t going to give up, that I was going to keep trying. And she brought up, again, the genealogy sites. And I said, ‘alright, let’s try it.’ And we put her on several different sites and we started getting a hit of a fourth cousin, a fifth cousin, and I’m like ‘this might just work.’”

Lisa and detective Headley didn’t know it yet, but what they were doing would soon change the face of forensic investigation. It was the beginnings of an investigative technique that would solve not only the mystery of Lisa’s identity but also cases from all around the country -- some of which had baffled police for decades.

To understand how Lisa’s suggestion led to all that, you need a brief overview of the ways police use DNA testing in criminal investigations.

And just know that we’re going to explore some of this in greater detail in the next episode, so for now we’re just going over the basics.

Let’s start with the kind of DNA test that you’re probably most familiar with. The kind you see in TV cop shows all the time. Police have a DNA sample from a crime scene, they run it through a database to see if they find a match.

[Computer voice] “Processing...DNA match.” [dramatic music]

This type of standard DNA matching test landed its first conviction in 1987 and has been a mainstay of criminal investigations, and TV shows, ever since.

Then there are paternity and maternity tests. Pretty straightforward: investigators have two samples, they want to know if they are related. This kind of test is also on TV a lot.

[Maury] “When it comes to one-year-old Isaiah... Jay, you are not the father. [screams].”

This is the type of DNA testing that told us that the three of the four Bear Brook victims are maternally related.

There’s one other kind of DNA test that some police departments have at their disposal. It’s called familial DNA testing. This kind of testing searches a police DNA database for near misses instead of exact matches. The basic idea is that if police don’t find a match for a suspect’s DNA in the database, a familial search might find someone related to the suspect, who is in the database. Generally speaking, familial testing can detect relatives only as far as the immediate family.

And that’s pretty much it for law enforcement. They have their standard matching tests, maternity-paternity tests, and in some states they can run familial tests that can identify close relatives - mainly brother and sisters… maybe an uncle or aunt.

But over the last ten years or so, a newer and more advanced kind of DNA test has been developed and honed by people outside of law enforcement. This new test comes from a world with its own separate interest in DNA testing -- genealogy.

Genealogists study family lineages by researching ancestors and descendents, and building out broad family trees. And they were quick to realize the potential for DNA testing in their work. By around 2007, genealogy websites were offering direct-to-consumer DNA kits.

[23andMe ad] “23andMe is reinventing the way you look at your ancestors using the science of genetics, your DNA. With just a small saliva sample...”

Commercial DNA testing turned out to be a huge hit. Today as many as 12 million people have sent in their DNA to a genealogy website, according to an industry estimate.

At first, the kinds of DNA tests genealogists were using were the same ones police had. Mainly they were using paternity and maternity tests to trace those lines of a family tree.

But over time the commercial DNA tests grew more advanced as companies like Ancestry.com and 23andMe competed with each other to squeeze mo vre and more information out of each DNA sample. Before long, the commercial databases made a big breakthrough.

[23andMeExplainer] “Until now, DNA tests could only trace teeny fragments of your family tree. But, with 23andMe’s Relative Finder, you can discover ancestors from all branches of your family tree.” [23andMeExplainer] “George found out that Renee could be his fifth cousin. This means that George and Renee could share great-great-great-great grandparents. I’ll show you how cousins work.”

What 23andMe calls ‘Relative Finder’ is a new kind of DNA test called an autosomal DNA test.

It works on the same principle as the familial DNA testing that some police departments use -- it searches a DNA database for relatives instead of exact matches. But the big difference is that autosomal DNA tests are much, much more sensitive.

When police run a familial DNA test they are usually examinin g 20 different genetic markers to see how well two samples match. Think of it like a low-resolution photograph. It’s why familial testing can only detect close family members.

By contrast, the autosomal DNA tests being offered by genealogy companies today examine more than 700,000 markers on each DNA sample. With this high resolution test, genealogists can detect relatives as distant as 4th, or even 5th cousins.

[23andMeExplainer] “George found out that Renee could be his fifth cousin. This means that George and Renee could share great-great-great-great grandparents. I’ll show you how cousins work.”

Speaking of cousins, you have a lot more of them than you probably realize. Let’s assume you have a really simple family tree where each set of parents has just 2 or 3 kids. In that scenario, you have 4,700 fifth cousins. Combine that with the millions of people who are in the genealogy databases, and your odds of finding a match, of finding some link to your family tree, is really high.

[23andMeExplainer] “Which means that you may have loads of fifth cousins out there waiting to be discovered. Your family tree is probably a lot more interesting than you thought it was.”

So this is where things were at in 2013 when Lisa suggested a genealogy website as a way to find her family.

The matches were a starting point. The first blood relatives Lisa had ever known about. But they were distant relatives -- people so far removed, they didn’t know anything about her parents, or or what her real name might be. Think about it - do you know any of your 5th cousins? Do you know the names of your great, great, great, great grandparents?

To go from these distant relatives to finding Lisa’s immediate family, Detective Headley would have to climb all the way up the family tree find the common ancestor between Lisa and her fifth cousin, then travel back down the tree, search through all the connected generations, down every branch, looking for the one that Lisa belongs to. It’s like trying to find out where one particular leaf grew on a tree -- after that tree has been cut into pieces and piled in a heap.

To do this, you need more than just a match in a database. You need to be well schooled in the ways of traditional genealogy: birth and death records, wedding announcements, obituaries, social media. Detective Headley realized he was going to need to some help.

[end mux]

Headley reached out to a non-profit called DNAAdoption.com which had been using genealogy for years to help adoptees find their biological parents. Which is how he met this woman.

[Rae-Venter] “I’m Barbara Rae-Venter and I’m a genetic genealogist and search angel.”

That’s genetic genealogist and “search angel”. Barbara is originally from New Zealand though she now lives in California. Today Barbara is a star in the world of genetic genealogy. And she’s pretty popular around some police departments, too.

She picked up genealogy as a hobby in retirement, like so many others do. Barbara had a long career as a patent attorney before all this.

She put her own DNA online in 2012 and found a cousin from the U.K. she’d never met before. The cousin was a 70 year old man who told Barbara he had just learned from his DNA test that the man he’d always thought was his father wasn’t.

[Rae-Venter] “And so, I had no idea how to help him. And so what I did is, I went online and found an online course that was offered by DNA Adoption and I took that class. And that’s actually the technique that I use for all of the work that I’m doing now.”

From one online class, Barbara quickly rose to become an expert in the field. Her PhD in biochemistry, which she has in addition to her law degree, may have helped. Barbara started volunteering with DNA Adoption.com and before long she was teaching that class she took, along with other duties like answering all the emails that came in to the site.

[Rae-Venter] “And so back in March of 2015 there was a webmail that came in from Peter. And he basically asked the question: is the technique that you are teaching to adoptees to find their birth relatives, could that be used to find to identify somebody who didn’t know either who she was or where she was from?”

[Headley] “And she said ‘yes, but since you don’t have any geographical information it’s going to be a lot harder.’ Usually with an adoptee, they’ll know that they were from this state or this area just from where they were adopted. And with Lisa, we had nothing.”

The task was daunting. It would be a real test of what genetic genealogy was capable of. But detective Headley was out of options and Barbara enjoys a good challenge. So they dove in. And together, they formed a new kind of investigative team. Part civilian, part law-enforcement. Part cutting edge genetic genealogy, part old-school detective work. A soft spoken genealogist and an understated detective. They were made for each other, really.

Barbara started by building out a family tree of Lisa’s distant relatives.

[Rae-Venter] “The first step is you’re building these trees. The second step is, once you’ve identified who the common ancestor is, you then build down from the common ancestor. Because you know if these folks are sharing DNA, then they share that common ancestor, then that person has to be a descendant of that common ancestor.”

Meanwhile, Detective Headley followed behind making phone calls.

[Headley] “As she followed the family trees down, I would contact the living-folk. Call them up and say ‘you are related to our victim, we don’t know how close or how distant, will you test?’”

Will you test? Asking that question became a big part of detective Headley’s job during the search. As Barbara followed out the family trees of Lisa’s fifth cousins with traditional genealogy, she would run into what genealogists call a ‘brick wall’, basically a dead end in the records. Whenever that happened, detective Headley would try to get those people nearest the brick wall on the tree to take a DNA test with one of the genealogy sites. The new matches from those people would help Barbara get around the brick wall and continue building Lisa’s family tree.

But just getting those tests proved to be a big challenge.

[Headley] “It was difficult. People would think it was a scam. There was some people who just flat -- ‘no way.’ I changed my approach as I went, depending on the feedback I was getting. And I ended up telling people please contact your local department and have them verify me.”

Earning people’s trust was one challenge. Another hurdle was the sheer size of the family tree they were dealing with.

[Rae-Venter] “Well there were actually two trees. So there was a maternal tree and that one ended up being something like eighteen thousand people in it.

Add that to the other side of the family tree… and that makes 25,000 relatives to sift through. Twenty. Five. Thousand.

[Rae-Venter] “I mean my own time, I think had spent something like three thousand hours on it. Basically I would get up in the morning, I would starting working on it and I would work on it all day until late into the night. I was just determined that I was going to figure this one out.”

[JM] “Why do you think you were so driven to work like that on this case?”

[Rae-Venter] “Oh, I do that with everything. I guess I’m a little obsessive.”

Barbara wasn’t paid for any of this, by the way. To her the project was just like any of the dozens of adoption searches she had done using the same basic technique.

[Rae-Venter] “Although of course there was, in the back of everybody’s minds, that Lisa’s parents may not be alive, that she may have been killed at the time that Lisa was abducted. We weren’t really sure what we were going to find. So there was sort of that lurking in the background.”

Barbara didn’t do all of this work alone alone. She had help from volunteers at her local genealogy society. And she also picked up new volunteers along the way from an unexpected source. From Lisa’s extended family. As Lisa’s family trees grew, some of her newfound cousins offered to help Barbara with the project.

[Rae-Venter] “And so she had a number of cousins in New Hampshire. And a number of them volunteered. So we probably had over 100 people who were actually helping build trees and do research and brainstorm and so on.”

It took a little more than a year, and what they estimate was about 10,000 hours of work, but in the summer of 2016 Barbara Rae-Venter and her army of volunteers did it. They narrowed down the genealogical possibilities of who Lisa’s mother was to just one person. Barbara immediately called and left a message with detective Headley.

[Rae-Venter] “And he called me back a couple of hours later and he said ‘mmm- no such person, she doesn’t exist.’ We knew that she did exist because we had her grandmother’s obituary and we had her brother’s obituary and of course immediately Peter figures out what it is. Unfortunately it meant that she was probably deceased.”

The police databases detective Headley was looking at are made up of things like DMV and voting records. So if a person hasn’t been driving or voting in a long time, they’re not likely to show up.

Detective Headley contacted the closest living relatives of Lisa’s mother that he could find. And for the first time, he spoke with someone who could remember Lisa herself.

[Headley] “I was talking to one of her relatives and they remembered her mother and her moving away and they never heard from them again. That’s when the pieces fell together. And it felt great.”

[JM] “What was their reaction? Were they happy to hear that there was some information about that baby in the family that had gone missing?

[Headley] “Actually, when I explained the circumstances she was very shocked. And horrified.”

30 years after she was abandoned at the Holiday Host RV park, Detective Peter Headley called Lisa to tell her her real name.

[Headley] “Just being able to tell Lisa who she is, that was tremendous. That was tremendous satisfaction. It made it all worth it.”

Her name was Dawn. Dawn Beaudin. She was from New Hampshire.

That’s the end of part one of this episode of Bear Brook.

If you want to keep going, part two is available in your feed right now.

########################### INTERMISSION ##########################

*** Denise Beaudin ***

In January of 2017, something happened that, to be honest, I didn’t think ever would.

I was sitting in the New Hampshire Public Radio newsroom when I got an email from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office, announcing that there would be a press conference -the next day- to discuss new information in the Bear Brook case. The email cryptically mentioned something about a missing persons case from New Hampshire, a murder case from California, and how they were both connected to the Bear Brook murders.

At that point, in 2017, I’d been working on a story about the Bear Brook murders for about a year-and-a-half. All I knew was one child not related and the results of the isotope testing. The names Eunsoon Jun and Lisa didn’t mean anything to me yet.

As far as I could tell, the Bear Brook investigation didn’t really seem to be going anywhere. I figured, whether I finished my story in a month or in six months, the facts of the case probably would be the same. Then I got this email.

The press conference was scheduled to take place in an auditorium at the New Hampshire DMV office. I think it was the largest space for a press conference that they could come up with. A sign that they were expecting a lot of reporters. In other words, that this was something big.

...

The morning of the press conference, I arrived early and found maybe 40 people already there. Reporters and cops milling about, talking in low voices. Close to a dozen TV cameras lined the back of the room, which felt a lot like a high school auditorium.

I scanned the crowd for faces I knew. There was retired trooper John Cody, who found the second barrel speaking with a handful of other police officers. And sitting about five rows back from the stage, I spotted Ronda Randall and her brother Scott Maxwell. The amateur investigators who had invested so much of themselves in the case.

[Ronda] “I’m mostly just curious. You know, I don’t even know how to feel about it cause I don’t know what the information is.”

[JM] “How early did you guys have to wake up to drive down here?”

[Ronda] “Well actually I came down from Maine last night and slept in Manchester so I could be here good and early. You know pretty hopeful that this is it.”

[JM] “I’m nervous. I imagine you guys must be nervous.”

[Scott] “That’s one word for it.”

From up on the auditorium stage, Jeff Strelzin, a prosecutor with the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, began the press conference.

[Strelzin_presser] “We’re here today because in almost every homicide case that we work on, probably the most important starting point that we have is the identity of the victim or the victims. It’s that information that usually leads you to the killer. In the case involving the four murder victims in Allenstown, we believe we’ve identified their killer.”

Over the next hour and a half, investigators laid out four stories.

The Bear Brook murders in Allenstown, New Hampshire.

The murder of Eunsoon Jun in Richmond, California.

The abandonment of five-year-old Lisa in Scotts Valley, California.

And the last story, the one that would tie them all together: the disappearance of a woman named Denise Beaudin from Manchester, New Hampshire.

Denise was Lisa’s mother. She was last seen in 1981 with Curtis Kimball... though she knew him by a different name: Bob Evans.

[Strelzin_presser] “This man Bob Evans is not only connected to Denise Beaudin’s disappearance and the California murder of Eunsoon Jun, he’s also connected to the four Allenstown murder victims. Through DNA testing, we’ve determined that this man, this killer, Bob Evans, is the father of the middle child victim in Allenstown. This young girl. He is not the father or related to the other victims, but he is in fact that father of this middle child victim.”

The middle child. The three year old girl who wasn’t related to the other victims. Whose isotope results showed she had lived the majority of her life in a different climate. She was the daughter of Bob Evans. Of Curtis Kimball. Of the man police now believe killed all four of the Bear Brook victims.

[mux fade or something]

So how, after so many years, did police finally figure it all out?

A few weeks after that big press conference, I met with prosecutor Jeff Strelzin and a New Hampshire state police detective named Mike Kokoski to talk about how all the pieces finally came together.

Strelzin has been with the New Hampshire AG’s office since 2001. He’s handled some of the more high-profile murder cases in the state over the last 15 years. Remember the Danny Paquette case that pulled resources away from the Bear Brook investigation? Strelzin prosecuted the murderer after the case was reopened.

Strelzin is slender, with dark, close-cropped hair and facial features that make it hard to guess his age. He told me he first learned about the Bear Brook murders as he was getting ready to leave the office one day to go mountain biking. A colleague asked him where he liked to ride. He said Bear Brook State Park.

[Strelzin] “And she said ‘oh, be on the lookout for some barrels with bodies in them.’ And I was like ‘what are you talking about?’ And she told me the story. I had never heard it before. I was amazed I’d never about it before. Ever. And I’d lived in New Hampshire my whole life.”

The breakthrough in the Bear Brook case ultimately came from forensics. From the genetic genealogy work that Barbara Rae-Venter and detective Peter Headley had done on the Lisa case. In 2016, when they found out that Lisa’s mother, Denise Beaudin, was from New Hampshire they contacted New Hampshire state police.

New Hampshire detectives then interviewed some of Denise Beaudin’s relatives, the ones Barbara Rae-Venter had found with genetic genealogy. One of them was Denise Beaudin’s grandfather. He said he had last seen Denise on Thanksgiving in 1981 in Manchester, New Hampshire.

She was 23 at the time. She a had a 6 month old daughter, that’s Dawn/Lisa. And an older boyfriend named Bob Evans. When detectives showed the grandfather a mugshot of Curtis Kimball, he recognized him as Bob Evans.

No one in Denise Beaudin’s family ever saw her again after that Thanksgiving. But despite that, they never reported her missing to police.

[swell mux]

After the Lisa was connected to New Hampshire in 2016, a missing persons case on Denise Beaudin was finally opened, more than 30 years after she disappeared.

In January of 2017, police went to the house where Denise Beaudin and Bob Evans had lived together in Manchester. With the murder of Eunsoon Jun in mind, they did a thorough search of the basement.

Other local outlets reported on the search, though no one outside law enforcement knew it was connected to all the other cases yet.

[WMUR] “Manchester police along with state police are searching a home on Hayward Street in relation to a woman who was last seen decades ago. It was just last month, December 28th, that investigators announced a new investigation in the search for Denise Beaudin…”

Police didn’t find Denise Beaudin’s body in the basement. That might sound like good news, but really it was a disappointment, because now it’s unlikely police will ever find her remains.

[Strelzin] “We’re confident that he killed Denise at some point. The question is where. Did he arrive in California with her or not? But we know he arrived out there with Lisa.”

We may never know exactly what happened to Denise. But her story does tell us something about the Bear Brook case that’s been bothering me, ever since I first learned about it. Something that’s been bothering a lot of people.

[Strelzin] “How is it four people could go missing? And we say, well, Denise Beaudin did. I know, for me, I think I’ve come to realize that people can go missing and nobody says a word and Denise Beaudin is living proof that that can happen.”

“People go missing and nobody says a word.” It seems crazy until you think about it. A lot of people have a sibling, or cousin, or great-uncle that hasn’t been heard from in years. Families can become estranged. Friends can lose touch. Especially in the world before Facebook. Before email. Before cell phones.

So if you - like me - couldn’t help but ask: Why didn’t Denise Boudin’s family report her missing? The answer is, it’s complicated.

[Strelzin] “That question has come up a lot and I think the fairest way to say it is: there are different dynamics in families and there was a dynamic with this family and because of that dynamic they never officially reported her missing. She had a child, she wasn’t married. I think her life had gone off in a little bit of a different direction than her parents expected.”

I wasn’t able to find any of Denise Beaudin’s family in New Hampshire who would talk to me. Maybe that had something to do with those ‘family dynamics’ prosecutor Jeff Strelzin told me about. Maybe they just didn’t want to talk. I don’t know.

But when I heard Strelzin obliquely describe Denise Beaudin’s strained relationship with her family, I couldn’t help but think of Eunsoon Jun and her family. How Bob Evans, living then as Larry Vanner, managed to drive a wedge between Eunsoon and her cousin, Elaine Ramos. How he wrote fake emails pretending to be Eunsoon.

It’s a tactic employed by many abusers - to isolate and estrange the victim from the people who might help them. To cut them off from the outside world so the abuse seems more normal.

Bob Evans excelled at this. In part because he was somehow able to present dramatically different personas depending on what he wanted from a situation. To most people who met him, Evans was repellant. He looked dirty, even threatening. So they kept their distance. But to the people he targeted, who he wanted to bring in close, Evans had another side. A side with sparkling blue eyes that spun gripping tales about his life history. Who could summon tears about the woman he had murdered, whose child he kept captive.

San Bernardino detective Peter Headley called Bob Evan an incredibly good conman. New Hampshire prosecutor Jeff Strelzin has another name for him.

The Chameleon.

[Strelzin] “I said Chameleon just in the way he’s able to adopt different names and kind conform himself around the people he’s with to ingratiate himself around those people. I mean, this is a guy who was able to pick his targets and get what he wanted and that says that that is someone of terrifying intelligence.”

By this point, investigators had connected three of the four mysteries with each other. Eunsoon Jun’s murder, the identity of Lisa, and the disappearance and presumed murder of Denise Beaudin. But as far as investigators knew, the Bear Brook case was still completely unrelated to the other three.

Then a case manager at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Virginia noticed something. NCMEC had been involved with the Lisa case. And as they learned that Lisa had been taken from New Hampshire, the case manager looked at a map. Manchester, where Denise Beaudin was last seen, was only about 25 minutes from Bear Brook State Park, and another case that NCMEC had worked on. The case manager checked the dates again. Denise went missing in 1981. The first barrel was discovered in 1985.

At first they thought Denise Beaudin might be the adult victim from the first barrel. But after that test came back negative, they ran another test using the DNA of Bob Evans.

This is when everything finally came together - when they figured out that the middle child victim was Bob Evan’s daughter… and eventually  concluded that Bob Evans had been behind the Bear Brook murders.


By the time this DNA test came back, Bob Evans had been dead for seven years, so investigators will never be able to question him about the Bear Brook case. But the evidence connecting him to the Bear Brook murders goes beyond his relationship to one of the victims.

We’ll dig into this in some more detail next week, but for now here are the important highlights of what investigators unveiled in 2017.

Bob Evans arrived in New Hampshire in the late 1970’s. He got a job as an electrician helping to shut down one of the old mill buildings in downtown Manchester - removing electrical equipment and cleaning out old debris.

He worked on that job with a man named Ed Gallagher. Remember him? He’s the owner of the property where the Bear Brook camp store used to be in Allenstown. The property where the barrels were found. Investigators learned that Gallagher had allowed for some of the waste from the mill, including old barrels, to be dumped on his property in Allenstown. Gallagher also hired Bob Evans to do some electrical work at the Bear Brook store. So there’s a direct link between Bob Evans and the site where the bodies were dumped. He knew that area. He knew Allenstown.

Then there’s the fact that the cause of death in the Bear Brook murders was the same as in Eunsoon’s - blunt force trauma to the head.

And perhaps the most chilling detail linking Evans to the crime scene is that the plastic bags the victims were wrapped in were tied up with electrical wire.

...

This was the story laid out at that press conference in 2017. That finally, after all these years, we had learned who was behind the Bear Brook murders. That he was a chameleon, a serial killer likely responsible for at least six murders: Eunsoon Jun, Denise Beaudin, and the four victims found inside the barrels.

It was a huge break in the case. But it wasn’t everything. Ronda Randall, the amateur investigator who had been on the case for years, remembers how she felt that day.

[Randall] “You know we went to that press conference and even though it was tremendously exciting to hear the backstory and get an ID, I have to tell you, I walked out of that press conference kind of feeling kicked in the stomach that we still didn’t know who they were. It was fascinating about Lisa um... and to know his other life but to still not know who they were and know so much was difficult.”

After everything: decades of work by half-a-dozen law enforcement agencies, cutting edge isotope testing, and a revolutionary new genetic genealogy technique, the only new information we have about the Bear Brook victims is that one of them was the daughter of a serial killer. We still don’t know who they are.

[vigil ambi]

Ronda isn’t alone in trying to keep the focus on the victims. In November of 2017, several months after that press conference, on the 32nd anniversary of the discovery of the first barrel, Ronda and about a dozen others held a vigil at the cemetery in Allenstown where the first two victims were once buried. Their bodies were still being held by authorities, so we were standing over an empty grave. It was on a night that a cold front swept in. It was barely 20 degrees. Colder when the wind blew.

[Ronda_vigil] “We didn’t have anything big or fancy planned for tonight. We just really wanted to be here to honor their memory, to think about them, to send the message that they aren’t forgotten in the Granite State.”

A few work lights were aimed at the headstone and several people in the group held candles. But otherwise it was pitch black that night. It was hard to make out the faces of the people gathered in a half circle around the gravesite.

Ronda said a few words, thanking people for coming out. She played a Billy Joel song on her phone (or boombox?) that she said always reminded her of the young girl victims. Lullabye. A song he wrote for his daughter.

The whole thing was a little awkward, there were times when no one knew quite what to say. But it was earnest. During one moment of silence, a voice from somewhere in the group asked if it was ok to pray.

[Woman] “Father in heaven, we ask you to please, please shed some light on this story. These girls deserve to have their identities known. There are people out there, there has to be somebody out there that loved them. Somebody out there that wonders, ‘whatever happened to my girls?’ Please, Father in heaven, you are the one who can put the power to this and to please have these girls…[fade under]

15 minutes in, we were all shivering from the cold and the group decided it was time to go. As the gathering broke up, I turned to the man who’d been standing next to me in the circle.

[JM] “Could I get your name?”

[Paul_vigil] “Paul Chevrette.”

[JM] “You live in Allenstown?”

[Paul_vigil] “I did. I lived, in the late 70’s I lived about 300 yards from where the first barrel was found.”

[JM] “No kidding. In Bear Brook Gardens?”

[Paul_vigil] “Yes. And then in 2000 when the second one was found I lived about a quarter mile up the road in a farmhouse.”

[JM] “I can’t imagine what that must’ve felt like - to be so close.”

[Paul_vigil] “Well, yeah, cause as early teenagers we all played in the woods there. And we never saw anything. To know that they were there, it was kind of...unsettling.”

[JM] “Why is it important enough for you to come back here and be at this vigil?”

[Paul_vigil] “Um...I have four daughters and three step daughters and I couldn’t imagine a day without any of them. And here we have this woman and these three children and nobody knows who they are. And it’s just, like I said, unsettling. You know this is a small town. Back in the day, everybody knew everybody, everybody what everybody was doing. When this happened, it was a shock.”

Everybody knew everybody in Allenstown. It made me think of all the theories that people had about the case. How the theories either seemed to hinge on the idea that the crime was so heinous it couldn’t possibly have been someone from Allenstown. Or that because of where the barrels were dumped, it had to be someone local. And in the end, it was kind of both. Evans only arrived in New Hampshire in the late 70’s as far as investigators can tell, and in so many ways he was an outsider - using a fake name, a fake history, and disappearing a few years after he arrived. But on the other hand he knew people in Allenstown. He worked at the convenience store a short walk from where the barrels were found. Remember when Anne Morgan, who lived in the trailer park, talked about two worlds? The one before and the one after the first barrel was found. Bob Evans lived in both.

As it turns out, he lived in a lot of other worlds, too. In places like Virginia, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Oregon and more. As investigators tried to piece together a timeline of Evan’s life, they began to suspect there could be even more beginnings to this story. More murders that bore the fingerprints of a chameleon.

To help solve them, and to learn who Bob Evans really was, authorities turned to genealogist Barbara Rae-Venter. When she identified Lisa, she had accomplished what seemed impossible. Now police wanted her to do it again. Within a matter of months, she did. And in doing so she would bring us as close as we’ve ever been to the Bear Brook victims. To meeting one of their living relatives.

That’s next time on Bear Brook

END OF EPISODE

Bear Brook is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.

Taylor Quimby is Senior Producer.

Editing help from Cori Princell, Todd Bookman, Lauren Chooljian, Sam Evans-Brown, Britta Green & Annie Ropeik.

The Executive Producer is Erika Janik.

Dan Barrick is NHPR’s News Director.

Director of Content is Maureen McMurray.

NHPR’s Digital Director is Rebecca Lavoie.

Photography and Video by Allie Gutierrez.

Graphics and interactives by Sara Plourde.

Original music for this show was composed by me, Jason Moon, and Taylor Quimby.

Additional music in this episode by: Blue Dot Sessions, Lee Rosevere, Podington Bear, and Daniel Birch.

To see a timeline of the cases mentioned in this episode … go to our website: bear brook podcast dot org.

Bear Brook is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript of Episode 6: Chameleon

Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text. Click here for the audio version of the episode.

Do you think of him as a sociopath?

Previously on Bear Brook:

[Headley] “As she followed the family trees down, I would contact the living-folk. Call them up and say ‘you are related to our victim, we don’t know how close or how distant, will you test?’”

[Strelzin_presser] “Through DNA testing, we’ve determined that this man, this killer, Bob Evans, is the father of the middle child victim in Allenstown.”

[Randall] “I have to tell you, I walked out of that press conference kind of feeling kicked in the stomach that we still didn’t know who they were. It was fascinating about Lisa um... and to know his other life but to still not know who they were and know so much was difficult.”

*** Diane ***

For 20 years, Diane worked as a 911 call operator… and in that time, she took just about every kind of call you could imagine.

[Diane] “I’ve delivered a baby over the phone. I’ve saved lives. I’ve also been the last person that people have talked to before they decided to take their own.”

Diane lives in a suburb outside Chicago. I reached her by Skype a few weeks ago. We’re not using her last name. I’ll explain why in just a second.

[JM] “Your profession is full of dealing with really heavy stuff. And we’re going to talk about some really heavy news that was dropped on you. So I wonder if you felt prepared in any sort of way because of your job?”

[Diane] “Uh. I don’t know that anything...in my whole realm of possibilities and reality, I’m not sure that that ever came up as even a possibility on my spectrum of what the hell possibly happens.”

The news that Diane received came in the summer of 2017. On a day that she calls the Monday where everything changed. It started when Diane got a call from her mother, who said detectives from New Hampshire -from the Cold Case Unit- wanted to talk to them.

[Diane] “So I assumed, I know this may sound strange to you, but I assumed that she had done something in her past [laughs]. But my mother said she had a feeling that it was about my father.”

The New Hampshire detectives agreed to meet Diane and her mother at the police station in Illinois where Diane now works as a records clerk. When they arrived they all sat down in one of the station’s interrogation rooms.

[Diane] “And we sat there and they just deluged us with information.”

The state troopers told them the story of two barrels found near a state park in New Hampshire. The story of a woman named Eunsoon Jun in California and the boyfriend who murdered her. The story of a kidnapped girl named Lisa and the yearslong search to find out where she came from.

Then, the state troopers asked Diane for a DNA sample.

[Diane] “Yeah it was pretty heavy. And then they asked for a DNA sample, and of course I’m going to give them that. And then I just waited for the slight possibility that this did not match up... I was just hoping that maybe they were wrong.”

But the detectives weren’t wrong. Diane’s DNA was the last step in identifying the so-called chameleon killer.  The Larry Vanner who met Eunsoon Jun, the Curtis Kimball who stood trial for murdering her, the Gordon Jenson who abandoned Lisa at the RV park, the Bob Evans who disappeared from New Hampshire with her mom. The real name behind all of those aliases was Terry Peder Rasmussen. Diane’s father.

This is Bear Brook. I’m Jason Moon.

There was a lot for Diane to process from that day. And we’ll hear more about that later in this episode… and more about Rasmussen's life, before he became a serial killer. But for now, I want to focus on the way that police found Diane. How investigators were able to determine her father’s identity. Diane says the detectives never really explained it to her.

[Diane] -- however they got to me, I’m not really sure.”

It’s likely the detectives didn’t explain it, or explain it well, because the method used to identify Terry Rasmussen was entirely new to criminal investigations. It was genetic genealogy.

Genealogist Barbara Rae-Venter used the same technique to identify Terry Rasmussen that she did to identify the girl he kidnapped -- Lisa.

But there was one important difference. With Lisa, Barbara had identified someone who wanted to be identified. Who was the victim of a crime and who actively participated in the search. In a lot of ways it was the same as the dozens of adoption searches Barbara had done for people hoping to find their biological parents.

When she identified the suspected Bear Brook killer, the chameleon, as Terry Rasmussen, it was the first time a criminal suspect had ever been identified with genetic genealogy.

It was a huge breakthrough in criminal forensics. So far, the news hadn’t really reached the outside world. But word was spreading within in law enforcement circles. And it wouldn’t be long before genetic genealogy as crime fighting tool would be thrust into public view in a big way.

[Jensen] “It was so...it just baffled me. You don’t see that. A woman and three children dead and they don’t know who they are. That doesn’t happen.”

This is Billy Jensen. He’s a veteran crime reporter turned crime investigator who has been fascinated by the Bear Brook case for years.

But he’s probably best known for his work on a book called I’ll be Gone In The Dark, a book written by his friend and fellow True Crime author Michelle McNamara.

[Jensen] “I was friends with Michelle, we were friends for about four or five years. We would meet every month and I would talk about my cases and she would talk about the Golden State Killer.”

The Golden State Killer -- a serial rapist and murderer who terrorized California in the 1970s and 80s.

Michelle died before finishing her book, but Jensen and a few others took on the project. It was published posthumously in February 2018.  

The Golden State Killer case had baffled police for decades. Longer than the Bear Brook murders. And by the numbers, it was an even more horrible story.  At least 13 murders. 100 burglaries. 50 rapes.

But in 2017, an investigator on the case heard about the recent breaks in the Bear Brook investigation. How a serial killer, Terry Rasmussen, was finally identified through the use of genetic genealogy. He thought, maybe just maybe, it could work here.

So he picked up the phone and called Barbara Rae-Venter.

[GSK News Compilation ~00:40]

…A major breakthrough in case dating back to the late 70’s as authorities…

...police believe they have solved one of the nation’s enduring mysteries. They announced an arrest in the case of the Golden State Killer…

...they now have the Golden State Killer in custody. And they used DNA testing to find him…

...a former police officer. He’s accused of going on a 10 year rape and murder spree...

...at least 12 murders and more than 50 rapes.

[GSK phone calls tape] ...gonna kill you, gonna kill you…

As soon as I screamed he said ‘shut up or I’ll kill you.’ Finally after all this time, I know that he’s behind bars and that’s where he belongs.”

Less than a year after she identified Terry Rasmussen, Barbara Rae-Venter used genetic genealogy again to identify Joseph James DeAngelo, a 72-year old former police officer… and the man police now believe is the Golden State Killer.

[Jensen] “The fact that this monster actually helped in a weird way solve the Golden State Killer case blew my mind.”

Two mysteries that had gone unsolved for decades were both cracked open by the same genetic genealogist in a matter of months. To Billy Jensen, the implications of this were clear. A new era of forensic investigation had just begun.

[Jensen] “I mean this is the biggest step forward for solving crimes since the discovery of DNA itself. We’re gonna look back on these 20 years, 30 years from now and say ‘this is where it started.’”

Jensen sees a future where genetic genealogy will be as routine as fingerprinting for serious crimes like rapes and murders. A time when police departments might have genealogists on staff.

That hasn’t happened quite yet, but the genetic genealogists who are skilled enough to do this, like Barbara Rae-Venter, are suddenly finding themselves in high demand .

[Rae-Venter] “I actually have been approached about quite a large number of cold cases. Basically everybody’s favorite cold cases.”

[JM] “So- pretty busy it sounds like?”

[Rae-Venter] “I do keep out of trouble, yes.”

You can see why police are so excited about this. Basically any unsolved violent crime where police have DNA from a suspect now has new hope of being solved.

In the months since the suspected Golden State Killer was identified, genetic genealogy has already led to breakthroughs in at least fifteen other cases around the country. And many, many more are expected. One DNA lab called Parabon has already created a genetic genealogy unit to contract with police departments. Within just a few weeks of the Golden State Killer news, Parabon said it had received DNA samples from almost 100 different police departments from around the country.

Detectives working some of the most infamous cases in the country, like the Zodiac Killer, are now reportedly turning to genetic genealogy.

[Jensen] “People see this as a tool. There are so many murders out there!”

Meanwhile genetic genealogy itself is only getting more powerful. Shockingly more powerful. Remember how in 2014, it took Barbara Rae-Venter and a huge team of volunteers an estimated 10,000 hours to track down the identity of Lisa?

[Rae-Venter] “Earlier this year I asked her if I could go in, there are some new techniques available that take advantage of the fact that there are just huge numbers of people now testing. And so I went through pretending that I didn’t know who her parents were -- just went through using the new technique, it’s called pedigree triangulation, and it took me 10 hours to identify her father.”

[JM] “No. From 10,000 hours to 10 hours?”

[Rae-Venter] “Correct.”

This isn’t just theoretical. Earlier this year, genetic genealogy solved a notorious 1981 cold case from Ohio. An unidentified woman found murdered in a ditch wearing a distinctive buck skin jacket. For 37 years she was known only as the Buck Skin Girl. Genetic genealogy identified her as Marcia King in just four hours.

Meanwhile, each day, as more and more people upload their genetic information online, the odds that any given person will have relatives in a commercial database increase.

[JM] “Wow. So someone related to me is almost assuredly in the database right now?”

[Rae-Venter] “Oh absolutely. Yeah. Probably thousands in the database now.

We’ll talk more about all the thorny ethical implications of all this in just a second. But first, I wanted to know if Barbara was right -- would I have thousands of relatives already in one of the commercial DNA databases?

I ordered a DNA kit from 23andMe. When it arrived, producer Taylor Quimby joined me a studio here at New Hampshire Public Radio and… I spit.

[TQ] “Don’t be embarrassed, it’s just me.”

[JM] “Should you turn around?”

[TQ] “No!”

*ahem* Next, we mailed the kit with my spit back to 23andMe, and then a couple weeks later I got an email saying my results were ready.

[JM] “Ok so what does it say -- ancestry composition I’m 40.8% British and Irish.”

[TQ] “Wait hold on, does that say you’re 60% Neanderthal?”

[JM] “I am more Neanderthal than 60% of customers.”

[TQ] “Ok that makes more sense.”

[JM “That would be a lot. That would be quite Neanderthal. That would be like my dad was Neanderthal.”

Ok, anyways -- what we were really here to see was how many other 23andMe users I’m related to. I clicked through a few more screens. And…

[JM] “Ok, so they’ve saved my preferences and --oop….”

[JM] “Wow!” [TQ] “Whoa!” [JM] “Boom!”

[JM] “Here they are, their names and everything. I have 998 DNA relatives.”

[TQ] “Just on 23andMe. Wow. 998.”

So, there you have it. If I was an unidentified person like Lisa, Barbara Rae-Venter could probably identify me in a matter days. Maybe even hours because one of my matches twas a first cousin. Hey David.

For most of the people I’ve spoken to for this podcast, this is all great news.

But not everyone is so enthusiastic about all of this.

[Buzz] “I mean it’s at once really cool and it’s really, really creepy stuff.”

Albert Scherr is a law professor at the University of New Hampshire. He goes by Buzz.

Buzz and forensic DNA testing go way back. In fact, he was defense counsel in the first case in New Hampshire to ever use DNA evidence.

Almost 30 years later, Buzz says the law is still catching up with the science of DNA. And he’s skeptical that we know what we’re really getting into with genetic genealogy.

[Buzz] “The information that is in your genes far exceeds any other repository of information that exists about your life. It contains information about certain behavioral disorders. Do you have a predisposition to alcoholism, do you have the Huntington’s gene, are you a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis, do you have a predisposition to schizophrenia?   

What Buzz is getting at here is that with all that information up for grabs, people -and corporations and governments- will find lots of ways to exploit it. For blackmail. For insurance discrimination. For... ways we that we haven’t even thought of yet.

After all that’s basically what happened here with genetic genealogy solving crimes. People put their DNA online to learn about their ethnic background or to build out their family tree -- then suddenly, someone found a new use for it: solving violent crimes. We may generally like this new use for genetic genealogy, but Buzz warns, we may not like the next one.

[Buzz] “You know, the cool use of a technique is the scary use of a technique.”

You might say, ‘well just don’t put your DNA online.’ But that’s where it gets really interesting. Because when it comes to genetic genealogy, your privacy is not only up to you - it’s up to you and all of the people that you share DNA with. Everytime one of your cousins puts their DNA online, in a way they’re putting some of yours in there too. With, or probably without, your consent. And that’s what makes genetic genealogy so powerful. The Chameleon and the Golden State Killer never put their DNA online, some of their relatives did.

[Buzz] “Nobody knows what the rules are. They are, in devising these really cool investigative techniques, they’re making the rules up in terms of how…’what does the constitution tell us about this?’ They’re making it up as they go along, too.”

It’s really important to point out here that most genealogy databases are not being used by police right now. In fact, most of the major genealogy companies say they will go as far as possible to restrict police access to protect the privacy of their users.

This means the biggest databases, like Ancestry and 23andMe, are more or less off-limits to police. Lisa’s case, by the way, was a little different. Because she was alive and was submitting her own DNA she could use those sites in the search for her identify.

But there is one database that does allow police to use it. One database that’s made identifying criminal suspects with genetic genealogy possible. It’s called GEDmatch. And it’s what Barbara Rae Venter used to identify the suspected Golden State Killer.

GEDmatch was started in 2010 by two genealogy enthusiasts in Lake Worth, Florida. It’s not a DNA testing company like Ancestry or 23andMe. GEDmatch is just a website that hosts a digital DNA database. In other words, you don’t send GEDmatch your spit, you just upload a file with the results of a DNA test that you took somewhere else.

GEDmatch is popular with genealogists because it lets you compare results from different genealogy companies against each other. Say you tested on 23andMe but your sister tested on Ancestry. Before GEDmatch, one of you would’ve had to pay for a new DNA kit to compare your results. Now, you can just upload your results to the GEDmatch database for free.

The GEDmatch founders didn’t know that cold case investigators would be among the people using their website. But they did understand the risks that come with putting your genetic information online.  Here’s an excerpt of the terms of service… written before GEDmatch was used to identify the Golden State Killer:

“While the results presented on this site are intended solely for genealogical research, we are unable to guarantee that users will not find other uses. If you find the possibility unacceptable, please remove your data from this site.”

[Buzz] “To me it’s just completely unsatisfactory to say, and we may find other uses. , I think you need much clearer notice that ‘and we may give the government access to this.’”

The GEDmatch founders, for their part, said they didn’t know police were using their database for this. It wasn’t until the news of the Golden State Killer arrest that they found out. And in the months since, they have issued an update to their terms of service. Now, under the list of possible ways your DNA might get used on GEDmatch there is a new bullet point. It reads:

“searching by third parties such as law enforcement agencies to identify the perpetrator of a crime, or to identify remains.”

The GEDmatch founders could have decided to try and keep police off of their site, but instead they’ve opted for disclosure upfront. Which means, for the time-being at least, GEDmatch is the defacto police DNA database for genetic genealogy. It’s the one being used right now, to search for serial killers and rapists and unidentified murder victims.

Which creates an interesting choice for all of us. If you want to help police investigate cold cases by volunteering your DNA, you can. And in fact that’s exactly what genealogist Barbara Rae-Venter invites you to do.

[Rae-Venter] “If people are interested in helping law enforcement, then it would be really good if you went out and did DNA testing, autosomal DNA testing, at any of the testing companies and then upload your DNA to GEDmatch. It will help catch criminals and it will also help identify folks who are unknown victims.”

Your DNA could be the key to apprehending a serial killer who has evaded police for decades. Or to identifying a victim who has been nameless for years.

But by putting your DNA in GEDmatch, you’ll also be making a decision for your entire extended family. For the thousands of cousins you have out there. For your children and their children. Whatever comes next in genetic genealogy, your family’s DNA will be along for the ride.

That is, if it isn’t already.

------ [BREAK] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** Bloodlines ***

And this brings us back to Diane.

Diane only has few a memories of her father. Her mother left Terry Rasmussen when Diane was just 6 years old.

There were times growing up when Diane wondered about who her father was. But she says her mom just wouldn’t say that much about him.

Then, in her 40s, married with kids, Diane finally got some answers about her father -some horrible answers- from a New Hampshire state trooper.

We’ve agreed not to use Diane’s last name because she doesn’t want her children to be associated with a serial killer. Which is understandable.

[JM] “What did you do right after the interview? Did you go back to work? Did you go for a walk?”    

[Diane] “My mother was very shaken. So I got her calmed down and back home - we both live in the same suburb. And then I took a walk. We have a lovely facility behind my place of employment with a little walking path and a pond. It’s very serene. But yeah I took a little walk and then, yep, right back to work.”

[JM] “Wow.”

[Diane] “Because I think all my years of, sadly, all my years of 911 have taught me to put these terrible things into little boxes and deal with them later.”

But Diane says compartmentalizing it didn’t work for long.

[Diane] “In the like 3 weeks that came after that, I would find myself just crying...at inappropriate times...and that’s when I decided to go see a therapist.”

Diane says she’s heard a lot of horrible things over the years as a 911 operator. But she just couldn’t wrap her mind around what her own father had done.  

[Diane] “I could not imagine what kind of mental fracture that he must have had to be able to...kill his own child.”

...

By discovering the Bear Brook Killer’s true identity, investigators were finally able to piece together l large chunks of his life - details that up until this point, were shrouded in mystery.

Terry Rasmussen was born in 1943. He grew up in Colorado and Arizona. He dropped out of high school after his sophomore year and joined the Navy, in 1961. He was trained as an electrician and served for six years at bases around the West Coast and at Okinawa.

After leaving the Navy, Rasmussen moved to Hawaii where he worked a shoe shop that was owned by his parents.

He married Diane’s mother in 1968. The next year, they moved to Arizona and Diane and her twin sister were born. They were the first of what would be four children.

Diane doesn’t remember a lot from that early period when her parents were still together. But what she can recall is a house that was full of conflict.

[Diane] “I do remember some arguments that they got into from when I was younger. Her and Terry I guess made a sport of fighting and always tried to outdo each other.”

There was fighting and there was also abuse, according to Diane. Diane says it was the abuse that eventually prompted her mother to leave Rasmussen sometime around 1975.

[Diane] “My mother says the final straw was when she came home from work one day and he had burned my brother with a cigarette. And she knew that she then had to get out.”

But the story is more complicated than a mother simply protecting her children from an abusive husband. Remember when Diane said that at first she thought the New Hampshire state troopers were there about something her mother had done in the past?

[JM] “Do you mind if we talk a little bit more about your relationship with your mom?”

[Diane] “You know what, go ahead.”

[JM] “It sounds like it was pretty rocky. Is that a fair way to characterize it?”

[Diane] “If any neighbor had paid attention, we probably would have been removed from the home.

[JM] “Oh wow.”

[Diane] “She drank a lot. And I can remember us being left nothing but a box of oatmeal and a loaf of bread and we wouldn’t see her for three or four days.”

[JM] “Wow.”

[Diane] “And you know she was very quick to hit you for any perceived slight that you may have done. I quit wearing my hair in a ponytail for many years because if she didn’t like how your ponytail looked she would grab it and cut if off with scissors.”

[JM] “She would just grab your ponytail?”

[Diane] “Ponytail and say ‘this looks terrible’ and she would cut it off.”

[JM] “Well I’m beginning to understand why when you first heard that New Hampshire State Police wanted to talk to you that you thought it would be about your mother.”

[Diane] “[laughs] Yes, for the longest-- ok seriously, I don’t mean to make light of this, but for the longest time I really thought that she had killed him. Because I’ve seen my mom angry enough to do that.”

Diane’s mother declined to be interviewed for this story.

In spite of everything, Diane and her mother have managed to maintain a relationship with each other. In fact, Diane says she’s the only one of the children who still talks to her mom. They live not far from each other. Diane calls her once a week. She even takes her own children over to see her every once in a while.

Still, the relationship is strained.

[Diane] “It got strained even more after the state police, because I want to know. And I know that she knows things. And that is a bone of contention because if I -- she certainly must remember something that she has not disclosed.”

[JM] “And why do you think she wouldn’t? Because she is embarrassed by it? Because she was complicit in something? What do you think?”

[Diane] “Well I think that she thinks that because she left with his children, she broke him.”

...

Back in 1975 -or 76, we’re not exactly sure- Terry Rasmussen arrived unexpectedly to visit Diane and her siblings in Payson, Arizona. This was just months after Diane’s mother had left with the kids. And it’s a moment that investigators today are very much focused on. Because on that visit, there was a woman with Terry Rasmussen.

[Diane] “Now remember that I was six so everyone is tall. She was tall, she was slim, she had like bouncy hair, not like Farrah Fawcett hair, but bouncy. You know what I’m saying? You may not. And I think it was brown with some highlights. She wore glasses and that’s all I have.”

Investigators are desperate to find out who this person is, because she could be the adult Bear Brook victim. Or she could be the mother of the middle child victim in the Bear Brook murders. Rasmussen’s daughter… Diane’s half-sister.

[JM] “One of the things that honestly didn’t even really occur to me at first was that they weren’t only telling you about your father but also that you had this half-sister who was one of the victims. And I just wonder how that hit you.”

[Diane] “Well she didn’t have much of a childhood...um...sorry this upsets me.”

[JM] “That’s alright. That’s alright. Take your time.”

[Diane] “Based on the artist’s rendering, she looks a lot like my little girl when she was that age.”

...

[Diane] “You know if it’s ever possible and they release her remains, if there’s no other family, I will make sure that she is buried appropriately… I think I mourned her every day since I found out.

[Mux fade out]

[Getting out of car, dog barking at the door, etc.]

[JM] “Hey you must be Mark?”

[Mark Gelinas] “Yes I am.”

[JM] “Jason. Nice to meet you.”

[Gelinas] “Hi Jason. Who are you with again?”

[JM] “New Hampshire Public Radio, NHPR.”

[Gelinas] “Yep. My wife told me it was Bob Evans you wanted to talk about?”

[JM] Yeah, yeah.

A few months ago, I drove out to Epsom, New Hampshire, just north of Allenstown, to meet this man. Mark Gelinas.

[dog barking]

[Gelinas] “It’s my daughter’s dog. She’s in Hawaii.”

[JM] “Oh, lucky you.”

Mark was 19 years old when he met Terry Rasmussen in the late 1970’s, though he knew him as Bob Evans.

[Gelinas] “Yeah, Bob he was...he was different. You knew [laughs] you knew when you were talking to him he was kind of different. He wasn’t a grouchy guy, he was just, he was weird [laughs].”

After Rasmussen showed up unexpectedly with the unidentified woman in Arizona in 1975 or 76, investigators believe he headed for Texas. He worked for a company called Brown & Root, possibly on an oil rig. Then, around 1978, he pops up in New Hampshire using the name Bob Evans.

Back then Mark Gelinas worked for his dad’s construction company. In the late 70’s, they were working in Manchester, New Hampshire at one of the city’s old textile mills. The job was to decommission the mill, to dismantle and scrap all the old machinery still inside.

Mark says his dad got the contract from Ed Gallagher, the owner of the Bear Brook store and the private property in Allenstown where the barrels were found. Gallagher was overseeing the job along with Bob Evans.

[Gelinas] “Well they were friends. Cause I remember seeing Bob at his store, cause I lived in town at the time. And if I went into the store, you know, Bob would be there.”

The mill that Mark Gelinas worked at with Bob Evans is known as the Waumbec mill. It’s 5 stories tall and over 600 feet long. Today, it holds offices and luxury apartments. But once upon a time, the Waumbec mill was part of one of the largest cotton textile plants in the world.

By the late 70’s the mills had been out of use for decades. Shutting it down was dangerous work. The old machinery inside was enormous. And, there was the problem of the electricity.  Mark says that’s where Bob Evans came in.

[Gelinas] “Whenever we went to dismantle a machine, we would go get him to make sure the electricity was dead because it was 550 volts to the machine.”

Mark says Bob was weird, but not really threatening. He did odd things, like he wore the same green coat every day -- even when it was warm out.

[Gelinas] “He always had it on. It was a green coat. Always had it on. Never took it off. Never seen him with it off.”

As Mark described this to me, he actually stood up from the kitchen table where we were sitting to do an impression of Bob Evans strolling through the mill in his green jacket.

[Gelinas] “Oh I remember he’d walk through that mill, the coat would be behind him. It was a longer coat, too.”

He struck a pose with his shoulders back, coat tail swept behind the hand in his pocket. I could see Mark clearly picturing it in his head. Bob Evans sauntering through the mill in his green coat, like a captain on a ship’s deck.

[Gelinas] “I remember him telling us a story one day that he -- he lived by one of the parks in Manchester, and he was actually stealing electricity from the park [laughs]. I think he said he tied in to one of the lights or something at one of the ball fields or whatever it was.”

Rasmussen was actually caught for this. It was one of the charges he had on his record in Manchester that helped police connect the Bob Evans alias to his California identities.

I’ve often wondered about this. Why would he steal electricity from the lights at a baseball field?

One possible explanation is that Rasmussen was was already on the run by the time he arrived in New Hampshire. Why else would he be using a fake name? Maybe he thought by not signing up with the electric company he would leave one fewer bread crumb for police.

Or maybe it was more of a compulsion. A narcissism that rejected the idea of being anything less than completely independent. A feeling that he should be able to do whatever he wants.

[Gelinas] “There’s one other thing I remember Bob did [laughs]. At the end there were these transformers. They were big. They were bigger than the ones on the telephone poles. Matter of fact, we had a tractor trailer come in to pick it up.”

Mark remembers he and Bob Evans loaded the giant transformer from the mill onto the truck. But then there was a problem. The transformer was full of PCBs, an industrial chemical that’s known to cause cancer. The scrap yard wouldn’t take the transformer with the PCBs inside. But Rasmussen knew there was a plug down at the bottom of the transformer that kept the PCBs inside from spilling out.

[Gelinas] “And Bob went over there and took the plug out of it and told the truck to ‘go’ [laughs]. And that thing leaked all the way- I forget which scrap yard it went to [laughs].”

...

Years later when Mark first heard about the barrel discovered on Ed Gallagher’s property, it didn’t occur to him that Bob might’ve had anything to do with it. In fact, it wasn’t until just a few years ago, when New Hampshire cold case detectives showed up at his door, that he learned Bob Evans wasn’t his real name.

[Gelinas] “And it didn’t dawn on me until they came in and opened that book and showed me a picture of Bob Evans and they mentioned Ed Gallagher and I said, ‘no   way.’ Then they explained to me the barrels, and yeah.”

[JM] “Once you saw that and learned all that, did you think back on him and wonder did he say anything…”

I asked Mark if, looking back, there was anything suspicious that Bob Evans said, or did.  Anything he remembers differently, now that he knows the whole story. Mark told me about an electrical room that Bob Evans always kept padlocked. He wouldn’t let any of the other workers inside.

But worse than the padlocked room, were the trips Mark made to Ed Gallagher’s property in Allenstown. Trips, where they loaded up whole truck-beds of debris, and dumped them on the edge of Bear Brook State Park. All sorts of junk. Scrapped parts. Broken concrete. Maybe even a few 55 gallon barrels.

[Gelinas] “And it bothers me that I don’t remember...cause I remember the truck I brought the stuff up there. It was an old civil defense truck, it was a Dodge, it was a rack body, it was a really long truck, and I remember bringing the stuff up there in that. Um… but I don’t remember exactly everything that was on the truck.”

[JM] “Do you worry that they could’ve been in that truck?”

When I asked this, Mark looked up at me with a pained expression on his face, a deep grimace, and he nodded.

[Gelinas] “...yeah. Um… I just… I don’t remember. Um…”

Mark Gelinas may not have known Bob Evans that well. But one person who probably knew him best in New Hampshire is Ed Gallagher, the owner of the Bear Brook camp store and the property where the barrels were found.

Ed Gallagher didn’t want to talk to me for this story.

I spoke with him just once on the phone, a few years ago now. He didn’t sound happy to hear from me. He said he didn’t have anything to add to the story, but we ended up chatting for a few minutes anyways.

It got the feeling he was sick of being asked about the murders. He mentioned something about being misquoted and that people, including police, thought he was a liar. Then he hung up.

But someone that Ed has spoken to is amatuer investigator Ronda Randall. Not at first -- it took Ronda years of pestering to get him to open up.

Ronda says she would call Gallagher periodically to ask about different theories people were floating on her blog. Did anyone ever camp out on the property behind the Bear Brook store? Did he ever meet this person? Or that person?

[Randall] “And finally one time he just got so annoyed with me and he said ‘you’re barking up the wrong tree, the person you need to be focused on is Bob Evans.’”

I’m bringing this up because Ed Gallagher gave Ronda that name in the summer of 2014 -- about two years before the Lisa case would point police toward Bob Evans.

Ronda shared her notes from the phone call with me. According to those notes, Gallagher told Ronda about working with Bob Evans at the Waumbec mill in some detail. Including one story that still sticks with me. He told a story about coming into the mill one day and hearing screams coming from inside an office. When he opened the door he said he saw Bob Evans lying on the floor. Bob Evans said he had been napping on the floor because his back was hurting him. When Gallagher asked about the screams, Bob Evans said that he sometimes had nightmares. Ed Gallagher told Ronda he’d never heard anyone have a nightmare like that before.

According to Ronda’s notes, Gallagher also said in 2014 that he had not shared his suspicions about Bob Evans with police. At the time, Ronda didn’t make much of Gallagher’s theory. People had offered up lots of names and wild theories over the years. Still, she passed along the theory to state police in 2014.

Of course, a few years later, in 2017, Ronda would realize that Ed Gallagher was right. It was Bob Evans. Which raises the question: if Ed Gallagher had a hunch, a correct hunch, about who was responsible for the Bear Brook murders -- why didn’t he tell someone sooner?

[Randall] “One thing that he said was that his wife never wanted him to get involved in this. She told him to stay out of it. That he would be blamed for it. And it wasn’t until she was really sick that he even mentioned that to me and then she died that November and so whether that has freed him up a little bit -- hard to say.”

I’ve wrestled a lot with just what to make of all this.

It is totally possible that Ed Gallagher knows nothing more about the case than what he’s already said. Totally possible that after years of phone calls from Ronda he just blurted out a name to satisfy her and he happened to be right.

And I know that by raising this question in the story I may end up subjecting Ed Gallagher to the very things he complained about in our short phone conversation. That people will hear this and think he was somehow involved. That I am proving his belated wife right.

But in the end I decided we should raise this question because I think it’s reasonable. Reasonable to wonder whether Ed Gallagher, who was described to me as a friend of Bob Evans, who hired Bob Evans to work at the Bear Brook store, who allowed barrels to be dumped on his property, who waited almost thirty years after the first victims were found to tell someone he thought he knew who did it and was right -- I think it’s reasonable to wonder whether he might know something else about the case.

New Hampshire state police have interviewed Ed Gallagher, at least a few times. And he’s given them his DNA.

Still, I wanted to know if the fact that Gallagher had dropped the name Bob Evans years before the Lisa connection had raised any new questions for New Hampshire investigators.

So shortly after I learned about this I called up Jeff Strelzin, the homicide chief at the Attorney General’s office.

[JM] “What about Ed Gallagher? Where does he fit into this story at this point for you guys? Is he...does he have anything else to add?”

[Strelzin] “No, not that we can tell at this point, no. I mean obviously there were some connections there, but beyond that, nothing really to add.”

[JM] “I guess I’m asking because he mentioned that name as early as 2014 according to what I’ve been told. And it just strikes me as...you know, odd, that someone, years before police had these connections, seemed to at least guess correctly about the case. What do you make of that?”

[Strelzin] “Yeah I can’t speculate on that. I mean it took a lot of information before the pieces came together and you know sometimes, information floats out there, names float out there, but again, you need other pieces before you can connect it. Especially a case like this that had just gone on for so long and we just knew so little about, and still know so little about the people who were involved. So, that can happen sometimes, names can float up, but they just don’t mean anything at that point. It’s looking back that you go ‘a-ha.’ You have those a-ha moments.”

[JM] “So it doesn’t, in other words, it doesn’t raise any suspicions in you or anyone else at the department?”

[Strelzin] “No. I mean we certainly have considered, and still consider, whether or not, we’ll call him Bob Evans cause that’s who he was in New Hampshire, whether this was something he did all on his own and all indications are that his criminal activities were done on his own.”

----- [Break] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** Loose Ends ***

Detective Peter Headley, who worked for years to identify Lisa, now spends his days studying the past of the man who abducted her.

For all that we’ve learned about Terry Rasmussen. There’s still so much we don’t know. And detective Headley believes what we don’t know includes other murders.

But finding out for sure is a daunting task. Rasmussen was dubbed the Chameleon for a reason.

[Headley] “Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to identify all of his victims. I was hoping at one point we would, but the more time goes on, I don’t think we will get em all.”

There are several moments in Rasmussen’s timeline that detective Headley and other investigators remain focused on. Here are just a few:

In 1980, when Rasmussen was living in Manchester, New Hampshire under the name Bob Evans, a certified letter addressed to his address was signed for by an Elizabeth Evans. Rasmussen also listed his spouse’s name as Elizabeth on two separate occasions when he arrested on minor charges in Manchester.

Investigators still aren’t sure if Elizabeth Evans is a real person. But some have wondered if Elizabeth Evans might be the name of the adult victim in the Bear Brook murders. At this point, we just don’t know.

Another moment that raises serious concern is from a few years later, in the mid 1980’s. From the period after Rasmussen had left New Hampshire with Lisa, but before they arrived at the Holiday Host RV park in Northern California. During that time Rasmussen was staying at yet another RV park. This one in Orange County, in Southern California.

[Headley] “In the mid 1980’s when he was Orange County with Lisa. He was seen dating a woman. She was seen in a car with him. There were other children in the car. We don’t know exactly how many kids. And we’re trying to identify who she was. Odds are she’s another victim.”

One reason Headley thinks she and the children are likely victims: Rasmussen was fired from his job at the local electric company in Orange County. Not for being a bad electrician, but for stealing a bandsaw.

Then there’s the case known as the lady in the refrigerator.

In 1995, someone looking for metal cans along the side of the road in Holt, California found a refrigerator dumped in an irrigation ditch. The fridge was tied shut with a rope. Inside, the scavenger found the body of woman. She was wrapped in a sleeping bag and stuffed into one of the refrigerator’s compartments. Her hands were bound with electrical tape. She was gagged with a sock and that was held down by electrical tape. She died from a blow to the head.

The similarities are striking -- but again we just don’t know for sure if Rasmussen is connected. And unfortunately, we may never know the answers to any of these loose ends.

Terry Rasmussen may have lived in as many as thirteen different states over the years. He used at least five different aliases. The only way to connect some of these dots is if someone recognizes a picture of him. Or remembers a story about a woman suddenly vanished with her new boyfriend.

[Headley] “If there’s a woman who moved away suddenly, you had a relative and they were dating some guy and then you never heard from them again, a neighbor...it’s worth a second look.

If you have any information about Terry Peder Rasmussen or any of his other possible victims, please contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. We’ll have a timeline of Rasmussen’s life, including his confirmed locations, on our website bearbrookpodcast.com.

In telling this story, I’ve struggled to make sense of Terry Rasmussen. What is he?

He was likely an alcoholic. He often looked dirty and unkempt. Looking at his various mugshots from over the years, the word that often comes to my mind is deranged.

But I think that’s probably an over-simplification. A lot of what we know about Terry Rasmussen suggests that he was intelligent and disciplined.

Intelligent because of his skill as an electrician. Because he was fluent in French. Because he could think on his feet, juggle half-a-dozen false identities, and lie his way out of almost every encounter he had with police.

Disciplined because he never talked. He never let slip his real name in a moment of weakness on a drunken night over all the years he was on the run. Even when he was in prison for Eunsoon’s murder, when he had so much information to trade with prosecutors -- he never said a thing.

Rasmussen got away with the majority of this crimes. As far as I can tell, he only ever made two mistakes. One I understand and the other I don’t.

The one I understand was when he gave his prints to detectives after Eunsoon Jun’s disappearance not knowing they’d come back the same day.

The mistake that makes less sense to me, that is maybe the most confusing part of his story, is that he let Lisa live.

[Gruenheid] “If I could ask him that, I’d ask him like -- why?”

Here’s former Contra Costa County detective Roxane Gruenheid.

[Gruenheid] “Lisa ultimately was the connection. Lisa is the connection. Lisa is the mistake that he made, thank goodness, keeping her alive in his trail of murder. That made that connection from Contra Costa to Santa Cruz to San Bernardino to New Hampshire and to where it’s going to lead, I don’t know.”

*** Unidentified ***

The mystery of the Bear Brook murders has taken so many twists and turns over the last three years that I’ve reported on it that I’ve almost learned not to be surprised by them anymore.

But the one twist that does still get to me is the one that’s never changed, even as everything else around it has. The fact that we still don’t know who the people found in those barrels are. The fact that a whole family is dead and we don’t know their names.

You may have been wondering why haven’t detectives used genetic genealogy to identify the Bear Brook victims in the same way they used it to identify Lisa. The answer is: they’ve tried, but there’s a one big obstacle in the way. The quality of the DNA samples from the victims.

I asked Barbara Rae-Venter about this. She says unlike Lisa’s DNA sample, the DNA from the Bear Brook victims’ is severely degraded.

[Rae-Venter] “They’ve been difficult from the beginning. We’re talking about bodies that were out there exposed to the New Hampshire winters for between 5 and 20 years.”

With almost no soft tissue remaining by the time they were discovered, forensic scientists have been forced to turn to the victims’ bones and hair to look for DNA. And they have been able to get some. Samples taken so far have retrieved mitochondrial DNA -- which is the kind of DNA needed to test for maternal relationships. It’s how we know three of the victims are maternally related.

But to do genetic genealogy, you need autosomal DNA. So far, they haven’t been able to get a clean sample from the victims’ bones.

[Rae-Venter] “Bacteria have apparently infiltrated into the bone and so we’ve done multiple extractions from bone and unfortunately they’ve typically been heavily contaminated. So when they looked at what percentage was human and what was bacterial, there was like 2 percent or 3 percent human and the rest was all bacteria.”

So, for now, the Bear Brook mystery remains just that: a puzzle that sits just out of reach of the forensic technique it helped to establish. A case that continues to move in reverse, where each new piece of information suggests there may be even more victims. A case that has changed so much, and yet hasn’t changed at all.

But it might not always be that way. [mux start]

That’s because recently, scientists have been applying a new cutting edge technique to the victims’ remains. One that reconstructs autosomal DNA from rootless hair. One that that may be suitable for genetic genealogy. One that could be the key to unlocking the final mystery of the Bear Brook murders.

Until recently, it was widely accepted among forensic scientists that this was impossible. That’s because the DNA inside hair root cells gets destroyed as they become a part of the hair strand. Or so we thought. Turns out it gets shattered, and this new process painstakingly reassembles those shards of DNA into a complete sample.

[Rae-Venter] It’s difficult and time consuming, but we’re hoping that it will work. So we do have hair on the remaining three victims from Allenstown.

[JM] “So, once this, if this process works, will you be waiting at the ready to take the sample and do the same thing?”

[Rae-Venter] “Oh absolutely. Yeah.”

[kick-ass mux begins]

For maybe the first time ever, investigators now believe that learning the identity of the Bear Brook victims is simply a matter of time.

If and when that time comes, we’ll be back with another episode of Bear Brook.

[credits and thank yous]

Sign up to receive updates on the case at our website bearbrookpodcast.com