Nancy Guthrie & More | Forensic Linguistics and Digital Evidence: Insights from Experts

[00:00:00]Welcome back to another episode of Cold Red. I'm Ray Carr and with me always is James R. Fitzgerald. On this show, we call him Fitz. Tonight, we're wrapping up season 10 and we're going to look at some of the biggest investigations we've been covering during this season. And as always, we're going to separate. I'm sticking with my guns and sort of repeating myself here. Without that proof of life and later, and I hate to say it, proof of death regarding Nancy Guthrie. I I I just I can't imagine why anyone would go through the minations of doing a kidnapping and just being so unprepared in how to have any sort of a viable and valid communication with the authorities or the family itself. That is Savannah. Some listeners got upset last week. I said Samantha once. Sorry guys. Savannah Guthrie and you know and and instead of going right to them, they went to TMZ and a local Tucson TV station. So it's tough to comment on. We are going to comment on some direct language, fact from speculation. We're going to explain how investigators think through their cases, discuss where the evidence, not the emotion, should lead.

[00:01:03]So, the first case we want to take a look at here is the Nolan Wells investigation. I want to start by recognizing that this is a complete tragedy. There's an 18-year-old young man who lost his life. And before we discuss any theories, I think it's important for everybody to remember that there's a family that's grieving. With that said, Jim, what is it that we know or that is being shared in the media about this case?

[00:01:29]>> Yeah, obviously uh like many investigations, the uh investigators are keeping things close to the vest. I know this happened in uh in Jackson County, I believe Mississippi, and the official agency response was that this was an accidental drowning of the young man.

[00:01:44]There's a sheriff lead better there saying nonetheless accidental or something else they will not be rushed and are collaborating with the local district attorney's office. Uh the family's pushing for truth. There's some civil rights attorneys involved looking for independent autopsies perhaps flying the victim his body to Washington DC or bringing experts in from there. So I don't know all the details of why it's that much of a mystery. I mean young people unfortunately drown all the time.

[00:02:13]Sometimes there's drug drugs, sometimes there's alcohol, sometimes just wild behavior. I'm not saying any of that happened in this case, but sometimes that plays a role, even if not the victim, him or herself here. So, uh, but there are some questions about a phone.

[00:02:27]Wells's friends returned to the mainland with his phone and keys, but then somehow some social media posts were deleted. Ray, do you know any more about that or >> you know, Jim, I just want to take a back step here. I think uh that it's important and I think the sheriff actually mentioned this that they're not going to rush to conclusions. Good investigators in any case are not going to lock themselves into theories too concern too early. Some of the family concerns as you mentioned they talked about a phone uh a timeline. We talked about the phone talked about some deleted messages and inconsistencies among the witnesses. Now, just because the family has concerns, and they're reasonable investigative questions, don't get me wrong. It's not proof of criminal conduct. I thought we would look at each one of these, Jim. When you talk about phone evidence, modern phones have a tendency to provide a lot of information, as we know, your location, communications, photos, timestamps, content that was deleted, all these things. And a lot of that depends on the device you have, what type of backup you have, and what legal access they can actually get. You anything else you want to add to that, Jeff? No, it just I I like to for our audience sake, probably don't have to remind them that we're both older and started our careers in the 70s, but basic phone records back then, you'd have one phone call going from one landline to another. And this is not if there was a not if a wire tap was up, but you go try to get phone records, you know, days, weeks, or months afterwards. It was very, very basic information. Nowadays, investigators have so many more tools at their hands. all the things you just described. It won't even give them the conversations if there's no title three or wire tap up, but just locations of the phone, who else may have been involved, uh, and very specific location, I think within a 6 foot by six foot, you know, area or so, if the triangulation can be measured correctly.

[00:04:16]So, there's a lot of information that be can be gleaned from phone records nowadays, much different than even 20 and certainly 40 years ago, Ray, when you and I were kind of starting out. So, they will be uh they will be mining that information, that data, and doing everything they can to determine who was last in touch with with the young man and uh and and and and see where it goes. But we have to be careful that there isn't anything put out there online that the internet sleuths, you know, being, you know, seasoned or amateurs jump on and right away think that it's something nefarious. It may not be. And as Rey said and as the sheriff said, we have to wait until this matter is fully investigated without rushing into any conclusions.

[00:04:59]>> You know, the other thing the family was concerned about was some of the witness statements that were conflicting. That doesn't automatically mean deception like a lot of people think. There's a couple reasons that could happen, especially at a Fourth of July party.

[00:05:11]First of all, you have someone missing, a lot of stress. I'm sure there was a lot of alcohol and that affected memory.

[00:05:18]There's some confusion and you may have some intentional deception by some of these individuals. I'm not saying that that's not happening, but investigators are going to look at a lot of different things here. They're going to look at timelines. They're going to look at surveillance, GPS based upon their phones, their phone records, and any other digital evidence that they have before they decide any credibility in reference to this. Now, Jim, I know you mentioned online rumors, and I think this is an excellent opportunity to educate our audience that there's a lot of things that happen like viral videos, fake evidence that's put out there, and even edited social media media clips.

[00:05:53]It's amazing what you can do with AI.

[00:05:55]And I want to tell, and I, this is my point here, is that investigators don't solve cases through Tik Tok, okay? They solve them through evidence. And I think everybody needs to make sure that they stick to that and not get caught up in all of these things that are being placed online in social media. I think that can really distort a lot of thoughts and and people come up with these theories through social media. And we saw that happen in another case we're going to talk about a little bit later, the Nancy Guthrie investigation. But we don't we don't want to take away from what the police are doing. I think it's really important not to do that.

[00:06:27]>> Yeah. And we're the first to call police out. We have an upcoming case or two in which we have some serious questions about what they've been doing if not for five months for about 18 years in two separate cases soon to discuss. So yeah, this has only been a week or so plus or minus a few days uh with the with the Wells case in in Mississippi. And let's let's give the investigators some time here. It's a sad case for the family, for friends, for loved ones. No matter how you look at it, that doesn't make it a criminal case. That doesn't make it a criminal investigation. I mean, again, it could be with if they're underage drinkers, did some adult get them this booze? I mean, there could be the criminal aspect to it, other drugs involved. You know, those types of factors could kick in. But in terms of someone purposefully, you know, committing murder or homicide or or or or reckless endangerment of some sort, we just don't have that information yet.

[00:07:18]And the police are trying to put that together. And uh, you know, hopefully they get some people telling the truth there. All it takes is one that can put the puzzle pieces together. and this this matter could hopefully be solved sooner rather than later. Still a sad ending. Young man lost his life, but let's hope that it it wasn't any type of a criminal involvement in any way, shape, or form and uh just an accident, which again is bad enough.

[00:07:42]>> Jim, we're going to shift gears here. I I know we discussed this case last week, the Nancy Guthrie investigation, but I want to kind of talk a little bit about linguistic analysis, and I want to lean on your forensic linguistics acumen here. We had some questions come in about some things and people wanted to know about anonymous communications and what they'll often reveal when you see these things. If you if you can share that with our audience.

[00:08:06]>> Yeah, I uh I remember back in the FBI days, Ry, and I know you were part of some of these conversations. I would I would talk with some Secret Service agents and we would compare percentages of the types of threat cases we'd be working or any kind of case involving some sort of a written communication and they would say 95% of their cases. This is a secret service was signed by the actual name or the email address of the actual person who sent it. All they had to do was go knock on a door and say, "Hey, you sent this to President soando, to vice president, to this congressperson, whatever." And and and what did you mean by it? Well, Ray, 95% of the cases we worked in the FBI, certainly in the BA, our our unit back then, the forensic linguistic and threat assessment unit, 95% were anonymous or pseudonymous. So, we had to do linguistic profiles on just about every case. And as I mentioned here before, anyone's read my books, uh, or certainly take any of the classes I I taught at Penn West or now Hofster University, there are a lot of clues in someone's written communication style. We all have what's known as an idioct. No matter what language you speak, we'll stick with English for now. We have this concept known as idioct. It is essentially a personal dialect. Anyone who knows a little bit about English language, North American English language will probably pick up that Ray and I grew up in the Philadelphia area.

[00:09:22]Not in the same exact neighborhood, Ray.

[00:09:24]We didn't know each other back in the day, but our some of our speech habits are very are consistent and telling.

[00:09:30]It's not a bad thing. You grew up in Boston, you have some telltale signs.

[00:09:33]Now that's spoken language. Written language can be can also have indicators of of of geographical origins and certainly of of of sex andor gender and uh and race and age and educational level and what kind of perhaps a profession one has has you know has spent their life engaged in. So there's a lot that can be done. Now two or three words or even two or three sentences there's not a whole lot to go on. That's why in the Guthrie case, we weren't even getting the FBI or the sheriff's department, Pina County wasn't putting out the exact documents, either one or two sentences or phrases. All we were getting, Ray, as you know, was source information. And here's, you know, she's buried with nature or, you know, this wasn't in intentional. And as a linguist, I I just I really had nothing to grab on to. I would make a comment.

[00:10:22]I'd say, well, all right, it sounds this way. But there's no way I would ever testify in court as an expert, which I had over a dozen times in my career, based on that limited information. So, you have to be very careful when you want to make sure you have the exact source information, the exact source communications uh for any type of opinion to be rendered. And we don't have that in the Guthrie case. And all I could say is everything I've heard, and I'm sticking with my guns and sort of repeating myself here, without that proof of life and later, and I hate to say it, proof of death regarding Nancy Guthrie, I I just I can't imagine why anyone would go through the minations of doing a kidnapping and just being so unprepared in how to have any sort of a viable and valid communication with the authorities or the family itself. That is Savannah. Some listeners got upset last week. I said Samantha once. Sorry, guys. Savannah Guthrie and you know and and and instead of going right to them they went to TMZ and a local Tucson TV station. So it's tough to comment on we are going to comment on some direct language in in the Charlie Kirk murder case coming up next because we do have some text messages directly from the source and we know that's their their uh their their actual communications between the shooter and this Lance Twigs his his his lover. So bottom line, Ray, yeah, I'm I'm sticking with what I think what we covered last week. Until I see something different, I don't think any of these communications are legit, unless the FBI and the sheriff's department is holding something so close to their vest. And if they are, that's fine. But it seems that if it was a kidnapping, if it was legitimate communications looking for money, bitcoins, whatever, it never happened.

[00:12:00]The the money was never paid. And certainly Nancy, either alive or deceased, was not turned back to the family. And with that in mind, I would just say the the letters, the communications must be unrealistic, not tenable, and and hold no true evidentiary value in terms of the actual abduction. I'd still like to try to solve them in terms of who would have sent these things. And maybe on the six-month anniversary, just about two and a half weeks from now, maybe they'll decide to put, you know, some of these letters out in hole, these communications, and we can figure out from there. I >> hope so. Jim, you know, Jim, I wanted to I know you and I together and individually have done a lot of media hits on this case and one of the big questions we got we were asked almost on every show is what do you think happened? And it's very difficult for us to assimilate or be able to discuss exactly what happened. However, I can tell you that if and I know maybe I I'm speaking for you too and if I speak wrong, let me know. But I think if we were leading this investigation or involved in this investigation, some of the things that we would consider if we were looking at a suspect, we would be looking for things, changes in their behavior, changes in their routine, are they over involved in the case? Are they kind of, if we have a suspect, are we having difficulty finding the suspect?

[00:13:15]Is he avoiding investigators? You know, is there sudden travel by the individual? Looking at financial activity. And although we're talking about these behavioral markers, they never prove guilt, but they do help us prioritize leads. So, you know, I just think it's important that we don't have all the information here. I wish we did.

[00:13:35]I wish we had more. We'd be able to say more about this, but a lot of this information, and probably for good reason, is being kept very close to the vest, as Jim said. And they have good reason to it. And uh I I still feel confident, Jim, that uh that the law enforcement is going to solve this case.

[00:13:52]Time will tell. Time will time will tell with this. It really will.

[00:13:55]>> Yeah. And at this point, almost 6 months, I would say, and I'm going to stick by this with no other information having come forward and the case of course not being resolved at this point.

[00:14:05]I think this is and then Jim Clemente, I mean, he agreed what we've been saying, you know, for months. I think we've all been doing it independently and sometimes together, but I believe this has something to do with Savannah and and I don't mean she's involved in this at all. The criminal aspect of it, someone met her, try to maintain some kind of a relationship, professional, wanted something from her, could have been very simple, could have been something a little more complex. Get me on the air. I'm a I'm a fledgling journalist or I'm a fan. I'm a super fan. and they just couldn't get past that first email that, you know, I'm sure her PR people just put out or maybe I'm not sure they even send 8 by10 glossies out anymore, you know, rubber stamped by the by the by the celebrity him or herself. And then nothing ever went from there. I've handled enough celebrity cases in my life, including one that still hasn't completely gone away. If you read my fourth book, you'll you'll know which celebrity I'm talking about. And this this stalker from back then is still contacting me about different things. Nothing criminal, but just enough to uh just show me after 30ome years, he hasn't given up his his fantasy, his erotammania. And these guys hold this and women too, but it's the guys usually are going to be if there's going to be violence, it's going to be a male. And I just can't rule out that that's something to do with Savannah, some stalker who she didn't even know about. So, I just hope the police sheriff's department continue going back years into her, you know, NBC emails and uh and find something that uh that say, "Hey, is the one thing we haven't checked out is this guy from, you know, pick a city and state. Let's go talk to him." And there is travel show in Arizona back in early February. And as you said, Ray, within weeks, we were out pre-offense behavior, post offense behavior. Here's what someone has to look for. And unfortunately, that call never came in. Apparently, it didn't come into us. We don't necessarily need it here, but uh you know to Savannah or to the police most importantly. So, I got this funny neighbor and he you know he wears these outfits in the backyard sometimes and he has his gun, he wears his holster out front. All the things we've seen with porch man. So, uh that hasn't happened. But at the six month point, maybe the sheriff's department can get back out like a five minute video and lay out some of these parameters once again and maybe release the letters. Not that I think they're involved in the abduction. The letter writers, I keep saying letters, but communications and uh and let's get that and but maybe someone will identify those people and we can rule those out pretty early on. I agree, Jim. I agree.

[00:16:37]We're going to shift gears again and I want to talk a little bit about Lindsay Booziac. We spent quite a bit of time this season talking about this case. We talked about the victimology of Lindsay.

[00:16:48]Uh we asked questions or we think investigators should ask questions. Who was Lindsay? What was she about? And and we tried to answer some of these questions. Jim, what changed in her life that caused this to happen to her? Why was she selected? And who could have benefited from this? You know, we made an offer two weeks ago for the Sanish Police Department to come to the Vox Society. We said, "We'd love to have you there. We'd love to be able to assist you there." We offered them an avenue for an independent review because you and I both stated that fresh perspectives sometime can overlook connections that may have been identified. So I think when you look at cold cases, Jim, it it helps with the a new a new set of eyes because people like you and I and other people in the Buck Society, we're emotionally detached from this. We're going to challenge any assumption that we may believe that is there and that we bring such a specialized expert expertise from the from our agency from our VU society. I mean the knowledge and the expertise within the VU society is second to none anywhere. And I just became aware that and I sent you the email along with our producers Matt and Matt that Sanish PD declined to come to the V-duck Society.

[00:18:01]I'm not going to criticize them. I mean, they could have numerous reasons for this, Jim. They could be concerned over control of their evidence. They may have an ongoing investigative strategy. I don't know. It could be something internally with them. And they could be concerned about public perceptions or what the expectations. They think, well, if we go to the VUX society, this is going to be solved. And that's not necessarily true. That's not the case.

[00:18:22]But the thing is is that after nearly two decades, you know, expert review is going to help a lot more than it's going to.

[00:18:28]>> Their arguments are specious when it comes to however you put it. And I'm I'm sure you're you're paraphrasing, but you know, protecting their integrity of the case. Then tell that to the New York State Police, the Pennsylvania State Police, New Jersey State Police, Delaware, Pittsburgh PD, Philadelphia PD, all these agencies, Ray, and you've been in the room with me. I there sometimes are smaller towns or counties, but they're certainly larger PDs, too.

[00:18:51]And the cases they bring us are not easy, and they're never brand new, either. I mean, they're always at least five years old and sometimes 10, 20, 30.

[00:18:59]So this is the per and we've had them from Canada too. We've had agency uh from Canada. So the precedent is there for us to work on an international case and u we are trustworthy. We don't violate the norms or or release anything that shouldn't be released. There's no media people in the room. I'll even throw this out. If these if the Sanage people retired, present, the chief, if if they don't like you and me, Ray, for some reason, if they want us sitting out of this meeting, I I'll at least be willing to sit out. Maybe that they don't like the attitude we have. I I don't know how where that would come from. We're trying to get this case solved. I haven't directly insulted or called anybody or or suggest anybody's, you know, some sort of criminal aspects to this. I've questioned competence.

[00:19:43]I've questioned decision-m. But if it means Ray, the two of us sit out. All right, we'll agree to do that because there's plenty of other experts in VOC that I'd be very happy to sit through this case. I think it would be kind of silly we sit out. We know a lot about this case, but you know, and if they don't understand the premise, the premise of it, they come in with their PowerPoint. They stand in front of this 50 or 60 sometimes more in the room.

[00:20:07]They present their case to us. They control what's being, you know, presented. And then we have a follow-up group that sticks with them for months or years afterwards if need be. So, I'm not sure if they think they're going to be mailing boxes of documents to us and we go through all of them. I mean, that's something we could do and maybe some agency in Canada should somehow come in and do that, but certainly for now to do it, you know, nine times a year at a minimum, other agencies from around the US and occasionally from other countries come in to Voc. So, I don't understand their logic at all. I I I really don't I can't imagine them not wanting to solve this case. This was the first year, the fifth year. Okay, maybe, you know, keep it tight, keep it internal. Guys, you're you're over 18 years going on two. You're entering the third decade of this investigation in about a year and a half. What do you have to lose? But maybe you know the answer. Maybe there is something to lose. That's why you're not willing to put everything out there. You know, Jim, what about the fact that, and you've heard of this, and and back when I began, some police departments were very territorial, >> of course, >> and they did not want to share anything with other agencies if the act occurred within their territory. Investigators naturally become very invested in their own theories. However, if they were to give a fresh set of eyes on this, it would alleviate tunnel vision. You know, you could look at confirmation bias looking at this. What about suspects that were overlooked? People that were cleared. I never heard in all my years and I've been involved in law enforcement 40 years, Jim, if going back when, I've never heard where someone clears somebody before someone's arrested and convicted. Everybody's a suspect.

[00:21:46]>> Uh the John Bené Ramsey case.

[00:21:49]>> Well, yes. Yes. Yes.

[00:21:51]>> Leave it at that.

[00:21:52]>> When you when you Yeah. But we we we know where that landed, right? We're not going to get into that.

[00:21:56]>> I'm not going to get into that.

[00:21:57]>> Right. Exactly. But there could be two in this gym. And maybe they're concerned about how the case was handled forensically, how the crime scene was handled, how the initial interviews were handled. I have no idea. But something is a miss that they are not willing to at least entertain it. It doesn't hurt to reach out. Hey, if we do this, what can we expect? Maybe maybe the unknown is what frightens them. Maybe they're afraid to bring >> or it's or it's the known that frightens them.

[00:22:28]>> Exactly. Exactly. But I I want to say >> casting aspersions here. Just saying.

[00:22:33]>> I It could be. It could be. But look, when we look at we're looking at this and people are reaching out to us because of this podcast and they're speaking with us and there's a potential for some additional interviews in this matter coming next season. I can't absolutely say that it's going to happen because we still have to work out some things, but what I can say is that if they do come on, I'm pretty excited about it. So, I hope that we can work through some of these things and bring them on the show. And I hope every and I want I want people out there I want our audience to know and the people in Sanage and in the surrounding Victoria area that everybody that comes on here and tells their story, you open up a door. And when you open that door, it gives people the opportunity to look in.

[00:23:17]And what you may do is you may give somebody the the courage to step forward like you did. And that's what this is all about. And I want you to know that you're safe here. And if you want to come on here, you want to talk, I don't even care if you work for the PD and you want to come on. We'll change your voice. We won't show your photo. We'll do whatever you want if you feel that you want to help us solve this case. We really want to solve this case. And I think it's very solvable. We just need to get the right people involved in this. And hey, listen, we're willing to help. I I just like I said before, I've never seen this before where somebody says, "No, we don't need your help. We got it." I think it's nuts. It's nuts.

[00:23:55]>> Maybe after 18 months or some ego and pride there, but 18 years, zero excuses, Ray. Zero excuses.

[00:24:00]>> Jim, I'm with you on that. I can't I can't disagree with that, Jim. We're going to change gears again here, Jim.

[00:24:05]And we're going to move on to Tyler Robinson.

[00:24:08]>> We don't say names on the air, Ray.

[00:24:11]>> Okay. My bad. Well, I already said it.

[00:24:13]So, >> it was said on the air because there's TV cameras in the courtroom. So, we're going to talk about Robinson and the preliminary hearing. And I think it's important because many of our our audience may not understand what a preliminary hearing is. And so, I'm going to try and give you a a cliffnotes version here. A preliminary hearing is like a mini trial without a jury. And what happens is it's between the defendant, the defense, and the prosecution. And you have one person that's hearing this, and that's the judge. And the whole purpose of this preliminary hearing is to share evidence in this preliminary hearing. And then the judge determines number one if the evidence is admissible and number two if there's enough evidence to take it to trial. And he makes that determination.

[00:24:53]And when he makes that determination, that's when we usually get a hearing for a trial date.

[00:24:58]>> Yeah. Jim, I know you've I know you've had some hits on this on a couple TV shows about this individual's demeanor in the courtroom and some of the statements that he's or I shouldn't say statements, I should say text messages and communications that he's had between himself and his lover. So, I want to turn it over to you and let you discuss that.

[00:25:16]>> Yeah. And just to follow up on the whole concept, the legal concept of preliminary hearing, certainly in Pennsylvania, first your defendant has a preliminary arraignment. That's when he's taken before a judge. Usually within 6 hours bail was set a preliminary hearing in every state's a little bit different is supposed to be within 10 days but lawyers can decide to put it off put it off and it's basically they they use a Latin term primmaacy it means like basic facts or first facts and all you have to do as the prosecution is just lay out some very basic facts and the judge will hear them said all right it's not about guilt or innocence but there's enough to go to trial here and when it go the person goes to trial that's when a jury will determine you know guilt innocence acquit conviction, whatever, and there'll be a sentencing with conviction. So, uh, in most cases, preliminary hearings are like, you know, an hour or two. There may be pre pre-trial motions before that where they try to suppress evidence, meaning the defense in that case. And there's been some of those already in this case. But this this hearing went on for a week. I mean, basically, you know, six to eight hours each day. Highly unusual. And quite frankly, the prosecution put out a lot more than they needed. They could have just put out the text messages. I think that would have been primapacy for the judge to say held over for trial.

[00:26:30]They could have just put out the DNA of the towel that was found wrapped around the gun that came back to the shooter.

[00:26:36]TR his initials. Uh they could have uh you know surveillance video where it's pretty darn clear it's TR walking with a limp first when he had the rifle down his pants etc. There is some but they went all and they gave all three of that those three factors and a ton of other information and evidence and people are saying that maybe they gave that extra evidence to sort of uh squash some of these internet rumors and these conspiracy theories by some people out there and what you know what they're trying to say actually happened here who else was Israel was involved and Nyagu and and other other people involved in in killing Charlie Kirk. There's doppelgangers out there made to look like the shooter. So maybe that's why they put everything together. So uh yeah, I was mostly asked about, you know, the the courtroom demeanor of the defendant and and certainly the text messages of him with his uh his his roommate and lover, Lance Twigs, I will say his name, but uh but before that, they were really a dysfunctional couple.

[00:27:34]Uh they were in some combination, you know, drugs and and and and of different varieties, alcohol, um you know, an eating disorder on on this Lance's part and Dungeons and Dragons gamings on this Discord, you know, service and site with these bizarre groups going back and forth. Not all of it was political, but it it got to be afterwards. And and as I said on a few of these hits, it was just a toxic porridge of of almost everything that can go wrong with people. And essentially towards the end, the the the shooter and and his roommate Twigs, they were kind of isolating themselves from everyone everyone around them. They were sort of their own echo chambers and just going back and forth about the evils in the world. Then, you know, and then it developed into the anti-trans stuff that they, you know, alleged Charlie Kirk was saying and he had to answer people's questions and have his own opinions. And then for that reason, you know, the shooter felt that he had to end his life. So, a lot of a bizarre synchronicity between these two people when and and when they have no outside influences, you know, coming into that that bubble of theirs, they can really lose it. And your brain's not fully formed at 21, 22. Sorry guys, if you're that age, it's just not quite yet. And if you're adultled with, you know, marijuana overdoses and other drugs, who knows what kind of rolin when they were kids, what kind of parental upbringing they had. I mean, the parents at least had them had the shooter turn himself in. I give them credit for that. And, you know, there's some earlier videos of of the shooter playing piano and and getting some kind of a scholarship. He's reading a letter into a camera that mother put that on Facebook. So, I'm bouncing around a bit here, but just these was these were this was a toxic relationship that they they the they they together spiraled downwards and then the but the the the the homicidal ideiation kicked in on the part of the shooter, the defendant in this case, and he got his grandfather's rifle as we know, the expensive, you know, sight and u telescopic sight and hate to say to his credit or to his luck, but took one shot, got it off. could have killed other people. Could have been people behind Charlie. Could have been there were young kids in the crowd. I mean like young kids like under 10 years of age, not just college students. But what I found and I I'll let you come in here, Ray, and I'll get a little bit into the text messages after that. But that's just how I saw this preliminary hearing and the information was put out.

[00:29:58]Anything you want to throw in here at this point?

[00:30:00]>> Well, a couple things that came up into into this preliminary hearing was a discussion of DNA. And I want our audience to know that DNA is extremely powerful, but it's not the only thing that juries consider. A lot of times a juryy's going to look at how it was collected. Was there contamination? If you remember the OJ case, there's a lot of problems with the DNA and as it was collected. Chain of custody and how they look at things. The other things was the ballistics. And ballistics. What ballistics are is when a round is fired through a weapon, it leaves certain striations that are just as unique as fingerprints are to individuals. They're unique to each weapon. So what they do when they look at these ballistics, that's why they try to have them, you know, thrown out, is they look at microscopic microscopic tool marks. They look at cartridge cases. They look at the firing pin impressions. You know, there's nothing that's per perfect here.

[00:30:51]And you may get some experts here. And I'm sure that when there is a trial, and I believe there will be a trial on this, I'm sure that the defense is going to have experts that are going to disagree with the prosecution experts as well.

[00:31:04]Now, the other thing that Jim wanted to talk about was, and before we get into that, Jim, I want to talk about people talked a lot about the fact that, hey, uh, what what is it with the delay with this judge? Is it is it showing weakness by somebody? Is that why they're doing this? And really, when they're looking at additional like briefings, it's usually something that's complex from a legal from a legal issue and not weakness by either side. So, I I think that's important for everybody to understand that as well as things kind of work in these cases here based on my experience and Jim based on yours as well. But, you know, there were some statements that were recorded, textual statements that were recorded. Um, and Jim, I'm going to let you talk about some of the language and timing and and some other things that were that were contained within those communications.

[00:31:53]>> Sure. Just to follow up, you said a delay. I the hearing ended last Friday and the judge held off until September 1st for either the hearing to resume or him to render his final opinion whether it goes to trial or not. Again, this is not about guilt or innocence of the shooter of the defendant here, just whether it goes to trial. Then the defense, you know, they'll know what evidence is going to be admitted, what may be suppressed. I'm not sure anything major has been suppressed yet. Uh and they'll have to decide what to do. and uh Rey and you know we can get more into some specific stuff here, but I I've never seen a case put together so well as this.

[00:32:27]>> I agree.

[00:32:28]>> And uh and every single aspect of uh of of forensic evidence is in there. And I you know, people, oh, do you think he wanted to get caught? I don't think any criminal, especially violent criminal, ever truly wants to get caught unless it's some homeless person that wants to break a window so he gets three meals and a cot, you know, in cold weather.

[00:32:46]But I mean, anyone like this. But I just think this person when uh the shooter TR was so caught up in his emotionality, so caught up in his love for his uh his boyfriend that he just lost all semblance of common sense. And that that carries over in the text messaging that was taking place between the two of them. I believe it didn't happen maybe something 11:00 the night of the shooting and then more of it was the next day, the uh I guess that would have been the 11th of September. But I was taken aback by uh and linguists what linguists do there's a lot of things linguist do but looking at language such as this it comes under sort of the category of socio linguistics then pragmatics which how language how language is used in conversations when people interact with each other and uh they actually do what's you know discourse analysis. So you may have a recording that people would allow you to record them and you can break down politeness turn taking and other factors when conversations take place. But what we have here is not so much in-person conversations, spoken words, but text messages going back and forth. I don't have all of them here, but obviously people can get them uh and look at them.

[00:33:54]There's also a letter that was left under the keyboard, which uh I think Lance Twigs took a picture of it, then he burnt it, but luckily the picture was still on his phone. By the way, this Lance Twigs through his attorney, he got full immunity, I believe, from the state of Utah as well as the federal government. So he, you know, he's not going to get charged for anything. The only thing he can be charged with is if he lies under oath and he's told that, you know, every question we ask you, you better tell the truth. If we find out it's a lie, that we can charge you with those crimes. So I believe the uh the prosecutors felt that he was such a valuable source of information that he's worth and he didn't pull the trigger.

[00:34:33]There's no indication he coerced the shooter to pull the trigger. So they gave him this immunity deal. Ray and I have been involved in, you know, mob cases and other cases over the years where sometimes you have to pick someone out and give them a deal of some sort from of immunity and that way it helps strengthen your case. No promises are made to him or anything like that for him to tell the truth in the in the trial. But so going back to these text messages, I was amazed >> before you go there. I just want to throw one thing in what you said about the fact that he's bound to tell the truth and answer every question truthfully. If not, he could be charged.

[00:35:08]We've had witnesses in trials that I've had just like this. I mean, I'm talking homicide trials that if they lied, we took the deal off the table and they were charged with everything. Yeah.

[00:35:18]>> So, that could happen here if he lies.

[00:35:20]If he lies, they could take the deal off the table and charge him with conspiracy because he was aware of it. Probably he would probably was aware what he was going to do prior to the shooting itself. So, yeah. And we're not going to get real deep in the weeds here, but I just found some interesting >> again this casual almost stream of consciousness textual text conversation almost very relaxed on TR's part and and just you know where we went back and forth went did you do that? Yes, I did.

[00:35:47]And okay well later I am likely dead or facing this was the this was the letter under the keyboard. I am likely dead or facing a lengthy prison sentence. He doesn't realize or if he did, he chose to ignore the fact that Utah has the death penalty. And they're not afraid to use it in that state. And this is first-degree murder if there ever was one, meaning a pre pre-planning element to it. And uh and but he's just thinking a lengthy prison sentence. Maybe that's what he's hoping for was some kind of a plea deal with all of this evidence. But uh but that's I don't think that's going to happen here. just but the text messaging back and forth and almost the casual side of it and the relax. It's like they're talking about what's for dinner tonight or should I pick up some milk on the way home and but here it's about killing a man killing Charlie Kirk and being the target meaning the shooter of of the largest manhunt you know certainly probably in the 21st century over over a few you know a 24-hour 36-hour period or so and uh and again just the casual tone it just reminded me and I'll use you know younger terminology here. I don't think this guy uh the shooter had very much of a concept of IRL that is in real life.

[00:37:05]They were so used to gaming. They were so used to uh you know, you shoot someone and he's back up and the next screen or the next game you're playing and and and and this the shooter in this case just had no conception of what the real world is about and how serious this would be taken. I am sure he feels that way now that he's been in prison for the better part of 10 months or so in lockup but uh but you know he said he's on a mission and and he certainly clarified that and he made that uh he he proved that point with the successful assassination of Charlie Kerr. But it's just it's just bizarre that these two personalities coming together with everything else they've had going on before them and these are kind of privileged young men. They started out okay certainly with their lives, but something went wrong and you put two people like this together, you're only going to bring the worst out. Doesn't mean they're always going to assassinate someone, but uh but that's what that's what this this shooter decided to do.

[00:38:01]And these text messages really tell us a lot about him and and and his relationship with Lance and the the the casual element or the the casual thought processes they have about taking a human life. You disagree with someone, oh, you kill them. Okay, he could have easily stood in line at the tent where Charlie Kirk was, you know, taking questions and called him names, challenged them and said he's lying about this and here here's my proof. But no, he had to do it the coward's way. And like we've seen more often lately, taking CEOs out and and and you know, political candidates, etc., or trying to. And this seems to be where this lost generation, I used that term with Megan Kelly yesterday, and I've used it before. I'm not blaming all of Gen Z, but you know, 100 years ago, the term lost generation was about a bunch of novelists living in Paris, Hemingway and TS Elliott and others. But uh nowadays, it's just some people that I I I I don't know if I made this term up or not, but they're like social vacuums. The novelist Tom Wolf came up with a term in Bonfire, the Vanities, social x-rays describing some kind of, you know, man women in Manhattan, etc. But these are, you just look at the pictures of TR in the in the at the hearing and while he's listening to this evidence, he's he's a social vacuum.

[00:39:12]He's an empty shell of of of just meaningless with no meaning to him. And and I'm afraid he's not the only one out there that's been their brains been their unformed brain has been polluted by illegal drugs or legal drugs and and these chat rooms and and the people in them. And it it just results in this kind of insanity. And um I have a feeling he's going to pay the ultimate price, our defendant, whether he becomes a martyr or not, where people say, "Damn, you know, you you do coldblooded first-degree murder in a state like Utah, this is what's going to happen."

[00:39:44]So yeah, just a summary there, Ray. I'm sure you have some thoughts, too, but uh No, I'm good, Jim. I'm good. I think it's important with our time that we move on to some audience questions, and we have some that have come in, and I'm going to throw the first one at you, and I'll jump in on it as well. Have you ever had a case where body language changed the linguistic or forensic profile?

[00:40:04]>> Question sounds familiar, but they can ask it uh repeated times. And it seems the last time I pondered this question, I didn't have an exact answer, but I s thought of something afterwards. Um, I can think of the uh the Anthrox case when finally the original task force was disbanded and a new task force was put together and I met with them a few times right before I retired in 2007 and uh they were interviewing this guy or this guy Bruce Ivans was this you know determined to most likely be the anthrax killer and uh and they had some interviews with him and his lawyer and contact him and and some features of him changed and for long he killed himself.

[00:40:42]So, he never was actually arrested or charged. But, uh, if you have someone you could think of, maybe I'll come back with another person.

[00:40:48]>> You know, Jim crossed my mind.

[00:40:50]>> I've never taken body language and view that alone. I've seen interviews where verbal statement suggests one direction while body language suggests stress, discomfort, and like they're hiding something. And it doesn't say that they're being deceptive to me. And I've seen this in bank robbery investigations and fugitive investigations. But it simply tells me that I need to ask additional questions and where I need to ask those questions at. I think that the most valuable interviews that I was ever involved in, I always, and I learned this from working down in a unit with a lot of you guys, is when you look at the verbal analysis, you look at behavioral observations and you look at digital and physical evidence and you point and if they're all pointing in the same direction, you know, it's it's kind of like a home run. It is. And uh it's rare like right in the interview room that you'll see someone make a face or or or furrow their eyebrows or something and aha and you change everything about them. But but sometimes over time that information can come forth and it can it can throw sort of a wedge in what the person was saying or an inconsistency and you can move on from there and uh and say you know what we think you were lying or this was untrue and we're going to charge you with this crime. So, it's happened more likely that way than right in a room where someone just folding or unfolding their arms. Uh, in that regard, >> right, another question was uh, what do you think the defense defense's chances of excluding DNA and ballistics that we talked about in the TR in the TR case coming up? And my my feeling is that I think it would be very difficult. I think that courts in in my in my experience have generally admitted scientific evidence when investigators follow the proper protocol. the defense, what they're going to argue is that they didn't do that. The the collection was improper. They contaminated things. The chain of custody is not good. And the methodology is unreliable. If a judge believes those issues affect the credibility rather than the admissibility of the evidence, it usually comes in and the and the jury then will decide how much weight to give it. So, I really don't think they'll be able to exclude that evidence. I don't think the judge will in this case. Jim, your thoughts? Yeah. And I mean, we we're obviously not judges or even lawyers, but we've we've both taken cases to uh full prosecutions. The defense, of course, is going to try their best to get evidence suppressed.

[00:43:03]And if they don't get it suppressed and it is presented to a jury by the prosecution, as you said earlier, the defense is going to bring their own witnesses in, their own experts in to try to refute, you know, the methodology, as you said, the collection, chain of custody, all those types of things, and and even the findings themselves. So, they will do their best in that regard. That's what our adversarial system is set up to do.

[00:43:25]The jury will hear all those facts. Both sides will be cross-examined and uh even the defense witness, you know, expert.

[00:43:32]They'll state what they believe. Then they're going to have to, you know, back themselves up uh or back up their theories and their opinions when under cross-examination, too. And I've been an expert witness at least a dozen times.

[00:43:43]And, you know, they go back into articles you've written in the past or prior testimonies. So, and I've never had a problem. Every case I've worked, there was a conviction. if it's a civil matter was, you know, the whatever side I was working for, the finding was positive for them, but you know, but they still try and sometimes they succeed. In many cases, they don't. So, we'll see where this goes. We're not in the middle of the case itself, Ry, as we will both acknowledge. And uh and the judge, no judge wants to be overturned on appeal. So, I think this judge will play it very strict and very, you know, very much in line, and he'll do what he has to do to make sure he's not appealed.

[00:44:16]>> All right, Jim. One came in from the live audience today says, "From a behavioral analysis perspective, what are the subtle clues that experienced investigators recognize at a crime scene that reveal the offender's mindset beyond the physical evidence? Are there patterns, behaviors, or inconsistencies that often tell the deeper story of who the person behind the crime really is?"

[00:44:39]It's a great question. I'll start with just we you may get bored hearing us talk about victimology, but it is so important to crimes and and and if we're either on the scene at a crime or certainly, you know, reviewing it afterwards, pictures, maps, videos, what have you, I want to know everything about that victim because that tells us about the criminal and certainly if you have multiple offenses over weeks, months, years, what kind of victims the person chooses again tells you about the, you know, the the unsub. And is it always young girls? Is it always older women? Is it a mix? You know, uh, and you know, there there's titles and there's categories we put these with these people into. Also, ingress and egress to a crime scene. How sophisticated are they in getting in?

[00:45:21]Are they just kicking a door in or breaking windows in the middle of the night? Or they do they have sophisticated tools? So, that's important to me. Again, disorganized or organized crime scene. Is it, you know, messy furniture turned over, blood spatter all over the place? and uh and and you know maybe some evidence left behind or is the person very methodical and knew how to clean up after himself maybe use a condom if it was a rape or use bleach somehow at least they think that would work to get rid of DNA pick up the shell casings if there's a shootings in shooting involved so those types of basic clues and for me if there's any kind of writings involved before during or after the crime uh that's very valuable also in terms of determining more about the offender or offenders So they're just some of the basic factors, Ry that I would look at in terms of a crime scene which would paint, you know, certainly an early and and preliminary picture of my unsub.

[00:46:17]>> I'm going to add to what you said, Jim.

[00:46:19]A lot of things and I'll use some of the terminology we used when you were down in the unit. I worked some cases with you down there is mo you know operandi method of operation and what that is is how the individual committed the act itself. I think that's important because that tells us more about the individual in touch with the victimology. The other thing that we would look at is if there's any behavior that's not needed in order to commit the crime. In other words, is it is there any need driven behavior which we would identify as a signature aspect of the crime when we look at that. So those are two of the things that I would look for to see if there's anything outside the regular evidence. that there's something by way of example. A signature aspect of the crime might be where an individual stabs somebody 30 times and then writes a message on the wall in blood saying something. The Zodiac did some of those things. Uh other people have done some of these things. Serial killers have done some of these things. That's not needed in order to commit the crime, but they did it anyways because it's some sort of psychosmatic or need-driven behavior on the part of the offender and that's why they did something of that nature with it. So, it had that to it.

[00:47:25]Jim. Yeah. And from a silly perspective, if you watch the original Home Alone movie, what were they called? The wet bandits or something. Yes. The MMO is how they got into the houses, how they broke broke in, and they were relatively sophisticated, but the one goofy guy insisted on clogging up the drain, turning the water on, and [clears throat] so that would be signature behavior. Obviously, it's not the same as cutting off body parts or hair or or taking a woman's underwear or even a driver's license with her picture on it with their little, you know, catalog they're keeping. So, that's, you know, serious signature behavior, but just to give you an idea of how signature behavior works. It's not necessary for the successful commission of the crime, but as you said, it it's more aligned with need-driven behavior and how these guys get their kicks in committing the crimes and what really is their their their hang-ups, their obsessions, their paraphilas in many cases. That'll be a clue, too, in identifying.

[00:48:19]>> Here's another question, Jim. Do we think that the media and public opinion sway how investigators look at evidence?

[00:48:27]Do we think it's too much coverage? I can start with this one, Jim. I have never in any case I've worked was ever swayed by anything that was in the media because most of the time the media has it wrong. They have no idea what's going on in my case. Only I know what's going on in my case. So a lot of times they can say things and think they know what's going on, but they don't. That's why Jim and I are so reserved. And a lot of times when we go on these media hits, they want to know what are they thinking? What's going through their mind? What's this? And you know what?

[00:48:56]It's very hard to distinguish that unless you're right there. Unless you're the man or the woman in the arena. It's very hard to distinguish exactly what they're going through. Jim. Yeah. And I use that example. I think I even did last week, but in the in the DC Sniper case, I am God as opposed to call me God. The actual tarot card was call me God. A source released to the media, someone in that task force, I am God, which has a whole different connotation to it as I I've mentioned before. So that could just be one example. Every time I look at a case, you know, when I was a young sergeant on the Ben Salem Police Department, I I was I would get a call every morning. I think it was an afternoon newspaper then. I won't it was the Bucks County Carrier Times and I would read to them the crimes that happened the night before and it would come out in the newspaper that afternoon or eventually went eventually went to be a morning paper and invariably they'd have half the facts wrong. And I'm telling them exactly, you know, so and so was arrested for DUI, so and so, you know, this 5900 block of Fifth Street, you know, a house was broken into. and they'll get so many facts wrong. And I mean, there are good journalists out there, don't get me wrong. And but even when you're giving direct information, I'd read the paper the next day. That's not what I told this guy. So, there are some lazy journalists. There are some lazy people who want to be sources in law enforcement, which I never was. You never were. And Jim Clemente agreed last week he never was either. I don't like sources. And I would probably uh, you know, I would definitely call them out if not clean their clocks if it was a case I was working on and in charge of and they were giving out information to some reporter somewhere. And I've had reporters try to get information out of me. It just never succeeded. So yeah, I've never been influenced by an outside by the media. You have to keep uh you don't want tunnel vision or horse blinders in the case itself. But when it comes to the media, you just have to look straight ahead at your evidence, at the case file, all the information you have in there, and not be overwhelmed by it. And Ray, I'll just leave this part at this. I mean, you retired a little bit after me, but there's been nothing like it is right now in the media for for investigators nowadays. I the internet was still around when I I mean, was around already when I retired, but there were no podcasts and and these, you know, 247 some true crime channels, whatever. And uh they have to fill time up somehow. And believe me folks, you can think whatever you want of me and Ray and we had Jim Clemeni on last week.

[00:51:15]We walk the walk and we can talk the talk. Not every expert, alleged expert you see on TV knows what they're talking about at the same time. So just keep that in mind. Take everything in stride.

[00:51:27]Listen to a few different people they put on TV. Realize they're working from outside the case. Even sometimes if they claim they have sources just like even noncriminal cases, political type things, they have three separate sources that said President so and so did this.

[00:51:41]Okay, name your sources and let's uh we'll take it from there. But they never do name their sources. So just be careful that kind of information. And any investigator who's listened to me knows you don't get swayed by stuff you read in the media. You stick to the facts just as it is. Jim, uh one last question. What alternatives exist if Sanage PD rejects VOC? Well, I think there's a couple possibilities here.

[00:52:04]They could do independent forensic consultation with someone that's qualified. They could raise public awareness by using the media, responsible media. They could develop, and I I did this at the university I worked at, developed a cold case partnership with police departments, with academas, with students, helping them review cold cases. There's all kinds of advances in forensic technology from 2008 to 2026. And a lot of times I would go back and rein witnesses.

[00:52:33]Sometimes a witness, you'd be surprised how their story might change, but if you don't go and talk to them, they're not going to give you any information. I think ultimately though, any decision to expand an investigation or go to the VOC society is the responsible of that law enforcement agency. But I think as long as there's continued public interest and if any new evidence pops up, I know we keep going back to this Lindsay Booziac case, we encourage any police department, not just Sanage Police Department, any police department to look for help. Get get somebody to review it for you.

[00:53:07]>> Yeah. And Ray, I would just emphasize, and this may surprise some people, don't make Vid do society your first choice.

[00:53:13]Your first choice should be reaching out to provincial police, British Columbia, RCMP and and saying we want to put a task force together here in Sanage. We want your best investigators basically come live with us for 6 months and we want you we want to have multiple agencies from outside with all kinds of uh you know experience that apparently the Sanage PD doesn't have. That is that to me that's always been the ideal scenario. VOCC it to me they said we're not bringing other police officers or other agencies in. Okay, then a second choice. Come to the Vox Society. It's free. You know, all these things. We'll fly you in, put you up, all that stuff.

[00:53:52]But, uh, it seems they don't do one or the other. And I'm telling you, I'm a VOC Society member. So is Ray. And we've been throwing that around a lot. No.

[00:53:59]Ideally, get the task force built together and and maybe you're not in charge anymore. Maybe your feds come in or national police, which is RCMP or or the provincial police. Let them run with this. And uh ultimately you're the ones that'll be throwing the handcuffs on the people who's ever involved in in Lindsay's murder. But man, be willing, you know, put your pride aside and and get something again going, you're about to enter the third decade of this case being unsolved. do something to prove to the Yuziaak family and quite frankly the other residents of Sanich and Victoria and and and everywhere in that regard that you're serious about this because so far you do not seem serious about solving this crime for whatever reason.

[00:54:43]>> Jim, that's something you have to look in the mirror and decide chief of police investigators and on down the line. I think they they can't lose sight of the fact that Sanage, which is not a very big big police department, doesn't have the resources that British Columbia, RCMP, OP, any of those individuals would have, FBI, anybody other than themselves. They bring not only do they bring the manpower, but they bring the resources with them as well. So, I I agree with you here, Jim. There's one more question that's come through. You said that was the last one, right?

[00:55:12]>> I know, but they I just got a text from one of our producers.

[00:55:15]>> That's all right. It says, "Why is it that timelines are never consistent when it comes to most investigations? Is it because witness statements and actual evidence take time to understand?"

[00:55:26]And I'll jump on this first, Jim. I think the reason why they're not consistent is because the case is continuing to evolve. And as things evolve, it changes the timeline. It adjustes it a little bit. Nothing nothing that happens here is etched in stone. It continues to evolve as more information comes in. One person will tell you something that won't be accurate, then you'll have another witness that'll tell you something that'll clear things up and it makes the timeline more focused for you.

[00:55:52]>> Yeah, you summed it up well. It's not static. It's fluid. And as new evidence comes in, the timeline could be changed by a few seconds, by a few minutes, hours, or days. Again, depending on the length and the scope and the breadth of the investigation so far. And that's that's not unusual. And uh in every case I've worked that's gone on for more than a few months, there's been some alteration to the timeline somewhere. It may have been minor, may have been major, but when new evidence is developed, you have to insert it where it belongs. Used to be big whiteboards we'd have up on the wall right array.

[00:56:23]Now I know it's you know it's more digital or it was handwritten. I mean back in the day and you you know put different blocks in erase stuff, but now it's more digital and they can change it and bring up to date with ven diagrams and and matters such as that. So, uh, there's nothing wrong with a timeline being altered because new evidence is being collected and they would be remiss if they didn't go back and alter a timeline and throw some, you know, throw some different aspects in as to what they know then that they may not have known in the early days of the investigation. Before you kick us out, Jim, I'm going to just give a real quick statement here. One thing that we try to do all season is separate evidence from speculation. Every major investigation reminds us that patience, careful analysis, and an open mind are essential. Whether it's a decades old cold case or a tragedy making headlines today, the goal is always the same.

[00:57:11]Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

[00:57:13]Jim and I want to thank you for being part of the Cold Red family throughout season 10. Jim, yeah, same here. Uh we're this is the conclusion of our 10th season. Uh we don't really break it down by years. It's usually like three months at a time, maybe 12 to 15 episodes, but we'll be back very soon. and with some exciting new guests, international guests, some old cases we've discussed already and of course some new ones. And uh we're uh we're very much looking forward to having you guys come back. So everybody again, we really appreciate you being uh subscribing to us, liking us, every every uh forum in which you can find us. Please subscribe if you haven't already. Check out our blog site www.coldredpodcast.com.

[00:57:54]I want to thank Matt McGlaclin, Matt Robinson, our producers, Rick Schilling, our music producer, and everyone be safe out there. Know your surroundings, know your environment because we want to see you back in in a couple weeks for the first episode of season 11 of Cold Red.

[00:58:11]So until then, folks, stay well. Enjoy the rest of your summer if you're in the Southern Hemisphere, the rest of your winter. And we'll see you in a few weeks. And until next time on Cold Red.