0:01

This is exactly right. We

0:07

took it all. We brought

0:09

them to our land. An

0:12

endless night, amber, hot and

0:15

icy cold. The

0:17

rage of the earth. We

0:19

made this curse. Carved

0:22

it in the world on our backs. We

0:25

did not see. We could

0:27

not but she did. And in the end... What

0:30

will I become? Senua Saga.

0:33

Hellblade II. Play it now

0:35

with Game Pass. I'm

0:56

Kate Winkler-Dawson. I'm a journalist who spent

0:58

the last 25 years writing about

1:00

true crime. And

1:03

I'm Paul Holes, a retired cold case investigator who's worked some of America's

1:06

most complicated cases and solved

1:08

them. Each week,

1:10

I present Paul with one of history's most

1:12

important stories. I'm

1:16

Kate Winkler-Dawson. I'm a journalist who's spent the last 25

1:18

years writing about true crime. Each

1:23

week, I present Paul with one of

1:25

history's most compelling true crimes. And

1:28

I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to

1:30

bring new insights to old mysteries. Together,

1:33

using our individual expertise, we're

1:35

examining historical true crime cases

1:37

through a 21st century lens.

1:41

Some are solved and some are cold. Very

1:43

cold. This is Buried

1:45

Bones. Hi,

2:00

Kate, how

2:04

are you? I'm

2:09

well, Paul. I will say I'm well to

2:11

an extent that I feel like I have

2:13

to get something cleared up for our listeners

2:15

because there are quite a few people who,

2:17

while they are proud of you that you've

2:19

taken on a new job, are concerned that

2:22

this new job that you're going to explain

2:24

to me in a second is going to

2:26

make your time so limited that you can't

2:28

be with me anymore, which would be a

2:30

tragedy, I think. Oh,

2:33

yeah. It's like I don't

2:35

already have enough to do. I know.

2:37

That's what I was thinking. Well, tell me about

2:39

this new gig. I know you announced it on

2:41

social media. It's been a little while, but I

2:43

just want to clear up for people. You're not

2:45

going anywhere. You're not going anywhere, Paul, right? You're

2:48

not going anywhere. I am

2:50

not going anywhere. You

2:52

know, of course, yeah,

2:54

I love doing the

2:56

podcasting. I like doing the true

2:59

crime media side of things. But

3:02

also, as you know, my passion is

3:04

always the actual casework. It's

3:07

been six years. I retired six years

3:09

ago. It's crazy that six years has

3:11

gone by so fast. Of course, everybody

3:14

knows that's when we arrested Joseph D'Angelo

3:16

as a Golden State Killer back in April

3:18

of 2018. Though

3:21

I've been consulting with law enforcement off and

3:23

on over the last six years, it was

3:26

time. And so, I took

3:28

a position as a forensic investigator

3:30

with Othram, which is the genealogy

3:32

company. I've been so

3:34

impressed with what Othram is doing

3:36

in terms of the success that

3:39

they've had, you know, solving cases

3:41

as well as identifying Jane and

3:43

John Doze. And

3:46

then also the philosophy that they've taken

3:49

and how they approach casework. And they're looking

3:51

out for the cases. And they're looking out

3:53

for the victim's samples and the evidence. And

3:56

it just seemed like a good fit.

3:59

So now, my... My role is I

4:01

will be helping law

4:03

enforcement out. Sometimes I'll

4:05

be going to their agency and sometimes

4:07

I'll be doing it remotely, helping

4:10

them assess their cases and see how

4:12

they can progress it and of course

4:14

looking at which cases genealogy

4:16

might be able to be

4:19

used to solve the case. And

4:21

then when results come back, then

4:23

I help provide the investigators with

4:26

the next steps, and

4:28

how to proceed both from

4:31

investigative and genealogy type

4:33

of set

4:35

of circumstances as well as just with other

4:37

additional forensic testing that may need to be

4:39

done, investigative advice

4:41

and so I'll be very active

4:43

on that front. So

4:46

fortunately I'll be

4:48

able to continue with podcasting. You and

4:50

I will continue to be able to

4:53

share stories together and hopefully

4:56

hang out in the near future. Well,

4:58

one thing that I think is one

5:00

of your secret powers is because you've

5:02

been exposed to so many cases and

5:05

now we'll be exposed to even more,

5:07

that just deepens the depth that you

5:10

have of knowledge of all of these

5:12

crimes and one thing I always

5:14

joke about is every single thing that I

5:16

say about a crime that happened in history,

5:18

I feel like you have a case in

5:20

your head that you can relate it to

5:23

and I think that really

5:25

helps listeners. So I am all

5:27

for you getting involved in all

5:29

kinds of active cases and of course

5:31

particularly it's just so good for

5:33

the communities and for you to be able

5:35

to actively help solve cases

5:37

is a big deal and selfishly of course

5:40

I'm happy for you to have more knowledge

5:42

to share with us and we can keep

5:44

up with what you're doing. So that's great,

5:46

I'm all for it. I'm going to sign

5:49

off on this. Thanks for

5:51

passing it by me. I'll

5:53

sign off on this. I'm proud of you. I

5:55

think that's wonderful. Oh, I appreciate it Kate. Thank

5:57

you very much. They

6:00

just want to make sure because you're so

6:02

busy or cora. And the fish is

6:04

a really okay. Are they lacking attention?

6:06

and anyways, Gore's. Doing good.

6:08

This are Doing good. And if

6:11

I remember from the last episode,

6:13

you brought up a dog and

6:15

said boy, you transitions really well

6:18

from poor sap. Step as the

6:20

I would call it a big influence

6:22

or in this case and I'll tell

6:24

you why in a minute and can

6:26

tell me what the serious as well

6:28

are about to talk about are are

6:31

actually some questions that I think probably

6:33

do come up and contemporary cases as

6:35

again that's why we like talking about

6:37

this case like the one of John

6:39

Hall Sex who All Remind You was

6:42

found in his very tiny bed that

6:44

he served with his wife one December

6:46

nine nineteen hundred in Iowa and he

6:48

is leading. From the head, the

6:50

doctor who responds seems to think

6:52

he was hit twice. once with

6:54

the sharp end of an axe,

6:57

the other with a blunt end

6:59

of the axe. Brains everywhere. blood

7:01

everywhere. Five young kids in the

7:03

house. His wife says. I.

7:05

Was asleep I have no idea what

7:08

happened I thought it was a stranger.

7:10

she jumped out of bed so fast

7:12

it a name and turn around to

7:14

see if John was still in bed

7:17

and came back after clinic clearing out

7:19

the house with one of the kids

7:21

and found him and he dies painfully

7:24

I'm assuming about ten hours later and

7:26

investigators com they start looking for the

7:28

weapon the sheriff is immediately looking suspiciously

7:31

of the family to import of it

7:33

has to do as a cheese. With

7:35

you with ships! Who was the

7:38

family dog who was devoted and

7:40

loving, barked at every single stranger

7:43

she could see. And

7:45

the neighbors say that when this

7:47

happens from what they could tell,

7:49

Shep did not let out a

7:52

peep. And the sheriff says,

7:54

i think you know what I'm about to

7:56

say paul. Martin had. to be someone

7:58

in the family is this dog did not bark. It

8:00

was not random stranger on

8:02

the neighbor's porch. Is

8:05

that legit? Okay,

8:07

so on the surface I would

8:09

say yes. However, because

8:12

of my experience with the Golden State Killer,

8:15

Joseph DiAngelo, we had

8:17

multiple victims, rape

8:19

victims, survivors who had dogs,

8:21

who these victims swore would

8:24

bark at any strange man

8:26

entering the house. But

8:28

when, at the time he was known as

8:30

East Aeropropus, when the East Aeropropus showed up

8:32

inside the house, these dogs

8:35

did not bark. In fact, some

8:37

of them whimpered away. The thought

8:39

is with DiAngelo, is he possibly

8:41

preconditioned these dogs ahead of time

8:43

with some sort of negative reinforcement?

8:46

I mean, DiAngelo was arrested

8:48

in part shoplifting dog repellent.

8:51

Is he going and, you know, spraying

8:53

these pets dogs ahead of time so

8:55

where they're now associating being sprayed with

8:57

his presence? And now they know to

9:00

stay away from him

9:02

and don't behave as

9:05

their owners think. Now I don't think

9:07

that's what's going on here, you

9:09

know, but it's something where just

9:11

because of my experience looking at

9:13

this one case where dogs did

9:15

not respond as the owners thought,

9:17

I have to consider, you know,

9:20

dogs are much more complex animals than

9:22

what we give them credit for and

9:24

they possibly, with the stranger

9:27

present, recognize the danger and maybe don't

9:29

respond as the owners think they would.

9:32

Well, you know, my dogs bark at

9:34

me. Ruby

9:36

and Bailey bark at everything. One

9:38

of them barked at a fly the

9:40

other day. So my dogs would

9:42

be useless with this theory because they

9:45

bark at everything. But the

9:47

sheriff has an interesting, and neighbors have

9:50

kind of an interesting theory. So this

9:52

is the rumor mill that, of course,

9:54

circulates around every town, every city

9:56

that you can think of. It doesn't matter if it's a

9:58

small town or a mass of a city like

10:00

New York, people are going to talk. And

10:03

the observation was that Shep, the

10:05

dog, the famous dog now, seemed

10:08

unusually lethargic and quiet

10:11

hours, you know, before

10:13

John's attack happened. So

10:17

this is probably coming from the kids and

10:19

from Margaret, I'm assuming, but the neighbors buy

10:21

into it, and the sheriff might be buying

10:23

into it. The theory is

10:26

that the dog was

10:28

chloroformed ahead of the

10:30

assault by the killer. Can

10:32

you chloroform a dog? I've never heard

10:34

of that before. I

10:37

mean, what would you do? I, you know, in

10:39

terms of the use of chloroform, you know,

10:41

obviously this is something that, you know, back

10:43

in the day, the solvent, it was known,

10:46

you know, it has this anesthesia-like

10:48

property to it.

10:51

How chloroform would be administered to a

10:53

dog, I really don't know. You know,

10:55

in the movies, you typically see the

10:57

chloroform on the rag that's put over,

11:00

you know, victims' nose and mouth, and

11:02

then they instantly, you know, lose consciousness,

11:04

which isn't the way chloroform doesn't work that

11:06

fast. It's kind of a myth.

11:08

But it most certainly is something

11:10

that does cause, can

11:12

cause, unconsciousness in terms of if

11:15

exposed to a high enough level.

11:18

If this dog is appearing

11:20

lethargic, whether it be chloroform

11:22

or some other drug,

11:24

this is typical. We see

11:26

in neighbor disputes, et cetera,

11:29

where you throw a drug

11:31

or a poison inside some meat and

11:33

throw it over the fence, the

11:35

dog's going to eat it. And then

11:37

you have the negative ramifications of what

11:40

the dog has ingested. So

11:42

if Shep is

11:45

in fact being drugged

11:47

ahead of time, then

11:49

that tells me, well, the offender

11:52

is aware of the presence of

11:54

Shep, is aware of Shep's predilection

11:56

to bark at strangers. But

11:59

Does this necessarily fairly eliminate a family member

12:01

from drugging chef? Because this family member wants

12:03

to be able to just make sure Sap

12:05

is not going to interfere. As we know

12:07

dogs are unpredictable. You get up in the

12:09

mill than I'd snap yeah no I I

12:11

get up at the mill the night and

12:14

all said and Core is going crazy thinking

12:16

as breakfast items he had on the that's

12:18

last thing I want if I want to

12:20

be sneaking around doing something bad inside my

12:22

own house. Yeah, and I

12:24

don't think the sheriff thinks this is

12:26

some huge conspiracy necessarily with the little

12:28

kids and was Margaret, but you know

12:30

he is thinking this is odd. The

12:32

people who came like the doctor who

12:34

came in the early morning hours said

12:36

yeah, the dogs. It seemed a lot

12:38

calmer than. Normal and you do have strangers

12:41

showing up and I will the Doctor Martin.

12:43

Has been hanging out at the husks house

12:45

so you do have people showing up and

12:47

the dog seemed a little dopey is what

12:50

people said that could go either way. It

12:52

right. I mean you do have either somebody

12:54

who knows there's a dog. You're right. But

12:56

then we come back to I would a

12:59

stranger do this. You know a sexual assault

13:01

could be a motive, didn't happen. Robbery could

13:03

have been a motive, didn't happen. And you

13:05

did mention let's look at political enemies or

13:08

he was a jerk to his family. He

13:10

was probably a jerk to other people too.

13:12

So it's kind of open right now,

13:15

but the sheriff is definitely given the

13:17

side eyes to Margaret specifically who was

13:19

laying right next to him. As

13:21

he said he had. oh and

13:23

this is this is part of

13:26

would you know when you start

13:28

dealing with this particular type of

13:31

circumstance Margaret as inside the room

13:33

in this tiny bad right next

13:35

to jaw tiny her first statement

13:38

sees asleep and wakes up But

13:40

you have to consider well see

13:42

might be the killer and this

13:45

comes back to victimology, comes back

13:47

to understanding the family dynamics and

13:49

that Margaret potentially has. motive

13:51

ceased fired of the abuse

13:54

fan so when john's asleep

13:56

he's at the lowest risk

13:58

to her as possible.

14:00

This is when she could potentially take

14:02

him out and then,

14:04

of course, stage this scene

14:07

in a way, you know, get rid

14:09

of the murder weapon, wherever that ultimately

14:11

gets disposed of, and then plants with

14:14

her kids, you know, this the

14:16

circumstance where she's asleep and wakes up her

14:18

clap, saw the flashing light, you know, and

14:20

then she immediately goes and wakes up the

14:23

kids. You know,

14:25

so this is something you have to at

14:27

least pay attention to early on in the

14:29

investigation. So I want to

14:31

have a little bit of a reminder of

14:33

their ages. So Margaret is 57 when this

14:35

happens, and John is

14:39

59. Both of these are people who

14:41

work on a farm, probably are pretty

14:43

physically fit. So he certainly

14:45

is capable of violence, fighting back,

14:47

you know, we talk about the domestic

14:49

violence, and she is

14:52

probably equally as capable of

14:54

swinging an axe. So we're

14:56

not talking about, I mean, you and I are both,

14:58

I'm almost in my 50s and you're in your 50s.

15:00

We're not talking about old, old people

15:02

here. We're people, they look a little

15:05

older than probably they are when we see

15:07

their photos because of just the hard life

15:09

and the hard work that they've done. But

15:12

they are very capable of violence,

15:14

both of them. No, for sure.

15:16

And at least you couched when you said that I

15:18

was in my 50s, you couched and said, they're not

15:20

very old. And when they're talking about Margaret and John

15:23

being in their 50s, so thank you for that. You're

15:25

welcome. But, you know, for

15:27

sure, you know, in terms of

15:29

their physical capabilities, you

15:31

know, these are not

15:34

decrepit individuals. They

15:36

probably are fairly robust from the decades

15:38

of working on a farm. They're

15:41

probably much more so than the average 50

15:43

something today. And then

15:46

when you take a look at,

15:48

if we're looking at, is Margaret

15:51

physically capable of killing

15:53

John, particularly under this set of

15:55

circumstances? John's asleep. He

15:57

is, I mean, he is completely...

16:00

helpless in being asleep,

16:03

Margaret most certainly could swing an axe

16:05

and kill him. I don't have any

16:07

qualms about that at all. It's did

16:09

she? And

16:11

the axe is the big concern because

16:13

Dr. Dean thinks these look like axe

16:15

wounds to him, but they

16:17

need to find that weapon. Summer

16:21

is right around the corner and

16:23

so are all of the fun

16:25

summer activities. Whether you're patio hopping

16:27

through a city or spending your

16:29

days at the lake, you want

16:31

to feel good in your own

16:33

skin. And when you shave with

16:35

razors from Athena Club, you'll feel

16:37

confident and smooth all summer long.

16:39

There isn't just one thing that

16:41

makes Athena Club razors great. There

16:43

are three. Quality, price, and practicality.

16:45

The Athena Club award-winning razor kit

16:47

has everything you need to elevate

16:49

your shaving experience all for

16:52

just $10. But don't let the price

16:54

fool you. You'll be able to tell

16:56

the high quality of the razor as

16:58

soon as you pick it up. My

17:00

entire family of women loves Athena. My

17:02

two girls use it every single night.

17:05

They've never complained about getting nicked and

17:07

it feels like it's really moisturizing your

17:09

legs. So I haven't had any complaints

17:11

for my teenage daughters. Ready to upgrade

17:13

your shaving experience? Switch to the best

17:15

razor on the market and show your

17:17

skin you care with Athena

17:20

Club. Head over to athenaclub.com

17:22

to try their award-winning razor and body

17:24

products and get 20% off your purchase

17:27

with code buriedbones

17:29

at checkout. That's athenaclub.com code

17:31

buriedbones. You can also find

17:34

Athena Club razors at your

17:36

local Target store. Trust me,

17:38

you won't look back. Happy

17:40

shaving! So

17:43

here comes more 1800s forensics and

17:45

you can tell me what you think about this. They

17:48

search. Finally, they think

17:50

they found it. The family's axe.

17:53

So, stranger with an axe, you

17:55

have told me before that strangers

17:57

sometimes use weapons that are found

18:00

on the property not bringing anything

18:02

with them. The family's axe

18:05

was discovered tossed underneath the farm's granary. Do

18:07

you know what that is? I know this

18:09

is a new term I throw at you

18:11

all the time. I have no idea. Is this

18:13

something during the gilded age? No.

18:18

Okay. This is where you store

18:20

grain and I actually have heard that. I mean I

18:23

grew up on a farm so I've heard that before

18:25

but this is a building where they would have stored

18:27

grain. So they find an

18:29

axe tossed underneath it which

18:32

is unusual because the last

18:34

known resting place of this

18:37

axe was actually inside that

18:39

building. So the family says

18:41

the axe was always in the building and

18:43

now somebody has taken it, used

18:46

it and they know that they

18:48

used it because there is some wet

18:50

blood on it and

18:52

a few hairs. And

18:54

you know hairs would not have been useful necessarily

18:56

in the 1800s. I don't even

18:59

think they would have there was no microscopes to

19:01

be able to put under at that point. They

19:03

would just eyeball it and say this

19:05

person's hair. So they find an axe,

19:08

it's bloody, there are hairs

19:10

on it but people have handled it so

19:12

it's contaminated. Well

19:14

yeah you know and this even

19:17

today you know I've get

19:20

into debates, discussions with various

19:23

forensic scientists because what you run

19:25

into is like oh here's

19:27

in this particular case a murder weapon but it's

19:29

contaminated because other people have handled it. So we're

19:31

not going to examine it. Just

19:33

because it's contaminated doesn't mean there

19:36

isn't still probative evidence present that

19:38

can be recovered. In

19:40

this day and age of course

19:42

you may find you know witnesses

19:45

DNA on the axe. Maybe Dr.

19:47

Dean found the axe and picked it up.

19:49

You know it's handed to somebody who handles

19:51

it. We deal with this all the time

19:53

but the killer's DNA, the killer's latent prints

19:55

could still be on that axe And

19:58

so that's still it's. Still important

20:00

in critical to to process

20:03

it when we're talking modern

20:05

day from this era you

20:07

to obviously they can't do

20:09

that type of testing but.

20:12

The presence of blood and hair

20:14

is significant. You know, of course

20:17

they wouldn't be able to do

20:19

any type of species testing on

20:21

the blood. And in the Nineteen

20:24

hundreds, the hair. Yeah, no, I

20:26

would be. it. does it visually

20:28

look like human hair. This is

20:31

significant because we have a homicide

20:33

victim who has been who has

20:35

received blows on the head, causing

20:38

bleeding injuries, and typically bludgeoning weapons.

20:40

Often will have hair. That

20:42

get stuck to the of the hair,

20:45

sometimes is crushed and then the crush

20:47

dads are are present with. Look at

20:49

him under the microscope you know, but

20:51

just typically was somebody blood in the

20:54

head. The murder weapon often has a

20:56

combination of blood and hair and potentially

20:58

brain matter which I would suspect. Would

21:01

also be present on this acts considering

21:03

the extent of John's injuries. But they're

21:05

not necessarily looking forward that back in

21:07

nineteen hundreds but it is. It's if

21:10

if they're visually say that looks like

21:12

human hair I think it's idea that

21:14

the make sense. This is probably the

21:16

murder weapon. Well we have

21:19

differing opinions here. One as

21:21

a family friend named Frank

21:23

Killer who looks at this

21:25

and says there you see

21:27

one of Poor John's. Old

21:29

grey, Hairs but Will to

21:31

is one of the children who

21:34

was in the house says something

21:36

different. Of course if we are

21:38

thinking that this happened within the

21:40

family will in the picture I

21:43

showed. You from eighty Ninety Two

21:45

looks to me. To be probably

21:47

eight to ten, maybe younger? Utterly

21:49

could be six, but that was

21:51

eight years earlier. Will is probably.

21:53

A young teenager fourteen? fifteen? sixteen.

21:55

maybe even. Seventeen He says, well,

21:58

hang on a second. That.

22:01

Could have been from the Thanksgiving Turkey

22:03

that we had slaughtered just a couple

22:05

of days before. That's. Where

22:07

the blood and the little bits of

22:10

hair came from to Turkey's have great

22:12

care center we believe this. Well.

22:14

If we were dealing with lay

22:16

people, non forensically trained, you know,

22:19

So I'm not sure that I

22:21

could put any weight on either

22:23

person's assessments, but force somebody like

22:25

myself that would be able to

22:27

very easily differentiate human head hair

22:30

from anything that came from a

22:32

turkey without even needing to put

22:34

it under a microscope. You know

22:36

it's it's this. It would be

22:39

that obvious. What was the name

22:41

of the first person said the

22:43

gray gray. Hair. Frank Keller his

22:45

it's just a family friend. Nobody with

22:48

any authority has make such offsets on

22:50

earth I mean the Sheriff Collect. I

22:52

was impressed the sheriff did collect. To

22:54

the evidence he said you know there

22:57

is blood on the handle, a few

22:59

strands of what appears to be hair

23:01

on the axis blade he takes. The

23:03

hair puts us in his pocket. Not

23:06

the most interesting and world but at

23:08

least he tried any, wrapped up the

23:10

axe and newspaper and gave it to

23:12

the deputy for safekeeping. This was before

23:15

fingerprinting. I mean I don't know what

23:17

he was thinking would happen, but he

23:19

at least tried This was a sophisticated

23:21

as they would have gotten here. The

23:24

sheriff is trying at least. Yeah

23:26

for sure yet own And as

23:28

I'm thinking about this you know. Also

23:30

part of assessing the Axis is the

23:33

the amount of blood stating the type

23:35

of blood patterns present consistent with the

23:37

injuries to john. or is it more

23:40

consistent with maybe you know the slaughtering

23:42

of a turkey. see an old

23:44

but what you do with an axe

23:46

solder a turkey cut its head off

23:49

of a it's a very minimal use

23:51

of the axe the it also it's

23:53

i have a hard time. believing

23:56

that anybody would be confused with the

23:58

blood and hair on the axe as

24:00

being something that had been used at

24:02

Thanksgiving on the turkey. Yeah,

24:05

that's Will Siri for whatever we think

24:07

of that. He was trying to give

24:09

an explanation. We don't know why yet.

24:11

We do know that the sheriff reports

24:13

there, his deputy comes there, the county

24:16

attorney who which I will just call the

24:18

prosecutor DA, I mean that's what they would

24:20

have called him then, the county attorney, George

24:22

Clammer came, everybody showed up to this farm

24:24

because this was going to be a big deal. It was

24:26

a big deal. Let me tell you

24:28

about the blood and then I'm going to show

24:30

you a map you'll probably be pretty pleased with

24:32

here and now you'll have to put this together.

24:34

So I can show you a map that shows

24:36

the building where the grain was stored, where

24:39

the axe should have been and underneath

24:41

it was found with this axe and

24:44

the path that if this is a

24:46

stranger the person would have taken that

24:48

night with the axe in

24:50

hand and then maybe left also

24:53

with. So let me first tell

24:55

you before I show you the map where the

24:57

blood is because I know this is interesting. The

24:59

sheriff looks all over the place

25:01

at the building where the grain is

25:03

stored, on the porch, the bedrooms everywhere.

25:05

There are a few drops of blood

25:08

on the front steps of

25:10

the Hossack's home and

25:12

that is it on the outside of

25:14

the house. A couple of drops on

25:16

the front steps. He goes

25:19

in and there's blood all over

25:21

the bed where John

25:23

was and that is basically it. There

25:25

is a minimal amount of blood. He

25:27

says both on the axe. It is

25:29

not dripping with blood. There's blood on

25:31

it. So maybe that comes back

25:34

to our turkey theory but there is

25:36

not a ton of blood. Just a couple of drops

25:38

on the axe, just a couple of drops on the

25:40

front porch and that is it. Okay,

25:43

well that's what I would expect. According

25:47

to the CDC, one in three adults

25:49

in the U.S. reported not getting enough

25:51

rest at night and even worse, 40

25:54

percent of adults report falling asleep during

25:56

the day without meaning to at least

25:58

once a month. Not only is

26:01

this unhealthy, it's unsafe. If sleep

26:03

has been eluding you, try Beam's

26:05

Dream Powder to help you fall

26:07

asleep and stay asleep. Beam's Dream

26:09

Powder is a science-backed hot cocoa

26:11

mix that comes in delicious flavors

26:14

like chocolate peanut butter, cinnamon cocoa,

26:16

and sea salt. In a clinical

26:18

study, 93% of participants reported Dream

26:22

Powder helped them get better sleep.

26:24

Better sleep has never tasted better,

26:26

and all the flavors are sugar-free.

26:28

I do a lot of traveling to

26:31

other countries, and sometimes that travel involves

26:33

an overnight flight. I mix up Beam

26:35

with my chocolate brownies, and I'll eat

26:37

one or two right before I get

26:39

on the plane, and within an hour

26:41

or so, I'm asleep. And it's really

26:43

great because I don't wake up groggy,

26:45

it's really convenient, and it tastes really

26:47

good. Find out why Forbes and the

26:49

New York Times are all talking about

26:52

Beam, and why it's trusted by the

26:54

world's top athletes and business professionals. If

26:56

you want to try Beam's best-selling Dream

26:58

Powder, you'll get up to 40% off for a limited

27:00

time when

27:03

you go to shopbeam.com/buriedbones,

27:05

and use buriedbones at

27:08

checkout. That's shopbeam.com/buriedbones, and

27:11

use code buriedbones for

27:13

up to 40% off.

27:19

We took it all. We

27:21

brought them to our mind. All

27:24

the endless night. Ember

27:26

hot, ice cold. The

27:29

rage of the earth. We

27:32

made this curse. Now

27:34

the Lord of the Rocks

27:37

will be no more. He called

27:39

out to what she did. In the

27:41

end, what will I become? Senua's

27:44

Saga, Hellblade II. Play

27:46

it now with Game Pass. So,

27:51

based on the description of John's injuries, he

27:53

has one incisive blow. I'm going

27:55

to assume that that was probably the first

27:57

blow that he received

27:59

from his wife. blow and

28:01

then he has the crushing blow probably

28:03

from the back of the axe. Now

28:06

if there's only the two blows, this

28:09

initial blow with the blade of the

28:11

axe, there isn't a

28:13

pooled blood source. So this is the

28:15

initial injury that could potentially cause some

28:17

blood to start to pool. And this

28:20

becomes critical in terms of interpreting how

28:22

much blood is going to be on

28:24

this axe. Now the

28:26

back part of the axe struck

28:29

exactly where now this blood

28:31

has pooled. There would be

28:33

some blood that would be present on the

28:36

head of the axe or wherever part of

28:38

the axe struck in this location.

28:41

But it sounds potentially like

28:43

you have the incisive injury

28:45

and then above that incisive

28:47

injury on a

28:49

distinct area of the head separate

28:52

from this initial blow is where now you

28:54

have the crushing blow. So

28:56

now it's striking in an area of the

28:58

head where there may or may not be

29:00

a pooled blood source. And

29:03

if this is a fairly rapid, these blows are a

29:05

fairly rapid succession, which is what I would suspect, is

29:08

that likely there is probably very little

29:10

blood where the axe hit the head

29:13

that causes crushing injuries. So the

29:15

only blood in that scenario that

29:18

I would expect to be on

29:20

the axe would be just from

29:22

that very brief interaction of that

29:24

second blow. If

29:27

the axe had been used repeatedly after that,

29:29

that's when you start to see a lot

29:32

of blood being transferred to the murder

29:34

weapon and then cast off as subsequent

29:36

blows are being done. But if you

29:38

just have these two blows in two

29:40

distinct areas on John's head, just

29:43

because the second blow does seem to

29:45

crush in his skull and there's brain

29:47

matter that's coming out and it's obviously

29:50

going to be a significant bleeding injury,

29:52

there's going to be some transfer of

29:54

blood, but not significant. The drops of

29:56

blood outside the house, well, the axe.

30:00

after striking John in the bedroom, that's when

30:02

the axe is going to have the most

30:04

blood on it. So how come

30:06

there isn't a dripped blood trail leading out

30:09

to the front of the house? Is

30:11

the offender holding the axe

30:13

in a way like putting it in his

30:15

or her shirt or something which is preventing

30:18

blood from dripping? Or are

30:20

these blood drops unrelated? That's

30:24

always a possibility. But

30:26

that's all part of the assessment. But

30:28

I would not suspect the axe to

30:30

be completely coated in blood as a

30:33

result of this scenario, nor a whole

30:35

bunch of blood spatter inside this room,

30:37

nor a heavy blood trail leading out

30:39

of the bedroom. This set of circumstances

30:41

does not lead me to believe this

30:44

is a real bloody scene outside of

30:46

the pooled blood underneath John as his

30:48

head wound is bleeding out. Well,

30:50

you know, I'm often annoyed by the

30:52

maps that we are given of these crime

30:54

scenes. And this is obviously a

30:57

modern map. I'm about to show you, but

30:59

it seems very clear. And I think it's

31:01

going to be very helpful. So let me

31:03

show you the map of where everything happened.

31:05

And you need to notice their little key

31:07

down below. The dots are where there were

31:09

blood spots. The asterisk is where John was

31:11

laying, which is right next to a wall.

31:14

And then you've got the pathway that

31:16

the killer probably took from the bedroom

31:18

back to the building where

31:21

the grain was stored. And then the X is where

31:23

the grain was stored. This just

31:25

strikes me as a very kind

31:27

of complicated pathway. And

31:29

then also maybe somebody really

31:32

needed to know where John was. They'd

31:34

have to be kind of familiar with the house,

31:36

I think. Don't you think? Or what

31:38

do you think? Well, if everybody's asleep, then they can

31:40

take their time and kind of do a building search

31:42

to find, you know, where John's at. Because we don't

31:44

know. You know, this

31:47

map and where

31:49

these bloodstains are found doesn't indicate

31:51

anything about the offender's approach. And

31:54

if we assume that the bloodstains that are

31:56

on the floor, as depicted in this diagram,

31:58

are a result of the offender escaping. then

32:01

that gives us some ideas

32:03

after the homicide, or after I should say

32:06

the violence was inflicted on

32:09

John, where the offender went. Now

32:11

one of the things that I want to caution

32:13

on is John

32:16

stays alive for a significant period of

32:18

time. His wounds are being

32:20

attended to. You have a

32:23

physician that is interacting with him. This physician

32:25

is possibly getting blood on him. I don't

32:27

know if John has moved at all through

32:29

the house or when he dies, how

32:32

he's taken and transported out of the house.

32:35

But oftentimes what

32:37

we have to take into consideration is

32:39

some of these bloodstains on the floor

32:42

are due to the after-crime

32:44

dynamics that occur. We

32:47

often will have, let's say, a body

32:49

transported. Paramedics

32:51

come in, put a body on a girdie,

32:53

and will the girdie out of the house

32:55

put in the ambulance? There's blood dripping off

32:57

the girdie and creating a blood trail. It

33:00

has nothing to do with the offender having an

33:02

ax and having blood drip off the ax. Part

33:05

of my assessment in looking at this

33:08

case would be, okay, so they're noting

33:10

bloodstains on the floor. At what point

33:12

in the process were those first noticed?

33:14

Was it upon the initial first responders

33:16

entry, or is it after 10 hours

33:18

and John's been bleeding and sitting up

33:20

and being moved around the house and

33:22

everybody's coming and going? Then I'd say

33:24

I can't even attribute to these bloodstains

33:26

on the floor to the

33:29

offender's movements because it could be

33:31

from something else. It's, in essence, a

33:33

form of crime scene contamination. So

33:35

does this tell you anything else? It doesn't tell

33:37

you about whether or not the person had to

33:39

be familiar with the layout because you said, you

33:42

know, if everyone's asleep, it's midnight. And it's

33:44

really, you know, young teenagers and

33:46

little kids at this point, the

33:48

guy could wander around essentially. It still

33:51

seems like you'd have to

33:53

have an idea about where to go.

33:55

Are they upstairs? Are they downstairs? It seems like

33:57

they're on the first floor, though. Right.

34:00

There's nothing about this that tells me

34:02

the offender had knowledge of the layout

34:05

of the house. I still

34:07

think the offender targeted

34:10

John probably most

34:12

critically is,

34:14

you know, if this axe

34:16

was out here in this

34:18

granary initially, then we know

34:20

the offender at least went to the granary,

34:23

grabbed the axe, then went into the house,

34:25

targeted John, and then upon

34:27

escape, discarded the axe underneath

34:30

the granary. The location where

34:32

the axe was discarded. Was

34:34

this something that was in plain view

34:36

on the logical flight path that the

34:38

offender would take? Or did

34:41

the offender have to go out of

34:43

their way to find this hiding spot?

34:45

And then why did the offender do

34:47

that? If the

34:49

hiding spot is truly sort of

34:51

hidden, where the offender is taking sort

34:54

of a weird route in order to

34:56

find it, then that might

34:58

indicate that the offender had pre-existing

35:00

knowledge of this hiding spot and

35:02

may have greater familiarity with this

35:04

location, such as a family member

35:06

versus a stranger, boogeyman, that's just

35:08

wandering around, stumbles across the axe

35:10

and goes in and kills John.

35:13

You're really pushing your luck by

35:16

asking for photos. The granary. You

35:18

know, jinx us. But

35:21

I understand. I mean, I think it's amazing that

35:23

we even get maps in this day

35:25

and age. That's

35:27

a good little map at least to know

35:29

the layout. Let's talk

35:31

about the sheriff's suspicions. He,

35:34

of course, asks around. Shep is alarming

35:36

to him that Shep was either

35:38

doped up or Shep didn't bark.

35:41

Of course, they're looking at the family.

35:43

And he starts asking around, and he

35:45

finds out that they

35:47

had a really difficult relationship, Margaret

35:50

and John did. Neighbors

35:53

said that Margaret had confided

35:55

in them about the problems

35:57

that they had, that John

35:59

was abused. abusive towards her

36:01

and the kids. To me,

36:03

I will say that would have been

36:05

highly unusual for a woman to disclose

36:07

that to neighbors. So this must have

36:10

been bad. Along the lines of I

36:12

want to get a divorce bad, in

36:15

the late 1800s, early 1900s, the abuse just wouldn't have

36:19

been talked about. So he must have been really

36:21

a tyrant, I think. Well, you

36:23

know, and part of this, you know, when you

36:25

see this type of abuse, you know, with

36:28

the child abuse, as well as

36:30

the domestic violence on Margaret, you

36:33

know, do these family members

36:35

or other witnesses, have they

36:37

seen bruises, cuts, you

36:39

know, on family members of John, you

36:42

know, over the course of time that

36:44

helps substantiate the level of abuse? You

36:47

know, this is what we will see, you know, today.

36:49

And oftentimes, you

36:52

know, a parent will bring a child into

36:54

the hospital saying they fell, you know, and

36:56

they've got some injuries and then upon

36:58

x-ray, they've got all sorts of old

37:00

healing x-rays, you know, to their skeleton

37:03

as a result of just chronic abuse. 1900, of

37:06

course, we don't have that type of medical

37:08

history. But what stands out to me with

37:10

what Margaret is saying to her friends,

37:14

it's one thing for Margaret to be

37:16

the target of abuse. But

37:18

when it's her kids, you

37:21

know, this is where I

37:23

start going, okay, you know, mama bear is going to

37:25

come out at some point. Margaret may

37:27

be somebody and we see this time

37:30

and time again that is going to

37:32

absorb the abuse over time. But

37:34

when now her kids are being

37:36

abused, and she's

37:38

concerned about their safety and

37:41

their lifestyle, she may

37:43

decide enough is enough. And

37:45

remember, the neighbors had said, yes,

37:47

we've had to break up

37:50

domestic violence incidences at that

37:52

house. So they've seen things.

37:54

I don't have details on injuries or anything

37:56

like that. But it is pretty well known.

37:58

It's documented. She's not making this up, that

38:00

this is happening. So this is what Frank

38:03

Keller, he's the one who said, oh, that's

38:05

definitely John's hair on the axe, he

38:08

said that Margaret once said

38:10

this. She said John

38:13

had bundled up his clothes and

38:15

he was going to leave. That

38:17

Margaret said she wished to the

38:19

Lord that he had done it.

38:22

There was no peace in this family,

38:24

nor never would be as

38:26

long as he lived. Then

38:29

Frank said she bursted out with

38:31

a kind of screaming and said, why

38:34

is it that the Lord don't remove

38:36

him out of the way? Of course,

38:39

he had not left. He didn't leave. That

38:42

sounds definitely like a threat.

38:44

She is very publicly saying,

38:47

this man needs to go. He is not a

38:49

good person. Yeah. I

38:51

think the set of circumstances,

38:54

the victimology disappears that John

38:57

likely was killed by somebody within

38:59

the family that had the physical

39:01

capability to do it. Margaret

39:04

most certainly could, but

39:06

the older children could as

39:09

well. As you're

39:11

talking about this case, I'm

39:13

kind of narrowing this into, this is

39:15

more likely going to be a result

39:17

of the ongoing domestic

39:19

violence inside the house than

39:22

maybe the political enemy

39:25

or somebody from the outside. That's

39:28

going to be kind of the focus of the interview

39:31

process by the early investigators in

39:33

this case, at least in my

39:35

opinion. The county

39:37

attorney is really focusing on Margaret

39:39

for a couple of reasons. He's

39:42

vocal about this. He says

39:44

there is no way that woman

39:46

is sleeping through an axe attack

39:48

on her husband. She is literally

39:50

inches from him. He says

39:53

that is just not the way that

39:55

she said this came out and

39:58

all of this played out. She woke

40:00

up only when she heard these two

40:02

boards crashing together. And the

40:04

fact that she didn't flip over, look to see

40:07

where John was to wake him up and say,

40:09

somebody's broken into this house, he

40:11

does not believe it. Now

40:13

you have told me it is

40:15

absolutely possible for someone to sleep

40:18

through and attack and

40:20

remember we had the Nashville serial killer.

40:23

Two twins in a bed, one was

40:25

murdered right next to the other one, and the

40:27

other one didn't hear a thing. Yeah,

40:29

you know, I don't agree with that attorney.

40:31

I think this is such a

40:34

limited attack on John. You

40:36

know, two blows, the first blow

40:38

probably didn't produce any type of

40:41

sound. The second crushing blow to

40:43

the skull is that

40:45

cracking of the bone that Margaret is

40:47

possibly hearing. Now, if Margaret

40:49

is the killer, she's organically

40:52

experiencing this audio sound of

40:54

the axe striking in the

40:57

back of John's head. So

40:59

she has this experience, which

41:01

she could weave into this

41:04

story of hearing two boards

41:06

clap. Or she

41:08

truly is just an innocent witness,

41:10

if you will, that hears

41:13

the crushing blow to John's head

41:15

and it sounds like two boards

41:18

clapping, but she doesn't see the

41:20

offender. And it's like,

41:22

where is she looking? I think the biggest

41:24

thing that the attorney saying that I also

41:27

am having a question is you would think

41:29

that she would, after

41:31

this experience, be,

41:33

hey, John, you know, something's

41:36

going on inside the room. You know,

41:38

get the physical presence

41:40

of the man up and around to see

41:42

are we safe or not. And she doesn't

41:44

do that. But it may be

41:46

a result of the relationship. She doesn't want to

41:49

wake him up because he's going to get mad

41:51

at her and possibly abuse her if he thinks

41:53

that, oh, you just disrupted my sleep. You know,

41:55

so who knows? There's a lot of dynamics going

41:58

on. I mean, Margaret's in play. as

42:00

the killer for sure. Well, and

42:02

to feed into that a little

42:04

bit, what you just said about

42:06

their relationship, the attorney says John

42:08

had a rifle in the

42:10

corner of the bedroom. I cannot believe

42:13

she did not turn over and say,

42:15

get up, grab the rifle, go protect

42:17

our family. It's just more evidence in

42:19

his mind that this was

42:21

Margaret who did it. I think

42:24

that just refers back to when you said that,

42:26

I just thought, oh yeah, maybe she doesn't. What,

42:29

John with a rifle pissed off at her

42:31

for making up some noise that

42:33

didn't exist? That is the complexity

42:35

of this type of relationship. You

42:37

know, there's behaviors that

42:40

Margaret's doing which, on the surface,

42:42

may seem suspicious. But

42:44

at the same time, given the

42:46

relationship issues that she's in and

42:48

possibly the fear for her own

42:50

physical safety, if she wakes John

42:52

up and

42:55

John is upset with her, she knows that

42:57

she's going to be the subject of abuse

42:59

and that could explain away her behavior. So

43:01

it's hard to assess with

43:04

a lot of confidence, you

43:07

know, the suspicious behaviors by Margaret. I

43:10

think you always do this, Paul, in

43:12

our cases, but I feel like in

43:14

particular, you're doing a great job on

43:16

this story, trying to play both

43:18

sides. I don't usually like

43:20

the phrase devil's advocate, but you're going

43:22

back and forth on why you think this

43:25

could be Margaret as the offender and why

43:27

we can also call BS on

43:29

this, quote, unquote, suspicious behavior that the county

43:31

prosecutor is bringing up. So I think that's

43:34

great that you're doing that. Well,

43:36

this is just, you know, this is

43:38

just from experience, looking at a wide

43:40

variety of cases, understanding human behavior. And

43:44

in my experience, people who

43:46

are in these positions of

43:48

making decisions on whether investigators,

43:51

whether prosecutors, or even defense

43:53

attorneys, they often put, in

43:55

my opinion, way too much weight on

43:58

a set of circumstances. out

44:00

really considering, oh, there are other

44:02

mitigating factors, that may be the

44:04

real reason why somebody behaves a

44:06

certain way or makes a certain

44:09

statement. It's just

44:11

the reality. It's not black

44:13

and white. There's a lot

44:15

of gray in real world

44:17

human behavior. Well, tell me

44:19

what you think about this. We hear back

44:21

from William Haynes, and now

44:23

his wife, Brenda, wants to give

44:25

her input here on their relationship.

44:28

William's a neighbor who said there was a stranger on my

44:30

front porch. I wonder if this is the guy who did

44:32

it. But after some reflection,

44:34

he goes to the prosecutor and says, listen,

44:36

I have a story. Margaret

44:39

came to him and said,

44:42

my husband's violent. Can

44:45

you get together a group of guys to come to

44:47

the farm and scare the hell out of John? Beat

44:49

him up. Tell him to stop hurting us.

44:53

And William says, boy, did she want him dead.

44:56

He was potentially having affairs. There

44:58

was abuse. And

45:01

here's the kicker for me. The

45:03

pregnancy that we talked about before, it sounds

45:06

like John fancied one of

45:08

Margaret's sisters and wanted to

45:10

marry her. But he ends

45:13

up getting Margaret pregnant. And that's

45:15

how he ends up being a father to 10 children. So

45:18

there's a lot of motion. It's

45:20

just a laundry list of things

45:22

that this man has screwed up,

45:24

it sounds like. With

45:26

Margaret approaching William the neighbor and

45:28

seeking to have a group of

45:31

guys basically inflict violence

45:33

on John to scare him. Okay,

45:35

now this opens up a suspect

45:37

pool, from my perspective, an unexpected

45:39

suspect pool, where now

45:41

is there somebody within Margaret's

45:43

social circles that would be willing to

45:46

do this for her or

45:48

do this for some

45:50

level of compensation or some form

45:52

of compensation? In essence,

45:54

she's hiring a hitman. You're right.

45:57

It kind of in this modern day

45:59

parlance. you know, but back

46:01

then it's like, okay, so

46:04

is there somebody that Margaret

46:06

reached out to that came

46:08

in and did this? That's

46:10

something that the sheriff is going to have

46:13

to march down on. Well, I need

46:16

you to tell me if this next thing is an

46:18

actual thing. There are witnesses, so

46:20

this is a coroner's inquest at this point,

46:22

there are witnesses, including

46:25

a physician who believe that

46:27

the attacker was likely left-handed,

46:29

the one who held this

46:32

axe, Margaret is right-handed. Do

46:34

you believe that? No. I

46:36

figured not. Okay, good. You

46:38

know, so, well, now,

46:41

let's say there were many

46:43

blows, and I talked

46:45

about this, you know, now you have subsequent

46:47

blows, pooled blood source, a lot of blood

46:49

getting onto the head of the axe, when

46:52

that axe is being brought up to strike

46:54

again, you have cast-off patterns. With

46:56

multiple cast-off patterns, you might be

46:59

able to see generally the arc

47:02

and directionality of the swing of the

47:04

axe by the offender. Now,

47:07

typically right versus left-handed individuals, you know,

47:09

they go to their dominant side in

47:11

terms of the way that they swing

47:13

the axe, but it doesn't mean that

47:15

they are locked into doing that. You

47:18

know, when I've used an

47:20

axe, when I use a sledgehammer, you

47:22

know, for around the house projects, I

47:24

will often change the directionality

47:26

of my swing based on

47:29

what I need to accomplish.

47:32

And that is also what offenders

47:35

do when they commit homicides with these

47:37

types of weapons. So there

47:39

is no way somebody can draw

47:41

a conclusion as to the handedness

47:43

of the offender. They can

47:46

just say, well, the offender seemed to

47:48

swing multiple times in this

47:50

directionality, but that doesn't mean that that's

47:52

a right-handed person versus a left-handed person,

47:54

because no matter what your handedness is,

47:57

you can swing an axe in

47:59

either way. Okay, Margaret's still in

48:01

play, I think, is what you were

48:03

saying there. So that does not matter.

48:05

Now, to me, this is the most

48:07

compelling physical evidence. Tell me what you

48:09

think about this. Margaret

48:12

is wearing a nightgown when this attack happens.

48:15

And there are witnesses, including Dr. Dean

48:17

and two male community members, which

48:20

is important, I suppose, to know what their

48:22

sex is. They come to the crime scene.

48:25

They look at Margaret's nightgown. There

48:27

are bloodstains on the right sleeve and on

48:30

the back of the nightgown, nothing on the

48:32

front, not one bit of blood that they

48:34

can see on the front. So

48:37

what do you think about that? Because

48:39

the idea is that perhaps she was

48:41

there, but she was not the one

48:43

who swung the axe. She had

48:45

her back turned. Or she was on her stomach.

48:47

I mean, I don't know, you know? I

48:50

need so much more information in order to...

48:53

Sorry. You know, part of...

48:55

Okay, so assessing these bloodstains, of course,

48:58

we'd have to show, okay, these bloodstains,

49:04

they look like they're fresh bloodstains that they're

49:06

from John versus Margaret

49:08

had a bleeding injury from some

49:10

prior thing that she was involved with. But

49:13

it's also, okay, the location on the sleeve

49:15

and on the back. What

49:17

do these bloodstains look like? Are they contact

49:19

transfers? Are they

49:21

drops? As I mentioned before, this

49:24

axe is not going to have a lot of

49:26

blood on it. So this

49:28

is something where I would not suspect

49:31

that she's swinging the axe up overhead,

49:33

that there's going to be some drops

49:35

of blood dripping down onto the back

49:37

of her nightgown. I just don't think

49:40

that that's this set of circumstances. But

49:42

I would need to see what is

49:44

present on her. I need to account

49:47

for all of her activities after John

49:49

has a bleeding injury. It's

49:52

not unusual for a loved one

49:54

to go up and either do

49:56

a medical resuscitation or hug

49:58

their bleeding. loved

50:00

one and getting blood transferred from

50:05

the blood to the blood. And he's got blood on his

50:08

head. He's doing all kinds of stuff. Absolutely.

50:10

Or you have the physician who's attending John

50:12

and then he goes up and consoles Margaret

50:14

and he's got blood on him and transfers

50:16

that blood to Margaret. All

50:18

of this is part of the complexity

50:20

of, okay, when are these bloodstains being

50:23

observed? What has happened between the

50:25

time of the bleeding injury to

50:27

the time that these bloodstains are

50:29

being observed? Can I eliminate with

50:31

confidence all the other spurious reasons

50:33

for these bloodstains to say these

50:35

bloodstains are entirely consistent with the killer?

50:38

I would be much more

50:40

concerned if I saw a

50:43

little bit of blood spatter, some

50:45

hairs on Margaret, some brain matter

50:47

that has spattered up

50:49

onto Margaret. That becomes important. A few

50:52

bloodstains on her nightgown, right now it

50:54

doesn't tell me anything. Now

50:56

let me ask you, based on the

50:58

head wounds that you've heard about, based

51:01

on what we think happened, would you

51:03

expect the person holding the axe and

51:05

doing this with force, would

51:07

you expect if it were Margaret that

51:09

she would have some kind of blood

51:12

on this nightgown because they didn't find anything

51:14

except on that sleeve and on the back?

51:16

Wouldn't she have something, Paul? No.

51:19

Again, this is going back and

51:22

really assessing what's going

51:24

on. There's two blows. First

51:27

blow, there's no blood on

51:29

John. It's with the sharp

51:31

edge of the axe. There's

51:34

really not going to be any possibility of blood

51:36

spatter from that. Now you have a bleeding injury.

51:39

With the second blow, could there be some

51:41

blood spatter? Possibly. It

51:44

would be minimal. This is where I'd

51:46

be looking at the bedsheets, at the

51:48

pillow. Am I seeing emanating blood

51:51

spatter patterns coming from this

51:53

injury? That the axe

51:55

with the long handle allows the offender

51:58

to be a distance away.

52:01

Plus, the broad head of the

52:03

axe is a shadow, has a

52:05

shadowing effect. It's just like

52:07

a baseball bat. The blood can't come

52:09

directly back at the person who's wielding

52:11

the weapon. It's going to go out

52:13

to the sides and possibly underneath the

52:16

handle. But with

52:18

the limited amount of blows to

52:20

John, I am not expecting

52:23

this to be a blood spatter scene

52:25

at all. So in my opinion,

52:28

I would not expect the

52:30

killer to have any type

52:32

of spatter, blood spatter onto

52:34

their person. And if they

52:36

did, it would be minimal. And it'd

52:38

probably be easily overlooked. We're talking a

52:40

few tiny droplets that would have made

52:43

it back onto the killer. Well,

52:45

let me shorthand what happens here.

52:47

What you're saying is what the

52:49

jury is confused by. At every

52:52

turn, the only thing that

52:54

the coroner's inquest, the jury said was,

52:56

yes, we do think that John died

52:58

by two axe blows. But we have

53:00

no idea who did it. We do

53:02

not know if it was Margaret. So

53:04

they do not recommend that clamor, who

53:06

is the county prosecutor, he wanted to

53:08

go after first degree murder charges.

53:10

And they said, we don't think that's a great

53:13

idea. He disagreed. He goes after her

53:15

anyway. He convinces the

53:17

local magistrate to issue an arrest

53:19

warrant for Margaret. She's taken

53:21

into custody right after his funeral. And

53:24

in April of 1901, so

53:26

this is five months after he

53:29

is murdered, her trial begins. There

53:32

are five days of testimony, which is a

53:34

pretty decent link for her trial in that

53:36

time period. She says the same thing over

53:39

and over again. I did not do this.

53:41

I have no idea what happened. All

53:44

of the kids, all nine of them

53:46

say, we agree. We don't have

53:48

any idea what happened. The defense

53:51

attorney says you cannot prove that

53:53

blood on the axe

53:55

and that hair on the axe is

53:57

not turkey blood. You cannot say definitive

54:00

that it was John. Margaret and her

54:03

children say things were bad but they were

54:05

not that bad. Mom does not want to

54:07

kill dad and that

54:09

is the defense. So you

54:11

know we have to fight the

54:14

perception that women, even country women,

54:16

are incapable of

54:18

killing a man. The prosecutor

54:21

said hell yeah she could do it. She

54:23

is a foreign girl. She could pick up

54:25

an axe and whack the sky. She was

54:28

very strong. He described her as stocky and

54:30

heartily built that she

54:33

had been seen using a wood-splitting axe

54:35

with no problem. And

54:37

you know this is all sort of

54:39

building up to the idea that she

54:41

was abused, she was pissed off,

54:44

she had said she was pissed off to multiple

54:46

people, and now she

54:48

was also humiliated because it

54:51

comes out that they were

54:53

pregnant before they got married.

54:56

And just all of this John was

54:58

miserable from the beginning and that's what

55:00

the prosecutor is saying. So

55:02

that is the you know the whole crux

55:05

of the case. He doesn't have physical evidence

55:07

but he is saying circumstantially this woman did

55:09

it. Who else would have done it?

55:11

Yeah you know I lean

55:13

towards Margaret being the one responsible. I

55:16

think I definitely disagree

55:18

with with some of the the facts

55:21

if you want to call them facts

55:23

that the prosecutor is using to lay

55:25

out a circumstantial case. The most compelling

55:27

thing as I assess this is William

55:30

saying Margaret approached

55:32

him to try to round

55:34

up a group of men in essence

55:37

to inflict violence on John to

55:39

get John to stop abusing her.

55:42

William I imagine doesn't have

55:45

any grudge against Margaret. You

55:47

know I'd want to know what that relationship

55:49

is. If he sees Margaret as a friend

55:52

or a good neighbor he has no reason

55:54

to make something up. So

55:56

that informs me okay Margaret

55:58

is looking at somehow

56:00

getting John to stop this abusive behavior,

56:02

and she's willing to have John be

56:05

beat up by a group of men

56:07

in order to do that. So this

56:14

informs me that her

56:17

capacity for accepting John

56:19

suffering is there, and

56:24

rightfully so, because he's abusing her.

56:27

But I don't think with

56:29

their limitations back in 1900 to

56:31

look at the physical evidence, the

56:35

acts of murder weapon, are we able

56:37

to demonstrate that it truly

56:39

is a murder weapon? Are we able to demonstrate

56:42

that, let's say, there's a

56:45

bloody ridge detail in John's blood to show

56:47

that, okay, the person who left that got

56:50

John's blood on there as a result of the

56:52

homicide, and it happens to match Margaret. That would

56:54

be compelling. They don't have that.

56:58

I think that, circumstantially, the case

57:01

just does not add up, in my

57:03

mind, to be able to take it

57:05

forward at trial. I think there

57:07

needs to be more investigation done, but

57:10

I think the sheriff and the prosecutor are on

57:12

the right track. They just don't have enough to

57:14

prove the case, in my opinion. Well,

57:17

the neighbor, William Haynes, who we

57:19

talked about, who says, first there was

57:21

a stranger on the porch, and then he says, well, by

57:23

the way, Margaret said she wanted

57:25

a bunch of men to go beat this guy up.

57:28

It's supposed to testify at this trial, and

57:30

it would be, you know, on the side

57:33

of the prosecution to talk about her anger.

57:35

He has, it sounds

57:37

like, a nervous breakdown, and he's

57:39

actually admitted to a mental health

57:41

facility before the trial. So he

57:43

can't testify. It does

57:46

not matter because she

57:49

is convicted by a

57:51

panel of all men, and

57:54

she is given life in prison. At

57:56

least it wasn't the death penalty, which is

57:58

what the prosecutor wanted, but she is... convicted.

58:00

So what do you think

58:02

about that? You just basically said what you thought,

58:04

which is this is not

58:06

enough evidence to put this woman on trial

58:09

right now. You know that's the hard thing

58:11

is I think they have the

58:13

right person. I don't say that with total

58:16

confidence. You know again, could it have been

58:18

one of her older children? Could

58:20

it have been maybe this stranger was

58:23

the hired hitman, right?

58:26

And maybe William had a greater

58:28

role in terms of helping arrange

58:31

somebody to go in to kill John than

58:33

what he's admitting to, which

58:36

may be a reason for his mental breakdown. But

58:39

you know part as we kind of

58:42

talked about at the beginning of the

58:44

first episode, this is such a hard

58:46

thing. Yes, I think Margaret is likely

58:48

the one responsible either directly or indirectly

58:50

through having somebody come and do this,

58:52

whether it be one of her older

58:54

children or somebody from the outside. But

58:56

she's doing it in essence to save

58:58

herself and save her family. You know

59:00

and how do you put somebody away

59:03

for life for that?

59:05

This is the complexity that prosecutors

59:07

are. John's asleep. He is helpless

59:11

and to have somebody come and hit him

59:13

on the head with an axe. Well this

59:15

is an egregious act of violence that takes

59:17

somebody's life. You can't

59:19

allow that type of behavior in

59:21

our society. But if somebody

59:23

is feeling trapped and thinking I'm either going

59:25

to die or my kids are going to

59:28

die, how do you hold it against them

59:30

from taking that type of act because authorities

59:32

aren't doing enough to keep them safe? Well

59:35

this is not the end of this story. Of

59:38

course it's not. You've been holding back

59:40

again. I have. So she's in

59:42

prison for a year and then

59:45

she had an appeal. And there's a

59:47

scholar named Patricia L. Bryan who followed

59:49

this case. She says

59:52

the Iowa Supreme Court decided

59:54

that she had been unfairly

59:56

prejudiced by two tiny little

59:59

technical errors involving jury instruction,

1:00:01

which trips up a lot

1:00:03

of judges, surprisingly. There's a

1:00:05

technical error there. And the case

1:00:07

is overturned, and she is released

1:00:10

on bail. And the prosecutor said,

1:00:12

here we go again. Let's do

1:00:14

it again. So there's a second

1:00:16

trial. William Haynes is

1:00:18

now out of the asylum. He

1:00:21

gives testimony, but the issue with

1:00:23

William Haynes is that

1:00:25

he gets on the stand and he says, I lied

1:00:28

about the stranger on the porch. So

1:00:30

now he is, quote unquote,

1:00:32

crazy, and he is a liar.

1:00:36

And while at first I thought, well, this is going

1:00:38

to undermine her defense about a stranger, I think

1:00:40

what ends up happening is it undermines

1:00:43

his testimony when he says,

1:00:45

she told us to go beat this guy

1:00:48

up and told him essentially and that was

1:00:50

it. So this was supposed

1:00:52

to be pretty good testimony, and it

1:00:54

doesn't turn out to be good testimony

1:00:56

for the prosecution because this guy lied

1:00:59

about something and he was institutionalized. No,

1:01:02

sure. And as I'm assessing William

1:01:04

and this lie of the stranger,

1:01:06

why is he lying about the

1:01:08

stranger? Because he's trying to protect

1:01:10

Margaret. This informs me that William

1:01:13

looks at Margaret as a good

1:01:15

person, if you will, whatever, if they

1:01:18

have a friendship or whatever. But he

1:01:20

is, in essence, he's aware Margaret is

1:01:22

likely going to be a suspect in

1:01:24

this case. And now he is misdirecting

1:01:26

the investigation by saying, hey, I have

1:01:28

the stranger that was on my porch

1:01:30

in order for the investigators think, well,

1:01:32

that stranger must be the killer that entered into

1:01:34

Margaret and John's house and killed John in his

1:01:36

bed. So this gives greater

1:01:39

veracity to William, in my mind, William's

1:01:41

statement that Margaret approached him about, hey,

1:01:43

I want to have a group of

1:01:45

men hurt John. And this

1:01:47

elevates, in my opinion, in my

1:01:50

assessment, Margaret's involvement

1:01:52

in John's homicide. Well, it's interesting

1:01:54

because the community does not think

1:01:56

that. The community looks at William

1:01:58

whose wife is but divorcing

1:02:00

him at this point and charging him

1:02:02

with cruelty. The community looks at William

1:02:05

and says, you lied about this stranger.

1:02:07

We're not sure what you, if you're telling

1:02:09

the truth about, you know, her approaching him

1:02:11

about beating up John. You had a breakdown

1:02:14

before the first trial. Plus, it seems like

1:02:16

you're a mean guy too. They

1:02:18

think that he's involved somehow

1:02:20

in this case. And

1:02:23

it casts a big shadow over

1:02:25

this second trial, which only benefits

1:02:27

Margaret in this second trial. Sure.

1:02:29

And I would not be

1:02:31

surprised if William had a role, whether he

1:02:34

directly is, I mean, he's the killer. He's

1:02:36

the one that decided, okay, I'm going to take John

1:02:38

out for Margaret, or he

1:02:41

does make the arrangement to have

1:02:43

somebody go and take care of

1:02:45

John per Margaret's request. But

1:02:47

instead of, well, we're just going to send John a message, it's

1:02:50

like, well, we're just going to get rid of John. Now

1:02:53

we're going to throw in another stranger. The defense

1:02:55

digs up a witness, a

1:02:57

guy named G.K. Burson, who

1:02:59

says he saw a horseman

1:03:01

charging past his farm from

1:03:03

the west, where the family

1:03:05

is. And, you know,

1:03:08

this horseman is whipping his

1:03:10

horse, and the horse

1:03:12

is frantically running. And of course,

1:03:14

the defense is insinuating that this

1:03:16

could have been a stranger, maybe

1:03:18

not William Haynes's stranger, but a

1:03:20

stranger, this reasonable doubt. And

1:03:22

the prosecutor responds and says, well,

1:03:24

this is probably just someone racing

1:03:26

his horse at night, which

1:03:29

I don't think is a great idea. But maybe this

1:03:31

was a thing in 1900 Iowa. But either way, this

1:03:33

really puts some reasonable

1:03:36

doubt in the minds of the jury, and

1:03:38

things are going very differently, as you can

1:03:40

tell, I'm framing this up to be a

1:03:43

different outcome. Yeah, you know,

1:03:45

it's again, and I've

1:03:47

said this over and over again, in

1:03:49

any case, there's always these red herrings.

1:03:52

And, you know, you run across them during

1:03:55

the investigative phase. And

1:03:57

then once you kind of start proving a case

1:03:59

against somebody, you drop pursuing these

1:04:01

other red herrings, but they're

1:04:03

fodder for the defense. And

1:04:06

so now it's like, oh, that was the real

1:04:08

killer, the guy on the horse, this mystery man

1:04:10

on the horse, but are

1:04:12

they showing a nexus to the crime? No,

1:04:14

just this is odd. This

1:04:17

is odd. And so now I'm going to direct the

1:04:19

jurors' attention to this mystery man. He's got to be the real

1:04:21

killer. And

1:04:24

it's a ploy. I think right

1:04:27

now I see where things are going

1:04:29

in this retrial of Margaret, and

1:04:31

I have a feeling that she gets

1:04:33

off. She does. It's

1:04:35

not an acquittal, but it is a hung

1:04:38

jury. And the prosecutor gives up and

1:04:40

says, okay, we're not going to have a third trial.

1:04:42

And according to the Iowa Cold Case website,

1:04:45

Margaret never talks about it. She dies at

1:04:47

the age of 70. So

1:04:49

this would have been 13, 14 years later, and she's buried right next

1:04:51

to John. In

1:04:56

the family plot. Oh, wow. It

1:04:58

is unsolved. There were no other

1:05:00

suspects. They dropped the case, but

1:05:02

it is still unsolved. And in

1:05:04

this area, the rumors were maybe

1:05:06

William Haynes, the liar, the

1:05:09

crazy guy, maybe he was involved,

1:05:11

or of course, the most popular

1:05:13

theory is that this was all

1:05:15

in the family. Yeah. Phew,

1:05:17

what a case. It's a tough one

1:05:19

because I do think it's family, you

1:05:22

know, just based on other cases that

1:05:24

I'm aware of and the

1:05:26

set of circumstances in this case. But at

1:05:28

the same time, I'm not necessarily upset

1:05:31

that Margaret didn't serve the rest

1:05:33

of her life in prison. You

1:05:35

know? Yeah. It's

1:05:37

one of those where you get torn about what's going

1:05:39

on here. I

1:05:42

hope that this family went on and

1:05:44

the kids went on to live long,

1:05:46

happy lives, terror-free,

1:05:49

free of domestic violence. And

1:05:52

you know, I hope that Margaret, with

1:05:54

all of this being true, people saying

1:05:56

this stuff happened, he was not a

1:05:59

good husband. not a good father, that

1:06:01

I hope she was able to rest in

1:06:03

peace with all of this, even if she

1:06:06

was next to her scumbag of a husband.

1:06:08

And I know that we've talked about this. You have

1:06:11

to solve cases. It doesn't matter who the victim is

1:06:13

or who the killer is. They have to be solved.

1:06:16

But I think you're right. This had

1:06:18

the outcome that was supposed to happen.

1:06:20

The prosecutor tried. He did his job.

1:06:23

You know, who knows? This is law and justice. This

1:06:25

is the way our system works. No,

1:06:28

for sure. You know, and this is one of

1:06:30

the few sets of

1:06:32

circumstances where I ultimately

1:06:35

have some compassion for the killer.

1:06:37

Me too. Well, this case has

1:06:40

been a big one. Double header.

1:06:42

So we need a week off. I need a week off. You

1:06:44

can come back in a week, but I'm not going

1:06:46

to be here. But I'll leave the camera on. It's

1:06:49

just going to be an empty mic. It's going to

1:06:51

be here. She'll do homework in here for you, and you

1:06:53

guys can have a chat. We'll

1:06:57

have a week off, and the audience will have

1:06:59

a week off, and we'll be back with another

1:07:01

great case. I'm excited. I'm already

1:07:03

thinking about it. We're going to play Stump Paul Holes.

1:07:05

It's more Stump the Dummy. Okay, I'm ready for you. All

1:07:09

right, have a good break. You too. This

1:07:15

has been an Exactly Right production.

1:07:17

For our sources and show

1:07:20

notes, go to exactlyrightmedia.com/Buried Bones

1:07:22

sources. Our senior producer is

1:07:24

Alexis Amorosi. Published

1:07:27

by Maren McClashan, Ali Elkin,

1:07:29

and Kate Winkler-Dossett. Our mixing

1:07:31

engineer is Ben Taladei. Our

1:07:33

theme song is by Tom Breifogel. Our

1:07:36

artwork is by Vanessa Lilac. Executive

1:07:38

produced by Karen Kilgariff, Georgia Hardstark,

1:07:41

and Danielle Kramer. You can

1:07:43

follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook

1:07:45

at Buried Bones Pod. Kate's

1:07:48

most recent book, All That is Wicked, a Gilded

1:07:50

Age Story of Murder and the Race to Decode

1:07:52

the Criminal Mind, is available now. Stump

1:07:54

Hall's bestselling memoir, Unmasked, My

1:07:56

Life Solving America's Cold Cases,

1:07:59

is also available now.