0:00

Before you fast forward, this is

0:02

not an ad. I actually have

0:04

some exciting news. I'm heading out

0:06

on a trip with listeners and

0:08

other podcasters to South America. We're

0:10

going to visit vineyards in Chile

0:13

and Argentina, explore the cities of

0:15

Santiago, Valparaiso, maybe I'm saying that

0:17

right, and Mendoza. We're going to

0:19

talk true crime as we cross

0:22

the Andes together and we will

0:24

have a local tour guide private

0:26

for our group. Coming

0:29

with me is Josh from True Crime

0:31

Bullshit and Lainey from True Crime Cases

0:33

with Lainey. So we already have three

0:35

podcasters ready to hang out and talk

0:37

about cases or even give you tips

0:39

on starting a podcast, if that's what

0:41

you're interested in. And really just having

0:43

a fun trip to South America. As

0:46

you're listening to this episode, which comes out

0:48

on June 19th, the tickets go on sale

0:50

tomorrow, which is June 20th. Josh,

0:53

Lainey and I worked with our trip

0:55

coordinator to be sure that we were

0:57

offering a unique and memorable experience. We

1:00

wanted to have time and space

1:02

to talk to people in a

1:05

small group about True Crime

1:07

Cases. We're going to bring some case

1:09

files along with us so that you

1:11

get to see what we see when

1:13

we research our episodes. We're going to

1:15

talk about podcasting. We really wanted to

1:17

include those elements, but we also want

1:19

this to be a vacation. We are

1:21

going to an amazing place. We want

1:24

to be able to enjoy the history

1:26

and the culture and the food and

1:28

the atmosphere. This trip has

1:30

it all. And

1:32

we put a cap on how many

1:34

people can come so that we can

1:36

guarantee this is an intimate experience where

1:38

you're not just going to be a

1:40

face in the crowd. And

1:42

if you are traveling solo, don't worry, I

1:45

am too. And I am a huge extrovert,

1:47

so I'm going to be looking for the

1:49

other solo travelers. Plus, once we get there,

1:51

we'll all be one group. I'll

1:53

have a link in my description box so

1:55

you can go see the details of the

1:57

trip, including what's included in the price, how

1:59

much it costs. costs and options to pay

2:02

for it. I know it can be

2:04

a lot of money to lay out all at once, so you

2:06

can reserve your spot with 25% down

2:08

and then pay off the balance up to

2:10

90 days before the trip. And

2:12

if you need more time to pay than

2:15

that, they do offer financing through a firm

2:17

and all of those details are at that

2:19

same website, same link in the show notes.

2:22

That link is really the portal

2:24

to this incredible opportunity. All of

2:27

the information is there. There's FAQs,

2:29

there's pictures of where we're going,

2:31

and also obviously the link to

2:33

book the trip. And then

2:36

after you book, definitely send me an

2:38

email so that I know you're coming

2:40

and then we can link up personal

2:42

social media accounts, whatever we need to,

2:44

to stay in touch as we're making

2:46

plans and getting ready for this trip. So

2:48

again, click the link in the show notes,

2:51

find out all the information, and hopefully I'll

2:53

be seeing you in South America. After

3:05

the 2009 murder of a man

3:08

in Payson, Utah, and the theft of

3:10

several of his guns, the police narrowed

3:12

in on their suspects and made arrests.

3:14

But one phone call flipped the entire

3:16

case upside down. I'm Charlie and welcome

3:18

to Crimelines. Hello

3:27

and welcome to Crimelines, another week,

3:29

another episode, and we are going

3:32

to jump right in this week

3:34

talking about the murder of a

3:36

man named K. Mortensen. He

3:39

was born in Ephraim, Utah in July

3:41

of 1939. K

3:44

was LDS, aka Mormon, and he

3:46

grew up the oldest of five

3:49

children. He was incredibly well educated,

3:51

getting his PhD in metallurgy. K

3:54

worked in the industry for a few

3:56

years before he went into education. He

3:59

became a person who was a real person. professor at Brigham Young

4:01

University, which is in Provo, Utah, and

4:04

he worked in that spot for

4:06

33 years. He taught there

4:08

so long that he was a two-generation teacher

4:10

for some of his students. Their parents had

4:13

taken his classes, and then 20, 25, 30

4:15

years later, they

4:17

took the class too. Kay had

4:19

four children of his own, two boys and two

4:21

girls, though he and their mother divorced in the

4:23

1980s. Sadly, one of Kay's daughters, who was

4:26

18 at

4:29

the time, died in a car wreck in 1988.

4:33

He remained close to his other three

4:35

kids over the years, and

4:37

eventually, as in when he was in

4:40

his 60s, he remarried. His kids at

4:42

that point were all grown. His

4:45

son Roger told Dateline that Kay's

4:48

new wife, Darla, got through Kay's

4:50

tough exterior and softened

4:52

him around the edges a bit. After

4:55

he retired from teaching, he and Darla did

4:57

18 months of missionary work

4:59

and volunteer service at a local historical

5:02

site that was owned by the church.

5:05

They had finished that in the fall of

5:07

2009. At this point,

5:09

Kay and Darla made

5:11

plans to travel. Kay

5:14

had been a frugal person his

5:16

entire life, and he

5:18

managed to save quite a bit

5:21

given his professor's salary. But

5:23

there was something else about Kay. He

5:25

was a survival prepper

5:28

type, and so he

5:30

had bought gold at one point,

5:32

a significant amount. For those

5:34

preparing for a crisis or the

5:36

end of days, gold is desirable

5:38

because the theory is it retains

5:40

its value even if

5:42

paper money becomes worthless. So

5:45

Kay bought all this gold, and he happened to

5:47

buy when prices were pretty low.

5:49

And then the value

5:51

went up. Kay ended up

5:53

with a sizable amount of money, so this

5:56

turned out to be a really good investment

5:58

on his part. Some

6:00

of that money was spent on his house

6:02

in the Payson Canyon, as well

6:04

as maintaining a home in St. George, which

6:07

is in southern Utah. The

6:09

house in Payson, though, had

6:11

a bunker installed in the

6:13

back that held guns and

6:15

water and food supplies like

6:17

any prepper who could afford it would

6:19

have. Kay worried

6:22

about things like nuclear fallout

6:24

or a civil war. But

6:27

then Darla came along and she encouraged him

6:29

to enjoy some of the

6:31

money he had. Go out

6:33

and travel. It really

6:36

was like his son had said, Darla

6:38

softened Kay and he was looking forward

6:40

to enjoying the rest of his retirement.

6:43

Life was looking pretty good. With

6:45

no kids at home but grandkids

6:47

around to enjoy, Kay

6:49

and Darla were happily settling into

6:52

retired life. And

6:54

as I'm saying that, I feel like I'm

6:56

writing a Dateline opener here. They

6:58

were happily settling into retired life, but

7:00

something sinister was around the corner. But

7:03

this really is one of those cases where

7:05

it felt that way. Like the cases where

7:07

the victim truly did light up a room.

7:09

It may feel like a Dateline cliché, but

7:12

in this case, there were

7:15

absolutely zero hints that their lives

7:17

were going to change and that

7:19

change would cost Kay his life

7:22

and tear their family apart. It

7:25

all happened on Monday, November 16th,

7:28

2009. 70-year-old Kay was

7:30

home alone in Payson,

7:32

Utah, getting ready to cook

7:34

himself something for dinner. Darla would

7:36

be home later that night, but

7:38

for the evening, she was off

7:40

babysitting some grandchildren. Around 8 p.m.,

7:43

a 911 call came in from

7:45

Kay's home. It was

7:48

his daughter-in-law Pamela, who was married

7:50

to Kay's oldest son, Roger. They

7:52

lived about a mile away. Pam

7:55

told the dispatcher that they had

7:57

come into Kay's house and were

7:59

met by home intruders who had

8:02

tied them up. They had

8:04

barely gotten free when she called 911, and

8:07

Roger had gone upstairs to look for his

8:09

father. While she was

8:11

on the phone with the dispatcher, Roger

8:13

came back down to tell her that

8:15

the worst had happened. He

8:18

had found Kay dead in the

8:20

upstairs bathroom. The

8:23

dispatcher asked Pam to describe the

8:25

men who were in the house,

8:27

were they black, white, Hispanic, and

8:29

Pam answered, she didn't know. She

8:32

was then asked how many there were, and

8:34

she said maybe three. Roger

8:36

then got on the phone, and he told

8:39

the dispatcher that the intruders were two white

8:41

men, and he was sure of it, unlike

8:43

Pam. Emergency services raced

8:46

out to Payson Canyon, where

8:48

Roger then directed them to the

8:50

upstairs bathroom where Kay's body was.

8:53

He was found kneeling on the

8:55

ground, hanging over the edge of

8:57

the bathtub, with his hands and

9:00

feet bound with zip ties. His

9:03

throat had been slashed, and he had

9:05

been stabbed. Though

9:07

the story Roger and Pam told

9:10

made the investigators think that they

9:12

were walking into a robbery, you

9:15

wouldn't know it from the inside of the house. There

9:17

were items of value that were

9:19

left untouched, including some guns. But

9:22

then, in Kay's bunker out

9:24

back where he stored more

9:26

guns, they realized that several

9:28

were missing. It was estimated

9:30

to be about 24 to 32 guns unaccounted for. Roger

9:36

and Pam, of course, told their story to

9:38

the police about how they came to be

9:41

tied up, but left alive while Kay had

9:43

been killed. They told some of

9:45

the story at the scene, but then, of course,

9:47

they did separate interviews at the police station. And

9:50

the entire thing started earlier in the day

9:52

while Pam was at work. While

9:55

there, she was gifted a pecan

9:57

pie, which was Kay's favorite. Knowing

10:00

that, Pam and Roger decided to head over

10:03

there after work and bring the pie to

10:05

Kay, maybe stay and visit for a little

10:07

bit. It was a little bit

10:09

of a re-gift situation before he and

10:11

Darla left town to go back

10:13

down to St. George, which is about three and

10:15

a half hours away. Pam and

10:18

Roger tried to call ahead, but Kay

10:20

didn't answer, which didn't seem strange because

10:22

it wasn't uncommon for him to ignore

10:24

the phone. When they got to the

10:26

house around 745, Roger and Pam noticed

10:30

there was a blue hatchback parked

10:32

in front. They didn't

10:34

recognize it as anyone they knew, but Kay

10:36

and Darla often had visitors. So

10:38

they knocked on the front door or rang the

10:41

doorbell, they couldn't remember which, and a young man

10:43

answered the door. They

10:45

said he was about five foot eight and thin

10:47

with short black hair that looked like it had

10:49

been dyed. Pam and

10:51

Roger didn't recognize him, but they assumed

10:53

he was there to work on something

10:55

in Kay's house. According to

10:58

them, Kay and Darla had been talking

11:00

about getting new carpets installed and

11:02

they had also recently had internet issues.

11:04

So the guy was there for probably

11:07

one of those two things. Pam

11:10

asked if Kay was there and the man

11:12

said that he was upstairs. So

11:14

that's where they headed. They made it

11:16

a few steps up when the man

11:19

told them to come back down. Pam

11:22

and Roger turned around to see that

11:24

there were actually two young men there.

11:27

The other one fit the same description

11:29

as the first, average height, slim build

11:32

and very dark hair. And

11:34

one of the men had a gun and the

11:36

other was holding zip ties. And

11:38

one of them said, you're here at

11:40

the wrong place and the wrong time.

11:43

The men then forced

11:45

both of them to the living room floor where

11:48

they zip tied Roger and Pam

11:50

at the wrists and the ankles.

11:53

The men said that since they

11:55

could recognize them, they were going

11:57

to left

12:00

the room for a period of time

12:02

and Roger started praying out loud. The

12:05

men came back in and Pam

12:07

told him to be quiet. She

12:09

didn't want him to inadvertently anger

12:11

them or make the situation worse.

12:14

But the praying actually seemed to

12:16

work. The men told him to

12:18

keep going and they even bowed their heads through

12:20

the rest of the prayer. The

12:23

men sat down and said they weren't

12:25

going to kill Roger and Pam after

12:27

all, but they couldn't tell the police

12:30

what really happened. They had to tell

12:32

them that it was three black men

12:34

with ski masks who robbed the house.

12:37

The men then took Roger's driver's license

12:39

so that they would know where he

12:41

lived. They threatened to

12:43

come back and kill them both

12:45

if they ever told the police

12:47

the truth. And

12:49

then they left. Pam

12:52

and Roger waited a bit to make sure they were

12:54

really gone and then they got out of their zip

12:56

ties. Roger ran upstairs to

12:58

look for his father while Pam called 911.

13:03

The investigators listened intently

13:05

to these stories and

13:07

they didn't believe them. One

13:10

of the first red flags for the investigators

13:12

was that Pam couldn't seem to tell the

13:14

dispatcher the number of men

13:16

there or their race or ethnicity, but then

13:18

when they got to the scene, she knew

13:20

this information. Pam explained

13:22

it was because of the threat. She

13:26

wanted to tell the truth, but she

13:28

was also fearful that she and Roger

13:30

were at risk. She called

13:32

911 so fast that she hadn't decided whether she

13:34

was going to tell the truth or tell the

13:36

cover story. But Roger had decided

13:38

he wasn't going to hold back. His

13:41

father had been killed. He was going to tell the

13:43

truth so they can catch these guys, which is what

13:45

he did on the 911 call. But

13:48

that wasn't the only thing. The investigators

13:50

also noticed some discrepancies in the statements

13:53

of the two of them, though there

13:55

only appears to have been one major

13:57

one. They both said the

13:59

men were wearing gloves, but Roger said

14:01

they were blue gloves like what a

14:03

woman would wear in the winter, and

14:06

Pam said they were purple exam

14:08

gloves. Now while two

14:10

people might mix up purple and

14:12

blue, winter gloves versus exam gloves

14:15

seemed like a pretty big discrepancy.

14:18

There were also smaller issues with

14:20

their statements, but according to Roger

14:22

and Pam, a lot of that

14:24

could be chalked up to a

14:26

traumatic brain injury that Roger had

14:28

suffered in a pretty

14:30

bad ATV wreck about 12

14:32

years before. He

14:35

had been on disability since then because

14:37

he couldn't work, in part

14:39

due to his short-term memory

14:41

issues. So in

14:43

that context, it shouldn't be too

14:45

surprising that he wouldn't be able

14:47

to recall details perfectly given

14:50

the additional stress they were

14:52

under. But

14:54

the police were still suspicious. I

14:56

mean, Pam and Roger saw the

14:58

killers full in the face and

15:01

managed to pray them

15:03

away. It didn't really make sense.

15:06

So the investigators brought the two to

15:08

the house to do a videotaped walkthrough

15:11

of what happened. And

15:13

they were struck by something during this

15:16

process that had also caught their attention

15:18

when they listened to the 911 call

15:21

and then also when they took

15:23

their statements at the police station.

15:26

Neither Pam nor Roger

15:29

seemed terribly emotional about what

15:31

had happened. They

15:33

had been tied up, their lives

15:35

had been threatened, and Roger found

15:38

his father's body. But

15:40

they both sounded, for lack of

15:42

a better word, unbothered. Even

15:45

when the investigators told Roger straight out that they

15:47

didn't believe him, he didn't really

15:49

protest that much. Instead, he

15:51

asked if they didn't believe them

15:54

because their story sounded too rehearsed.

15:57

And when Pam was confronted in a

16:00

fashion, she insisted she

16:02

wouldn't have killed Kay and she didn't

16:04

think Roger would be behind it, but

16:06

I'll admit there wasn't a ton of

16:09

confidence in her voice. Pam's

16:12

assessment, looking back, was

16:14

that she was in shock and that's

16:16

why she sounded detached. And

16:19

determining that someone's tone is too

16:22

unemotional is a pretty subjective

16:24

assessment, particularly when

16:26

it's made by someone who doesn't

16:29

know Roger and doesn't know Pam. If

16:32

they're normally very reserved, maybe the

16:34

emotion in their tone would have

16:36

been more subtle. But

16:39

I am going to let you hear

16:41

what the police were hearing by playing

16:43

just a snippet of audio from the

16:45

walkthrough. This was

16:48

after Roger just said he found his

16:50

father's body. The source

16:52

for this audio was the Dateline episode

16:54

on this case and I assume it

16:56

was provided to them by the police.

16:59

Before I hit play though, I want to

17:01

say that his manner of speaking in this

17:03

audio is pretty similar to how

17:05

he spoke in his interview with Dateline. So

17:08

I want you to listen to the tone, but

17:10

don't pay too much attention to the cadence or

17:12

read into it. It really is just how he

17:14

talks. I came back downstairs

17:16

and my wife was talking at the time to

17:19

911 dispatch

17:22

and I said, he is dead. So

17:25

I think you can hear what the

17:27

police were calling unemotional in that clip.

17:30

The investigators asked the couple to

17:33

take polygraphs, which they did, and

17:36

Pam's ended up being

17:38

inconclusive, but Roger failed

17:40

his. I know

17:42

my audience and I'm sure a bunch of you already

17:44

know what's wrong with this. Even

17:46

if someone puts a lot of faith

17:48

in polygraphs in controlled situations, Roger

17:50

had a traumatic brain injury. It impacted him

17:52

to the point that he could not work.

17:56

I didn't want to just assume on my

17:58

part that this meant Roger's policy. polygraph results

18:00

would be more likely to be faulty than

18:02

the average person, so I looked it up.

18:05

There was a study published in 2014

18:07

that I admittedly did not read in

18:09

full, but I did read the abstract

18:11

and that's not nothing. And

18:14

in this study, they administered a

18:16

polygraph test to 60 people with

18:18

TBIs and 60 people without. For

18:20

those without, the overall accuracy was 86.7%, but for

18:22

those with the TBI, it was The

18:31

recommendation from this study was

18:33

that those with TBIs needed

18:35

additional communication and maybe even

18:37

an assessment of their abilities prior to

18:39

relying on their test, and I'm not

18:42

sure they did that here with Roger.

18:45

Failing a polygraph is obviously not going

18:47

to make the police suspect you less,

18:50

and to the investigators, the

18:52

story of the home invasion just

18:54

didn't make sense. K

18:57

lived in survival mode to the point that he

18:59

had a bunker and nearly 100 guns. So

19:03

why was there no sign of a

19:05

forced entry or a struggle? Why

19:07

didn't K fight back or go for one

19:09

of his guns? Was it

19:11

possible? It was because he

19:13

knew his killer or killers and he

19:15

didn't know that he was in danger.

19:19

And then there was the motive of

19:21

most home invasions, theft. Where

19:24

were the tossed and ransacked drawers

19:26

or the emptied jewelry boxes? K

19:29

had an extensive gun collection, but none

19:31

of the expensive guns were taken, just

19:33

the less expensive ones that he kept

19:35

in the bunker. So

19:37

what thief would leave behind

19:39

more valuable items? Maybe

19:42

it was a thief who thought that

19:44

those nicer things were coming to them

19:47

in the form of an inheritance. K

19:50

had put his estate in a living trust so

19:52

that things would just pass on to his children.

19:55

Roger was in for a hefty inheritance, and

19:58

the police believe that he was in danger.

20:00

the couple needed that money to get out

20:02

of some financial trouble. The

20:04

couple had some debts, some that

20:07

were in arrears, and when the

20:09

police searched their home, they found

20:11

their mortgage payment book showing several

20:14

past months of unused slips. So

20:17

the motive they were assigning

20:19

was financial, though it

20:21

did get a bit weaker when

20:24

they scratched beneath the surface. The

20:26

couple did have debts, and sometimes they

20:28

were late paying their bills, but it

20:30

was nothing they couldn't pay. And

20:33

the mortgage wasn't actually behind. The

20:36

reason the mortgage slips were there

20:38

is because they switched to paying

20:40

online. And on top

20:42

of that, if Roger really was in

20:45

financial trouble, the police had

20:47

no proof that Kay wouldn't have just

20:49

helped him out if he asked. There

20:51

were no documented fights between the

20:53

men over money or really anything

20:55

else, and all reports were

20:57

that Roger and Kay had a good

21:00

relationship. But

21:14

we've definitely seen cases before where the

21:16

motive seemed thin even when we know

21:18

who committed the murder. Just go

21:20

back and listen to my Latrice Curtis episode.

21:22

It came out in March of this year, 2024.

21:24

It's a recent example. I still can't

21:26

wrap my head

21:30

around that motive to the

21:32

point that I thought the killer

21:34

might be innocent before I reminded

21:36

myself of all of the other

21:38

evidence against him. And

21:41

as the police were looking into

21:43

the motive for Roger, they also

21:45

learned that he had a criminal

21:48

record. His wife had gotten a

21:50

protective order on him and he was convicted of

21:52

violating it in 2000. And then in 2003, he

21:54

was arrested for an assault. In

22:00

that case, to enter a plea in

22:02

abeyance, and this is like a deferred

22:04

prosecution setup, Roger would

22:06

have pleaded either guilty or no

22:09

contest, and then if he successfully

22:11

completed the terms of a probationary

22:13

period, which he did, the charges

22:15

would be dropped. These

22:17

two things on Roger's record being that they

22:20

were within the last six years and they

22:22

showed a bit of an aggressive side certainly

22:25

didn't make the investigators suspect him

22:28

less. These

22:30

were pointing towards the couple according

22:32

to the police, but the hard

22:34

evidence just wasn't there. So

22:37

in the meantime, they were following up on

22:39

some other leads and Roger had actually given

22:41

one to them. He said

22:43

that there was a former student of

22:46

Kay's, a guy named Mike, who had

22:48

recently gone out to lunch with Kay.

22:51

It was Roger's understanding that Kay had

22:53

several guns that had belonged to Mike

22:56

and they may have been collateral for some

22:58

money he owed. Those

23:00

guns were among the guns that

23:02

had been stolen. And

23:04

that seems pretty significant. Kay would have

23:06

let his guard down for Mike and

23:09

it would explain why the bunker guns were

23:11

the ones taken and not the others. But

23:15

in following up on this lead, it looked

23:17

like Roger had some of the details a

23:19

little wrong. The guns weren't some

23:21

type of collateral for a loan. Mike had needed

23:23

money and he just sold them to Kay. Instead

23:26

of transaction, the two were still on

23:28

good terms and Mike's alibi checked out.

23:31

So rather than this being seen as

23:33

Roger trying to be helpful in providing

23:35

the police with a lead, it

23:38

left the investigators wondering if Roger told

23:40

the story in a way

23:42

that would deflect suspicion onto someone

23:44

else. In fairness to

23:46

Roger though, there wasn't really much he

23:49

could have done at this point that

23:51

the police wouldn't have side-eyed and looked

23:53

for the ulterior motive. The

23:55

police had gotten another tip called in at

23:57

some point that they followed up on. turned

24:00

out to be nothing, but while

24:02

they were investigating that tip, they met

24:04

a woman who wanted to tell them

24:06

about a dream she had. She

24:08

said that in this dream she was

24:11

standing outside of a bathroom, looking in,

24:13

and she saw a murder happen. Dream

24:16

evidence is really another form of

24:19

psychic evidence and obviously not admissible

24:21

in court. But this woman

24:23

did seem to have some pretty specific details

24:25

about the crime, and sometimes

24:28

when someone wants to come forward,

24:30

they may use a dream or

24:32

a vision or something like that

24:34

as an initial cover so that

24:37

they can tell their story while

24:39

putting some distance between them and

24:41

the incident. The police

24:43

ended up showing her a photo lineup, and

24:45

she pointed at Roger saying that he was

24:47

a man who was in the dream. They

24:50

then took her out to the Payson Canyon

24:52

home to do a walkthrough, and she said

24:55

Roger was the one who held Kay while

24:57

he was killed and a

24:59

woman, presumably Pam, was crying

25:01

nearby. If this

25:03

dream evidence came in about someone who was

25:06

not already a suspect, I

25:08

imagine it would have largely been ignored

25:10

rather than pursued. It

25:12

certainly wouldn't have worked out well in court.

25:15

The woman who had this

25:17

quote-unquote dream admittedly used methamphetamines,

25:20

and she never said she was there

25:22

when Kay was killed, she kept insisting

25:24

this was just a dream. So

25:27

unless they could connect her to Roger

25:29

and have the dream presented as something

25:31

she actually witnessed in the physical realm,

25:33

no judge was going to let this in. I think

25:37

the police only pursued this information because

25:39

it validated what they already thought. And

25:42

as for the family and friends of

25:45

Kay Mortensen, they were kind of

25:47

torn on this. Kay's funeral

25:49

was tense with this cloud of

25:51

suspicion over Roger and Pam. Roger's

25:54

sister even asked him to just tell

25:56

her what really happened, but

25:58

the police had told Roger not to talk

26:00

about it, so he told her he couldn't

26:02

tell her. Darla,

26:05

Kay's widow, initially believed Pam and

26:07

Roger were also victims of this

26:09

home invasion, but then

26:11

she listened to the statements they gave to

26:14

the police, and she

26:16

started suspecting them. It's

26:18

possible that the confidence the police had

26:20

in their guilt was also behind a

26:23

lot of her doubts. Many

26:25

others stood by them though, saying that

26:27

Pam and Roger were not capable of

26:29

murder, and as the

26:32

investigation dragged on for months and months,

26:34

it seemed like no one was going

26:36

to get a clear answer about Roger

26:38

and Pam's involvement. That

26:41

was until July of 2010, eight months after the

26:43

murder. The

26:46

prosecutor decided to make an unusual

26:48

move. He presented the case

26:50

to a grand jury. Now

26:53

that's not at all uncommon in

26:55

other jurisdictions, but in Utah, grand

26:57

juries just are not commonly used.

27:00

But a grand jury does give the

27:02

prosecutor the power to subpoena witnesses, which

27:04

may be why he wanted to go

27:06

this route. After

27:08

the grand jury heard the state's case,

27:10

again only the state's case is presented

27:12

at grand juries, the jury

27:14

deliberated for one hour before coming

27:17

back with two indictments. One

27:19

for 48-year-old Roger Mortensen and

27:22

one for 34-year-old Pam Mortensen.

27:25

The two were immediately arrested and

27:27

charged with murder and obstruction of

27:29

justice. After

27:31

the arrests, their attorney told KSL

27:34

News that he was surprised that

27:36

they were indicted. He

27:38

knew they were suspects, but he

27:40

was first surprised it went to

27:42

a grand jury since that's uncommon,

27:45

and then surprised that they had enough

27:47

evidence against his clients to come back

27:49

with an indictment. The

27:51

police also commented in the media on

27:54

the indictments, and they said that everyone

27:56

in the family had cooperated with them,

27:58

except for the police. for Roger and

28:00

Pam, which looking

28:02

back on this case, I think

28:05

is an entirely unfair assessment. They

28:07

gave statements, they did a walkthrough of

28:09

the crime scene, and they took polygraphs.

28:12

And guess what happened? They

28:14

became suspects. So they then

28:16

hired an attorney. Sure,

28:18

no one else in the family lawyered up,

28:21

but they also weren't suspects. And

28:24

I find comments from the police

28:26

like this to the media to

28:28

be reckless because they are potentially

28:30

poisoning the jury pool. And

28:32

it also is telling the public that if

28:35

you lawyer up, it indicates guilt, which means

28:37

people who are innocent are less likely to

28:39

ask for an attorney, even when they absolutely

28:41

should have one. Bob Motto

28:44

with the Defense Stories podcast says you

28:46

need an attorney, especially if you're innocent.

28:49

Another thing I feel was taken out

28:51

of context was the Sheriff's Department said

28:54

that Roger and Pam refused to work

28:56

with a sketch artist to get composites

28:58

made of the home intruders. But

29:00

that isn't the whole story. The

29:03

two were at the station with their attorney

29:05

for something else, and a sketch artist was

29:07

ready to work with them, but

29:09

their attorney had to be in court. They

29:12

expressed a willingness to do it another

29:14

time when their attorney could be present.

29:17

But according to their attorney, the police

29:19

never tried to reschedule. So

29:22

yeah, they wouldn't sit for the sketch artist

29:24

at the time their attorney couldn't be present.

29:27

But they didn't refuse to do it, period.

29:30

And taken on the whole, I think

29:32

Pam and Roger cooperated more than they

29:34

should have. So

29:36

the two ended up facing murder charges and

29:38

obstruction of justice charges, but those would not

29:41

be the only ones for Roger. Something

29:44

the investigators did not have in this case,

29:46

and I know they were looking for them, were

29:48

the missing guns. We're talking at least

29:51

two dozen guns, so it seemed unclear

29:53

where Pam and Roger could have stashed

29:55

them in the time they had

29:57

before calling 911. Because

30:00

their house was just a mile down

30:02

the road, that seemed like a logical

30:04

location. But a search of

30:07

the house didn't find any of the stolen

30:09

guns there. They did find

30:11

some of Kay's guns hidden in Roger's

30:13

house, but they were ones that were

30:15

taken out of Kay's home after his

30:18

death, not the day of. But

30:20

there was a big issue with Roger taking

30:22

these guns, even if he had permission from

30:24

his siblings or Darla or anyone else who

30:27

is inheriting from the estate. Roger

30:29

had a felony theft charge on his

30:32

record. In 1998, he pleaded

30:34

guilty but mentally ill to that charge.

30:37

So Roger was a convicted felon and

30:39

as such he was barred from possessing

30:41

firearms and ammunition. So he

30:43

was charged in federal court with

30:45

one count of being a felon

30:47

in possession of firearms and ammunition.

30:50

Pam and Roger, who had been using

30:53

the same attorney before their arrests, ended

30:55

up having to get separate attorneys after.

30:58

This was the right decision because there

31:00

was a clear conflict of interest. If

31:03

these two were co-conspirators, it might be

31:05

in one of their best interests to

31:07

roll over on the other one to make

31:09

a deal. And according to Pam,

31:11

the state offered her a deal in

31:13

exchange for testifying against Roger. But

31:16

Pam insisted there was nothing for her

31:18

to inform on. She didn't do

31:20

it, Roger didn't do it, and

31:23

no deal was going to make her say

31:25

otherwise. Because both

31:27

sides prepared for trial, Pam and

31:29

Roger were locked up in pre-trial

31:31

detention until early December 2010. But

31:35

they didn't get out after four months in jail

31:37

because they made bail, rather a

31:39

new tip came in that changed

31:41

everything. A woman

31:43

named Rachel went to the police claiming that

31:45

she knew what had really happened at K.

31:48

Mortensen's house not because of a dream or

31:50

because someone didn't act emotional enough. It

31:53

was because the real killer, her

31:55

23-year-old ex-husband Martin Bond, had confessed

31:58

to her. Rachel

32:00

told the investigators that Martin said

32:02

that he and his friend, 23-year-old

32:04

Benjamin Redig, went out to Kay's

32:06

house in order to steal some

32:08

guns. Martin

32:10

had known Kay for several years as

32:12

Kay was a friend of his father's,

32:15

and he knew that Kay had a

32:17

large gun collection. But

32:19

something went wrong while they were

32:21

there, and according to Martin, Ben

32:23

killed Kay. Because

32:25

the police were actively looking for the

32:27

guns, Martin and Ben knew that they

32:29

couldn't do anything with them, like sell

32:31

or trade them, right away. They

32:34

had to wait until things cooled off,

32:36

so the two buried the guns in

32:38

the desert near their home in Vernal,

32:40

Utah, which is about three hours away

32:42

from Payson. I have

32:44

been to Vernal. My father-in-law was from there,

32:46

and he is buried there. And

32:49

to say the Vernal desert does

32:51

not narrow it down much, but

32:53

Rachel said they weren't actually still

32:55

there, and even better,

32:57

she knew where they were. It

33:00

was late March 2010, months after

33:02

the murder, that Martin decided he had

33:04

to move the guns. He

33:06

seemed worried not that the police were on

33:09

to him at that point, but that if

33:11

they ever were, Ben would sing like a

33:13

canary, and he didn't want Ben to be

33:15

able to lead them to all of the

33:18

evidence. He asked Rachel if

33:20

she would rent him a U-Haul in her

33:22

name, which she did. And

33:24

then Martin loaded the truck up with

33:26

the guns, and they drove out to

33:29

a park in Dry Fork Canyon, which

33:31

is about 15 minutes outside

33:33

of Vernal. Martin then

33:35

buried the guns in the woods while

33:37

Rachel entertained their young son, and she

33:40

even took some scenic pictures of the

33:42

cliffs in the area. At

33:44

least one of the pictures she took showed

33:46

Martin standing by the U-Haul. Rachel

33:49

and Martin were not together, but they had stayed

33:52

friends, and he was of course the father of

33:54

her son, so she certainly didn't want to see

33:56

him go to prison, but what she

33:59

knew, what he had told her was

34:01

really weighing on her. She

34:03

tried to avoid thinking about it and

34:05

that included trying not to pay much

34:08

attention to the news about Kay's murder.

34:11

She knew the police suspected some

34:13

family members of Kay's, but she

34:15

entirely missed the news about the

34:17

arrests. Rachel

34:19

ended up confiding in her friend Peter

34:22

about what Martin had confessed to and

34:24

he told her that two people, two

34:26

people who were not Martin and Ben,

34:28

had been arrested in this murder. She

34:31

immediately checked the news and saw that

34:33

it was true. It was

34:36

one thing to carry the burden

34:38

of an unsolved murder, but another

34:40

thing to know two innocent people

34:43

were locked up and about to go

34:45

to trial. That's when

34:47

Rachel decided she had to go to

34:50

the police on December 5th, 2010 and

34:52

she told them everything she knew, including

34:54

where they could find the buried guns.

34:57

The investigators went out to the park

34:59

outside of Vernal that Rachel directed them

35:01

to and her information was good. They

35:04

dug up several of Kay's missing

35:07

guns. They then searched Martin's

35:09

home at which time they spoke with

35:11

him and he denied involvement, but

35:14

then they found additional guns, most of

35:16

which had the serial number scratched off,

35:18

but thankfully he hadn't gotten to all

35:20

of them and they found one of

35:22

the guns in Martin's house was registered

35:24

to Kay Mortensen. At

35:27

that point, Martin knew he was

35:29

caught and he admitted his involvement.

35:32

He then led the police to more of the guns

35:34

and around 25 were found

35:36

in all. Martin implicated

35:38

his friend Ben Redig who

35:40

Rachel had already named. So

35:43

the investigators went and searched

35:45

his home where they found

35:47

Roger Mortensen's driver's license. Just

35:50

like Roger said, the men took his license

35:52

so they knew where he lived so they

35:54

could come back and kill him if he

35:56

and Pam talked. Martin

35:59

and Ben were then taken taken

36:01

into custody, and they both ended

36:03

up giving full confessions, but with

36:05

a few contradictions. Each

36:07

man tried to lessen his own

36:10

culpability. Let's

36:12

start with the basic story as best we

36:14

can tell it happened. One

36:16

day, a day or two before the

36:18

murder, Martin and Ben were hanging out

36:20

playing video games when the topic of

36:22

survivalists and preppers came up. Martin

36:25

mentioned his dad had a friend like that,

36:27

Kay Mortensen, who kept his house just stockpiled

36:29

with guns. The conversation

36:31

then led to what if they robbed Kay

36:33

and took some of those guns? They

36:36

could probably get thousands, maybe even tens

36:38

of thousands of dollars on the black

36:40

market. So who

36:42

brought up robbing Kay first? According to

36:44

Ben, it was Martin's idea from the

36:46

start, but according to Martin, it was

36:48

Ben's idea that he reluctantly went along

36:51

with, but told Ben he would only

36:53

go through with it if no one

36:55

was home. Something that

36:57

Kay and Darla spent most of their time

36:59

at their house in St. George, it really

37:01

was bad timing that Kay

37:03

actually was in peace in that night.

37:13

Sepsis or the infection causing sepsis starts

37:15

before a patient goes to the hospital

37:17

in nearly 87% of cases. Sepsis

37:22

is a medical emergency. If

37:24

you or your loved one has an infection

37:26

that's not getting better or is getting worse,

37:29

act fast, get medical care immediately,

37:31

ask your healthcare professional could this

37:34

infection be leading to sepsis

37:36

and if you should go to

37:38

the emergency room. Learn more

37:40

at cdc.gov slash sepsis. The

37:49

two men didn't spend a lot of time

37:51

making their plan. According to

37:53

Ben, Martin called him at work on November 16th

37:56

and told him to come over and

37:58

they left from there. to go

38:00

to Payson. The two

38:03

stopped at a Walmart along the way

38:05

and bought hoodies to wear along with

38:07

gloves. And contrary to Martin's insistence that

38:09

they were only supposed to rob the

38:11

house if no one was there, they

38:13

also bought the zip ties. When

38:17

they got to the house, Martin told Ben initially

38:19

to wait in the car. He

38:21

was going to knock to see if anyone was

38:23

at home, and it wouldn't have startled Kay to

38:25

see Martin at the door. It may have surprised

38:27

him since it wasn't like Martin visited often, but

38:30

Kay wouldn't have felt like he was in danger.

38:32

And that's why Kay didn't put up a struggle

38:34

or go for a gun when these home intruders

38:36

entered. It's because he knew one of them. After

38:40

Kay opened the door and welcomed Martin

38:42

in, Ben entered the house with him,

38:44

with a gun, and they zip tied

38:46

Kay by the wrists. They

38:48

then asked him where the guns were, and Kay

38:50

led them out to the bunker. But

38:53

before they took any of the guns,

38:55

they brought Kay back inside and up

38:57

the stairs. They had him kneel

38:59

on the ground in the bathroom, facing the

39:01

bathtub, and this is when they zip tied

39:04

his ankles. This is the

39:06

point where the stories are going to differ.

39:09

One of the men held Kay at gunpoint, while

39:11

the other went to the kitchen and got a

39:13

knife. The man who got

39:15

the knife returned and then slit Kay's

39:18

throat and stabbed him. The

39:20

difference in the stories was which one was

39:22

holding the gun and which

39:24

one committed the murder. Obviously,

39:27

they were pointing the finger at each

39:29

other, and Martin told the police what

39:31

he had told his ex-wife. He held

39:33

the gun while Ben killed Kay, and

39:36

after he did it, Ben made some

39:38

comment related to a gladiator. But

39:40

Ben said he was the one holding

39:42

the gun the entire time, from when

39:45

they entered the house until they left.

39:47

He thought that when Martin left the

39:49

bathroom, he was going to get the

39:51

guns. Instead, Martin came back with a

39:53

knife and killed Kay. The

39:56

two were still in the bathroom after

39:58

having just killed Kay, when they

40:00

heard Pam and Roger at the door. And

40:03

then everything happened the way Pam

40:05

and Roger said. Ben

40:07

said he was the one who convinced

40:09

Martin not to kill them by literally

40:11

stepping in front of them to stop

40:13

him. Martin said he

40:16

was the one who convinced Ben not

40:18

to kill them. Ben held Roger

40:20

and Pam at gunpoint while Martin went to

40:22

the bunker and loaded up as many guns

40:25

as he could. They then took

40:27

off back to Vernal. Martin

40:30

and Ben's stories with their

40:32

contradictions leave some questions like

40:34

who actually killed Kay? But

40:38

what it did clear up was

40:40

the question of Pam and

40:42

Roger's involvement. They

40:44

had been telling the truth the entire

40:47

time. They had spent

40:49

four months behind bars and four

40:51

months is enough to significantly impact

40:53

your life. If you were

40:55

working, you may have lost your job. If you

40:58

didn't have someone on the outside able to pay

41:00

your bills and your mortgage or your rent, what

41:02

happens when you get out? You have to catch

41:04

up on all of that. And

41:06

that's just the practical side of

41:08

things. Whether you're guilty or not,

41:11

you're going to face those issues.

41:13

But what if you were innocent,

41:15

getting ready for the uncertainty of

41:17

a trial that could end in

41:19

the death penalty? Or

41:21

you're looking at spending the rest of your

41:23

life in prison for a

41:25

crime you didn't commit? I

41:28

don't know that we can ever fully

41:30

understand the psychological impact of those four

41:32

months. But Pam and Roger

41:34

hoped the court would be able to at least

41:36

come close to measuring it as

41:38

they filed a civil suit against both

41:41

the county prosecutor and the

41:43

sheriff alleging they lied to the grand jury.

41:46

In the meantime, the police were

41:48

trying to figure out if Ben

41:50

or Martin was telling the truth

41:52

about who physically committed the murder.

41:55

The one who didn't would be

41:57

offered a plea deal. they

42:00

were both going to be convicted of

42:02

murder because one, they confessed and two,

42:04

they were found with solid evidence in

42:06

their possession that backed up their confessions.

42:08

But the state was looking to put

42:10

the actual killer either on death

42:12

row or in prison for the rest of

42:15

his life. So that's why they wanted the

42:17

testimony of the one who didn't wield the

42:19

knife. From a

42:21

moral sense though, I don't think it

42:23

matters. Though Ben would say

42:25

in one statement they had ski masks, it does

42:27

not seem like that was the case. The

42:30

state believed that they used Kay recognizing Martin

42:32

as a way to get through the front

42:34

door. So if they left

42:36

Kay alive, he could have told the police

42:38

exactly who robbed him. It seems like Kay's

42:40

murder would have had to be part of

42:42

the plan if they found him at the

42:44

house that evening, which they did. I find

42:47

it strange following that logic that either of them

42:50

were offered a plea deal, but one of them

42:52

was. The investigators determined that it

42:54

was Martin Bond who had been the one

42:56

with the knife, and they had a few

42:58

reasons they believed that. One

43:00

was that Roger and Pam identified him as

43:03

the one calling the shots when they were

43:05

at the house. He seemed to be in

43:07

charge. On a

43:09

side note, it seems a little strange

43:11

because the state had spent so much

43:13

time trying to paint Roger and Pam

43:15

as liars and killers, and now they're

43:17

relying on their perceptions as key witnesses.

43:19

Anyway, another reason they believed Martin was

43:22

the killer was that the

43:24

friend who encouraged Martin's ex Rachel to

43:26

go to the police, Peter, he told

43:29

them that Martin often spoke about weapons, and

43:31

more than once Martin said that if he

43:33

had to kill someone, he would slice their

43:35

throat, which is exactly what was done in

43:38

this case. And another

43:40

reason they suspected it was Martin

43:42

was that he passed a note

43:44

to a fellow inmate during pretrial

43:46

detention that contradicted his previous statements.

43:49

This note said that he was the one

43:51

with the knife, though he claimed Ben forced

43:53

him to do it at gunpoint. So

43:56

the plea deal was offered to

43:58

Ben. Both men had been charged

44:00

with one count of aggravated murder

44:03

for killing Kay, three counts of

44:05

aggravated kidnapping for their zip-tying of

44:07

Kay, Pam, and Roger, one

44:09

count of aggravated burglary, and one count

44:11

of aggravated robbery for entering the home

44:13

and stealing the guns. Ben's

44:16

deal dropped most of those extra charges,

44:18

and he pleaded out to one count

44:20

of aggravated murder and one count of

44:22

aggravated kidnapping on June 2, 2011. The

44:26

state would recommend a sentence of

44:28

25 years to life on each

44:30

charge to run concurrently. Ben

44:33

at 23 years old would have a

44:35

decent shot at having a life after

44:37

prison. But days

44:39

before Ben's mid-July sentencing date, he

44:41

filed a letter with the court

44:44

saying that he wanted to withdraw

44:46

his plea. He said he

44:48

was pressured into taking it and that the

44:50

statement of facts that he had to write

44:52

out for the plea deal was not true

44:54

and in fact, he didn't write it. He

44:57

tried to fix this with his attorneys

44:59

by giving them an accurate statement, but

45:01

they provided the false one to the

45:03

prosecutors. His sentencing date

45:05

was continued while this was all sorted

45:07

out, and Ben was provided with a

45:09

new attorney. According to what

45:11

the new lawyer told the court, he talked

45:14

to Ben about all of his concerns. The

45:17

attorney believed that the issue was

45:19

a misunderstanding over the facts of

45:21

the law. Ben had

45:23

been talking to some other inmates, and

45:25

these jailhouse lawyers, as his attorney called

45:28

them, had misinformed him

45:30

on some legal terms, what they

45:32

meant, and the implications of these

45:34

things. Even

45:36

if they corrected everything inaccurate

45:38

in Ben's written statement for

45:40

the plea deal, what

45:43

he did confess to still fit the

45:45

definition of the charges against him. So

45:48

Ben withdrew his motion to withdraw his

45:50

plea and sentencing occurred on December 13,

45:54

He was given a sentence of 25 years to life. until

46:00

January of 2013, and prior

46:02

to that, Pam and Roger's civil

46:05

suit was dismissed. They

46:07

had filed this suit in October of 2011, and

46:10

it was already going to be an uphill

46:12

battle. Law enforcement and

46:14

prosecutors did have qualified immunity, so

46:16

it's very hard to sue them,

46:19

even in cases where they may

46:21

have lied or misled or falsified

46:23

things. We have seen very few

46:25

consequences in other cases over these

46:28

issues, which is probably why they

46:30

keep happening. But things got

46:32

even harder for Pam and Roger in

46:34

early April of 2012, when

46:37

a Supreme Court ruling came

46:40

down regarding this exact issue.

46:43

In Rayburg v. Palk, Charles Rayburg

46:45

had been indicted on a number

46:47

of charges based largely on the

46:49

grand jury testimony of an investigator

46:51

from the DA's office named James

46:53

Palk. The plaintiff claimed the

46:55

investigator lied to the grand jury in

46:57

his testimony, and that there was a

47:00

conspiracy here to have him charged. The

47:02

case went all the way up to the

47:05

Supreme Court, who ruled that those who testify

47:07

at the grand jury have

47:09

absolute immunity from civil actions,

47:11

just like those who testify

47:13

at a regular trial. The

47:16

reason they get this immunity is

47:18

because we don't want people to

47:20

worry about getting sued for something

47:22

like defamation if they participate in

47:24

the legal process. So

47:26

the hurdle Roger and Pam had

47:29

to cross went from qualified immunity

47:31

to absolute immunity. And

47:34

absolute immunity is a hurdle you cannot

47:37

clear, so this meant the court overseeing

47:39

the lawsuit had no choice but to

47:41

dismiss it. Obviously,

47:43

Roger and Pam were disappointed in

47:45

this outcome. They hadn't just

47:47

been wrongfully accused, but they were actually

47:50

victims of a kidnapping, and

47:52

then their faces were blasted on the

47:54

news as the suspected killers. They

47:56

had lost relationships with family members

47:59

and friends. friends over it. They

48:01

wanted that to be recognized and

48:03

acknowledged, but also the wrongful steps

48:05

that had led to it. The

48:08

attorney for the state said that

48:10

even if they didn't have immunity,

48:12

the allegations against the prosecutor's office

48:15

and law enforcement were untrue. They

48:18

said they had presented all of

48:20

the evidence accurately to the grand

48:22

jury over a two-day proceeding and

48:24

that they had done nothing wrong.

48:28

Roger still had one more legal battle

48:30

to resolve and that was the federal

48:32

gun charges. While those

48:34

were pending, Roger was ordered to participate

48:36

with a recently formed Veterans Treatment Court,

48:39

which runs kind of like a drug

48:41

court and it's available to those who,

48:43

like Roger, were veterans of the armed

48:45

services. He complied with the

48:48

order, sought psychiatric help, and said it actually

48:50

had been helpful to him. In

48:52

part because of his willingness to improve,

48:54

Roger then worked out a plea deal

48:57

and he was given three years of

48:59

probation even though the federal prosecutor had

49:01

recommended some prison time. The

49:03

judge told Roger that she believed he could

49:06

make it, but that didn't mean she wouldn't

49:08

be watching him very closely. So

49:10

with all of that wrapped up, that

49:12

gets us to Martin Bond's trial. With

49:15

a capital murder charge in Utah,

49:17

Martin was facing the death penalty,

49:20

life without parole, or life with

49:22

parole. That is quite the

49:24

range of sentences and Martin entered a

49:26

sentencing deal ahead of trial. Should

49:29

Martin be convicted, the state would

49:31

not ask for the death penalty

49:33

if Martin conceded to life without

49:36

parole. I can't

49:38

remember another case I've covered where there

49:40

was a sentencing deal without there also

49:42

being a plea deal, so I'm wondering

49:44

how common this is. Usually

49:47

if the state drops the death penalty, they

49:49

do it in exchange for a guilty plea,

49:51

or they do it just because they don't

49:53

know that they can prove the aggravating circumstances.

49:56

But this was just a sentencing deal, which

49:58

I thought was interesting. the

50:00

state must not have wanted to take the

50:02

chance that Martin would get parole, and Martin

50:04

certainly didn't want to take the chance that

50:06

he would get the death penalty. At

50:09

trial, Martin's defense wasn't that he wasn't

50:11

involved at all, but rather he wasn't

50:13

the one who killed Kay. So

50:16

while having the state arrest the wrong

50:18

people the first time around normally will

50:20

give the defense a leg up, it

50:22

didn't really do that in this case

50:25

because they weren't presenting Roger and Pam

50:27

as alternative suspects. They were accepting

50:29

that they were also victims. But

50:31

the state still addressed this in their opening, saying

50:34

that they did get it wrong, but now it

50:36

was time to focus on how they got it

50:38

right with Martin Bond. The

50:40

defense argued that they were still getting it

50:42

wrong. Martin had been in the Air Force,

50:44

he was at the time a college student

50:47

with a young son, he was just a

50:49

regular guy who had, the weekend before the

50:51

murder, just been hanging out with a

50:53

friend playing video games. And

50:55

he just so happened to mention a guy

50:57

who owned a large gun collection. It

51:00

was Ben on hearing that who hatched

51:02

the plan to rob Kay. Martin

51:04

agreed, but only if no one was home

51:06

when they got there, but Kay was home.

51:08

So Martin wanted to just act like he

51:10

was stopping in to say hi while he

51:12

was in the area and then leave. But

51:14

things got out of hand and the rest

51:16

of the crime was committed at Ben's insistence.

51:20

Martin's ex-wife Rachel testified against him, but

51:22

he had told her he wasn't the

51:24

one who killed Kay. Ben was. So

51:27

the state, as expected, called Ben Redding

51:29

to the stand to refute that version

51:31

of events. But it didn't go

51:34

the way they had hoped. At

51:36

first, Ben answered the questions like how he

51:38

knew Martin and how they made plans to

51:41

meet up on the day of the murder.

51:43

But then he was asked what happened next

51:45

and Ben refused to testify. He

51:48

invoked his Fifth Amendment right

51:50

against self-incrimination. And

51:52

the judge told Ben it was part of

51:54

his plea deal that he would testify and

51:56

he had already waived his right against self-incrimination

51:58

when he made that deal. He

52:01

was ordered to testify, but he still refused. Ben

52:04

was already going to be in prison for the next 25

52:06

years, at least, so it's

52:08

not like they could threaten him with jail for

52:10

contempt. There was very little

52:12

to hold over him to incentivize him to testify,

52:15

so he was dismissed from the stand. The

52:19

next day, the state wanted to call Ben to

52:21

the stand again. This time, they said

52:23

they were going to grant him immunity if

52:26

his testimony implicated him in any

52:28

additional crimes other than

52:30

what he already pleaded guilty to. But

52:32

his attorney said he was still going

52:34

to take the fifth because the state

52:36

could not give him immunity over federal

52:38

charges, and apparently, he was worried

52:41

about some type of federal gun charge. The

52:44

state called Ben to the stand anyway

52:46

with the court's permission. With the jury

52:48

outside of the room, they asked Ben

52:51

some preliminary questions. He

52:53

answered them, so thinking things were back

52:55

on track, the jury came in, and

52:57

the questioning continued. Because

53:00

Ben was a reluctant witness, the court

53:02

gave the state the right to treat

53:04

him as a hostile witness, which allowed

53:06

them to ask more leading questions than

53:08

they normally would be allowed. And

53:11

Ben answered a few of the questions until

53:14

it started getting to the

53:16

details of the crime, at which time

53:18

Ben again invoked his fifth amendment. The

53:21

prosecutor tried a few more leading

53:24

questions before he stopped. Because

53:26

the state was allowed to use these leading

53:28

questions, though, they got some of the information

53:30

in front of the jury, even though Ben

53:32

didn't answer. The questions were

53:34

like, isn't it true you told the police

53:36

X, Y, and Z, and these are things

53:38

we've already gone over. But

53:40

since Ben invoked his fifth amendment, Martin's

53:42

attorney then said he couldn't cross-examine him,

53:45

and the defense did ask for a

53:47

mistrial, but the court denied it. But

53:50

the next time we come across a case where someone is given

53:52

a plea deal, where they

53:54

plead guilty but their sentencing is

53:56

postponed until after they testify, this

53:59

r- right here, this is why. Ben

54:02

did not uphold his part of the deal

54:05

and there was very little they could do

54:07

about it. The case

54:09

then went to the jury for deliberation and

54:11

in the end, even without

54:13

Ben's testimony, they convicted Martin on

54:15

all counts. When the

54:17

sentencing hearing was held on March 5th,

54:19

2013, Martin continued to maintain that it

54:21

was Ben who killed Kay. He

54:24

said if he was the monster people thought he

54:26

was, Roger and Pam would have also been killed.

54:28

He claimed he was the one who stopped

54:31

Ben from committing more murders, saying that he

54:33

was in a bad situation and did what

54:35

he could to save two lives. Roger

54:38

Mortensen didn't buy it. It

54:41

was Martin who knew where Kay lived.

54:43

It was his familiar face that Kay

54:45

opened the door to. It was even

54:47

Martin's car they drove there. And then,

54:50

when Roger and Pam were arrested,

54:52

Martin said nothing. He

54:54

wasn't just caught up in something bigger

54:56

than him. He was a full participant.

54:59

Though Martin had made that sentencing deal,

55:01

he asked the judge to reconsider and

55:03

give him the same sentence Ben got,

55:05

25 to life. He

55:09

pointed out that it was the first

55:11

time he had been arrested and the

55:13

correction system was for rehabilitation and second

55:15

chances. But the judge said that

55:17

he was giving Martin the sentence he

55:19

had agreed to before trial, two

55:22

life sentences without the possibility

55:24

of parole. Both

55:26

Ben and Martin appealed, but their

55:28

convictions were upheld and they remain

55:31

incarcerated. As for Pam

55:33

and Roger Mortensen, Pam said she

55:35

wanted an apology from the prosecutor, which he

55:37

did give to Dateline when asked about it.

55:39

He admitted they got it wrong, though he

55:42

said it was not malicious. But

55:44

others didn't think that was enough. They

55:47

believe there needs to be more oversight

55:49

in Utah County because this wasn't the

55:51

first time the county prosecutor got it

55:53

wrong. A KSL article from May of

55:56

2017 highlighted not just

55:58

this case, but three similar

56:00

ones from the county within the last

56:02

decade. These were

56:04

cases where people were arrested and charged,

56:07

but later released either when the charges

56:09

were dropped or they were acquitted. One

56:12

was a city councilman from Provo who was charged

56:14

with 10 fraud-related felonies

56:17

that were all dismissed after

56:19

four years of legal rankling.

56:22

Another was a former beauty pageant winner

56:24

who was accused of stealing products, but

56:26

those charges were dismissed by a judge.

56:29

And then there was a man

56:32

who was convicted of murdering his

56:34

wife, but had it overturned on

56:36

appeal because someone testified incorrectly about

56:38

pretty significant evidence. And

56:40

then on retrial, he was acquitted. So

56:43

prosecutors get it wrong sometimes, but

56:46

four high-profile cases in 10 years

56:48

made some wonder if Utah County

56:50

was getting it wrong a little

56:52

too often. There were calls

56:55

for an oversight committee to then be put in

56:57

place. The county prosecutor's

56:59

office has maintained that they work in

57:01

an ethical way and that there were

57:04

already checks in place to oversee state

57:06

prosecutions, including the bar, the state

57:09

and federal courts, and the attorney

57:11

general's office. But

57:13

then in August of 2017, the Salt

57:15

Lake Tribune ran an article saying that

57:18

they were taking steps to have a

57:20

prosecutorial oversight committee, though I went on

57:22

the county's list of boards and committees

57:24

and did not see it listed in

57:26

2024. I

57:29

did see, though, that they had a county weed

57:31

control board, and I thought it was interesting that

57:33

they had that on a county level and not

57:35

state. But then I clicked on

57:37

it, and they meant weeds like poison hemlock

57:39

and thistle and other invasive species. They didn't

57:42

mean like weed weed. So

57:44

for all of you who left me reviews

57:46

because you like my show because I'm so

57:48

smart, here's some evidence to the contrary. Anyway,

57:50

I wanted to cover this case because I

57:52

find coverage of cases like this and putting

57:55

a spotlight on them is sometimes

57:57

as close as we will get to

57:59

oversight. We

58:01

have to make these types of cases public so

58:03

that we stop seeing the state like

58:05

an episode of Law and Order where

58:07

the cops mostly follow the rules and

58:09

the state only tries guilty people. This

58:12

case came very close to being

58:15

a wrongful conviction, actually two wrongful

58:17

convictions. And I could have

58:19

picked any number of other cases to illustrate

58:21

this, but I picked this one because it

58:24

made me think about something I said back

58:26

in the McKeever Jenkins episode a couple of

58:28

weeks ago. I said

58:30

that I'm someone who says you can't judge

58:32

someone's guilt based on their reaction, but one

58:34

of the suspects in that case really

58:37

sounded guilty in his interview. That's

58:40

why I wanted to play the clip of Roger talking to

58:42

the police. The tone of

58:44

his reaction absolutely did not sound like someone

58:46

who was distressed over the death of his

58:48

father to me, but he was. He

58:51

just wasn't being demonstrative. We

58:54

have to be careful not to put too

58:56

much weight in our own abilities to read

58:58

people. I do it all

59:00

the time. Sometimes I'm right, like Chris Watts

59:02

in his news interview. And

59:04

sometimes I'm wrong, and I would have absolutely been

59:07

wrong in this case. If I

59:09

saw Roger's video not knowing the outcome,

59:12

I would have thought he sounded guilty, and I imagine

59:14

a lot of people on a jury would have thought

59:16

the same. The reason

59:18

a jury didn't get the chance to

59:20

make that judgment call was only because

59:22

Rachel came forward. And

59:24

in doing so, she didn't just get

59:26

justice for K. Mortensen. She

59:29

made sure an additional injustice wasn't

59:31

being done to his son and

59:34

daughter-in-law. Sometimes justice

59:36

really comes down to one

59:38

person doing the right thing.

59:45

Thank you for listening. If you want

59:47

more content, check out my other show,

59:49

Crime Lines and Consequences, wherever you get

59:51

your podcasts. I also offer bonus content

59:53

and ad-free listening at patreon.com/crime lines or

59:55

through the Apple Podcast app. If

59:57

you want to buy me a coffee, the official

1:00:00

drink of Crime Lines is on the screen. you

1:00:02

can give a one-time donation at basement4productions.com/ support.