Crime Weekly - S1 Ep11: The Disappearance of Michaela Garecht (Part II)

Episode Date: February 12, 2021

On November 19th 1988 two nine year old girls happily rode their scooters to the Rainbow Market on Mission Blvd in Hayward California. It was a beautiful fall morning, like many others in the Bay area, it was the weekend before Thanksgiving and the two friends were excited to be spending time together, and riding away on their own for the first time without a parent in tow. The market wasn’t far, just two blocks away from their homes, and they were feeling all grown up when they coasted into the parking lot and left their scooters outside the front door before going in and purchasing two Mountain Dew’s, two sticks of beef jerky, and two cherry flavored taffys. The two girls were so preoccupied chatting with each other as they left the market, they began to walk home, completely forgetting that they had ridden their scooters there. They hadn’t gotten far before they remembered, and ran back laughing, only to find that one of the scooters was missing. These two little girls were Michaela Garecht and her best friend, Trina Rodriguez, and within moments of finding one of the scooters was gone, nine year old Michaela would be snatched away from her friend, her parents, her happy and safe life, and she would never be seen again. Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod

Dear McDonald's, your breakfast menu, fire. Tens across the board. I could be happy with anything, even though I order the same thing every time. Thanks for not judging me. I'll try something new next time. Maybe. Score a two for $5 deal on a sausage McMuffin with egg and more. Limited time only.

Price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer. Single item at regular price. Going to the gym can be discouraging, especially if you're putting in the work but barely seeing changes. But with Tonal, you can actually see your progress with every workout. Tonal provides the convenience of a full gym and the expertise of a personal trainer anytime at home with one sleek system

designed to reduce your mental load tonal is the ultimate strength training system helping you focus less on workout planning and more on getting results no more second guessing your technique tonal gives you real-time coaching cues to dial in your form and help you lift safely and effectively after a quick assessment tonal sets the optimal weight for every move and adjusts in one-pound increments as you get stronger, so you're always challenged. Tonal lets you choose from a variety of expert-led workouts, from strength to aero hit to yoga and mobility to keep you coming back for more. For a limited time, go to tonal.com to get $500 off your Tonal purchase plus a free four-year warranty. That's Tonal.com for $500

off, plus a free 4-D. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur. On this podcast, we do talk about difficult subjects. We're talking about real crimes and real people. And due to the graphic nature of some of this content, listener discretion is advised. Hey, Derek. Hey, Stephanie. How are you? I'm doing all right. How are you? I'm good. I'm a little, not frustrated, but just taking a different look at applications. And, you know, I've been letting my daughter, Tenly, use one of my older iPhones. And to be honest with you, you know, I'm a new parent still, I'm still learning and I'm feeling like maybe it was a mistake to give her her own phone. And I don't, she doesn't have like cellular

service or anything. It's strictly wifi. Um, but I, I recently let her download this app and I'm, I'm totally guilty of downloading it for her. She doesn't have the ability to do it. It's called Roblox. Oh, Roblox, Roblox. Yeah. Yeah. And there's millions of people who have downloaded this app. So it's a very famous app as you kind of, you're, you're laughing at me right now. Cause it's so, you know, people know of it and I was okay with it because I looked at it quickly. I didn't give her a thorough examination, but I looked at it quickly and I thought it was kind of like Sims. I mean, maybe I'm dating myself, but Sims is still a thing, right? Yeah. And I thought, you know, like with Sims, you have all these interactions with these other AI characters,

but they're not real people, right? Yeah. Roblox is real people, Derek. Roblox is real people. Yes. And I won't even, I know people are going to probably like get on me a little bit, like you're a detective, but you know, I didn't know. And so I'm in my kitchen and I hear, uh, Tenley using talk to text. And she says, do you want to be my friend? And I go, who are you telling me? Who are you talking to? And so I go in there. Now my, my ears are pinned back and I look at her phone and I'm like, who's this person in your, in your little house? You know? And she's like, Oh, I don't know. He's just a friend. He stopped by. I'm like, just a friend. in your little house? And she's like, oh, I don't know. He's just a friend. He stopped by.

I'm like, just a friend? He stopped by. So I went to her friends list. And she only has three friends on there. And I said, well, who are these people? Like your classmates? No, I don't know them. So Roblox got immediately deleted.

And there was nothing nefarious from what I saw going on. But I did about five minutes worth of research and I found out very quickly that this application can be used by individuals who have malicious intentions because there's really no verification process. So I'm a little bummed. I'm a little disappointed in myself, to be honest, because that's something I should I know me and I should catch that. So that's kind of been like wearing on me a little bit because, you know, you never know. You take one minute off from being a parent and something like this can happen to anyone so it's funny because Aiden my son he plays roblox and fortnite and stuff too so he's always talking to people always talking to people through his headphones that he's playing games on and it's the same thing he uses my apple id so

every time he gets like a message from a friend or something I mean he's got little friends trying to facetime me all the time and if I decline their facetime like like a message from a friend or something, I mean, he's got little friends trying to FaceTime me all the time. And if I decline their FaceTime, like if I'm on a call or something, they'll call right back. So that's obnoxious, but I actually, you know, I think as long as you watch them, it should be fine. Like if you watch them when they're in the room, but how old's Talina? She just turned eight. Yeah, it's hard. Oh my gosh. It's so hard. And listen, I, and you know, in a perfect world, I'd love to sit there while she's on the app and just watch her the whole time. But I'm guilty, just like anybody else of like, you go, you know, I'm on my laptop doing some work or research or,

you know, I'm on the phone with someone and it could be just a social call. I mean, it could be a lot of things where it's just so crazy how quickly you could take your eye off the ball for one second and it can just open up the possibilities to something bad. And unfortunately, we both know there are people out there on that application looking for their kids where their parents are not on the guard. They're looking for that. They're banking on it. And luckily, I caught it early enough, it just it just makes me think you know like we live in such a sick world and like the fact that i even have to be that much on my game all the time um is unfortunate because i you know what the worst part was tenly was like so upset because she like earned money i guess like roblox points so robux robux thank you and the game's roblox yes and she earned like she built up her home and stuff.

And I felt terrible, but my knee jerk was like, no, it's gone. And I, and I, I explained to her why that was the good thing. Like I did explain to her in a PG version of why. And I said, Tenley, this, this person may not be who you think they are. And they, they could be a bad person and they could be trying to get you to do something bad. And she's like, oh, okay. I didn't know that. I thought it was all kids. And I said, it might be, but there are bad people in here. There are bad people on here looking for kids who are alone. And she got it.

But I didn't feel bad. You didn't always introduce her to the Sims, right? Dude, it's so funny. I did. I downloaded Sims immediately after. And I was like, here, try this. But she didn't love it as much as Roblox, but I'm working on it. I'm working on it i've been like playing with her building up

her kitchens you know i didn't want to get off on a tangent tonight i know people probably want us to get into it but you know i'm venting and i'm sure there's a lot of parents out there right now who are like you know maybe can empathize with me a little bit maybe make me feel a little better because i definitely felt like you know i'm usually on my game but you know i dropped the ball a little bit on this one but i'm learning you know she's my oldest, you know, I'm usually on my game, but you know, I dropped the ball a little bit on this one, but I'm learning, you know, she's my oldest and, you know, I'm sure this won't be the last mistake I make, but I don't want to limit these, these types of mistakes for sure. Everyone check your kid's phone and tablets for Roblox.

Facts, facts, you know, listen, or, or if you're going to let them play it, only let them play it in your presence. Um, just, you know, you can do your own research on it. I'm not by no means, you know, trying to get Roblox, you know, taken off the your own research on it. I'm not by no means, you know, trying to get Roblox, you know, taken off the app store, but it's definitely something that... How can you do that? You can't even say Roblox, right? How are you going to get them taken off the app store? Well, that just goes to show you how much I'm on the ball, right? Well, before we jump into today's continuation of the Kayla Garrett case, I do want to remind

everybody, I know after today's episode of Crime Weekly, you'll have to wait another week for another episode. But when you're done listening to today's episode, you should definitely check out Unraveled Long Island Serial Killer. It's a podcast from ID and we're friends here with ID, so we like to help them out. And it features co-hosts Alexis Linkletter and Billy Jensen. And they investigate the murders from a decade ago to expose the untold story of why the case remains unsolved. So go check that out after you listen to us today and let us know what you think. Absolutely. It's a fascinating case. There's been a lot of suspects in it, including a police chief, right? So it's a really, really fascinating case in general. And hopefully it seems like a very solvable case. And that's why people are so fascinated with now. So yeah, if you after you listen to this week's episode, you want to check it out, go right ahead. And we're going to get into part two of Michaela Garrett in about two seconds.

Yeah, just listen to this episode first. Don't go and listen to their episode first. Absolutely. I concur. And today we are talking about the case of Michaela Garrett, a nine-year-old girl who was abducted on November 19th, 1988 from the Rainbow Market in Hayward, California. Now, Michaela was taken. The only person who really saw what happened was another nine-year-old, her best friend Trina Rodriguez. And Trina was able to give a description of Michaela's abductor to police. And she described this man as being in his twenties with long, dirty blonde hair. She said he had pockmarked skin. He was slender. He had these fox eyes that she would never forget. And he was wearing ackmarked skin. He was slender. He had these fox eyes that she would

never forget. He was wearing a white t-shirt. He was also driving a boxy tannish colored sedan when he forced Michaela into his vehicle and drove away. So in the last episode, part one of this case, we did go over several suspects and if you haven't heard that part yet you probably should listen to it before listening to this one or this probably won't make much sense but when we left off we discussed at some length a suspect that we called Mr. X and I know that I talked quite a bit at the end of the episode about Mr. X. And I think when we left off, Derek was kind of stunned by all that information. He was kind of processing it. But have you had some time to think about Mr. X? Yeah. And just to reaffirm, we're calling him Mr. X because

he does have a history of pursuing legal courses and we just want to avoid it. But by no means are we saying this guy is a good guy or we're trying to protect him. And I know that you had discussed the whole incident where Mr. X had visited a grave site. He allegedly conducted some type of sexual act and he had visited that grave site almost 80 times, again, allegedly, but that's not normal behavior. It's a red flag, especially for someone who has no direct connection to this individual. So by no means am I saying that this person isn't someone that has to be monitored closely for an extended period of time. But looking through the lens of could this individual be connected to Michaela Garrett? Yes, it's possible. And I believe the scent dog had picked something up as well. So yes, absolutely, it's possible. But I would go more on a limb and say this individual might be connected to the person that's actually the gravesite, the one he was enamored with, the one he was writing monitored closely. But as far as his connection to Michaela Garrett, I just, nothing stood out to me as like, yep, absolutely. This is, this could be the guy. But I think it's important that we bring it up because these are individuals that we didn't find. These are individuals that were on police's radar. So we're just relaying that information to you guys. You can discern it any way you like. So what do you think about him going to

the mothers of these girls after they went missing and offering his help and saying he wants to be the one to bring them home? Does that sound to you more like somebody who just kind of likes to insert himself into true crime cases or in your experience or from what you've heard of in criminal cases, is it common or even likely that somebody who commits these crimes will try to kind of like almost revisit the scene by forcing themselves onto the victim's parents? For me, knowing what I know about it, which let's be fair, is limited. You could tell if we were able to fast forward and we knew what had happened and the outcome was Mr. X was just some weird dude who'd like to insert himself in these cases. He had some weird fascination with it and there was really nothing else to it.

He was just a weird dude. I would say totally believable. But if we also found out that Mr. X was responsible for the death or disappearance and he was trying to insert himself to see exactly what law enforcement had, or he had like some sick gratification from seeing the hurt in the family's eyes, that wouldn't surprise me either. Personally and professionally, I haven't had too many experiences with that where the suspect inserted themselves in my case and exposed themselves to me where I could catch them or they wanted to at least challenge me or the family. But I've researched cases and read about cases where that has been the story. So both are very believable, but based on what I know about the case at this point,

I think it's a coin flip. I really do. It could be one or the other. So Amber Swartz Garcia's mother said she felt that he was trying to mess with her and her family. Would you think that something like that would be more common just from somebody who's on the outskirts of the case and he's kind of trying to like get a reaction or is this more common if somebody's actually involved with the case like what would his motive be i guess is what i'm asking if he's not involved and he had nothing to do with any of these little girls going missing what's his motive to make the families suffer more than they already have i don't want to sound like i'm defending him it's like it's one of those things where there are some people out there, and I think everyone listening

can relate to it, that you encounter in your life, and they're just weird people, and they have no social awareness whatsoever. And so there is a world where this person is completely oblivious to the pain they're inflicting by the questions they're asking and the comments they're making, because they're just, they lack that social awareness to understand that it's not appropriate to do what they're doing. However, there's also another side to that where this person could be extremely intelligent and know exactly what they're doing and how they're affecting the family and internally getting off on that. So I don't know Mr. X. I don't know what his intentions are. And I don't think really anybody does. I would never doubt the mother and her gut instinct. But I think if there was more to it,

that could be proven in a court of law, Mr. X would be in some trouble right now. But clearly that's not the case because as far as I understand, he's walking free right now. And he hasn't been charged with anything for any crime, for any individual. So overall feelings about Mr. X for me, I think he's trouble. And I don't think at the end of the day that he had anything to do with Michaela Garrett going missing. But I would certainly not rule out his possible involvement in some of these other cases. And I will leave it at that. But Stephanie, that's why I love working with you because there's a lot of individuals out there who don't just accept what they're presented with. And they ask questions and they're skeptical.

And that's ultimately what will solve these cases. People like you and I rehashing these cases over and over and reaffirming the facts as we know them and being someone who challenges what has been said and says, no, wait a second, that's not normal. And they're not just a weirdo. There might be more to it because we may be talking, could be three weeks from now, and Mr. X could be named a suspect in one of these cases. And I can tell by your expressions that you wouldn't be surprised in the least least and neither would I. So I think it's important that we do this. We should never just accept what we're being told. We should always question and be inquisitive. Yeah. I guess the way that I look at it with somebody like Mr. X, because typically I'd like

to be like, well, he could just be a socially awkward guy. But the way I look at it is, what if I am one of these parents and this creepy dude is sending my 13-year-old daughter a card on her birthday and I have no idea how he knows her. And it turns out he got her address and her name and her birth date from working at the social security office. Or what if he's sending her a letter that has to be put up into the mirror to be read like it's literally in code or sending her bible verses saying you know come be here with me you are mine weird stuff like that um what if i'm angela buguet's mother and i have to hear that he's visited my daughter's grave 80 times even if he didn't do this alleged simulated sex act, just the fact that he's visiting her grave that many times. And he told a psychologist that he fell in love with

my daughter's picture, my little five or six-year-old daughter's picture on a gravestone. Am I going to sit here and be like, well, I could just be a weird guy. No, I'm going to be livid. I'm going to be like, let me see Mr. X, get him in front of me right now and I'll find out what the hell's going on with him. So that's the way I picture it or the way I try to feel about it is I'm a mother of one of these girls. Am I going to explain away his behavior is maybe normal or maybe socially awkward or am I going to put all the pieces together and say, this is probably somebody who shouldn't be around children. And it's the latter for me. Yeah. And I think that's the right way to approach it because there's two different hats we're wearing, right? Like I'm trying to wear the hat as a father where I completely agree with you. As a parent, my children would not be allowed

around this individual. That's my personal choice. And to take it a step further as a father, I was a father of one of these girls and this individual was inserting himself the way he did or saying some of the things he did. at minimum, I would have an issue with it and I'd probably have a discussion with this person about it. We'll just leave it at that. We would definitely have a discussion, him and I. But as a police officer and as a detective, I'm trying to also give that objective, unbiased perspective for our listeners to say, hey, listen, I know how we may all feel about this hearing it from a personal level, and I feel the same way.

I'm right there with you. But from an investigatory perspective, there's not enough here to just be speculative of him and be more concerned about his whereabouts and what he's been up to. But there's definitely not enough here for any type of probable cause. Yeah. That's why you get to be the detective and I get to be the regular person who thinks there's plenty there to be skeptical of. I think, yeah, I'm sure listeners agree with you. I'm sure they're saying, absolutely, Stephanie, absolutely. And I'm saying that as well. But that's why we got to come back and bring back that balance so that people don't leave this podcast saying, oh my God, the police screwed up. Why haven't they arrested this person? Right? You know, Stephanie and Derek said there's enough. There's enough there. They should lock

them up. There isn't. Stephanie and Derek didn't say that. It's heavily inferred that this person should be locked up and just left and just counted off as a, you know, we've ruled him someone who shouldn't be on. No, no, no. I don't mean to, I don't mean to say that at all. I mean to say, I don't think he should be around children, but I mean, there's plenty of people that I think shouldn't be around children. Is he a threat to adults? I don't know. But I feel like adults can kind of handle themselves better. Like they can meet a creepy guy and be like, there's something wrong with this guy, but kids, you know, they need a little bit more protection. They don't really know yet how to,

how to just tell from somebody, uh, right off the bat, like maybe this guy is, is bad news. So I feel like, uh, no, lock him up and throw away the key. Absolutely not. Um, make sure he doesn't, you know, go anywhere near elementary schools or parks, maybe. But we can move on because our next suspect is a pretty high profile one. And he and his horrible wife found themselves kind of being suspected of being involved in what happened to Michaela. And we're talking about Philip Garrido, a man who is notorious for the horrible kidnapping of JC Dugard. You remember this case, right? I do. Yeah. Unfortunately, I remember it.

So awful. So, so disgusting. Well, since Michaela had gone missing, her parents really had clung on to the hope that she was still alive somewhere and that one day, you know, they would see her again. They would be reunited. In 2009, 20 years after Michaela's disappearance, something did happen that gave her mother Sharon hope that, you know, what she had prayed for all those years could be true, that Michaela could still be alive out there somewhere. Another young girl who was kidnapped, J.C. Dugard, was brought home after being missing for 18 years, and it just blows my mind. I can't imagine being J.C. I can't imagine being her parents. I can't imagine what kind of obstacles

they had to overcome in the aftermath of this, but I'm going to tell you a little bit about J.C.'s story. On June 10, 1991, 11-year-old J.C. Dugard was walking to her bus stop in Myers, California. She was wearing her favorite pink outfit. And she's walking and a car approached her. And she thought maybe this man who was driving would ask her for directions because it was kind of slowing down. But instead, when the car pulled up and the man rolled down the window, he had a stun gun in his hand. And this man was Philip Garrido. So obviously, J.C. is confused. She's scared. They stunned her. They pulled her in the car. She was in and out of consciousness for three hours in the car while Garrido drove and his wife, Nancy, held her down. They drove from Myers to Antioch, which is about 120 miles away from each other. So for 18 years, Philip and Nancy Garrido

held JC captive on their property. At first, they had her in a soundproof shed where JC was raped by Philip Garrido and then left alone, still handcuffed for like the entire first week. They wouldn't even unhandcuff her. She was also with them for three years before they even gave her cooked food. And it seems like the only reason that they did give her cooked food eventually was because at some point the Garridos, they told J.C. that she might be pregnant. And that's apparently why they felt it was suitable to give her actual cooked food. J.C. Dugard was 14 years old when her first daughter was born in captivity, and she was 17 years old when her first daughter was born in captivity and she was 17 years old when her second daughter was born. Both girls were fathered by Philip Garrido. On August 24th, 2009, Philip

Garrido visited the UC Berkeley campus and he was accompanied by Jacey and her two daughters. Now at this time, her oldest daughter was 14 and her youngest was 11, which was the same age that J.C. had been when she'd been stolen from her life and locked away for the pleasure of this twisted and evil couple. Now, the reason they were on campus was because Philip was kind of into this, like, I think he was trying to start his own religion or start his own cult or something. And he wanted to see if he could hold a religious event on the campus called the God's Desire Program. Now, he spoke with the woman who was in charge of special events at the college. Her name was Nancy Campbell, and she found his behavior to be both odd and erratically.

She just thought that this dude was acting really off. And Nancy also noticed how quiet and, you know, kind of submissive his three female companions were. So she kind of suspected something right off the bat. And I always love like listening to the story and hearing about the story because Nancy Campbell is just one of those people that did something and stood up and kind of said, I see something suspicious and I'm going to do something about it. And I feel like a lot of people don't. And a lot of people in this case, they didn't because there was multiple times that law enforcement and probation officers and all of that could have found JC on the Greedo property and they didn't. But Nancy Campbell thought he was suspicious. So

she was like, let me take your information, you know, come back tomorrow and we'll meet and we'll discuss this event. Yeah. Kudos to Nancy Campbell for this one. Really, really proud of her. You know, and I always reinstill it and everything that I, whenever I go and talk on, you know, public shows or anything like that, I think we had a whole segment on it, on Dr. Oz about virtual kidnapping. And it's like, what do you have to lose by going with your gut? It's, there's this intuition, this innate intuition that most human beings have where you can sense when something's off. The problem is, like you just alluded to, a lot of people choose not to act on it. They feel like they're overlooking things. They're looking too deep into things and they're going to be the ones

that are embarrassed by it. But I say to everyone listening right now, it's better to be safe than sorry. I know we've all heard that phrase. Go with your gut. If you're a rational human being and your spidey sense goes off, take the initiative to at least inquire. If the people that you're inquiring about are offended and they don't want to work with you or talk to you in the future, well, guess what? If they can't understand that you're just trying to be protective of individuals in this world and someone who may be in harm's way, then that's on them. You probably don't want to associate with them anyways. But I can tell you right now, if I, for some reason, I don't know why this would happen, but for some reason, an officer approached me and said, hey,

you know, we had someone who saw you with your daughter and something occurred where they were just off put by it. You know, who even knows what it would be? I would definitely question what it was. And if it was something reasonable just from the angle or perspective that that person may have had, I would not be upset in the least. I would actually be very appreciative that there are people out there who, even though they're not their own children, are cognizant of their surroundings and are doing their part to be a good witness and to be a good citizen and understand that there are individuals out there who have bad intentions and you could be in the witness and to be a good citizen and understand that there are individuals out there

who have bad intentions and you could be in the supermarket and see something between a grown man and a young woman or vice versa, right? That is off to you, but you're too busy picking out your can of soup to be bothered. And you may just be witnessing someone who's been in captivity, who has no way of getting help and you could have helped them. And you brought up some of the occasions where they've gone to this individual's house, Garrido's house before, and this could have been stopped a long time ago. And here's the reality. There are cases like this individual, Dugard, right now going on in our world. There's someone in captivity right now who's being held against their will, as you and I are speaking, who's hoping someone comes to help them or see something that raises a flag right now as we're speaking. And that's so sad to think of, but the positive note is

everyone listening needs to do their part because you may be the person that ultimately helps them just by speaking up. And so Nancy Campbell is an example that we should all learn to be more alike and kudos to her for doing it. My hat is off to her. Yeah. And I think sometimes people feel like, oh, I don't know enough. You know, like the, like you were kind of saying before, like, we don't want to just look at somebody and judge them. But I was a psych major in college. So I actually was kind of had to, had to become a mandated child abuse reporter because of my major. And because I was going into a field where I was going to be helping children. And I don't know about other states, but I know in New York,

they have mandated reporter training online at the Office of Children and Family Services. And it's free. And it's like this whole course and it tells you what to look for, you know, what to do, what are the warning signs. And it will help you kind of distinguish between, oh, this is just, you know, a parent disciplining their child, or this is a child that's being abused. And I think if you have those, you know, the toolkit, you know what to look for, you're empowered in the knowledge that you have from a very, you know, helpful course like this, that will make you feel more empowered to actually take action. But I've said it before, and the same thing with sex trafficking, there's a huge, huge amount of people that are

being trafficked through this country and others. And there are a lot of warning signs and a lot of red flags that you can look out for. But what is it that they always say? If you see something, say something. You can completely anonymously report this like nobody ever has to know it's you. But at least you can feel like you were proactive about it and it does save lives. Right. And as far as seeing something and saying something, that's exactly what Nancy Campbell did, right? She went to the security on campus, right? Yeah. She went to the security on campus and because they had Philip Greedo's information, I believe his name and his, I think he gave her his address. They actually looked him up and that's

when they found out that Philip Greedo was a registered sex offender who was on parole for kidnapping and rape. So officer Allie Jacobs, that was her name. She was the campus security officer. And then the next day when Philip and the three girls came back, she observed him with the girls as well. And she was like, okay, something's off here. These girls seem really pale as if they don't get outside a lot. They're very quiet. They're very meek. You know, everybody's kind of acting unusual. She had that same gut instinct. So she called the parole board and that prompted two parole officers to drive over to the Garrido's and check things out. And that's obviously when they discovered the horrible hell that had been going on there. So Philip Garrido was obviously a suspect for multiple reasons. He had kept a young girl,

he kidnapped her when she was 11. He kept her on his property with the help of his wife, which I just, I can't wrap my head around this. He raped her. He fathered two children with her. But the fact of the matter was there was a lot of similarities between JC Dugard and Michaela Garrett. They kind of looked the same. They were around the same age. It was a similar area. It was just a similar kind of snatch and grab in the middle of the day, broad daylight, you know, in a public area. There was a lot of similarities. So obviously he was going to be suspected and they actually, you know, in a public area, there was a lot of similarities. So obviously he was going to be suspected and they actually, you know, had arrested him. They put his face on TV. They showed footage of Philip Greedo being, you know, led away in handcuffs and Michaela's friend,

Trina Rodriguez, she saw this footage and she said, you know, she recognized something in Philip Greedo, especially his eyes. She said, quote, I see that same intensity, that creepy look that I don't think I'll ever forget. I want closure so badly. I would love for it to be him. End quote. Yeah. You know, you think about Michaela and her family and what they've gone through. And, you know, sometimes we can forget about Trina, who probably has as much guilt as her mother, as Michaela's mother, right? For not going with them to Rainbow Market. Because Trina, and you alluded to this earlier in our first part of this episode, where we talked

about literally the decision between Michaela and Trina came down to the selection of a scooter. And although Trina was young at the time, I'm sure that weighs heavily on her even to this day. And when she says how bad she wants closure for this case, I don't think she can probably put into words how much she really wants closure. Because even though this isn't true, there's probably a part of her that feels responsible. I'm sure the what if came over and I should have ran over and started yelling at this guy or made more noise. Or maybe if I was stronger and I could have attacked him and maybe Michaela could have ran away or something. I'm sure there's irrational thoughts that she's had. And what I mean by irrational is she was a little girl as well. There wasn't much she could do, but I'm sure in her own head, her own guilt, she's probably blaming herself a little

bit. So there's probably a part of her that wants this for Michaela and her family, but also for herself because even though she wasn't abducted, her childhood was taken away from her in that moment. And it's something she's had to live with her entire life. And although she may not have been abducted, she is a victim in this case just as much as Michaela in a lot of ways. Yeah. I think they call it survivor's guilt in a way, you know, that's, that's exactly what happened. And I think I read something from Trina where she said, after this happened with Michaela, you know, she was terrified that, that something was going to happen to her. At least She was going to be kidnapped. Of course, when you witness this firsthand, you have an idea of how possible it is and how common it is that this happens. And I think many kids go through their lives thinking, oh yeah, my mom

says this is going to happen. Or I watched a TV show where a kid got kidnapped, but it's not going to happen to me. Not to me. That's just something you see on TV or on the news. But for Trina, she didn't have that happy childhood of being able to go through life thinking not me because she was way too close to it. And she said her parents were super protective after, obviously. I mean, can you imagine being the parents of Trina Rodriguez, that happening to Michaela? And then, yeah, I feel like I would never want to let her out of my sight again. So it was just, you're living in fear and you're living with guilt and yeah, it was rough for her, but. It's a, it's a tough one. And again, there's no way to sugarcoat it, right? There's no way to put a positive spin on it. I mean, she is, she's forever changed by this. And if she happens to hear this, you know, our hearts go out to her and not that it probably

means much to her, but Trina, just so you know, there's nothing you could have done. And so if you're listening to this, just know we support you. And we're going to get into a little bit more of what you've done in this case and being a good witness. And a lot of people can't even do that. And you were so young and your ability to still do that years later, where this case is currently, is a testament to how amazing of a person you are. And trust me, I'm sure Michaela's family is very appreciative of what you've been able to do for this case and trying to bring this case to some type of resolution for the family. Yeah, we're very proud of you. Well, additionally, when we're talking about Philip Greedo, because

yeah, obviously Trina's going to look at this person on TV and she's going to say, you know, maybe I see it. And to be fair, the sketch, the composite sketch of the suspect in Michaela's kidnapping and a picture of Philip Garrido from when he was younger, they did look very, very similar. And he also had a car. They found a car at his house that very much resembled the description of the vehicle that Trina had given. It also turned out that Garrido in the late 1980s had been living just about 20 miles away from where Michaela was taken in a halfway house. So, you know, it could definitely be said that he was in the area. But unfortunately, despite the similarities between the two abductions, the Garridos swore up and down that they had nothing

to do with Michaela's disappearance. And, you know, the police did search their home and property. They found nothing to connect Philip and Nancy Garrido to Michaela Garrett. And JC was also questioned about whether or not she'd seen other girls. You know, she was there for 18 years. 18 years she was held captive by these people. And she said, no, you know, she hadn't seen any other girls. And that's also a really sad thing about this case because until she gave birth to her own daughters, JC was completely alone with these maniacs, completely alone. She didn't see another soul really, you know, and, and finally she had these children and they were products of rape. They were products of the man who kidnapped her

and raped her, but they were all she had, you know, and she loved them and she cared for them. And it's just, oh my God, it's so sad. It really is. And, and, you know, bringing it back to Michaela, the Doritos are some of the worst people on the planet. I mean, you know, you and I probably are in agreeance as far as what we think should happen to people like this. And I don't think we really need to say it. We talk about locking away the key or depending on our listeners and where you fall on a personal level, as far as the death penalty, things like that, you know, that's up for you to decide. I have no love loss for these individuals. And if for some reason they were wiped off the planet, it wouldn't affect me in the least. So it's unfortunate. And for what they did to JC Dugard

and her family, there's no, in my opinion, there's no way to make up for that. So as terrible as it is, as heinous of a situation as it is, I'm sure detectives, when they had this, that's one case solved as far as JC Dugard. And now they're trying to see if they can connect other ones to it because your job's never done. And I'm sure initially they were probably, and don't take this the wrong way, but excited because there could have been hopeful. Hopeful is a better way of saying it where, okay, guys, we got one, maybe there's others. And it's not unreasonable to think that, but I would think that in those 18 years, especially how the freedom that JC was eventually given, you know, being allowed to leave the house with him. He had completely brainwashed her at that point. If she had seen any other

females or any other males for that matter, that were there even for a short period of time, she probably would have remembered it. And there would have been some evidence of multiple children being on that premises for some period of time. And there wasn't. And I'm sure they didn't just stop there where they said, okay, JC, did you ever see any other people there? No, I didn't. Okay, well, I guess it's not possible.

They probably searched the premises. They probably dug up some different sites because there's a possibility that the Garridos kept them separately too. So I'm sure there was a lot of forensic analysis done to confirm what JC had said as far as not seeing anyone else. And ultimately they came to the conclusion that as horrible as the Garridos are, this was probably an isolated incident and JC was the victim that they started

with and ended with. Not to say that they wouldn't do it again. Oh, of course. Yeah, absolutely. But unfortunately for JC, because there's no positive spin on this, like they wanted to find a young female that they could manipulate and kind of bring into their fold. And it does appear, as you alluded to, there was some religious backing for this. There's some reasoning behind it where it's religious in nature and that's what it's related to. Sounds like the beginning of some type of cult, like you said of reminds me of nexium a little bit um the start of like a nexium but unfortunately it doesn't appear that it was connected to mckayla garrett's case but i think that philip

gorito and mr x would get along really well like they would be like tight friends right i don't want to think about these people it's unfortunate because we're covering them but we're also saying their name and i actually like that we're calling them, but we're also saying their name. And I actually liked that. We're calling them Mr. X cause you know, they don't even deserve that. Their name say said. So,

um, yeah, I guess they would be good company with each other. Right. They probably have some similarities, right? The Bible versus the creepy van, you know,

be with me where I am. And yeah, they should put them all in the same place then, you know, you just put them all in the same place and let them live out their religious fantasies with each other. That sounds like an ideal situation for me. You know, we covered a lot of suspects. Part of the reason we decided to cover this case when we did is because there has been a recent break in the case.

And there's a lot to talk about as far as the specifics of what has unfolded recently. We're going to take a quick break and we're gonna get right into it. Going to the gym can be discouraging, especially if you're putting in the work but barely seeing changes. But with Tonal, you can actually see your progress with every workout. Tonal provides the convenience of a full gym and the expertise of a personal trainer anytime at home with one sleek system designed to reduce your mental load. Tonal is the ultimate strength training system, helping you focus less on workout planning and more on getting results. No more second guessing your technique. Tonal gives you real-time coaching cues to dial in your form and help you lift safely and effectively. After a quick assessment, Tonal sets the optimal weight for every move and adjusts in one-pound increments coaching cues to dial in your form and help you lift safely and effectively. After a quick

assessment, Tonal sets the optimal weight for every move and adjusts in one-pound increments as you get stronger, so you're always challenged. Tonal lets you choose from a variety of expert-led workouts, from strength to aero hit to yoga and mobility to keep you coming back for more. For a limited time, go to tonal.com to get $500 off your tonal purchase, plus a free four-year warranty. That's tonal.com for $500 off, plus a free four-year warranty. Tonal.com. Before the break, Derek mentioned that there has recently been an update to this case, and they have charged somebody with Michaela's kidnapping and her subsequent murder, although they have not found a body yet. But I think they're just speculating at this point

that that's what happened based on the fact that it's been 30 years at this point and she's never turned back up. So I think the DA said something along those lines of, you know, we're assuming that she's no longer alive because we would have seen from her by now. Yeah, that's that's that's essentially it. And it's laid out in the court documents. They're speculating based on how long she's been gone, this individual's history, you know, where he would be able to keep her alive at this point. And it doesn't seem likely. It doesn't seem like they have no evidence to suggest her death, but it's just based on the lack of evidence that would suggest

she's alive. Yeah. I mean, because even if let's say he'd kept her in captivity, now this man has been in prison, which we'll soon come to find out. So even if she was by some chance left in captivity, she would no longer be alive. And if he'd ever released her, she would have found somebody and found her way back home and she hasn't. So sadly, it doesn't appear that Michaela Garrett is alive any longer. No. In December of 2020, District Attorney Nancy O'Malley announced that an arrest had been made in the case. And the man charged with Michaela's kidnapping and murder is 59-year-old David Meech. David

Meech has been in prison since 1989. So, Michaela was kidnapped in 1988. David Meech has been in prison since 1989, and he was in prison after being convicted of a double murder. Now, apparently, the way I was reading it when this news first broke is there was a palm print, a palm print that was found on Michaela's scooter, the one that had lured her over to her abductor's car. And that print that was found on the scooter was matched to David Meech. And there's apparently other eyewitnesses that have placed him in the parking lot of the Rainbow Market on the day that Michaela was taken. So I actually did my video on this last year. And like I said, it was being reported that it was a palm print on the scooter. But then I was talking to you a few days ago and you said

you'd read some documentation that said it was a fingerprint that was found, not a palm print. Is that right? That is correct. Multiple fingerprints. And that's very significant because if there's multiple fingerprints, not only are you getting the points from one print, you're getting it from multiple fingers and those fingers would have to match the other fingerprints as well. So if you have one individual print, some experts require at least 12 points to make an identification, but some experts for them to say it's a match require up to 20 points. And not to make this like a science lesson, but those points would be the pattern. It could be like a whirl, an arch, or a loop.

And then the points themselves, if you look at your fingerprint, or if you just look up a fingerprint, you'll see that we all have like these little ridges, right? Or like they almost look like trails. and no two fingerprints are the same. And we'll have little breaks in those ridges. And these fingerprint experts will look at those breaks, identify them, and then try to match them to whatever suspect fingerprint they have. And in order for them to consider it a match, they have to have a certain amount of points. So that would be one fingerprint compared to one fingerprint. However, if they have multiple fingerprints, let's say they get the 12 points on one, but then they move on to that suspect second print and it's not even close to a match.

Well, you might not have enough there, but based on the one I'm reading, it sounds like all fingerprints that were lifted from that scooter came back with points that matched David Meech, which makes the evidence even that much more promising as far as getting a conviction down the road. Yeah. Yeah. Because when I read it and it said palm print, I was like, oh, this is a little tough because, you know, how clear can this palm print be? And maybe maybe they did have a palm print as well as fingerprints. Could that be possible? Because why would they be reporting it as a palm print so many times? I don't know if there was a palm print. I will say this. I'm looking at the press release from the Almeda County District Attorney's

Office, Nancy E. O'Malley, who is the district attorney. And I'll just read exactly what it says here. Hayward Police Department never stopped looking for the man who kidnapped and killed Michaela. Around the 30th anniversary of Michaela's kidnapping, they once again scrutinized all evidence, leads, and potential witnesses. Their current fingerprint examiner was provided names of persons of interest. Misha's name was amongst one of the names provided to her. I'm going to stop right there for a second. That's important because what they're saying is they didn't just give her David Miesch's prints and say, hey, does this guy match? They gave her multiple sets of fingerprints to say, hey, listen, there might be a match in here. There might not. We're not pointing at any person specifically. Just tell us if there's a match.

Then she began comparing the fingerprints of the names given to her. And she was able to match Misha's fingerprints, again, plural fingerprints to those on the scooter. Their ability now to compare prints has been significantly advanced through software technology and science. So what they're saying is now 30 years later, their ability to make those matches and discern yes or no is a lot stronger. So yeah, it looks like it was fingerprints. They don't mention palm prints, not saying that they didn't have palm prints, but it seems to me the way it reads that more specifically, it was fingerprints that were around the handlebars in some way, shape, or form.

And this fingerprint examiner was able to make a positive match to those fingerprints. That's insane. But it's always going to be done by the human eye. There's no machine that you can pop these prints into and compare, or is there? There is computer software and stuff. I watched your video and you had said something about like, oh, they use the human eye, but as a detective, that's how we're trained to do it. When we're in a BCI school, which is like a detective, basic crime scene investigation school, we're trained to identify and match latent fingerprints with a magnifying glass, looking at it with our eye. We'll have the two sets of prints. We can enlarge those prints to an eight by 11 piece of paper. And then it's in order to pass that section of the class, you have to be able to identify the matches

to those prints that you're given as part of your exam or whatever. And it's done just basically with, like I said, a magnifying glass and a piece of paper with the prints on it. And that's just with the human eye and that's how we're trained. But yes, there is computer software out there where you can enter a latent print that's not matched to anyone yet, and then have the computer make a comparative analysis to possible suspects, right? You could upload them into a database and see if there's a possible hit. And so it seems like it was a combination of those things where they probably used the science and technology of the computers, and it probably came back with a hit. And then I wouldn't doubt it if that fingerprint examiner said, okay, this David Meech, let me take a look

at this with my own eyes and sat there and actually said, yep, there's one, there's two, there's three, there's 20. Okay, that's one fingerprint. That's promising. Let me do another fingerprint. Oh, that matches too. And for them to make an arrest based on just this and obviously some witness testimony, my guess is going to be these prints are going to be overwhelmingly convincing that, yeah, there's no doubt they belong to David Meech. His fingerprints are on the scooter. He has no excuse to have them there.

So let him try to explain, put the burden on him to explain how his prints were on that scooter during that time. And I'll even, I want to go on and give some kudos as well, because we're quick to call out bad police work. This is incredible police work, considering in 1988, I can tell you firsthand, based on some of the older cases I've worked, they were not processing crime scenes like they are today, because the technology was not there to really do this type of work. So for these officers, these detectives to not only dust, tape, but lift these prints and lift them in a way where they didn't damage the ridges of said print and then store them in a way where they're still usable today, bravo, hats off to them. They didn't realize it at the time,

but those prints could ultimately be the reason this case is solved, all from just taking the extra minute to dust that scooter. So kudos to them. I guess my question initially when I recorded the video was, he's been in prison since 1989, and we'll get to why. I'm going to talk about his background and basically his life of crime that started from the time he was, you know, 16 years old. But what about, I guess, what about 2020 made them say, let's check out David Mish who's been in prison since 89? Well, I believe there was something where, and again, you might get into this, I believe you do in your video where he was actually, another police department called up Hayward police and said, hey, we think

you should look at this person and compare it because it has some similar traits to it. Wasn't that part of it? Or am I confusing cases? Yeah, there was something like that. It was another law enforcement agency called up the law enforcement agency responsible for Makayla's case, and they were like, we think you should check this guy. I just guess I never understood why after so long. Well, there's a whole other system that we haven't talked about yet. It's called APHIS. Have you ever heard of APHIS? Yes. Okay. So it's the automated fingerprint identification system. And so any prisoner who's processed or even someone who's arrested out of a local police department, their prints are taken, entered into a computer system, and then uploaded to APHIS. So if there's a hit anywhere in the country and those prints that are taken match a set of prints that are unidentified in the APHIS system, it'll come back with a hit.

Exactly. So why from 1989 when he would have been booked and fingerprinted, did it take until 2020 for that hit to happen? I guess is the question. Yeah. And it's a great, great question. And I don't want to speculate and I just gave them kudos. But I wonder if the unidentified prints from the scooter were entered into APHIS because

I don't know off the top of my head when APHIS became like a real prominent tool. Cause back in 88, you were taking inked prints, right? You were taking ink, you were rolling the fingers out with ink and then putting them on a card, old school style. And when I became a cop, it's a little piece of glass and you roll the finger on the glass and that's it. It's automatically uploaded without like just clicking an extra button. So I don't want to say this is what happened because if they didn't do it, I don't want to knock them. But is it possible that these inked prints, these latent prints were in an evidence locker at some point? And maybe if we read between the lines, what O'Malley is saying here is after so many years, they decided to re-scrutinize the case, aka go back and pull those prints out

and upload them. That's possible. Again, I'm reading between the lines here, but it seems like they went back and rehashed the case. And maybe at that point, when they went through the file, they saw these prints that were lifted from the scooter and decided to enter them into APHIS. That's possible. They don't go into much detail on it. So we're going to find out though. We're definitely going to find out as this case unfolds in trial. Yeah. That was where I kind of was stuck because it's not as if this guy's been out there and then he just got picked up in 2020 and they were like, oh snap, your fingerprints match this cold case from 1988. Yeah. You would have got that hit right away. So I think to your point,

I think it's reasonable to assume there was a breakdown in the process on one end. And that's not the case. I'm sure I'll be corrected and I will apologize, but it is possible that these sets of prints were processed correctly at the time, but then not entered into APHIS when APHIS became a possibility for them to do so. It's possible. And I'm not asking these questions as a gotcha. You know, I'm not like somebody screwed up, gotcha police. It's not that at all. I'm asking these questions because we have databases and we have a process for taking evidence in, for putting it into these databases to help match things. And if that's not happening, or if there's steps being

skipped, you know, what can we do to make sure that it doesn't happen? Because technically, this guy should have been, you know, arrested or charged with this crime in 1989, the second that he that he set foot in prison for like the umpteenth time. So it looks like APHIS because I looked it up when you were- 1980? It says it started in 1920. That's when they started keeping, you know, that's when they started keeping records.

And then they would, when APHIS became a thing was in the 80s. I think it was 82. Is that what you said? That's it. 1980s is when APHIS started. So really new technology. And it's a process of, you know,

rolling them out, putting them on a card. And again, it wouldn't even be rolling them out because they just pulled these prints. So it was like one or two prints and maybe they didn't enter them or maybe the computer, just because the software was so new, wasn't able to make a positive match

because obviously AFIS today is way better than it was in 1988. So is it the fact that the prints that were lifted weren't good enough for the computer to make that recognition because the AI part of it, the artificial intelligence of the AFIS system wasn't good enough yet? There's so many variables. There's so many variables and I'm glad it's coming to fruition now. But yeah, to your point, because you're not knocking them, but you're asking the questions that our listeners have, which is important. So I think a lot of people are listening to this going, oh my God, this guy could have been caught years ago. They had these prints since day one. What

are we talking about here? Why is it taking this long? We're throwing out some possibilities as to why. We're not saying we endorse them or we agree with them, but police are not perfect. We make mistakes all the time. I can't tell you personally how many times I've made a minor misstep in a case, and I was just fortunate enough where it didn't hurt me either in the investigation part or at trial where someone was able to get off because of a mistake that I made on a technicality. But they happen all the time. We aren't robots. And every crime scene we come into is already contaminated. So we're human beings. We're going to make mistakes. It's important to just minimize those mistakes so they don't end up jeopardizing the overall case. So yeah, there could have been some mistakes made in this one. But this is a better result than some of the stories I've heard because in some situations, they get a good print, they don't store it correctly, and then they go to pull it out 20 years later and it's not even identifiable anymore. Yeah.

So, you know, again, I'm going to stick with the kudos for now. We have enough, you know, stuff going on in the world, but, you know, this one seems to be like the police did something right here. So I want to give them their credit and hopefully it turns out that it's as strong of an identification as they're portraying it to be. Well, we're also going to find out though that this wasn't the first time when he was arrested in 1989. It's not the first time David Meech was actually fingerprinted and put in the system. So that kind of bugs me, too.

And I know I'm not trying to harp on it, but she was snatched. They pulled this print, fingerprints, palm print, what have you, off the scooter. And this man's fingerprints were already in the system the moment they pulled those prints off the scooter. And that's what bothers me a little bit. But let's talk about where David Meech was when he was 16 years old, because at first I couldn't find out a lot about his background. It just gave very vague details about he's a past criminal, he's been in trouble before. But I happened to find an article by a woman named Nick Wojcik. And she titled this article, David Meech, the system failed to protect Michaela Garrett from a serial killer in the making.

And yeah, I mean, I tend to agree with her. The article says that when David Meech was 16 years old, he was convicted of breaking into a neighbor's home and raping a woman at knife point who worked there as a maid. So if we do some quick math, Miesch is 59 in 2020 when he's charged with Michaela's kidnapping and murder. That puts his birth year in 1961. And this would have been 1977 when he raped a woman while holding her at knife point. So he goes to jail for this and he's paroled in 1978. So about a year in prison for doing that, which seems kind of ridiculous. But I think that the 70s and 80s were also a big time with prison

overcrowding, especially in California. But I don't know, you might be able to speak better on that than I could. Yeah, I don't. I can't speak to it. You know, I wasn't even born yet. I mean, yeah, no, I can't speak to it. But I'm sure there was a lot of issues. Again, I said, I can't say it enough. We're not perfect. And there's a lot of mistakes made on a daily basis that would probably frustrate the hell out of you and many other people, including myself. But yeah, I can't speak to it. I wouldn't know. I'd have to go back and look. Yeah, I think I think it definitely, you know, California is a big state. They they have had, I think, a problem with prison overcrowding for for many, many decades. And they definitely do now. Yeah. And this does tend to lead to,

you know, people who have nonviolent crimes being let out, which I completely agree with. I mean, if you're in jail for, you know, smoking a joint, then you should probably not serve, you know, seven years and you should be the first one let out. But when you are holding somebody at knife point and raping them, I feel like a year is just not enough. But he wasn't done after that. I mean, why would he be, right? There's no consequences for what he does. So why would he stop? In February of 1979, he was arrested again in February for false imprisonment and assault with a deadly weapon. Later, the charge of assault to commit rape were also added to that case. Once again, he went to prison. And once again,

he was paroled in September of 1981. So just a couple of years there. In July of 1982, he was convicted of assault after holding a woman at knife point and beating her. Once again, he went to prison. Once again, he was released in January of 1984, not even two years later. So the year that he was released, 1984, in September, he was charged with indecent exposure. And a year later, in August of 1985, he was charged with indecent exposure again after driving naked through Oakland. And I remember something you said in episode one or part one of this case, which was usually this grabbing a child, snatching a child isn't your first offense. You've done things before that that would escalate into abducting a child. So looking at Dave and Mish, this is exactly the type of behavior you were talking

about, I assume. You kind of start off with these violent crimes um what do they call it lewd and lascivious behavior um indecent exposure stuff like that these these uh smaller sorts of infractions that kind of lead up to you know abducting a child yeah there's an escalation and and i also think you know you're kind of alluding to it there you know there really, there hasn't been a serious repercussion for it. He's doing a couple of stints in prison, getting out fairly quickly and probably in his mind, getting away with it. Because again, you're talking about the things he was caught for really makes you wonder what he hasn't been caught for. I'm not even talking about Michaela Garrett. I'm just talking about in general, like as a child and you know, these are the things that he was caught red handed. I I'm really concerned about what other cold cases are out there that he's the guy who did it and

they haven't connected him yet. That's a scary thought. Yeah. Because he's getting picked up year after year. It's like as soon as he gets let out within a couple of months, he's getting picked up again. So I find it hard to believe that he gets out of prison and the first time he does something wrong, he's back in. Yeah, he's a really stupid criminal. Yeah, it could be. It could be. Well, in February of 1986, he killed his first known victims. And these were two young women, 18-year-old Michelle Xavier and her friend, 20-year-old Jennifer Dewey. Now, these two women were, they'd been friends for years. And on February 2nd, they were going to a birthday dinner at a restaurant in Fremont, California. And on their way home, they decided to stop at

a convenience store. Shortly after midnight, their bodies were found naked and thrown on the side of the road. They had both been shot and stabbed. And this case went cold for over 30 years as well. 32 years, no one knew what happened to these young women. But in 2018, thanks to DNA technology, David Meech was identified as their killer. I believe that he says he didn't do this. This was the two murders that were committed that he claims and his lawyer claims still to this day that he didn't commit. Now, at around the same time that these two women died, Miesch was also being considered for a court drug diversion program due to more than one drug-related and burglary incident. So I think that's another factor to consider here, that there was some substance

abuse going on that would possibly lower his inhibitions. And I think we also did talk about that in part one of this as well. Yeah. You usually find a correlation between substance abuse and individuals like this. They use these chemicals to try to balance themselves out, right? They can't do it on their own. So they'll turn to alcohol or drugs to kind of suppress the thoughts that they're having. Because listen, just putting it out there, these people are the worst people on the planet, but there may be some underlining mental issues there, some mental disorders that are not their fault, and they're not getting the help they need. And therefore, they turn to drugs and alcohol to try

to self-medicate. And in reality, what they're really doing is just making the problem worse. But it is something very common that we see. And I agree with you there. And I mean, I'm not of the mindset that everybody can be rehabilitated. I'm not the person who's going to say every, you know, pedophile, kidnapper, murderer has a chance of starting fresh and not offending again, because I don't believe that. But I do believe that the prison system in general is not super conducive for rehabilitation. It's more of a punishment, which I mean, of course, it should be punishment, but there should also be more programs and more help in place for these people while

they're inside to teach them, you know, what happens when you get out. We're going to help you find a job. We're going to help you get back into society. We're not just going to toss you out with, you know, an empty wallet and expect you to become a functioning member of society. Because even for offenders that aren't violent offenders, even for offenders that did just make a mistake and ended up in prison, they're going to have a very hard time adjusting back into society after being in prison and having that on their record. Now they're going to have a hard time finding a job. They're going to have a hard time finding a place to stay. And they might turn back to crime because there are no other options. And this is a big issue with our system that I think needs to be addressed. Couldn't agree more. And I'm trying to keep in

perspective that you said it best, prisons aren't really designed for rehabilitation. And also consider the fact that this is happening around 1986, 1988. So the understanding of mental disorders and how they affect individuals back then was even worse than it is now. And we've come a long way, but we're still improving every day. We're still learning the effects that mental disorders can have on a criminal mind and how it affects their cognitive decision-making. So that's a whole different story for a different day. And the sad thing is this isn't where our story ends for David Meech. There's still more to go as far as his criminal history. And we're going to take a quick break and we're going to continue with that because there's still more to go. Like Derek was saying before the break, David Meech was not done.

So he killed these two young women, or allegedly he killed them because he says that he didn't. But he killed them allegedly, and then he didn't get caught at that time. So he continued on. And in May of 1988, Meech was arrested for burglary at a San Leonardo market, and he was sentenced to one year in prison and one year probation. But he didn't serve the whole one year. He was barely in there for six months before he was released in November. of 1988, the very same month that Michaela Garrett would be abducted from the Rainbow Market parking lot. Within days of abducting Michaela, David Meech was once again in police custody and he was arrested on possession charges. But once again, he would be released on parole on November 17th, 1989. So, you know, roughly a year later. And the month after he got released, he killed another woman, a woman named Margaret Ball. So apparently Margaret Ball and David Meech had been friends

for years, but she was found stabbed to death by her stepdaughter in her home near Hayward. And before she had been killed, Margaret had been beaten violently. So violently, in fact, that her front tooth was found six inches away from her body in a pool of blood. Yeah. And what we're seeing here is a pattern, right? We're establishing a pattern that, you know, kind of going back to that article you were referring to earlier, you know, Dave Meeches, he's a killer and you could call him a serial killer for sure. And, you know, he's someone who, in my opinion, slipped through the cracks. You know, I know that some of these crimes he was carrying out were talking about them in chronological order and he wasn't connected to them at those specific

times. So, you know, he was going in and out of the prison system with them, not knowing he was responsible for some of these crimes that we're laying out because we're laying them out in an order in which they happened to give you the full picture, but it's not necessarily when he was connected to him. But yeah, this guy's a bad guy. And I'm sure all of this was considered and dissected by the detectives in Michaela Garrett's case because they had to establish a timeline that would work, right? And so this guy's in and out of prison. They determined, was he in prison at the time of her you know capture a time for kidnapping and also they determined was he geographically in the area at the time of her disappearance and i'm sure all those came back

in the in the manner they would need them to come back to have him be a possible suspect take that in conjunction with the fingerprints and you got yourself a pretty good case. Yeah. And I mean, the fact of the matter is he hadn't been connected to the first two young women that he killed, or at least the first two young women that he killed that we know of. He hadn't been connected to them by the time he was arrested for the murder of his friend, Margaret Ball. I mean, with friends like David Meech, who needs enemies, right? Like if this is what he does to his friend that he's known and been friends with for years, I can't imagine what sort of darkness lurks beneath this guy. But by the time he was arrested

for Margaret Ball's murder, the DNA from under the fingernails of his 1986 victims, that pointed law enforcement in his direction. So he'd already been charged and sentenced for Margaret's murder and he was already behind bars by the time the police officers that were taking care of that double murder kind of figured out that he was responsible for that as well. And it's now assumed that Michaela, like his other victims, is no longer alive. Yeah, no. And again, so now we're kind of caught up to the criminal past of David Meech. And as I alluded to earlier, he was committing these crimes, but it took a while for science and technology to finally catch up to him.

And unfortunately, because of that, he was able to kill an additional person, which is unfortunate, but that's the reality of what happened, right? So we were affirmed at this point that David Meech is a cold-blooded killer and also has a past that would allow him or afford him the opportunity to be responsible for Michaela's disappearance and presumed death as well. So it's all lining up, right? You have this individual with a criminal past, a profile, if you will, that fits the profile of an individual who would be capable of doing something like this. The only thing I would say is, these were all older women and Michaela was obviously a young child, but a lot of these offenders look for victims of opportunity.

And these women were in positions where he could take advantage of the situation and get away with it at the time. And nothing against Michaela or her family. It's not as often to see a child being allowed to go to the store by themselves. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. It happens all the time. But if it just so happened that David was at that Rainbow Market that day at that time and saw these two little girls, he might not have been planning on doing this in that moment, but he saw a victim of opportunity and decided that his urges, his internal urges were there and he had to act on it. And that's what he did according to police. So it's interesting because I know the next thing we're going to talk probably the probable cause document, right? Yeah. And I was, I was thinking, you know, they rode their scooters to the market. So he could have even been just driving by on the street, saw them riding their scooters alone and said, well, let's see where they're going, you know? And on the way, you know, as he's following them, he's building up this anticipation,

you know, like what's happening? Are they meeting somebody? Are they alone? Like, should I grab them now? You know, cause this is a sick person and it almost feels like he might've enjoyed that kind of chase, you know, that kind of like excitement of what's going to happen and what's the best time to take them. Like the double murder, those, the two friends, I believe they were 18 and 20, they were by themselves. Like you said, they were going to a restaurant. They decided to stop at a convenience store. They were seen on convenience store surveillance camera. They were seen by people who were at the store. And then all of a sudden they're found dead on the side of the road. He could have done the same thing. He could have seen them walking. He could have just followed them to see where they went. And this is somebody,

I think that the difference, I think there was a difference between what happened with Michaela and what happened with the two young women who were killed in 1986 and what happened with his friend Margaret. For some reason, I feel like what happened with Margaret may have been fueled by anger. You know what I mean? Like something personal, whereas I think that the- Well, he's a killer. Yeah. Right? Like where you and I, a reasonable response for us, if we get an argument, would be to yell at the person or maybe throw something. Who knows, right? Whatever our natural

response would be. His natural response is, if you piss me off enough, I'll kill you. And that's what he did in that situation. And you've already done it three times and gotten away with it, right? Exactly. It's not, it would be the equivalent of, like I said, you or I yelling. That for him is a normal way of dealing with your problems. And I've always kind of been, I don't want to say interested because it sounds weird, but yeah, sort of interested in the mind of somebody like this who has successfully taken three lives, hasn't gotten caught for it. Is he feeling like, oh, I'm looking over my shoulder at any minute, somebody's going to come and arrest me? Or is he feeling invincible? Is he feeling powerful? Is he feeling like nothing can touch me, nothing can

stop me? That's what I'd be curious to find out what he was thinking or what he was feeling in that moment when he killed Margaret, because it almost feels like he was feeling invincible. Like I've gotten away with it. I've done it. Nothing's ever happened to me. This is how I'm going to solve my problems from now on. This is how I'm going to release my violent urges. Yeah, absolutely. And again, we don't know if we'd be talking about the case as we are right now, as far as his connection to Michaela, if it wasn't for some of these things that happened. Because I do believe I read something about this case where the investigators in one of the other cases, I believe it was the two women, where they said

there might be a connection and, hey, you guys might want to look into this man for your disappearance or murder of Michaela. And that's when they took a second look at it. So as unfortunate as it is that these women lost their life, it may actually be the reason why the Hayward police were able to identify David Meech as a possible suspect, even before they ran his fingerprints against the prints they had pulled off the scooter. Yeah. Which I'm sure holds very little comfort at the end of the day for anybody. Zero. Zero. Absolutely. But they do lay it out. I believe you have the probable cause document that kind of lays that out for us, right? Yeah. So the probable cause document says that David Meech refused to speak to detectives on December 2nd and he also refused to provide a swab for DNA evidence but the affidavit says that the physical evidence shows that Mish kidnapped Michaela and then killed

her to avoid the risk of discovery. Detective Robert Purcell of the Hayward Police Department basically said in that document, you know, I believe it's reasonable to conclude that he violently abducted the victim, a nine-year-old girl who hasn't been seen in 32 years and whose remains have never been found. That Miesch murdered the victim, disposed of her remains, and has successfully kept her remains hidden from authorities. And, you know, Miesch himself, he's saying he has nothing to do with it. So this asshole isn't even going to, you know, give the authorities the location of where her body is to give her parents some sort of closure or to give her parents something to bury because he is saying through his lawyer

that he had nothing to do with this. I think- Yeah, speaking of assholes. Yeah, exactly. Ernie Costello, right? Yep. And I mean, Ernie Costello, it seems like he's been with Miesch for a while. He's been representing Miesch in some of his other murder charges. And he has a lot to say. He said that Miesch is an amazing father, an amazing brother. Hold on, where is it? What exactly was that he said about him david mish is a loving father brother and son and had nothing to do with the disappearance of mckayla garrett he wouldn't hurt or kill a child as they're accusing him of doing end quote yeah okay he yeah he wouldn't hurt or kill a child um you notice how he said that though yeah he specified child i did notice that so he might honestly believe in his defense, he might honestly believe that he might be saying to himself, you know, Hey, listen, do I think my guy's good for the murders, the double murder, you know, of the two older women? Yeah, I absolutely do. But I

don't think he killed this, this little girl. And so when he's making that statement, he's making it from a place that he honestly believes what he's saying, but he's choosing his words very wisely, right? I think you're giving Ernie a little too much credit. I think Ernie knows how horrendous it is to hurt a child. Taking any life is obviously horrible, but it's even more so when you think, is this my client's pattern? Is this his MO? He would know proof he's ever done anything to a child. Why would he start now? I think that's kind of what he's trying to say. But I guess defense lawyers have always really confused me because I just don't understand how you could do it. It would be a very tough job. And I think you have to be a certain type of person to knowingly defend a child killer. But that's just my opinion.

So I have the complaint here and it says that David Meech is being charged with felony murder of Michaela Garrett in the course of kidnapping with special circumstances. Now, in this situation, what do you suppose that the special circumstances mean or suggest? You know, it could mean a few different things, but what I have here, and I'm looking at the document, and it says special circumstance felony murder in the course of kidnapping as to defendant David Emery Meech. It is further alleged that the murder of Michaela Garrett was committed by David Emery Meech while the said defendant was or were engaged in the commission of a crime of kidnapping with the meaning of penal code section 190.2 a 17 b so special circumstance would kind of like in rhode island how it would be you know he committed he committed the murder while while carrying out a different felony and that would be

the special circumstance and the other felony would be kidnapping it's a special it's a special circumstances murder pc 190 to whatever 190.2. This is in California. It's the California law that defines special circumstances murder. First degree murder is punishable by 25 years to life in state prison. However, if you're convicted of special circumstances murder, you could be sentenced to the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole. And I believe that this is what Scott Peterson was charged with in the murders of Lacey and Connor Peterson, that there were special circumstances attached onto that. And this could be because of financial gain. So a murder carried out intentionally for financial gain or benefits. So like Joel Guy, it could be previous murder

convictions, which I would say in this situation is David Misha's case. Use of a bomb, preventing or escaping arrest, murder of a public safety offer, or murder of a witness. Lying in wait is also special circumstances. If you're purposely hiding from your victim, if you watched and waited for an opportunity to act, so that might also have something to do with it. Murder due to race or religion, murder during the commission of a felony, torture or poison, drive-by shooting, murder by a street gang member. So there's tons. I mean, at least in California, there's tons of situations that would entail special circumstances. Yeah. And it sounds like, as you're alluding to, the two special circumstances would be

a felony murder in the course of the kidnapping and also a murder with prior with a prior murder conviction. So those, those appear to be his, and I guess they're clearly, like you said, they're more, they're even more significant and there's a higher, there's a higher sentencing because of these special circumstances. So that's why they're really trying to nail him to the wall, which they should. Oh, a hundred If he's guilty of this, and even if he's not, based on his past convictions, absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Now, I want to talk about the palm prints, specifically because Ernie Castillo, David Misha's lawyer, he's got a problem with the palm print being the prosecution's main

evidence, I guess. I think he called it junk science. Yeah, it's interesting that he referred to a science that's been used for a long time and resulted in many, many convictions that have still upheld over the time. I actually don't know if there's many cases where fingerprints have been overturned if they were properly processed and identified. You know, it's pretty concrete and acceptable science at this point that no two fingerprints are alike. And so it's a pretty compelling evidence. It's not as good as DNA, but it's pretty damn good.

And again, we're talking he's I don't know if he's talking about the palm print or if he's referring to the fingerprints, but again, I haven't seen any mention of a palm print in the legal documents or the press release. So I'm still going on the notion that we're talking about a fingerprint here. You can make an identification from a palm print, mind you. It's completely possible because it's essentially the same thing as a fingerprint. Because again, the ridges on each individual hand, no two hands are the same. But it does sound to me, based on how the press release was written, that we're talking about fingerprints, which is really, really good stuff, as far as from an evidentiary point of view. Yeah. So Ernie Castillo told the New York Times or the New York Times reported that Ernie Castillo said in a statement that Mr. Meech denies the allegations

against him, will fight these charges. No one in his family believes David would hurt or kill a child. And the defense team is going to seek to root out any junk science used in the case, expose bias on the part of the police departments and get to the bottom of what happened. Yeah. No, listen, more power to him. Everybody deserves to be properly defended in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. So I'm not going to get into the reasonings behind Mr. Castillo pursuing this case and deciding to defend him. But at the end of the day, everyone has a right to an attorney. But I wanted to discuss something while we're on the topic of Prince, because it's something that I've recently learned about that could not only be beneficial in this case, but I'm giving a general overview of it.

What's interesting about mass spectrometry is in a lot of cases, you'll get a fingerprint. And that fingerprint will not be just like a perfect fingerprint that you can make an identification. In some cases, it's a smudge or it's a partial print. And I spoke about earlier, needing enough points to make that identification. Well, in many situations, there's not enough points. So in the past, it's kind of a dead end at that point. Well, with mass spectrometry, what they're able to do is use a chemical breakdown of that fingerprint, the oils in that fingerprint to analyze and actually identify specific traits to the owner of said fingerprint. So for an example, you get a partial print, you're not able to make a match, but you're able to extract the oils and have it examined by a lab using the mass spectrometry analysis. And some of the things that they can determine are things like what type of cologne or perfume the suspect was wearing,

what type of lotion they use on their skin. They can even determine things like what type of cologne or perfume the suspect was wearing, what type of lotion they use on their skin. They can even determine things like what they recently ate. So again, is this the smoking gun in any of these cases? Probably not. But hypothetically, if they're able to use mass spectrometry in this case, in addition to the fingerprint match, if you can determine that during that time you had receipts of David Meech using XB cologne, and you do a mass spectrometry analysis on this fingerprint and determine that it had chemical traits of XB cologne, from a jury perspective, that just gives even more credence to the idea that he is the guy and that those are his fingerprints on that scooter. Because what would be the chance that not only

would the prints match, but then through this new science, you extract the cologne that was specific to what he was wearing during that time, right? Because we don't know what they have for evidence or what they seized from David Meech's house that may suggest what type of cologne or lotion he was using, if any. And that's on a micro level, like talking about Michaela. But I think about the significance of this technology. It's still very new. But I think about all the cases that you and I have both researched or worked on where there's a partial print and it goes out to the public or, hey, listen, we have a print, but it was only a partial. There was nothing we can do with it.

Well, now with this type of technology, if proven to be accurate, it's something that can be used in all those cases. So not only is it a hope for the detectives, it's hope for the family and the victims. Because we may not know publicly, but the family members in some of these cases may know there was a partial and they just couldn't do nothing with it at the time. And now with this new technology, it's really promising. And I'm really excited to see where it goes because this could be a technology that in years from now is almost as common as the fingerprint identification itself. How does that work out in a court of law though? It's a great question. I just discussed it with two lawyers. There always has to be a start, right? So I think initially it would be highly scrutinized and holes would be poked in it in a court of law. But the more tests and experiments that are done to prove its efficacy and its accuracy,

the more... Because think about it. Fingerprints at one point were a new science and you didn't know how good it was. And as time has progressed and it's proven its level of accuracy, it's now acceptable in a court of law. So to answer your question, I think initially it may be something that's highly scrutinized, but over time, mass spectrometry may become something as common as the fingerprint and DNA. And again, mass spectrometry isn't specific enough to probably be ever as good as DNA, but I could see it being used as a contributor, right? Like, hey guys, we got this print. We believe it's an identity. It's only 12 points, but we believe it's a match. And then the defense attorney would stand up and go, yeah, but it's only 12 points.

Now you need 20. This isn't enough. And then the prosecutors could say, yeah, we hear where you're coming from. But also, by the way, jury members, we sent it off for mass spectrometry analysis. And in addition to those 12 points, we were able to discern that in the chemical breakdown of this print, there was B, C, D, and A. And by the way, B, C, D, and A match the individual who we also believe matches the print, right? Put a little nail in that coffin. And that's where I can see it being really advantageous. Or one more side to it, let's say they don't have a match, but the detectives have a short list of suspects that they believe were involved. Well, and again, I'm only giving you three examples of what they can extract from this chemical breakdown. But what if they have a list of individuals and they know certain things that they were wearing or using or eating at the time, and they can use the data from this mass spectrometry analysis to narrow that list down even further, or to maybe use it to bring someone in and question them about it.

Just so many possibilities. It's very early. As you can tell, I'm a little excited about it. I love new science and technology like this and what it could do to help us solve more cases. So I'm excited to see where it goes. That's interesting. I mean, I understand why, I guess I understand why Ernie Castillo would be like, oh, this might be junk science if that's all they have. Like, let's say this is all the prosecution has to prove that David Meech was the one who did this to Michaela. And yeah, like you said, there's no reason why his fingerprint should be on the scooter, but I'm sure his lawyer could come up with a million reasons. That's what defense lawyers do, right? Oh, he happened to be at the market, but he just moved the scooter out

of his way so he could back out of a parking space because it was in front of his car. And so he moved the scooter. You can't prove that he took her. You know, he could technically make an argument based on that. I don't know how well it would go over with a jury or a judge, but he could raise reasonable doubt. So I do hope that once it goes to trial, if it does go to trial, because it appears that it is because this guy's saying he had nothing to do with it, that they have a little bit more than just the fingerprint. Yeah, I hope so too. And I think we're going to get to see the picture they paint. And as far as the prosecution's concerned, I believe I read something recently that said the trial was postponed for a short period of time. So again, we will keep you guys updated. At this point,

everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but I would say this is a very compelling case against Mr. Mish, and I think he's got some problems. I think Mr. Castillo has his work cut out for him in this one because it sounds like, again, with this being such an old case, the evidence, the specifics of those prints, to have a judge sign off on it, I would think it would have to be pretty significant, right? I have a feeling we're going to find out. They clearly believe it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and we're going to see if a jury agrees as well. Yeah. Well, I mean, he's innocent of this until proven guilty, right? But we still know he's guilty of other crimes that he's actually been convicted for. So I wouldn't call him an innocent man by any stretch of the imagination. Absolutely not.

And our thoughts go out to Michaela's family. I know this is going to be tough for them because they're having to relive this. And there's no happy ending to this. Let's just say that, right? Like if they confirm that this was in fact the individual who kidnapped and killed Michaela, there's no silver lining in this. It just allows Michaela's family to understand what happened to a certain degree. And I don't want to even say move on, but just continue to live life. You know what I mean?

It never is going to be good again, as it hasn't been. But again, our thoughts are with their family, with Trina, with everyone involved with this case. And I hope for their sake, this comes to a conclusion so that at least they can understand, they can get some answers to the questions they've had for so many years. Yeah, I was talking to the mother of a missing man. And so often we do use this word closure. Like, oh, we should hopefully find out what happened to their child or their loved one so that they can have closure. And she said, there's no such thing as closure when you've lost a child.

It doesn't close. The door never closes. It's always open. And that makes it even more painful. Yes, of course, they want to know what happened just for the sake of knowing what happened. But at the same time, it's not as if finding out ends the pain and the suffering. In a lot of ways, I think it probably just adds a whole other layer onto it. So Michaela's parents are very, very strong people.

And her whole family deserves all our thoughts and positive energy sent to them to hope that they deal with this in the best way possible for them. Agreed. So that's going to conclude our coverage of Michaela Garrett. And it doesn't stop there. We've been getting a lot of submissions from you guys through multiple sources, social media, social media messaging, and also SpeakPipe. And it's interesting because we've gotten a few requests to do this specific case, and we were already in the process of kind of working up some research for it. And then we got a SpeakPipe. So I'm going to play it now. It's from a Laura, I hope I'm saying your last name right, Canoan, Laura Canoan. And I'll play it for you now and you can hear what she has to say. Hi, Stephanie and Derek.

My name is Laura and I am a huge fan of your podcast. So keep up the good work. I just love listening to you guys every week. I have a recommendation for a case. It is from 2012 and it is the case of the murder of Faith Hedgepeth. It's a really interesting case. There's lots of physical evidence. They have a whole DNA profile.

There were lots of suspects, but there's been no arrests made. And I would love to get your take on it. I've listened to other people break down this case, but I always think I would love to get your take on it and what you think. So keep up the good work and look forward to your next episode. Thanks. So Faith Hedgepath will be our next case. And again, this was requested by a few of you guys. What's interesting is I actually covered this case on the first season of Breaking Homicide. So I am very familiar with this case. I flew out to North Carolina. I went to her apartment complex. I went to where she was last

seen alive. I interviewed the individuals closest to her, including her parents. So I'm very familiar with this case. I've even interviewed the police department regarding the investigation and where they are currently. So I'm going to be able to shed a different perspective on this case than just from someone who's researching it, which I'm really looking forward to doing because I know a lot of people have an interest in faith's death. It's a tragic case, and it does seem like it's a solvable case. I'm hoping it happens sooner than later, but that will be what we're covering next week. Yes. Thank you so much for sending your speak wipes. We really appreciate hearing from you guys. It does make our day, and we always get a smile when we hear you guys reaching out to us. We appreciate it.

Keep it coming. We will see you next week. Bye, guys. Later. Later. Crime Weekly, presented by i-D, is a co-production by Audioboom and Main Event Media.