Crime Weekly - S2 Ep64: Michelle Martinko: DNA Doesn't Lie (Part 2)

Episode Date: February 18, 2022

Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop It was around 7pm on the evening of December 19th, 1979, as Kennedy High School senior Michelle Martinko made her way from her parked car to the newly opened Westdale Mall located on the west side of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It was a bitterly cold night, and Michelle was not dressed for the weather, so she shivered and clutched her rabbit fur coat around her body until she reached the warmth and safety of the mall entrance. Michelle was only eighteen, but she was a beautiful girl. Her friends said she was the kind of girl that turned heads, even though she seemed blissfully unaware of the effect she had on people. During her time in the mall that evening, Michelle chatted with many of her friends, all of whom would later say she was her normal, happy, sparkling self. But within nine hours, Michelle would be found dead in that same mall parking lot, stabbed and slashed over twenty times, and left to bleed out in her car. Detectives were sure that the crime had been personal, it was just too angry and violent to have been a random attack, but the decades long investigation would reveal that things are not always as they seem.  Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod

History's masterpieces wouldn't be the same without their most notable accents. Neither would the Kia Sportage without its multiple drive modes. The Kia Sorento without its expansive 12.3-inch panoramic display. Or the Kia Telluride without its three rows of spacious seating. The 2025 Kia SUVs. Kia. Movement that inspires. Call 800-333-4KIA for details. Always drive safely. Limited inventory available. Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow.

And I'm Derek Levasseur. I really like your shirt today. Thank you. Like, this is the undercover pineapple. Shout out to all the pineapples out there. Yeah, I know you guys can't see it if you're listening on audio, but if you're watching on YouTube, you can see it. And as soon as he sat down, I was like, whoa, your eyes are super blue today. And he was like, it's the shirt. And I was like, whoa, your eyes are super blue today. And he was like, it's the shirt. And I was like, well, I like the shirt as well. He's wearing our undercover pineapple shirt. I should have worn mine. You should have told me so we could match. We could have been twins. It was the thing that was clean today. So I was like, you know what? That's what's

going on. Well, usually I wear my undercover pineapple t-shirt to bed because it's so soft. And then I feel like a scrub if I keep wearing it the next day, but then I still do wear it the next day. It is very soft. I will give you that. You guys can still get them too. Click the link in the description below. You can check it out. Go to crimeweeklypodcast.com slash shop.

Send you to the bonfire link. You can get them all a bunch of different colors too. Yeah, but I do like that. I like that royal blue on you. The blue is, yeah, the blue with the yellow. It's a good look. Yeah, tell us in the comment section, if you're watching on YouTube, how blue Derek's eyes look right now, because he's like, I'm not doing anything different.

And I'm like, no. It's the lens. It's the Stephanie Harlow lens. That's what I refer to this lens as, by the way. Really? Oh, 100%. I would have never known about this lens if it wasn't for you. And I see how great your picture looks every week.

And mine was kind of soft. And you were like, dude, this is the lens you need. And you told me exactly where to get it. And I was like, if it looks like that, I'm down. And sure enough, you were right. It's a great lens. I mean, the lens makes everyone look amazing. People see me in real life and they're like, who are you? Like, what happened? You've changed. Today, we are continuing on and finishing up with the Michelle Martinko case. And I'm really excited to talk about this part and get into this part because this is where all the, you know, police work comes in and all the kind of drama comes in. And Michelle Martinko's killer is basically apprehended in, I feel, a very, like I said, dramatic sort of way. I mean, it was kind of like a movie.

I was really, really taken in by the way that these detectives ended up catching this guy. So I'm excited to talk about it. I'm excited to get your point of view. And I'm excited for the listeners and the viewers to also hear this and to get some closure on this case. Yeah, I think this will be a good one. I was I was I did not look ahead. I wanted to, especially with the way you kind of ended last week. But yeah, no, I'm looking to see how this how this all comes to a conclusion. Well, when we last left off, Detective Matt Denlinger had taken over Michelle Martinko's case in 2015, but he wasn't a rookie to the details of the case because he had grown up hearing about it from his father, Harvey Denlinger, who had been a Cedar Rapids police detective at the time of Michelle's murder. Matt remembered how much Michelle's death had affected their community, saying, quote, the whole city was affected for sure. This young vulnerable person

was involved, and to never get answers, it feels like the danger isn't out of town, end quote. So when Matt Denlinger took over the case from Detective Doug Larrison, he continued with Larrison's plan of focusing on the DNA, which at that point was the only lead that they had. And I'm sorry, I have to stop for a minute because right before I came down here to record, I was watching Zootopia with Bella. Have you ever seen the movie? Love Zootopia. So, you know, at the beginning when like the fox, the little bully fox, he like pushes the rabbit down and he's like, foxes go after rabbits. It's in our dinner because he's pronouncing dna out he said it's in our

dinner and it's stuck because all day i've been with this case and i think i read the word dna and typed it so many times that to hear him say that was just too much for me it pushed me over the edge i love zootopia too by the way i don't even mind when she watches it over and over it's a good one jason bateman he's my guy yeah he was he was a sexy sounding fox and in that you know you were like oh he he's yeah he's a charismatic dude he's good in everything you got some shakira music in there you know it's just it's a great movie go watch zootopia when you're done listening to this this week's episode is sponsored by Zootopia. So when Matt Denlinger got on the case, he obviously did what I believe most cold case detectives do is he just dove into the case files and he started going over everything again with a fine tooth comb.

And he did this for eight months looking for holes or missed evidence, and he came up with nothing. So in December of 2015, Matt Denlinger actually purchased an Ancestry.com DNA kit for his wife for Christmas because he knew that she was interested in tracing her family tree. And when she got her results, he was looking at them with her. And he remembered looking at all the information that she now had access to simply from spitting into a tube. And he was very intrigued by this. And obviously he's a detective. So his mind's going to start working and he's going to be like, what are the possible applications of this ancestry DNA thing for like crime solving? Yeah.

And you guys may have heard of this before. You know, there have been other cases solved in this manner. There have been some changes since then because there are individuals out there who do not like the fact that their DNA may be used for legal purposes or for law enforcement purposes when that's not why they're obtaining their profile. But that's a different story for a different day. There are now opt-out clauses and all that stuff. But as far as Denlinger, am I saying his name right? Yeah, I think Denlinger, Denlinger. Okay. Okay. As far as him taking over the case, this is something that happens very often. As you know, there are cases that come in and you'll have a detective who may be

on it 10 or 15 years. And before that detective leaves, ideally what you want to happen is for one of the newer detectives to come on board with him or her and get a look at the case file while they're still there. And this is through attrition. This always happens because obviously when that detective leaves, it's not like the case just stops. It shouldn't stop anyways. So that case will be passed on to the next, you know, however they decided, whether it's seniority or in this case, there's probably a connection because of his dad, rightfully so.

They gave the case to him so he can go over it with a fresh set of eyes. And if he has questions or see something different than the original detective, they can kind of talk about it. And it may drum up something new that's not written in a report for the old detective, or it may be a new angle that they can approach based on him not being tainted by the initial investigation. So this is a very valuable tool and you will see a lot of cold cases solved in this manner where someone who is trained a different way, has a different perspective on life, hasn't

been influenced by some of the stories back when the case originally happened, comes in and says, you know what? What about this? And it could be the most simple thing that was kind of overlooked initially, and it may end up resulting in a solve. So this happens a lot. And you do sometimes see some progress in these cases when this occurs, even though it's just a natural process that happens in every police department. Yeah. And I mean, Matt Denlinger said he hadn't even been planning on going into law enforcement. It just was sort of a naturally occurring thing for him. And when he was finally part of the police department, this was the case that he was really focused on because but for the entire town, for himself, for his father, for all of the people that had mourned the loss of this young girl and were frustrated that they weren't able to track down her killer.

Yeah, I could see that. This sounds like a movie script so far. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. It really does. And it's so cute. I forget which documentary I was watching about it. It gave me all the feels.

I got like goosebumps. But at the end of it, Matt Denlinger, he's talking to the reporter and she's like, do you think your dad would be proud of you? And he was like, well, I hope so. And she's like, well, I talked to him. He says he's very proud of you. And Matt Denlinger kind of like teared up a little and he was like, oh, I'm going to have to go off the camera for a second because I can't be crying on camera like this. So it was really cute. Got to be a tough guy, right? Yeah. But you could see it. So Matt Denlinger, he called Ancestry.com to see if he could take the DNA profile that he had, the one from Michelle's killer, and upload it into their system. But they told him that was

not the service that they provided. So Denlinger turned to Parabon Nanolabs to see what they could do for him. Parabon told Denlinger that they could use the suspect's DNA to create what they called snapshot. By comparing the suspect's DNA to a database of DNA from volunteer participants, Parabon is able to create a forensic profile containing predictions about what that suspect might physically look like. And as you said last episode, this kind of technology, it's not cheap. And Matt Denlinger had to put together a presentation to show his supervisors so that he could get approval to pay Paraben Nanolab's $5,000 for this snapshot

that would hopefully give a more accurate depiction of what Michelle Martinko's killer looked like. And surprise, surprise, it looked nothing like that composite sketch that we saw in the last episode from the women, the witnesses apparently who'd been hypnotized. Nothing like it. I definitely think they saw a different dude. We talked about the variances in witness testimony and their perception of what a person looked looked like the lighting, all of these things, or if it was even the right person. I don't think it was the right person at all. Exactly. It could have been a wrong person where, again, they were trying to do the right thing, but just, you know, they got it wrong. Not trying to mislead police, but it happens as far as the price, because there are other companies that do it now other than Parabon, this is something that I think as a community, true crime community, I know as we

continue to grow, we're still fairly new. This is something that I think all of us can get together and really help raise money for these types of things. You also see funding, government funding coming for these types of services because now everyone sees the benefit of what they can do in these cold cases. So- I agree. It's like every week you hear about a new cold case from like the 70s or 80s being solved using DNA. Right. And in a lot of cases, if it's not like a big department like Boston PD or Seattle PD, their budgets, their whole budget might be $5,000 for these smaller rural areas. And so when they call and they're like, hey, we saw this on TV, could you help us? Parabon can do what they can, but at the end of the day,

they are a business. And so they will give discounts and things like that. But that could break a department where it has to go up the chain and it has to go to politicians before it gets approved. And it's a really terrible thought to think that there are cases out there where law enforcement has DNA and yet they're not able to do everything that's publicly available to them because of financial resources. How terrible is that if that's your family member? It's awful. And I was thinking, we should really start a foundation that can take donations and raise money for these cold cases. So not for any specific police department, but you have that foundation there. So when these smaller, not as wealthy police departments have these cold cases. So not for any specific police department, but you have the foundation there. So when these smaller, not as wealthy police departments have these cold cases, they can

come to the foundation, make their case, and you can help pay for that stuff for them. Because this is bringing closure to people's lives. And I'm really glad that Cedar Rapids decided to put the $5,000 out because Michelle was the daughter of Cedar Rapids. She was like their hometown girl. And they just really wanted to see this case solved even so many years later. Absolutely. I think Ashley Flowers has a foundation that might be doing something along that line. But that all being said, there can never be too many of them, right? She can only do so much. So the more the better, the more options the police departments have to apply and get these cases resolved for the families. because I think that dude had like curly black hair and brown eyes and he was like six foot tall or maybe five foot four. We don't know. And in 2017, law enforcement showed this picture as well

as modified pictures, which would allow for like different hairstyles and aging. And they showed it at press conference and that brought in hundreds of tips. But still, none of those tips led to anything. By 2018, Matt Denlinger was becoming frustrated. He had hoped that with the developing DNA technology, they would have more answers by now. But then in 2018, something big happened. The world watched as one of America's most notorious serial killers was arrested and law enforcement owed it all to DNA. 74-year-old Joseph James D'Angelo had terrorized the people of California for over a decade, and he'd gone unidentified for several more. But now the world would be able to see the face of the Golden State Killer, and the families of his victims could face him.

Matt Denlinger wanted that same justice enclosure for Michelle and her loved ones, so Denlinger reached out to Paraben Nanolabs again. They told him that they would be able to use the same DNA sample that he had given them for the snapshot to create a family tree for the man who had killed Michelle Martinko. They would do this by uploading the profile into GEDmatch, which is a public database created for genetic genealogy research. So this isn't, people putting their DNA in to find out where their family's from. This is people who understand that their DNA and their profiles are being used for genetic research. Through GEDmatch,

Denlinger received a report showing four family trees of great-grandparents, and that was when the task of tracking down living relatives from these family trees began. I'm glad you brought it up this way because if we remember from last episode, we were talking about CODIS, right? And entering individuals who have been arrested into CODIS, you know, entering unknown profiles into CODIS. And I had said that, you know, in some cases, you'll have someone who commits a crime, who's been entered in the system, commit another crime, and that's how they identify them. But then you run into an issue where what if the offender has never committed a crime

before? What if they've never been entered into CODIS? Or they've never been caught. Or never been caught. And what if they've never given a DNA sample for like Ancestry.com? Well, that's why this product, this means of finding this person is so incredible because yes, you might not have the actual person that did it, but you could have a relative of that person because there is DNA that will tell you, hey, listen, this is a close relative of the

individual you might be looking for. That's what they did with Golden State Killer. They didn't have his DNA. They had his relatives and they were able to track it to him based on where he was living during the time of the murders. So fascinating technology. And I've always said it. Paul Holes was one of the first ones to do it that we know of. And you have to give him credit because genius, absolutely genius, a way of thinking outside the box, using a technology that's out there, that's within the legal limits at that

time, and solving a huge case. And it's something that's so simple that you're like, why didn't we think of that sooner? But really incredible. And it really opened the door for a lot of new ways to solve these cases. It was brilliant. Yeah, we'll give Paul Holes his flowers for sure. Shout out Paul Holes on this one, for sure. Let's take a quick break and we'll be right back. Okay, so Derek and I talked about it over break and he said he thinks that I'm saying this detective's name wrong. And if the detective hears it, he's going to be really mad at me, which that's fair. You've been saying his name a lot. You're giving a lot of props.

It's like, shout out to Denlinger. Denlinger. And he's going to be like, what? I know. I'm so sorry. Okay. We think that it is not Denlinger, that it is Denlinger, right? Yeah.

And that's what the pronunciation is when you look up on the internet. But Denlinger sounds cool. Denlinger sounds way cooler than Denlinger. No offense if his name is pronounced Denlinger. We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't on this one. Because sometimes even there's a regular pronunciation for the name, but then a certain person will be like, no, I don't pronounce my name like that. I pronounce it like this. And then you're just offending everyone and you don't know. And you're just like, I can't do anything right. So we're going to go with Denlinger. I literally don't pronounce my own name right.

Yeah. It feels a little weird in my mouth. How are you supposed to pronounce your name? Levasseur. Oh, way better. And I say Levasseur, which it's not correct. Yeah. You Americanized it, man. Yeah. So from now on, you're going to introduce yourself as Derek Levasseur. Levasseur.

Yeah. Well, you could make like a French restaurant with that name. Levasseurs. I didn't learn how to make French food first. months looking through county records, gravestones, newspapers, birth and death announcements, and marriage records before being led to a woman named Brandy Jennings, who lived in Vancouver, Washington. Brandy later told the Gazette, quote, I uploaded my DNA to GEDmatch and forgot about it, end quote. I think a lot of people do that. A lot of people do that, you know, until you get like a match or something. Brandy recalled that when she'd initially put her DNA in the public database, she had talked about it with her brother, and he'd been concerned because that was the same year that the Golden State killer, Joseph D'Angelo, was arrested after the DNA of a family member led law enforcement to

his doorstep. Jennings' brother mentioned that he didn't know if he would want to be responsible for a family member getting arrested. And she told him that she would want someone to be held responsible for their crimes, even if it was a family member. And I absolutely feel the same way. I think that this is very split. Some people are like, no. And obviously, we know it is because people were upset after this Golden State Killer thing. And there was like sort of an uproar and people were like, we didn't know that this was happening. And to be fair, in Golden State Killer, the police uploaded the DNA profile and then put like a fake name and stuff on it. So it's not like they went to these, you know, Ancestry or 23andMe and they were like, we're going to catch a killer. They did it of their own volition. They did it without getting permission, really.

Well, I want to ask you a question, but beforehand, and that's what was so ingenious about this because nothing they did was wrong. You're allowed to submit a DNA profile. It's supposed to be your own, but you're allowed to submit a DNA profile, whether it's a swab from your mouth or whatever, however you obtain it and submit it and see if any relatives of yours that you're unaware of come back as a hit. So the only thing that they did different was take the profile from this unknown suspect, create a fake profile and submit it to see if he had any relatives on this website. And it did. And so- I mean, the legality of that's a little blurry. Well, nothing ever came back on it. And you think about it, he was convicted. So obviously, everything held up in court. But that's the question I wanted to ask you because you and I

usually do differ in these types of areas. And I think it's no secret where I fall on this. Where? But where do you fall on it? On what? As far as right now, there have been changes and you can still use it, but it says right on some of their websites that- You can opt out, right? Yeah, you can opt out or that this will not be used for law enforcement purposes. So how do you feel about these databases taking your DNA, if you're voluntarily giving it

for the purpose of finding relatives, not helping police, but your DNA could potentially link to one of your relatives who's responsible for multiple murders. Do you think this is something that should be allowed? Do you think it's something that shouldn't be allowed? What's your take on it? It does seem like it's a search and seizure thing, kind of, so I see the legality of it. But how do you feel about it personally? So it's a it's a complicated situation for me. I don't believe in these DNA sites to begin with. I think it's creepy to give your DNA to some random company that let's be honest, the least like evil thing that they would be doing with it is catching killers. They're using your DNA for all sorts of things. They're using it for research. They're using it to build these other databases that are being used for research. So they're basically, they're selling your DNA. They're

selling like your personal like material. And so I don't like it personally. However, I wouldn't have a problem if I was in the system having my DNA be used for law enforcement. But I can't speak for everybody and I can see how some people might have a problem with it, but I would not. I have a question for you. I think I know the answer with you, but this is also out to everybody out there, whether you're on audio or YouTube, way down below. I'm really genuinely interested in these results. I'm going to be looking at the comments. How would you feel if there was a database that was specifically used for law enforcement purposes? So if they created a website where they said, listen, we're looking for volunteers, you may not be able to help in a case personally, but someone you're related to down the line,

maybe committing murders in another state that you don't even know you're a relative of. Would you be someone who would, if it took only a matter of seconds to submit that DNA swab, would you be someone who would volunteer for that database? There's no right or wrong answer. I'm just interested to hear the results. If I was somebody that was okay with giving my DNA away to some random nameless, faceless company, corporation, et cetera, yeah, I would be okay with that, but I'm not. I'm a paranoid person. I'm a very paranoid person and I don't want any Stephanie clones out there. I love that answer though, because you're not saying, no, I wouldn't be willing not to help

law enforcement. In general, I'm not giving my DNA out. However, if you weren't like that, you would. If you were giving it to 23andMeme you would have no problem giving it to police uh and me yeah and i'll like i'll steal like one of my family members dnas and put it in there you know if that helps that they don't care you'll be taking swabs from other people and like randomly plucking hair from them at the christmas party and submitting it yeah it'll be a christmas dinner like can you spit in this for me collecting everyone's just going around the table yeah it's for a good cause okay that makes sense to me you're just you just don't trust the system i don't at all yeah and it's not something specific to law enforcement it's just like i'm not submitting my dna to anybody so but you know i don't really trust law enforcement either

like on a grand scale on a mac on like a macro scale I don't trust any. No, no. And you never know, are they going to use it to now plant your DNA at crime scenes? I mean, this is very minority report, but hey, the stranger things have happened. I mean, listen, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but definitely weigh down in the comments. I think this is a polarizing question. It's something that as DNA gets better, this question is not going to go away because there's really an ethical balance there where it's like, yes, we're using your DNA, but we're finding people who could potentially kill you or someone you love. So where is that balance?

I don't know. I really don't know. But it's going to be fascinating as time goes to see where we ultimately fall. What's the line we draw? I guarantee you in our lifetime or the next, the government's going to be forcing you to give your DNA and put it on file anyways. Really? Yeah, I guarantee you. Possible. It's definitely possible. It does feel like that's the way we're going,

where things aren't really compulsory anymore when it comes to the greater good and things like that. No, well, we will see. We will see. And I mean, admittedly, although I'm personally uncomfortable with that, it would be great for- Solve a lot of cases. From a law enforcement perspective. Yeah, it would solve- It would solve a lot of cases. It would solve a lot of cases.

Not only catching suspects, by the way, identifying Jane and John Doe's and baby Doe's, people who have loved ones who've been found and they don't even know it. So there's so many advantages to it, but there are some drawbacks as far as personal privacy. So, I mean, you think about all the baby Doe's and the John Doe's and it's crazy. And then, you know, these types of services could help those families. So I don't know where it is. I know where I fall, but I might be in the minority on that. Well, at the time when Brandy and her brother were talking about this, it's obviously like a hypothetical situation. Nobody could actually be having this conversation about the Golden State Killer and be like, I don't mind, whatever, and then actually think that it's going

to happen to them. But Brandy Jennings didn't know she was going to soon be faced with that exact situation in real life. Parabon Labs told Matt Denlinger that Brandi Jennings was a distant cousin to their suspect, but Brandi would lead them to Janice Burns, a woman who lived in Lisbon, Iowa. And Janice was a first cousin to whoever Michelle's killer was. In the fall of 2018, Denlinger and another detective traveled to Iowa to speak with Janice, who was incredibly cooperative. She gave Denlinger a sample of her own DNA as well as a family tree that she had already been constructing. Parabon Nanolabs used Janice's DNA sample to find out who her first cousins were, and the suspect pool was narrowed down to three brothers. All of them had been living in Manchester, Iowa in December of 1979 when Michelle was brutally murdered in the parking lot of the Westdale Mall. with a population of around 5,000 people, and it's located just a quick 45-minute drive

from Cedar Rapids, where Michelle Martinko had been born and lived her short life before it was snuffed out. The three brothers were Kenneth Burns, Jerry Burns, and Donald Burns, and at first glance, they all seemed to be very unlikely suspects. None of them had criminal records.

They were all self-made business owners who were very well respected in their communities. Ken and Jerry, they still lived in Manchester and Donald had moved to Davenport, but none of them had any connection to Michelle or anyone in her family. The most important thing that Matt Denleger could do now was to somehow obtain DNA samples from all three brothers so that they could be compared against the DNA that Michelle's killer had left behind in her blood. And so he started with the suspect that he felt was the most likely to be responsible, Ken Burns. Law enforcement followed Ken to a golf club where they were able to snatch a straw out of his drink and then send it in for testing. But the test came back not a match, so they moved on to the next brother that they thought

was the most likely, Donald Burns. Law enforcement was able to go through Donald's garbage after he disposed of it, and they retrieved a drinking glass and a toothbrush, which they sent in for testing. But that test also came back not a match. Ken and Donald Burns were not the source of the DNA profile found in Michelle's car and on her black dress. So, law enforcement moved on to the next and last brother. He was actually the one that investigators had thought would be their least likely candidate, Jerry Burns. Detectives followed Jerry to a pizza buffet in Manchester on October 29th, 2018, and they waited while he ate his pizza and sipped his Diet Coke. And as soon as he left the restaurant, detectives who were already like inside, you know, sort of like planted at the

tables and watching him, they collected the straw from Jerry's drink and they sent it in for comparison. And this time they had a match. Yeah. And we've talked about this process before, this tactic before where detectives will follow potential suspects to locate items that they've touched or used recently to get a DNA profile. And what you'll notice in every situation that we've discussed here, it's all abandoned property. It's the only way you can really do it without consent. Some of you may not like that, but that's the way it is. As soon as you dump something into the trash, I think the first one you said it was a straw

that he drank. Straw at the golf club, then the toothbrush in the trash, and then another straw at the pizza place. And I'm sure all three of those items, specifically the one you mentioned definitely, but the other two as well, they were disposed of or left behind. And once you do that, it's right for the picking. Anybody can take it and grab it and legally do so.

And that's still going on today. I had told you about cases where we did it as well. It sounds really primitive, but it's a tried and true method and it works. It's effective, yeah. It's effective and it's not that difficult, really. If the person is unsuspecting, you know, just like any of us, you're going to dispose of a napkin or a cup in a local, you know. Not me. I'd be taking my straws with me every time I leave the restaurant.

Well, now it's all metal straws. So we don't have to worry about that. It's one of those things where most people, even if you're someone who committed a crime 20 years ago, unless you're really paranoid, you're probably not looking over your shoulder after every drink cup you throw away. And so it works. And what I like about this is you admitted that these detectives, and they probably said it publicly, which is why you said it, he wasn't even their top pick. They were focused on someone else. But the minute the DNA does not match, it's game over. There's no disputing it. There's no like, well, maybe. No. If the DNA doesn't match, they are not your person.

Nobody has found a way to manipulate their own DNA for a crime so it doesn't come back to them. As much as they may believe they had their guy, as soon as the DNA comes back and tells them otherwise, that's it. And I love the fact that they said, hey, listen, we admit the person who had ended up matching, we didn't think it was going to, but at the end of the day, it did. And now our focus was completely on him. And kudos to them to being able to say that publicly, because some people, for the sake of maybe tainting the case and giving a defense attorney an opportunity to say, well, why didn't you think my client could have been involved, you know, and maybe taint the jury. Or just to even not look bad when you're retelling

the case to kind of be like, oh, like he was the first person I thought it was, you know. But that's how powerful DNA is, right? Like, even though they've admitted, frankly, if we had to, you had to put a bet on it before taking the DNA, we would have guessed it wasn't him. However, DNA doesn't lie. And whether you believe in DNA or not, that's another thing. But the courts definitely do. That's for sure.

Yeah. You think there's people out there that don't believe in DNA? They believe in DNA, but I think there are people like yourself who believe that it could be used in ways where if someone has your DNA, they could plant it in another location to frame you for a crime. Everyone should believe that. That's just everything that's good can be used for evil, right? Look at the internet. Yeah, of course.

It's definitely possible. You're not wrong. You could swab DNA and swab it onto something else and you have a transfer of trace evidence. I mean, we know touch. Yeah, touch DNA is a thing. Absolutely. So if they have a vial of your DNA and they could absolutely. I think what it comes into is I think even you would admit this.

Like we're not talking about political figures or people with money. Like espionage. Yeah. Yeah. What would be the point to framing this guy from Iowa? You know, it's like It's possible if the detectives have an ax to grind, but it's very unlikely in a situation. There's really no incentive for them to be framing this specific person. Plus there's a paper trail of them submitting this DNA to this

database and it kicking back information that they couldn't manipulate. It was what it was. Absolutely. Yeah. Let's take a quick break and then I will tell you about Jerry Burns. So Jerry Burns was a 64-year-old man in 2018, but at the time of Michelle's murder, he was 25, selling John Deere tractors and married to his wife of four years, Patricia. Jerry and Patricia had made a good life together. They had built a home on some land that Jerry's parents had left him. They had shared three children together, two daughters and a son. And Jerry had built a successful business called Advanced Coating Concepts, which is a powder coating company. For anyone who didn't know, because I didn't, powder coating is a type of coating that's applied as a free-flowing dry

powder that creates a hard finish, which is apparently tougher than conventional paint. This process is used for coatings on metal things like appliances, outdoor products like farm equipment. It's even become very popular in the automotive industry for luxury and sports cars. And this is how Jerry was making his living living and he was making a pretty decent living. So in Manchester, Jerry Burns was known as like the nicest guy ever, right? He was a decent, hardworking man who would always make time to stop and chat with you if you saw him out and about. Jerry had no criminal record. He and his family were active members of St. Mary's Catholic Church, and his wife Patricia had died in 2008 at the age of 55, reportedly from a suicide. So now Jerry lived a quiet life running his business with his pet cat. On December 19, 2018, Matt Denlinger walked into Jerry Burns' business, and Denlinger had picked this date specifically for his confrontation with the man that he unequivocally believed had killed Michelle.

It was the 39th anniversary of her murder, and Matt arrived ready with a tiny camera hidden inside of a coffee cup to capture Jerry's reaction when he was asked how his DNA had ended up at the scene of a brutal murder. We're going to play some clips of this interview for you now. And if you're watching on YouTube, you'll be able to see Jerry Burns as he talks to the detectives. And to be honest, when I first saw him, I was a little taken aback because he looks like a nice old man. You know, he looks like a grandpa that would have like hard candies in his pocket that he gives you when you come to visit him. Like he looks so unassuming, so non-threatening. Jerry Burns did not look like the kind of person who would have caused the carnage that we know was seen at the site of Michelle's murder. But the DNA speaks for itself. And it showed that less than one out of 100 billion unrelated individuals would have that same profile that Jerry Burns had. Hello. Hello. Hey, how are you today? Jerry, my name's Matt. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you.

Hey, I'm with the Cedar Rapids Police Department. Oh, yeah. This is JD. Hi. Hey, can we chat with you for a second about a case we're working on? Sure. We got a cat here, huh? Yep. What's the kitty's name? Bella. Bella. Oh she's nice. She a farm cat? Yep. Can I pull up this other chair with that cat? Sure. I'm drinking my coffee, JD. We work in the cold case unit down at the Sierra Rapids Police Department and we're following up on an old case. I don't know if you've heard it in the news at all. It's a homicide that happened at Westdale Mall.

Michelle Martenko, is that something you've ever heard of? Yeah. Okay. Did you see it in the paper or anything like that? No. Long time ago. Long time ago. I got a business card, by the way.

I should probably give you one here. Well, what we've been doing lately... Got to get my pen here. What we've been doing lately is we've been following up on leads. And we had an article run in the paper the other day, and so we've just got a bunch of new leads and stuff like that, people calling in, giving us tips and whatnot. And so we've been stopping by and just chatting with people and trying to kind of determine

which leads are good and which leads are not and stuff like that. Well, long story short, your name came up. Hmm. Strange. Yeah. Well, it's not that uncommon. I mean, people call in all the time. We had a picture made from our suspect's DNA and then so what people do is they often think

that certain people maybe look like the image and stuff like that. So that's kind of how we come about that. Did you ever see those pictures we had? No. I've got a copy of one here. So they're like those kind of things there. That's not it though.

Well that's the picture we had created. Oh really? Yeah. And then there's a couple other ones, like younger ones and things like that. Wow. It's kind of... Well it looks a lot different than I look in the mirror. What's that? It looks a lot different than I look in the mirror. What's that? It looks a lot different than I look in the mirror. Oh I don't totally disagree with you. It'd be alright if we just asked you a few questions about it. Sure. So this happened in December of 1979 and you said earlier that you kind of heard about it. What do you remember hearing about it? Just that it was a big deal. A big deal. I mean do you remember what about it this it was a big deal a big deal i mean do you remember what

happened not exactly like do you remember who the victim was anything like that not really but um i just seen something about jody who's a troop recently yeah yeah okay so before i sort of uh dive into you know what kind of came from that clip. What do you think as a former detective, as somebody who's probably had to do something like this several times before, what do you think initially about Jerry Burns' reaction, his body language, his facial expressions, the way he's responding to the detectives? It definitely brought back some memories. I've been in a position and it's funny because I've had so many times where we have a camera on a cup or on a bag and man, you can never get that angle right. He had the angle better the first time, but I can't tell you how many times you get back and you're like, did you get it?

And you're like, dude, you were facing the wall the whole time. And then on top of that, you get the cat in front of his face half the time. But from what I saw, and I'll be honest, I didn't really see anything watching that the first time. It's my first interaction with him not knowing what his normal behavior is. He did have a lot of blinking going on, but he was leaning in. He did cross his arms a little bit at one point. Dude, it's so funny that you talk about blinking because you'll see some serious blinking in the next clip, which is what I noticed because it was so extreme, but he seems laid back like for the most part. He seems like completely benign, right? You look at him, he's like cute

old grandpa. Nothing, nothing like egregious at standing out where, you know, he goes from being really happy, but they did go right into it. Like they immediately identified themselves as police officers, which, you know, it's not a bad tactic, but maybe you go in there and instead of starting with that, you go in there and instead of starting with that, you go in there and start asking about powder coating to see how his behavior is at that point and then transition by saying, by the way, we're from Cedar Rapids and see if the mannerisms change. So get a baseline. Yeah, have a baseline because now if they had started that interview where they were talking about powder coating and he was sitting back like this, I don't want to get too far away from my mic, but he's sitting back like this, not really blinking much, kind of laid back, arms open, you know, allowing you to talk.

Maybe a different little bit of a different, you know, swagger to him at that point. And immediately is when he hears the phrase Cedar Rapids, he's leaning forward, blinking. Then you would have something to go off of, but they dove right into it. But i agree with you unassuming at that point nothing really that stands out to me that says you know you're guilty well something he did say that that stood out a little bit was when they showed him the snapshot from parabon nanolabs and it's clearly like a snapshot of what he would have looked like as a younger man and he immediately got a little defensive he's like well it's not what i see when i look in the mirror like yeah, yeah, dude, obviously not. You're in your sixties now. It's not going to be what you see when you look in the mirror. And it kind of like, he wanted to sort of like, uh, separate himself

from that, that picture, like immediately he, he, he could have been a little bit more chill about it. Like, oh yeah, that's a, you know, good looking young man, you know, kind of, but he was immediately like, not me. What are you talking about? So that seemed a little sus, but the cat petting too, was a little bit odd to me. It was like a nervous tick where it's like, exactly. Yeah. Cause it wasn't like a, you know, it wasn't like a, I'm petting him. It was more like a shake. Yeah. It was a very aggressive pet, right? Right. And in a lot of cases, if you're having this serious conversation, if you're really into it, you know, you might not think about it, but most of the time you'd want to take the cat off the desk when you're trying to have a

conversation with someone to separate you from the cat's butt being in the other person's face. But I think he was so, at that point, inside- Like, oh shit. A million things running through his head. All he's thinking about is like, oh, pet the cat, pet the cat. He might be like his- Keep him busy, keep his hands busy. His mechanism. Yeah. all he's thinking about is like, oh, pet the cat. Pet the cat. You know, it might be like his- Keep him busy. Keep his hands busy. His mechanism. Yeah.

Like his, you know, when he has, when he's anxious to pet the cat, you know? And that's what I'm talking about at baseline. They're asking about powder coating and he doesn't touch the cat. And then all of a sudden when they transition, he's doing this weird petting of the cat every couple seconds. I'm writing that down. I mean, honestly, they have the DNA. So I feel like they, yeah, they don't even, they don't even want to like lube him up at this point. It's just like, well, you know, and DNA is great, but what,

and I haven't even listened to the rest or seen the rest of the interview, but you know, as you said earlier, right now, these individuals are in a different, you have to now put him in that area. If he says to you in 1979, in December of 1979, he was in Costa Rica for that year, you'd have to go verify that because that would obviously rule him out. So they have the DNA. They don't think that's going to be the case. Now they're trying to strengthen the circle around him, right? Squeeze him in even a little bit more to not only say we have his DNA, but we can put him in that area during that timeframe when it occurred. I mean, yeah, he definitely was in, in the, he was in Iowa at that time. Yeah. But think about how they started, right? They started with a DNA profile. They

matched it to someone related. They finally were able to match it to him. Now they have to figure out where he was in December of 1979. Yeah. Well, I mean, I also think like they've been on this thing for so long and now they really have like what they what they believe to be concrete evidence. And I mean, it is. And they're like, we don't even want to mess with this guy. Like, we're just going to go on and scare the crap out of him. Yeah, no, I agree. And I think there is a part of it where it's like as a detective, you want to look the person in the face and see that reaction when they know their life's about to change.

Yeah, like, I've been chasing you and now here you are. And Matt Denlinger did say, like, at some points it was surreal being that close to him, knowing that this had been like his focus for so long. And then to be in the same room and talking to him, it was kind of this surreal experience. I'm sure he's had many nightmares, the offender, about this day and you're here to give it to him, which is a gratifying feeling as a detective. It's like, hey, that day you've thought about for years, hoping it would never happen, it's here. And I almost felt like Jerry's demeanor was a little too casual, like a forced casual.

He kept doing the thing with his eyebrows. I was like, hmm, hmm, hmm. And it was like, come on, dude. Everybody's different. That's why baseline, guys, remember that when you're doing it. Baselines are great. But they already, like you said, they have the DNA. So they're working with, they're way ahead of the game at this point. Usually you don't have the DNA at this point. You're working backwards. So Matt Denlinger, he told Jerry Burns that his name had come up during the investigation, but he didn't initially tell him that his DNA had been found on Michelle's dress and in her car. At first, he kind of made it seem like as if someone had seen the snapshot from Paraben NanoLabs and then called in a tip saying like, oh, that looks like Jerry Burns. And then Jerry literally

out of nowhere, like nobody asked you. And he brings up the name Jody Hosentruth. So Jody was a television news anchor from KIMT, a CBS affiliate located in Mason City, Iowa. Jody was reported missing when she failed to show up for work on June 27, 1995. And when police arrived at her apartment, they found her vehicle in the parking lot and signs that a struggle had taken place beside her car. Three neighbors in Jodi's apartment complex told police that they'd heard screams around the time she would usually be leaving for work. And to this day, she's never been found and she's presumed dead. So if you place pictures of Jodi Husentrude and Michelle Martinko side by side, which we'll do for YouTube, the physical similarities are undeniable. Two young blonde women killed in

parking lots in Iowa. And now Jerry Burns is saying Jodi's name unprompted within the first five minutes of a police interview regarding Michelle Martinko. Like the police came in and they were like, we're here about Michelle Martinko. And Jerry was like, Jodi Hosentru. It was very odd. Jerry said that he didn't know Michelle. He had never seen her before. Now, he did admit that he and his family had gone to Westdale Mall a few times before. He said like, you know, we've done Christmas shopping there, like we've been shopping there. But he didn't know exact dates or times. And he said he had never gone there by himself. He had only gone with his family. Matt Denglinger tells Jerry that they found DNA at the scene and they've been trying to find the person who it connects to. And like I said, Jerry

keeps going back to the Parabon snapshot picture. And I didn't play this part of the clip, but he keeps asking the detectives like he didn't just bring it up the one time that you were in the clip. He keeps asking the detectives like, do you think this looks like me? Do you think this looks like me? And they were like, well, do you have a brother? Maybe, you know, and he's like, I don't think it looks like my brother either. So he keeps going back to that picture and like rifling through it, I think, to keep his hands busy and so that he's not having to make eye contact with them. And then Jerry was given a copy of a search warrant, which was ordering him to give a sample of his DNA to law enforcement. And I think that Jerry clearly looks nervous at this time.

Like you said, his hands are fidgeting. He keeps like randomly, aggressively ruffling the fur of the cat that's crawling all over his desk. But his voice does stay generally calm. Once Matt Denglinger swabbed Jerry's cheek, he dropped the bomb on him. That they already knew his DNA was going to be a match to Michelle's killer. And that's when Jerry starts blinking like 5,000 times a minute. We're going to take a quick break, but when we come back,

we're going to play that clip and talk about it. Okay, we're back from the break. I'm going to play the clip now for you once again. If you are listening on audio, you know, there's plenty to hear. But if you're watching on YouTube, you will be able to see Jerry's face as he hears this news. We were kind of hoping you'd tell us. The reality is... Oh my gosh, what does she need? The reality is we're not here on a whim. We're here to confirm what we already know. I already collected some DNA from you that you got rid of before.

And so I'm telling you, Jerry, I already know that your DNA is going to match the DNA that we have on file. Just one thing that I got rid of. Well, people get rid of stuff all the time. Just throw it away. But I think that's kind of irrelevant to what we're talking about here, Jerry. The reality is we have your DNA at the crime scene, and so we know you were there that night this happened. But what we don't know, Jerry, is why it happened.

There's a lot of reasons things happen in life, and there might be an explanation for this that would help us better understand what happened. That it would not make this, you know, a terrible thing for you. But I don't know what that explanation would be if I don't hear it from you. Well, I don't know. How would we get your DNA at the crime scene there, Jerry? I don't know. Test it, see if it is.

No, no, no, we did. How would it be there, Jerry? I don't know. What happened that night? Wait for the test to come back. Jerry, we... I don't think it did. It did?

I don't think so. Okay. Jerry, what happened that night? I don't know. Test it and see what happens. night? I don't know. Test it and see what happens. Yeah, I don't... We're going to test this. Okay. Go ahead and test it.

We are. But what I'm telling you is I'd already collected some DNA from stuff you discarded. And it matched our sample from the crime scene, Jerry. Let's just... Can we back up for a second? Would that be all right? Okay. And can I ask you a little bit about the crime itself, and we can just forget about the straw

for a minute? Yeah. Okay. And like I said, if you've got to get back to work, let me know. The crime scene's pretty limited, okay? It's not, you know, like all over the town. It's just in one little spot out of Westdale Mall in her car. Is it possible that you're out at Westdale Mall and you run into some girl that you feel

like talking to or maybe you knew casually and that you were just having a conversation with her? That's not possible. At any point is it possible that you just ran into her and said hi to her by the... No. No, that's not possible. There's no conceivable way you would have ever just sat down next to her at the Orange Julius and said hi? No. Okay said hi? No.

Okay, because that kind of thing has never happened before or what? Not really. Okay. You ever accidentally get in the wrong car out at Westdale Mall? No. Okay. You ever accidentally run into a young girl out there and say hi to her or anything like that? No.

You ever say hi to any young girls out there that weren't your wife? No. Okay. I mean, I understand your concerns about putting yourself there, but, I mean, the reality is, though, we kind of know you were there. We're past kind of know you were there. We're past kind of know. We know you were there, but the why part is what we're not positive on. No, we better prove I was there first.

Well, I don't think that's a problem. Okay. Okay. I think, dropping anyone off? Nope. Do you ever bank there? No. Um, did you ever shop at JC Penny's there?

No. We only have a one podcast to go over this, but there's so much in this clip that you guys need to go back and replay it after I kind of go over some of the things that I just, this is my first time seeing it. So first off, they drop the bomb. They accuse him of being the guy. They believe he's the guy. His response, oh, really? It's not the response of someone who'd just been accused of murdering someone, first off. Then the question is not, the response isn't, it's not me. There's no denial there. It's, well, why? Why do you think it's me? So that he's trying to find out what they might have on him. Then obviously there's numerous physical

cues, the eyebrow twitching, but I'm not even talking about the blinking. If you really look close under the bags of his eyes and above his eyebrow, there's like this unconscious twitching going around his eyes. That's something you see with someone who's very nervous. You also see within the first minute, and then you see again at 2.27, these really hard gulps where he's trying to compose himself. He's trying to keep it together. And there's something in the phrasing, and I've said this before to you guys with questioning. If you notice the detective doesn't say, did you do this? He says, we know you did it. We just don't know why. And I've told you guys this before. It's tough. Even with child molesters, when I've had it happen, because he

goes on further to say, not in so many words, like maybe there's a reason why you did this. He's trying to give him an out. Does this detective think there's any justification for this? No, but he's trying to give him an opportunity to say, she attacked me. Something. He just wants to lock him in at this point. And then finally, there's a lot here. So can I ask you a question? Sure.

But let me hit this one final point before I forget, because I think, I don't even know if you caught this. I'm going to jot it down so I don't forget. Okay. So at three minutes and 52 seconds, okay. He asks him, you know, has, you know, has something like this ever happened before? Whatever. And he says, no. And he starts by going like this.

No. But as he's finishing, he goes like this. And that's something you do see with not everybody, but someone who's thinking yes, but trying to respond no. So go back and play that. So for those of you who are listening and not watching, Derek shook his head first and then nodded. Yeah. As he's saying no, he's shaking his head no, but as he's trailing off, he starts to subtly nod his head up and down as he's saying yes with his body. And so there's a lot of physical cues that I'm picking up. This is a, this is an interview that would be used in an interview and interrogation school because there are things in here that they would have us try and identify

as a sign of guilt. And so this really brought me back to school because this is like a, a perfect example of someone who on the exterior, if you're not trained in it, might think, oh, he seems, you know, he's kind of put together, but there's a lot going on here. But what was the question you had? So when Matt Denglinger starts talking and at first, and I've watched this clip, I've watched the entire interview like way too many times. So the first three times I went through it, I didn't notice this. And in fact, the fourth time I went through it, I was like, this is stupid. Like, why does he keep asking? Like, is there a possible you sat down next door at the Orange Julie's? Is it possible you got into the wrong car? I'm like,

why is he asking these questions? Like, OK, enough. And then just now when I'm watching it, I realized that Matt Denglinger was potentially asking these questions because he's trying to eliminate other ways that Jerry's DNA could have ended up on Michelle or in her car. So now when they go to trial and Jerry's like, that wasn't, I wasn't in her car or I didn't kill her. I don't know how my DNA ended up there. They can say, well, Matt, they can say like, Jerry, we asked you, did you sit next to her at the Orange Julius? Did you accidentally get into her car? Did you say hi to her? Did you shake her hand? You said no, no, no, no.

You said you never even approached another young woman besides your wife. So how would you explain how your DNA got there if you're not her murderer? And I think that's what Matt Denglinger was trying to drive home for a later trial so that they could literally put it up and say, listen, Jerry, by his own admission, says he never even came near her. So how else would his DNA get on her accidentally? He didn't see her at the mall. He didn't meet up with her at the mall. He wasn't talking to any young girls. How did his DNA get there then? And so here's that circle, right? We had that circle where he's got the DNA that matches. Now

he's trying to put them at the actual mall. And let's say hypothetically, he was really prepared for this. And he comes back with, I won't lie to you guys. I was in her car earlier that night. You know, we had, you know, for some reason I was helping her. She was having trouble with her battery or whatever. I got in the car. So then he, now he's in the car. That's great.

He might think he just gave himself an out, but detective inside is celebrating because he's like, boom, I got you in the car. The next thing he would say is, okay, how'd your blood get in there? And if he says, oh, I cut myself on a battery terminal. So now you're admitting you were bleeding inside of a car. You're just digging yourself deeper. Yeah. You think you're doing a good job right now, Jerry, but you're really not. And so all that's good stuff. The more you can get out of them, even though they think they might be saving themselves, like you just said, they're digging a deeper hole and then you put it together at trial,

but really good job here. Really excellent job in the questioning, not getting too emotional. I'm sure he probably had some choice words for him, the detective that he didn't say, just keeping it composed. There was even a point where he goes, by the way, if you need to get back to work, let me know. I mean, smooth, smooth. I mean, you know. Because it's kind of keeping the dude off his balance. He's like, wait, you just accused me of murder. And now you're telling me I can get back to work. What's going on here? Well, you know what that is?

If I'm sitting in the chair, it's me going, I already got you. We're trying to help you here. I'm coming back. You're not going anywhere. But, you know, by all means, if this isn't a big deal to you, you just let me know and I'll stop the questioning. That's another thing, too. He's engaged here. He wants to hear more. He wants to know more. He's not saying to him, get out of my building. Are you kidding me? Are you out of your mind?

Get out of here. You go get that tested. Something we're going to touch on that, something they brought up during trial. But I think it's funny because he's an older guy, right? So this whole concept of DNA is going to be sort of foreign to him to begin with. For people who didn't grow up with that, the DNA thing was very science fiction-y. I remember my dad and my mom talking about it. They were like, this is so weird. What is this DNA? They don't get it. And so he asked me, he's like, what do you mean discarded DNA? Like, I didn't discard any DNA. And he's thinking, like, how could I have possibly discarded DNA? And Matt Denlinger is like, well, people get rid of things all the time. And this dude's like, how's my DNA on the things that I got rid of? And it's like blowing his mind because he doesn't really know what they have. And he

doesn't know how legal it is, I think, at this point, because this is fairly new technology being used in law enforcement. And when Jerry's asked how his DNA would be at the crime scene, he continues to repeat, test it, wait for the test to come back. He never says, like you said, he never says, I didn't do this. I wasn't there. How dare you? I have nothing to do with this. He doesn't get upset. He doesn't seem angry. And you'd think that a normal person, when you have a detective sitting across from you, accusing you of murder repeatedly, at one point, you'd be like, all right, dude, enough. I already told you I didn't do it. Get out or I'm going to call a

lawyer. I don't need to deal with this stuff, right? Yeah. And me even being a former cop, if someone came in and accused me of that, I'd be like, oh yeah, you got me? You got it from a cop? Great. Go submit it. You must already have a warrant for my arrest then, right? In this case, obviously they're going to, but that's what I would be saying. No further questions. Go get the arrest warrant. If you have my DNA already, you let me know. But he's sitting here thinking, how did you catch me? How did you get my DNA? Because he knows that his DNA matches and he's just wondering where he slipped up. What was the defining moment where they got him? And, you know, come to find out it's a straw.

Yeah. And they would use this right during trial. Like the prosecutor would tell the jury that anyone who was innocent would have had a much different, much stronger reaction when being accused of a brutal murder. And he he kept he kept his calm. I mean, this is this interview is pretty long. You can find it on YouTube. It was played during his trial, the entire thing.

But directly after the interview, Jerry Burns was read his rights and he was arrested. And he rode with Matt Denglinger to the police station where he continued to talk as Denglinger sat beside him. During the car ride, Jerry Burns mentioned that he knew it was possible to block things out of your memory if they were too difficult to grapple with. And once again, this is a much longer conversation because they're driving from where Jerry lives back to Cedar Rapids. So it's about an hour and he doesn't talk the entire time. But once again, he never says in the car, like, why am I being arrested? Like, I didn't do this because a normal person, you're being questioned and accused of murder. You're going to get upset.

But when they put the cuffs on you and put you in the car and you did not do this, you're going to be like out of your mind at this point. You're going to be freaking out. And he never, ever did. Yeah, he was a little inquisitive, but it was also kind of like a resignation. Like, I felt like there was, he almost sounded defeated. And just one final thing about the interview. I don't know if this specific sample would be used, but even though they took a sample off a straw and it matched Jerry,

it will be important that they get a sample taken from him again, because ultimately there could be a chain of custody issue or something like that. So whether it's the sample that they took inside this, you know, this establishment or one one they probably take later after this interview, they will take a final sample to say, hey, regardless of what you think up to this point, we took an official swab from him. It was submitted to the crime lab and it was taken on this date in this facility and it matched as well. Exactly. And that is going to be very important. You're right. So Jerry Burns was charged with the first degree murder of Michelle Martinko

and he was never able to give an alternate explanation for why his DNA was found at the scene of the crime. They kept asking him, like they kept saying, did you touch her? Did you see her?

Maybe you did this. And he was like, no, no, no. So when word of Jerry's arrest reached the small town of Manchester, everyone was shocked. Mike McElliot, who had gone to school with Jerry, said, quote, Never did I think he had a mean bone in his body. That's why everybody in town is just like I am. Shocked. End quote.

Jerry's family hired high-profile attorney Leon Spies to defend him at trial, and Jerry's family made a public statement saying, quote, The charge against Jerry comes as a complete shock to us, and we are doing our best to carry on with our lives. During this difficult time and as the justice system runs its course, we ask that our privacy be respected, end quote. While Jerry awaited his trial, several DNA experts spoke to ABC News, expressing their opinion that if the DNA test had been done correctly, there was no question

that the DNA found at the scene of Michelle's murder belonged to Jerry Burns. Now, Jerry's attorney, Leon Spies, he did attempt to get the DNA evidence thrown out of court, claiming that law enforcement did not have a warrant when they allowed Parabon Nanolabs to upload the DNA profile that had been collected from Michelle's dress. He also argued that the DNA collected from Jerry's straw was a warrantless search and seizure. Now, Leon Spies' motion was denied, obviously, because as you said, it's not a warrantless search and seizure. It's abandoned property. Yeah, he walked away from the straw and the restaurant people were going to throw it out anyways. So, you know, the police just saved them the trouble. But another motion that spies filed to suppress his client's Internet search history, it was allowed.

And the jury would never hear about the disturbing searches that law enforcement found on the work computer of Jerry Burns. According to the Gazette, authorities poured over 300 pages of Internet search terms and 400 pages of Web site history. And almost all of it involved blonde females. And, you know, most of the web searches started with queries about strangling blonde women. There were also searches about having sex with a freshly dead body. Leon Spies argued that the search history was irrelevant since the searches had been made in 2018, 38 years after I would argue that they are very relevant, considering that he is still kind of focused on these things that long after. Which brings me back to Jodi Hostentrut and the fact that he brought her up during the interview, which was very odd. There are people out there who think he could have been responsible for her disappearance and eventual

murder as well, because usually when somebody does something like this, I mean, it was 1979. He was 25. Are we supposed to believe that he lived the rest of his life as a Boy Scout? No. And no DNA in that case? No, she's gone. She's missing. They never found her body. But no DNA found at the crime scene that they were able to say it wasn't hers or anything like that? No, it looks like she was snatched by her car. She was going to get into her car to go to work, and it looks like somebody grabbed her. And by the way, you're right. I would argue that the fact that search history was so recent

is even more telling, because are we to believe as a reasonable person that he just started searches like that in 2018? Yeah, that's his new hobby? Yes. And I want to go off the track here because we've got a good case here to discuss, but this is where the ethical stuff comes in for me as a defense attorney where I know we've had defense attorneys in the comments where I would like to think this person who's a high profile attorney is smart and probably can put two and two together. And I have to believe in my heart there's part of him

that knows this search history is relevant and probably suggests his client did kill this woman. And yet he's going to use the law to suppress it because that's what he's paid to do. So I wonder where that comes into play so either there's one of two things either he has no ethics or he's completely ignorant to the fact that this would be relevant in a case like this it's one of the two you know he defended lots of high profile clients like he he was expensive jerry's family paid for him this is not like some guy who it's his first time around the block. I would, but I, but I would also say like, I think defense attorneys hold

a different set of ethics than the rest of us. Yeah. I mean, we talk about this all the time and I, I I'm definitely biased because this is usually the person I'm going against. Biased. Oh, I thought you said Jose Baez, who would also pull something like this. Well played. Well played. Yeah. No, I just hearing it and, you know, we know where we're going with this case, but imagine, imagine if that thing being suppressed was the reason, you know, he got off, you know, we have DNA in this case, but what if there wasn't? What if it was more circumstantial? You know, it's absolutely, it's crazy to think, but it happens all the time. Well, during the trial, a man named Michael Allison testified on behalf of the prosecution. Allison had shared a cell with Jerry Burns in the Lynn County Jail,

and the two men had grown close during their time together, playing cards and talking about their lives. They had gotten so close that Jerry would often refer to Michael Allison as his son, and Michael Allison would sometimes call Jerry dad. Now, according to Michael Allison, when an article about Michelle Martinko and Jerry Burns was published in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Jerry Burns autographed a copy of the article for Allison, writing on it, to my favorite son, Michael. This autographed article was shown during the trial and submitted as evidence. Can you imagine being Jerry Burns' actual son and like you're out there defending your father and then you find out he wrote to

like some random inmate to my favorite son, Michael, on an autographed article about him possibly being the murderer of Michelle Martinko? Like like Mingya. I mean, if that's not a fall from grace or like losing faith in your idols, I don't know what is. Yeah. And the sad thing is that's not the worst thing that he has to worry about with his father as far as what his behavior. Certainly not. But I feel like it would also be a little window. And because later, Jerry's family would come out and like his daughter spoke publicly on one of the shows. And she was like, there's no way he did this. Like, I can't imagine him doing it. But I feel like if you're that son and you would never think that your father would kill somebody,

but then you see this and you wouldn't think that your father would autograph an article about him potentially being a murderer either. And all of a sudden you're starting to see like a little bit beyond the curtains of who he might really be. Michael Allison also claimed that although Jerry never came right out and said the words, I killed Michelle Martinko, he often alluded to it. Burns had told Michael Allison, quote, son, they might have me, but I don't bow my head to him, end quote. And during a period of time when Allison was consistently beating Jerry in card games, Burns told his favorite son that if he kept beating him, he would have to take Michael Allison to the mall. Michael Allison claims that this was the comment that prompted him to call the authorities and agree to turn a state's witness because he was disgusted by it.

And Michael Allison also did say later on during the trial that he was not getting any special benefits. He wasn't getting a deal for this. He was just doing it because that comment really disturbed him. Michael Allison told the jury, quote, he feels like that no matter what happens in this case, that he wins because he had the opportunity to be out there with his family all these years, end quote. It's an interesting comment. That's the sad reality of it, though, right? That's an interesting comment.

Let's take our final break, and I want to weigh in on that. All right. So we're back and I wanted to weigh in on that comment about him feeling like either way he won because essentially he got to spend his entire life as a free man. And this is something that you've said numerous times where officers choose to keep cold cases close to the vest for 10, 20, 30, 40 years. And part of that is because like, Hey, if something comes up and we have to ultimately prosecute this case, you know, we don't want it to be tainted by outside sources. But here you are looking at this individual and also even the Golden State Killer.

That guy was on his deathbed when they brought him in. Has he passed away since actually? I don't think so. But I mean, he looked like he was on his way out. Yeah, he looked like the cryptkeeper, man. So you have to ask yourself, yes, there is some justice in the fact that they're answering for what they did. But if they spent the majority of their life as a free man, and now it's like they're on the back nine, they have a couple years left. Do you really think they learned their lesson? I would argue that in most cases,

it's a no. I would argue that they kind of, in ways, I don't think they won, but they definitely didn't lose. Right. And that's a tough pill to swallow. And I can't even imagine what it would be like for the family members. So I always push back when you bring up things like that, as far as like, hey, we got to get more people, we got to solve these cases faster. We got to get these people while they're still out there enjoying their life when the victims are no longer able to do that or their family members. And potentially reoffending again, right?

Correct. Absolutely. That's the worst case scenario, right? But even just being out there, just enjoying life is really hard. And I push back on you a lot, but you got to call it how you see it and you're right. In that sense, when you think about a scumbag like this, making those comments, I hear you and I feel where you're coming from. And I know a lot of people agree with you. And these are the types of comments that make you feel that way. And you're justified in feeling it. I don't have any excuse for it. That's tough. Yeah. Cause it's like the balls, you know? Yeah. And he's not the only one who feels like that. Absolutely not. You know, you know, Joseph D'Angelo's like, okay guys, I'm like 105 years old. What are you going to do to me?

You got me. Congrats. Yeah, exactly. No, I agree. He probably, you know, they both probably felt so emboldened by the fact that they had gotten away with it for so long to begin with. I mean, do you remember Whitey Bulger when they got him finally?

Yeah. I mean, you know, he had some things go on in prison. Let's talk about that another day, but that's how he got taken out. But he was, again, lived most of his life as a free man. He was on the run.

He couldn't live like you or I. But in this case, Jerry went on, as we said, he lived a pretty normal life after that. We should do a series on Whitey Bulger. I wouldn't mind doing that at all. I'm fascinated by the mafia and all that stuff. So yeah, I would definitely do that. Well, the defense only called one witness to the stand, Dr. Michael Spence, a self-described forensic DNA consultant. Spence was unable to

argue that Jerry's DNA did not connect him to the scene, obviously, for the reasons you stated before. You can't really argue contamination when you took a fresh sample from him, which matches the profile of Michelle's killer. But Dr. Spence did put forth the theory of DNA transfer to explain how Jerry's DNA had gotten there. He claimed that the way the original detectives on the case had bagged the evidence in the 70s, basically putting all of Michelle's clothes in one bag, that could be a cause for concern, saying, quote, things shouldn't be packaged that way. They should be separated out. And if something is packaged, of course, in 1960 or 1979, people weren't aware who were working scenes that the prominence that DNA was going to gain over the next few decades, end quote. Which is a stupid argument because they were all Michelle's clothes. It's not like the police put Michelle's clothes in a bag with like some other cases evidence which would cause these are her clothes.

You're just causing contamination amongst the clothes she was wearing that night, which it doesn't matter if his DNA was on any article of her clothing and transferred to her dress. It was still on her clothing and in her car. Yeah. And ideally now the practice is to separate all items, right? But yes, he was looking for an opportunity. I think the detectives initially in 1979 did a great job. And as we've learned and as our training has grown, we learned the proper way to preserve evidence that may contain DNA. We do separate everything and all that good stuff. But yeah, he's trying to compare the tactics and techniques that are used today in 2018 at this point to the tactics used in 1979.

Yeah, he's reaching. It's kind of an unfair comparison. He's reaching hard. So when Jerry's attorney, Leon Spies, questioned Dr. Spence on the stand, he asked him, quote, is it, Dr. Spence, a plausible explanation that the DNA of Jerry Burns found on the dress or on the gear shift could have come about by a transfer? End quote. And Dr. Spence responded that yes, that was a possibility. It's also a possibility that aliens are watching our planet right now waiting for a time to attack, but it's not plausible, as, you know, Leon Spies had mentioned. Dr. Michael Spence claimed that humans shed 2 million cells per minute,

and skin cells can be transferred when touching anything. But how would Jerry's DNA have gotten on Michelle the night of her murder if Jerry claimed he hadn't been at the mall that night and he hadn't talked to anybody? The prosecutor on the case, Nick Maybanks, he asked Dr. Spence this exact question. Maybanks said that Michelle had seen many people the night of her death. She'd given them hugs. She'd sat down and shared food with them. She'd shaken their hands. Why wasn't any of their DNA on her clothing or in her car? Dr. Spence did not have an explanation for that. I think it's important, too. We're

talking about blood DNA here, right? So we're talking about a different type of trace evidence. This isn't just touch DNA. This is someone, Jerry Burns in this case, who would have been bleeding during that time frame. So you would also have to explain that, how he was injured and how that blood from that injury transferred onto Michelle and then onto the shifter. It's a lot of transfer there. Right. Exactly. But I mean, he was their only witness. So like they tried. They tried. Right. He gave it a shot. The one hole in the prosecution's case was motive. Michelle hadn't been robbed. She hadn't been sexually assaulted. Jerry Burns didn't know Michelle or her family, so it couldn't have been personal. Law enforcement

knew that the crime had most likely been sexually motivated due to the Internet search history on Burns's work computer, but they were unable to use this to prove motive to the jury since it hadn't been allowed into evidence. In his closing statements, Nick Maybanks told the jury that the secondary transfer theory put forth by Dr. Spence was, quote, not logical, not reasonable, not founded in the evidence, and quite frankly, not in the realm of possibility, end quote. And why is he saying that? Because he's saying, hey, listen, trace evidence, it happens. You can have a transfer of evidence. However, you guys haven't even put forth a theory that would explain said transfer. So even though the one part is true, how did your client's DNA transfer into that location? That's the big hole here that they weren't able to fill. And none of the other people that she saw that night.

Had contact with him. Remember, he was never at the mall. Nope, he wasn't. So you can't say you were never there and then at the same breath say, you know, maybe I was there. It doesn't work like that. It was a losing battle. Maybank said that the only things stored in the bag were Michelle Martinko's own clothes, and there was no possibility that Jerry's DNA could have gotten onto the clothes after

they were taken into custody. The prosecution said that even though Michelle had not been sexually assaulted, that didn't mean that it hadn't been Jerry Burns' motive to do so. But Michelle had fought back so fiercely that Jerry had no other choice but to kill her. And in the process of repeatedly stabbing Michelle, Jerry had cut himself, he cut through the gloves he had been wearing, and he caused his blood to mix with Michelle's blood, which ended up on the gear shift and on Michelle's dress. The jury deliberated for just three hours before coming back with a verdict of guilty on February 24, 2020, and Jerry Burns was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Angie Crino, who served on the jury that convicted Jerry, she said the experience changed her life.

She could not believe how indifferent Jerry Burns remained throughout the entire trial, saying, quote, to not show anything, his face I think stayed the same the whole trial. I lost a lot of sleep, everything running through your head, and just the pictures alone were horrific, end quote. In 2021, Jerry Burns and his new legal team appealed his conviction with his new lawyers calling the warrantless extraction of Burns' DNA, quote, Orwellian use of police power, end quote. They claimed that simply because Jerry Burns abandoned his straw at the pizza place, that didn't allow the police to search the straw for DNA. The new appeal also argued that Jerry had ineffective counsel for his trial, with Leon's spies failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct, such as the jury being told that Jerry was unable to explain how his DNA ended up at the murder scene,

which honestly, once again, feels like a reach, because the video of Jerry being interviewed by the police, that was entered into evidence. Like I said, the entire thing was played for the jury, and in that video, Jerry says more than once that he has no idea how his DNA ended up there. So, I mean, like, what is there for Leon Spies to object to? He's not my favorite person. I'm not over here like Leon Spies fan club team Leon Spies. But what could he have possibly objected to?

The ACLU also hopped on board claiming that people should have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their DNA. And the sequencing of Jerry's DNA had been unconstitutional. And people do have a reasonable expectation of privacy to their DNA in the comfort of their own home. Right. And I mean, I'm not like I'm not disagreeing with this. You know, I kind of feel like I wouldn't want somebody to be following behind me, picking up like my Starbucks cup out of the garbage. But I'm not out there murdering people. So I really I wouldn't want somebody to be following behind me, picking up like my Starbucks cup out of the garbage. But I'm not out there murdering people. So I really I don't have anything to hide in that manner.

And if I had been out there murdering people, I mean, I really only have myself to blame that I'm leaving my DNA all over town. Right. And if they had seized the straw from his place of business, right, where he like, you know, on his private property. Yeah, they'd be trespassing, et cetera. Yep. Major issue there as well. But, you know, some of you may agree with it. Some of you may not, but it's no different than you throwing out a cardboard box with a, you know, a number on there or a cool design that you no longer want. So you throw it into the trash and someone else who says, oh, I actually like the way that box looks. I'm going to keep it. They can pull it from your trash and keep it as their own property for the rest of their lives. There's nothing you can do about it because you've abandoned it.

The same thing goes for DNA. You may not like it. You may think it's intrusive. But right now, the way the law is written, the way the constitution is written, it's protected where law enforcement has that right to obtain that property. And I obviously not a lawyer, but I don't see that changing. Yeah. And like, let's say I have a couch with a ginormous blood stain on it. And I'm like, I don't want this couch anymore because of this blood stain. And I put it at the bottom of my driveway and someone grabs it. And then that person gets at home and they're like, what's up with this blood stain? And they call the police and the police find out that this bloodstain actually matches the DNA of a recent murder victim.

Now they can come to my house and be like, yo, how did this this victim's blood get on your couch? It's really no different than that. You know, if you're just like I said, leaving your DNA all over, you can't be really upset that that it gets taken and you get caught. Yeah. As a side note, though, Jerry's new lawyer is Kathleen Zellner. This is the attorney who's best known for representing Stephen Avery, Stephen Avery of Netflix, making a murderer series. So I can only imagine how much Jerry's putting out for that. All of these pointless appeals that will never go through because literally, I don't think these appeals will ever go through. I don't even know why he's trying at this point. It's ridiculous. The family definitely has some money though, huh?

They must. I agree. They definitely do. For this to be taking place, seems like a pretty slam dunk case, but he has these legitimate lawyers who are making a lot of money investing their time in it. So what is that? Is it because they truly believe it or is it because, and that may be the case. I'm not going to say that it isn't, but usually in these instances, it's motivated by money. Well, motivated by money for the lawyers, you mean? Correct. That's right. But what's Jerry's motivation for this at this point? Well, I mean, if he's got money to spend and there's a chance that based on a technicality within the law, he could get out. I think he'd prefer to spend his time as a free man than in prison.

But that is that is the you know, as they're laying it out here, I'm sure there are going to be people listening or watching this that agree with Jerry and Kathleen. They may not agree with what he did, but they'll say, you know, from a more societal perspective, we don't want police officers out there rummaging through our trash. And I know there are people, I've heard this argument. So although we may feel a certain way, there are going to be people and you're entitled to that opinion who don't think law enforcement should have the ability to follow you and then take something that you left behind for the purposes of seeing if you've committed a crime or not. But I think people forget too, we don't have the manpower in law enforcement to just go out there and take everyone's trash. They were led down this path. You usually have to be doing something wrong for them trying to be getting your DNA, right? There was a lot that led them there. They took the DNA profile from the vehicle that they didn't, you know, that was just there.

And they entered it into this database. They used Parabon sequencing, all this stuff. And that led them to relatives of Jerry. You know, they didn't know who he was before that. And that's when they decided to go to the next step and use the police tactics available to them to see if he was the guy or not. And as we said earlier, they had the two brothers, thought they could be the person. As soon as they weren't, they moved on from him. And they would have done that with Jerry as well.

But unfortunately for Jerry, his DNA matched. Yeah. And like Derek said, if you don't agree with this, you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion. As long as you give us the same respect and allow us to be entitled to our own opinion because this is a relationship that goes both ways all right yes yes this is a mutual relationship a mutual loving relationship where we don't judge each other for our feelings nobody leaves a negative comment ever no you can leave negative comments if you want i just hide y'all from anyways as of the date of the trial, Jerry's family members could not believe that he would have done such a terrible thing. His brother Donald said that at the time of Michelle's murder, Jerry had worked at a dealership that sold Buick cars.

So maybe Michelle's car had come from that dealership with Jerry's DNA already in it. To that theory, Detective Matt Denlinger said, quote, my question for them would be, did the dress go to the dealership too? This is a fantasy world. Common sense says that is not the case, end quote. I don't, you know, I can't even blame Jerry's family for, I imagine you grew up with somebody for 60 something years and you would almost feel stupid yourself for not seeing that he could be capable of that. You know, you almost feel like foolish. You see this a lot with significant others or family members of drug addicts who are out there doing drugs actively and nobody picks it up or figures it out until it's like, you know, you really spiraled out of

control and you end up feeling stupid because you didn't see it. But why would they know to look for that? And I do want to mention also that while Jerry was being questioned by Matt Denglinger, they also had detectives questioning his other two brothers at the same time, because apparently there was some suspicion that his brothers may have been aware of the murder and maybe they knew something that they didn't. Now, that was just mentioned. I'm not saying that they do. And if the police found out that they did, it's never come out. So Jerry Burns had a cousin. His cousin's name was Brian Burns. And apparently Brian Burns, who was 55 years old, he vanished on December 19th, 2013. That's 34 years to the day of Michelle Martinko's murder. To this day, Brian Burns's case is still considered an active missing person case. And, you know, I'm not saying that there's a connection, but it is strange. The date that he went missing, is it possible that Brian Burns could have figured

something out? Or maybe one night Jerry and Brian are like drinking, you know, out at a bar or just at home, you know, drinking some beer and Jerry accidentally let it slip what had happened. And then afterwards, he was like, oh, shit, you know, I said something I shouldn't have. And maybe he did let something slip because it happened to be that they were drinking together on the anniversary of Michelle's death. And Jerry's, you know, feeling nostalgic. And he mentioned something about it, thinking that his cousin's going to be like, oh, man, close call that you got away with that. And his cousin was probably like, what the heck? What are you talking about? You have to tell somebody. And so Jerry was like, all right, Brian, you got to go. Is it

possible? Yeah, it's possible. The dude's never been found. I also want to mention that Jerry's wife, she ended up taking her own life. That's not nothing either. Is it possible that Jerry's wife figured it out? I mean, you don't live with somebody and you're married to somebody for that long without getting a little peek into their dark side. Did she find some search stuff on his computer, some Internet searches that he had made that made her second guess? What kind of man her husband was. Did she confront him about it? Who knows? But apparently, Jerry Burns' wife took her own life, and it could have been for a multitude of reasons. Or did she?

Right. Yeah. Yeah. Damn. Right? Yeah. I mean, I would love to look into that in the aftermath and see how concrete it was. Right? But I will say this, and we're not pointing at anyone. The only reason Jerry Burns is in custody is because he cut himself during the assault. Exactly. If he hadn't cut himself during the assault or left behind any evidence, I don't think we'd be here today. Absolutely not.

And so could there have been a co-conspirator who didn't injure themselves during the assault? Absolutely. We'll more than likely never know. I'm not saying that to put a downward turn on it, but that's the reality of it. If he didn't cut himself, Jerry Burns would still be walking amongst us today. I have no doubt about that. The family of Michelle is obviously relieved that her killer is finally behind bars and they are proud of her for fighting so hard that she caused her killer to injure himself in a way helping to solve her own murder. Well said. I was going to say the same thing. I mean, she essentially, as we just said, the cut is what solved this case. And the only reason there was a cut was because Michelle fought and she refused to be a victim. And I don't have anything to prove it, but I think the dress being pulled up, even though

there was no signs of a sexual assault, that was probably the initiation of a sexual assault. It could be because of the struggle, but I would think the motivation for this was sexual assault and she stopped it. She stopped it and she fought until she could no longer fight preventing him from doing what he wanted to do. And that says something. We talked about it really quickly in the first episode, but to me as a family member, that would mean something. And apparently it sounds like it does to Michelle's family as well. Yeah. And I mean, if I'm being honest, I think that he intended to kill her regardless. I don't think it was just a sexual assault. He came with gloves. He came with a weapon of some kind. We still don't know what, because he hasn't fessed up to it.

But if you look at his search history, his internet search history, sex with a freshly dead body, I definitely think that it was his intention the entire time to probably rape her and then kill her and then maybe rape her again. And it just didn't go the way he thought. He thought she was going to be more passive. He thought he would have more of a chance, but I do think it was always his intention to take her life. And I don't think that she was his only victim. It's just you'll never really prove it. Now, I mean, to be fair, his DNA is now in the system and it hasn't tracked back to any other unsolved murders. But in the case of somebody like Jodi Hosentro, she's never been found.

Maybe he learned from Michelle. He said this was too messy. This was my first time. This was too messy. Next time I'll take the girl. That way I don't have to rush. I don't have to worry about a public parking lot. I don't have to worry about all this stuff. I will take this person away from the location, be able to do whatever I want, and then make sure she's never found. And there are thousands of rape kits out there that haven't been entered into CODIS yet. And also there are thousands of rape kits out there that haven't been entered into CODIS yet. And also, there are thousands of pieces of evidence from the 70s, 80s, 90s that's sitting in an evidence locker right now and hasn't had that young detective who's got a different way of thinking go back to that evidence locker and send it down to the crime lab to be tested for DNA because they couldn't do it back when it was originally seized. So you think about all that evidence that's out there that may contain DNA right now that hopefully they get to one day.

Maybe one of those samples come back to Jerry or someone else. But either way, I do think it creates a level of hope that this isn't an isolated incident. This wasn't luck. This was good police work. And this is going to be a more common occurrence, as we've already mentioned. So hopefully it gets cheaper, it gets faster, and it becomes more frequent because I love doing these types of cases. And unfortunately, the victim's no longer with us, but there is something there to be said that this person is now behind bars. And it's not the best scenario, but it's definitely not the worst. I agree. I agree. And you know, these, these cases are hard, but you do like, uh, not a happy ending, but at least some closure, at least answers. Agreed. Couldn't agree more. It was a great case. And, um, onto the next one. I know we're kind of working it out. We might have something lined up, but, uh, you know, we'll let you guys know. I'm sure it'll be another good one to

go over. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for joining us. Don't forget to follow us on social media, Derek Talamware. You know where it is, guys, at Crime Weekly Pod, and then obviously our website is crimeweeklypodcast.com. Until next time, we'll see you later. Bye. Bye.