Mind of a Serial Killer - MURDEROUS MINDS: An Oscar-Worthy Murder Pt. 2

Episode Date: May 29, 2025

Dan Wozniak played the role of a grieving friend while hiding a deadly secret. In Part 2, we trace the investigation that unmasked the aspiring actor as a cold-blooded killer—from ATM fraud and staged texts to dismemberment, duffel bags, and a twisted confession the cops never saw coming. Killer Minds is a Crime House Original Podcast, powered by PAVE Studios. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. For ad-free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crime House+ on Apple Podcasts. Don’t miss out on all things Killer Minds! Instagram: @killerminds | @Crimehouse TikTok: @Crimehouse Facebook: @crimehousestudios X: @crimehousemedia YouTube: @crimehousestudios To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is Crime House. Friendship is a special thing. It's a bond you create on your own, one that requires time and effort to nurture. And when that bond grows deep enough, you know you can trust that person with anything. Which Daniel Wozniak took advantage of. Dan's friends loved and trusted him. He was like a brother to them. But to Dan, they were only pawns. And he was willing to sacrifice them in order to get everything he wanted. The human mind is powerful. It shapes how we think, feel, love, and hate. But sometimes it drives people to commit the unthinkable.

This is Killer Minds, a Crime House original. I'm Vanessa Richardson. And I'm Dr. Tristan Engels. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest minds in history, analyzing what makes a killer. Crime House is made possible by you. Please rate, review, and follow Killer Minds. To enhance your listening experience with ad-free early access to each two-part series and bonus content, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts. Before we get into the story, you should know it contains descriptions of mutilation and murder.

Listener discretion is advised. This is our second and final episode on Daniel Wozniak, a community theater actor who went to terrifying measures to fund his dream wedding. Last time we introduced you to Dan and his resistance to his strict upbringing, we talked about his transformation into a compulsive liar, his reliance on drugs and alcohol, and his willingness to do whatever it took to get what he wanted. Today we'll follow the investigation into the murders of Dan's friends, Julie Kibuishi and Sam Hurr, the elaborate plot he enacted to evade justice and how the authorities

eventually caught on to his act. And along the way, I'll be talking about things like how Dan manipulated everyone around him for his own gain, his willingness to betray the people that he trusted most, and the inability to stop lying even when he was caught. And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? In May 2010, 26-year-old Dan Wozniak was getting ready to marry his fiance, 23-year-old Rachel Buffett. The two of them were getting married at the end of the month,

and they wanted a lavish, extravagant wedding. But there was a big problem. They couldn't afford it. Dan wasn't going to let that stop him, though. For years, the struggling theater actor had taken advantage of his friends by borrowing money and never paying them back. He was ready to do the same when it came to his wedding fund, but this time, he was gonna take extreme measures to get it, which meant betraying his best friend

in the most horrific way possible. In episode one, I outlined how Dan's personality formed. And just to recap, he was a child of helicopter parenting, and helicopter parents hover over their child's every move, meaning all of their focus, worry, and time is spent on their child. As a result, Dan was raised to believe everything revolved around him,

and everything will be done for him. This, in addition to personality traits and societal influence, created entitlement in Dan. Helicopter parenting explains in part how Dan's personality was shaped, as do all types of childhood experiences and environments, but his parents are not to blame for this behavior. He is still in charge of his choices, and Dan has grown into someone who's purely ego-driven, lacks empathy, is calloused enough to betray his best friend in the most extreme way imaginable.

What does it say about a person who sees others more as tools they can use rather than people? Is there a clinical diagnosis for that? Yeah, actually there's a few that that could fall under. We'll start with the first. The general criteria for antisocial personality disorder is a continuing pattern of disregard for and the violation of the rights of others since the age of 15. However, for this to be diagnosed, the individual has to have evidence of conduct disorder before the age of 15.

And we didn't really cover his life before high school in detail in order to confirm if there's any evidence of that. We do know, though, that he has been deceitful since he was a teenager, and he has shown a pattern of disregard for others. Evidence of this is the sex tape that he saved for extorting his ex-girlfriend, manipulating others in his immediate circle, all for a financial gain, pathological lying, and now murder. He also exhibits signs of narcissistic

personality disorder. He is preoccupied with material things, such as this elaborate wedding he wants to have, even though he doesn't even have the means for it. He's preoccupied with success, he's self-centered and entitled, he lacks empathy, and he has interpersonally explosive behaviors as we outlined in episode one. People with these personality disorders truly only see others as tools that they can use for their own personal gain. Overall, the diagnostic impressions lean toward one or more personality disorders. With that said, I have not personally evaluated Dan, so this is not a formal diagnosis by any means, just an educational overview.

Dan's chilling plan went into action on May 21, 2010. That night, one of his acquaintances, 23-year-old Julie Kibuishi got a text from Dan's best friend, 26-year-old Sam Herr. Julie and Sam were extremely close, and according to the message, Sam was in a lot of distress. He asked Julie to come over to his apartment in Costa Mesa, California, but something about the messages felt off. They just didn't sound like him, especially because one of Sam's texts mentioned that he wasn't looking for sex that night. That struck Julie as odd,

because they were only friends. They'd never been intimate like that. But if anything, those strange details made Julie even more willing to help Sam, because she was one of the few people who knew Sam suffered from PTSD from his days in the army. If he was in a bad place that night, it would be understandable if he wasn't himself, so without a second thought, she went to meet up with him. The next morning, Sam's dad, Steve, found Julie's dead body in his son's apartment, and Sam was nowhere to be found.

After Steve called 911, Detective Mike Cohen of the Costa Mesa PD was one of the first officers on the scene. Initially it seemed like Julie had been killed as a result of a love triangle gone wrong. She'd been shot in the back of her head, and someone had scrawled a lewd message on her sweater. Julie's pants had also been pulled down, indicating possible sexual assault. Detective Cohen asked Sam's dad if he knew anything about Julie. Steve said that she and Sam were friends. She tutored him, and he viewed her like a kid sister. But then, Cohen looked at Julie's phone and saw the text she got from Sam the night before, begging her to come over.

He started to think that maybe Sam and Julie were closer than they'd let on. And when Cohen learned about Sam's PTSD and possible drug and alcohol use, he wondered if the young man had snapped. If that was true, they needed to find Sam as soon as possible. To do that, Cohen and his team spoke to some of Sam's neighbors. And one of the first people they approached was Sam's good friend, Dan Wozniak. When the officers went to the apartment Dan shared with his fiancé Rachel Buffett, Dan said Sam had been over the night before and he'd been acting strange.

According to Dan, when Sam left that night, they saw him get into a car with someone they'd never seen before. Dan said he only saw the other guy at a distance, but he could tell he was wearing a black beanie. The officers didn't know what to make of this, but they were confident Sam was on the run. They started tracking his bank accounts in case he used his debit card somewhere. They also ran a background check and learned about Sam's past murder charges. And the next day, Julie Kibuishi's autopsy revealed that her killer had a taste for violence.

It turned out she'd actually been shot twice in the back of the head. The first one had been fatal, which meant Julie's killer shot her again, even though they might have known she was already dead. There was something even more bewildering, though. While Julie's pants had been pulled down, there was no evidence of sexual assault. In fact, the autopsy was somehow able to show that her pants had remained on for several hours after she died, which meant that someone came back

to the scene and removed them. Whenever someone is shot in the back of the head, my initial thought is this was an execution. There's no room for this to have occurred accidentally or involuntarily. It was intentional. But to determine a profile of the shooter, we need to consider a lot of factors. Specifically, how her pants were pulled down hours after her death with no evidence of sexual assault, that lewd message that was scrawled across her back, and how

her body was found. And when we consider all of these factors, it's apparent, at least to me, that the killer is somewhat inexperienced, but also organized. And what we know about the profile of an organized killer is that they plan their crimes in advance to ensure control over the situation. They attempt to conceal evidence. They are calm and relaxed after their kill. And they are socially competent, often living with a partner. They appear to lead a normal life. They are highly manipulative and deceptive. And they're often personality disordered.

What does this say also about the level of comfort in returning to the scene hours later and handling a dead body? So I think it speaks to a few things, but it's specific to this case because that's going to vary on a case-by-case basis. First, this is unique in that the crime scene was staged, and I think this is why they returned. It's as if after the murder, they've been contemplating the scene, recognizing the errors, or coming up with additional ways to make the staged scene seem believable and then align it with a story. And secondly, it shows that they have a lot of arrogance

and grandiosity if they feel confident enough to do this without detection or with little consideration of the risk involved. Well the situation certainly had investigators baffled. But two days later, they got closer to an answer. On May 23, 2010, the police got a hit on Sam's bank account. His debit card had been used twice. First at an ATM and then second at a pizza place right there in town. The withdrawal was for $400, not a ton of money but enough to help someone get out of

Dodge. But when they pulled up the footage from the ATM's security camera, they didn't see Sam. It was a young man in sunglasses, a hoodie and a black beanie, just like the one Dan had described, withdrawing money from Sam's account. Officers didn't recognize the guy, and neither did Sam's parents, but authorities knew it wouldn't be hard to find him. Because when Sam's debit card was used to buy a pizza minutes after the ATM withdrawal, it was for a delivery order. Investigators promptly went to the restaurant and got the address of where the food went. Minutes after the ATM withdrawal, it was for a delivery order. Investigators promptly went to the restaurant and got the address of where the food went. It was delivered to a home in nearby Long Beach, California.

Officers rushed to the address, ready for a confrontation, but instead of a hardened criminal, they were face-to-face with a frightened 17-year-old boy. Officers sat the young man down and started asking him questions. His name was Wesley Fralick. He had used Sam's debit card, but Wesley had no idea who Sam even was. He only had Sam's card because someone had given it to him. One of Wesley's best friends, someone who Wesley trusted so completely he'd do anything for, no questions asked. That person was Dan Wozniak, and he'd used Wesley to help cover up a murder. On May 23, 2010, two days after Julie Kibuishi was murdered, investigators traced Sam Herr's

debit card to a house in Long Beach, California. But when they arrived, all the officers found was a 17-year-old boy named Wesley Fralick. Wesley admitted that Dan Wozniak had given him Sam's debit card. Wesley trusted Dan completely. They'd known each other ever since Wesley was a little kid, when they met through the theater scene in Long Beach. Dan was Wesley's mentor, almost like a big brother to him. Apparently, Dan had come to Wesley a few days earlier, saying his friend, Sam, owed someone a lot of money. Apparently, Sam had asked Dan for help withdrawing the funds.

But Dan told Wesley that for some reason, it was too much for him to cash out on his own. He needed Wesley's help to get it, and offered to throw for him to cash out on his own. He needed Wesley's help to get it, and offered to throw in a little kickback for his troubles. Wesley didn't ask any questions. He agreed to help, and Dan gave him a hoodie, a pair of sunglasses, and a black beanie. Then Dan drove them to a nearby ATM. He parked at a distance from the machine. Then he gave Wesley Sam's debit card and told him to withdraw the $400. Let's talk about how Wesley was so susceptible to this. Teenagers generally are susceptible to influence and manipulation because of a number of reasons. First, they have underdeveloped cognitive abilities, which means their cost-benefit

appraisal or risk assessment, decision-making, and impulse control are diminished due to the fact that their brains are still developing. And they're undergoing a lot of changes and have a heightened sensitivity, making them more emotionally vulnerable. They also have a strong desire for peer acceptance as they're trying to find their own identity and social connections. And children are often taught to trust adults, to listen to adults, so they look up to adults.

I don't think he had any reason not to trust Dan as a result of that. So when a teenager is befriended by an adult, especially one that they look up to, they're very easy targets. Is it possible that Dan enlisted Wesley specifically because he needed someone to do his dirty work for him and knew that Wesley would be easier to manipulate? Absolutely. I think that's exactly what went on here.

And Dan has that pattern of pathological lying, of manipulating others and preying on their weaknesses, especially with his friends and family, all just to get what he wants. So there's no boundary that we have seen that Dan is not willing to cross, because all that matters is him and his desires. And if it meant putting a 17-year-old boy at risk to get that, he absolutely would.

Wesley's story stunned investigators, partly because of what Dan had told Wesley made no sense. Why would someone need an extra set of hands to make cash withdrawals? They started to realize there had to be more to the story, and that Dan was the key to unraveling it. So Detective Mike Cohen called Dan and asked him to come down to the station for some follow-up questions. Only Dan said no. He told them he wasn't available because he was at his bachelor party. He and his fiancee Rachel Buffett were supposed to get married in just a few days.

Detective Cohen didn't press the issue. Instead, he asked around and found out where Dan's bachelor party was. Turned out he was right there in town. So on the evening of May 26, 2010, three days after the raid on Wesley's home, the police tracked Dan down. Dan and his friends were at a sushi restaurant in Long Beach when Detective Cohen confronted him. Once Dan saw Cohen, all the color drained from his face.

Detective Cohen brought Dan back to the station where he laid out his side of the story. Dan calmly explained that Sam had looped him into a plan to steal from himself. Sam had saved up all of his combat pay, a total of $62,000. He wanted to get a couple people to dress up like robbers and withdraw all of it in small amounts. Then he'd report the money stolen so he could essentially get paid twice. Dan told detectives that he had agreed to help, but now he didn't know where Sam was. The story seemed a little far-fetched to the investigators, and the more they poked at Dan's story, the more agitated he became.

Eventually, Dan admitted there was something else he needed to tell them. Apparently, a week after Sam first hatched the ATM plan, he came to Dan's apartment in the early morning hours in a panic. He told Dan that he'd killed somebody. According to Dan, Sam threatened to kill Dan and his fiancee Rachel if Dan didn't help him get away with it. All Dan had to do was drop Sam off somewhere so he could go on the run.

Terrified for his life, Dan agreed. So he said he brought Sam to a shopping mall, right there in Costa Mesa. By this point, it was clear to Detective Cohen that Dan wasn't being honest with them, but they listened patiently as he delivered his monologue. Eventually, Detective Cohen cut him off and told him they needed to take a DNA sample. Once he heard that, Dan started changing his story again. This time he admitted to being in Sam's apartment the night of the murder. Dan said he helped Sam clean up the murder scene and gather his things, but he didn't

see Julie. Whenever pathological liars are confronted with evidence that contradicts their lies, their immediate reaction is typically defensiveness. And we already saw that Dan initially became agitated by detectives. Then they often change the story to cover up the initial deception, like Dan is doing here.

Changing their story can be another way to emotionally manipulate someone. So for example, let's say in his relationship with Rachel, if Rachel confronts Dan and Dan is backed into a corner and then makes up a new lie, and that lie would make Rachel feel guilty for questioning him to begin with, then Dan has now emotionally manipulated Rachel by creating false guilt and thus escapes confrontation and his lie has been successful. But in this case, Dan is confronted by law enforcement.

So he admits to the deception and changes his story slightly, and I think he's doing this because he's hoping that that will make him appear honest and sincere, because he copped to a lie willingly, even though he did so by lying again. Only this kind of tactic doesn't work on law enforcement because they're trained to interrogate and to detect lies. Now his lies are snowballing into other lies until he will have no option but to submit. And there's other reactions that pathological liars have when they're confronted, and the others are blaming other people for their lie or minimizing the impact of the lie altogether. Those are two other common reactions.

Because of those lies, Dan had just dug himself into a huge hole. While there wasn't any evidence that he'd killed Julie yet, he had just admitted to being an accessory after the fact. He was arrested right then and there. In a last-ditch effort, Dan then admitted that he did see Julie's body. Detective Cohen asked him what exactly he saw. Dan described the bloody room, and Julie slumped on the floor, with two gunshot wounds in her head.

This was a crucial moment, because everyone who'd seen Julie's body knew that only one gunshot wound was visible. The second gunshot wasn't revealed until the autopsy, and investigators hadn't shared that detail with the public. Until this point, the police had believed that Sam was the killer and Dan was somehow involved. But now they realized Dan had murdered Julie. And there was still one big question.

Where was Sam? From the team that brought you Up and Vanished comes an all new podcast that brings you a weekly dose of true crime cases. She's in an unknown area. Do you know if she's here now or was she released? They said she was released. I'm Payne Lindsay. And I'm Maggie Freeling.

This is Up and Vanished Weekly. Join me as I talk through cases with special guests and true crime experts. There's got to be something at the heart of that evidence that they've got. It's got to be DNA. Tune in as Payne Lindsay lays out the crime in true Up and Vanished style. A late night knock at the door, a missing car, and a mysterious shadowy figure caught on camera. We cannot see that person's face ever. Luckiest person in the world. On the night of May 26, 2010, police arrested a man who was driving a car and a mysterious, shadowy figure caught on camera.

We cannot see that person's face ever. Luckiest person in the world. What new evidence will it take to solve one of Florida's most high-profile missing persons cases? Up and Vanish Weekly is available now. Listen for free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the night of May 26, 2010, police arrested 26-year-old Dan Wozniak for being an accessory to the murder of Julie Kibuishi.

But police suspected that Dan had actually killed Julie, and that he might have done something to his friend, Sam Her, as well. That same night, the police brought Dan's fiancee, 23-year-old Rachel Buffett, in for questioning. They filled her in on everything Dan had said, and she told them she didn't know about any of it. She and Dan had even performed in a musical in the hours before Julie was murdered. But she said nothing seemed off about him.

If anything, he'd given one of the best performances of his life that night. Detectives didn't keep Rachel at the station long, but the next day they listened in on her phone calls with Dan. First, Rachel said she went to Dan's family's house to tell them he was in jail on suspicion of murder. When Dan's brother Tim heard the news, he broke down. He pulled Rachel aside and admitted that he already knew what Rachel was talking about. Because before Dan was arrested, he'd brought over a duffel bag full of evidence, including the gun he'd used to kill Julie. Over the phone, Rachel asked Dan if that was true, and he said yes. At that moment, Rachel seemed to realize

she'd made a mistake, because she reminded Dan that he was calling her from jail, where all phone calls were recorded, and now she had no choice but to tell the detectives the truth. But before Rachel did anything, Dan wanted to talk to them first. He said he was going to do something radical and that she might never see him again, at least not as a free man. Later that day, around 1 p.m., detectives brought Dan back into the interrogation room. Dan immediately told them, quote, I'm crazy and I did it. I killed Julie and I killed Sam.

I'm wondering if Dan's radical plan is to use the insanity defense. The only thing that he would have to gain by that, if successful, is he would be sent to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. But let's talk about the insanity defense. I know we've talked about it in past episodes, but it definitely warrants a revisit here, because each case is different. So there are three legal standards for insanity, and it varies based on state. And in the state of California where Dan is, they use the McNaughton rule, and that has two prongs. First, Dan's defense would need to prove that he has a mental disease or defect that meets the legal standard of insanity.

Mental disease and defect are legal terms. They are not terms that we use clinically, but it is a legal term. And then second, they would need to prove that during the commission of the crime, his mental disease or defect impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his actions, in this case, murder, and that his mental disease or defect impaired his ability to understand that what he did was legally wrong.

So here are the problems that Dan would face if he's truly seeking to use the insanity defense. And from what we learned so far, Dan does not have a mental disease or defect that would meet the legal standard, such as a psychotic disorder or severe mood disorder. And even if he had, for argument's sake, he faces challenges with the second prong of the McNaughton Rule. His behavior clearly shows that he understood what he did was legally wrong,

and he demonstrates full understanding of the nature of his actions. And here's how we know this. One, he lied to cover it up. Two, he staged the crime scene. He's enlisted unwilling participants like Wesley to throw off investigators and gain access to Dan's money. And lastly, he hid the murder weapon by giving it to his brother.

That shows to me he knows this is legally wrong. Otherwise, why are you hiding it? And it also shows he has rational thought. So I'm confident that if he was to pursue an insanity defense, that he would be found criminally responsible by any evaluating forensic psychologist just based on these factors. What are some of the misconceptions people might have about insanity, please? Do killers frequently try to use it as an excuse for their crimes?

That's a really good question. So there are a few misconceptions about the insanity defense. First, it's not as common as people think. It's used in less than 1% of all criminal cases. The most common forensic assessment that occurs is the request for competency to stand trial evaluations, and this is vastly different. Another misconception? Only 26% of insanity cases are successful for the defendant, and this is because there's an extremely high burden of proof. To answer your second question, do they frequently try to use it as an excuse?

Yes. A lot of defendants will inquire about using this defense with their attorneys, but not all attorneys will advise going forward with one given their case factors or there might be more beneficial legal strategies, and of course, there's always that burden of proof. In Dan's case, he was trying his best to come off as unhinged so he'd be able to plead insanity, and the details he shared were definitely shocking.

Dan told detectives that the day he'd killed Julie, he'd invited Sam over to his apartment, and that's when he put his plan into motion. Dan told Sam he needed to move some heavy equipment at the theater where he was performing. Being the good friend he was, Sam agreed to help. When they got there, the place was empty. Dan said the stuff he needed to move was up in the attic. But it was a lie. Once they got up there, Dan pulled out his gun. He shot his best friend in the attic. But it was a lie. Once they got up there, Dan pulled out his

gun. He shot his best friend in the back. But the first bullet didn't kill Sam, so Dan pulled the trigger again. This time it was fatal. Dan left Sam's body up in the attic. Then a few hours later, he performed on the stage below. After the show, Dan used Sam's phone to text Julie and lure her to Sam's apartment. He was waiting outside the door when she arrived. They went in together and Dan pretended to be just as confused as Julie when they saw that Sam wasn't home. They walked into Sam's bedroom and Dan asked Julie to look for something under

the bed. When she knelt down, he shot her. He told detectives it was all part of the cover-up. He'd killed Julie to frame Sam, to make it look like it was some kind of love affair gone wrong and he'd killed Julie in a jealous rage. Now you see, someone who was legally insane at the time of the crime wouldn't have been able to perform on stage right after, especially without others noticing their mental state. They likely would have intervened if he was truly exhibiting signs or symptoms of a severe mental illness at the time of the crime.

Absolutely, well, there's more. The next morning, Dan went back to the theater. He climbed into the attic where he dismembered Sam's head and hands with a knife. He told detectives that he even laughed when he did it, like he could hardly believe what he was doing. After he was done, Dan said he left Sam's extremities in a storage area in the theater. Finally, he dropped the rest of his body at a nature reserve in Long Beach. Later on, investigators would find all the remains, exactly where Dan said they were.

With the exception of someone like Ted Bundy, whom we covered already, most killers who dismember their victims do so because it makes it easier to transport and dispose of the remains. It also makes it harder to identify the remains and makes it easier for them to conceal evidence. When Dan killed Sam in the attic of the theater, he likely realized there was no way he was going to be able to remove Sam's body from the attic without any help and certainly without being seen. And I think that's why he chose to dismember him. I don't think there's anything really more to that. It also helps him, like I said, conceal the body so that police can believe that Sam is

alive and on the run. And it fits his story, this elaborate story he's created. It's also very clinically significant that Dan was able to perform on stage right after doing that with Sam's corpse just above him. It's mind-boggling. Yeah, and he was able to do that so effortlessly hours after killing his quote best friend And while his dead body was above him, this just really illustrates how apathetic and calloused he is and how superficial he is. All of his relationships are all means to an end for him. And it's as if he's lacking a conscience.

But let's also talk about Julie for a second. So he shot her twice in the back of the head. Shooting someone in the back of the head, as I mentioned earlier, is very transactional, intentional, and in Dan's case, impersonal. So killing Sam and Julie wasn't personal to him, it was business. It was transactional, and shooting her in the back

of the head just shows how disconnected he was from her and any emotions he had to her. And given what we also know now, he wanted to make it look like Sam had not just assaulted her but also murdered her. And given what we also know now, he wanted to make it look like Sam had not just assaulted her, but also murdered her. So perhaps he thought shooting her twice in the head would appear more like a crime of passion, a crime that was fueled with rage. And it's also worth noting though that Dan killed Julie after he killed Sam, and he told detectives that he had to shoot Sam twice before he died.

So it's possible that he could have simply repeated the same thing with Julie to reduce that margin of error. But whatever his reason, it was too easy for him. And it's because he had no attachment to her, no attachment to Sam, and he has no conscience. If Dan wanted to appear mentally ill, his own actions undermined him. Because after he killed Julie, Dan stuffed Sam's passport and clothes, the gun, and the shell casings from Julie's murder into a duffel bag and gave it to his brother. Which meant he was clear-minded enough to try and cover his tracks.

With all that in mind, authorities charged him with two counts of first-degree murder. It would take a while for him to go to trial, though, over six years. During that time, Dan certainly didn't seem like a man who felt bad about what he'd done. If anything, he enjoyed the attention he was getting from the case. He jumped at the chance to appear on the documentary show, Lock Up. Ever the performer, he talked about things like his astrological sign

and enjoying long walks on the beach, almost like he was on a dating show. But to the prosecutors working the case, it was no game. They were determined to make sure Dan paid for his crimes, especially because even though he'd confessed, he pleaded not guilty when the trial kicked off in 2016, although it doesn't seem like he tried to pursue the insanity defense after all. Which made the stakes extra high. If the prosecution couldn't make a good argument, Dan could go free.

Thankfully, they had plenty of evidence to back up their case. Along with Dan's confession that they corroborated by finding Sam's remains, they had the duffel bag full of evidence he'd given to his brother, along with the murder weapon it had Sam's bloody clothes, his phone, his wallet and his checkbook. Not to mention a search history full of incriminating questions, quick ways to kill people, how to hide a body, bitchin' honeymoon ideas. The list went on and on. I mean, that alone is very telling that he's looking up that and then honeymoon. Like how

he can easily just switch between the two, like it's the same thing. So it was no surprise that in September 2016, Dan was found guilty on both murder counts. As punishment, he received the death sentence. However, he wasn't on death row for long. In 2019, the state of California ended the death penalty, which means Dan will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. His crimes were shocking, not just for the brutality, but for the pointlessness of it all. Nobody was forcing Dan to pay for an extravagant wedding, and certainly nobody made him kill two innocent people for it. And while he's now paying the price for what he did, Dan's victims will never get the

chance to live up to their full potential. To live out their dreams of finding love or having their own fairytale wedding. All because Dan was willing to do whatever it took to have his. Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time for a deep dive into the mind of another murderer. Killer Minds is a Crime House original powered by PAVE Studios. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out and connect with us on all social media at Crime House. And don't forget to rate, review, and follow Killer Minds

wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference. And to enhance your listening experience, subscribe to CrimeHouse Plus on Apple podcasts. You'll get every episode of Killer Minds ad-free, along with early access to each thrilling two-part series and exciting bonus content. Killer Minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, and Dr. Tristan Engels,

and is a Crime House original powered by PAVE Studios. This episode was brought to life by the Killer Minds team Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benedon, Lori Marinelli, Natalie Pertsovsky, Sarah Camp, Sarah Batchelor, Sarah Tardiff, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening.