National Park After Dark - Solved: The Shenandoah Murders ft. Kathryn Miles

Episode Date: July 1, 2024

In June of 1996 two women, Julie Williams and Lollie Winans, were found brutally murdered in Shenandoah National Park. Their murderer (or murderers) were never found and the case has remained unsolved - until now.On June 20, 2024 the FBI announced that the assailant has been identified as Walter Leo Jackson Sr. Today we sit down for the second time, with Kathryn Miles, author and investigative journalist who has dedicated years of her life researching this case and uncovering faults in the investigation. While the FBI has closed the case, she unveils in this interview that there are a lot more questions that need to be answered, including the possibility of more victims. This case might be labeled as closed, but in reality, this new information has just opened up a whole new investigation.If you have any information concerning this case, please contact the FBI’s Toll-Free tip line at1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324). You may also contact your local FBI office, the nearestAmerican Embassy or Consulate, or you can submit a tip online at  Electronic Tip Form | FBI. For a full list of our sources, visit npadpodcast.com/episodesFor the latest NPAD updates, group travel details, merch and more, follow us on npadpodcast.com and our socials:Instagram: @‌nationalparkafterdarkTikTok: @‌nationalparkafterdarkSupport the show by becoming an Outsider and receive ad free listening, bonus content and more on Patreon or Apple Podcasts. Want to see our faces? Catch full episodes on our YouTube Page!Thank you to this week’s partners!BetterHelp: National Park After Dark is sponsored by BetterHelp. Get 10% off.Smalls: For 50% off your first order, head to Smalls.com/NPAD and use code NPAD.Cremo Bodwash: You can find all the new, decadent scents of Cremo Women’s Body Wash at Walgreens, CVS, or CremoCompany.comNaked Wines: To get Naked Wines’ 6 bottle for $39.99 offer, head to NakedWines.com/NPAD and use code NPAD for both the code AND password.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Monday AI agents took over my work. And I absolutely love it. Chasing deadlines, writing status reports, updating stakeholders. Agents handle the daily grind now. They live inside Monday.com. So they see the full picture. My work, my team, the whole company. And I don't have to worry about the data.

It's safe, which means I'm free to focus on the big stuff, knowing everything runs smoothly in the background. It's completely shifted the way we work. Create your own AI agent in minutes on Monday.com. So good, so good. Everything you want for summer is at Nordstrom rack stores now and up to 60% off. Stock up and save on the brands you love like Vince, Sam Edelman, Frame, and Free People. Join the Nordi Club to unlock exclusive discounts, shop new arrivals first, and more.

Plus, buy online and pick up at your favorite rack store for free. Great brands, great prices. That's why you rack. Hello, everyone, and welcome back to National Park After Dark. Hey, everyone. Today we have a pretty unique episode. This has never happened before, but we're really thrilled for this episode for a couple of reasons. Number one, we're speaking to one of our favorite guests we've ever had on Catherine Miles. So this is her second appearance on National Park After Dark. And she's here for a pretty amazing reason. And that is the recent development in the case of Lolly Winnens and Julie Williams. And if you are OG listeners, you know that their case is the first one that Cassie ever covered. Yes, and there has been breaking news reports that it is solved. So we have seen everyone reaching out to us and we wanted to hop on here

right away because this is a case that we have been personally invested in. It's close to our hearts. And we wanted to bring it to you all as soon as we could. Yeah. So we rearranged a bunch of stuff to get this out as fast as possible. And thankfully, Catherine was great with just hopping right on and so eager to speak about this case. Obviously, she's been invested for so long. So in our very first National Park After Dark episode, like I said, Cassie covered the chilling story of two women who traveled to Shenandoah National Park in 1996 for a hiking and camping adventure, but were found brutally murdered.

Lolly Winnens and Julie Williams were in a romantic relationship and ventured to the park for a weekend as a celebration for both a new job and moving in together in Vermont. They were both avid outdoors women and brought their golden, retriever Taj along with them. When Julie's father had still not heard from her on May 31st, the day before she was supposed to start her new job, he reported her missing. Following that, Taj was found wandering around the park alone. When the park service initiated a search for the two women, they discovered a horrific scene at their campsite. They found both Julie and Lolly deceased with their hands duct tape behind their backs, their mouths gagged, and their throat slit.

Despite search efforts and national news of their murder, the person responsible for the crime was never found. For the past 28 years, the case has remained unsolved, casting a dark shadow over the park service and for the women and outdoor enthusiasts within the LGBT community who enjoy recreating not only there, but in all national parks across the country. We told their story in depth, along with how the case was handled and possible suspects at the time in our first episode. Then, in June of 2022, on episode 79, we spoke about their case again with investigative journalist Catherine Miles. She spent years investigating their case in hopes of finding the person who murdered them. Catherine uncovered evidence that was never properly investigated, discovered lost records, and negligence in the case, which led her to write her book, trailed, one woman's quest to solve the Shenandoah murders.

In it, she investigates two people of interest. Serial killer Richard Mark Edward Evidence, who was in the area at the time of their murders, and Daryl David Rice, who was eventually arrested for their murders. However, the charges were later dropped. Catherine also dives into DNA evidence, found at the scene, and the process of testing it against suspects, along with faults in the system. On June 20, 2004, the FBI officially announced their murders were solved. After DNA evidence found at the crime scene were linked to convicted serial rapist,

Walter Leo Jackson Sr. He was also an avid hiker in Shenandoah National Park and went by his middle name Leo. While this is an incredible discovery that leads to closure for the families, it's also bittersweet. Daryl Rice spent the past few decades assumed guilty by the public and police with little evidence against him. It has led to him going into hiding and not being able to live a normal life. Along with that, Julian Lolley's murderer Walter Leo Jackson died in an Ohio.

prison in 2018 while serving sentences for multiple rapes and kidnappings, leaving questions that will never be answered and justice that can never be served. Today we speak to Catherine Miles again and discuss her thoughts and insights on the case and the most recent FBI press release. With that, let's welcome Catherine Miles back to National Park After Dark. All right, and without further ado, we are so excited to welcome Catherine Miles back to the podcast. And with our a full update of our past conversation that we had. Hi, it's great to be back and it's great to be talking to both of you again. I'm really glad to be here. Yes, thank you so much for popping on. It's been almost a full two, it's been over two years since we last spoke. And obviously,

there's been a big breakthrough in this case. And it's just so telling and such, we say there's no such thing as coincidence, but this was the first case that Cassie ever covered for this podcast. And the news broke on her birthday. Happy birthday, Cassie. That's fantastic. So you're another Gemini. Yes, I am. Gemini.

Summer baby and summer solstice was June 20th this year, which it's usually the 21st. Yes. Now I'm a summer baby. Lots of things. I think the solstice is a perfect birthday for you. Absolutely. So without bearing the lead at all, we know that you have so much to speak on about the case and everything that's gone on.

we're releasing this as soon as we can as far as when the news actually first broke. But for people who may not have tuned in yet to our previous episode together or read your book before, can you just explain a little bit about your background and how you became involved in Julie and Lolly's case? Sure. So Lolly and Julie, of course, were murdered in 1996. And that was the year that I was graduating from college. And so I felt a lot of kind of resonance with their stories and mine. All three of us were sexual assault survivors who had really kind of found a way back into our bodies on trails. And so their story had always really touched me very deeply. And so it had been one that had always been kind of kicking around in my mind and sometimes in some really uncomfort. ways. I think for a lot of people, especially people of our generation, this really was a hate crime in the sense that, especially for people who identify as female or feminine or non-binary and queer, that this really did radically impact our relationship with the natural world and with trails in particular. And I'm still shocked by how many people come up to me after book talks or things like that and say, you know, I remember everything about this crime. I haven't been back in the wilderness or I haven't gone backpacking again or I don't sleep in a tent alone anymore. And I think that

that kind of secondary trauma is really real for a lot of people. So, so on one hand, in a fairly significant way, this has always had a personal resonance for me in a lot of ways. I taught college at the college where Lollie was a student when she was killed. And so I also have known for quite some time a lot of all these friends and family and professors and things like that. So seeing the impact of all of this on them, including when Daryl Rice was wrongly indicted in 2002, when those charges were dismissed in 2004. And then we had the 20th anniversary. We had the 25th anniversary. We still didn't have a solution. And so I think, you know, really kind of understanding, A, how emotional this is for so many people. And I think also understanding that what we got from the FBI in this press conference

in a lot of ways raised more questions than it answered them. And so this was not a wholly satisfactory conclusion to a really sad story. Yeah. And that's a really good point that I had not totally forgotten about, but now that you say that, I remember that the Park Service, when this first happened and news broke, what happened to the two of them, that the Park Service said, park safe, everything's fine, it's an isolated incident without knowing actually what happened, who did it, why the motive. And it really created this huge dark cloud over the National Park Service and for people who identify as women and the LGBTQ community, for people who were adventuring outdoors. And I feel like that shadow has never been lifted because the case has never been

solved until now. Girl, winter is so last season. And now spring. And now spring. You've got you looking at pictures of tank tops with hungry eyes. Your algorithm is feeding you cutoffs. You're thirsty for the sun on your shoulders. That perfect hang on the patio sundress. Those sandals you can wear all day and all night. And you've had enough of shopping from your couch. Done hoping it looks anything like the picture when you tear up on that envelope.

It's time for a little in-person spring treat. It's time for a trip to Ross. Work your magic. You, of course, have done a ton of research into this whole case. their stories and you wrote a book about it. And we talk in depth about that about two years ago. Since then, have you been with the case and still doing investigations? Have you been part of it since our last conversation? Yes, absolutely. And, you know, the book was always really frustrating to me because I knew it was going to have an arbitrary ending. I knew early on in my research,

despite everything that the National Park Service had told me, despite everything that the FBI had told me again and again and again, these investigators had said, we know without a doubt that Daryl David Rice committed these murders. And I knew that Daryl Rice was out in the world. And initially, I believed everything that the investigators had told me. And so, you know, one of my concerns going into the book was, here's this guy who's, you know, brutally killed two women. Like, is he going to come after me? You know, but, but, you know, it didn't take long in my research process for me to go from being 75% confident that Daryl Rice was guilty to 50% confident that Daryl Rice was guilty to 0% confident that he was guilty. And moreover, it became really clear to me early on that he was

innocent. And so that radically changed the project too, because then I knew that I was dealing with a crime where we didn't know it all who did it. You know, and that was really difficult. And I kept thinking, if I just have another month, if I just have five more months, maybe we can solve the case and the book ends with the solution. And so, you know, I'm really honest with readers in the book to say, look, I don't know who did this. I made a case for what I thought was a better suspect, Mark of Onitz, who I'm happy to say, you know, I'm happy to leave that behind and say he didn't do it. That's fine. My point was always in the book, look, we know Darrell Rice didn't do this. And yet investigators are doing next to nothing to solve this other than pursuing and ultimately persecuting

Darrell Rice. So even when the book went to press, you know, I thought, okay, well, the book is done, but the project isn't done. And so I kept doing research. By then, I had partnered with the Innocence Project, and we had been working together to try to solve this and similar crimes. We continue to work together on all of that. And along the way, the book was also optioned as a streaming series. And so then we were also thinking, well, what are the stories we still need to tell using the TV platform as well, too. So, and I'll say that to this day, you know, here we are now some days after the FBI announcement. That announcement far from closed the box on this for me. Like I said, I have a lot, a lot of questions for the FBI. There's, there's a lot that they

didn't say. There's frankly things that they misrepresented in that press conference. And so now, I think that's part of the story as well, too, is we still don't really have much in the way of answer. And so now my my project has shifted towards investigating Leo Jackson senior, who we now believe was the perpetrator. We don't know if he acted alone. We don't know what evidence was tested and to what degree the FBI is even confident about this. So still a lot to be done and a lot to be said, I think. And when you were just saying that you mentioned the press conference, are you referring to the press conference that just happened announcing Walter Leo Jackson as the person who committed these crimes? Yes. And this was sort of classic FBI. The FBI is kind of a notorious black box

where things are concerned. And just to make sure your listeners are up to speed, whenever a violent crime happens in the National Parks, it's the joint purview of the FBI and the National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers. And so those are organizations who don't usually work together and get kind of thrown together when one of these violent crimes happened. And they share jurisdiction. So that's part of what's really tricky here, but the FBI took the lead in this case and has continued to take the lead. In classic FBI form, they announced the press conference an hour before it was about to happen. They announced it to a very small group of journalists, and they were very clear, look, we're going to make a statement, we're not going to take questions, we will not be taking interviews on this.

And so what they revealed in this press conference, like I said, did not answer a lot, a lot, lot of questions. And they have since rejected interview requests from me, from major newspapers, things like that. And because this case now will never go to trial, Jackson, of course, died in prison in 2018. The FBI isn't required to release anything. So what we do know is that some DNA was retested. We don't know what DNA or where it was from. It was retested at a private lab, which is very peculiar. You know, the FBI's forensic lab at Quantico is arguably the best in the world. So why they went with a private lab, we don't know. What DNA analysis was done, we don't know, whether or not Jackson was operating alone. You know, one thing that I think is really

important to think about is what forensic profilers are telling me is, look, it's a really big jump to go from committing rape to committing a very sophisticated double homicide. So was there a middle step? Were there other homicides or other violent crimes that we don't even know that Jackson committed. The FBI said that he was a very avid hiker. So that obviously concerns me, right? You know, are there other wilderness crimes? Are there other park crimes that we need to be looking at for him? So that's part of my research right now, too. Yeah. And I did see in their press conference and their flyer that they put out afterwards that they are urging the public to come forward with any information, because as you just said, they are concerned that there are other victims in this. And as you alluded to right there, too,

is that he was a convicted rapist and he also was convicted of kidnappings. But to jump from those, which did not include murder, to having a double homicide that's as violent as Lolly and Julie's was, seems like there might be some missing pieces in that, which is definitely concerning. In the press, when you mentioned the press conference, you also said that you felt like they had some misleading information that they said, can you elaborate on that? Sure. So the things that really stuck out to me about the press conference, first was the case they were trying to make that Daryl Rice was a viable suspect. And again, for folks who aren't familiar with this story, Daryl Rice prior to July of 1997 did not have a criminal record and did not have any record of violence against women, criminal or otherwise. That was one

thing that was totally misrepresented in this press conference. It is true that Rice harassed a cyclist in the park in 1997, and I in no way mean to minimize her experience. I think it was, I'm sure it was completely terrifying. And I in no way mean to justify that Daryl Rice did this. He drove by her a couple of times. He shouted obscenities at her. He threw a soda bottle at her and he ran her off the road. That's, that's really scary stuff. And again, that's criminal stuff. He He was, you know, arrested and convicted of it. He served prison time for it. That's as it should have been.

But again, that is not a super sophisticated double murder, right? And so that was the only crime Rice had ever committed. He committed it when he was in the throes of a fairly significant mental health episode. And so, again, it seemed to me as someone watching and listening to the press conference, it seemed to me like the FBI really needed to justify the fact that they have. have hounded Darrell Rice to the exclusion of all other suspects for 25 years now. And at no point did they apologize to Rice. At no point did they say we had the wrong guy. And, you know, this was somebody who was indicted for a capital crime, right? And the way that the charges were dismissed

against him in 2004, they were such that the federal government could have brought it back whenever they wanted to. And they would have brought it back right where they left off, which was jury selection for this capital crime. Had that happened, there's a really good chance that Rice would have been executed. And so, I mean, this is not small potatoes stuff, right? An innocent man could have been put to death. And so that was not acknowledged at the press conference. Another thing that struck me as really significant was they made a big point of saying the days that they knew that Rice was in the park, which incidentally did not include the day when Lolly and Julie were killed. They did not say they knew when Jackson was in the park. That's concerning. So we don't know how long he was there. We don't know

in what form. And then the other thing they said that was super curious to me is they said, were he alive today, we would be charging him both with two counts of first degree murder. And we would also be charging him with two counts of felony rape. There was never an official sign of rape either in the medical examiner's report or anything else like that. Daryl Rice was not charged with rape. And in fact, federal agents had made a big deal about the fact that they didn't believe the women were raped. We always assumed that Julie had been. We had for a variety of reasons I can get into if you want to, but we didn't necessarily believe that Julie had been sexually penetrated by a man, right? There was a vibrator that was found at the scene, which was really peculiar. And we had thought that

that might have been the instrument that had been used, but we had no evidence to support that. And so the fact that they're now saying we are absolutely confident that the women were raped, what they're not saying is why they're absolutely confident. It's possible that there was a vaginal swab taken of both women that isn't in the medical examiner's report. That would be highly unusual, but it's possible. It's possible that sperm or semen was found somewhere and was properly identified. But again, it's really curious to me that the FBI isn't saying that.

And I can't. There's not a good justification for why the FBI isn't explaining any of this or why they went to this mystery private lab that they won't identify. Yeah, you make a lot of very valid points and have a lot of questions. And I have to ask too for because you've been researching this for a long time and you and your book, you talk a lot about DNA and evidence and how it was matched up against certain people. And I just have to ask, did you know that they were re-looking at the DNA? DNA that was found at the scene before this whole news report came out. I had heard from two of the park rangers who were investigating this and who were at one time suspects. Initially, right after this happened, the summer of 1996, it was just kind of chaos

in terms of the investigation. And the FBI fairly quickly kind of honed in on a few of these park rangers who had worked the 1986 double murder of Kathy Thomas and Becky Dowski. That murder had occurred on the colonial parkway, which is National Park Service land. And so it had also been the joint purview of the FBI and the National Park Service police. It was almost exactly 10 years apart. There were a ton of similarities. A lesbian couple, women bound and gagged, throat slit. So the MO of these two crimes was really disturbingly similar. And so a question that folks have had for a really long time is, could it have been the same perpetrator? And I think for the FBI, the fact that that some of these same Rangers were the first on the scene in both crimes, that some of these same Rangers had worked the same crimes and would have had access to these women and would have had the ability to subdue these really strong outdoor leaders in a way that you might not otherwise. You could use your authority, basically, to kind of flash a badge, to maybe even handcuff the women to use a gun or a weapon, and that that would be how you could subdue

two women. And in the case of Lolly and Julie, two women who also had to a very protective dog with them. So I think that those were parts of the reasons why the FBI originally honed in on these Rangers. And I do know, I did hear from two of the Rangers that after my book was published, that they had gone back and really started to look at these Rangers again and had even asked for DNA swabs of the Rangers. So that told me that the FBI was reexamining and that there was some DNA analysis happening. But that never came directly for. from the FBI, and in fact, the FBI sort of rejected all of my requests for information on that. So I knew very little, except that they were trying to unpack it again in some form.

This episode is brought to you by Prime. Obsession is in session. And this summer, Prime Originals have everything you want. Steamy romances, irresistible love stories, and the book to screen favorites you've already read twice. Off campus, L. Every year after, The Love Hypothesis. Sterling Point and more. Slow burns. Second chances. Chemistry you can feel through the screen. Your next obsession is waiting. Watch only on Prime. In your experience, just going back to how the

most recent FBI conference went, you were explaining how they didn't give a large heads up. It was obviously very short-winded with very little detail. In your experience, is that the norm for a case that has been waiting well over two decades to be solved. Like it seems like it would be a celebration is the wrong word, but just a big accomplishment of, hey, we finally found the person responsible. We all this work for the last 25 plus years. And it just seems like they would have elaborated a bit more. Or maybe I'm off base.

It just seems like kind of a very small little tidbit for such a big. and enduring mystery. Do you have similar feelings to that? 100%. And we've seen this in some of the other cases, like, for instance, the Golden State Killer, right? When that case was very recently solved, the investigators made a really big deal about the fact, and they should have, right? Like, solving a cold case, especially a murder case, especially a murder case that terrifies people. When you solve that, you should get to totally brag, right? So don't get me wrong. Like, I'm not like criticizing law enforcement for standing up and taking credit and being really proud of their work. And we saw that in the Dark Angelou case, right, where they were like, look, here's what we did.

We used genetic genealogy, right? Things like Ancestry and 23 and Me. And we were able, we went in and we stole his trash off the curb and we found a coffee mug and we did this and we did that. And we used Parabon Nano, which is the lab. And then this happened. None of that was part of this conversation. And in my line of work as a journalist, I'm always as interested in what's not said as I am in what's said. And again, I'm not saying that I don't believe that Jackson did it. What I am saying is, just like what you were saying, Danielle, is that that is not telling us any of this. We don't know what DNA was retested. We know that there was plenty of DNA at the scene. There was saliva that was in the gags, that was male. There was hair.

in the duct tape, there were knuckle hairs that were in the gloves that were found at the scene. Not far from the scene, there was a beer can and cigarette butts. So we always knew that there was plenty of DNA to be tested. What we don't know is what DNA was tested. We don't know if it was traced DNA, which has been rightfully problematized by people. There was one very chilling case where a man was convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter because a sperm cell was found in her her underpants. And what they later realized was that that had just transferred in the wash. So, you know, a trace DNA identification is a very different kind of identification than one that's made stronger. Admittedly, again, if his like semen was found on or in the women, like, that's

more than a slam dunk, right? That's, that's, but we don't know. Was it just a skin cell? Was it this? Was it that? And I just don't understand. And I really just want to urge the FBI to tell us this, you know, because I think it's going to do a lot to instill trust in the agency and in the National Park Service. I think if they're willing to say, look, we got the wrong guy and we spent millions of dollars trying to get the wrong guy to confess to a crime he didn't do. I think a lot of people would really respect that and have a lot more trust. in these agencies and organizations or even if they were willing to announce, look, we got this really wrong, right? For 30 years almost, we went after the wrong guy. We're going to do an internal review to see what wrong here is to make sure that this doesn't happen again. And that the next time that there's crime in the national parks that we're going to have a much better and a much faster solution, for me as a citizen, for me as somebody who loves to use national parks, that would engender a lot of confidence in me for sure. Yeah, I think that that totally makes sense.

And speaking of Daryl David Rice, he has spent the last 26 years where a lot of people thought he was guilty. Even though the charges were dropped against him, there were a lot of police officers who were gung ho that they were just waiting for more conclusive evidence who never believed he wasn't guilty. And he has spent years. I mean, he was in hiding from the public for a while. If people found him living in their neighborhood, it would be an announcement like this guy's here. he killed these two women, which now we know is not true. And you mentioned that there were millions of dollars spent to try and convict him. And now that feels like motive to maybe brush over it that it's not him.

But also I have to wonder if there is a possible lawsuit that he might be able to file because of his life being destroyed over the allegations against him. And that's not clear right now. I've been in regular touch with his legal team who they're one of their representatives, Deirdre Enright, now runs the Virginia Innocence Project. And she's just been this tireless advocate of Daryl. You know, as soon as she took that case, she realized right away that he wasn't guilty about it, had anything to do with it.

And what she tells me, and I think that this is really notable, too, is despite the fact that he was living in double jeopardy, despite the fact, as you say, he was really harassed terrorized to the point that he still lives in hiding as basically a homeless person because it's the only thing that's safe. Had he been imprisoned in 2004, he would have been entitled to $50,000 a year for every year he was wrongly imprisoned. And so not only would he have been safer in prison than he has been out in the world, but he would be entitled to approximately a million dollars right now, which would, I mean, obviously doesn't replace those 20 years. for him, but would let him go back to the life he's always wanted to live, which is, you know,

he loves the wilderness. Shenandoah was his favorite place to be. You know, he was an avid cyclist. He loved to be in the park. You know, he loved to follow the Great Dead. He's just this peaceable, kind of gentle guy. And again, I'm not trying to exclude the 1997 attack, but it was an anomaly. It's the only thing that's ever happened.

You know, he just kind of wants his life back. And the life he wants back is one where he gets to hike and cycle in National Parks and listen to Grateful Dead bootlegs and kind of be a force for good and not evil in the world. And I don't know if that's going to be available to him or not. It's not clear whether or not they can file a lawsuit. You know, those investigators were telling me in no uncertain words up to and after 2022 that they knew that Daryl Rice had done it, right? That they were confident. And they were even telling some of the family members that my book was going to jeopardize their ability to get a conviction because I was calling Rice into question as a suspect, you know? So that's not good police work, right? Is that,

is that a civil case? I don't know. I think that's up to Daryl's legal team. I have to ask, too, after your book was released, and I remember when I read your book with all the new information with David Daryl Rice, a lot of resources that I had read prior to that were really leaning into him as being the person who did it and that they just hadn't been able to convict him yet. When you released all this new information about him and in your book, you strongly recognize that you do not believe that he was the one who did it. Did you face criticism outside of, you said the FBI, but did you face criticism from either readers or other journalists or the family, anything like that?

A couple of the family members had been really strongly influenced by one of the investigators, one of the lead investigators. And he was 200% confident that Daryl Rice had done it. And he was one of the individuals who had basically told the family, listen, Rice did it. You know, Catherine's going to go out and publish this book and said that he didn't and it's going to make everything harder. And I think that was difficult for the family to hear. And we did have, you know, we did have a conversation about that. And I tried to make my case as objectively as I could. I also really wanted to own that I am also subjective and I also suffer from confirmation bias, just like these investigators do.

So, you know, could I say absolutely 100% I knew Daryl didn't do it? No, but I couldn't find a reason to say he did. And I couldn't even find a way to justify how this guy who was kind of imploding, right, could pull off this sophisticated murder. Plus, he had an alibi for the day that the women died. Plus, you know, the amount of deceit that these investigators had to do to make it seem like Daryl Rice, walking the date of death back by four days, intimidating witnesses to say they hadn't seen the women after May 25th, 1996, all of that said to me, I knew he didn't do it.

And I tried to level with readers as much as I could in the book and say, here's where I'm, you know, conjecturing, right? Here's where I, here's where I have some real data and facts and here's where I don't. What I will say is that, you know, I get a fair amount of emails about the book, which I love. I love it when people take the time to write. At no point have I gotten a single email that says, no, I think Daryl Rice did it and you got it wrong, you know? And that to me said that I was on the right track. Yeah, where so many people agreed with you, especially with all the information that you brought forward with it to.

I knew about investing, but I really didn't know how to go about it. Meet Corey, a wealth front client. With Wealthfront, it could put money in and it would automatically distribute it into a diversified portfolio. Then it starts to compound. The compounding compounds on the compounding. Just let it run. And it's great. Over one million clients trust Wealthfront. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. Investment management and advisory services provided by Wealthfront Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. Investing involves risk to principle regardless of the strategy used.

Task performance does not guarantee future results. And then I have to ask because people were so focused on David Daryl Rice. And then at some point, the serial killer evidence as a possible suspect too. Was Leo's name ever mentioned prior to this finding? Not that I know of, but I will say that I do know of three eyewitnesses who described a man identical to his description. They had encountered him on the morning of June 1st. So the women's bodies were found very late in the day on June 3rd. a Saturday. And at that point, the FBI was notified and the Virginia medical examiner's

office was notified. And I believe the Virginia State Police were as well. And the investigators made the decision not to try to process the crime scene until daylight and not to move the women's bodies until daylight. And so the women's bodies weren't transported until very late in the morning on July 1st. And they didn't start processing the crime scene until then. What they did instead was they basically had a couple of Rangers stand watch over the crime scene to make sure that it wasn't disturbed. But at that point, those were the only people who knew that this crime had occurred. And the park very deliberately chose to hide the crime for three more days after that, even. So, so no one not associated with this investigation should have known that the crime had occurred

early in the morning on July 1st. But three eyewitnesses who were about to start, a hike through the park for a week, encountered these two men. One was a backpacker. He said he was a through hiker and another man that morning. And they approached them. And I describe all of this in detail in the book. They approached these women and they said, did you, did you hear about the women who were murdered on the trail last night? And this was like 30 miles south of where the women were. So again, the through hiker shouldn't have had any idea anyway, you know? Yeah. And so that always stuck out to me and that stuck out to a lot of readers. And they had always described the guy in the car

as looking exactly like Philip Seymour Hoffman. And they had always described his car as a beater to me. And when you look at the photo of Jackson, it's pretty easy to say he looks just like Philip Seymour Hoffman and his car was too. They reported it to Rangers. They reported it to the FBI. They even left the park and developed their film.

They had a photo of the through hiker, which they gave to me. But as far as I can tell, from all of the investigation logs, those leads were never followed. And I can't say for sure that that was Jackson in the car. It sure sounds like him. And the idea that the murderer might have still been in the park and could have been apprehended in 1996 and we could have put this to rest makes me crazy angry. Well, and especially like, I mean, that just seems like the biggest do not pass go. Like, we need to really hone in on this because, For that detail to have been like, oh, well, we're just going to move forward with that and not pay any more time or effort into that.

It just seems like such a no-brainer to, because what explanation is there with such a controlled scene for that to be happening? Like that to me, it just. And a time that social media and cell phones were not really a thing. Not a thing. Yeah. Not a thing. Period. Not a thing.

Yeah. Yeah. So for, for, I mean, if I was a part of this and I think obviously, everything is 2020 and with all the information that we have, it's very easy to be like what, you know, kind of just grabbing our head and just be like, why? But for someone to come forward with information that is feasibly impossible to have happened unless they're speaking with someone who had further information and was potentially involved, it's just such a crazy thing to just have let go and not investigated further at the time. So I understand how frustrating that must

have been for you especially with all this information and a photographic evidence of somebody, you know, at least, to whether it was him or not. It's just so interesting to me. Yeah. And, you know, I'll say that for me it gets even worse because these were three women who were backpacking for the first time. And they, right after they watched this crazy interaction between these two men who were like, did you hear about the murders? Did you hear about the women, you know, who were murdered in the park? They immediately talked to. a ranger and they said, is this true, right? Are we, you know, are we safe here? And the ranger wouldn't tell them whether or not women had been murdered. And all he said was, don't worry about it,

violence happens everywhere. You're safe. But they weren't safe. For all we knew, there was a serial killer in the park. Who they might have just spoken to. Exactly. And who might then be pursuing them, right? And, you know, I've talked to them in the last few days and, like, they're having a hard time getting their heads around this, you know, and this is still very real for them in a lot of ways, you know? And the fact for me, too, that the park made a deliberate, conscious decision to hide these murders for three days, you know, and then once news got out, first they said that it was a bear attack, and then they said that they thought it was a murder suicide, which again is beyond ridiculous, given what we know about the crime scene. You know, I mean, so first of all, that's victim

blaming, right? That's suggesting that either Lolly or Julie was responsible for the crime. That's not okay. Saying that a bear duct taped women and slit their throats, that's crazy town. You know, and meanwhile, they had no reason to believe that the killer wasn't in the park, you know? And that is not how you create trust. Again, especially amongst people who belong to socially subordinate groups, you know, who identify as women, who identify as gay, who identify as bi-pac or have different bodies or whatever else who already don't always feel safe in the wilderness, that is not how you help them feel safe. I 100% agree. And I think part of why this case has carried on and been so scary for a lot of people is not only because it was horrific and horrible that it happened,

but also a lot in due to how it was handled. Because like you mentioned before, the park service was like, oh, don't worry about it. You know, it's stuff like this happens, but everyone's safe, keep going about your business. Where now it's like if we're in the park and we're in these remote areas and something bad is going on, people are going to be afraid that one, maybe their reports aren't taken seriously. Maybe they don't even know what's going on. You know, it's just kind of carried on for decades now of this fear of are there people out there doing these things and is no one doing anything about it?

And now that we have kind of answers that bring a lot more questions. and like you said, were these people walking around and talking to people in the park? And then someone just brushed it off and was like, oh, don't worry about it. Like, not a big deal when that person might have even just been right in the park still. And to be the people decades later who had to live this and now are seeing the case unfold today, it must be just a lot to know that they were maybe were the people who were speaking to the person who committed it or people, because you said there were two. And they feel like they weren't listened to. And I saw that in so many of the interrogation reports of other potential witnesses is that what I saw was, especially for witnesses who said that they saw Lolly and Julie after May 25th, you see these rangers really trying to discredit these largely female witnesses. And you see these things in their reports like, well, she became emotional when she was telling me. So we know we can't trust her. Or, you know, she,

said she identified with the women so we can't trust her. And this this invalidating of women's experiences in the wilderness is again, something we have not solved since 1996. And I think we just really need to talk about that too. Like there still are a lot of people who don't feel like they have wilderness access, that they can't be themselves in national parks or that they won't be believed if they say that something happens. And we need to end that so that the national parks really do become everybody's place. One of the things I raise in the book is the fact that there still is no codified reporting system for violent crimes in national parks. It's still entirely up to the superintendent of the park, how to record this, how to report it. So it's very different from

park to park to park. And some parks may have only one law enforcement ranger for hundreds and thousands of acres, right? And so we need to fix all of this so that people feel like the parks do belong to them and they can be there. 100%. And the lack of a unified, like you said, structure, response. It just eliminates a lot of the questions of how things or if things will be appropriately handled. And I just find it so interesting to kind of compare, as you said in the beginning, as far

as what was kind of trickling out from authorities as far as what the crimes was and who or what was responsible and just kind of all of these, it just left such questions and gaps for the public to kind of raise their eyebrows and it left a lot of room for mistrust. And now we're kind of seeing that now with this press conference of, again, all of these gaps. And it's it's the same type of thing of what aren't you telling us. And that hasn't changed. Even though they're giving answers, it's kind of like, okay, but and then what else? You know, which is kind of what they were doing before, too, in obviously not always in an honest and truthful way. It just seems like not much has changed as far as their response to this case and what they tell the public.

And I think that's so frustrating because, like you said, you know, 20 minutes ago, like this could have been an opportunity for redemption on their end to kind of just take some accountability and do things differently. And maybe, you know, obviously this is so soon, it's been, what, a week since the press conference or six days. So maybe in the coming weeks or months, they'll maybe release more information. But it seems like that won't happen without some public pressure, which you're advocating for, it seems. I am advocating for. I, you know, let's start a movement right now, right? Which is, you know, let's just say, like, look, we are, we are the people. we are the taxpayers who pay for the parks.

We are the taxpayers who pay for law enforcement. And I am not anti-law enforcement, but I am pro-transparency. And I am pro, let's all acknowledge that we always, all of us, have room for massive improvement in how we do everything, you know? And I would like people, and maybe some of your listeners are feeling inspired by this. I would love it to have folks contact their elected officials, their representatives and senators and say, this is not okay. We need, we need internal reviews. We need better transparency. We need better policing of our parks. You know, I feel like sometimes we all feel like we don't have a voice or

there's nothing we can do. But I think there is a lot we can do. And I think there's a lot we can do to say to the federal government, we want our parks to be safe. We want everyone to be able to enjoy the parks. We want to make sure that Rangers are trained and prepared and have, you know, the weapons and the tools that they need. We want to make sure that we know how much violence happens in the park. One of the things that was so shocking to me working on this book is we can't even say how many people have been killed or hurt or whatever in national parks. Like we can't even get that information. And again, I think, you know, one of the examples I use in the book is, you know, I kind of try to quantify what we do know about violence. And I say, I use the analogy, that's the same thing as three people being

murdered at Disneyland every year. And my point is, like, if you knew three people got murdered at Disneyland every year, would you maybe think twice about going or would you maybe behave differently? I think you would. I think we can't all make choices about how we want to be in parks until we really know how safe they are. And that's something that I think we're owed just so we can make the right choices for ourselves as individuals. Definitely. And I think just as women to have, and people who identify as women to have that extra comfort when we're going into and knowledge because historically and statistically speaking, we are the most at risk when we're anywhere, frankly, and to be outdoors and recreating is another place and to not have this transparency and to have these questions

answered for us. Like you said, there's a lot of questions surrounding this case and not so much questioning whether or not Leo Jackson is the person who did it, but how they came across this conclusion and to find out more information. And like you said, there's another question of was he alone, which opens up this entire other gate of, is that person still out there? Has this person, is this person in jail for something else? Does this person exist? Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. Kind of going into Leo Jackson because I think a lot of people are shocked and intrigued about him. And you said that

something that you want to do in the future is to research him more. Are you familiar with his criminal record and what he was convicted of and his past at all as of right now? We're just starting to unpack that. So we do know that he was a serial rapist. We do know that he did kidnap at least one woman at knife point. So that suggests that, you know, okay, so we knew a knife was used in the case of Lolly and Julie. So we know that's, you know, something that's in his wheelhouse. But right now, we don't know a lot of details. I don't even know why the FBI is really confident that he was an avid hiker. I don't know how we know that. And again, I'm not saying whether or not that's true, right? But I just want to know how we know that. And if we know he was an avid hiker, have they

compared him to other unsolved wilderness and backcountry crimes. Yeah. Like where was he recreating or hunting for victims? Yeah. And so will there be, for instance, a special task force formed that looks at him for some of these other wilderness crimes? I would hope so. But we don't know.

And so, again, that's something else that, you know, until I am totally confident that the FBI is completely doing their due diligence on that front, I'm going to try to do my own due diligence on it. And so that's something that I've been working on now is trying to figure out exactly where he was. We know he was largely based in Ohio. So, you know, that's a bit of a drive to get to Virginia. So how long was he there? Where did he stop? Where was he when he wasn't in Ohio? We know that he was a house painter, which means that, you know, he had access to women's homes. And so I just want to really kind of look because, like I said, every forensic psychologist and profiler that I have talked to since the FBI press conference has said to me, it would be

highly atypical to go from rape and kidnapping to a super sophisticated double homicide where relatively little DNA was left. We've always believed that Lolly and Julie's crime was performed during the light of day because everything was so organized and tidy. We think that there would have been more chaos had it been in the dark. So that meant that somebody was bold enough to come upon these two women and their dog to spend enough time that he had a murder kit with him that included duct tape, that included a knife. There are these strange contusions and bruises on Lolly and Julie's face, so we knew they were hit with something kind of like a tire iron or something like that based on the way the bruises look. So he had that with him. He may have had a gun with him. He got away

without anybody noticing him, no one has ever found the murder weapon. That's all super sophisticated. You know, that's what, that's what criminologists call an organized crime as opposed to a disorganized crime, which is like a crime of passion. And so, so probably Jackson didn't go from raping to a super organized double homicide. And I think, you know, for me, I really want to take the time to figure out, like, where was that middle step, right? And has that failed? family gotten justice, probably they haven't. Have they even gotten any closure? You know, I really, I really want to know what else he was doing. Yeah, I think that's a valid point. And based on everything that you're saying, it makes me, especially because of how sophisticated it was and how you say how

organized, then it feels like probably not chaotic for him. It seems very planned down to each detail that this is probably not the first time, maybe not the second or even third time he's done this, that this is something that he has mastered over who knows how long and that there are these other families who are waiting for answers for their loved ones. And it's scary. And it's, and it also makes you wonder, I'm very curious with this new press conference that's come out and the FBI urging others to step forward if there's survivors that are going to come forward that are going to recognize him now that his face is really out there. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's a great point, too, the survivors, because

we do know that he committed rape after Lolly and Julie were murdered. But we don't know how many, and we don't know if he killed again, too. So yeah, a lot of really big questions, which again, I think the sooner they're answered and the more transparently they're answered, I think people will feel safer about being out in the wilderness again. Yeah. And when you think about the timeline here, I mean, from 1996, and I'm not sure when he was imprisoned, but he died in 2018. There's a lot of years between that. And it's really devastating to realize that if he was still in the park at the time, and this could have been closed, it could have saved other people,

which makes it a lot worse, almost because if they had caught him right off the bat, then he wouldn't have ever been in prison years later for these serial rapes and kidnappings because he wouldn't have had the chance. And that's definitely disheartening to know that that's possible. Yeah, and that even, you know, I mean, he was known as a serial rapist, obviously, after his first couple convictions, but he never served very long in prison. He was in and out of prison all of the time. And I think that's a problem, too. Like, if we know someone has demonstrated that they're willing to commit a violent crime after they've been in prison and that they demonstrate that to you repeatedly, why do we keep giving them like a year long or two years as a sentence and then releasing them out into the world again to. commit more crimes. I mean, that's a big problem too. And why is sexual assault not considered a serious crime? I mean, that is probably one of the most invasive things that you can do to a person and to not take that seriously and to just be like, oh, two years is fine. It's like, no, it's not.

That should be taken a lot more serious and crimes against women and crimes against the LGBTQ community should be taken a lot more serious. And in my opinion, he should have been locked up in the key thrown away the first time that they caught him. sexually assaulting people. I mean, that's crazy that he's in and out after that. It's like lock him up, throw away the key, and be done with it. And you did allude to the fact several times that you've been, you know, you're working on things and this is kind of becoming now your new project. So we'll be keeping tabs with you to see how that's developing. Do you have, is this for, I don't want to spoil anything if this is something that's under wraps, but is this something

that's going to be another formal project for you or just, I know it's now just taking shape. But there's just so many unanswered questions that we know that you are really, really wanting to get to the bottom of, as do I'm sure many of us out there. So is there something in the works that you have in mind? Or is it just something that you just want answers to because you've been so invested in this for so many years on so many levels, professional, personal, and in between? Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's both, right? For sure, right? I'm never going to not be personally invested in this. But right now, I'm really excited about the development of this streaming series. I really love the production company that optioned the book. I really love the director who's involved. She's awesome. She's, you know, a queer backpacker who, you know, is fearless and amazing. And so for me, a lot of my attention is going into that. And I like the idea that I have a new medium. I mean, you know, your podcast. is a perfect example of, you know, how successful this venue has been for people who are

interested in true crime and wilderness crime. I feel like so many people are turning to podcasts and streaming shows for narratives and for information, you know, and for advocacy work, like the work that you two are doing. And so getting to be a small part of this alternative non-print medium is really exciting for me. And I'm learning a lot along the way. So, you know, hopefully we'll, I'll be able to sort of tell listeners that that show is coming soon and obviously would love their support on that too. And I know you two are going to be paying really close attention to this too. And I always feel much more confident knowing that you are in the world doing the work that you're doing. I'm like, Danielle and Cassie have it. Like, it's fine. It's fine. They've got us. So I think that

that's really good too. Well, I love that. I mean, this is exciting. And we will definitely be on the lookout for that. Do you have, I know you said it's like still like very much in the works. Do you have an estimated timeline? Like should we be like really looking out for it right now or is it like a couple months or years? Well this this I mean yeah, this announcement changed everything. So what I'll say is there's been a lot of interest in the past week in the show in a way that's kind of allowed us to kind of think differently about it. And so we haven't made any deals yet. But as soon as I have something to report, I will definitely let you know. Yes. please please do i'm sure you know not only for us but for thousands of other people it's just to see it

in another format play out it would be exciting for a lot of people and it's like i said in the beginning it's just there's some stories that stick with you obviously as you know but for cassie and i who have done you know over 200 stories now and research different people and events and things like that you know, some stick out in our memory more than others, but this one in particular, not only because of its violent nature and kind of shock factor, but also because it was one of the, the first one, you know, that we really chose to highlight because of how we felt about it. And, you know, Cassie led, you know, our first episode with this because it's just, it sticks in the hearts of a lot of people. So obviously there's a lot of factors into why that is. Obviously, like I said,

the violent nature, the shock factor, two young women out in, you know, a park and then also the unsolved for so long aspect as well. Like all of those are very attention grabbing, but this is a case that, you know, has remained with us for so long. And it's just played a big part in National Park After Dark's journey. So to have, you know, and be able to speak with you, you who has such close ties with it and is just so heavily involved and is such a big advocate for Julian Lolly. It's been really such a pleasure to speak with you and to stay in connection with you as this has grown and developed and new things are coming out. So this probably isn't our last conversation. Oh, good. That makes me happy. And it also, I just want to say too that,

you know, another thing that makes me really happy is that, you know, we tend to think about this in terms of the crime, which was horrific. And one of the things that I've always really appreciated about the two of you is that you have always made a point of foregrounding Lolly and Julie, and what amazing humans they were. They were such outdoor leaders, and they would have changed the world in so many amazing ways. And theirs is also a love story, you know,

and I love that you have really kind of paid homage and been so respectful to that aspect of it, too. I think what we can do to kind of keep their legacy alive is, is, you know, just one way that we can make this a little less terrible for everybody involved. Yeah. And I think remembering who they were and not just what happened to them is so important. And I personally, I mean, they're from or lived around the area. They were moving to a town that's right next to where I live. They outdoor.

I just feel like if I had known them in life that we would have been good friends. which I think makes it harder to hear these stories because then you put your friends in these situations and the people that you care about and yourself. And imagine these horrific things happening and wanting there to be some resolution at the end. So I think that is part of why we have resonated so strongly with them is just because of our own personal connections that we feel to them as well. Well, thank you. Thank you for all the work that you do. It's so incredibly important. Thank you for all the work you're doing. I mean, you are doing, you're getting into the nitty-gritty and asking the hard questions and the questions that I feel like a lot of people aren't asking because I know when I watched the press conference, I didn't think of all the questions that you're asking now. I was like, okay, great. Like we have some answers. But then when you mentioned everything that you did today where you're like, wait a second, what about this and this and this? I'm like, oh, yeah, what about that? You know? So I think that you're raising a lot of questions that people might not be thinking. but once they hear it, they're like, wait a second, that's a really valid point. And we need to know this. So thank you for asking the hard questions and for bringing this to light. And I guess one last question that I have for you in regards to your book, because you mentioned at the beginning of this that you knew when you went into writing the book that the ending was not going to be what you hoped for. Do you have or do you think at some point that you will write a new ending to the book? Oh, that's a great question. I hadn't thought about that.

maybe an afterward, maybe an afterward for another edition. I, you know, I think that that would be appropriate. Yeah. And I, you know, I, I want to make sure that I own, too, that I wasn't like, ta-da, I did it, right? To-da, I got everything right. You know, I mean, my fallibility in this is, is, like, real, too. So I don't want it to seem like I came up with the answer. You know, I mean, the book's been out for two years, right? We haven't had an answer for two years. But I love the idea of a little like post script to the book too. I think that that might be really great. Yeah, just to know, especially years later to have something that puts into perspective, where are the cases at now? And these answers that throughout the entire book you've been searching for and have now

are starting to come to light, which is exciting and interesting. And I would definitely be interested in reading it if you wrote it. Well, thank you. I will send a draft to you before I publish it. How about that? Because I would love your feedback. that. Amazing. I love that. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you so much for talking with us today and for coming on the podcast. We're so excited to have you and it's great catching up. And I'm sure we'll be talking to you soon. Awesome. And I'll keep fangirling you in the meantime. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for joining us again this week. If you have a trail tale or story suggestion, send us an email at Stories at N-P-A-D-Podcast.com. Follow us.

us on Instagram and Facebook at National Park After Dark and on Twitter at NPAD podcast. Join our Outsiders only community on Patreon or Apple subscriptions to listen ad-free, unlock monthly bonus episodes, and exclusive content. And remember, when you support our sponsors, you are supporting our show. For our exclusive discount codes and source information from today's episode, check out the show notes. For more information on our show, our book recommendations, merch updates, and more. Visit our website at NPA. and please rate, review, and subscribe from wherever you listen to podcasts. You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind.

Here's a helpful fact you may not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressives save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions, and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit Progressive.com and see if you can. enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. National average 12-month savings of $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June

2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary. Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money. Whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings. There's a money side to every story. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com. on.