The Daily - The Hunt for the Golden State Killer

Episode Date: May 4, 2018

An investigator was on the verge of retirement, having never completed his decades-long mission to catch the Golden State Killer. Then he had an idea: Upload DNA evidence to a genealogy website. Guest: Paul Holes, who helped to crack the case. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, Detective Paul Holes was on the verge of retirement, having never solved his decades-long mission to catch the Golden State Killer. Then he had an idea to upload DNA evidence to a genealogy website. It's Friday, May 4th.

Paul, I want to start at the beginning of your career. What were you doing? So in 1994, I became a deputy sheriff criminalist with the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Crime Lab. And what does that mean? So I would be out at crime scenes, analyzing those crime scenes, collecting the evidence, bringing the evidence back, and performing the laboratory work in order to try to figure out what that evidence meant to try to solve the case. The lab that I worked in had this amazing library of old, old textbooks and old, old forensic science books. But there was this file cabinet tucked away in the corner. It wasn't labeled. It was just a plain four-drawer file cabinet. So I decided, well, what's in here?

And I started pulling open those drawers. And in the bottom two drawers were the series of manila folders with the tab on the folder labeled with this red E-A-R. E-A-R. E-A-R. And, you know, ear, you know, what is this? This is weird looking. So I started opening up these folders. and in each folder was a case file.

And I started reading these case files and recognized that this was documentation of a series of rapes that had occurred predominantly in the East Bay. of rapes that had occurred predominantly in the East Bay. Rancho San Miguel in Walnut Creek is said to be one of those areas where you could safely leave your doors unlocked when you go out to walk the dog at night. But two recent rapes have at least temporarily changed that attitude. The rapist moved into Contra Costa County in October, striking three times in just over three weeks, twice in Concord, once in San Ramon. Saturday night, he pried open the back door and entered the bedroom of a 32-year-old Danville woman. This East Area Rapist series.

Is that what EAR stands for? That is exactly what EAR stands for. Many of those involved with the case say the East Area Rapist lives within the area where he operates, that he picks upon blocks of homes within neighborhoods, jumping from one to the other. The police have one last bit of advice, and that is don't panic because that alters your judgment. And by the way, that advice goes out to anyone in the Bay Area, not just the people of Concord, because with this guy, the next rape could be anywhere. It wasn't just in Contra Costa County or the East Bay. This guy was up in Sacramento and down in Stockton, and then he came

out to the East Bay. Residents are so horror-stricken, some women rent motel rooms. They had many a sleepless night, and so after a few nights, they feel as though, gee, I really need a good night's sleep, and I do know of women who have actually done it, so. Just out of fear? I believe so. We had 50 attacks that had occurred between June 1976 and July of 1979 all over Northern California. By late fall, when the East Area rapists began claiming two and three victims a month, citizens began buying everything they could think of to protect themselves. Local burglar alarm distributors report a run on alarm systems, with technicians backlogged for days in an effort to keep up with demand. But we lost track of him. He just disappeared back in 1979.

Wow. And at that point in my career, I was absolutely fascinated with serial predators and cold cases. And so this East Area Rapist series just hit home with me as, oh, I need to look into this. And that's what I ended up doing. In 1994, this newfangled DNA technology was coming into play, and it was so much more powerful. Even though this was an early, early form of the technology, it was much better than what we were doing. So I thought, well, you know, I'm going to see if I can track down some evidence and see if I can use the DNA technology to try to solve this series.

Since the statute of limitations had passed, usually what happens with law enforcement property rooms is there's a destruction process where they no longer have to hold on to the evidence because the case is done. It's adjudicated. So they go through a routine process of destroying evidence in order to make room. They can't just keep everything forever. It's a routine aspect. Fortunately, the original investigators and laboratory staff that were involved in this back in the 1970s recognized the seriousness of this offender and put non-destruct orders on all East Area Rapist evidence in the sheriff's property room. Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office is the only agency in Northern California that did that.

So that was the only evidence. So that was the only evidence. So I found three sexual assault kits, also called rape kits, from three of the attacks in Contra Costa County and was able to get DNA evidence from all three cases. At this point, I need to find some suspects to compare to this DNA profile. And that's when I turned to one of the original investigators and see if he had any prime suspects. And what did he tell you? He said, you know, though we didn't have any prime suspects, we always thought that this guy went down to Santa Barbara and possibly committed an attack down there, may have killed somebody down there. Well, now I kick into investigative mode. So I decided, well, I'm going to call up Santa Barbara

and ask them. I spoke with a detective there saying, no, you know, none of our cases are related. They don't sound similar at all. But you might want to call up Irvine PD. That detective said, yeah, you know, we've got two cases that we got the same DNA, you know, from the victims. So he referred me to the Orange County Sheriff's Crime Lab to talk to the analyst there about the DNA that she had. But different labs were using different technologies. It hadn't been standardized yet. We couldn't do a direct comparison. It took us four years to get the new technology in place.

So I ended up assigning a DNA analyst to do the new DNA technology. He did. And a few hours later, he walks into my office in a very monotone way, said, so we've matched your samples to some homicides down in Southern California. Hmm. That seems like a very big deal. Oh, now that's huge. Mm-hmm. So they only knew him down south as the original Night Stalker.

Hmm. This was a merger of this East Area rapist in Northern California and the original Night Stalker down in Southern California. And he became known as the Golden State Killer. Okay, so you've made this huge discovery. What do you do next? How do you push this forward and try to solve the case? I'm now actively communicating with the lead investigator from Orange County Sheriff's Office, Larry Poole. I am sending him everything I have access to, the case files, the evidence, the photographs. And we also ensured that the DNA profile

was put up in the FBI's DNA database. But the search didn't result in any identifications. So it was obvious that the guy we were looking for just wasn't in the database. And this case essentially goes cold again. God, it's sort of like a one-step forward, two-steps back thing where you've had a big breakthrough, and yet it seems like the case hasn't really moved forward much at all. That's exactly it. You see, as this case was moving through the decades, there would be flurries of activity, and then it would just die off. And you push away. I pushed away from this case multiple times going, I think I'm done. I just can't do this to myself anymore.

So you were starting to give up hope. with multiple victims and having seen in person the trauma that they still lived with to this day, you know, there's an obligation to continue. And that's what kind of spurred me into my last phase of this investigation in terms of sitting in my office in 2008, 2009, and I'm looking at the file drawer that contained all those original cases with the red EAR on them, and I think, I've got to start looking at that case again. It's unsolved. Let's see what I can do. And since that moment in time, 10 years ago, I have been working this case 24-7, 365. My office gets transformed into a war room on the case. And so I have maps of where the attacks occurred pinned to my wall. I've got suspects, you know, their photographs pinned to my wall. My computer screen is constantly on, you know, one of the case files

that I'm trying to read. So somebody walking into the room would go, well, he's working the case again. We'll be right back. Okay, so what's the next big thing that happens in the case? So that's when I decided I need to do something different to advance this series and identify who this guy was. And what was it that you decided to do differently? who this guy was. And what was it that you decided to do differently? I decided to pursue looking for relatives of the offender based on the offender's DNA. Hmm.

So how does that actually work, this technology using relatives? Can you walk me through it? Initially, we have to be able to generate a DNA profile that is compatible with upload into just an open source genealogical database. Once we got that and searched that database, we got a list of distant relatives. And when we reach a group of individuals that meet the criteria that we know about our offender. He was likely born between 1940 and 1960. We know he had a Sacramento connection. Those individuals end up becoming somebody that we will look at. And as we develop profiles of those individuals,

we start assessing which ones rise to the level of getting a DNA sample from to compare to the offender. So just to make sure I understand, you already have a DNA profile of the suspect. You are familiar with the fact that there are now databases all over the place that allow people to put their own DNA profiles in to find relatives, long lost cousins, grandmothers, grandchildren. That's right. That's right. That's right. And you realize that if you combine these two, if you put the suspect's DNA profile

into one of those genealogy websites or services, that up might pop relatives, which is the point of those sites. That's right. So essentially, you have to create a fake profile and attach this DNA information. Create an undercover profile. Pardon me. Is there an ethical kind of question around that? Undercover, fake, whatever you want to call it, of uploading a person's information, you know, under the pretenses of kind of law enforcement work rather than private citizen.

There's plenty of case law that allows law enforcement to pursue undercover activities to affect an investigation. So this is something that is lawful and is something that is frequently done within just about any type of investigation. And how narrow does the pool become as you keep investigating? It became very narrow. We whittled it down to roughly five individuals. Two were not really strong at all. And then we had one that we were able to eliminate. And then we settled in on this Italian side of the family. You're down to two members of the same family. Yes.

And so what do you do with these two potential suspects? At this point, we're looking at these two individuals. One was not lining up at all in terms of his physical specs, in terms of his physical specs, in terms of his height, weight, his complexion was not consistent with what we understood of our offender. And so he fell in terms of priority, and then we ended up focusing in on the last individual. I've been on this case now for, you know, 24 years, and my retirement date was coming up. So, I looked at this individual. I started talking to people who knew him back in the day, and as I talked to some individuals, he became interesting enough to where on my last day,

I drove up to his house. I drove from the Bay Area up to Sacramento area and parked in front of this guy's house. Wow. You know, in my mind, I'm looking at this going, what's the likelihood he's actually the guy? It's probably not the guy. I should just go knock on his door, introduce myself, do my typical, you know, saying, oh, I'm just here to, you know, look into an old case. And, you know, do you mind if I ask you some questions and establish rapport and then eventually ask for a DNA sample and then move on and show he's not the guy. But then I just stopped and it was, you know, I don't know enough about him.

And decided not right now and drove away. And just to be clear, you said this was your last day of work. At this stage, when everything is kind of coming to a head, you decided to retire. That's right. And that was, you know, leading up to this, that was such a tough decision to make that how could I retire? And this case is unsolved. And as I told people during this time frame, some of the victims that I even communicated with during this timeframe is,

I'm retiring from the job. I'm not retiring from the case. So how does the team continue to pursue this guy? And are you just kind of hanging back and letting them do their thing? No, I really had no change in terms of what my role was with the team. I just changed to a private email account, and we were still communicating as if I were active.

So the FBI and SAC Sheriff's Office formed a surveillance team and followed this individual around, and I received a phone call. They had actually recovered a discarded DNA sample from him and the lab had analyzed it. And what does that mean, a discarded DNA sample? So when we're trying to get DNA from somebody and we don't want them to know that, we can follow them around. And if they leave their DNA in a public location,

it's something we can collect and have analyzed. And it may be chewing gum. It may be the saliva from a drinking straw. It could be Kleenex. It could be you name it. If they've left it, we can grab it. So that's what happened is there was a sample collected during the first part of the surveillance, and the lab tested the results. And that's when I received the phone call while I was at P.F. Chang's. What are you doing at P.F. Chang's? I'm enjoying dinner. I had just put an offer in on a house. Your retirement home?

My retirement home. Yes, exactly. So I excused myself and I went outside, and that's when I had received a call telling me that the results came back. Couldn't tell a soul, but the results were consistent enough to say that this guy, Joseph DeAngelo, was likely the Golden State Killer. Hmm. this guy, Joseph DeAngelo, was likely the Golden State Killer. An arrest team had been put in place just waiting for the DNA results. And then when we got the DNA results mid-afternoon and had an arrest warrant signed by a judge,

the team was already in place watching D'Angelo. And then at a certain point, the team leader sees an opportunity to be able to take D'Angelo in custody. And he just basically told them go. And then it's a silence. And then about a minute and a half later, he says, suspect in custody. And then the war room, you know, erupts at that point. There was high fives. There were hooting and hollering because after so many years, we finally got him. Paul, you know this. You have been drawn to the power of DNA throughout this process. Sounds like throughout your career. And you understand its potentials. But in the time since you've been investigating this case, we kind of as a culture, a society, we've come to better understand that DNA potential. And we've seen how powerful it can be. And a lot of people are wary and even

scared of what we've learned about the power of DNA. And I want to talk to you a little bit about those concerns. There are a lot of people who are beginning to understand this story and to look at it and say that it's wonderful that you caught him, but at what cost? And what do you say to that? Well, I think first, when I think about it, for people who are scared, I try to allay those fears in terms of we aren't accessing anybody's actual genetic information. We are just seeing how closely or how distantly related some people are to who our offender might be. The thing about pursuing this strategy is that everything we're doing is DNA-based,

and our investigation is driven by DNA, which we know is a solid science. There was only one person that we had to go and talk to and get a DNA sample from through this particular strategy versus the thousands of tips that have come in because somebody looked like a composite drawn back in the 1970s or because somebody was an abusive ex-husband or boyfriend. Or even we had tips come in where somebody just was mad at a person and decided they were going to call them in because they wanted them to fall under suspicion by this investigation. It's almost like a form of swatting.

So you're saying this is less invasive than that. It's very much less invasive. We gather DNA from hundreds and hundreds of people because of these tips and because of circumstantial evidence within the case file. I absolutely understand people's fears about privacy and fears of how this DNA is being used by law enforcement, but it's not what they're visualizing. It is very innocuous in terms of what we are actually able to see, and it's obviously very powerful.

I guess what's a little strange to think about, as I reflect on what we've been talking about, is that my aunt's decision to idly go on a website and upload her DNA might eventually implicate me in something and get me sucked into the criminal justice system in a way that I never signed off on. I never went on that website. But at the same time, your aunt could call in the police and say, you know, Michael is kind of a strange guy. Why don't you go investigate him as the Golden State Killer, which happens thousands of times in these types of investigations? So you're out of control no matter what, right?

I do think the academic debate and the societal debate is important and healthy. From the law enforcement perspective, hope to be able to see it utilized so that we can get these types of monsters off the street. But I fully understand that there may be some sort of brackets put on how this technology would be utilized moving forward. Paul, thank you very much. We really appreciate it. It's been my pleasure.

Here's what else you need to know today. In a series of tweets on Thursday morning, President Trump confirmed that he had reimbursed his longtime attorney, Michael Cohen, for the $130,000 payment he made to Stephanie Clifford, a payment Trump had previously denied knowing anything about. payment Trump had previously denied knowing anything about. The president's new legal advisor, Rudy Giuliani, had first disclosed the reimbursement on Fox News Wednesday evening, saying that it proves the payment did not represent an illegal donation to the Trump campaign because the money came from Trump himself, not Cohen. Can you explain why the president, when he answered questions to reporters

a few weeks ago about the $130,000 payment from Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels, why the president was not truthful with the American people and with the people in the state? During a news conference at the White House on Thursday afternoon, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked why the president had previously misled the public about the episode. As Mayor Giuliani stated, and I'll refer you back to his comments, this was information that the president didn't know at the time, but eventually learned.

Sanders said she herself was unaware of the president's role in the payment until she heard Giuliani announce it on Fox. of the president's role in the payment, until she heard Giuliani announce it on Fox. Can I ask you, when the president so often says things that turn out not to be true, when the president and the White House show what appears to be a blatant disregard for the truth, how are the American people to trust or believe

what is said here or what is said by the president? We give the very best information that we have at the time. I do that every single day and will continue to do that every day I'm in this position. The Daily is produced by Theo Balcom, Lindsay Garrison, Rachel Quester, Annie Brown, Andy Mills, Rachel Quester, Annie Brown, Andy Mills, Ike Streets-Conneraja, Claire Tennis-Sketter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon-Johnson, and Jessica Chung, with editing help from Larissa Anderson. Lisa Tobin is our executive producer, Samantha Hennig is our editorial director, our technical manager is Brad Fisher, and our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Lansford of Wonderly.

Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Michaela Bouchard, David Krakals, Stella Tan, Emma Fitzsimmons, and Jennifer Kim. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. A reminder that tomorrow we'll bring you the third chapter of our new series, Caliphate, right here on The Daily.

See you Monday.