The MeatEater Podcast - Ep. 680: Blood Trails - A Turkey Woods Cold Case

Episode Date: March 25, 2025

Welcome to Blood Trails, MeatEater's first venture into true crime. Follow our very own Jordan Sillars as he investigates an unsolved murder that took place over 20 years ago in the turkey woods of Virginia.  Connect with The MeatEater Podcast Network MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YoutubeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Turkey season is here and it's time to break out those calls Every serious turkey hunter knows every bird is a little different. You never know what will get them going You may need a trusty old box call Light purrs from a pot call or maybe some sweet yelps from diaphragms to seal the deal on that old gobbler But sometimes the hardest part isn't calling them in it's finding them in the first place That's where our locator calls come in. From crow calls to owl hooters, we've got everything you need to get those shot gobbles out of those old Toms unwilling to give up their position. Get fully geared up this season with the best tricky calls in the game.

Check out the full lineup at PhelpsGameCalls.com and make every call count. count. In 2003, 44-year-old David Stack had everything a guy could want. A loving family, a successful construction business, and his own piece of wilderness. A sprawling 190 acres in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. A place where he could disappear into the woods, hunt turkeys and deer, or just relax and enjoy the sounds of cicadas and cardinals. It was a place he should have been safe.

David, his son Brian, and his brother Jeff were excited to hunt turkeys on opening day April 12th. They'd scouted the night before, they knew where the birds would be, and at 5.30am they split up, each heading to their own pre-planned spots. Then a gunshot. Jeff heard it first. Too early, too close. Something about it didn't feel right. It was still dark.

I don't think it was legal shooting and I heard a gunshot. And as best as I can tell, it came from over there where Dave was and I said to myself, damn Dave, I don't think that was a legal shot. Brian heard shots too, but the wind was up. The sound bounced around the hills and trees. He couldn't be sure where it had come from, so he shook it off. I dozed off and woke up to birds in my decoys. I could hear them out there spitting and drumming. And that was actually my first gobbler. You know, I shot the bird that morning.

I think it was 850, nine o'clock somewhere in there. And you know, I was excited, fired up and you know, I got my stuff together and was heading back to the cabin. I wanted to show it off. But David never came back. No texts, no radio calls, nothing. By noon, concern turned to unease. By 4 p.m., unease became fear.

Eventually we started just whistling and calling, trying to you know get some kind of response and this went on until shoot probably you know four o'clock and then we really started getting worried it turned from you know worried to panic. They searched the woods called his name nothing. By nightfall the search intensified. Neighbors, state troopers, a helicopter circling overhead. But still, no sign of David.

Then, early the next morning, they found him. I saw the turkey decoys. At first I thought it was a turkey, but they turkey decoys of course I thought of her eat but they were decoys and then there was turkeys in the trees Right above them that we that we spooked or jumped or whatever you want to call And they flew out of the trees. That's about the time I Did saw Dave laying on his back. I Did I did not you know, I was very emotional and I did not, you know, because I was very emotional. And, uh, anyway, I checked, I think I checked for pulse.

But it was obvious he was dead. And the way his body was found, something was off. Kenny Graff, a close friend of David's, was there when they pulled his body from the woods after the crime scene had been processed. He'd been in law enforcement for nearly two decades. He knew what an accident looked like. And this was not that. And we go to pick him up, and I get blood on my hands. We roll him over to one side and he's got a bullet hole in his back. So that's when they say something's not right.

This isn't an accidental death. A bullet hole in his back. No sign of a struggle. His gun untouched, his sandwich still in his vest. We get him out and I mean, I'm just, as an human being, I'm just struggling. His gun untouched, his sandwich still in his vest. But what stood out the most? The face mask pulled up and a single cigarette butt lying next to him. If you're familiar with the turkey hunt, which I'm sure you are, you know, you wear the full face mask and this and that for the spring goblin to keep the reflection off your face

and stuff. Dave's was pulled all the way back over top of his head. As if someone had pulled it up to see his face. For 20 years, no one has answered the one question that matters most. Who pulled that trigger? The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources says the case is still open. But in all these years, no suspects have been named, no grand jury has been convened, no arrests have been made. Kenny, Jeff, and Brian believe the shooter knew exactly what they had done.

They stood over David, looked at him, and walked away. But why? Was it a mistake? A moment of panic? Or was it something worse? I'm Jordan Sillers, and this is Blood Trails, a Turkey Woods cold case. old case. Part One.

The Crime Scene. Jeff, Brian, and Kenny all saw the crime scene. But their descriptions don't always match up. Here's Kenny. You can see where Dave cleared out a little spot to sit by a tree. He had his decoys set up. His gun was leaning against the tree. He's just laying on his back and I noticed there was a cigarette butt put out right there.

Now Dave did smoke once in a while and he had part of a pack in his backpack, but this brand that was on the ground was a different brand than what they smoked. Kenny was a detective for 19 years with the Metropolitan Washington Airport's authority. He told me he's worked drug and homicide cases with other federal agencies, so he's the kind of guy who might notice the brand name of a cigarette butt lying on the ground. Brian and Jeff don't remember anything about the cigarette butt. Brian remembers the shotgun leaning against the tree, and they both agree that someone had walked up to the body. Here's Brian. He was laying away from the tree somewhat. His face mask was pulled down, his glasses were pushed his sandwich was still in his vest the decoys were only like like 15 yards 16

yards from him which is unusual so I don't think that was his location I don't know if that's where he was setting up or what but it definitely seemed unusual with it how close he was to the decoys with a gun sitting against the tree there and you know how, how his face mask was pulled down and glasses were up. Those glasses are more important than they might sound. David's wife, Tammy, didn't see the crime scene herself, but her knowledge of her husband gave her

an important insight into what those glasses might indicate. They said his glasses were up, like he had pushed his glasses up on top of his head, glasses might indicate. Um, just, I just, I just have this gut feeling that whoever did it knows that they did it. I reached out to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources to confirm some of these details. But they refused, citing the ongoing investigation. Fortunately for us, the agency hasn't always been so tight lipped. The incident gained tons of local media attention after it happened, and one of the best reports came in a May 3 edition of the Roanoke Times. Here's what the Virginia DWR, then called the Virginia Department of Game

and Inland Fisheries, told reporters in the weeks following the murder. The shooting occurred on a property near the Savile Hill section of Rockbridge County between South Buffalo Road and Bluegrass Trail. David was likely leaning against a tree when he got shot. The bullet entered his body from behind, cut his aorta, and lodged in his heart. The terrain and angle at which the bullet struck David indicate that the shooter fired at close range

and would have been able to tell what he'd hit. The hill and brush in the area would have kept the bullet from traveling very far. Kenny told me that the bullet itself came from a.22 caliber centerfire cartridge such as a.223 Remington,.222 Remington, or 22-250. I wasn't able to find any contemporaneous media reports with this information, and the DWR refused to name the kind of bullet that killed David. But I did speak with one of the neighbors, a man named James Leyva, who still owns one of the adjacent properties.

He declined to be recorded for this podcast, but he told me he was also turkey hunting the morning David was killed. Gay Mordans knocked on his door in the weeks after the incident and asked if he owned any rifles chambered in a centerfire.22 caliber cartridge. He did. In fact, he said he hunts turkeys during the fall season with a rifle chambered in.22 Hornet, but he was hunting with a shotgun on the morning of the incident. Game Wardens apparently believed his story because, according to Lava, they sent his rifle to Richmond for ballistics testing and returned it about a month later. Whatever they found, it either didn't point to Lava or was inconclusive. But this suggests, at least at the time, investigators believe David was killed with a Centrifire

.22. Many states do not allow turkey hunters to use rifles, but Virginia is not one of them. To this day, the only restriction they put on a turkey hunter's gun is that during the spring season, they cannot use shot larger than.2. Kenny, Jeff, and Brian all agree that the shooting was most likely an accident. They don't recall David having any ongoing conflicts with anyone or any of the neighbors being upset about the recent purchase of the land. Here's Brian. My hunch is it's either it was a young hunter, an experienced or older hunter that had poor vision.

I don't think it's anything I malice, you know, done it on purpose, but I don't know. Part Two. The Neighbors. Cases like this are difficult to investigate. There are no witnesses, and what physical evidence exists is hard to find in the leaves and dirt. But, if you're like me, your first thought goes to the neighbors. It's easy to imagine. A neighboring property owner wanders onto the stacks land, sees what he thinks is a turkey in the dimness of the morning and pulls the trigger. That's where Kenny's mind went to, even before his friend's body had been found. While the rest of the Stack family was still searching the woods, he paid a visit to the neighbors. At daylight the next morning, which was the 13th, April 13th, I'm thinking, well, maybe the neighbors know something. Kenny told me the names of the people who lived there, but we're going to bleep them

out. None of them still live on those properties, as far as I've been able to tell, and the Virginia DWR has never named an official suspect. You'll see why that's relevant here in a minute. The first house Kenny visited belonged to someone we'll call Johnson. We had met him the previous fall because he came over looking for his dog. And we talked to him a little bit. He says, I don't hunt, I don't allow no hunting. I go to his house, I just played to him again who I And I was looking for David on their feet, her seeing anything.

Uh, he said no. And I remember thinking when I was standing in this house, he's got all these Turkey mounts and deer mounts. And I'm thinking, I just got told me he didn't hunt. So, huh. I didn't say anything about it then, but he pulls out a map and this could be coincidence. Don't get me wrong, this could be coincidence.

But he pulls out a map and he points at the map and he says, there's the property line where his property joins Dave's property. He says, you should look right in this area here. You should look right in this area here. Remember, Kenny spoke to Johnson before they'd found David's body. So, I asked Kenny what you're thinking. Was the spot he pointed to the same spot they eventually found David? It was within feet. Within feet. Tommy? Kenny admits that this could be explained in a non-nefarious way.

Johnson wouldn't be the first hunter to hide the fact that he's a hunter, and it doesn't make much sense to lead investigators to the person you just murdered the day before. Still, it's weird. But Kenny's interactions with the neighbors got even stranger. Kenny stopped by another house, where an elderly man told him that while he doesn't hunt, one of his friends had been hunting on the morning David was killed. We'll call this friend Smith. Smith lived down the road, so Kenny knocked on the door, but nobody answered.

Kenny left a message on Smith's answering machine using the phone number the elderly neighbor had given him. Kenny went back to the stacks cabin and the phone rang. The woman on the line claimed to be Smith's wife. She says doesn't know anything, didn't see anything, didn't hunt and I said told me he was hunting told me his truck was parked at his house. Oh yeah, well he hunted the opposite side of the road. And I'm thinking to myself, how do you know what side of the road David was on? You know what I mean?

How do you know what side of the road I'm talking about? Kenny didn't think too much about it at the time, and David's body was found not long after. But that's not the last he heard of Smith. A year or two after David's death, Jeff was walking the property and he found something. Something very out of place in the woods. I found a pill bundle with ***'s name on it. It was right on the property line. It was a prescription for one of these common antidepressant types.

I think it was empty. Jeff said the place he found the bottle near the property line would have been less than a 10-minute walk from where they found David's body. He sent the bottle to the lead investigator on the case at the time, but never heard anything more. The investigator has since passed away and Kenny says they haven't heard anything from the DWR for years. The shooter could have been a neighbor, but it also could have been someone who didn't

live in the area. That would make the culprit even more difficult to find, and it would help explain how this case has gone unsolved. Neither Jeff, Kenny, or Brian ever mentioned having a problem with trespassers, but Kenny did mention one alternative theory. One of the original DWR investigators on this case, a guy named Stephen Pike knew a producer on the television show America's Most Wanted. He wanted to give this case as much exposure as possible, so he asked the producer for a favor. It wasn't the kind of story the program usually covered, but they decided to do it anyway. The segment aired on November 1, 2003, in episode 737

of the show. Younger listeners might not remember, but America's Most Wanted was a hit show back in the day. At the time of its cancellation by the Fox Television Network in June 2011, its 24th season run made it the longest-running program in the network's history, and each episode was watched by thousands. The point is, including David's story on AMW, as its fans call it, would have exposed the case to a huge audience.

The segment on David ended with an appeal to that audience for tips. We don't know exactly what kind of information came in, but Kenny claims that two tips came in from people in Rockbridge County, one of which pointed back to Johnson. The second tip says you should talk to ****. He has a hunting camp and he has, he had hunters there that morning and they left that morning. Kenny claims that Johnson was running an illegal hunting camp and investigators spoke with several of the people who had hunted that morning. They talked to a couple people that were there that morning, but had left around 10 o'clock.

And I'm thinking to myself, it's opening day of spring godwars season. Why do you leave at 10 a.m. and go home? It's a good question. David may have been killed not by a neighbor, but by someone who didn't live in the area. That person could have been hunting legally, or it could have been a poacher. In either case, the randomness of that scenario could make it even more likely that David's killer is never found. I'm telling you man, there's nothing quite like it gives me chubby just thinking about it.

You hit the call way off in the distance, the time fires back. You work him in watching his body language shift from cautious to committed. Then that moment, the one every turkey hunter dreams about all winter, is that gobbler locks eyes in your decoy and comes running in. And if you're using the right decoy, you don't need to then settle for a 40 yard nervous shot. Cause with the right decoy, you can get that bird in your lap, putting on a wild, aggressive turkey show.

I mean, I'm talking where he's fighting the decoy. I've had him sitting there trying to mate with the decoy. It's the best thing in the world, but to pull it off, you need realism. Like you need decoys that don't just fool turkeys at a distance. You want a decoy that fools them when he's up there at point blank range, beating the snot out of it. That is why diehard turkey hunters insist on Dave Smith decoys. Their unmatched realism fools even the warriest of toms into thinking they're staring and fighting a real bird. And

unlike inflatable decoys that crumble when shot, DSDs are built tough. They last season after season even if you screw up and put a little TSS in the one of them to top it all off. Every DSD turkey decoy is made right here in the good old US of A, made in America. Check out the full lineup at davesmithdecoys.com and take your turkey hunts to the next level. Part Three, the next level. Part Three, The DWR. The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources says this case is still considered active.

Special agents are currently assigned and they said in an email that quote, "'Recent investigative measures and evidence examinations have been explored.'" They've digitized the case files, and they're collaborating with Virginia State Police to have the case added to the state cold case database. So someone is working on it. How much they're working on it is a different question. Kenny says he hasn't heard from the agency in the last four or five years.

In the meantime, his frustration has only increased. We had a very hard time for years just getting them to communicate with us and talk to us. I don't want to say, hey, these guys screwed up, but somebody screwed up. And it's a shame, it really is. Having been a law enforcement officer myself for 25 years, I don't understand to this day why this case wasn't solved within a few days. I really don't. Kenny believes the agency failed to collect all the evidence at the scene and they failed

to investigate the neighbors closely enough. Specifically, Johnson and Smith. Remember that cigarette butt I mentioned at the beginning of the episode? The one that, according to Kenny, was a different brand than the one David smoked? Believe it or not, they didn't collect it. The police did not collect it. I was assuming they collected it, and then a few months later I was talking to DNR and I said, well, what about the cigarette butt?

And they're like, what cigarette butt? It's possible Kenny was mistaken and that the cigarette butt was actually David's. It's also possible whoever Kenny asked didn't know or was lying. Or it's possible Kenny just made the whole thing up. But whatever the truth is, the DWR isn't saying. I filed a public records request asking for documents related to this case. The agency responded and said that while they have 110 pages

of files, they can't release any because they're part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Fair enough. Then on June 7th, 2024, I sent an email to the agency's public information department and asked to interview the agent in charge of the case. The agency initially agreed to an interview, but wanted to see and approve any questions prior to the interview being recorded. So I sent a list of questions on July 3rd, 2024, asking about everything you've heard in this episode. Cigarette butt, the pill bottle, Johnson and Smith. I even asked for the agency to confirm a few of

the details that they had shared with the media in 2003. Things like how far away the shooter was, and whether he likely knew what he'd done. On November 15th, 2024, which was, for those counting, over four months after I'd sent the list of questions, the DWR backed out of the phone interview they'd previously agreed to. Why? Well, here's what they said. Out of an abundance of caution to protect the integrity of the investigation, the department will not be available for any in-person interviews or discussions.

Instead, they responded to my list of questions with typed answers, but they refused to share any details of the case beyond when and where it happened. They said, quoting again, DWR Conservation Police Officers spent a considerable amount of time and effort to identify the person responsible for Mr. Stack's death and followed all leads that were provided and developed through the course of the investigation. Specifics about their investigation are not available due to this being an open investigation. The only new piece of information they offered was about whether they ever identified a suspect. They said, quote, several persons of interest have been identified. These persons have been interviewed and declined a polygraph.

Whoever those people were, the agency didn't gather enough information to make an arrest. I don't know about you, but I have more questions than answers about this case. I frankly don't understand why the Virginia DWR hasn't been more helpful. I wonder how investigators knew what kind of bullet killed David, and I wonder whether they used every investigative technique at their disposal. To help answer some of these questions, I call up my buddy and Meat Eaters own, Brent Reeves. You know Brent as the host of This Country Life, where he dispenses down-home wisdom in a deep and melodious baritone. But Brent wasn't always a world-famous podcast host. In a previous life, he served for 32 years as a law enforcement agent in Arkansas.

He's investigated homicide cases himself, so I knew he'd be the perfect person to help us break down this case. Brett, thanks for being here. Yeah, man. Thank you for inviting me on here. So I know that you were in law enforcement for a long time, but could you fill in some of those details? What agencies did you work for and what kinds of things did you do? Well, I was a police officer, a law enforcement officer for 32

years and seven months. The first two thirds of my, my career, I was actually doing police work. What people think of as police work, answering calls, working accidents, uh, investigating, uh, you know, robberies and thefts, crimes, including homicides. And with a large portion of that, my career was dedicated to undercover narcotics and narcotics investigations.

But when homicides would occur, especially in a department limited by manpower, and I'm talking about in the biggest department I worked in in South Arkansas. I think we had probably 40, maybe 40 deputies, sworn officers that were working every day. And they would bring the whole CID investigation division into work a homicide, which over the course of my career, you know, probably 45, 50 homicides during that, during that length of time. So if, um, if you were assigned this case back in 2003, I'm curious what the first steps are on the first in the first few days, first few weeks. What kinds of strategies would you use to try to figure out who did this?

Well, you know, the crime scene that's that's important and limiting a crime scene, the parameters of where you're operating is important. Anytime that you're working with something outdoor, especially like this, and even add the fact that someone died as a result of a rifle shot, there's no telling how big your crime scene is. The cards are stacked against you to begin with and something like this so as large a perimeter as you can gather or that you can secure and Then it's just the meticulous going through everything that is

Conceivably close to where the incident occurred. Because there's two places here that are important. Where the shot was fired from, and obviously where the shot was fired to, which caused the death of the man. And in doing so, any anytime that you approach or leave a crime scene, you take something in and you take something out unwittingly. You're stepping on leaves, you're making tracks, you're sweating, you're dropping DNA. There is, there's so many things to consider that could either help or hinder the

investigation. You know, somebody, maybe you stepped on something you didn't see, a hole or a track or in this case cigarette butt. I think that was a kind of a controversial part of what people saw there. So there's, to answer your question, how would I approach it? You have to build as big a perimeter as you can and slowly work your way from the outside in. And then, so once you've done that with the crime scene, would you then be canvassing the neighbors and seeing if they saw anything or heard anything? be canvassing the neighbors and seeing if they saw anything or heard anything? Absolutely. I mean, you've got to talk to it. You've got to run out every conceivable pathway. Even if it's talking to the garbage man or the mail carrier,

anybody that makes a regular route through there, along with neighbors, anybody within earshot, anybody within reason, that could have possibly saw something that morning that stood out of place or saw something that wasn't out of place, but just saw something. You got to exhaust every available opportunity to gather information as quick as possible. There was an old TV show, the first 48, I think it was on A&E. We had a homicide that I worked that actually was the focus of that. And it's true, the first 48 hours are usually the most critical, especially in something that's outside, outdoors, that's you're affected by all kinds of environment,

environmental conditions, rain, wind, temperatures, whatever. Like I said at the beginning, the deck is stacked against you from the get go when you're dealing with anything outside and time is absolutely a crucial factor in finding the correct path that you need to go from there to lead to where the suspect is. So I know you haven't seen the files on this case. I haven't seen the files on this case either I haven't seen the files on this case either, but just based on what you know from what I've been told, you've listened to the podcast,

what jumps out at you about this case, about the crime scene, about the investigation? Anything kind of seem out of the ordinary? The magnitude of it is what jumps out at me. It's just the magnitude of the, of the size of the crime scene. There's a lot to take in there. There's a lot, a lot to look at. And that to me through this whole thing has been, I guess, one of the key features.

Another one being, unfortunately, the gentleman was found by his friends. And you put emotion into testimony, you put emotion into the things that were seen and observed. And sometimes it affects what was saw. Now, I should have said this at the very beginning. My heart goes out to the gentleman's family and his friends, but unfortunately, and I've said this before and it is a proven fact, that if you want two different eyewitnesses or two different statements to the same thing,

get two eyewitnesses to it, because people observe and look at different things. Different things stand out to them. It's not saying that they're wrong, but if you've got two people that saw the exact same thing and when they write their statement, they're word for word verbatim, what's going on or what supposedly happened, that sometimes that would lead one to believe that the statements were manufactured before you got there. This obviously was not there.

That was not in this case at all. But different people see different things. And some people, you know, there's confirmation bias and everything. And you just have to be very careful about taking statements from people who are emotionally and physically and mentally involved with something and running out the line of questioning to those folks to make sure that they saw what they saw. Give them every opportunity to prove what they saw.

The face mask was something that stood out in the interior of this crime, is how the gentleman's turkey mask was pulled up and his face was exposed. Now I want to think, if I remember correctly, if I'm wrong Jordan, that was what led folks to believe that the shooter had approached the person and to identify him. Is that, am I correct in that assumption? Yeah, there was a face mask. And then also David's wife, Tammy said that, um, glasses, yeah. And she said he never did that. Um, he hated having his glasses kind of pushed up on his face. So yeah, those are the two things that

made people think someone had had done that to see his face. Okay. I'm not going to say that that didn't happen. I'm also going to say that there's reasonable doubt that that was done. I can't tell you how many times I have left my truck going to a spot to turkey hunt, knowing where I was going to sit down and put my decoys out before daylight and getting completely ready and camoed up before I shut the door of my truck with my turkey mask flipped over on the top of my head and walk into where I'm going.

You know, a turkey mask, it's got holes in it, you can see out of it, but when it's dim outside or dark, it's absolutely in the way and hinders your peripheral vision. So there's reasonable doubt. There's, there's a reason to think that just because that was done, there's got to be other factors in there that prove that that was correct.

It's not a bad theory by any means, but it's also not, you know, a hundred percent the glasses on top of his head. Uh, his wife would know him better than anyone. That's obviously something that should have been looked at or should be looked at and considered as well in the totality of the crime scene to what they saw there. But to say, and I don't want to sound unfeeling about this, but if he didn't die instantly, he could have pushed his glasses up on top of his head after he was hit accidentally, you know, just in the course of being hit, struck from the bullet. So.

Yeah. And I think this is one of the big questions about this case, and it matters a lot to the family, is whether the shooter knew what he'd done. So it's one thing if it's a stray bullet, they have no idea. It's another thing, even if the shooter didn't walk up to the body, if they were close enough to know something had happened and then walked away and has never come forward, that matters a lot to the family and friends.

And this is a point that the DWR initially in the months after the murder, they said they think the shooter was aware that he was close enough to know. And then when I asked them, they said, well, we can't speculate on that. Um, so just from your experience, investigating cases, what kinds of evidence would they be looking at to indicate that the shooter was close enough to know, um, that they, that they had a knowledge of what they'd done and just decided to walk away. Well, the caliber of bullet, uh, that was used, the amount of penetration into the victim's body, the angle that it was there, there's a lot of

things that can go into that. You know, there's a, if, if something is at close range and close, if there's a, what's called stippling around the entrance, the wound. It's always an indicator of something being fired at close range, which is gun powder and debris that gets absorbed into the skin from close contact wound. If that wasn't there, it obviously tells you that the person, the barrel of the weapon that was used was not close to the body or to the point of contact. So then you're going to go by the amount of penetration and the force that the bullet

retained from whatever distance it was shot from. So that could be clues as to how far it was away. The time of day and being able to see in that environment was something, you know, I think some of the guys that were hunting with him testified that, you know, the shot was so early, one guy thought, wow, is that legal? Well, that leads me to believe

that you know it was just you know breaking day out there that there was just enough light to be able to see if he questioned one way or the other if that was legal to be shooting that early which also makes me think that or would Or would lead me has led me to believe that if he was shot from, you know, a distance away it was after his decoys were set up and he was moving around and someone thought it was a turkey already on the ground and took a shot, which was, you know, that's a violation of the first rule of, of hunting, of safe hunting, is you not making sure you knew what you were shooting at when you pulled the trigger, but that's what, you know, I, it's so hard to, to come up with

conjecture is it's purely conjecture on my part from reading and listening to this podcast and having to come up with some type of credible scenario in which it happened. But from everything that I've taken at face value that's been heard here on this podcast, it would lead me to believe with no motive, no known motive of someone being angry or having a problem with the victim that this was a hunting accident, which resulted in the homicide of a turkey hunter, a man and whoever it was, you know, left the scene and didn't report it. That's, that I can take at face value and come up with in my mind. So next month, it'll be 22 years, if I'm doing my math right, since this incident happened.

What can be done at this point? If this was your case now, what kinds of things would you be doing to help solve this? I would, you know, all the evidence that was gathered from whatever evidence was gathered from there. If they're scientists come a long way. if there was physical evidence gathered there other than, you know, I think there was been some miscommunication or different stories about the cigarette, but the different cigarette brand of cigarette, but that was found there. Somebody remembered it. Another person didn't. And did you, I don't know. I don't remember if you got a straight answer from the DWR

about if there was any of that gathered there or did they say anything about any physical evidence? No, they didn't. They said to protect the integrity of the case, they can't release that kind of information. I got you. Okay. And that's true, obviously. So but to answer your question, what would I do different?

Anything physical evidence-wise that could have been submitted at that time to a forensics lab could be resubmitted. Testing has improved dramatically. Different tests have been developed and invented since then for as far as DNA and different types of physical evidence that could be garnered from a crime scene. So a resubmission of evidence to a forensics lab would be something that I would look at specifically. Yeah. One of the things that surprised me a bit in my interactions with the DWR, um, is like I said in the podcast, initially they agreed to an interview and then

they, they backed out. Um, they're, they didn't share a lot of information about the evidence, like the cigarette butt. And they said that all of this was to protect the integrity of the case. As a former law enforcement officer, can you break that down a little bit for us? Because for a layman like myself, I don't quite understand why sharing a little bit more information to help get the word out about this case would would damage it especially having not been solved for so long. Could you help me understand kind of the practical negative consequences of them sharing too much information. much information. And something like this, knowledge is power.

I can't tell you how many times, and there's been some famous cases of people confessing to different things, different crimes that were totally, you know, made up lies from the beginning because they, when asked certain details about a case, they couldn't give them or they gave the wrong details. And it's just, it's the, it takes the investigators priorities away from investigating something that could be legitimate to go down the rabbit hole of chasing ghosts and something that's, that's incorrect. So keeping as much critical, critical, crucial evidence in a closed area or in a box where it's not subject to public information, it keeps the the power, I guess, on the side of the investigators to be able to go after a certain.

If they laid everything out there, you know, we've got fingerprints or we've got DNA or we've got this or got that, anything that could be construed by the suspect even, you know, we've got a hole, we've got the rifle hole that fired the shot. So as soon as we find the right suspect, we're going to match this hole with that rifle. Well, if that rifle is gone forever, you know, he gets rid of that rifle, there's no way to connect it. So in these are very arbitrary and things that I'm, that I'm giving you, but to keep portions of the evidence and the, the things that they have in the investigation

private is crucial a lot of times in solving the case. That's why that they would play those cards very close to their, to their chest. Because maybe whoever did it or the family of whoever did it could take actions that would like you say, with the rifle, get rid of the rifle. Um, that, that would undermine the evidence that they have. Absolutely. Can you tell me a little bit about, cause I would have asked this to the DWR, but I know you've had this experience of you're investigating a case and you're being criticized

by the family of the victim, by the friends of the victim for not doing enough. Can you tell me a little bit about what that's like? I've got one, you know, you and I talked earlier about this. I've got one unsolved homicide in my career. It it's the only copy of a case file that I brought home, um, from my career. One. And it haunts me to this day. And, and I know who did it. We know who did it.

We just never got the physical evidence to get them arrested for it. And here's the thing that you got to think about. Once you arrest somebody, if you have enough to arrest them, but not enough to convict them, and you go take them to trial on the chance that you might get them convicted and they get found guilty. That's it. That was your swing. You don't get another chance. That's the end of it. There are no other tries.

So there is, in my 30 plus years of being a police officer I've never worked with any investigations any investigation or any department where solving a case was not their number one goal being closed-mouth about how the investigation is going and the tactics that you have to use and the pride that you have to swallow when you're accused of not doing enough. It's tough, man. It's tough. But you know, we understand and I understand that that's coming from a place of emotion

because these people have had a great loss and they want justice. In my experience, there has never been anyone that wanted justice for a family anymore than the folks investigating the case. And it's just part of it. It's part of the things that police officers deal with and I'm glad to talk about it now because it's a struggle. It's a hard thing to do. It's a hard thing to live with. It's not something that I could go to work for eight or nine or ten hours a day and leave at the office and go home. Because when I went home, I was with my wife and my family. Somebody wasn't going home to their wife, the victim, or their husband, or their father or mother, and that that weighed on me heavily and it weighs on I'm sure it weighs on these folks and I can assure you that there's

no greater joy than to be able to call someone or go and see them and tell them look it ain't gonna bring the victim back but we found who did it and they're gonna pay. So it's a job that I volunteered for. I wasn't made to do it. I'm not asking for sympathy and I'm not giving sympathy to these guys, but I can understand where they're coming from. And it's just another, it's a pretty tough road to hoe

until you get somebody arrested and get them gone. But that's their job and that's what they're there for. Thanks Brent. I really appreciate you coming on and answering some of these questions for us. You bet man. Good luck to these guys and appreciate what you're doing bringing light to something. Maybe another obviously deserves another look and I hope we get this thing to fruition. I'll be right here with you when you do it. Part 5. What's next? As with many cold cases, David's death may not be solved unless someone who knows something comes forward. At least that's what a DWR agent told Kenny.

He says, just gonna have to wait for somebody's wife to get mad. In the interest of keeping this show semi-family friendly, we can't air Kenny's response to that comment. But you can imagine, it's a frustrating place for the family to be, especially when you think the DWR hasn't done enough. But it may be true that the only way this case will ever be solved is if someone's wife gets mad, or someone's grandchild learns the truth, or someone's neighbor finally does the right thing. There isn't any more physical evidence that can be collected from the crime scene.

It's been nearly 22 years since David was murdered, and while time might heal all wounds, it also clouds memory and dulls whatever moral compass the killer may have once had. and dulls whatever moral compass the killer may have once had. There was at one point a $36,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of the killer, but that's no longer on the table. David's kids say their father always encouraged them to follow their consciences, to tell the truth. Those three kids are now grown, with kids of their own. But they've had to live for the last 20 years wondering what happened to their dad. Now, their only request is that whoever did this, or whoever knows who did this,

follow their dad's advice. Listen to your conscience. Do what's advice. Listen to your conscience. Do what's right. That's what Tammy said too, when I asked her what she'd say to the person responsible for killing her husband. I just wish that they would come forward, say something. I mean, they've put us through hell. Have a soul, man.

Come out and say something. I don't think they did it on purpose, but come forward and say something. Don't put the family through all this and all these years just not knowing. You know, I hope nobody ever has to go through what we had to go through. If you or anyone you know has any information about this incident, the DWR asks that you call their anonymous tip line at 1-800-237-5712. You can also text your tip to 847-411 or send an email to wildcrime at dwr.virginia.gov. The murder took place in Virginia's Rockbridge County on April 12, 2003, the opening day

of spring gobler season. I'm telling you, man, there's nothing quite like it. Gives me chubby just thinking about it. You hit the call way off in the distance, the time fires back. You work them in watching his body language shift from cautious to committed. Then that moment, the one every turkey hunter dreams about all winter, that gobbler locks eyes in your decoy and comes running in. And if you're using the right decoy, you don't need to then settle for a 40 yard nervous shot. Because with the right decoy, you can get that bird in your lap,

putting on a wild aggressive turkey show. I mean, I'm talking where he's fighting the decoy. I've had him sitting there trying to mate with the decoy. It's the best thing in the world, but to pull it off you need realism. Like you need decoys that don't just fool turkeys at a distance. You want a decoy that fools him when he's up there at point-blank range beating the snot out of it. That is why diehard turkey hunters insist on Dave Smith decoys. Their unmatched realism fools even the wariest of toms into thinking they're staring and fighting a real bird.

And unlike inflatable decoys that crumble when shot, DSDs are built tough. They last season after season, even if you screw up and put a little TSS into one of them. To top it all off, every DSD turkey decoy is made right here in the good old US of A. Made in America. Check out the full lineup at DaveSmithDecoys.com and take your turkey hunts to the next level.