Up and Vanished - Case Evidence 06.12.17

Episode Date: June 13, 2017

For the first time, Payne Lindsey, Dr. Godwin and Philip Holloway sit down together to discuss the Tara Grinstead Case.  To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Get ready for Las Vegas style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos. Enjoy casino games at your fingertips with the same Vegas strip excitement MGM is famous for. When you play classics like MGM Grand Millions or popular games like Blackjack, Baccarat and Roulette with our ever-growing library of digital slot games, a large selection of online table games, and signature BetMGM service. There is no better way to bring the excitement and ambience of Las Vegas home to you than with BetMGM Casino. Download the BetMGM Casino app today. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. BetMGM.com for Ts and Cs.

19 plus to wager. O-N only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to any operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Hey guys.

Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of sitting down with both Philip Holloway and Maurice Godwin in the same room together. We got the chance to discuss Tara Grinstead's case and to express our own thoughts and opinions to each other. And today, you'll get to hear it. This is Case Evidence. The first thing I wanted to talk about, and I'll just kind of pose this question to both of you guys, what do you guys make of the indictment for Ryan Duke, and do you think that the narrative the GBI is pressing and putting out there for us is what really happened? And if you don't think that's what happened,

how different do you think the truth is? Well, I've said all along that I think the indictment is potentially legally insufficient because it doesn't accurately and succinctly, specifically describe how he allegedly used his hand in a deadly way. So that could be a problem for them. Whether or not it's intentionally vague because there may be some deal in place is an open question. I've got my suspicions about it. If the indictment is challenged, it would be very easy for the DA to go back to the grand jury and get one that has more details and it's more specific so they can always re-indict the case. from what's been publicly released before the gag order, reading the language of the indictment and reading the language of the arrest warrants, the narrative that it was a burglary that went bad,

I'm not buying it. I've never thought that was the truth. I think something else is the truth. I don't know if it's because maybe law enforcement has been misled by witnesses in the case or whether it's intentionally vague just for some strategic reasons. I don't know the answer to those questions. It almost seems like they could have got some information that was information that they deemed valid

and they just jumped on the gun and ran with this theory. And then maybe more time went on and different information surfaced maybe that's not what really happened maybe it happened differently or they may because there's no other witnesses that we know of to what ryan did and they may only have just that amount of information maybe r Ryan started and then just stopped, and that's all that they actually have, and that's what they used. There's a possibility that it's vague because that's all they have is vague information from Ryan. And there's no witnesses, not less Bo collaborated with some.

There's no other witnesses to what Ryan did except Ryan. So maybe they don't really have anything else to go there. But one thing that I've often wondered why is with the judge, when she originally did that order about having like a secret trial or whatever. The original gag order. Yeah, the original gag order. Because she didn't do that on her own. She was influenced to do that. I'm just wondering if the warrant is not purposely vague because there might be some bad stuff that what really happened and maybe that was the original

intent of the judge about the secret court trial in the first place and that might be the reason not to let certain things come out about what happened. And Phil, can you recap me and the listeners on this secret trial that Maurice is talking about? So the original gag order essentially called for everything to be done in camera. And that's a Latin word. It's a legal phrase. And it basically means in chambers or in private. Essentially what it would have called for would any proceeding that would have occurred, whether it was a trial or a plea or anything else, been done in a courtroom that was closed to the public. And there's no way in hell I would ever agree to any kind of such

order. If I'm taking a client to trial, I'm not going to agree that the trial is going to be held essentially in secret, even if there's a jury in the box, but the public's not allowed to watch, I'd have to call the judge out on that. It seemed very extreme and very fast for the gag order to come into place like that. Let me ask you a question. Did the defense attorney or the DA object to that? I don't think anybody objected to it. Really, it was the media, as I recall, that had to essentially come in and say, you know, we're going to call BS on this. And, you know, there's a First Amendment right of the press and things like that. And the public has a right to access the court. So it was the media that came in and challenged. And interestingly enough, if you recall from from that court hearing, Bo Dukes wasn't there. He wasn't represented.

He didn't have a lawyer there. But the DA mentioned, I believe it was the DA mentioned that he was authorized to speak on behalf of Bo's lawyer and that they had no objection to the order and being included. And so he became part of the amended order. And so he became part of the amended order. Yeah. As far as the in-camera stuff ruling originally, the DA and the defense attorney didn't object to that, did they? Not to my knowledge. I don't recall any objection.

So there might be something that both of them know about that might be very damaging or very sadistic information or whatever that they originally wanted to try to keep out. Yeah, I mean, I was in the courtroom when the AJC and a couple other media outlets opposed the gag order. I was there for that hearing, and I saw, I thought it was very strange, and I keep saying it even to this day, the DA and the defense for Ryan were sitting at the same table across from all the media outlets who were opposing the gag order. They were basically on the same team. And it was different media outlets on one side of the courtroom. And they all came together as a whole to file a complaint and try to get this gag order removed. And on the other side of the courtroom, you have Ryan Duke's defense attorney. Then you have the district attorney who is prosecuting Ryan right next to each other in support of the gag order. I thought that was very strange.

Well, the defense attorney has an interest in protecting his client. He's got to protect his client's right to a fair trial. And they made some arguments in favor of a gag order to cut down on pretrial publicity. And that's actually a legitimate thing for a defense attorney to do. But what I didn't hear was an objection to the courtroom being closed entirely. That was what was surprising is that why would you not object to at least to that part of it? would you not object to at least to that part of it? I can see a legitimate strategic reason for the defense concurring in the issuance of a gag order in the interest of protecting their clients rights to a fair trial. But I can't see how one could go and say it's okay to close the courtroom judge for a trial. Well, if you answer that why question, the reason they wanted that in-camera stuff, you might get answers to more about what Ryan did. Very true. Having everything so private

in the judge's chambers, basically, right? Right. In-camera, traditionally, it means that you go back in the judge's office and the judge reviews something by him or herself in chambers. But in this context, it could also mean just bringing in the jury and locking the courtroom door and having the trial without anybody else watching. You answered the question of why they wanted that and why there was no objection by the DA or the defense on that. And you might find out something more about what Ryan did in this case or both. Meaning it's set up this way because there's more to the story.

Oh, yeah. in this case or both meaning it's set up this way because there's more to the story oh yeah so this case has been unsolved for going on 12 years now since 2005 marisa i'll ask you first why do you think the gbi could never solve it why did it take till 2017 for the gbi to solve this what was it about this case that made it so much different than the other cases? I just don't think they had the leadership in the beginning because in 06, I knew about the DNA, full male DNA profile on the glove, but it wasn't officially announced until 08

when Rothwell and them agreed to let 48 Hours announce it on that show. That's two years. And then February 23rd, when they had the news conference for Ryan, that was the first news conference ever been held in this case. I mean, another thing in this type of case where you've got a small town and everything, you really need, agents need informants or somebody working around the two counties there and everything. And they didn't have none of that.

I'll tell you what happened, and it happens just not in this case, but a lot of cases, is that the DNA, waiting on a DNA CODIS match, made the investigators lazy, and they didn't do the shoe work. After a number of years, they just waiting for the DNA hit. Look what the agent did with uh my two witnesses mobley and moshe the guys who saw the black truck yeah look i mean i mean they come up there and question stuff and i want to know if they had a drug test and uh treated them like uh suspects and they they never discussed what he the age originally went to see him about the truck.

I mean, they're street smart, right? Yeah. And they got turned off. They could have had information about the killer. I believe that the answer to what we know about this case now since the arrest is within the 30 feet of files in the GBI's office. You know, you can have all the files you want to with all the information, but unless you've got somebody that can take some information from out of the files and work it and turn it around to something else, then that piece of information is no good, right?

You know, that raises a question that I've had now, and I guess it's a good time to talk about it. that I've had now, and I guess it's a good time to talk about it, when recently, in preparation for the first episode of Sworn, I met a dedicated law enforcement officer whose lead case agent on the unsolved double murder, and he was willing to basically open up his entire case file. And it's a big file. It may not be 30 feet long feet long but it's certainly huge and he's brainstormed it with other law enforcement agencies and and he's willing to do whatever it takes to share information to try to shake something out so to your knowledge has the gbi ever done anything like that nope what is it is it a pride thing? I mean, I know that there are certain reasons law enforcement holds back information because only the suspect would know that. I don't know for a fact that the GBI brought in an expert from the outside to look it over.

I don't know that for sure, but I seriously doubt it. Experience basketball like never before with BetMGMm an authorized gaming partner of the nba ready to shoot your shot we've made the bet mgm experience more immersive and fun for all types of basketball fans being on the sidelines is one thing this season experience basketball on the foul line exciting state-of-the-art live tracking technology and dozens of sportsbook selections await you at betMGM Sportsbook. Tap into every game on your mobile devices. Get up off the sideline and drive to the basket yourself.

No matter which team starts popping off, you'll find out why there's truly nothing like laying up a W with the king of sportsbooks. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone else close to you, please contact Connex Ontario

at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. Think of the last time you bought something to wear, something to decorate your house, something for your family or friends. What if each time you made a purchase, you got a little something back? With Rakuten, you can. You can earn cash back on just about anything you buy from over 750 stores. If you've ever bought electronics, home decor, fashion and beauty, or booked a trip, well, you could have got cash back. But don't worry, it's not too late. It's free and easy to use, and you get cash back deposited into your PayPal account or sent to you as a check. Earn cash back at stores like Sephora, Old Navy, and Expedia. It's the smartest way to

shop, plain and simple. Start your shopping at Rakuten.ca or get the Rakuten app. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N.ca. Does it do more hurting or helping to withhold information from the general public for an extended period of time? Oh, it won't in this case. Well, it's possible to crowdsource things to solve mysteries. There's legitimate reasons for law enforcement to withhold certain items of evidence. But it also makes sense to share some stuff with the public because as what we've seen with this podcast, the way I use the term is I say that the podcast literally shook the trees until something fell out. Now, what fell out? Is that the whole truth or a part of the truth?

That's an open question in my mind, but but it definitely stirred things up to the point that there's now some arrest. Well, you know, the saying you've been in law enforcement. I was in law enforcement that despite the efforts of investigators and police in any case, the public solves crime by somebody coming forward, saying they saw something, giving a tip, something. The public solves crime. How can the public solve this case when they never heard from the GBI about the case in the first place? It brings up a bigger issue, and it's really with Georgia on this one because different states have different laws, right, Phil, when it closed records law North Carolina's one of the worst for that but yeah the GBI could if they choose to do so open up their files they can release anything yeah they have the option right

of course before the gag order now they now they're judicially prohibited from it but before that they could have used the public because in every case that's a mystery, somebody somewhere knows something. That's right. And if you can stir the pot and make people nervous, then somebody may talk. And that's what we eventually saw happen here. Absolutely. in that 30 feet of files that the GBI has on the Tara Grinstead case that links to likely Ryan Duke or Bo Dukes and what may have really happened to Tara and that these aren't just brand new leads.

This isn't just brand new random information, but maybe some of those little rabbit holes we were chasing, those little kernels of information inside that case file could link back to this. Maybe it's in there. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I've got my letter ready to send off FedEx, my Georgia records request,

just as soon as the time is appropriate to get the whole entire file, which is probably about $2,000 or $3,000. Yeah, I'm sure they'll love you when you send that. Well, they put it in CD for you. But it probably costs $2,000 or $3,000 probably. Well, there will be probably lots of open records requests for it. And probably every media outlet that's interested in this case would file the same request.

And they would all get the same response. I mean, technically, Ryan Duke's attorney made that same request. I mean, he's allowed that. That's part of the… Well, he has to be given the information, the discovery process. given the information, the discovery process. They've got to give him everything, not just evidence that may show his guilt, but they've got to show exculpatory information. And if you think about it... And what does that mean? That means other people that could be involved? Exculpatory evidence is anything that points away from the accused guilt. It comes out of a case

called Brady v. Maryland. It's called Brady material. It's exculpatory. And you think about it in this case. If you had any given person who was a suspect at any point in time, then that is considered exculpatory as well. So if they considered me, for example, to have been a suspect in 2005, although I did have a good alibi, if they considered me as a suspect, then that would be fair game for cross-examination. Well, agent so-and-so, isn't it true that you at one time accused Holloway of this? Right. And so that's all Brady material. It's exculpatory, and the defense is entitled to have all of it.

Brady material. It's exculpatory. And the defense is entitled to have all of it. So Ryan Duke's attorney is going to use that not only to maybe disprove what the GBI is saying, but also to suggest somebody else. That's all we got to do is create a kernel of reasonable doubt. And reasonable doubt is simply a doubt for which a reason can be attached. And it doesn't have to be much at all. And if they can plant a seed of reasonable doubt in the mind of one single juror, that causes a mistrial if the jury gets hung. You know, when I try a case, I sit there with a notepad and I'm taking notes of what witnesses are saying, but I have a separate pad that's just for bullet points. When closing argument comes, if a witness has said something that was unusual, I'll just jot it down on my list. And so hopefully by the time the trial's over,

I'll have a long laundry list of things. And I'll say to a jury, I'll say, look, this is what reasonable doubt is. It's a doubt for which a reason can be attached. And I don't know if you guys were listening during this trial, but I was, and I've got this long list of reasons right here. Any one of which is sufficient to be reasonable doubt. And if you bite into any one of these, and I just read through them, then that's doubt for which a reason can be attached. And Ryan Duke's attorney has 30 feet of file to do that with, the largest case file in Georgia to do that with, to potentially disprove what they're saying and suggest somebody else. do that with to potentially disprove what they're saying and suggest somebody else.

Well, I've got also a reason to believe that, and I think most people do believe, that Ryan has made either a full confession or some kind of incriminating statement. So, the defense might need to bring in an expert on false confessions, for example, because it's true. We all know that people have been exonerated who confessed. False confessions do happen. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, but if I'm defending it, it's something that I'm going to have to deal with. If my client's made a statement and I'm planning on trying this case, then I'm going to have to figure a way to work around that statement because that's going to be a big piece of the case against him. And Phil, to that same point, we don't know for sure if Ryan Duke did confess.

That's purely speculation, really. To you, because of how specific the indictment is, even if it sounds crazy, it is very specific. I think he's told them that. I've got pretty solid reasons for believing he made some kind of statement, if not a full confession. But the warrants alleged, for example, that she died inside her home and that he took her dead body from her house. And how would they know that if he didn't tell them? The warrant was written before Ryan was arrested. he didn't tell them.

The warrant was written before Ryan was arrested. So the GBI didn't have Ryan in custody to find that out, to put it in a warrant. So it had to come from Bo. That's actually what I was getting at. The information inside the indictment about what Ryan allegedly did, could that have come from Bo and not Ryan himself? Did that have to come from Ryan? Or is that not enough to have someone else say, hey, this guy did this.

Okay, now we're going to charge him with that. It was written before Ryan was arrested. To be fair, we don't know when it was written up. Well, I hope it was before he was arrested. You know, the police can make an arrest. Let's say I go into the police station here and I confess to a crime. They can arrest me on the spot and put handcuffs on me and I'm in custody and then they then go secure in a warrant that happens quite frequently that's

kind of the in between there so you're suggesting maybe Ryan was either collected by law enforcement for an interrogation to ask him some questions, or he came and met with them, and they arranged something to question him about this, and maybe that's when he made some sort of small confession, and with that information, they charged him. That's what I believe happened. Okay. Okay. I believe they got some information from Brooke and her mom, and then they talked to Brooke and her mom, and then they talked to Bo, and then later they talked to Ryan, and when they talked to Ryan, they made a decision to go ahead and make an arrest. That's how I believe it went down. And do you think that the GBI had to corroborate Bo's version of that story?

Do you think Bo ever told the GBI at all a version of how or why Ryan killed Tara, or is he just not telling me that? I mean, and not him directly, but through Brooke, assuming that he never told Brooke. It would be very dangerous for him to withhold information from the GBI because if he's talking to them and giving them information, and he's going to be a cooperating witness, then if they find out that he's said things to them that weren't true or that weren't the complete truth, it could jeopardize any deal that he's got. And it's also illegal in and of itself to give false statements to police. So it would be very dangerous for him to not disclose

anything that he doesn't know. Now, that being said, it happens a lot where people talk to the cops and they don't tell them the whole truth. This episode is brought to you by Secret. Secret deodorant gives you 72 hours of clinically proven odor protection free of aluminum, parabens, dyes, talc, and baking soda. It's made with pH balancing minerals and crafted with skin conditioning oils. So whether you're going for a run or just running late, do what life throws your way and smell like you didn't. Find Secret at your nearest Walmart or Shoppers Drug Mart today. Hey, I'm Tom Power. I'm the host of the CBC podcast, Q with Tom Power. I get to talk to artists from all over the world, writers, musicians, actors, directors,

all kinds of creative people. And we try to have the conversations you have with really, really good friends. The conversations you have when you share a love of something, about ideas, when you want to hear about everything. I feel really lucky to have these conversations. Cue with Tom Power. Available now on Spotify. With unstoppable off-road capability, excellent on-road dynamics, 21st century connectivity, and luxury interiors, you'll be capable of great things. The 2023 Defender 130. Adventure. Share widely.

Contact your Land Rover authorized dealer for details. In this GBI interrogation with Bo and the GBI, if Bo tells them this story, aren't they going to think it's weird and less believable if he has all these details but doesn't know the important things like why Ryan did this or how exactly it happened? Wouldn't they question that as far as his validity or Bo's personal involvement? If I'm investigating this case and if I'm interviewing Bo Dukes about what he knows, I'm going to ask him lots of detailed questions. And I'm going to ask him, what did Ryan say to you about this? I would ask him the question.

I would say, did Ryan say why he did it? Did Ryan say how he did it? Did Ryan say anything else about what he was doing over there at her house? Well, if he gave the same answer that Brooke gave me, which is allegedly what Bo told Brooke, unless he said something different to the GBI, that answer would be

a look of shame. Nothing firm, just a look of shame. Is the GBI just going to accept that as truth, or do they think it's weird, just like I think it's weird? If that's how it went that as truth or do they think it's weird just like I think it's weird? If that's how it went down, they would have to believe it's weird. And quite frankly, that is also a good reason for a defense lawyer to argue that Bo is not credible. And if Bo has all these details about everything else except what happened inside the house. Why wouldn't Bo

simply ask Ryan when this body is presented to him, why wouldn't he just say, what the hell did you do? Or how did you do it? Or why did you do it? According to Brooke, he did. And he just never answered. But again, just the look of shame. That doesn't have the ring of truth it's yeah she took that look of shame as sexually somehow yeah which is very strange right i mean that's not what i would get from that a look of shame you could be shameful about a lot of things why specifically something sexual yeah i mean that could be just killing tara in any fashion that's right but why she took it to the sexual part i'm not really sure yeah i don I don't either. Well, Bo knows a lot, apparently. But if his details are limited to just what happened afterwards,

if you're on a jury, do you really believe that he's not going to ask Ryan Duke, why did you kill her, or how did you kill her, or what happened in that house? That's what a rational person would do that's certainly what i would do if you came to me and told me something like that or showed me where you just killed somebody especially if you were going to participate in destroying her body from that point forward i don't care how evil you are that is something that logically happens is that you find out what happened before you get involved that's exactly my point if you come to me and and show me that you've

just killed somebody probably the second thing i'm going to do is call the police but the first thing i'm going to do is i'm going to ask you what in the hell happened and what what is the benefit for bo helping ryan that's what I can't figure out either. He was scared is what Brooks said. I don't buy that. I think that the burning and destroying the body benefited Bo just much as Ryan. It allowed both of them to get by with the crime for almost 12 years. Oh, Maurice, you're suggesting, if I'm reading you correctly,

that you think Bo may have been involved in the murder. That would be the impetus for him helping him like that. Bo would not be linked to killing Tara if he didn't kill Tara. So there is nothing in it for him to go try to get rid of the evidence. I don't believe that Ryan, with the lock gate out there and stuff, I don't believe that Ryan went to the pecan orchard out of his own choice without Bo knowing about it. Because you have to wonder why he chose the orchard in the first place. That's right.

It's not his orchard. That's right. So why did he trust that no one would find it out on the orchard? And it's always been private property. I'll be honest with you. I mean, according to Brooke's story, which is allegedly Bo's story, is that beau found out for sure that tara was murdered on that wednesday and that wednesday is when ryan allegedly took beau to tara's body and it was on the orchard i don't believe that it's very strange that ryan would wait two days and then all of a

sudden take him there in the first place. Do you know how intense the searching was going on by that time? And for Tara just to be laying there in the open, as described by Brooke, very, very strange. The whole thing just smells funny to me. The indictment seems to go right along with that, smelling just as funny, if not funnier. I just think you should just keep on doing what you're doing. I agree with that 100% because somebody needs to question the narrative, and that's what the podcast is presently doing. It may very well be that it happened exactly like it's alleged in the indictment, okay? It may be that it didn't happen that way. But I think it's productive to question

things the way that you're doing and to test whether or not what we're being told is the truth. Yeah. And if you're after the truth, a good investigator has said to always follow the evidence wherever it leads, okay, to the truth. And if the law enforcement has been misled in this case, then you'd be doing them a service by letting them know that. If you uncover some information that it didn't exactly happen that way. So you'd actually be doing law enforcement a service by letting them know that. If you uncover some information that it didn't exactly happen that way. So you'd actually be doing law enforcement a service. You'd be doing a service to everybody who's interested in this case and certainly to Tara and to her family. Yeah, I mean, it's not about proving somebody wrong.

I would try to find out if possible or just ask, what was the impetus for them wanting this whole thing with the encamber in secrecy. They encambered a secrecy that was originally written along with the gag order. What was the motive behind the reason why they wanted that? And who wanted it? Yeah, because the DA and the defense attorney didn't object to that. Who wanted it? I don't think it's something the judge would just do on her own. She'd have to be asked by one of the parties to do it. And there's no written motion in the case file asking for a gag order,

so it had to be something that was discussed orally. That's right. Thanks for listening, guys. Today's episode was mixed and mastered by Resonate Recordings. If you want to improve the quality of your podcast or start a podcast of your own, check them out at ResonateRecordings.com. And don't forget, our new podcast, Sworn, debuts this Wednesday, June 14th at 8 p.m. Eastern Time. And if you haven't yet, please subscribe to Sworn on Apple Podcasts. We also have a special bonus episode for you coming this Friday.

The Up and Vanished and Tenderfoot team attended the first annual CrimeCon event where we got to meet fans and do live Q&As and do some really cool interviews. And we recorded all of it for you to hear. So look for our bonus CrimeCon episode this Friday. And last but not least, episode 21 comes out next Monday. Today's episode was made and recorded at Industrious Atlanta, Ponce City Market. Check them out at

industriousoffice.com slash vanished for a $250 discount on OfficeSpace. Thanks for listening, guys. I'll see you soon.