Up and Vanished - Q&A with Payne Lindsey and Philip Holloway 05.26.17

Episode Date: May 26, 2017

Payne Lindsey and Philip Holloway answer your questions from our Voicemail line. Have a question? Call us at 770-545-6411. 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, Phillip Holloway here.

Welcome to this week's question and answer following episode 19 of Up and Vanish. There's some really good questions that were asked by the listeners this week. It's obvious people were paying very close attention and the questions were very insightful. So have a listen to the questions and the answers, but also stick around to the very end for a very special announcement from Up and Vanished. This is Jake from Missouri. I had a quick question for you. I've been following the podcast. It's been excellent, by the way. Just out of curiosity, what are the odds that the Grinstead family can actually press civil suit against either Bo or Brooke? I know that it kind of sounds like their defense is pretty much locked up, but what are the odds that the family can come back with a civil suit later? Appreciate it. Keep up the good work. That's an excellent question. And we all remember

the OJ Simpson case where, of course, he went to trial, was found not guilty. And because of the lower burden of proof required in a civil trial, that being proof by a preponderance of the evidence, it's entirely possible that the Grinstead family could come back and sue either or one of these defendants in civil court. Now, if they get a judgment, collecting on it is another matter. But symbolically, of course, I think it could, in fact, bring some closure. And it might even bring some answers that we may not get because of the discovery process that's available in civil cases. You get to depose people. You get to make them answer questions under oath and things like that. So it could lead to answers. It could lead to a judgment. It may never get paid, but it is a distinct possibility. Great question. Hi, Payne. This is Cammie calling from San

Francisco. First of all, I think your show is really great. Obviously, it's made a big impact on bringing the case forward. I do have a question, though, about your conversation with Brooke. I feel like with everyone else, you've kind of approached it with an unbiased tone, an unbiased perspective, and that you've really gone far to give people the benefit of the doubt. And it kind of felt like your approach with Brooke was a little bit different. Obviously, she didn't bring the situation upon herself, as far as we know, to this point. And she really was put in a really difficult situation when she was, you know, receiving information that she did from Beau.

So anyways, I'm just kind of wondering why you took that approach with her. It kind of seemed like you were putting some blame on her from the get-go or kind of making her seem more guilty than she really was. So I'm just wondering why you approached it that way when with everybody else you've been completely different and professional. And anyway, thanks so much. Up and Vanished is about Tara Grinstead. It's not about Beau.

It's not about Brooke. It's about finding out what happened to Tara Grinstead. So if you come on this show and try to defend the act of burning Tara's body, I'm absolutely going to call you out on it. I don't care who you are. I'll give you one chance. But I'm a straight shooter. I'll be honest.

And if you come on this show trying to convince me that what Bo did is in any way justified, I'm going to stand up for what I think is right. I would have to be a zombie to not feel any emotions about that. For the past year and a half, I've been trying to figure out what happened to Tara Grinstead, spending every single day trying to find that out. And during a three-hour phone call with Bo's girlfriend, after listening to her for two or more hours, trying to convince me that what Bo did was just a simple mistake that any 21-year-old would make, I'm absolutely going to stand up for what I think is right. This is not Fox News. This is not CNN. This is not any of those things.

This is a podcast that I made to tell Tara's story. This is not an avenue for Bo or Brooke to try and save face. This is Jenny from Chattanooga. I have a quick question for you. I was listening to the podcast and around minute eight of Brooke's interview, she said something that I found very interesting. She made the statement that when everyone passed out, that's when Ryan took her car and did what he did. I want to see your thoughts on that. Why did she use the prong on her instead of his if it was Bo's truck? Was that a 40-inch lip? Great, great work.

Love, love, love the podcast. I'm very proud of what you guys have done. Keep up the good work. Thanks. Well, Jenny, I think a lot of us noticed that, and you got to keep in mind from the legal perspective, if she becomes a witness in this case, everything that she said to anybody, to Payne Lindsey, to the GBI, to her friends or anything, becomes fair game. And to the extent that she may have said anything that's inconsistent at any point in time, it could create a real problem because the minute her ass hits the witness stand, her credibility becomes at issue. her ass hits the witness stand, her credibility becomes at issue. And if she's made prior inconsistent statements, then all of these things would be fair game for cross-examination and could, in fact, lead to reasonable doubt. And to take that one step further,

it could entirely jeopardize the state's case. Hi, this is Charlotte from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I was wondering if there's any way you can have Brooke's interview with you analyzed by an expert. She sounds like she's more concerned when giving details about where she's coming from, where Bo's coming from. She doesn't seem to be as concerned about the story as she is concerned about how the story is painted. So to me, it sounds like she's used to make it look like a certain thing happened when maybe it's not what happened. I also love how she can let Bo off for burning a body, but she's going to condemn you pain for, you know, airing certain things that she doesn't agree with. So she's got more moral conviction about how you post and what you put

on your podcast than she does about Bo burning a body. I mean, that more moral conviction about how you post and what you put on your podcast than she does about Bo burning a body. I mean, that says a lot about a person. Thank you. Thank you for the podcast. It's great. I love listening every week. Very good point. A lot of what Brooke told me was very contradictory to other things she had told me. As a matter of fact, I have shared these calls with Maurice Godwin, and he's given me a very extensive analysis. In the next episode, Maurice and I will be breaking down different elements of the call.

This is Megan from Asheville, North Carolina. I have a question regarding the gag order that's in place. Now that we've listened to all of your conversations with Brooke, do you think that her story violates the gag order in any way? Also, if there is, in in fact a trial for Ryan, do you believe that Brooke or Dustin would be called to testify? Thanks for the podcast.

I'll answer the last question first. Yes, any or all those people could conceivably be called as witnesses in the case. Anybody with knowledge of any of the facts of the situation could theoretically be witnesses in a case. As for the gag order, it does not cover Brooke. She's not the defendant. She's not Bo Dukes. She's not part of any lawyer's team. And so she's not someone who's named as being covered by the gag order. So unless Bo is speaking through her, then it's not really an implication of the gag order. If Bo is using her to convey some message or to speak perhaps on his behalf, then potentially he could face a gag order issue if he's using a third party to get statements out. But Brooke is not subject to a gag order issue if he's using a third party to get statements out. But Brooke is not subject to the gag order.

Hey, guys, this is Jennifer from Nashville, Tennessee. Love the podcast. Great work. I suppose my question is Bo told multiple people and some of those people have now come forward and been interviewed by the podcast. And Brooke even indicated some of the ones that she knew he had told specifically. I just have never had anybody tell me anything like that. But I can imagine if that ever happened, my first response would be, as Payne said, go to the police. So these folks that you're interviewing that have had this information over a long term, do they have any explanation as to why they kept it? I'm really curious as to why so many people were quiet, especially when that tends to be the one thing that gives away someone's guilt.

Keep up the good work. Thanks. Bye. You know, why someone would keep a felony or the existence of a murder to themselves is only a question that that individual person can answer for themselves. is only a question that that individual person can answer for themselves. It's a moral question, really, if you think about it. If you know or have evidence that something like this has in fact happened and you keep it to yourself, that's between you and whatever God you worship, if you do worship one. There is no law that requires someone to come forward. Back at English common law, there was something known as misprison of a felony,

which did implicate someone if they failed to disclose knowledge of serious crimes like murder. But that's been largely abrogated by statutory law in the United States, and it does not exist in Georgia. So it's a moral issue, but not a legal one. Great question. 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 dot C-A. Experience basketball like never before with BetMGM, an authorized gaming partner of the NBA. Ready to shoot your shot?

We've made the BetMGM 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 ConnexOntario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. I was just wanting more information about Ryan's brother, who is also a roommate.

Has he been interrogated by the GBI? Does he have an alibi? Where does he fit into the puzzle? Thanks. Another great question. Until episode 19, we didn't know about his existence as someone who might have some knowledge of this. It's a safe bet that the GBI has interrogated him. They are under the gag order, so they can't say whether or not they have, in fact, talked to him, but it's a fair assumption, and I would be willing to bet money that he has, in fact, been interviewed by the GBI because, as we've discussed before, they have to corroborate any statements that are made by either Bo or Ryan to evaluate their credibility, number one, and also because corroboration is important

to convince a jury of something beyond a reasonable doubt. So why he kept it to himself is up to him to answer, I guess, at some point if he chooses to do so. But I do believe the GBI probably has interrogated Ryan's brother. Hi, Phillip. I'm just wondering if you're Bo's attorney, what steps are you taking today to get Brooke to stop talking or do some damage control? Thanks for all you do, guys. Bye. Well, I'm really glad you asked that question because if I were Bo's attorney, I don't think I would be Bo's attorney because I would have probably already fired him as a client by now. Because when I found out that somebody is screenshotting my text communications to third parties where it completely destroys attorney client privilege,

one of the first things I would do if I didn't completely fire that person as a client is I would certainly get them in, have a come-to-Jesus meeting and say, you know, what in the hell are you doing? You need to stop talking. You need to shut your mouth because if you keep running it, you're going to jeopardize everything we've been working for. So that's how I would handle it. That's just me. I don't presume to speak for his lawyer, but that's just my opinion. And that's how I would handle it. I'd tell him to shut the hell up yesterday and the day before that. Hey, Payne, this is Stephanie. I'm a listener from Nashville, and I just listened to the Brooks story episode and was kind of surprised to hear how angry you sounded. I just wondered if you felt like you'd gotten too close to the case.

how angry you sounded. I just wondered if you felt like you'd gotten too close to the case. It sounded really personal to the point where it almost left me wondering if the show could remain investigative in nature and unbiased. I mean, I understand how close you've gotten to it, but at the same hand, it left me unsettled like no other episode had as far as the validity of moving forward as a show. So I just appreciate your feedback and maybe understanding better how you're feeling. Thanks.

I have enjoyed the show to date. It left me unsettled too. I mean, to be honest with you, I think that the lack of emotion and just how sterile and often biased media and reporting is in general these days is exactly what's wrong with it. Unlike other news agencies or outlets, I don't have an agenda. All I have is my own moral compass, my own conventions, and I just do what I think is right at all times. So when I'm sitting there hearing this woman explain to me over and over again why what Bo did was just not that bad, I'm going to react to that.

She's defending Bo Dukes burning a human body. Not just a body. Bo Dukes burning a teacher, a daughter, somebody's best friend. To try and explain that away at all is, in my opinion, inappropriate. I very rarely feel compelled to react the way I did. But to be honest, I have no regrets. I think standing up for what you think is right is exactly what's missing in today's journalism.

I really appreciate your question. I hope that answers it. It's Gwen from Florida. I have a quick question. Is there any evidence of Ryan telling anyone's stories about the murder? I know we keep hearing about people that Beau has told. I just wondered if there was anybody that you had come across in your interviews and stuff that has said that Ryan was talking about it and tormented and things like that. That would be interesting if you could touch on that. Thanks. Have a good day. Bye-bye. We really strongly believe that Ryan has made some statements to the GBI. We know about odd Facebook messages he's sent to teachers, but we really don't know much else about who, if anyone, he may have said anything to. mental health professionals when he reportedly was in mental health treatment in South Georgia for some period of time due to night terrors. That's all privileged information that the

mental health providers would not be able to discuss. I think it may be possible that he discussed this with them. They would not be under any obligation to report it and probably would be prohibited actually from talking about it. So I think it's possible that he's made some statements to third parties, but we just don't know who that would be. If there's a trial, we'll find out what, if anything, he said to the GBI in their investigation of the case. Hi, this is Alex.

I'm in North Carolina, and I've loved listening to the podcast and seeing how miraculously the case has actually developed since it began airing. My question is, how do you believe that this will shape future cases or how people will handle cold cases like this? Do you think that this might be able to, like, if this case does go to trial and really, if anything, if any justice is found, how do you think this will shape the future as a case that can be used as past precedent in court. And I'm curious now how many other cases are like this out there and will it take this much publicity and this much of sort of like a

crowd of people investigating it to get any justice found there? Thank you so much. I think the role that Up and Vananish and other true crime podcasts can play in true crime cases is awareness. When a case goes cold and people stop talking about it, the flow of information stops. And if a podcast can come in and create new energy, new life in a cold case, then the flow of information starts back up again.

I think the biggest problem with cold cases is that people stop talking. And in the case of Tara Grinstead, the alleged killer and accomplice still lived in town. So if you're keeping a big, dark secret, in theory, it would be a lot harder to do if everyone around you is always talking about it. If they're never talking about it, then you never have to think about it. But I think that persistence and putting the spotlight, the national spotlight, on a case that hasn't had much attention in a very long time, it can do a lot of good. And I'm very interested to see how, in the future, true crime podcasts like Up and Vanished continue to have an effect on real life cases. This is April. I'm in Nashville now, but I'm actually from Perry, Georgia.

I've been listening to your podcast since the beginning and remember this case from many years ago. So, very interested. I have one question. Is it possible that Brooke and her mother really could get the reward money and Bo would be released because of his plea deal? And then the three of them just walk off with the reward money as if nothing ever happened. Is that a real legitimate possibility? Thanks again and keep up the good work. Well, as bad as I hate to say it, Bo may very well have a deal in place that, you know, does allow him to escape a lot of responsibility for anything that may have happened in this case. And as far as a reward goes, we don't know, first off, who's putting up the reward. We don't know if there's conditions associated with the reward. Sometimes it's a reward that's conditioned upon information leading to an arrest. Sometimes it's conditioned upon leading to a conviction.

And if it looks like the reward money could somehow wind up in the hands of somebody who was maybe involved in it, I can see that there would be some pushback from whoever's paying the reward. And oftentimes rewards are a combination of funds donated by multiple different entities, and sometimes they may just refuse to give it up. Rewards oftentimes can lead to civil litigation. So I don't want to speculate too much about what may happen with that, but it's certainly not inconceivable that some of it could wind up in Bo's hands as hard as that may be to swallow. See yourself buying a home one day? Do future you a favor?

Open a Questrade First Home Savings account and help that future come faster. The FHSA is a tax-free account where all your investment gains are yours to keep and put towards your first home. With Questrade, you can open an FHSA online. No bank appointment needed. It's easy and only takes a few minutes. The sooner you get started, the more time your down payment has to grow. Open an account today at questrade.com. More time your down payment has to grow. Open an account today at questrade.com. Crypto is like finance, but different.

It doesn't care when you invest, trade, or save. Do it on weekends, or at 5 a.m., or on Christmas Day, at 5 a.m. Crypto is finance for everyone, everywhere, all the time. Kraken, see what crypto can be. Not investment advice. Crypto trading involves risk of loss. Kraken's registration details at kraken.com slash legal slash ca dash pru dash disclaimer. 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. Q with Tom Power. Available now on Spotify. Hi, Payne.

This is Brianna from Oregon. And two questions. One is regarding Brooke and her saying that she was not at the party the night where everybody passed out, but yet she was going through her head counting the number of people that were there. Just have a question. Was she there or wasn't she there? And then the other question too is, would Brooke have not told anyone? Had there been ramifications for her for not telling for a month? Anyway, thank you and love your podcast. Love your podcast. Both very good questions. To answer your first one, when I asked Brooke who was there at the party that night, she did start counting off in her head the number of people.

So it seemed clear to me that she did know these names. And if she hadn't have been there herself, which she said she wasn't, then the only way she would know that was if Bo told her himself. I think that Bo probably gave her a lot of details, some of which I think she shared with me, some of them she didn't. And I questioned why she would share some details with me and others she wouldn't. For example, the names, she seemed to know the names, but she didn't want to tell me. Unlike other questions I asked where she just didn't know the answer at all.

And to be honest, I don't know what she would have done if she found out she'd get in trouble for not coming to the cops sooner. I can't really speculate on that. I'm glad she did come forward, but I feel like there's still a lot of questions that really need answering before I believe this whole narrative. I really love the podcast. In light of the evidence presented in that last episode, which was riveting, does this not lend credence, this talk of a party in which people allegedly passed out, which was conducted in the pecan orchard, does this not lend more credibility to the story of the young man who committed suicide, but prior to that had made a list of names of people that were present and even had, you know, sort of horrific accounts of people carving initials into her body. It's kind of mind-blowing how this goes from Ryan Duke

confessing to a break-in and a murder to the possibility that it may even have been a kidnapping and that Bo Dukes, again, this is purely conjecture, Bo Dukes may have been involved and they take her out to this party and God knows what happens. I just wonder if law enforcement, if you guys in your own investigating are going down these, you know, I guess I'll say rabbit holes, but honestly it's looking like at the very least, Bo Dukes is involved and it's not Lyon Duke on his own and very possibly it's much more horrific than

that. I'd really be interested in your comments on this. Again, you're doing a great job. Keep up the good work. Thank you. That's a lot in that call to digest and I'll try to break it down as best I can. And let me start by saying that that is, at this point, merely some people's theory, and it would be conjecture, and nobody's stating it as a fact. Now, Payne has said publicly that it's something that he is actively looking into.

looking into. And I can tell you that if I were a defense attorney and I were investigating this case from the defense perspective, I would definitely be looking at all of those things as possibilities. Because if you can come up with a plausible, reasonable alternative theory, then guess what has to happen? The prosecutor's got to go and disprove that. Otherwise, he could rise to the level of reasonable doubt. Nobody's got to prove that the scenario that the caller laid out actually happened, but they just have to present evidence that it is plausible. And the prosecutor then has to spend a lot of time, maybe unnecessarily, disproving that if it's not true. So certainly an interesting hypothesis. I don't honestly know if that's the case or not, and I don't think anybody does at this point, but at least there's enough information out there that it's something that is worthy of being looked at and perhaps

looked at for a second time. Hi, this is Rachel. I have a question based on Brooke's interview where she kept commenting that Beau was worried because Ryan said, it's your truck and on your family's land. I wondered, are we just to believe he was too young and stupid to understand that by burning the body, he's removing all DNA evidence that would have been available to clear him? DNA evidence and fingerprints that might have been on Tara's body that would have been Ryan's based on his story. Anyway, just the thought that I had because that argument seemed pretty flimsy. Thanks. Bye. You are correct. That is a very flimsy argument. A 21-year-old is not a 13-year-old boy. At 21, you've been out of high

school for three years now. You can legally drink. You are most likely in college, or at least some of your friends are. You hopefully have a job. You're probably not living with your parents anymore. You're an adult. You're not a kid. And even if you were a kid, I don't know any kids that would burn a body. And if I did, I would want them to go to jail too. I understand that people get wrongfully convicted sometimes. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. I'm saying that regardless of whether or not that happens, you still do the right thing. It's people who don't do the right thing that end up in jail. Sure, the cops get it wrong sometimes, but that's what happens. You don't make Tara's family pay for it for 12 years because of your fear. That's wrong. I just have to stand my ground

on that. Like you said, it's a flimsy excuse. And to him, it may be good enough. But to me, it's just not. Hey guys, now it's time for a very special announcement. Since the arrest of Ryan Duke and Bo Dukes in connection with the murder of Tara Grinstead, these question and answer sessions have made it clear that there's enormous interest in how the criminal justice system really works in real life, not just how it seems to work from what you see on TV. So, Up and Vanished is pleased to announce its new sister podcast called Sworn, S-W-O-R-N. Hosted by yours truly, Philip Holloway. Place your left hand on the Bay of Bible and raise your right hand and repeat after me,

I do solemnly swear. We the jury find the defendant not guilty. It makes no sense. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Protests continued this weekend in Ferguson and around the country. You're resisting. You're under arrest. There will be more cases about corrupt police officers. Every one of us took an oath of office and we're sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Practically every player in the criminal justice system is sworn by oath to do something in some way. I've lost count of how many oaths I've taken over the years. This new podcast will pull back the curtain on the real criminal justice system. It will expose the untold stories and the hard truths behind major cases, wrongful convictions, controversial legislation, and much, much more. I'll draw on my years as a criminal lawyer, former prosecutor, and a former police officer to dig not only into the legal aspects of these issues, but the human and emotional aspects as well. We'll show you the real justice system, not just the one you think you know. While Up and Vanish continues to search for the truth of the Tara Grinstead murder and explores options for a season two,

Sworn will premiere on Wednesday, June 14th in a special two-part premiere. Part one will drop on the Up and Vanish feed. Until then, continue to listen to Up and Vanish for special sneak peek content about Sworn. Also, go ahead right now and check us out on social media. You can follow Sworn on Twitter, at Sworn Podcast. Follow us on Instagram, at Sworn Podcast. That's at S-W-O-R-N-P-O-D-C-A-S-T. And of course, like us on Facebook and on the web at www.swornpodcast.com. Thanks, guys.

Thanks for listening, guys. Today's episode was mixed and mastered by Resonate Recordings. They specialize in podcast editing and mixing. If you want to improve the quality of your podcast or start a podcast of your own, check them out at resonaterecordings.com. Thanks, guys. I'll see you soon.