Up and Vanished - Q&A with Payne Lindsey, Dr. Maurice Godwin, & Philip Holloway 08.03.17

Episode Date: August 4, 2017

Thank you for your support this season! Enjoy our final Q&A episode with Payne, Dr G and Phil Holloway.  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

experience basketball like never before with bet mgm 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 bet mgm 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. hi pain this is sally from ohio and i just finished listening to the season finale and i so wanted this to be tied up in a bow wish Wish everything just came out, but it sure sounds like Bo framed Ryan.

Is that where we're going with this? Love to the podcast. Can't wait to see what you guys do next. Thanks. I would love nothing more to have been able to completely, definitively

wrapped up exactly what happened to Tara Grinstead in a bow for everybody. But without some of the information, it's pretty much impossible to do. Until Bo and Ryan are able to speak or do speak or their attorneys speak for them, we don't know the full story, from them at least. And from what we do know about those two people, their stories may be different and someone's probably lying. So until we have all the facts and all the information and there's a trial in this case, it's going to be hard to definitively say what happened to Tara Grinstead that night.

Did Ryan kill Tara? I don't know. Is Bo more involved? I don't know. But as you heard at the end of the last episode, where the guy told the story about picking up someone at the White Horse Saloon years ago there is more than one possibility of how things may have gone down how you doing this is steve from boston first off i love the show i think you did a great job my question is how do you think the uh podcast i mean more specifically the last episode will affect ryan's defense team

because you know to be honest if i was his defense team I would go with that you know he was blacked out and he woke up and Bo told him all this stuff and that would you know that's kind of the route that I would go down just wanted to hear your thoughts thanks well there's certainly no question that if that particular story could be verified and it could be verified that it was in fact Ryan who was picked up outside the bar and was driven to that particular location that was verified to be his home at the time and that he made those statements, that would be a very powerful theme to use in defense of Ryan Duke. However, there's a number of legal hurdles that the defense team would have to get

past. The first big hurdle would be authenticating that this statement ever occurred. The second one would be authenticating and verifying that it was Ryan who made those statements. And finally, perhaps even the biggest hurdle is that even if all that could be verified, it's hearsay. In other words, it's a statement that was made out of court. And in fact, in this particular instance, it was allegedly made by a person who is said to be deceased. So if it's an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of what's contained in that statement, the person who makes that statement is not subject to cross-examination because they're no longer alive. So while it's something that's very, very interesting and may very well be the truth of what actually happened, there's no way to prove

that it actually is the truth of what happened. There's every reason to believe that the person who related the story about what his brother heard, saw, and did with this inebriated person actually occurred. In other words, there's no reason to believe that the man is lying about what his brother told him. There's no way to know if his brother was actually talking about Ryan Duke. And even if that could be proven, the rules of evidence kind of say that, you know, this is hearsay, the person's not subject to cross-examination, and therefore the statements would be inadmissible. There is one way, however, that Ryan could use that theory as a defense. And that would be for Ryan to actually take the stand in his own defense and say that is what happened.

In other words, Ryan would have to say, I'm not sure if I killed somebody or not. Somebody told me that I killed somebody when I was blacked out and that somebody was Bo. And then the question would become, has Ryan ever said anything different? What exactly did he say when he went down and spoke to the GBI agents? And if he left that part out, then that would be an inconsistent statement

and it would probably doom that defense if he tries to use it at trial. However, if he told the GBI agents that he wasn't sure if he killed somebody, but that someone had told him that he did when he was passed out one night, and then he testifies the same way in court, then he could use that as a defense. But there's no way to get the story that was related to the brother of a deceased person into this courtroom before a jury. Hi, my name is Krista calling from Weymouth, Massachusetts. I just finished the whole season of Up and Vanished, and I've had one question that's been bothering me through the

second half of this season is that episode where she is at her principal's barbecue and towards the end of the party before she leaves she's on the phone with someone and she tells that person she loves them and she's acting a little just a little differently on the phone I was just wondering if the phone records were ever confirmed and the last call that she made before leaving that principal's barbecue, whether it was determined who she was talking to. And could it have been either Ryan or Bo or anyone who was having that party that she would have been heading to seeing after the barbecue? Really love the season and look forward to the next one. Thank you. you. Really love the season and look forward to the next one. Thank you. She received numerous phone calls, but the last call that she received was about 10-20, and that was from the detective who she was good friends with and possibly seeing. That was at 10-20, Heath Dykes, Detective

Empuri, and that was confirmed. We've never had any access to any case documents, including the phone records, but that was confirmed by Dr. Troy Davis, who was hosting the barbecue, and he was out there on the deck. That's who he said that she was talking to. That's how that was confirmed. That's the last known phone call that I know of. that was confirmed. That's the last known phone call that I know of. Hey, Kane, this is Ruby and Katie from Lehigh, Utah. We are your biggest little fans. We love our great grandma as much as you love your grandma. We need a new cookie recipe to make with our dad, who also loves the podcast. So could we get your grandma's cookie recipe, please? Thanks for the show and giving us a new place to visit when we go back to the south

to visit family. Keep up the good work. Bye. Bye-bye. That was probably the cutest thing I've heard all year. So my grandma's cowboy cookie recipe, I do have a copy of it.

She gave it to my wife in this book for Christmas one time. And my mom makes them, my wife makes them. But for some reason, every time they make them, they just don't taste as good for some reason. No offense to them, they're still delicious. But it's like there's something missing. I'm convinced that she left one key ingredient out.

And one day she'll leave a map for us to go find that missing ingredient. I don't know if my grandma will be comfortable giving you the recipe, but, you know, I'll check and see. If not, then we can talk about maybe giving away some more cookies to you guys. Shoot me an email and we'll figure it out. Thanks, guys. Hi, I'm actually from Tifton, Georgia, just down the road from Osceola. And my question is for Phillip Holloway, and it concerns the statute of limitations.

And what I'm wondering about is what constitutes knowledge of a crime on the part of law enforcement? Is that when the tip is actually received or does some form of investigation have to take place for that information to be considered knowledge of a crime? And at what point in that process does the statute of limitations start to run? So I'm just hoping for a little more clarification on that point. Thank you so much, and y'all have a great day. Well, that's a good question. And the short answer is that it doesn't take much information at all to trigger the statute of limitations. In fact, law enforcement doesn't

even have to know that a crime occurred, but simply have some information that an act occurred. So we know they had some information, and they had some information that something happened in an orchard or was connected to an orchard. They searched the orchard. We know that the information came from a tip and that it involved the name Ryan Duke. What we don't know is whether or not Bo's name came up at any point in 2005 when they got that tip. Keep in mind, there's no statute of limitations for murder. So that tip and that search, if it was only connected to Ryan,

would not affect any statute of limitations. If it's connected to Bo and his name came up in that at any point in time, then the statute of limitations as to the state of Georgia versus Bo Dukes could have been implicated and could have begun to run in 2005. If so, Bo would have a complete defense based on the statute of limitations in his case, and the prosecution wouldn't really have anything to hold over his head, if you will, such as the threat of going to prison to get him to testify. More information needs to be developed by law enforcement regarding exactly what happened back in 2005. And then the lawyers for both sides in this case would need to evaluate that information and determine whether or not the statute of limitations is an issue.

And if it is, then the defense, no doubt, would bring it up to the attention of the court and there would be pretrial motions that would be filed asking the court to dismiss both charges based on the statute of limitations. Hey, love the podcast and just finished listening to the finale and I have two questions. The first one is in episode one, you were talking about how you were reaching dead ends left and

right, calling numbers and weren't able to get in touch with anybody. And then you contacted one of Tara's friends that you called Susan. And then a man called you back and said not to call anymore. You said you weren't comfortable saying her name at that time. And I've listened to all the episodes and all the case evidence. And I don't think you ever came back and told us who that was or what the significance was about that. So I just wondered if there was an update on who is Susan and did she ever talk to you again? Or is there any relevance to that phone call? My next question is, I really enjoyed hearing from Ryan's family. I felt like we've heard a lot from Beau, things you can verify and then things of course you can't verify, but I feel like we know a lot about him. We know he

was married, divorced. We know he has a girlfriend. We know he was in the army. We know he's a felon. We know about his family's pecan business and their involvement in the Senate, etc. But we don't really know anything about Ryan. So I was just wondering, what was his life like from high school through his arrest? Again, love the podcast and looking forward to the Q&A. Thank you. Thank you for the question. The only thing I can say about this is the real caller, the person he was talking to, the last name is Luke. That's all I can say about that. We'd likely know who the follow-up male caller on that is too. We prefer not to say. About Ryan's life, it appears that he did work, but it appears that he had a considerable amount of problems with alcohol and drugs, more so between when the murder happened and when he was arrested. He had a lot of problems.

This probably was because of trying to harbor this terrible secret with inside him with no one to talk to her about. Now, I've not heard anything that where Ryan told a bunch of people like Bo. So it seems that he held it in and tried to deal with it. And he did it through alcohol and drugs. This is Brittany calling from Tampa. And my question is pretty simple. What do you guys think happened to Tara? I've been a part of this podcast since the beginning, and I've also been a part of the discussion board. And it feels like there's so many theories out there, you know, going along with what Dusty said in the last episode about nothing really sticking. I'm just having a hard time still trying to figure out what really happened to her. And I would love to hear what you guys think. Thank you so much. And also, I appreciate you taking the time to express your gratitude to all of your listeners.

We appreciate it so much. Thank you and have a great day. So just to be point blank and to be completely honest with you guys, I do not know what happened to Tara. Now, what I think is that Tara was murdered. And I also think that Ryan and Bo were somehow involved. To the extent of their involvement, I don't entirely know for sure. Are there some glaring issues with the GBI's narrative? Absolutely. Do things not make sense? Absolutely. But like I said in one of the previous questions, until we have all the information and we can hear from some of the accused, we're not going to know everything. And it's going to be very hard to piece together

all the pieces to the puzzle. I think that right now there's a couple missing pieces that may be big, they may be small, but without them, the whole thing is just not going to make any sense. But I think we're very close. We're much closer now than we were 12 years ago. But I think that once there is a trial in this case, the whole truth is going to have to come out. And until then, we're just going to have to wait. But the good thing is, it's happening. Hi, this is Jason calling from Israel.

Just want to say, Payne and the whole crew, you guys have done a great job. It was really enjoyable to listen to and look forward to season two. My question is regarding in part one of the last episode where you were interviewing the elderly gentleman who was 85 years old

and he had mentioned just in the passing that taking you to the field that this is where they discovered Tara's remains. I was wondering if any remains actually were found or if anything was found or we still don't know yet. Thanks. Keep up the good work. Bye-bye.

That was a good point that you noticed the way I said that. I said that where Tara's remains were found, even though the GBI has not officially announced finding anything. Based on some of the sources that I have, they did find something. Exactly what it is, I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it to be linked to Tara. And based on all the stories I've been told about that same location, I believe that they did find Tara's remains. Once the gag order is lifted, we will know more. Once there's a trial, we'll know more.

But based on everything that I've been able to find and everyone I've talked to, I believe that they did find something in that orchard and it was Tara. So that's why I chose to say it that way. Hey, Payne, this is Lindsay calling from Connecticut. Just finished up the finale, and I'm wondering if this thing goes to trial and Ryan ends up saying that he was blacked out and he doesn't recall the details of the night and he only had confessed because either Beau or his other friends had told him that while he was blacked out, he hurt and killed Tara.

Can this go any farther, even if the only evidence we have is a fingerprint on the glove that goes back to Ryan? Or what are some of the legal repercussions he can face? Or is this thing sort of just dead in the water? Thanks, and looking forward to seeing you on tour in New York in December. Thanks. So if this thing does go to trial and Ryan takes the stand and he says, I don't even know for sure if I killed her. All I know is that Bo told me I did. If that's the case, then we're going to have to compare that testimony to the statement that he gave to the GBI when his mother took him down there. And if he said something different to the GBI, he's got a problem. He can't really use that as a defense because the statement made to the GBI, he's got a problem. He can't really use that as a defense because the statement made

to the GBI would be what we would call a prior inconsistent statement, and he could be impeached with that. And under Georgia law, the prior inconsistent statement, even though it was out of court, it's considered substantive evidence. So whatever statement he made to the GBI, whether it's a full confession, a partial confession, or something like that. So he's pretty well married to the statement that he gave to the GBI. And if he takes the stand and says anything different than what he said to the GBI, then he could really be made to look like a fool by a skilled prosecutor when they cross-examine him about his inconsistent statements, if that's how it plays out. Hi, I'm Vanna's crew. My name is Daphne. I'm here from Deanville, Florida. I've been listening

to the podcast since the beginning. It's just been really an amazing journey to see all that you guys have shook up around this case and really incredible that you guys are helping to find justice for Tara. So I just had a couple couple questions for y'all. First of all, my question is, I've just never heard of if anyone looked for evidence at her classroom, if maybe she had an office or a desk that would have any personal belongings of her. I've just never heard of that. So I figured I'd ask you all. And then my other question as well is something that's always really bothered me about this case, the fact that the seat in her car is pushed so far back. And I was wondering if maybe at the pageant, there's any pictures or people or videos that could show and prove to you guys that she was maybe wearing high heels that would make her have pushed the seat back in her car. Maybe that could show some explanation for that.

But yeah, those are all my questions. Thank you all so much for all the good work in her car. Maybe that could show some explanation for that. But yeah, those are my questions. Thank you all so much for all the good work you're doing. Thank you for the question. I'm not sure if GBI went through her personal belongings from the school. I know it was collected by family members, and I'm sure they did, but you can't always tell in this case. In regards to the pageant, I'm sure there was a lot of pictures taken at the pageant. As I know of, there was no official video of the pageant at all. I heard one person may have taken a personal video, and I could never get it. But she didn't have high heels on. She wore expensive flats.

Those can be found on several places on the internet, photographs of them. Those can be found on several places on the internet, photographs of them. 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. ON only. Please play responsibly. If youGM.com for T's and C's. 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 Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant

to any operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. 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. Hi, my name is Jessica, and I have been a listener since this podcast started. I just watched the ID Channel episode about Terra called Vanished Without a Trace. Knowing what I do from your podcast, they barely covered anything. But my question is, they mentioned the glove found outside of Tara's house was tested and matched a male's DNA. Do you have any further information on that?

I just don't remember hearing a lot of details about that. Thank you so much. Your podcast is amazing. Take care. Bye. Yeah, that was kind of interesting timing with the ID Channel special on Tara Grinstead. It came out on Monday, the day of the finale, at 8 o'clock p.m. the same time we released our episodes. That was actually a rerun episode. That was pretty old. I'm not sure how old it was,

but that was not a new episode. I've watched it at some point. I haven't seen it recently, but like you said, I think they mentioned the glove in Tara's yard and that it had male DNA on it. We did cover that in the podcast a couple of times early on. Maurice told me several times

about the DNA they found on the glove and the GBI had swabbed over 200 people to see whose DNA it was, but they never got a match. To my knowledge, they never did swab Ryan Duke or Bo Dukes, so their DNA could be on there. We don't know. As far as we know, there was male DNA on the glove, and there was also a partial print, but the DNA sample they had did not bring up any sort of match in the CODIS system. Hello, Dane. This is Holly from Arlington, Virginia.

I love the pod. Was just listening to the final episode and had a thought. Wondered if under what circumstances could Bo and or Ryan be subject to a lie detector test to attempt to unearth what you lead into in the very end of the pod. Thanks so much. Keep it up. Under Georgia law, polygraph exams are not admissible in court. The results of polygraph examinations are not admissible in court. They are sometimes used

as an investigative tool, but I can tell you from my own personal experience, they're not very reliable. They're not accurate. And it's for that reason that they're not admissible in court. The only way that the result of a polygraph examination could ever be presented to a jury would be if the parties used a process called a stipulated polygraph. And under that scenario, the prosecution and the defense would enter into an agreement. It would be signed, and it would be prior to any polygraph examination occurring. Basically, the agreement would be that each side would stipulate that the results of the polygraph, whether they be good or bad for the defendant, are admissible in trial. And that is a huge gamble because if he takes the polygraph and he passes it and it comes in, then the prosecution's case is sunk. But the defense

also bears the same risk. If he takes the polygraph and fails it and that's admissible and a jury hears it, then the defense is sunk. So it doesn't happen very often. It's very, very risky. And the only way a defense attorney would ever attempt something like that, and it's literally a Hail Mary pass when you think you don't really have any other way of winning, the defense would go ahead and have a polygraph done privately without the prosecutor even necessarily knowing about it. And if the defendant, the lawyer's client, passes a private polygraph, then they would approach the prosecutor and say, hey, look, how about a stipulated polygraph? And then the gamble would be that the person actually passes

the polygraph twice. In my own experience, I've seen people both pass and fail identical polygraphs about the same issue. And so it depends on lots of conditions. That's why these machines are so inaccurate in terms of being able to differentiate a lie from the truth, that they're just not really admissible in courts because courts prefer information that is accurate and truthful. because courts prefer information that is accurate and truthful. And when it comes to technology, the technology really must be something that's scientifically sound. And a lot of techers just haven't reached that level of scientific accuracy, at least not yet.

Hey, this is John Petros in Atlanta. Love the podcast. I've been listening to all of them. Was so excited Tuesday morning when the new one was in the box. But my question after listening to it was, is someone legally more or less culpable if they're under the influence of drugs or alcohol? And so does the situation of Ryan potentially being blacked out or in some other way on drugs from a legal perspective increases culpability and therefore potential

penalties or decrease them? Thanks. Keep up the good work. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any crime. On the other hand, involuntary intoxication would be a defense if someone were drugged or otherwise incapacitated due to some type of intoxication. But in a trial where intoxication is relevant and is fertile ground to be explored by either side is when a witness is intoxicated. Intoxication impairs someone's ability to effectively and accurately perceive an event as it occurs, and it also negatively affects a person's ability to later recall those events and to relate them in an accurate way in a courtroom. So, intoxication is neither a defense to any charge in Georgia, but it could be an issue if a witness who says that they see or hear

something was intoxicated at the time that they saw or heard what they say they saw or heard. Or to take it one step further, if they're intoxicated when they did something that they say that they did. Hi, Payne. My name is Kelly and I'm from Tulsa and great job on the podcast. My question is, even though you're not going to be doing updates weekly, are you going to send out podcasts when there's updates on the case, like when it goes to trial or if there's a plea deal or anything else? Will you release podcasts so we can be updated? Thanks. Great job. So sad that it's over. Thanks.

Hey, that's a great question. So any major development or news in this case regarding Tara Grinstead, I'm always going to update you guys with a new podcast. In the event that there's a trial in this case, we plan on covering it extensively and essentially releasing brand new episodes strictly covering the trial. If there is a plea or if there's a conviction of any sort,

any other major development that comes early, we'll be covering that too. So as long as you stick around with Up and Vanished, we'll continue to follow what happens in Tara Grinstead's case with any major update whatsoever. And we'll be here to the very end. Love the show. Had a question about that suicide note with the names of the suspected people involved.

Were Ryan and Bo listed on that suicide note? Thanks. Excited for season two. Thank you so much for the question and listening to the podcast. Bo and Ryan's names were not on the suicide note, but some of their closest friends' names were. And that's all I can say about that. Hey, it's Tom Chicago. Questions for Philip Holloway about the GBI case file. Do you think it's possible that even after Duke and Duke's litigation and after they're prosecuted,

the GBI would still say that the case is not closed and still keep the file from the public? Thanks. Well, I certainly hope that at some point the entire case file is made public. The Supreme Court has said that under Georgia law, the law enforcement agency who maintains these files, in this case the GBI, it is their sole discretion to determine when a case is considered inactive. It's in the GBI's sole discretion to determine whether or not an investigation is open or closed. And literally, all they have to say is that it's still an open investigation.

And there's really nothing that anybody can do about it. They would be free to never release the case file. If there's anything in that case file that's remotely embarrassing to the GBI or things that they deem might be sensitive, that might be embarrassing or hurtful to third parties, then they do have the discretion to say, we're not going to release this. I hope that's not the case. I hope they do release it, but I'm worried that they never will. Another thing to keep in mind, if there's criminal litigation against these defendants, and by that I mean a trial,

each one would have the right to an appeal. So the case is never really over until all appeals have been exhausted. And if you're talking about a murder case, you've got a conviction potentially in the trial court, you've got an appeal directly to the Supreme Court from there. If the conviction is upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court, then there's another round of appeals through the state system called the habeas corpus process, where once again, defendants are entitled to appeal for a new trial.

And once the state habeas corpus appellate route is exhausted, then they could turn to the federal courts to seek habeas corpus relief. So the appeals in a murder case literally can go on for decades. So there's a lot of reasons why the GBI might be able to keep this case file closed and the public may never, ever see it, at least not in its entirety. possibilities. Welcome to the future of urban SUVs. The all-new Hyundai Kona. We made it more warm. 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. Hi there. My name is Alameen Abdel-Mahmoud. I am the host of the CBC podcast, Commotion. That's a show where we talk about all things pop culture. We talk about what people are watching, what people are listening to. We get into everything from celebrity beefs to TikTok trends. And look, we're not afraid to get a little controversial. We're talking about things like the Oscar snubs or is Drake really a hip hop artist? Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud, available now on Spotify.

Hey, this is Jack in the wilderness, Texas. I was just wondering, I don't recall Bo in the episode of Case Evidence mentioning anything about Ryan being drunk. I just kind of figured that if, you know if he's this conniving mastermind kind of guy that he would have mentioned Ryan was super wasted when he killed Tara. Anyways, thanks for the show, guys. You did a lot of great work. Yeah, that's actually a good observation.

According to what Brooke said and that conversation with Sally, Bo never did mention that Ryan was drunk. Now, Brooke did say that there were seven to eight people there at the house and that they were all drinking. So you could assume that maybe Ryan was drinking too and Bo as well, but he never did say specifically that Ryan was drinking or that he was drunk. And I always thought it was odd that if Ryan was drinking, how he managed to drive all the way to Tara's house, break into it with the credit card, and basically go unnoticed by everybody else. Usually when you're drunk, you're sloppy, you're leaving a mess. You're not going unnoticed.

You're going to wake somebody up. You're going to leave something behind. But it looks like none of that happened. So I always thought it was odd that if they were all drinking and Ryan was drunk, how exactly he was able to pull this off. Hey, this is Alicia from Mississippi. I was wondering what it means to the case if the DNA in the glove that was found on Tara's property does not belong to Ryan or Bo. I guess we're assuming it doesn't belong to Bo since his DNA was most likely checked when he was convicted for another incident. But I was just wondering what happens if that DNA does not match Ryan's and what that does to the case.

Thank you. Good job. Bye-bye. Remember, there's a partial fingerprint on there. Good job. Bye-bye. Remember, there's a partial fingerprint on there. So if the DNA on the glove does not match Ryan, the prosecution's got a problem. That would be a big boost for the defense. What if the DNA doesn't match Ryan, but the partial fingerprint does, and the DNA doesn't match Bo? Does that mean there's a third party that we don't know about that touched the glove?

That would be very, very interesting. Hey, guys. Love the podcast. I have a question about the cell phone. Okay. She obviously had her cell phone with her at the pageant. Would have checking the ping on the phone help close this case sooner? I mean, obviously, she had to have leaked the pageant. Did she go directly home? Did she go to whomever's house to watch the video? Or did she go to the

pecan orchard? I mean, ultimately, her cell phone was found at home. So my question is, do you think that this case could have been solved sooner with today's technology? Thanks, guys. Keep it up. The problem with the pings back in 05 is that there basically was one main tower that was handled in Irwin County. So you could go anywhere in Irwin County and be pinging off the same tower. Now, I'm not quite so sure about in Ben Hill over there. So looking at the pings in the Ben Hill area around the pecan orchard, you know, there's a possibility that the phone would have picked up a tower over there near that area. Now,

that would probably be the same tower that she would be pinging on when she was at the pageant. So you would have to look at the times of the pings. But a very good question, and thank you for supporting the podcast. Hi, my name's Kaylin calling from Utah and listening to the podcast since the beginning. You guys have a great season. Just have a question about your interview with Ryan's mom and brother. Did you think to ask them if they ever heard rumors

in the last 12 years about what happened to Tara? I'm just having a hard time believing that if Ryan did have something to do with it, that his brother never heard anything from a circle of friends there. So just want to see if there was any information on that.

Thanks. Keep up the good work. During my interview, I asked the both of them point blank, Ryan's mom and Ryan's brother, did you ever hear anything? Was there anything that was suspicious? And they both stared me in the eyes and told me that they had never heard anything. If they did, that they would have done something about it. And in that moment, you know, I believed them.

Ryan's brother especially seemed very sincere when I was talking to him, that he had no clue what happened or of any involvement from Ryan. And that if Ryan was involved, that he should pay the price for it. But the vibe I got when I was talking to them was that they had never heard of any story like this. Any story involving Ryan or Bo or anybody. Hi, Payne. Any story involving Ryan or Bo or anybody? Hi, Payne.

It sounded like on the last episode that Tara's girlfriend was upset that she had to reveal secrets to the investigators, but she revealed them because she wanted to know the truth. I was wondering, did you ever find out what those secrets were? I have my tickets for the December 18th live tour. Look forward to meeting you. Thanks. I have my tickets for the December 18th live tour. Look forward to meeting you. Thanks.

We know what that is, but for the integrity of any court proceedings and the future stuff and the individuals involved, I prefer not to discuss that here. But there was no bombshell top seekers, if that's what you were wondering. But thank you so much for your support of the podcast. I have a defense for Ryan Dukes, could this result in a scenario where Ryan Duke gets off because the defense is able to portray Bo Dukes as the bad guy and then Bo Dukes gets off because he's really cunning and played his cards right and achieved immunity. Well, I've consulted my crystal ball on this, and it's a little bit cloudy.

So then I looked to the tea leaves to see what they would tell me, and they're also inconclusive. The bottom line is that the evidence as we know it to be, and keep in mind, we don't know all the evidence. I fully admit that. But what we do know is that Beau has credibility problems. And if he is involved in a trial, yes, his credibility is an issue. His credibility is an issue the minute his ass hits the witness chair. A skilled cross-examiner will take that felony federal conviction and beat him over the head with it, figuratively at least, in front of the jury and say, you know what? You're a known liar.

You're a thief. This goes to the core of your credibility. You're a dishonest person. A judge will even tell a jury before they deliberate that they can disregard the testimony of a convicted felon because under Georgia law, they are deemed to be not credible and a jury can consider that felony conviction and literally disregard their entire testimony. They don't have to disregard it, but they may. As for immunity, I think it's unlikely that he was granted any type of absolute immunity because of the fact that he was arrested and later indicted. If he was granted immunity, they would never have arrested him and they never would have indicted him. The more likely scenario is that they offered him some sort of sweetheart plea deal

in exchange for truthful testimony. Keyword there being truthful. And so if it turns out that they made him that offer and that he's gone and said some things or done some things that were inconsistent with his obligations under that agreement, such as telling different things to different people and saying things possibly to the GBI or any other law enforcement agency that weren't true and that they deemed not to be perhaps even the complete truth or part of the truth, then that would be in violation of any agreement to give truthful cooperation and truthful testimony. I think the more likely scenario is that he was offered something at first and then probably based on his actions, something changed. thing at first, and then probably based on his actions, something changed. And at this point, I have reason to doubt that he has any kind of deal in place, because if he was truly a

cooperating witness, he would have waived indictment, and he would have let the prosecutor file something known as an accusation, which bypasses the grand jury. If you're truly a cooperating witness, then you're not going to make the DA jump through all these hurdles and send your case to the grand jury. You're going to make it as easy on them as possible because you're trying to play nice in the sandbox with the DA, so to speak, so that you can take advantage of some type of a plea deal, maybe to probation or short-term jail sentence or whatever. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if Bo hasn't done something to jeopardize any deal he may have had in place. But at this point, about all we can do

is sit back and let the justice system play itself out. What I can tell you is that the district's attorney involved in this case is an honorable person, and he's going to do his best to put up a truthful case. I don't believe he's going to do his best to put up a truthful case. I don't believe he's going to put up any evidence to a jury that he doesn't believe is the truth. And I also know that Ryan is represented by a very skilled attorney. So we have to have faith that the adversarial criminal justice process will work, that due process will be afforded to the defendant. And, you know, both sides have a right to a fair trial, both the prosecution and the defense, and we have to have

faith that that's what's going to occur. If it turns out that the state is able to prove his guilt with reliable, accurate, and truthful evidence beyond a reasonable doubt then so be it let justice be served on the other hand if they're not able to prove ryan's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then the law and the constitution says they have no right to take away his liberty unless they can prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that's the highest level of proof known to our legal system so if anything has happened in this case, whether it was caused by witnesses, whether it was caused by deficiencies in an investigation, whether it was caused by how the case is presented in court and there's an acquittal, then so be it. The chips will fall where they may. I think what everybody wants and everybody needs in this case is to see justice be

done, whatever that looks like. And if it means sending someone to prison because they've been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so be it. If it means that someone is found not guilty because the evidence wasn't there, then so be it. That's also justice. That's how our system works. It's an adversarial system. You've got a prosecutor who bears a very high burden of proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and you've got a defendant who is presumed to be innocent. And if they're going to be presumed innocent, we have to give them the benefit of that doubt. So in its very simplest terms, it boils down to what actual evidence do they have? How strong is that evidence? How believable is that evidence? How credible is that evidence? And how credible, believable, and truthful is it to a jury of 12 people? That's what it's going to come down to

is 12 citizens who are unbiased and who will weigh the evidence and will have to make the very heavy decision of whether or not someone is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So it's not what I think. It's not what Payne Lindsey thinks. It's not what Maurice Godwin thinks. It's not what Maurice Godwin

thinks. It's not what the listeners of the podcast think. It's what 12 citizens chosen somewhat at random. It's what they think that's going to matter in the end. If I may take just a moment and ask for a time of personal privilege, I would like to thank everyone for the opportunity to be part of this journey. I want to thank the listeners. I want to thank everybody who has participated in this podcast. But mostly, I want to offer my personal condolences to the family, the friends, and those who loved Tara Grinstead. No matter what happened or how it

happened, she did not deserve to die. She did not deserve to be killed. She deserved to live a long, healthy, happy, and prosperous life. She did not deserve to be burned like a pile of garbage in a pecan orchard out in a field somewhere. She didn't deserve to have people sit around for 12 years knowing about what happened to her and keeping it to themselves. She deserves justice. And it's my personal hope that whoever murdered her, whether it be Ryan or anybody else, it's my hope that that person is brought to justice. It's my sincere hope that Tara's family can find peace and that Tara rests in peace.

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, go to resonaterecordings.com. Thanks, guys. I'll see you soon.