Up and Vanished - The Trial of Ryan Duke: Q&A with Phil Holloway

Episode Date: May 27, 2022

The Up and Vanished team is back on the ground in Ocilla for the highly anticipated trial of Ryan Duke. Phil Holloway sits down for a Q&A, answering your questions about the case and trial. For ad-free listening and for Payne’s exclusive Friday recap episode, subscribe to Tenderfoot+ on Apple Podcasts or visit www.tenderfootplus.com for more details. 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 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. Hey everyone, I'm Eric Quintana. Thanks for listening to the Up and Vanish trial series, The Trial of Ryan Duke.

Today we've got a Q&A for you with Phil Holloway. Many of you submitted questions about the case and trial. The ones we picked answered some of the lingering questions you had now that the trial's wrapped up. Hi, this is Dawn Evans, Calhoun, Georgia. I have a question about Ryan's testimony. Can you please help me understand his stated reason for his false confession that Bo would never admit to it? Why does Ryan think that he has to admit to it? I don't get it. Well, that's an excellent question. I was live in the courtroom listening very closely to Ryan's testimony. And one of the questions that I had that I wanted him to answer was, you know, why did you are real. But what I wanted to hear Ryan say was why this particular confession was, in fact, false.

He gave a couple of reasons for that. One of the reasons was that, as the caller noted, he didn't think that Bo would ever come forward. The other reason that he gave was that he was afraid of Bo. And as the trial went on, the defense hung on to the second piece of that, that he was afraid of Ryan. That's what we heard them talk about in closing arguments. And they kind of glossed over the first piece of that, which was, as the caller noted, he didn't think Bo would ever come forward.

So it seems to me that as I took it, now other people may have heard it differently or interpreted it differently, but as I took it, he wanted this family to know, the Grinstead family, to know that Tara had been murdered, that her remains had been destroyed. I guess his reasoning was in some way to give them some closure, even if it weren't the complete truth. But the main thing that he used as his explanation, the primary explanation for confessing to something that he said he didn't do, was that he was afraid of Bo Dukes. And given what we saw in the rest of the trial, that seems to have made the most sense and appears to be what resonated with the jury. All right, next question. My name is Dani and I'm from Great Falls, Montana.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I believe that Ryan told the truth when he testified. Perhaps I'm naive, but I believe that Ryan told the truth when he testified. And so I have two categories of questions. My first category is what happened? If Bo left Ryan's house with Ben the night that Tara was killed, what do we know about Ben? And more importantly, what does Ben know about Bo and what does Ben know about what happened to Tara? My second category of questions is what will be done? Is it likely that Bo can be charged with murder now? Do you think the cops will even go down that route? Do you think the prosecutor will go down that route? Going down that route would mean admitting they were wrong and made mistakes.

Do you think they'll do that? Thank you so much. Oh, great. A call from Montana, one of my favorite states. So beautiful out there. Thank you for the call. It's a great question. Great, great set of questions, actually. The caller refers to Ben, as I understand it, that's Ben McMahon, or McMahon, however you say it. And it's my understanding that McMahon, or McMahon, however you say it. And it's my understanding that he has passed away. He passed away a few years ago, and I'm honestly not sure why I heard that it perhaps was cancer. The testimony that we heard in the defense case from Ryan's aunt and uncle was that Bo, and I'm paraphrasing here, Bo left the trailer where they all were living on the county line there just over the line in Ben Hill County near Fitzgerald, Georgia, after Uncle Jerry went over to basically, you know, throw Bo out. And that Bo and Ben left

together in this black truck. And I guess the implication was there was some kind of a heated exchange. Bo maybe was a little bit pissed off, mad, whatever, and that Ben was with him. So we'll never know what Ben might have to say about it because, unfortunately, he has passed away and is no longer with us. Now, the second part of the question is a question that I've been getting a lot, and it has to do with whether or not there will ever be any prosecution of Bo Dukes for the murder of Tara Grinstead. So there's a number of reasons why I believe that that's just not going to happen. Think about the O.J. Simpson case, for example, the verdict of not guilty.

It's not like the police and prosecutors out there took the jury's verdict and said, oh, okay, I guess we got it wrong. We're going to have to go find the real killer. Well, it's the same thing here. The law enforcement and the prosecution team, they picked their horse and they rode that horse as far as they could. And it led to a not guilty verdict as to murder with respect to Ryan Duke. They believe, or at least they've stated they believe, that they got it right.

They believe Ryan is in fact the killer and the only killer. is in fact the killer and the only killer. And they have no intention of charging anyone else, not even a Bo Dukes. Now, if we want to get into the realm of pure theory and hypothetical, think about what that would look like if they did turn around and charged Bo Dukes now. Then, you know, whoever represents Bo Dukes at a hypothetical improbable murder trial, all they would have to do is say, well, Ryan Duke already confessed to this, and he said that it was

him, and it was him alone, and Bo had nothing to do with it. So Ryan's statement to the GBI would be more than reasonable doubt to acquit Bo. So the idea that Bo could ever be prosecuted is just, it's a non-starter. It's not going to happen. Bo will not face any charges as it pertains to the murder of Tara Grinstead. In fact, the current district attorney for the Tifton Judicial Circuit, which includes Irwin County, stated after the verdict was read that there would be no additional Grinstead charges in Irwin County. So, Bo is not going to be prosecuted. I'm virtually certain of that. As a practical matter, it just doesn't work. I think that that's probably because from the moment that there was an alleged confession by Ryan Duke, law enforcement, both the GBI and prosecutors, they just kind of said, okay,

that's it. We got our guy. Case closed. They didn't do any further investigation. And, you know, that foreclosed any realistic possibility that Bo would ever be prosecuted for murder. All right, next question. Absolutely amazing. My question is, with Ryan being acquitted, which I think was the right call, does this open the door for Bo Dukes to possibly be charged for this murder? I know that we're all happy that an innocent man isn't in jail for Tara's death, but we all also, I'm sure, would like to see the person that actually did it be held responsible. So that's my question is, does this allow Bo Dukes to now be charged and have to stay in trial? Thanks, guys. Okay, so here we have another question that basically is about Bo Dukes. So I will not reiterate everything I said in response to the previous caller, but I do want to make a comment about the question. Yes, it is true that Ryan was found not guilty, but that does not mean that Ryan is exonerated. Let's be clear about what this verdict means. It means that in the jury's mind, the state had not proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean that Ryan

is innocent. I don't know if Ryan killed Tara or not. I do know that according to the jury, the prosecutor did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So the jury's verdict does not mean that Ryan is not the killer. Okay, next question. Hi, Phil. I'm sorry if you've already answered this question somewhere, but why did Ryan's story change on his confession? I confessed because I knew Beau never would. I thought it was maybe a lot better when they were saying he was under the influence and core. He was blacked out. I just don't believe this story as much that he just went there to confess. Is there a reason he had to say that? Just kind of makes him look a little suspicious to me. With all that being said, I don't think the state proved their case.

But I don't know. Ryan's testimony on the confession tape, it kind of raised some red flags for me. So I'd love to hear your opinion on that. Thank you. Okay. Another question. Great question. This, again, is about the in-court testimony given under oath by Ryan Duke and why he says that he changed and recanted basically his initial what we'll just call a confession. And having observed this in real life, in real time, in the courtroom,

I can tell you in my personal opinion, the version of the events that Ryan testified to under oath seemed to me to be a good bit more plausible than the theme of the case, that being it was just a random burglary gone bad that was presented by the prosecution. Now, Ryan's initial statement to the GBI comes across to me, in my opinion, and this is just my opinion, of something of a mixture of fact and falsehood. I mean, there were things, let's face it, in that interview that were demonstrably not true. Like, for example, the timing of the 411 call from the pay phone. He told the GBI agent it was in, you know, well in like the pre-dawn hours,

but we know from the caller ID evidence that it was at around 9 30 or so on a Sunday morning when everybody in Ocilla is getting ready to go to Sunday school and church. And then we saw that information like the whole idea of the lock being jimmied by a credit card that was introduced not by Ryan, but by law enforcement. So there were bits and pieces of that initial statement to GBI that seemed true and some things that seemed to be implausible, if not outright improbable or false. So the initial statement seemed to me to be like a blended sort of a partially true thing. And, you know, if Ryan, as he admitted to, was in fact involved with the destruction of Tara's remains, and if he'd had some conversations about it with Bo Dukes ahead of time, it does make sense that he could plausibly

give a statement to the GBI that was a blend of truth and fiction. Now, was his testimony in court 100% true? I have no idea. But it does seem to be more plausible. It makes more sense, and it fits better with the rest of the evidence that we know of. And quite frankly, it fits better with the things that we know about Bo Dukes that the jury didn't get to hear about. The jury did not get to hear about Bo Dukes and his alleged violent sexual assault at gunpoint of these young women in Houston County, Georgia, just a little ways north of Osceola. The jury did not get to hear about Bo Dukes basically being a fugitive and being the subject of a manhunt and all of the things that make it quite plausible that Ryan might be very much afraid of Bo and what he could do.

So hopefully that answers some of the question. But the testimony that was given at trial, comparing it to the statement made to the GBI, trial, comparing it to the statement made to the GBI is something that we will all be thinking about and perhaps debating for many years to come. 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. Then with bet MGM casino,

download the bet MGM casino app today, bet MGM and game sense. Remind you to play responsibly bet MGM.com for T's and C's 19 plus to wager. Oh, and 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 bet mgm operates

pursuant to any operating agreement with i gaming 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. but yet for the exact same charges of concealment, it was given to Bo. Seems biased in my opinion, but I'm still figuring out the case. And according to the statute of limitations,

I don't understand why the statute of limitations wouldn't apply to Ryan on the exact same charges it would apply to Bo. So if you could answer this question, I would greatly appreciate it. Great job, team. Can't wait to see their question. Well, thanks, Misty and Texas, for those good questions. The first question has to do with Bond. And by way of context, in case people don't recall, after Bo Dukes became the snitch for the government and basically told the GBI his version of what happened that implicated Ryan Duke, he was charged in Ben Hill County with various charges pertaining to the destruction of Tara's body, tampering with evidence, and concealing a death, things of that nature.

And he was charged with these offenses after he sat down with his lawyer and the district attorney and law enforcement and gave what we would call a proffer, basically what he would say if he were ever called as a witness in a trial. And I think because of that cooperation, if you will, even if it turns out to not actually have been fully truthful, but because of that cooperation, the bond, if you will, was predetermined. In other words, when the judge issued the arrest warrant charging Bo Dukes for the Ben Hill County crimes, the bond was predetermined so that all he had to do was walk in, get fingerprinted, photographed, processed, and booked in, and then post bond. And we've all seen the pictures and the videos of him walking out coat and tie with his lawyer after only a few minutes of having been processed. Now, fast forward to the end of this trial of Ryan Duke, where after the jury's verdict of not guilty on everything except concealing a death,

one of the things that defense attorney Ashley Merchant asked Judge Reinhart for was a bond. He said, look, you want to do sentencing on Monday, today's Friday, let him have a bond. Bo Duke's got a bond for basically the same charges. Why not give one to Bo? It's a reasonable request by the defense. It's one I would have made. But, you know, this was a different judge under totally different circumstances who had heard a lot of evidence and a lot of testimony. And I don't know this for a fact, but I certainly suspect that at the time the request for bond was made on Ryan's behalf after the jury's verdict,

I imagine that Judge Reinhart knew that he was going to give him some extra prison time. So if I'm the judge and I know that I'm about to send someone to prison two or three days later, you know, the following Monday, I would not be inclined to go ahead and give somebody a bond either because if they know that they might go back to go ahead and give somebody a bond either, because if they know that they might go back to prison, then theoretically, hypothetically, they could be a flight risk. So my best guess is that the judge was fully expecting some additional prison time and just didn't see the need to let him out just for the weekend. Now, as to the statute of limitations, I think, in my opinion, and we can go back to Up and Vanished in season one, we were talking

about the statute of limitations then. The statute of limitations is a relatively complicated area of the law, and I'll simplify it as best I can. Once law enforcement has knowledge of a crime, the statute of limitations starts to run. Now, murder, of course, has no statute of limitations, but concealing a death does. That statute of limitations is four years. We knew in season one of Up and Vanished that law enforcement had the names Ryan Duke and Bo Dukes on their radar, despite what they later claimed at a press conference. We knew that the pecan orchard had been somewhat searched or at least investigated by local law enforcement. We know that that report was written up and it was put in the file of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

And we now know from the admission of the GBI agents at Ryan's trial, we know that it was overlooked. So it was a huge blunder, one that they, to their credit, admitted to under oath. So the way the law works is that law enforcement doesn't have to know all of the details of the crime. They just need to know sort of generally about it in order for the statute of limitations. It's like a clock, right? It starts ticking. Now, there are certain exceptions that might apply. So, under certain circumstances, the big one being if the crime is not known to law enforcement, then the clock doesn't start ticking. So what Ryan was actually convicted of, count six of his indictment, was carrying Tara information that allegedly Ryan Duke had taken Tara's body from 300 Park Street in Osceola. So it's a different county.

It's the same crime, but a different version of the same crime, if that makes sense. Ryan took the stand and admitted to concealing a death, but he admitted to doing so by burning her in Ben Hill County. He never admitted to carrying her away from 300 Park Street in Osceola. The first time, according to prosecutors, they would argue that they were aware of that specific crime was when Bo Dukes told them about it in his, I guess, second version of what happened. I think, you know, the first time he talked to the GBI, he denied everything. Fast forward a year or so after Up and Vanished has shaken the trees and people start getting worried. Brooke Sheridan comes forward, I guess, and allegedly encourages Bo to come forward. Bo comes forward and then gives his version, his next version of the events, which claim

that Ryan carried her out of that home. So law enforcement would say that the statute of limitations didn't start until 2017. And once an indictment is returned, then that would satisfy the statute of limitations. So there's a long answer to a short question. the statute of limitations. So there's a long answer to a short question. The statute of limitations, though, I still believe should have barred the counts against Ryan that were not murder. I do think that the prosecution had enough under my reading of Georgia law to have the statute of limitations starting. Now, obviously, the judge disagreed. And, you know, you ask two lawyers, you know, the same question, you're going to get two different results, maybe even three, four, or five. Sometimes we disagree with ourselves.

So just because I think that probably the statute of limitations had run doesn't mean that I'm absolutely right, but this will be part of an appeal. This will be something that an appellate court in Georgia will have to make a ruling on one way or the other. Ironically, Ryan's going to be out of prison by the time that any appeal would be decided because it's going to take years for that to happen. So, excellent question about statute of limitations. Hopefully, that clears some of it up, but the legalities of it are not clear. The answer is not clear. I have my opinion, but that's all it is, is my opinion. But great questions. Thank you very much. All right, next question. But great questions. Thank you very much. All right, next question.

Hi, this is Paul from Virginia. I was wondering why the trial of Ryan Duke took five years to happen. Thanks for taking the call. Well, Paul from Virginia asks a great question. It's a simple question. There was COVID-19 that basically paused criminal trials in the state of Georgia for some period of time, a couple of years. You know, they called it a judicial emergency. And so there were no trials going on, by and large, in the state of Georgia for quite some time during the COVID-19 era that started in the year 2020. Of course, this indictment was before that all happened, and you may remember that they were about to bring it to trial, and the defense was able to get the Georgia Supreme Court to intervene and put a stop to the trial a few years ago before COVID because of the issue of

funding indigent defense. The defense plowed some new ground under Georgia law. The public defender initially represented Ryan. Ryan wanted to take advantage of the pro bono free legal services of his trial defense team, but they needed resources. They needed experts. They needed investigators. They needed help to digest this giant case file. And so beyond just the services of the actual attorneys, the attorneys needed tools that cost money. if you will, of the public defender, he believed and he ruled that he did not have the legal authority to order the public defender to public money to aid in their trial preparation and trial presentation. So, we'll just call that the interim appeal. That added a period of delay, and you add COVID on top of that and the enormous backlog that the COVID-19 pandemic created, that's really basically why it took so long. And honestly, I don't think the defense was in a big hurry. They wanted to be able to try this case once and to try it right and have the resources that they

needed because if they had to go into this trial, for example, without an expert on false confessions, the outcome probably would have been very different. Okay, next question. Yes, this is Jenny from Florida, and my question is, now that the trial is over and Ryan essentially admitted on the stand to lying to the GBI agent during his confession, is it legally possible for them to charge him with lying to the GBI agent like they did with Bo? And if so, what do you think the appetite to do so would be? Thanks. Another great question, and thank you for that question. Yeah, Ryan did get on the stand and he admitted that he lied to the GBI. First off, the appetite, I think, to prosecute Ryan for that is probably not there. The district attorney in the Tifton Judicial Circuit has said that there will be no

more Grinstead-related charges coming forth in Irwin County. That's where that crime would have occurred, would be Irwin County. And so he said he's not doing that. So I don't think the appetite is there. On top of that, there might be potential statute of limitations problems there because the defense has let it be known long ago, years ago, that this was a false confession case. So you probably have statute of limitations issues there. And then let's face it, they would have to prove that it was false. They would have to prove that Ryan's statement was false. And they couldn't prove that it was false this time around either. They argued to the jury that Ryan's in-court statement was false and that they argued

that the statement to the GBI was true. So they would have to come back and argue, I guess, to another jury if they wanted to proceed with this ridiculous prosecution. They would have to basically switch gears and sort of argue the opposite to the jury. They would have to basically switch gears and sort of argue the opposite to the jury. They would have to say that, you know, they'd have to prove that Ryan's original statement was false, even though they had argued very forcefully in this last trial that the original statement was not false. So I think they've picked their horse, like I said, and they've ridden that horse as far as that horse will go. Next question. Is there any other way that someone will attempt to try Bo for murder, like through a grand jury or through a lawsuit, with OJ Simpson, the way that he was found guilty

in that separate trial? Is there any way that he can still be at least tried for murder just to give some peace of mind to the family or the community? give some peace of mind to the family or the community? Well, the question about Bo Dukes being tried for murder criminally has been, I think we've covered that. That's a non-starter. The question, though, is worth thinking about and talking about whether there could be a civil case against Bo Dukes by the family. Well, first off, Bo Dukes has nothing. Civil lawsuits are about recovering money, usually, and Bo Dukes is indigent. He's in prison. He may never get out of prison, and so he's got no money. But in theory, if it were possible to sue

him, he could still take the fifth. He wouldn't have to answer any questions on depositions. Lots of practical problems associated with that. And the statute of limitations on wrongful death is, I believe it's a couple of years in Georgia, It's shorter than the statute of limitations on crime. So for statute of limitations and other practical reasons, unfortunately, and this is one of the saddest things about the outcome of this trial to me, is that the family of Tara Grinstead and the friends of those who loved her may never really know the truth about what happened to her. Criminal trials are good at many things, but they're not necessarily about finding the truth. This jury decided that the prosecution did not prove its case in terms of

murder against Ryan Duke beyond a reasonable doubt. But I think this trial raised more questions, at least to me, than it answered. And my heart breaks for the family of Tara Grinstead, those who knew and loved her, because they may never know the full truth about what happened. 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, this is Rachel from Wisconsin, and I just wanted to thank you all so much for covering this case and the trial as extensively as you did. My question for you, Phil, is do you think that the jury made the right decision? And then also, what do you feel the sentencing for Ryan should be? Can't wait to hear the upcoming Q&A. Thanks. Bye. Thanks, Rachel from Wisconsin. Look, you know, she asked me what my personal opinion is on the jury's verdict. And to me, and this should not be a surprise to anybody who's heard me talk about this case, to me, the theory of the prosecution's case was fed to them by Bo Dukes. What do I think about Bo Dukes? Well, in my opinion, he's a liar.

He's a convicted liar. He's a felonious liar. He's serving 25 years in Georgia prison right now for lying about his role in this very case. We know that the GBI used Bo to sort of prime Ryan for his subsequent interview and interrogation with the GBI. I know that Bo is an alleged violent sexual predator. I know that the testimony given by Ryan Duke at the trial suggested very, well, not so subtly, that there had been some violence perpetrated, perhaps sexual in nature, with respect to Tara before her murder and that that was done by both. So, basically, the caller wants to know if I think

the jury got it right. I think as to the murders and the aggravated assault, the burglary, I think that there was reasonable doubt. I don't know what happened to Tara. And I'm not saying Ryan is innocent. I don't know. I don't know if Ryan killed Tara. I just don't. But I do believe that the prosecutions, they went into this with a fatal flaw, and that being that they were relying on a theory of the case spoon-fed to them, I think, by Bo Dukes. And I don't think they did a whole lot else to try to corroborate the information that Bo gave them or that was given to them in the initial conversation with Ryan. They should have done more investigating. They should have rather than just saying, okay, case closed.

Let's go out now and let's see if we can confirm these details that were supplied to us by Ryan. And let's see if we can prevent some of these questions from having to be answered in the future. So, I think the jury's verdict was correct. There were plenty of doubts for which a reason can be attached, and the judge's instructions to the jury, if you listened, were that if there is a doubt for which you can attach a reason, it is your duty. He used the word duty, and that is, in fact, the law in Georgia. It is their duty to acquit.

So if I had been on that jury, I would have certainly had plenty of doubts for which I could attach a reason. Again, that doesn't mean that Ryan is innocent. It just means the prosecutor did not prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But I want to take a minute to talk about count six. He was convicted of concealing a death, and the way that indictment was worded was that he took Tara's body away from 300 Park Street in Osceola and therefore committed the crime of concealing a death. And there were several jury questions that came out on the issue of venue because Ryan

took the stand and he admitted to concealing her death. It's just that he admitted to doing it in Ben Hill County, okay? The jury wanted to see Bo Duke's certified copy of his Wilcox County conviction where he was convicted of lying to the GBI, and the language that was used in that indictment referenced things happening allegedly in Irwin County, but it was based on statements made by Bo Dukes, and of course, Bo Dukes could not be cross-examined, right? So, there were questions. The jury was clearly confused about venue, and I think that the conviction on count six was probably an accident. I mean, that's the best way to describe it. I don't think the jury really meant to find that Ryan carried Tara's body away from 300 Park Street in Osceola. I think that they heard him say on the

stand that he committed the crime of concealing a death, but that the fact that that happened in another county, in another venue, if you will, I think that kind of got lost somewhere, and I think the jury was confused. So I think that their verdict on count six was inconsistent with their verdict on everything else. As far as sentencing goes, you know, I knew at the time that, look, the max is 10, and if he's convicted on any of these, he's going to get the max. You know, that's just the way it is. If you, you know, you participate in a crime as horrible and heinous as this, I would have been shocked had the judge not given him the maximum of 10 years. Okay, next question. In a previous episode, Phil Holloway made reference to the payphone telephone call to 411,

but he didn't really reveal the extent of what he was talking about at that time. And I was wondering now that the trial has played out, if he could share more information on what he was alluding to when he talked about that payphone call. Thanks. So the thing about the payphone call, what I was talking about previously, I think, that the caller referred to is the fact that that phone call back in 2005, for those of you who are not old enough to remember how it worked, you could go to, if you had your name in the phone book, you could go to any phone or a pay phone and dial 411. You'd get an operator and you could say, you know, give me the phone number for John Doe's house and John Doe's address. Whatever was in the phone book, you could basically get from calling 411 and calling an operator. And then for an extra, you know, 20 cents or whatever, they would even connect you, put the call through so you didn't have to redial it. or whatever, they would even connect you, put the call through so you didn't have to redial it.

That call did not show up in Tara's home phone, the official phone company records. Okay. So that was what, what I had, I think that's what the caller is referencing that I had been talking about. And I found that to be very fascinating because I said, well, there's gotta be, somebody's going to have to explain that if they want this jury to make something out of it. And the way the trial played out, it was revealed that law enforcement knew about this payphone call because it showed up on the caller ID display on Tara's phone. The caller ID display, however, had it coming in around 930 or so in the morning on a Sunday morning, well after daylight. Ryan's alleged confession, and they kept saying, well, this is guilty knowledge. The knowledge of this 411 call is something that only a killer would know. And I said long ago, that's not guilty about, if the 411 call was made and if Ryan knew

about it, it doesn't mean that Ryan killed her. It just means that Ryan knew about the call. Maybe he learned about the call from the real killer. But as Ryan testified, Ryan knew about the call because Ryan made the call. But he said he made the call for an innocuous reason. In fact, he testified that it was because he didn't know exactly where she lived. He wanted to try to find her and was looking to try to maybe, you know, return some of her property and or to, he said he still didn't really believe Bo,

but he, out of an abundance of caution, was trying to find her to see if Bo had, in fact, you know, caused her any harm. So the fact that Ryan talked about that call, admitted to it, sort of explained it, but the big question that I had going into the trial was if that call was made, why didn't it show up in her official phone records? Okay, next question. So I understand that Ryan was found guilty for concealment of a death on count six.

My question is that I know that that was in Irwin County and Bo was found guilty for the same thing in Ben Hill County. How is that possible? One in Irwin and one in Ben Hill. I mean, isn't it either or? I know they can't prove where Tara was actually killed, but doesn't it have to be one or the other? I mean, that's my question. I don't understand that. I mean, it would seem to me that they would have to establish that. And I think that I understand that that was the jury's question about Ben Yu. But it just would seem to me that they couldn't find, if they've already found Bo guilty in Ben Hill, that they wouldn't have been able to find Brian guilty in Irwin. And I would just like some clarity on that question.

Thank you. Bye. The crime of concealing a death can happen more than once. It theoretically could be done by one person in one county. It could be done by a second person in another county, and it could be done by a third person in a third county, so on and so forth. The concealing a death charge that Ryan Duke was convicted of was that he removed Tara's body from 300 Park Street in Osceola in an effort to conceal her death. Now, Bo has not been convicted of that. Bo, well, he was convicted in Wilcox County of

lying to the GBI, which was a way of concealing her death. But he still has charges pending in Ben Hill County for concealing the death. Because think about it, Burning of a body done for the purpose of concealing a death is a crime, but also removing a body from one place to take it to a burn pit. That's also another way of concealing a death. So these things are not mutually exclusive. Bo still has these charges pending in Ben Hill County. I believe those are probably barred by the statute of limitations for the same reasons that we've previously discussed. But the caller, I want the caller to understand that concealing a death can be something that is a crime that is repeated over and over and over and over again in multiple ways. And so the fact that Ryan was charged with and convicted of that in Irwin

County stands alone. It has nothing to do with what Ryan admitted that he did to this jury. He admitted that he burned her in Ben Hill County along with Bo. So he admitted to concealing a death. He admitted to a different crime, though, because it was admitted to have been done in a different way, in a different place, and at a different time. Next question. My name is Joanna. I'm calling from North Carolina. I have listened to every episode of every season of Up and Vantage. So great job, Terri, Lindsay, and team.

of every season of Up Advantage. So great job, Terri, Lindsay, and team. I listened to all the trial coverage and a comment and a question. From my perspective, a total novice, I think one of them got away with murder. You know, we will never really know, and I think that's really a tragedy for Terry Grinstead's family, that no one will really know. I think the trial was compelling. I do wonder if Phil Tolloway or Kane Lindsey or Nina Grinstead, if you felt like you had a sense ahead of time that the defense would prevail. Because as a listener, it felt like that was the case, that you thought the defense would prevail.

And so I was a little concerned about that when I was listening to your podcast all the way up until I actually heard Ryan Duke's testimony. Then I was more convinced. But anyway, definitely a question. Love your program. Good job. Bye. Excellent comment. Excellent question. So the sense that I got from around the courthouse, those in the courtroom watching the trial, people watching the trial on streaming, on social media, looking at the various chats. I even ran myself a few, I called them jokingly, scientifically perfect Twitter polls about who was winning so far in the trial at various times. so far in the trial at various times. And it did seem that from the very beginning, the defense was, for lack of a better way of saying it, I'll say winning. And it started with what I thought

was a particularly brilliant cross-examination by Ashley Merchant of Agent Shadel, where she was able to raise lots of very good questions about interview techniques, interrogation techniques. Got him, for example, to admit that he didn't exactly follow the official state training. He admitted on cross-examination that false confessions are, in fact, real, which many people still don't understand that. Maybe if the jury didn't understand it, well, they heard it straight from the lead case agent's mouth, false confessions are in fact real. And so if you're going to depend on a false confession type defense, one of the first things you've got to do is educate the jury

that false confessions are in fact real. I felt that for the majority of the trial, the prosecution was swimming upstream. That was my general impression. For the majority of the court watchers, people who were following it as closely as we were, I think that was the general consensus. Not all. Of course, there were some that just think that Ryan made up his whole testimony and that he's guilty as hell. But back to the comment made by the caller that somebody got away with murder. I agree. Somebody murdered Tara Grinstead. And unfortunately, we will never know the entirety of the circumstances. We may never know who it was. We may think it was Beau. We may think it was Ryan. We may think it was some third party that has not been discussed at the trial. Criminal trials are great for many things, but they're not necessarily meant to seek the truth, despite what you might think.

Criminal trials are whether or not a prosecutor can prove to a jury's satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of those crimes. Lots of information was kept from this jury, and I'm not saying it was kept from the jury for nefarious reasons, but the rules of evidence and the way that the law is designed, juries just don't get to hear everything. There are some things that juries don't get to hear. The judge made those rulings. If any of those rulings were erroneous, then a court of appeals can correct those in the future. But the jury did not have access to a lot of the information that the rest of us did, particularly including without limitation all the things having to do with Bo Dukes in Houston County. all the things having to do with Bo Dukes in Houston County.

His allegations of rape, kidnapping, going on the run, being a fugitive and the subject of a manhunt. Many people believe that the more likely killer was Bo Dukes. And a lot of people believe that Ryan told the truth when he confessed to the GBI. And some people believe other things entirely that have nothing to do with it. That is the saddest part of all of this, this saga of the disappearance, murder, and destruction of the remains of Tara Grinstead. This whole sad saga is something that will be debated for many, many years, if not forever.

As long as this case is studied by criminologists, by students, by historians, by those of us who have followed it for so long, those of us who have followed it for so long, as long as we think about it, and as long as we debate it and talk about it, these questions are going to be unanswered. But I think that we probably all can agree that somebody has, in fact, got away with murder. Up and Vanish is produced by Tenderfoot TV in Atlanta with production support by Core TV. Created by Payne Lindsey. Executive producer, Donald Albright. Produced by Thrasher Banks, Meredith Stedman, and Eric Quintana.

Edited by Thrasher Banks. Hosting and field production by Nina Instead. Music by Makeup and Vanity Set. Sound design and mixing by Cooper Skinner. Original artwork by Trevor Instead. Music by Makeup and Vanity Set. Sound design and mixing by Cooper Skinner. Original artwork by Trevor Eiler. Special thanks to Beth Hemphill, Julie Grant, and Philip Holloway. Check out the discussion board

at upandvantage.com. If you have any questions, leave us a voicemail at 770-545-6411. For ad-free listening and Payne's exclusive Friday recap episode, subscribe to TenorFoot Plus on Apple Podcasts or visit TenorFootPlus.com.