Cold Case Breakthrough: ADA Kim D’Avignon on the Carla Walker Murder, DNA Evidence & the Glen McCurley Guilty Plea

In this powerful episode of True Crime with the Sarge: The Audio Files, we go inside one of Texas’ most haunting cold cases: the murder of Carla Walker and the stunning guilty plea that finally brought long-awaited answers.

Host Joseph Giacalone is joined by Tarrant County Assistant District Attorney Kim D’Avignon, who played a pivotal role in securing the conviction of Glen McCurley decades after the crime. This in-depth conversation unpacks how modern forensic science helped crack a case once thought unsolvable.

We explore the evolution of DNA technology, the impact of forensic genetic genealogy on cold case investigations, and the relentless work of Fort Worth Police Department detectives who never gave up. ADA D’Avignon also shares insight into the unexpected guilty plea, what it means for victims’ families, and how justice can still be achieved years later.

Plus, we discuss the launch of the Tarrant County Cold Case Task Force and the significance of the Carla Walker Act which is legislation aimed at advancing cold case investigations and ensuring no victim is forgotten.

If you’re interested in cold cases, forensic breakthroughs, and the pursuit of justice, this is a must-listen episode.

Topics Covered:

• The Carla Walker cold case and investigation timeline
• How Glen McCurley was identified and charged
• The role of DNA evidence and forensic genetic genealogy
• Inside the unexpected guilty plea
• Fort Worth PD’s cold case efforts
• The Tarrant County Cold Case Task Force
• The impact of the Carla Walker Act

Follow & Subscribe for more deep dives into today’s most compelling true crime cases, expert interviews, and investigative insights.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

This podcast contains adult language, adult topics. Listener discretion is advised. Program with Asarge the Audio Files is owned and operated by Sarge Media LLC. Please consider liking and subscribing to the channel. What if the key to solving a brutal murder sat hidden in plain sight for nearly fifty years? In this episode, we take you inside the case of Carlo Walker, a crime that haunted Texas for decades. Until one breakthrough, one name, and one unexpected guilty plea changed everything. We'll be joined by the prosecutor who helped finally bring justice, Carrett County ADA Kim Di Avignon. We're talking DNA, forensic genetic genealogy, and the moment a coal case turned red hot. This is True Crime with Asage, the audio files. And this one is about how time doesn't always erase the truth. The journey to justice took nearly 50 years in the case of 17-year-old Carla Walker. However, advances in forensic DNA, forensic genetic genealogy, and the dedication of law enforcement coal case detectives and the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office changed all that. With us today is ADA Kim Devon Young. Kim was the prosecutor in the case. Welcome to the podcast.

SPEAKER_01 1:27

Thank you. Thank you for having me.

SPEAKER_00 1:29

So this is an exciting case to talk about because it deals with a lot of different aspects. And what I mean by exciting, that it has all the makings of some of the things that are changing the way we look at cold cases. Coming from a former cold case person myself, this is uh the new technology is very exciting. But let's take this back. So this case, so you said was nearly 50 years old. Carla was abducted from a bowling alley parking lot, and this case kind of went dormant for so many years. How did it get back on to the radar, so to speak?

SPEAKER_01 1:59

Sure. So, you know, Tarrant County is down in the North Texas part of Texas, and you know, Carla Walker in 1974 was that case, right? Like it was the case that everyone talked about. It was a case that was kind of the the boogeyman for our community, changed the way a lot of people parent, changed the way a lot of people dealt with just being out and about because it was so scary and so unbelievable that it had been unsolved for so long. And so it was one of those cases that, man, every new cold case detective, when they got to cold case, one of the first things they did was pick up the Carla Walker case because it just there had to be an answer to this. It changed the dynamics of our community. And so it had been picked up multiple times throughout the years, between 1974 and ultimately 20 um 21. It's been a minute. Um 2021. But um the what ultimately got us to open this case back up at the time period it they opened it back up back in the 2019, 2020 time period, was honestly the victim's family. They called again and said, hey, let's take a look. And so new coal case detective to the unit picked it up and started taking a look.

SPEAKER_00 3:11

Right. And we we we like to have that way when family gets involved because sometimes we do get caught up in the whole thing of all these other cases build up, and sometimes we need a reminder, right? So this was sounds like was one of those times, but it seems as if all the puzzles, all the pieces of the puzzle come together, though, right? So you have the advances in forensic uh DNA, right? Let's talk about that. So we have I believe oxygen helps with the uh the pay the cost, right? We have Othrum labs coming in. So there's a lot of different aspects to try to help out.

SPEAKER_01 3:40

Well, I'll tell you, uh, you know, DNA was was you've got to remember, you've got to go backwards. Like really, at the time people we're talking about, there were very few cases other than maybe Golden State Killer. That was kind of the one that everyone would talk about, but it wasn't, thank goodness we're seeing it more. But at the time, there were very few cases to kind of talk about. Um, and in this case, when we first picked the case up and started looking at it for DNA, we looked at it and we said, okay, you know what's fine. We've never had the technology, honestly, to get a sensitive enough test to get something that could be put into CODIS. And when I tell you, we thought we were gonna solve this right there at CODIS. Like, we'll put it into CODIS, everything will be great. So we got a single source DNA sample, put it into CODIS, thought we had that's it, we're gonna solve it, we're probably gonna solve a bunch of others, was kind of our idea. And it sat in CODIS and nothing. And so at that point, um, we were working with uh NBC United or MBC, NBC, NBC, and they were working with us on paying for some of the DNA. And Paul Holes was one of the people who worked on Golden State and was working with NBC, and he said, Have you thought about forensic genetic genealogy? And he put our detectives in touch with Authorum, and it was the first time as a prosecutor I'd ever seen it. I've been a prosecutor for 25 years. It's the first time I got to touch this technology, and it not only worked, but it worked so fast. Like it we put it in and instantly got a result back that um actually linked up to a name in the file, a name that had been in the file all along, but had been discarded, rightfully so, back in 1974, as not enough information. And um we put it in the file and and here we are.

unknown 5:23

Right.

SPEAKER_00 5:23

I mean, one of the one of the things that I try to tell investigators as I talk to him about cold cases, that often the person is in the file somewhere, whether it's a witness, whether it's a suspect. And in this case it was, but it was also that interview, and I think he has a polygraph right that he passes, so they kind of like like let him go, so to speak. But the thing about the 22 caliber uh pistol and that you know that comes back and haunt him. But before we get into that, how concerned were you though going into court with this kind of new technology? Now, uh Texas, correct me if I'm wrong, is a Dalbert state uh with a federal rules of evidence kind of thing mixed in?

SPEAKER_01 5:57

Yeah, and so we were um look, when I tell you I developed an ulcer that summer, it was it was a lot of pressure, right? Because it was not only this case, but I knew that I knew honestly how valuable this science was, and I felt like I'd really better get it right because whatever they do in my case, so goes the next case. And so we, you know, luckily, and prosecutors will tell you this is actually what we prefer. It doesn't feel like it at the time, but um the defense attorney on the case was a really a really good appellate attorney. He had done a lot of work appellate wise, so he really put us through our paces on the trial level, which I appreciate because um honestly, as a prosecutor, that is what you want because you want to make sure that you've had a chance to answer every argument and no one's having to guess later when they're reading kind of a dry record. So we had multiple motions to suppress all summer working with the judge about this technology. We called in experts, not only from Othram, but from other labs who are willing to come in and talk to the judge about why this technology should and would be reliable. And you know, you got to remember the difference in this versus a lot of other kinds of forensic science is there's an automatic spell check kind of built into this science, right? Like this is an investigative lead that takes us to something that then we're going to test against the gold standard S T R DNA. Um, but it's not, it's not like it's not conclusive on its own. It is a lead that gets you to a person that then you test against your evidence. And so for us, you know, making sure the judge understood, like not only is a science reliable, but built-in, there's a built-in check right there. Like we're gonna know right away if it doesn't work, you know, if the science was unreliable, then when we ran the DNA test, it wouldn't work. And so that was pretty helpful, I think, in helping the judge understand what we were trying to do with this new science. Because it's not new science. I say new science, it's not new science, it's new to be used forensically.

SPEAKER_00 8:00

Right. And I can I guess I can imagine the weight on your shoulders, so to speak, going in there because you realize that if if if we lose this hearing, right? I mean, good luck with cases moving forward with some of this stuff because we're seeing now other states kind of following the same path, which is kind of exciting in a way.

SPEAKER_01 8:16

And there were some, you know, novel issues that no one really, anytime there's new science, you're always dealing with it, right? And and also in addition to the science aspect, if you got to remember legally, what was also percolating, if you will, in the appellate courts, and had we'd had some really big rulings recently was cell phone privacy, right? And so there were a lot of issues about is there privacy rights in this? Is there privacy rights in your DNA, in your genetic code? And so we were losing, as as prosecutors, if you will, we are losing a lot of those privacy arguments when it came to cell phones. And so there was a big question about like there was a lot of comparisons, if you will, to cell phones to try and get the judge to rule that this is a privacy angle. Obviously, it's it's wildly different. DNA has is especially DNA at a crime scene, that's abandoned property. That that that's long since settled law. But the word privacy gets everyone's um gets everybody all kind of worked up, right? And so we wanted to lose people. Um the other thing that was going on that you know, it was it was we had just come out of COVID, so a lot of courts weren't open. We weren't we weren't the first arrest in Texas for FGG, but we were the first in Texas and and honestly in a lot of states, and I'll get to that, to put it into evidence. And that's because our judge recognized that McCurley was old and we needed to go ahead and try it. So the sec he this was the first case her court tried when we opened courts back up after COVID. And that was um, we were very grateful for the judge to do that because obviously we had a backlog and it could have it wasn't a new case number, it was an old case, but not the not the oldest case number, right? Like he's so we were very grateful she let us do that. But um the what we've learned as we were getting ready was that in a lot of states, um, and especially where a lot of this was percolating, which started out in California and the fifth and and the Ninth Circuit area and the federal level, um, they don't have to turn over anything regarding investigative tips. Okay, so they can just kind of say we had an investigative tip, and then they have to show their work and give discovery on what is the ultimate result, but they don't have to give discovery on investigative tips. Texas is wildly different. We have a law called 3914, which came on the heels of a pretty horrible um exoneration where a prosecutor had hidden evidence down in uh down south in Texas. And so our 3914 is a very, very inclusive discovery rules. Like we are going to end up turning over just about everything. There is almost nothing in Texas that does not that is not discoverable by the defense, and so we didn't have a lot to model ourselves after in the court system because the courts that had handled FGG, IgG before us did not have the same discovery rules. And so they weren't putting FGG and IgG into court as evidence, and we were going to because of our rules. So it was just a it was it was a brand new way of looking at everything. So while we weren't the first case, we were the ones, the first ones to kind of deal with it in that way, right?

SPEAKER_00 11:34

And as I was researching the case before I got a chance to sit down and talk with you, you know, I realize that there's a lot of similarities between this case and what's going on in Long Island with the Rex Herman case, and we're gonna get into that because we don't want to spoil it just yet, but there is something that could possibly be happening in the Rex Herman case that actually happened to you. But I want to get, you know, were you concerned as a prosecutor when you were reading through the case file about, you know, that he was actually given a polygraph test and he actually passed it back in the day. Were you concerned about that at all?

SPEAKER_01 12:05

No, I mean, look, this is why polygraphs aren't admissible. Um when you looked at the evidence as it stood, that polygraph, I zero doubts. The DNA was so strong and so specific. And then of course he confessed, I'm gonna say in his own way, like any killer. He didn't give the full story, but he certainly confessed. Um no, I had no concerns about the polygraph.

unknown 12:30

Right.

SPEAKER_00 12:30

And what also through I find with this case, as well as many others, including Long Island, is that these cases are so old that they started off with, but the detectives and the cops back then saved these things that and had no idea what we're going to be able to do with it. Because 74, we were still just blood typing, I think, right? It was just like Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 12:47

I will tell you, like when I picked up this case, like when they said, Cam, you're gonna work this case, I started looking at, and I mean, just thinking, like, oh my gosh, like how am I gonna do this, right? Like, people are dead, um and evidence, God knows how it was kept, right? Like, I have trouble getting cases currently being done. You know, like the mistakes happen even now. So, like the idea that in 1974, when they didn't even know what DNA was, like it was just very scary. But the reality is it was crazy. One of the craziest things about this case was there was a crime scene detective who cutting edge, by the way, cutting edge technology in his mind. He had gotten a brand new colored camera, like color film camera, and he bought an eight millimeter film camera. And that was cutting edge technology in '74. And he brought them to the crime scene. And ultimately, like without that eight millimeter, we would have really had problems because, like, our medical examiner was deceased. A lot of the people, because our DNA came from her clothing. But what we had was an eight millimeter running, showing her in the clothing, being taken off, handed to the crime scene. So we were able to prove up all these things. And then once again, also cutting edge, we were able to prove that Emmy was wearing gloves. Like it was on film. I'm kind of surprised he was, but I was sure grateful. Um, so like that was an incredibly helpful once in a once in a moment. I mean, like, we couldn't have we couldn't have expected that kind of luck from our 1974 detectives helping us out in that way.

SPEAKER_00 14:18

But it was certainly Yeah, I mean it's amazing when you think about it, right? Because like I said, they were blood typing and stuff like that. But I always tell my students about chain of custody and making sure you do all the things right because you never know where this case is going to end up someday. 20 years from now, 30 years from now, there's going to be other technologies that are going to be out there. So prepare for the future, right? Try to solve it today, but prepare for the future. And and believe me, I didn't realize that that mindset was in, you know, in 1974, really. But I mean, thank God it was, because a lot of these cases now are getting solved because of that.

SPEAKER_01 14:47

Yeah, no, it was it was phenomenal. And I I I think all the time during this trial, I kept thinking, I want to just personally thank every single person for being forward thinking. And they just didn't even know. They didn't know the little things they were doing that ultimately ensured that we were able to get justice in this case.

SPEAKER_00 15:03

Right. And I'm I'm assuming it is a like you were talking about, it is a concern about all these people are no longer with us, right? Even somebody, probably the detectives, maybe some of them, if not all of them. Like you said, the ME. So everybody that's kind of involved in this is basically you're you're on your own when you're going into the court with this, because you probably, yeah, of course, you got new people, but they didn't they didn't deal with this.

SPEAKER_01 15:22

Yeah, one of the very first things my investigator did is I gave him a list of all the people that had chain of custody issues, like chain of custody um roles in our case, right? I literally gave him a whole list and I said, tell me who's alive. Like that was the first step. Tell me who's alive. And so he tracked down old retired detectives, old retired property techs, old. I mean, like he did such good work, but like the first step was just, are they alive? And then once we figured out who we had, then we started putting together the puzzle of if I have this person, can I put this evidence in through them? Yes, because I see them on video and they can verify the signature and you know, things like that.

SPEAKER_00 15:59

So and I'm sure they were excited to be part of this again, too, right? Because I'm sure they this they followed this case followed them because we all have a case that follows them.

SPEAKER_01 16:07

Every I mean, when I one of the detectives who was on the case, one of the detectives we called, he worked it as a patrol officer, he worked it as a detective, and then he worked it again as a cold case detective. Like he it kept coming up in his career, and so for him to be able to come and testify was just everything.

SPEAKER_00 16:25

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, and I and I try to explain that to people that giving the sense of justice to the families is just as important to the investigators and the district attorneys involved in this stuff because these things often go on for decades in your own mind, right? I mean, you could be sitting alone somewhere and then all of a sudden you you think about it.

SPEAKER_01 16:43

You know, I I grew up in this area, and I I'm I actually was born the year after. I hate to get my age on this, but I was born the year after Carla Walker died. And so my whole life I I knew this name Carla Walker. And and like I wasn't even alive when she died, but it was just that kind of case for our community that you knew the name. And so when we got to work on it as prosecutors, like I I couldn't, I couldn't believe my my good fortune that I was getting to work on this case that meant so much to our community. Um, truly. I it it was healing for our entire community.

SPEAKER_00 17:18

Right. And it's also a great way, too, that I try to explain to police departments that if you're looking for ways to build better bridges to the community, dealing with cold cases is one of them. I love this yellow.

SPEAKER_01 17:29

No, people have big opinions about drugs and guns and sex. Everybody loves a cold case. Everybody loves that someone didn't get away with it.

SPEAKER_00 17:37

Right. And if it makes you feel any better, I was six years old when this case happened. So if it makes you make you feel if it makes you feel a little better. So now we have trial. So we have the we arrest this guy, Glenn McCurley. Um, he was an older guy when he was arrested, right? Was he 77? I think was he when he was arrested? I guess he probably figured he got away with this the rest of his life. I mean, you watch the video when the cops show up at his house, right? Um, which is pretty interesting. If you people haven't seen that, I encourage him to watch that because it's it's a little bizarre when they show up at the house.

SPEAKER_01 18:08

He's pretty confident that it had nothing to do with like that they're just here to say hi. Like he did not clue in that that they had him.

SPEAKER_00 18:17

So we started the trial, and we're gonna we're gonna skip some of the other parts because by day three, I think it is, right? He decides to turn his not guilty plea into a guilty one. Yes. Were you kind of were you kind of like shocked by that, or do you hear rumblings, or do you did you think that this was gonna happen?

SPEAKER_01 18:35

I mean, I thought when I I thought if it was ever gonna happen, it was gonna happen after the judge ruled on our motions, our multiple motions to suppress, right? Like after the judge ruled, nope, that evidence is coming in. I thought, well, now he's gonna plead before trial. Um, but then he didn't. And so then trial was about a month, um, about six weeks after our last motions to suppress. So we we just thought, like, okay, well, I guess we're gonna trial. And that day, we had gotten through, I mean, like, we had gone through a lot of witnesses. The defense had been doing a great job. Like, they were definitely hard on some of our witnesses, and every weak point they had we had in our case, they were definitely on it and were making good points. So it was a regular trial. There wasn't anything about it that that seemed other than like we felt better obviously when we knew our evidence was coming in. We did breathe a little bit better about the case, but we still had to prove our case. Um, and then that day of trial, that third day of trial, we were getting ready. We were kind of getting close to the end of the state's case. Um, and what we had left was the medical examiner and a couple other things. But the the witness that morning, the first witness that morning was supposed to be the medical examiner. And one of the defense attorneys came up to me and says, Kim, he wants to plead guilty. And I was like, Okay. I didn't believe it. I go, okay. He's like, no, really. And I go, let's go in the back because cameras are on, we're all mic'd up. I was like, turn off the mic, let's go in the back. And I said, Are you what are you talking about? He goes, I don't know. He goes, he just said this morning that it doesn't matter. He's gonna get convicted anyway. He wants he wants to be just over with. And I said, he wants to plead guilty to capital murder. Because in Texas, there's only two choices. If you plead guilty to capital murder, it's either life or death. And since we weren't seeking the death penalty, it was an automatic life sentence. And I said he wants to plead guilty and get a life sentence. And the defense turn said, Yeah. And I said, Okay, listen, I'll write it up. I don't believe it's gonna happen. Like most killers, he's a narcissist who write, like I was like, I'm gonna sit over here and keep working on my notes for the medical examiner. And so I give him the paperwork, but I thought I better go tell the family because I don't want them to hear it, you know, I still don't think it's gonna happen, but I should tell the family. So I pulled the family out in the in the hallway and I say, Listen, when we go back in there, because cameras are on, act like you don't know anything's going on just in case. Because if if he doesn't plead guilty, like how does that play if the news cameras are are rolling live? And they were running live feed all through our community. And I was like, We don't, we can't let it get out that he was thinking about pleading. So I said, You got to go back in there, act like, act like you don't know, but there's a chance when we go back in there, he might plead guilty. And they said, I okay, I said, but we we're gonna go back in there, I don't think it's gonna happen, let's go. And so we went back in there, and then he comes out and he pleads guilty, and you could see everyone just scrambling because I mean the cameras didn't expect it, no one expected it, and I was just sitting there going, Oh, so this is really happening. Um, I mean, I've thought a million times, like, why did he plead guilty? And you'll never know. I mean, part of it is I think there's a little bit of him that he didn't want to like have to sit there anymore and take it, because that is a lot of what trial becomes, right? Like, sit there and take it. Take it what people are saying about you. Um, I also think the medical examiner was going to go through what truly was the brutality of his crime. Um, his version of confession was very minimal, you know, like You always see this in killers, right? Like they they'll put themselves there, but they make it sound like it wasn't so bad. Like I just choked her a little bit, and not that he beat her, he choked her, he raped her, all the things we knew to be true that were about to be officially made official in the public. That was the medical examiner, right? Like he was going to talk about the bruising, he was going to talk about the tearing, he was gonna talk about all the things we knew about the state of her body that his family didn't know. And so I think it's a guess, but I think he pled guilty because he didn't want to have to sit there and take that and have his family hear that, because that was going to be kind of the worst of the testimony, and it's the it takes out his narrative that it wasn't so bad and it was an accident because that was his narrative, like it just it was she willingly had sex with him, and then he accidentally choked her a little bit. And oh no, what are you gonna do? And then when you saw the brutality of what was done to Carla, that's not that's not what he did, right?

SPEAKER_00 23:01

And that and there is the tie-in to this the alleged Long Island hero killer, Rex Sherman, where you know it's only to be it's only speculation right now, but everybody's kind of scrambling to the fact that here's a guy for the last couple of years that said, I'm innocent, I'm innocent, now all of a sudden it's coming up. And one of the things that come up all the time is that he doesn't want his family to hear the gory details, so to speak. And that's, you know, could only be one of the many types of things, reason why.

SPEAKER_01 23:28

Look, the reality is even with as much of saturation of true crime as there is, the only time anyone hears every single detail about an autopsy or every single detail about a confession is live in court, right? Because we don't we don't have the ability to censor what has to be said in court. So you're gonna hear about every detail, even if it's horrific. Like that's our job. And so, yeah, it's the only time where you are forced to sit right there and hear every single terrible, awful thing that he he did to this poor girl. I could see that. I don't, I mean, I don't know enough about the case, but like that is that is different than people know there's bad autopsies, is different than sitting there listening to every cut, scrape, bruise that that is truly in court talked about on an autopsy.

SPEAKER_00 24:23

Yeah, I mean, it's it's just it's just a possible answer, right? I mean, we don't know for sure, but I mean it's just it when I was like I said, I was reading through the case and and and watching interviews that you've done, and I'm sitting there and I'm like, my God, we're going through this right now, you know, watching this case go live. So we have uh now, because of this case, right, we have this cold case task force. So this has got to be pretty exciting, though, right? Because you kind of just kind of get like amped up saying, hey, look, we solved this case. We got let's do them all, right? Could you tell us a little bit about that?

SPEAKER_01 24:52

Yeah, so you know, one of the things I learned, you know, I I had a crash course in FGG and IgG, and it was at its truly, it was at the tipping point where it became a regular investigative skill. And all I could think, I'll never forget the first time I went to go talk to the coal case detectives at Fort Worth PD, which is our local, our biggest um jurisdiction in our county. And I walked in and it is it's weirdly a cold room. I don't know if that's part of it, but it's a very cold room and it's just filled from head, you know, floor to ceiling with boxes with names on them. And I remember turning to the detective and saying, How many, how many cold cases do we have in Fort Worth? And he said, Over a thousand. Over a thousand. Like, that's a thousand families that don't know what happened to their loved one. And that's just one of our jurisdictions. We have 43 jurisdictions in Tarrant County. Like, it's our biggest one, but that's just one. And so as I started working through Carla Walker and like, and because of Carla Walker, like learning more about coal cases, learning more about science that is possible now that wasn't possible before, I realized that it's not a matter of can we solve coal cases? The matter is truly can we afford coal cases? And so someone has to kind of take the reins and say, the science is here. We just need the money. And so, with my boss's blessing, we are working on creating a coal case task force so we can get some funding, some grant funding, hopefully, um, to test cases, to take these things that have been sitting just in boxes forever and ever and ever and see. Some of these are some of them are not, right? Some of them are not gonna have DNA we can test, some of them are not gonna have you know other things, but some of them will. And one is is better than we could dream. Ten would be amazing, right? Like it's it doesn't matter the number. The the matter is for that family, that's that's closure, right? And that's the one.

SPEAKER_00 26:50

And hopefully the Carla Walker Act will get passed, and this will help you do that, right?

SPEAKER_01 26:55

I mean, we did kind of have a joke, like it'd be kind of weird for the Carla Walker Act to pass and the Carla Walker jurisdiction to not have a unit. So it's time to get started.

SPEAKER_00 27:05

I mean, one of the things that I've seen now, not only now speaking with you, but up on Long Island and a couple other places, forming a task force is probably one of the most important steps in order to clearing the backlog of these cases. Do you agree with that?

SPEAKER_01 27:19

Oh, absolutely, because look, local police, they've got their hands full with what is going on fresh right now. And the coal cases are always gonna take a backseat when they've got to deal with whatever it is, right? Like whatever is currently going on, not only in budgets, but also in just staffing. It's always gonna take a back seat because they're not an immediate overwhelming problem for that second. And and and budgets are tight, personnel is tight, you got to make decisions. And so they do get they do get overlooked, not overlooked, that's not the right word, because I know so many dedicated cold case detectives. It's just that there's so much going on that they can't possibly spend the time. Yeah. And so the idea behind our task force is our our DA's office will take the lead, but we are going to pair with local jurisdictions. And I think there's also a really good benefit to that. Not only will we work on these coal cases together, but some of our jurisdictions have pretty young detectives. And so to be able to work with a seasoned homicide detective who works at the DA's office now in retirement, you know, like what great training is that? Like they're gonna see so many good things that they can then carry on to cases. Um, I also think there's a huge benefit for us all in our in all of our ways to learn about the science now because we don't have to wait for a case to be 10 years, 20 years old. Like once a lead has, once we have dried up the leads, will FGG help? Will IgG help? Then let's do it then. Let's not wait. And so the more comfortable they are with the technology, the better. Like maybe we don't have 20-year-old cases at some point because we've we've looked into all the alternatives early.

SPEAKER_00 28:57

Right. And one of the things that I like about what you guys have set up with this cold case task force and yours and Long Island's, I would say it should be a model for this because the district attorney's office is leading it. You're the ones that have to prosecute this. Because just from experience, we'd have to put a case together and I'd have to then present it to a district attorney who would then tell me we don't see the nexus to these cases, you know, and then I just want to go crazy, or they want the Pope and three nuns as witnesses on every case. So you avoid all that frustration, which is which is a huge obstacle we had.

SPEAKER_01 29:26

Yeah, no, it's hard. I mean, cold case work, like I talked about with Carla, it is the first step is who's alive, right? Like you just have to go back and look at them completely differently. Like, if I'm gonna put in this piece of evidence, how do I get this piece of evidence in? And so, you know, the other thing that truly cold case is teaching me is that our investigators are very reliant and and rightfully so, but very reliant nowadays on cell phone records, DNA, like all the modern conveniences that we take for granted. Like, oh, I want to know where that person is. Let's pull their cell phone, let's pull their credit cards, let's pull all the things that we get used to being able to do, you can't do. And so you have to really think about your cases in a different way, and you have to look at them completely differently, and you have to solve them completely differently because the cell phone records aren't gonna aren't gonna prove where he is like they do now for my other 99% of my cases. Pull his cell phone, we're gonna find out where he is.

SPEAKER_00 30:22

Right. Well, well, on that note, we will end it there. I want to thank you for your time and you did a great work, and I I wish you guys all the best in solving some of these cases.

SPEAKER_01 30:31

Thank you so much. I can't wait to hear more about what's going on up there.

SPEAKER_00 30:34

Yep, yep. It's coming April 8th.

SPEAKER_01 30:37

April 8th, okay, good. Okay, thank you.

SPEAKER_00 30:40

For more shows like this, check out True Crime with the Sarge on YouTube or on my official website, josephjackalone.com. This podcast is owned and operated by Sarge Media LLC. All rights reserved. Thank you for listening.