True Crime Firsts: Groundbreaking Moments in Criminal Justice

True Crime Firsts: The Innovations and Oddities That Changed Everything

In this special bonus episode, Mandy and Melissa take a break from their usual deep-dive case coverage to explore the firsts in true crime history—the groundbreaking moments, innovations, and even bizarre oddities that revolutionized how crimes are investigated and solved.

This episode is perfect for true crime fans who love the science, history, and evolution of forensic investigation.

The First DNA Conviction: Colin Pitchfork (1987)

The main story in this episode is the case of Colin Pitchfork, which resulted in the first-ever conviction using DNA evidence in 1987 in the United Kingdom.

In the 1980s, DNA was still a brand-new concept. The idea of identifying a killer by their genetic material sounded like science fiction. But in a small village in the UK, two teenage girls—15-year-old Lynda Mann and 15-year-old Dawn Ashworth—were murdered a few years apart under similar circumstances. Both were raped and strangled, and semen samples were left at both crime scenes.

At first, police suspected a 17-year-old named Richard Buckland, who even confessed to one of the murders. But then a geneticist named Alec Jeffries had just developed DNA fingerprinting, and this new technology proved that Buckland's DNA did not match the semen samples. He was innocent.

Authorities launched a massive blood testing campaign, testing 5,000 local men to find the real killer. Eventually, they identified Colin Pitchfork, who had convinced a friend to take the blood test in his place. When authorities discovered the deception, they arrested Pitchfork, and his DNA matched both crime scenes.

This was the first time DNA evidence was used to secure a conviction in a criminal case—and it changed everything. Today, DNA is one of the most powerful tools in criminal investigations.

The First Woman Executed by the US Government: Mary Surat (1865)

Mandy and Melissa also discuss Mary Surat, a boarding house owner in Washington, DC, who became the first woman ever executed by the US government.

Mary's boarding house was where John Wilkes Booth and his co-conspirators planned the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Mary allegedly aided the conspirators by arranging for weapons to be stashed at a tavern she owned and facilitating their escape.

After Lincoln's assassination, Mary was arrested, tried, and convicted. She was hanged in 1865.

The Parrot Witness: A Bizarre Michigan Case

Finally, Mandy and Melissa share a bizarre and somewhat lighter story: a case in Michigan where a parrot may have witnessed a murder.

The parrot repeatedly mimicked the phrase "Don't shoot!" after its owner was killed. Prosecutors considered the parrot's testimony, making it the closest thing the justice system has ever had to a talking bird witness.

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in 2017, and the parrot reportedly still repeats the phrase to this day.

A Lighter, Educational Episode

This bonus episode is a bit different from the usual Moms and Mysteries format. Instead of diving deep into one specific case, Mandy and Melissa have a fun, educational conversation about the history of forensic science and the oddities of criminal justice.

Perfect for fans of forensic science, criminal justice, and true crime history!

TRANSCRIPT:

[00:00:00] Hey guys, and welcome to the Moms and Mysteries podcast, a True Crime podcast featuring myself, Mandy, and my dear friend Melissa. Hi, Melissa. Hey, Mandy, how are you? I'm doing great. Good. Long time. No, see long, long time. Long time. Maybe not long enough. Um, hours. It's been mere hours. Yeah. Mandy stopped by today and we got to hang out for a few minutes to take care of business.

In-person business, which is so weird. We never have in-person business. Mm-hmm. Everything can be done online except some very small things. Yes. Um, yeah. So that was fun. Always good to see you, Mandy. We are doing a bonus episode that I'm very excited about today. Me too. This is a very unique Well, is it unique, the word I'm looking for?

Niche. Uh, niche. Let's go. Niche. It's very niche. Yes. It's a very interesting set of stories, if you will. Absolutely. So the idea behind this is we're gonna share one story each really about a first in the world of true crime, a first [00:01:00] conviction, a first time something like DNA is used, but even kind of absurd stuff.

So it should be. So it's kind of like documenting your babies' firsts first. Rolling over first. But not quite. Gosh, quite, oh my gosh. I would not have gotten there at all. And also, even my daughter, I stopped documenting after a month, so yeah, I couldn't, yeah. You know, my Firstborns baby book is unfinished and my second is unstarted.

So, well, it's hard to not finish when you don't even start. There you go. You know. We both won on that one. I knew that wasn't even a thing to try to do. Okay. So we will start doing these stories. These, this is a way for us to have a little bit of a lighter conversation and a little bit of fun doing this.

I even got a couple of trivia questions for Mandy at the end that she doesn't know about. Oh, I always have a surprise. Well, and I, I, I know now enough to give you multiple choice, so it will help be helpful. Thank you so much. You're welcome. So do you wanna kick it off with your first story? [00:02:00] Sure. Yeah. So as we said, we are diving into some true crime firsts.

First time that some things happened that really in many ways set the stage for the way. In some cases things are investigated even to this day. So it's very exciting stuff. Yeah. So the first case that we're talking about is the case of Colin Pitchfork, and this is the case where. We had the first conviction that was using DNA evidence, and this happened in 1987 in the uk.

So in the 1980s, DNA was really still a brand new concept, and the idea of being able to identify a killer by their DNA just. Sounded like something from like a science fiction movie from the future. Yeah. Something that just was not really a thing back then. But then in the eighties, in a small village, two girls were murdered a few years apart, and a man named Colin Pitchfork was at the center of.

The speculation behind who they thought you know was responsible for this. So these two teenage girls were [00:03:00] named Linda Mann and Dawn Ashworth, and Linda was the first victim in this story. She was assaulted on November 21st, 1983, after she had set off on foot to visit a friend, and she never made it home.

Her body ended up being found on a footpath the next morning, and it was realized that she had been raped, beaten, and strangled to death. Unfortunately, the case ended up going cold. They weren't able to gather enough evidence that would lead them back to any potential suspects. Years later, on July 31st, 1986, another teenage girl, 15-year-old dawn, went missing under very similar circumstances.

She was walking home when she was taken and she was also beaten, raped, and strangled, and left in a wooded area. The suspect left behind a semen sample at each of these crime scenes. And at first, of course, there's no way of matching this to anything, right? Because DNA technology was not yet a thing and the police at first thought the suspect was [00:04:00] this 17-year-old kid named Richard Berkland, who seemed to have knowledge of Dawn's body.

And he actually even admitted to the crime. But as we said, forensics is still coming up, and they really had just developed these things. They have. You know, a semen sample and some guy saying that he's responsible, but they don't really have any way to kind of put these two things together. Right. But also you have another guy whose last name is Pitchfork and that'd be the first person I would speak to.

Right? No kidding. But then in comes this guy. Not just any guy. This very, uh, intelligent geneticist named Alec Jeffries, and he had just recently developed DNA fingerprinting, and this technique ended up proving that Berkley's DNA profile did not match that of the two semen samples at the two crime scenes.

So he was not their guy. Authorities launched a very massive scale blood testing campaign. And when I say massive, I mean they blood tested 5,000 local men. Um, at this point they're just trying to find a match to [00:05:00] this DNA, but after six months, they still couldn't find anything. Then a local man named Ian Kelly was overheard by someone bragging about being paid to give his DNA sample in place of his friend Colin Pitchfork, who was a local baker.

Oh wow. So, yeah, I guess he's just at a bar and is just chatting it up like no big deal and starts bragging like, oh yeah, my friend asked me to. Go down and give my DNA sample and I guess say that I was him. Right. You know? Right. And for some reason this guy didn't see anything wrong with that. So he, um, did that.

Yeah. And probably he got paid, I'm sure to do that. I'm. Yeah. Once the police, uh, were told about this, Colin was arrested in 1987 and his DNA sample was finally taken and it was tested and matched to the DNA from the crime scene samples from these two, uh, murdered 15-year-old girls. And this was the very first time that DNA cleared one suspect.

And. Actually convicted another. [00:06:00] So you know, was able to rule out this false confession and actually find the true killer first time in history. And of course that was a huge milestone and forensic science took a giant leap forward. And we have. Use DNA forensic technology ever since then. Yeah. To solve crimes.

So in case you're wondering whatever happened to Mr. Collin Pitchfork, he ended up being sentenced to life in prison. Uh, he was actually released in 2021 and then recalled. I don't really understand that. In, in, I. Prison world, they let you out and then they're like, actually, just kidding. Can you go ahead and come back?

I thought that happened at like for mayors and stuff. Yeah, I didn't know that was like a recall your prison sentence. Yeah, it's a little strange, but it was in the UK so maybe it's something different. Maybe it's like parole for us and yeah, he broke it and had to go back in, but I'm fine with him being back.

Yeah, for sure. But anyway, this case really opened the door for modern DNA databases and cold case work, and this is really. Where the start of, you know, mass testing individuals [00:07:00] to compare their DNA samples to crime scenes, and of course the privacy debates that come along with having databases with DNA and everything else Yeah.

That people talk about to this day. So it really wasn't that long ago. I know before, right when we first started saying this story, you're like 1987. That doesn't sound, that can't be right. Yeah. But it's true. Like we have really, uh, DNA technology is very new still and. I feel like it's exciting to think that we actually probably have like a lot farther to go with it.

Yeah. Well the crazy thing is too 1987 that like is the proof that I'm just getting older. 'cause I'm like, whoa, that was like yesterday, right? Not realizing I'm older. You're like, I remember that. So afterwards I was like, actually that was kind of a long time ago. Um, so I'm gonna do one that's a little off.

I don't know. This one's a little silly. The crime is not, but like. What happened is kind of wild. So this one is, Polly wants a prosecutor. So you know how parrots, have you ever been around a parrot? I've only [00:08:00] been around one and it freaked me out. Yeah, I have, but not like a lot of times No enough to like hear the mimic and be kind of freaked.

Freaked out. I dunno about you. I was freaked out. Yeah. So we're talking about this case in Michigan where a parrot didn't just repeat. Something he actually could have witnessed a murder, and so he actually spends weeks yelling about this murder over and over again. So what happened was, back in 2015, there's this man named Martin Durham and he's found in his home in Michigan, and he has five gunshot wounds, lots of gunshot wounds there.

His wife named Glenna was also found at the scene and she has a head wound. So initially they thought, okay, this is a failed murder suicide. But they said basically something just wasn't adding up. Um, she wasn't arrested initially, so people were like, what happened? She, she says She doesn't really know what happened, but you know who did know what happened?

Their pet, African Gray Parrot Bud. [00:09:00] Knew what was up. And so investigators suspect her of killing her husband. Um, during an argument, they had financial problems. She wrote a suicide note, all of that. But then Bud, the parrot actually goes on to live with Martin, who was the deceased. His ex-wife. So as Bud is at the house, at her house, uh, he's yelling, don't effing shoot, don't effing shoot the parrot over and over.

Oh, yes. Wow. And over again. And so basically she ends up recording him, repeating this phrase, brings it to police and. Of course, his testimony is not actually admissible in court, but it was so chillingly accurate to what they think happened. The theory of Martin's wife shooting him and him saying, don't effing shoot.

And that the bird committed it to memory and just kept repeating it and repeating it, repeating it, and repeating it. And so Glenna was actually [00:10:00] convicted of first degree murder in 2017. But apparently still repeats this phrase to this day. Wow. I didn't look at it that part too much. But that would. Be a lot.

That's terrible, isn't it? Like that is trauma. And of course he never took the stand because as, uh, one thing I read was like, well yeah, if the prosecution uses the bird and he says that the defense has to talk to the bird and the bird can say whatever, so, you know, too risky. Um, but they say that's the closest thing the justice system has ever had to a talking bird witness.

Yeah. That's super fascinating. And. I feel like the bird should get like a lot of credit for that because I feel like a parrot's not gonna repeat something unless it actually hurt it. Like a lot of crackers, right? Yeah. So I don't want a cracker. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So my next one is, uh, really interesting.

Again, you guys know I love a little bit of history intertwined in some of these true crime stories. So this one is actually perfect for me. Everybody obviously knows, at [00:11:00] least we know of the story of the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. So that story, of course, is very widely known, very historical and infamous story.

But what most people don't know is that. There's really quite a few people that were actually charged and convicted with having a part in his assassination. A lot of people have known the name John Wilkes Booth, because that is who actually pulled the trigger and shot Abraham Lincoln. But, uh, very few people actually know that there was a woman, a boarding house owner named Mary Surat, who actually was.

A helper of sorts to John Wilkes Booth, and she ended up becoming the first woman ever executed by the US government due to her role in President Lincoln's assassination. So before all of that though, before Mary, I. Became a criminal, I guess she was a widow and a devout Catholic woman who ran this boarding house in Washington, DC and John [00:12:00] Wilkes Booth, and several of his co-conspirators would frequently meet at this boarding house, and they actually planned in large part of the assassination right there under Mary's.

Oof. After Lincoln's assassination, of course, the authorities are really out looking for very quick and meaningful justice. This was a very serious crime. The whole country was on edge, and so they were going around really looking to find everybody who was responsible for this. Mary was accused of aiding John Wilkes booth's escape and plotting with the conspirators.

She allegedly assisted the men, and that included arranging for weapons to be stashed at a tavern that she owned in Maryland. And then she also later, uh, informed the tavern worker that the men were coming and they would, they needed to have guns ready to give to them. So she really facilitated getting weapons in the hands of.

Assassins, essentially. I was thinking maybe they just did it at her house, but she literally Right. Rated the whole thing. Yes. Wow. She did. [00:13:00] So the evidence was circumstantial. It was mainly just testimony from one of the co-conspirators and that co-conspirator was seeking leniency. So of course in legal world, you gotta kind of take everything with a grain of salt, especially back in, back in these days when you really didn't have DNA or any like, right.

Really any way of like. Verifying a whole lot. So after kind of all eyes are on Mary and the authorities are looking at her as a suspect in the assassination of the president. Her son John fled the country, which might tell you a, a. Yeah, a couple of things. Mm-hmm. Mary and seven other conspirators were actually tried by a military tribunal, not a regular civilian court, and she was found guilty and sentenced to hang to death.

And of course she did make appeals for clemency and I guess. Whatever else she was probably able to at that time, but they were all denied. And President Andrew Johnson pretty much just refused to intervene or to do anything for her. [00:14:00] And he was quoted as saying she kept the nest that hatched the egg.

Ooh. Which is very a powerful statement. And I love the, I like it Little whips and stuff they had back then too, I feel like. Mm-hmm. No one says things like that anymore. No. And I don't know when I could ever use that, but I really like hearing it. Yeah. Yeah. Mary ended up being hanged on July 7th, 1865, and her death sparked debates about women and capital punishment and due process, all of that.

And of course, her role in. President Lincoln's assassination remains controversial. There are some who believe that she is truly guilty and that she really did take a big role and a big part willingly in, you know, whatever she was able to take part in. And then of course, there's others who believe that Mary was merely a scapegoat and you know, she was just kind of bullied by all these male co-conspirators who want, you know, were trying to get this done and get a deal.

And she happened to have a place to stay and all that, so. Mm-hmm. I mean, I can kind of see it both ways. Yeah, I went [00:15:00] to Ford's theater a couple years ago and did like the tour and um, you know, they tell you everything about Lincoln, about John Wilkes Booth, but I'd never even heard of this lady, so I wonder if it's like, they don't even know for sure.

So they're like, keep that out of your whole presentation. Yeah. 'cause I did not know that. So Mandy, the next one I have to share is Fry versus United States. This is the first case that was involving. Lie detector evidence. So this is back in 1923. It's not the polygraph machine we know of today, but they did use, um, a systolic blood pressure test to actually, oh, this one's so crazy to me.

Somebody confesses to murder and they use this to realize he actually didn't commit murder. We'll get into it because this is a very weird one, but basically Fry versus United States established this general acceptance towards this standard for admitting scientific evidence into court science is still.

I shouldn't say science is still pretty early, but these kind of things in the courtroom [00:16:00] obviously are, so there is the psychologist named Dr. William Marston and he decided to use this blood pressure test as an early polygraph test. So obviously systolic, is it systolic and systolic for your. Okay. Yeah.

Right. Yeah. Okay. So has to do with your blood pressure. And so that's obviously what they were, um, checking for him. So he is using this to help this guy named James Fry. Fry versus United States. Of course. So James has confessed to murdering this doctor, Dr. RW Brown, but he's now telling people like, Hey, I actually didn't.

Mean to confess, I thought I would get out of it. And here's how we thought he would get out of this whole thing. So he claims that he was being arrested for a robbery, and while he's in the room with the officer, the officer's saying, you know, where were you on this night talking about this murder? And he's like, has this alibi or whatever.

And the officer, according to Mr. Fry, [00:17:00] says. Hey, if you will say You killed this doctor. We'll let you go on the theft or the robbery charges. And he was like, you have a good alibi. No problem. There's no way they can convict you. What a risk this is. Yeah. To be like, how strong is your alibi? So anyway, the reward is a thousand dollars and he's like, you and I can split it if you'll just confess to this.

Murder. And he does, the alibi doesn't stand up, but he is being convicted. So the defense argued that the entire confession was involuntary, and then they ended up using this systolic blood pressure to prove his innocence. So it wasn't to prove him guilty, it was to prove like he's not lying. Um, and. And he was lying when he said he was guilty.

So the judge actually ends up ruling the lie detector test inadmissible due to its lack of general acceptance in the scientific community. Wow. So that's what that [00:18:00] whole decision was about, setting a precedent. About using scientific evidence. So thank goodness there are things like this. So remember for so long we would always hear about, um, gunshot residue.

Gunshot residue. Yeah. Gunshot residue. And now it's like, hmm, maybe that's not, maybe that's not a hundred percent. And um, so it's good to have obviously stuff like this. And the fry standard was eventually replaced by the DALBERT standard. I don't know if I'm saying that right. D-A-U-B-E-R-T. Law students, lawyers, please don't be listening to us.

But if you are, you would know how that is said. Um, and that was in 1993, though some places still use the fry system. Wow. Yeah. That's very interesting. Okay, so for my next story, we're gonna kind of keep it in almost in a very similar vein as the one of the stories I've already shared about using for the first time, DNA to link a perpetrator to a crime.[00:19:00] 

The case this time that I'm gonna tell you about is the first case where there was a conviction using fingerprints. So that's of course a little bit less techie, I guess, than DNA, right? Yeah. They've been able, I feel like even like, like for example, I feel like when I was in science class one time, they had us do an experiment where you would collect your fingerprint, whether, I think you pressed it on like a, I forget you.

Either you did it on like a piece of tape or something, and then you put the tape on the, on a mirror. I don't know, something like that. Just to show like how you can pick up a fingerprint and then. For, you know, as a stamp onto something else and like whatever. So the technology for that was. Available before 1980 if we were doing, if we weren't doing that in school, but we weren't checking our own blood for, you know, DNA.

Right. True. I think I would say that. What is a simpler one? Yeah, exactly. So, so simple. In fact, they figured that one out in 1910. Whoa. So in 1910, the Chicago police found a bloody murder scene and they found a partial [00:20:00] fingerprint on a freshly painted railing. So. If you imagine like wet paint on a railing, somebody doesn't realize it's wet and comes and grabs it.

Yeah. And it leaves like a little fingerprint there. Right, right. Which, of course, at that time, well obviously someone looked at that and was like, Hey. I wonder if we put our heads, figure out together, figure out who this belongs to. Like you've seen this. What they did next of course sets the legal precedent and will change criminal investigations forever.

Fingerprinting as a concept was not completely unheard of. It was known in Europe, but it really wasn't used or hadn't been put to the test really in American courts. And the police had just recently started taking prints from people that they were arresting, but still. The science, it was there, but it wasn't fully trusted, which, right.

I feel like, you know, you get that, like that's obviously makes sense, right? Anytime anything new is, I feel like you need to put it through the test multiple times and let it prove that it's actually accurate before you can say, we have confidence that this can be used to literally [00:21:00] convict people of crimes.

Like it has to be a hundred percent, which literally goes back to the one I just shared, fry versus the United States for the same exact reason. You have to be able to know that, you know, that, you know. Right. So a man named Clarence Hiller had been shot in his home during a break in sometime in the middle of the night, and the police ended up finding a man named Thomas Jennings nearby, and he had a gun on him and he also had blood all over his clothes.

His fingerprint matched one of the fingerprints that was left in the wet paint at the crime scene. And of course, this is like a huge breakthrough. They end up having four fingerprint experts come to the trial to testify. Hmm. I would be real, I didn't dig too deep into like what. Exactly they testified to.

But I would be curious about like at that time, like what kind of things were they like saying to be like, yeah, this is how we know. You know, it would be interesting to see how they used, like the science of the time to justify why they, you know, that was right. If you see this little loop right here, right.

It looks like this little [00:22:00] loop right here. Right, exactly. So that would be really interesting. The defense, of course, tried to discredit the science, which as we just said at that time was probably a lot. Easier to try and do because people already didn't trust the science, so you probably didn't have to sound even too, too smart to get people to start being maybe, no, we're calling people idiots.

Well, I don't know the defense in this case. I'm just kidding. Possibly, I don't know. But the court ended up upholding the evidence, and that was a turning point that made fingerprints legally admissible in the United States. Thomas Jennings ended up being executed in 1912, and after that, fingerprints evidence quickly became really the standard practice.

But this case is still cited in forensic history books, of course, because it is a very historic and infamous case. Wow. Very interesting. Yes. The next one I have is, well, Mandy, I'll ask you a question first. Have you ever had your information stolen, like online at a gas station, your bank information? Yes.

All that stuff? Yes. What a [00:23:00] terrible feeling. That is horrible. What an inconvenience that is. How mad does it make you? Like? Extremely. I mean, I've had it happen multiple times. Yeah. Oh, it hap it's happened to me multiple times too, like, um, yeah, it feels like once every three years. I'm, I'm, I'm just waiting for it.

Yeah, I guess I could be smarter, but yeah. Why do that? No, I think some are just more susceptible because, uh, so we have, like, I have a credit union and a regular like mainstream bank that you would just find anywhere. And it always happens with my credit union cards, like, but I will say they're always on top of it.

Like they always. Catch it right away. They send me a text, they shut my every well, it's kind of annoying 'cause they do shut everything down right away. Yeah. So then I can't even use my own account. Yeah. Um, but they always catch it right away and they, or you know, or they'll call me and ask me if, you know, I was trying to make this purchase.

But it happens all the time. And then they have to tell me like, okay, sorry, we're gonna cancel this card and send you a new one. But I swear it's happened like. More than a handful of times in the last, like few years even. But it never happens on my other bank, like my [00:24:00] mainstream bank. Interesting. Yeah. So I feel like some establishments are, uh, some institutions maybe are a little bit more, they don't have it locked down like as iron.

Ironclad as some others. That's true. I like to use Apple Pay anywhere. That, to me, feels the safest, but you can't always use it. And so I haven't had mine stolen for a while, which, yeah, knock on everything before I even published this. It's gonna be stolen. So the next one I'm talking about is the first high profile cyber criminal.

He was arrested back in 1995, which. I think makes sense. 1995, we were using the internet. Some people were some people's houses, not mine. Some people were just figuring out how to abuse the internet in 1995. I know you were gonna say some people were learning how to color 'cause you were so young then.

But no, thank you. My God. I was like, don't do it to me, Mandy. Don't do it to me. No. Oh, so the guy we're talking about is Kevin Mitnick. He was born in Los Angeles and he was the first hacker to actually end up on the [00:25:00] FBI's most wanted list. So as a teenager, I love this. He becomes obsessed with the inner workings of telephone company circuits, which.

Man, you saw my son today. He's interested in a wide variety of things. He is say, yes, we haven't made it to telephone company circuits. So you're getting there. Fingers crossed you're getting there. Yeah, any day now. So he started pulling these high level pranks. As a teenager, he would program a home phone to ask for 25 cent deposit.

Each time it was answered. I'm assuming this is like on a payphone, that he was like, okay, if you wanna talk to this person, pay 25 cents. Anyway, he was smart enough to do it. By the age of 12, he was smart enough to figure out how to ride the bus for free around town using discarded tickets that had been thrown away in a dumpster.

I feel like my kids would figure that out as well. Anything to be free? Yeah, like there's no limit to what children will do, um, in that case, for sure. In the eighties though, he is convicted twice. He, he uses his, his skills [00:26:00] for hacking into corporate computer systems, resulting in time in prison, and he actually got counseling for what they called his computer addiction, which I don't think we talk about enough.

I feel like, I feel like that's still very much a problem. Yeah. And no one gets treatment. No, and he apparently did. The interesting thing about him is he's like kind of tries to be a Robinhood in a way, or at least. Present himself that way. So in 1993, he gains control of phone systems in California, which we all know phones were where his heart is, and it allowed him to wiretap FBI agents who were actually pursuing him.

Confuse all their efforts to track him. Imagine so. He's like reverse, like, like they're wa they're listening to him and he's also listening to them. Uno reverse baby. He is getting, yeah, so, which just absolutely is so fascinating to me. I don't know why like that kind of thing is, it's like inception, like it, like some kind of like.

Right. I can't. So what happens when everyone realizes like they're all [00:27:00] listening and like no one's just doing anything? Then like, but no, none of you're working. Yeah, I know. I'm not sure. So during this time though, his activities obviously catch widespread attention, and in 1995, the New York Times calls him the Nation's Most Wanted computer outlaw.

I just can't imagine like my grandma seeing that and being like, computer, what is that? I know. Well, so he's actually a fugitive for more than two years. I found this to be really interesting. During this time, he steals 20,000 credit card numbers. So infuriating, right? Mm-hmm. Like that would be so infuriating.

Mm-hmm. He causes millions of dollars in damage to corporate operations and steal software related to wireless call privacy and billing. If there's one thing he's gonna do, it's gonna be work with a phone. I love this. This is how he ends up getting caught, right. Christmas of 1994, so this is a little before he stole emails.

From another hacker, I don't know how to say his name, but basically taunted this guy. So he breaks into his [00:28:00] email, steal, steals email, and is taunting him. This leads to what is called the dual on the net, where that guy is ticked and he actually uses software to track down. Our guy's location, he is able to find out where he is and be like, Hey, FBI, you want him?

I got him. And go get him. So in 1995, so just two months later, they were able to capture him and they charged him with computer fraud and. The illegal use of a telephone device. He loves it. In 96 and 99, he reached plea, uh, plea agreements and he admitted to computer and wire fraud. He goes to prison for five years, and during this time there's no evidence that emerged that he actually used the credit cards, like the numbers that he stole for any financial gain.

Like he was just stealing them, but he wasn't actually using them, which is strange. Very strange and kind of like useless, honestly. Yeah. If you're gonna go that far and go to prison. Yeah. Buy yourself, buy yourself a [00:29:00] treat. Right. Get yourself a treat. So in 2000, he is released from prison under the condition that he refrained from using computers or cell phones for three years.

How do you keep that? Oh my gosh. How, how do you, that's like, I mean, I feel like that's a punishment I would give to like my 12-year-old. Like, I would be like, all right, three years, no phone. But in that three years, you'd be like, you know what, we gotta, you're kind of getting on my nerves. I gotta give you something.

Take your phone back three hours I'd be out. Right. No kidding. Wow. So after his release, he describes this hacking as simple crimes of trespass and basically is just saying, I never did anything with that stuff. I just wanted to see if I could, which leads him to literally. Creating, co-owning this place called Know Before, which is a cyber cybersecurity company.

And it provided training that he designed and was used by 60,000 different organizations. So he ends up being known as the internet security expert. And um, he actually died a couple years ago, but he. Did all [00:30:00] this random, his legacy. Legacy lives on. His legacy lives on, but like to be on the FBI's most wanted and then be like, Hey, by the way, FBI, do you want me to help you and your systems not get attacked by me again?

Yeah. So anyway, that's pretty cool. I thought that was kind interesting. I mean, yeah. Yeah, it is pretty interesting. I mean, it's, yeah, I. Cool. It's nobody got not cool, like, you know. Right. Okay. So the last story that I have to share is one that a lot of true crime fans definitely have heard before are very familiar with.

This was kind of a more modern day recent breakthrough in Yeah. Uh, just forensics and technology. And I am talking about the case of Joseph James DeAngelo, and if that doesn't ring a bell, maybe. Golden State Killer will I feel like. Absolutely. Yeah. I feel like, of course, we spent so long decades not knowing his name, that sometimes I even forget.

You know what his name is, right? Whenever I hear it, I'm like, which one was that? And I'm like, oh yeah. Golden State Killer. Duh. Right? Like, how could I forget? If you're not familiar with the story of the [00:31:00] Golden State Killer, it is one of the most notorious, uh, crimes in history, or some of his crimes are.

James dangelo was a former police officer, and over the course of more than a decade, he committed a series of crimes across California that included burglaries, rapes, and murders. And he had many different nicknames over the years. He was called the East. Area rapist, the original night stalker, and of course the one we all know, the Golden State Killer.

His criminal activities started in the early 1970s while he was actually still a police officer, and his first known crimes involved burglaries and home invasions. But he then escalated to sexual assaults in the Sacramento area, and he was targeting women and couples and would often bind his victims and taunt them before he committed these brutal assaults.

By the late seventies and eighties, his crimes had turned even more violent. He started murdering his victims, particularly those in Southern California, and that's when he earned [00:32:00] the moniker, uh, the original night Stalker. At this time, his methods were really calculated. He would stalk his victims for weeks.

He would go to great lengths to avoid being seen, such as disabling their outdoor lights breaking into their homes, and sometimes he would even call his victims before or after the attack. X just to terrorize them further, which is just so, oh, oh my gosh. So scary. In total, he is believed to have committed over 50 rapes, at least 13 murders, and over 120 burglaries.

It's honestly so wild because the Golden State Killer is one that, you know, growing up I always like heard the name, you know, I heard of the case, of course. Didn't really know the details of everything. Sure. This is a very brutal case. You know, the crime, the crimes itself are very uh. Not kid appropriate.

Um, but of course I always grew up knowing about the Golden State Killer and just knowing of him as a serial killer, you know, in the United States. Right. Same [00:33:00] as I know about Ted Bundy or any of the other ones. But just to think about this type of serial killer ing like your neighborhood, like somebody who, right.

Has done the, has committed this many rapes, this many murders, you know, and was walking free literally for Absolutely. That's the worst part. Decades. Just walking around free, completely unidentified. Nobody knew who he was. It wasn't until 2018 that investigators were able to use genetic genealogy to link him to the crimes.

And they did this by using DNA from the old crime scenes and comparing it to profiles that were in these public genealogy databases, which of course are very new things. This is like 23 and me ancestry.com, any of those ones where people can, um, willfully, you know, or willfully, is that the right word?

Yeah, voluntarily. Voluntarily, yes. But that's the right one. I'm not against their will. I was thinking, which I guess if the police are collecting it from you, you're probably giving it against your will. Sure. But, um, so this is for like people who just want to [00:34:00] go and know more about their own DNA and they submit it to these databases now.

For the first time, they're trying to use this to figure out who the Golden State Killer was. They started comparing DNA from those old crime scenes to these profiles in these, uh, genealogy databases. And that ended up leading them to. This guy James DeAngelo, and at this point in 2018, he's now 72 years old.

He's living in Citrus Heights, California, still living in California, which also was wild to me that like mm-hmm. He still stayed in the same area where all of his crimes were. That was because he is sick. Crazy. Yeah. Um, after he was arrested, he eventually pleaded guilty to 13 murders and numerous other crimes as part of a deal to avoid the death penalty.

He ended up being sentenced to multiple life terms without the possibility of parole. Of course this was a groundbreaking case because it really highlighted the power and also the potential of genetic genealogy in solving cold cases. [00:35:00] And of course, it brought national attention to how law enforcement can use DNA databases to identify suspects in unsolved crimes, which maybe is something that people had not considered before.

That these databases can be very useful to law enforcement who are looking for a specific person to match, you know, DNA. Yeah. This case was of course, heavily covered in books. Michelle Mc Amer's book. Yeah, I'll Be Gone In the Dark. That helped renew public interest in catching the Golden State Killer.

There's been tons of podcasts. Like I said, I don't need to go, we don't even need to go into too much more detail about that case, but that was a very fascinating true crime first to be able to use a genetic genealogy from publicly submitted, you know, uh, databases. Like I think that's really, yeah. It's interesting.

It is controversial and I won't get it is, we won't get into the controversial part, but, well, I have a small controversy. Okay. And that is that 23 and me actually filed bankruptcy this week, last week. And now people are panicking to take their information [00:36:00] Uhhuh off of there because their information can be sold uhhuh.

So I think it's a great. Thing. Wonderful that we have that out there. But if you would use 23 and me, maybe look into that because you might wanna get that. Yeah. But the thing is if somebody in your family does it, it doesn't matter. Yeah. My sister does it. Yeah. Mine's out there. I can't do anything about it.

So my grandfather has spent years putting together like our entire family tree and like tracing back our lineage for like mm-hmm. Ever and ever. He's submitted, I mean he's submitted his DNA I'm sure to everyone who will possibly take it so that you can try and, and you've met my grandfather, so you know how funny this is.

Yes. Yeah. If I were to ever do it, I'm getting caught immediately. My grandfather has got a hundred percent, he has a, a neon sign pointing straight to me if I ever were to, he's got LED to leave any of my DNA anywhere. Mm-hmm. It's like, guys, I've been waiting for this call. Right. Okay. So my last one is the first body that was in the Body Farm in Tia, Tennessee.

You know, the body firm, like we've heard of it. Okay. Fascinating. Right? Is it crazy that I wanna go to one? [00:37:00] No, I think it makes a lot of sense. It's actually super fascinating. Let's, and super important. Let's go. Oh my gosh. We should go to one together. Okay. We'll talk about this offline because I don't, to the body farm, it's a new Valentine's Day.

Um, wish or prom like to hold one of those signs up. Okay. Before we take a trip, I'd like to tell you a little about the first person that was actually found, the first person who made history by. Doing nothing, but not in a bad way, like doing nothing, did everything right. So back in 1981 in Knoxville, Tennessee, there's this forensic anthropologist named Dr.

Bill Bass, and he has a bit of an issue. And that issue is law enforcement's always like, Hey guy, when did this person die? What's the estimated time of death? And he'd be like, great, I'd love to tell you, but. We don't really know how somebody's body decomposes outside. Like if they're in the elements, we, we can't help you.

There's not a science there yet. [00:38:00] So what does he do? He opens a body form. And instead of, this is truly fascinating. This is, I know when I found this, I was like, wow. So the very first person to actually help launch this was, unfortunately we don't have their name. They were someone who was in the, uh, local medical examiner's office.

It was an unclaimed person. And so his body is placed out in the woods to be observed to see how real decomposition happens over time. Fascinating. So from insect activity to your body, bloating to full skeleton, his contribution really makes this huge timeline for forensic scientists to use today. Makes it so much different to estimate a time of death because they can say at this many hours, during this temperature, maggots, you know, are arrive or whatever.

There's all kinds of things that they can look at now that it was just a guess before. Did you ever watch CSI. I, I, [00:39:00] I've watched some, like original. I didn't love it. Like the original, like the original. Mm-hmm. First. Mm-hmm. I, I know what you're talking about, but yeah, I didn't really, yeah, I used to love it.

Well, that was like back when I was in, I remember I was young. I was in like middle and high school. I would watch it with my mom actually. She really got into that show. And so at some point I would like sit down and at some point I started watching it and thought it was interesting as well. But I remember the main detective guy in that.

Was like really into studying bug. That was like, his thing was like analyzing like what bugs and things were present to determine how Etymologist or something. Yeah. Uh, yeah. I can't remember. But yeah, I read about the guy that that character was based on actually as well. Oh wow. It's in fascinating. Yeah.

It. Full circle, but basically after this, this body farm is open and now you can donate your body to it. There obviously there's no payment. Um, they couldn't pay for it even if they wanted to, because then that's like buying bodies. Mm-hmm. And that's against the law, right? Even if that, an episode about that, even if you consent to it yourself.[00:40:00] 

Even if you sell your own self yourself. I know, I was wondering that, like how that works or if your family, 'cause I was, that's literally what I Googled next. I was like, how do I do it? Could you get money for that? Right. Yeah. Like, or if your family could, but basically they'll pay for transportation. I read and if you, um.

Sometimes like a head will be donated or a torso and, uh, they can cremate it and give that back to the family in, in that case. But it's such an important thing and like incredible that people do it. So, yeah. Yeah. Um, so I thought that was kind of an, an interesting. Interesting thing to have been found in the last 50 years.

Yeah, for sure. Yeah. And it, I mean, of course, like you were saying, it's such a personal thing, what people want done with their bodies. Mm-hmm. Uh, when they are no longer here. But for me personally, I would definitely be up for something along those lines. I'm a very firm believer that like once I die, like I'm not in my body anymore, so I don't really care what, right.

You know, I would rather than use it for something, you know, to advance. [00:41:00] Science or you know, whatever, to study something like, to me, that is more appealing than other options. Yeah, I think, yeah, I'm all about selling it or giving it to science, body farms, all of that stuff. I think it's so incredibly important.

So that's all of the first that we have. But Mandy, I did tell you that I would ask you a couple questions and if you are ready. Let's get started. I was born ready. Oh, okay. There's some confidence there. In Canada, of course, in Canada. What was the unusual object that was first documented as a murder weapon in a 2008 crime?

Was it a frozen fish, an ice skate, a narwhal tusk, or a curling stone? I'm gonna say a frozen fish. Okay. Wow. I did not expect you to say that. Um, it was an ice skate. Oh. That seemed too obvious. I know, but let's, let's see a redemption for you on this one. I didn't even know ALS were real until a few years ago.

I mean, I know they were real, but like I would have questions about how they got a tusk and [00:42:00] all that too, so that seemed farfetched, but, mm-hmm. I guess beating someone with a frozen fish is really rather American. It's not really a Canadian thing.

Honestly. Yeah, that's actually very true. Okay, so the next one is in 1878. What item was used in the first recorded instance of someone being arrested for mail theft in the us? Was it a decoy letter filled with itching powder, a booby trapped mailbox? Especially marked postage stamp or a letter embedded with a secret dye.

Um, hold on. Itching powder, or what was the second one? Itching powder booby-trapped mailbox. Special postage stamp, or a letter with a secret dye. I wanna say booby trap mailbox. I like how you think, but it is unfortunately for you, especially marked postage stamp. Mm-hmm. It was coded, uh, like a different color so they could find that this person was stealing it.

Oh. Not super exciting, but it happened. What was the first computer crime ever prosecuted in [00:43:00] the US? Hacking into nasa. A teenager changing grades at school. A bank employee transferring money to his own account, or crashing Pac-Man machines in arcades. I feel like it has, I feel like logically it seems like it would be one of the really, you know, big crimes, like hacking into, what was the first one you said?

The FBI, what you say? Well, it's not that one. That one's nasa. Oh, nasa. Um, there's also a teenager changing grades at school. Can't be. And then there's also. Bank employee transferring money to his, I could believe that. That sounds like something that not only the bank, but also the police would look into immediately, right?

Like, yeah, of course. That's the one they're gonna look at. So in 1973, there was a teller at a New York bank and he used a computer to embezzle over $2 million. Oh, did you not think you get caught, like go big or go home, I guess. Yeah. Wow. And instead of home, he went to jail. Right? He went to his new home.

Exactly. Well, Mandy, that was fun. Yes. That was something different to do. That was fun. And I don't know what we will have [00:44:00] in store next week, actually. Next week is mailbag. Oh, please. Super excited, so please send any more stories you have if you are not sure what we're looking for. You can listen to the Mass Last Mailbag episode.

It's like brushes with crime, but like you're not really involved or something. Something silly. Florida, man. Crazy. You kind of right, you have a little bit of a, some degree of separation to the story, but it's something. That, you know, have firsthand knowledge. Yeah, you, we've got some doozies. Yes. So I'm very excited to share those next week.

All right guys. We will see you next Thursday for a new bonus episode. Have a great week. Bye.