Crime Junkie - UPDATE: April Tinsley & The Monster in Ft. Wayne

Episode Date: March 11, 2019

Captain Kevin Smith of the Indiana State Police granted us an interview to discuss the arrest of April Tinsley's killer who was apprehended in July of 2018 using new genealogy methods. He tells us what it was like finally catching John Miller after 30 years, how they decided to use this method to find him and what this new technology means for the future of law enforcement.    For current Fan Club membership options and policies, please visit https://crimejunkieapp.com/library/. Source materials for this episode cannot be listed here due to character limitations. For a full list of sources, please visit 

Hi Crime Junkies, I'm your host Ashley Flowers, and today I'm not joined by Brit. I'm joined by someone else whose name you probably didn't know, but someone you've all been begging to hear from. I'm Captain Kevin Smith. I'm the very two commander for the Indian State Police. I have 31 years on the department. In the last three years, I've been the Detective Commander out of the Fort Wayne Post before I got from her to Captain. So I spent a very long time in an investigative side of our department at Fort Wayne area. As a detective for 10 years, it's a regular road detective and then a commander for three years

in the detective division and now a captain. So that's kind of why I was so heavily involved in the April 10th case. That's right. This is the update episode you all have been begging for. If you're brand new to Crime Junkie and listening for the very first time, go back and listen to episode 18 first. It's titled Wanted Monster in Fort Wayne. We told the story of April Tinsley, who was an eight year old girl murdered in rural Indiana. For 30 years, her killer was unknown despite the fact that this guy taunted police and the community with notes over a span of years. But with the magic of DNA and what we're calling the season of justice, local law enforcement were able to apprehend her killer in July of 2018. At the time,

there was little known but a name, John Miller. And following his arrest, very few details came out about him or his connection to April. There wasn't much of a story we could do until the trial happened. But when John Miller pled guilty in December and we knew there would be no trial, we worked on something even better. An interview with one of the men responsible for bringing April's killer to justice, Captain Kevin Smith of the Indiana State Police. We were given a room in the Indianapolis headquarters to talk in, which is why the audio is a little different than what you're used to. But the story he has to tell is incredible. We're going to give you my unedited conversation with Captain Smith and you'll hear him discuss

how they came up with the idea to use genealogy, what it was like finally capturing a man they'd been chasing for 30 years, and what all of this means for the future of law enforcement. How long were you working on her case? I worked on it when I got into Detective Division 2005. Everybody worked on it. Such a big case. It occurred my probationary year. I came on in December of 87 as a new trooper and got sent up to Northeast Indiana to Angola, Stephen County area to work, and I got sent up there December 19th. We graduated of 87 and it occurred on April 1st of 88. So I had just gotten my car. I'd been to my training and just was out of my own and it happened too. Well, April was found in DeKalb County and I was

living in Stephen so right next to each other. So I obviously, I didn't work on it as a rookie trooper, but it was a big deal. Everybody knew about it. It was all over the news, even before the internet. Then it still got a lot of news coverage back then on the Fort Wayne stations. I was this was going to ask too is at the time it seems like that was like unlike anything they had in the area. It was yeah, it was we had they hadn't had anything in that area. They had one a few years later, kind of similar to the Sarabaca case, which is still technically unsolved, but they hadn't had anything before that for a long time like that. Nothing like that at all. And that it was a big news deal back then. And what was it that made

everyone so sure? Was it that the DNA didn't match in the Sarah case in April case? Because I kept seeing even years and years later those two getting linked, but you guys had said all along you didn't think that they were linked. Well, I didn't work specifically on the Sarabaca case, a bunch of our guys did, but I trust their judgment that at this point everybody's pretty well satisfied that those two cases are not linked. I think there's enough information out there that we don't believe they're linked. What kind of stuff and if you can't say you can't say what kind of stuff did you guys hold back in this case? Well, I'll tell you, in April Tinsley case, because it spans so many years 30, and because there was so much media coverage on it that never really ended,

the Fort Wayne News Media was really good on that case. I work very closely with the media. I have a great relationship with them. They are very helpful to us on these type of cases. In fact, they're invaluable because of the broad spectrum they cover was getting information out. Literally every year on the anniversary, April 1st or April 4th, the body was found on the 4th, they would run something on the four Fort Wayne News stations, which covers, that's the second biggest city in the state. Fort Wayne has got 27,000 people in it. That's a lot of coverage. We got that every year. Everybody that had lived in Fort Wayne for more than six months knew about the April Tinsley case. Because of that, they were constantly wanting to try to help us every year. We did,

between us and the city of Fort Wayne, we worked it together because she was abducted in the city limits and that's where it started. She was found in DeKalb County out in the rural area three days later. We got heavily involved then because we oftentimes do the rural stuff. We worked it together for all those years, but because there was all that coverage for all those years, we did slowly release more than we normally would, trying to get something back. We usually don't release much, but if it goes on and on and on and on, you're not getting anything. You've got to give them something new for the public to maybe make a connection somewhere. I've spoken before about this. There was about as much information released on that case as you're ever going to find. There

weren't many secrets left. There just weren't. We had talked about what was the scene, what we had, as far as DNA goes. That stuff was all public. You can go on Google before we solved it and pull up all kinds of stuff. Copies of the notes that were found that was made public, eventually hoping somebody would recognize the handwriting. That stuff usually isn't, but it was in this case. So the guy that obviously got caught, how did you guys decide to use the paraben, the genealogy? Did they approach you or did you guys approach them? That story goes back a ways. There's other people involved in it too. I don't want to speak for them, but I'll give you what I can tell you. In about 2008, I think paraben nanolabs was actually founded in 2008. They started as a company,

Steve Armand Trout, and his wife started that company. There's specialty at that time. My understanding is the phenotype, the snapshots, pictures based on DNA. I can give you a composite picture of your suspect based on a DNA sample if you provide us with a sample. That's what they started their business specializing in for law enforcement. They came to us, us being us in Fort Wayne City because we worked it together in 2008 as a brand new company and said, here's what we're doing. We'll be happy. We would like to try this on the Tinsley case. It's a pretty big case. Can we help you? Because 2008 is the 20th anniversary, so it's getting a lot of press. We had a big push. Investigatively, we had a couple weeks we devoted just to this for a whole

bunch of detectives. It's been a ton of time working on it. It took a ton of DNA samples, asked all kinds of help from the public, got a lot more leads and a bunch more DNA. They said, hey, let's do this. Let's try it. They did it. It was their very first case. If you talk to Steve Armartreault, the owner, he will tell you that is the very first case they did for law enforcement is the Tinsley case on that snapshot. We had a history with them on this. Even though we didn't have anything else going on with them at that point, because in 2008, we didn't know about this other. They didn't either. Maybe they did, but nobody really knew that much. I was made the detective commander at Fort Wayne in 2015. I always paid very close attention

as a detective. The 10 years I was a detective, I worked a ton of cold cases. That was kind of a specialty I had with cold cases. My supervisors at that time let me do it because I had an interest in it. Cold cases are totally different. Your mindset investigatively, even your personality has to be different. You have to be willing to go long periods of time without gaining any ground and still be okay with it. In law enforcement, we talk a lot about immediate gratification with road patrol officers, a guy that's just on road patrol officers. I worked road for 14 years. That's an immediate gratification job because you go out, you stop a car that's doing something wrong and you take care of it right there. You write them a ticket or warning or verbal warning

and you let them go. You've identified the problem, dealt with it, punished it, move on. That's immediate gratification. You get in that groove on the road. When you go on investigations, you have to slow down if you're going to be a detective. Just as a regular detective, you've got to slow down because cases take a long time. It takes weeks, months, sometimes years to work cases to get some type of culmination. Even a current homicide that occurs where you go right out and the suspects are right there and you've got them in custody. Even that, by the time you get all the evidentiary information done, all the witnesses and the interviews, all the paperwork done with the prosecutor, you're getting charged, by the time it goes through the court, since it's

adjudicated, it can be a year or two. You've got to slow down and get your mindset for that when you go in to be a full-time detective. Most of the detectives have a really, and then some people can't do that. Some people who are immediate gratification people, they can never get into that groove. They would struggle as a detective if they were. Our detectives generally are pretty good at that. They gravitate toward that. Even amongst detectives, if you're going to work cold cases, you've got to really learn how to deal with that. It's very frustrating and you can't let it get to you and keep you from working on it because you will literally go years without anything positive. But you have to keep going back and look and you've got to read it again and you've

got to pay attention to what's going on in the world. You can't get too focused. Fortunately, for me, with my supervisors for all of that 10 years I was a detective, they allowed me because I had an interest to work cold cases because a lot of guys don't want to work them because they're so frustrating. I know a lot of detectives are fantastic detectives, but they don't do so well on the cold case side because it's just so grinding. You just never get anywhere. I feel like I'm never gaining any ground. Okay, I don't mind that. I mean, it's still frustrating, but I can deal with it. The end game is so big for me that I'm good with it. I'm going to get there, maybe. Maybe not. I've got a lot of them that I've never gotten anywhere on, but I've got a

couple of them. I've got three of them that I have. That's plenty. Three cold cases is a lot in this business. I know those guys have done a lot more, but as hard as they are to do, the reason they're not solved, they were hard to start with. I always tell guys that in new detectives, the reason that case is 20 years old is because it was really hard when it started and still is, and it getting harder every day. You cannot solve a cold case unless you work on it. If you just leave a sit there, I mean, there can be the random one in a million times where somebody just calls in and says, hey, I want to tell you something. That does occasionally happen, but man, it's rare. 90% of the time, it's because you went out and kept doing things. I always, with my bosses,

letting me do that, I also probably a little more than most of our guys. I paid really close attention to what's going on around the country, even the other country. Every morning, I get on MSN and read anything to do with solving of crimes, major cases. Sometimes there's small stories on there that are not very well put, not in the big box on MSN, but small ones that this is going on in Washington state. I remember seeing this issue out in Washington state in 2015 where they solved two cases using this technique that nobody knew what to call it even. I didn't. As soon as I read those cases, I remember sitting at my desk reading them as much as I could dig up on them and the reading that we got a couple of detectives that are at a law enforcement conference out west

and there's a genetic researcher there, the civilian. They happen to be at the same conference. They end up, these guys have an active serial killer case with four, five, six victims. They've got a short suspect list, but they don't know who it is and they're able to get this information. She gets access to this information about their case and what they're looking for and they've got this DNA sample from their suspect available. As I'm reading, this is me reading the article in 15 or 16 is like, if you let me have access to that, maybe I can help you. I don't know. So I'm reading this and thinking, okay. When I read it, she's saying, well, I know how to use these genealogy databases. I have access to them and she told them when she got them with her work,

you know, your subject's last name is most likely going to be this because based on his genetic profile, his last name, he's out of this family tree and they're like, well, one of our five is that last name. They go get a DNA sample and it's a match. It's their guy. That's the first one that I know of. So I mean, I had read that and was fascinated by it, but still didn't understand how it worked. I mean, I don't understand what she means by being a geneticist. I'm not. So I had a little familiarity, but if you'd asked me back then, you know, how did we do this? I have no idea. That's whatever they're doing is neat, but hopefully we can figure out what it is. But the thing that got me and now, Fort Wayne City also is working this with us. We had a group that

met every, tried to meet every month or two at our post in Fort Wayne, a couple of Fort Wayne City detectives who were on this case for years. Brian Martin Cary Young, been Allen County Sheriff's Department detective who was on there. We had a task force officer with the FBI that was on there. You know, our guys, our detectives that had been on it, there had been numerous ones of our guys on it over the years. Some of them were retired, many of them had retired, but the rest of us had still jumped in. So we met as often as we could. You know, we still had a suspect list that we would look at. You guys met and it was just to talk about the April 10th case? Oh yeah, we would try to meet every couple months if we could out at the post just to sit down and say, because we had,

we had a group of maybe, there was like 10, we had taken hundreds of DNA samples over the years, but we had a group of eight or 10 or 12 of them that people wouldn't voluntarily give it to us. They said no when we asked. We didn't have enough to get a warrant. So we were continually trying to get that DNA for just a little limit that would allow that suspect list even more to where we've got everybody's DNA that we know of and nobody's matching because we had the full profile at that point in time. So we would meet and say, okay, here we've got, there's these six people we're still working on it. We're going to go try and talk to them again. We're going to get a covert sample, whatever. We met regularly about it. And Brian Martin, who kind of took over as the lead

for Fort Wayne City, had been in contact with Parabon. I didn't know a whole lot about it at that time, but he had, and we had kind of talked about some stuff. And he was kind of doing his thing with Parabon. And I was kind of researching on my end. And it all kind of, the timing, we didn't really had really spoke directly about it, but the timing kind of came together at the right time. In 2016, I was at the post work, I was a tech U commander, and I'm, you know, going there every morning and start doing my thing. And we get a lot of phone calls at the post at Fort Wayne's the biggest state police district in, in state, there's 11 counties up there, we cover. So it's a big one. We get a lot of phone calls. A lot of people walking in, a lot going on cases, we're

going, we got a lot of cold cases, but that's the big one. That is the probably the biggest, it was the biggest unsolved homicide in the history of Fort Wayne. As far as publicity, it was huge. I get a call from a lady who I don't know who identifies herself as Susie Hope. And she said, I was given that name by the community up in Angola. And I said, Angola, that's where I live. She goes, well, she goes, if you look in the local Angola paper that held Republican, which is our local newspaper, I read it often, but not every day. There's an article in there, and the editorial thing that I wrote, and asking for help. And she said in November of 1963, which is the month and year that John Kennedy, President Kennedy was assassinated in Texas,

same month and year, it was a year before I was born. She says, I was left on a doorstep. In Angola, Indiana, kind of on the southwest side of town in a neighborhood on somebody's porch, as a brand new infant. She said, the people in the house come out in the morning to go to, you know, do their daily thing. And here I am wrapped up in a blanket on the porch. And she said, I, that was 52, 53 years ago. And she said, I've been trying to find out who I am ever since. So, okay, she said, I wonder if you can help me. I said, sure, she says, she said, I was adopted. She said, I have no complaints. I'm not looking for any issues. She said, I was adopted eventually. I have a great life. Everything went fine. I got wonderful adoptive

parents. I'm trying to, for some health reasons, I'm trying to figure out who I am. I want someone, know some of my genetic background. Okay. She said, apparently it was a pretty big deal back then when that happened. They named me the doorstep baby. And eventually they came, they named me Susie Hope. And she said it was all over the newspapers. I've got those old newspaper articles. She said, the police got involved to do an investigation, the Angles City Police. And it says in newspaper that the Indiana State Police also investigated it. Try to find out who my parents were, who dropped me there. And she said, I've got that, you know, those newspaper reports, I've got my whole file from back then it would have been the welfare trial welfare. It's now

called something different, but I've got all that information I've gotten it over the years, but it, we have never been able to figure out who my parents, biological parents are. Okay. I said, well, I tell you what, I mean, look, this is news to me and I'm from Angola. You know, that was a long time before I got there, but I'd never heard this. So I said, let me do some digging, see if I can find our reports. What our guys investigated, there would have been a detective, I'm sure assigned to it. See if there's anything in there, any leads. And I dug and dug and dug and dug and I, in a raw reality, couldn't hardly find anything. Now that's a long time ago. So that sometimes that stuff that old is just not there anymore. That's really getting back there.

So I did, I know, I know who the detective is that worked back then he's since passed, I'd since passed away. And I made some phone calls with the old timers that were still around. Well, they just couldn't hardly barely remember the whole thing. Anyway, it's just so long ago. So long story short, I couldn't, I would love to have helped her. She was a nice gal. I just couldn't help her. Sorry. I said, man, if there's anything else I can, I did, well, I was able to access some old city directories that showed who lived in what house because she knew where she was dropped at, you know, who the neighbors were around, if she wanted to start digging on that. Because it really wasn't a criminal investigative matter. If you know what I mean,

it was just an interest for her. It wasn't a crime that we not, not today anyway. So, and I pulled up the article that she had in the paper and read it. And she had an, she put an email address there and said, if me and Bacon help me email me at this address, it was very interesting. And I didn't, I mean, it was, I didn't put anything together on it until about two months later, she calls me back out of the blue and says, Hey, this is Susie. Hope you have sure. Susie, what's up? She said, I want to let you know I found my birth parents. I said, you have to be kidding me. I couldn't believe it. She goes, no, I did. I said, what are the chances? She goes, I said, how did you find them? She said, I used

genealogy website. She said, I sent my DNA into a genealogy website. She said, in no time they sent me a report back and said, here's your mom, here's your dad. I said, I mean, I literally had chills. You got to be kidding me. She said, no, no, really. So I talked to her a little bit and I sit in her and I hung up the phone and my next phone call was to the guys in the group. And I said, we got to talk about this. Immediately we walked right back to our laboratory. We have a lab at Fort Wayne. We're one of the regional labs and we've got DNA people there that I work with every day. And I went back to them and said, how does this work? I know how our, the law enforcement side

of DNA works and with CODIS and all that, but how does these genealogy websites work? It is the same. They're going, oh, no, no, it's different. Still DNA different, different way of processing it. Law enforcement does STR, short tandem repeat, DNR, DNA. That's what CODIS is. So when they do a profile, it's using a, for lack of a better term, it's using an STR DNA machine that puts it in an STR format. It looks at certain spots of the human genome. They said, and the gals told me, she said, the genealogy websites, like 23minancestry.com and all the others, you know, you, you go in and sign up and ask for a DNA thing and they send you a kit and you just spit in the tube, you put saliva in the tube and send it back to them. And they,

they do SNP, what's Austin referred to as SNP testing. That's different. It looks at, it looks at very small pieces of the human genome, like 600,000 locations, really small pieces all over it, which allows them to get family groups out of it because they're looking at such a big, broad base of your DNA. They can, they can see what, when you're matching up with all these other people in so many places, you have to be related because there's too many places you match. He says, totally different. I said, okay, can you, you know, I got all these questions. I'm not a, not a scientist. Can you, you know, can you convert an SCR DNA profile that we have into it? No, no, no. Apples and oranges test, you have to retest with a fresh sample doing the

SNP side with the SNP machine for lack of a better term. This is all in the same base. So I'm like, wow, I'm learning a lot here today. And we, that day that we got the guys together and I said, you know, and Brian Martin had already been headed down that road. He was kind of on his side. We kind of, it kind of met at the same time. And we're like, yeah, Parabon and, and okay. So Brian went down that road with Parabon and because they had been our, you know, we had been their first phenotype case. So we were, you know, we were close with them because we started their deal. So they's like, yeah, this Tinsley case, absolutely. We can do that now. We can do the genealogy research and the SNP testing. We can do that. It's very interesting. So Brian got them

their sample and they, they turned it, got an SNP profile because we had extra sample from this suspect that he had left those samples when he left all the photographs and the notes on the kids' bicycles in 2004. If he wouldn't have left that, did you have any sample left from the actual crime scene? No, I don't believe hardly any. That was critical to say the least, that we had extra sample. Absolutely critical. And so then when you're sending this off, this is 2016 that you're... No, we didn't, we didn't get to the point where we actually sent it back. We taught, we discussed it for months trying to get everybody on the same page because we had, we had questions. Even though that there'd been a couple cases in, in Washington state in 15,

and there was one other that broke early just before we, ours did, there was one that broke in early 18, just before, while we were still doing it. But in that year and a half there, this was new stuff to a lot of people. Talking about all the legal implications and so you guys had to check with... Yeah, I mean, in that year, year and a half between 16 and early 18, we were trying to hash out some questions because, I mean, granted it had been done a few times across the country, but it had never been done in Indiana, so we had our own set of laws. And there was just a lot of questions that we all had. Even legal counsel had some questions to ask that we're not sure because this is new stuff, no case law on it. So we kind of kicked

that stuff around for a while and what's the best way to do this? Did you guys feel like you were in a rush with the clock? I mean, even so many years, did you think he was dead? Because I know like when I talk to people like the crime stoppers in Fort Wayne, they're like, this guy's dead, no way. Yeah, I mean, that amongst the group over the years, you get that opinion, it was, and I can't blame anybody for having it, because he'd never been on a raid. I mean, the fact that he was not in CODIS was virtually a miracle. That makes you think that a guy's deceased because, because of the severity and the violence of the crime involving a child, the chance that you would think the chances of a guy being able to stay out of another felony

arrest for CODIS over the years would be almost zero. Because if he's that violent, he's going to get arrested again for something and being CODIS, but he's never in there. So we thought it's certainly possible that he's been dead for a long time. But we don't know that. So you man, you don't know, we do know that he's not dead in 2004. So I mean, I mean, he's, we're within 14 or 15 years, we know he was alive. So we just assume that he is, you know, the other thing that I always felt like he probably was, because I had access to, we all, the, along, we had access to the Polaroid photos that he left. And obviously, you couldn't see his face, obviously, you could see parts of his body. And I had actually taken

those photos and shown him to a forensic pathologist that I worked, worked very closely with at the time who had a lot of experience. And I mean, even just as a person with life experience, when you look at those photographs, the part of him that you could see didn't look like an old man to me. And same, I got the exact same opinion from the forensic pathologist, give me an approximate, because we, if we can assume those photographs and extra samples on the bicycles and mailbox were left in 2004. I probably, when I sent those or gave those or showed them to the forensic pathologist, I'm going to say that was probably in the ballpark of 2011 or 12, somewhere in there. So it really wasn't that eight or 10 years before that. I'm assuming those Polaroids were taken at the same

time in 04 probably where they probably weren't held for years. I'm assuming that they were, let's just guess that they're taken in 04 and put it in those locations. I mean, I wasn't thinking he was any, he was over 40 by the photographs. So I thought, it's not like he was 50 when he did this in the 80s. And now he's a hunter. No, I'm not buying that. But we did, you don't know. So, but we finally came to grips with the fact that it, let's go ahead and do this, Brian did and give Brian all the kudos and world Brian Martin from Fort Wayne City, got the sample off the paragon. And right around that same time, we were really, it's really starting to push the envelope on how this is going to work. And just coincidentally on the timing, the Golden State Killer case broke.

Well, and it's so funny because like to know that you guys had the ball rolling this in 2016, everyone I talked to was like, oh, they got the idea because of the Golden State Killer. Well, no, we didn't. We had the idea before, but and actually we actually, Brian Martin sent the sample to paragon in March, but well before the Golden State Killer was captured and all that came out. They were obviously doing it. We didn't know that, that they were doing that process. But he that, so we were on the, we had actually taken the first big step before it ever broke. But I can tell you when that happened, I was, I mean, I remember going into the work that day and firing up the computer and seeing that golden out. And the reason it's interesting

me because I teach a serial killer class at Trine University in the spring and I was teaching it and I profiled different, you know, the, everybody knows him, the Ted Bundy's, the John Wayne Gacy's, all of them. I, and the Golden State Killer, the name was new. Do you know that, that Gallic, I apologize for not knowing her name. She passed, I believe. We saw that. Passed away, didn't she? Yeah. Anyway, she wrote that book and kind of that was her name for him because she kind of linked all those together because he was the Easter Erapists and in the north and, you know, um, so she kind of came up with this Golden State Killer name and he was,

that's starting to get some traction. We got this huge unsolved serial killer from out there. So I had profiled that case in our class. We meet on Thursday nights for three hours before this. And then, like two weeks before I go into, boom, big box MSN, Golden State Killer, I did, I went, you got to be kidding me. And I got on my email right away to the students and said, you have no idea how lucky you are. You know, how often this happens. They just solved the Golden State Killer case two weeks after I talked to him. It's been going on for 45 years. I said, this is crazy. This is great for us in class to talk about. And I, but I read the article before I sent email and I'm like, they're using genetic genealogy.

That's, this, the timing is amazing on this. So once again, went back to the lab gals and had the same discussions and they're like, yeah, that's, I'm sure that's what they're doing. So I read the whole article and it listed Paul Holes on there as the Constra County district attorney's office investigator that kind of was, he was kind of the lead that was listed as the person who solved it. I know that there's a large group of people that worked on it. So I said, I got to talk to him. I want, he's got to explain exactly how they do this. I was able to get in contact with his office. He retired actually right after that. He retired right after they solved that case. Go out on top. Yeah, why not? I can't blame him there.

And I, he got back to me and said, Hey, I'm, you know, I'm moving out of state because I'm retiring. It's going to be a couple of weeks, but I will call you. And about two weeks later, he called me now at this point, we've already sent this brand, Martin's already sent a sample in, but I still didn't really understand where we were at on it. So he calls me and I, I, uh, talking to him and he gives me the very basics. And I said, well, you know, did you do a covert sampler? Did you do a known, did you send a sample into Jed match with a fake name in it? Because they're not tip them off as to what you were doing. And he's, he told us what they did. And he said, but you really need to talk to, uh, Steve Kramer with the FBI,

Steve Kramer's a general counsel for the FBI in Southern California. He said, he understands the science of this. This is kind of his idea. He really understood, you need to talk to him. He'll, he can fill in all these gaps. And he gave me his number and, uh, within minutes, like he, he and I were on the phone. And I'm like, here's, I just talked to Paul and he's, oh yeah, okay. And, um, he kind of gave me his background on how he introduced this into the Golden State killer case. And, uh, he, he said, tell me what you have. And I told him, and I said, we've got these extra samples from before they left for us. Um,

and it was crazy that, that our conversation between him and Paul and I, the three of us was, was one of them is the more memorable things I'll ever have. He said, I'm telling you, Kevin. He said, you got, he said, you're going to know who killed her by the end of the summer. I said, really? I said, uh, I said, Steve, I mean, I, I love your confidence because I got plenty myself. I said, but I said, this is a 30. Really? He said, you're going to know who killed her by the end of this summer. He said, I'm telling you, the information's in these websites. I said, okay. He said, just hang on. It's, you're going to find through this out real quick. And, uh, I mean, there was some other hoops to jump through, but long story short,

wouldn't much longer, early July, we get a phone call and it's Parabon and they're like, can you guys get together today in a group? Because we need to talk to you. Sure. And we went down to Fort NPD with four or five of the group and got them on the speaker phone and, um, CC Moore, who works for Parabon now was on there along with Steve Armand Trout. And she sent us a PowerPoint and said, and started going through it. And, uh, you know, within 15 minutes, she said, here's your two. It's, it can only be one of these two people, the only two people in the world that could have done this. It's only two. Brothers? Yeah. I said, I mean, everybody, I mean, these are, we got guys that have been

police in a long time, done a lot of cases and we're all like, one of these two has to, can't be anybody else. Okay. So we start doing our digging on the two and, um, I believe that was on a Monday. It was a Monday, July, a second, whatever day that was. It was a Monday. We had that call at one o'clock in the afternoon. The next day was July 4th. It was Monday, July 3rd. The next day, I believe it was a holiday because we were, everybody was off because we're like, let's go right now. And we're like, well, tomorrow we can't, they won't let us, you know, tomorrow is a holiday. We're supposed to be off. Everybody else is going to be, courts are going to be closed so we can't get, so we're like, okay,

trash pools on Friday. We're going to do trash pools with two houses, both brothers on Friday. Do you, I've always wanted to ask this, do you have to have a warrant to even do a trash pool or can you trash pool on anyone? You can generally trash pool on with any, any kind of reason. Yeah. You can, you can trash pool. I mean, it's abandoned property. Right. That's, that's been decided in case law for years. Okay. You can just go get it. So that was the next step. You guys trash pools, three days later did them. When you did a little bit of background on the brothers, did you have an inclination one way or the other? Yes. Okay. Because of some handwriting, we had all those notes that he'd left

and we had access to some handwriting stuff through the BNB because when you go get your driver's license, you sign for it and therefore your signatures and they keep some historical information. BNB keeps historical information back many years to show your previous licenses with your previous photographs and it shows your name underneath them. So we, we had a handwriting sample that looked really close on John Miller. And so that's interesting because a lot of people thought that he like faked his handwriting or tried to make it look bad, but that was really it. That was his handwriting and we like, we're going to do both because it, why not? But this really looks good. We'll see. So that, you know, three days later, we had guys doing trash

pulls and had his name ever come up before. Never. Never. So you do the trash pull. How long till you guys got the results? Did the trash pull on Friday? The contents were delivered to the laboratory here in Indianapolis, right downtown. We drove them, our guy drove them down there in person that day on Friday. So they'd have them right away. And Monday morning at 8.15, uh, Stacy from the lab in Indianapolis called Bada Nasky, Bada Nasky. She called, called me direct and said, it's a match. John Miller. She, Jesus, really started crying. Did. So she, you kidding me? Oh, so it's like, that's, that's cool. I mean, it's, it's horrible, but it's cool. You know what I mean? It's everything. It's all emotions, but it's awesome because we got him

because CC Moore had told us everything about him, both of them. Here's where they live. Here's where they live for the last 30 years. Here's where the old addresses. Here's who they were married to. Here's one guy was married. One guy was not. She had the history because that was what she does in her profile. When she identifies, she gives you the whole background. So we already knew a lot about him. Um, and like, wow, okay. So then we started putting tune to, okay, kind of makes sense. Where does he live? It was in Grable, Indiana. Let's look at the map. One of the letters and Polaroid pictures left two, two and a half blocks from where he'd been living for years close. And he, and plus Grable is right in the middle of where the, those were left. If you

look at the map and circled, he's like, right, you know, you've seen the crime diagrams for lack of a better term where they, the guy person always lives right in the center of them. Well, right in the center where the notes were left. Now there's a lot of people in that area in Fort Wayne, but still he's right in the middle of it. So it's just all added up. So that, you know, that was on Monday. We had it. And you know, there wasn't long later. We resting week and a half, week later. Would you show up to rest or was it someone else? I had, uh, Brian Martin, the lead for Fort Wayne city and our lead or Fendi and state police at Fort Wayne was Clint Hedrick. The word for us. Um, we, we had sat down and had several discussions, obviously in the next

several days after we had a match, uh, getting a team together and okay, who's going to do the interviews? You know, you have to, that's a selection process. Who's, who's the best at interviewing? Who knows his case the best? What to fit? You know, there's a lot of variables. Interviewing is a very interesting study. Um, styles are different when you do an interview with two people opposed to one, as far as the policemen go, you want to make sure you match up your styles, right? You don't ever want to put two alpha alpha interviewers on the same team, even though they'll, they may be the best policemen ever in great interviewers. They oftentimes struggle unconsciously struggle with each other in the interview, trying to who's trying to lead it.

You don't want that dynamic. You want an alpha interviewer and one that's not an alpha interviewer or one that can be and let one play off the other. You don't want two that are constantly pushing. It doesn't work. It's chemistry. Um, if it's two, if it's one, it's different. Uh, but we had a, Brian Martin and Clint Hedrick work together all the time because our Clint Ariya has an office right down there in the city county building. So he's in there with those guys all every day has been for several years. Very good relationship. They get along great. They've interviewed many people together. They've got a great, because we had guys on the inter, on the group, myself, Mark Hefner, who had got a ton of experience, done a ton of cold cases, got a lot of interview

experience. It's not the point. Um, Brian and Clint have chemistry on interviews that works. It had been proven before. So you guys are going to do it. They both knew the case like the back of our hand anyway. They've been working on it and they were on that small group anyway, but that's a perfect setup. So we, you know, we just discussed how are we going to approach, you know, we just got us kind of stuff. We normally discuss anyway, but how, what's the best way to approach? We did quite a bit of surveillance just to get his pattern down. So we knew where he was going to be at what time so we could approach correctly. And we did quite a bit of surveillance for a couple of weeks or a week there and got his habits and

history down. And, and then, you know, they had set it up on that Sunday and they approached him that Sunday morning when he, he was third shift guy. He got off work and came home and our Brian and Clint approached him when he pulled up to the front of his residence there in Grebel that Sunday morning and very politely, you know, he, so here's who we are. Very non aggressive style, just, you know, in an unmarked vehicle. We'd like to talk to you. I didn't tell him why, if we could, and would you be willing to come down and talk to us? Sure. No questions. No, that's unusual. You would think you'd at least ask what's it about, you know, none. So trip down to Fort Wimpedee downtown and then you know, the rest of us were there in the other room,

observing a bunch of us and couldn't have gone any better. Brandized, completely agreed to talk to us freely. And as has been reported in the news media several times, he, after randomizing, was for, for everybody involved, the only, probably the only good thing John Miller ever did was at least tell us what happened and was more than willing to do so. Immediately was, you know, one of the first questions that Brian asked him was, you know why we're here? Yeah, it's probably about April Tinsley. You know, that's, there was a, for me, but from the other people in the room, I can probably most likely have the same feeling. That's a good feeling to have when you, when that's the first thing he says, because you know he's going to be cooperative. When you ask him,

why are we here? And he says, April Tinsley, you know, he's going to tell you, he's not guarded at all about it. He's, he's resided himself to the fact that if he ever, he probably has thought about this in the past, if he ever got in the situation, he's just going to tell him. I'm sure he's thought about this a million times in 30 years. So he, he's going to talk and he did. So and what did, I mean, what, as much as you can tell us, what did he say? I mean, well, he, he answered the questions we had. He admitted the fact that he had kidnapped her, abducted her off the street and killed her in basically the same day. And then eventually dumped her body up into Calp County. He just told us the details of what he did. Did we know why? Like, did he know her? Was

it? No, he had no connection to her. He just, it was just an opportunity crime, crime of opportunity. Was he planning on abducting somebody that day or just drove by and saw her? I mean, the indications we got from his interview was that he, not, he wasn't planning on abducting somebody that day. He just, he had, for lack of a better term, he had that desire inside of him to do that, not just on that day, but he just had it. It's in him. So I don't think it was planned. He didn't know her. We have no indication. He didn't tell us that, I don't believe he did either. I don't believe he had any indication. He was going to be there. It just happened. He was just there at the time and there she is. So that, you know, like I say, the only good thing John

Miller did was at least tell us what happened. So we did to answer some questions. So I mean, that was a great day. It was a horrible day. It was a great day, if you know what I mean. Fortunately, he gave us everything we needed to know. That's good. Answered a lot of questions for the family. It doesn't make it even the slightest bit easier. Never, it never will get easier. It's always just, you know, the loss of kids. Unfortunately, I've dealt with a lot of parents that have lost kids through many ways. Traffic accidents, homicides, natural deaths, whatever, but it's, I don't, I don't think there's even, being a parent, I don't believe there's an argument. It is probably the worst thing you could ever go through is to lose a child. I don't think there's

anything worse than having to deal with that. So it doesn't make it any easier on them, but it, I'm sure it certainly is least welcomed that there's maybe some justice now. And there, there has been that the prosecutor's office did a great job. Got a, in my opinion, a very appropriate plea for John considering age, health, etc. And, you know, he's a little over me is 57 or eight or nine somewhere in that ballpark, you know, basically got a 40 year sentence. Okay. I know there was some discussion about the death penalty. There's a lot of, a lot of things that have to go into that. A lot of things to think about. And I know it's very difficult for the family. I know they would like to see that. I understand, I certainly understand their side of it. So I, I mean,

it was, you could feel, I mean, when we, we arrested him on Sunday and by Sunday afternoon, it had hit the news media that we had arrested. And as you can imagine, of course, we know it for two weeks, but nobody else did it. It just was a huge story. And, you know, within two weeks was on the Today show and all because of the process and because that case is a big one. That case was, you know, Nick Mick, the National Center for Missing and Children is that was way up on their radar for a long time. The appretends the case was they had provided some funding to help investigate that case. So that was in one of their top tier cases unsolved for years. So that combined with the fact that a couple, three weeks before that,

the case with the disc jockey in Pennsylvania broke using the same process before us. And we were right in the middle of ours. So it, and that case was the first case, the ones out in Washington got very moderate, almost regional attention. You had to know what you're looking for to find the story that the one in Pennsylvania got national news and we were right at. So it now it's on the radar of all these national news stations that this new process is out there. And it's, it's, there's some concern about it. People are, you know, there's some privacy rights. People are up in arms about it. And there's some concern, but it's unbelievably powerful. It's solving cases that nobody else could solve. It just, it really hit the media big.

And you could sense in the Fort Wayne area the next couple of days, because it was, I mean, woe will be in a huge AM station up there and the, the, the overall span that they get with news coverage and stuff locally. It was just constant news coverage about it and on the local TV stations, you could really feel the relief of the community just in general. And so many people that came out to me and said, man, you know, they had no connection to the K, I mean, none. People from the smaller towns around, you know, Angola where I'm at, that, you know, that didn't really know that much about the case of the one they saw on TV. You could, I mean, they would almost be in tears,

talk about how glad they were that we got the guy. So that was a good feeling in Fort Wayne. And then of course it got to the national level. A lot of that's because of the process that was used. And now it had gotten subtraction. Now everybody wants to know how does this work and how's this going to, you know, Joseph D'Angelo. Okay, we got the Golden State Killer doing this, we got the guy in Pennsylvania and now the third one, big one in the nation, we got the April Tinsley. And then a few weeks later, the one in Wisconsin and now there's been a couple more and then the, another one here in Indiana, but it was really rolling. So it's, it's been fascinating for me. A lot of neat kind of a backstory on the Susie Hope deal. That was kind of, that's very

interesting side story for me that she kind of opened my eyes to what was possible. And I'm a little frustrated with myself because I don't know why we didn't figure this out before. You know, I don't know why a couple, because I mean, I, as I, when I presented this to, when I've trained a bunch of other people, a bunch of our people statewide now, and I've trained the Michigan State Police on it, on how we did it and how the process and science works. I was familiar with fancestry.com. I, back in 2011 or 12, I went on there and signed up and did not do the DNA, just did, did my thing, put the names of the dataverse in and kind of build a family tree on both sides for my parents, wanted to know. So I was familiar with how it works and you get the

little green leaf that pops up if it's a clue and I built my tree, you know, back into the 1600s on one side and as far as I could go on the other. So I knew how, I knew that worked. I'd never done the DNA thing. I knew they did it, but I didn't, I'm a little disappointed. I didn't put two and two together several years ago because it was out there. It was available years ago, probably five to seven years ago. I bet we could have done this. I'm a little disappointed. I didn't, I like to be ahead of things, but there wasn't any Harley and Bels ahead of it either. So we weren't too far off. We're like the fifth case in the country ever. So we were pretty far ahead of the curb. I still wish we would have thought of this in 12 or 13. Now the other thing about it is, if you listen to

CeCe Moore, and she, when she was on 60 Minutes, we're going to go, it's very interesting when she was on there. She, they asked her about that, about why didn't, hadn't this happened before? And she talked about the fact that she didn't care for it when it was first presented to her. She was a private genealogist who found people, she cut her teeth and learned how that business, learned how to find, figure out who people are by any adoption business. People who adopted would come to her and say, okay, I want to find my parents and she would find them. That's how she learned how to do this. She told me that on the phone. She said, I've done thousands of these on adoptions. But she told the people on 60 Minutes that when they, when people first came to me about this

several years ago and said, would you do this for us? Because she was very much at her own TV show. So she was, so that's why she got contacted because she was a national expert on this. And she said, even she said, I didn't care for it initially. I said, no. I think there's privacy issues involved. It's, that's not what I do. I find people's families not, I'm not, I don't solve crimes or find criminals. I just, excuse me, she didn't care for it. But then over time, I think she realized that look at the good it can do if it's done correctly, and you don't use the information incorrectly, and you are very careful, make sure you have the right person. This can be really positive and have very little, if any, negative effect on other people. Because if you

think about it, you know, she was able to identify to us, down to two people, two brothers. And actually, there's a third brother, but he's deceased. He was alive in 88 when it happened, but he was deceased, I believe in 2001, three years before the notes were left. So we kind of, by elimination, well, it's possible he could have been involved, but most likely he did not, because he wasn't even alive when the notes came out in the other DNA samples. So we kind of generally eliminated him because of that. There's very minimal harm done to the other brother. I mean, it's difficult what he's gone through, and he's been helpful to us, but it's tough. But we didn't, you know, there was no rest involved with him at all. He was never charged. He was

simply interviewed. So there's very limited intrusion on the other people involved. If the law enforcement does their job the right way, we just have to make sure we do it right. So I think she realized, and we all do that now, as long as we do our job correctly, it really doesn't do hardly any damage to anybody else. But it does can do a lot of good for the community. You find these people. When you interviewed his brother, did his brother have any suspicions or was he shocked? No, I mean, everybody was shocked. I mean, John Miller's a very quiet guy who kind of kept him himself, lived by himself. So there was no indication from the family that anything like this had gone on. And he truly never did anything else? Not that we're aware of. We asked. So not

that we're aware of. Did he say why he showed back up to write the barn note and then to... Yeah. The barn note and the same reason. Both of those were done just to get some attention. Generally, that's what he said. I mean, both of those things were done to get some attention. He obviously enjoyed some of the attention. So, I mean, there's a big gap there between 89 or not. I think the barn notes were found in 1990 and 2004. It's still 14 years. And you wonder, you know what, but from what he told us in the interview, just looking for some attention. But fortunately for us, he did in 2004 because we probably might not have been here otherwise. But there's a lot of interesting sidebars to that, just to the case alone. But the whole process is

it's unbelievably powerful, what's available now, if it's done correctly. Do you guys have any intention to use this and other? Well, everyone that we can. Everyone that we can. That's awesome. Yeah. I mean, there's no reason not to. As long as you follow the rules and do it correctly, the legal challenges to it are going to be very minimal because of the way you do it. You know, if you're going, if something, if somebody is going to challenge something, the court will say a piece of evidence that's used. You know, they have to have a reason to challenge and there have to be some usually previous precedent set that would make it inadmissible or a new one that you might not foresee. But still, the thing in law enforcement,

just in general terms, is you never want to go to a court and get some type of a court order like a search warrant or a subpoena. The only way you ever do that is if the information you're providing them is 100% accurate to the best of your knowledge. Okay. And as long as you do that, it's going to be admissible as long as you follow the rules. In cases like this, since it's new, the process is new. And using a genealogy website, we don't know where that's going to go in the courts. We've took our attorneys and we felt comfortable that look, it's a public free website and it says on it very clearly, anyone has access, anybody can have access to this. So it's not like they're hiding it. It's almost like if you just volunteer to give your information to

somebody else's website and they say, hey, this is public. You give us your whole family tree and everything. Anybody can look at this, including the police. Okay, you have. So if I go look, I can't really argue with me that I violated your rights of privacy because you gave them up. So we felt comfortable there. You never know what a court might say, but if you limit, if you still stick within the normal parameters and law enforcement, what we think about as far as admissibility on evidence and can we use and can we not use this. If you go get a court order or a search warrant subpoena, that's different than if you do a trash poll, where it's abandoned, that's that cell law, it's abandoned property. The courts have said that for years, that's been

good to go. So we know that's good to go. So if you can obtain a DNA sample that way, do it that way because it really limits your opportunity for a court challenge against it because the courts were decided that's perfectly legal. Whereas if you would go, let's say we took all this genealogy information and put it into a search warrant without doing the trash poll and then went and got a search warrant based on genealogy information. Well, we don't know. It might be fine, but we don't know because it's new. A court might say, I don't like that. So why don't risk that. Just do what you know you can do legally. Even if you have to follow the person around the way until they throw their water bottle away. That's perfectly legal. We know that. So if you just do it right and use

your head, using the rules of evidence that we have available to us, should be fine. So that's what we did and that's what we would always do. Do you know if it was him that submitted his DNA or like how far removed was it? I do know off the top of my head, I can't remember, but there were there were members on both sides of his family's mother and father's side, both that somebody had submitted to Jedmatch directly. It's got to be terrifying for people who like, I mean, they should be terrified, but who did this? And even if they're not submitting their DNA, their families are going to out them. It's terrifying. It's great. Yeah. I mean, I haven't had a single person yet come up to me and say, I don't like this. Not one. I know I've heard a few on the radio and a few on

TV, but I have not a single person in any community. And I spoke to people all over Indiana and Michigan about this now and some other places that came about me and said, man, this is a bad idea. Everybody says this is awesome. Yeah, for crime solving, I think you could get to a weird place. I really think that and this is not a new idea. I just through research, I think, because the question is, what do we do? Do we, if you've noticed here in the past month, there's been a somewhat a big development with familytree.com that entered into the agreement with the FBI. Google that. They just entered into a formal agreement with the FBI to access some of their information. Okay, now that's interesting because I wondered, where's this going? Jedmatch has 650,000 people in it,

small website. As a genealogist website school, it's a little one. And we're getting matches one after another out of Jedmatch. That tells you how powerful a small amount is. Okay, accessory.com, 23 me, 7 million people, 8 million people, those things, 10 times bigger. Think about, I mean, that's 100% match. I guarantee it. That covers the whole country. I guarantee one of those covers everybody in the entire country. Your family's family members in there and DNA could not hide from anybody in that. There's no way. So we got to be careful with that. But how do you, it's going to be upsetting to some people to say, Hey, don't, that's a private website. It's different. That's private. You pay to be in that one. I don't know. I want you to, I mean, there's a lot of

things to talk about her, but look, the idea has been floated. I think it's a great one. What's wrong with just creating a free public website? Anybody that wants to help out law enforcement, you would have millions of people put their information. If every, there's half a million sworn policemen in this country, that's almost the size of the jet match. You take all the other first responders, the firemen, the EMS people, the prosecutor's office, coroner's offices, all the retired law enforcement, uh, anybody in the middle, anybody who, and all the other general members of the public who want to be on the right side of things and say, Hey, you can have my DNA. Here it is. We would have millions of people on that thing in no time.

And you give me a website with 3 million people in it. I got everybody. That's, that's a good way to look at this to do it. I think because that way everybody's donating publicly and saying, please, I want to help. I think that's a great way to look at this. I would love to see, I know there's, there has been discussion before I said that this is not a new idea about that. I would love to see that get some traction through maybe NICMIC, some organization like that that's got a lot of credibility that has already has some websites built that would, Hey, if you want to do this, here's our site, send it, you know, send the, we got these, the kits are generic, get a DNA kit, we can send it in, we'll

SNP format it, and we're going to upload your information in there with your permission, and we're going to let law enforcement access it. And then law enforcement can get our stuff tested on the SNP side as opposed to the SCR site. We can do both, but if we got enough, we can do the SNP side, and then we can just upload the results right into that website. And boom, it's going to tell us, it's going to give us family members, or very close family members. And then we can, then we got to do genealogy thing. We got to have access to people who have the really good experience and are highly trained genealogists to narrow it down for us. That takes, that's, that's a skill that is not for the weekend genealogist. That's for somebody

who's a professional to make sure you're getting it right. If you talk to CC Morris, she'll tell you, you go into most people's family trees, there's mistakes in there. They get it wrong. Because a lot of that information is based on other people's family trees. See, they're using, if I go ahead and build mine, Ancestry.com then goes ahead and uses my information that I've built, saying that these are my relatives. They combine that with all these other family trees, they're intermixed with mine, and they'll use it for another person as well. These three family trees show that they're, so this guy's probably, she'll tell you, there's mistakes in there because you've got people that aren't professional doing it. So that's why you have to be very careful and

dot every i across every t. You got to look up the marriage records, birth records, census, that you got to, let's make sure this is the right person and these are their parents and then their grandparents, let's make sure and that's why she is so good at it and the professionals need to do that. Knowing that it takes such a professional, are you guys limited? I know you said you want to do this for as many cases as you can. Are you limited to how many you can submit? Is there like any process right now where people are going through and like cataloging all the cases this could apply to or is it just? Well, I know since I've been around traveling around the state for the last eight months training our guys on this, everybody pretty much from our department and a lot of other

departments now are aware of how this works and what they need for their case to qualify. You've got to have extra sample. So if you have a case where you've used up all the sample already, there's nothing, it does not apply, you cannot use it in this case. So that eliminates a lot of cases. I mean there's, there's not going to be a ton of cases that this applies to. Right now, the way we're using it. So our people know for the most part what cases are going to apply to it and what aren't, at least by today's standards. That some of that could change and the question becomes, okay, how far to, for the most part, we're using on homicides and very serious crimes, but 10 years down the road, burglaries. Guy breaks into a house, breaks out a window and cuts himself,

there's two drops of blood. Okay, that's what we need. We have a single source DNA sample. In other words, there's only one person's single source. We can SNP that, put it in jetmatch or maybe we have our own site by then and it's going to tell us family members. So there's, I mean, I can see down the road where we can use it for a little bit lower level crimes because it's available and it's very effective. Holy cow, is it effective? So Crazy. Combine that with CODIS and you pretty much covered everybody now. Literally. So it's, it's just very interesting. Are you guys planning to use it? You know, not that you have new cases, you're getting like, you have fresh evidence. Do you have to decide CODIS or 23 and me and

do you lean more together? Well, those are, we, those are questions that we're kicking around. I've had in my trainings with other officers and detectives and that question has come up and we've talked about it. We'll see. That's, that is, there can be decisions made down the road about that have to be made about that. If we have a small amount, which, which way do we test it? Those discussions are being had and I encourage all our guys statewide that if you get a case like this, that's, you need to have a very serious discussion amongst the investigative group in the prosecutor's office about, okay, if we have a very limited sample and we're going to use it up. Now, DNA, if it's strong DNA, like blood or something like that, or it's strong, you know,

we can do very small amounts and get a full profile on the SDR side. So I've told them, I said, don't, don't get too concerned about that. Cause if you have a drop of blood, you got enough, in my opinion for both, cause it takes such a small amount to do SDR that what's left over is going to be enough to do S&P. So, but it's certainly a discussion to be had if you have a very small amount. Where do we want to put our cards here? Which side are we going? This side here is pretty interesting. It's very powerful. You look at the number of people it's covering compared to the number of people's covering code. It's not even close. I guess my first response is this one works really well. I'm not sure if we need to bother right now. We can, I would take both, trust me,

more the better, but this one really works. We've proven that and now it's been proven about six more times since ours. Everybody knows now this thing works. I can't thank Captain Smith enough for sitting down with me. I hope you all have enjoyed this update episode. It is wonderful to see what's coming for law enforcement and I hope the future of law enforcement means a lot more update episodes like this. We will be back next week with a brand new episode. Crime Junkie is an audio chuck production. So what do you think Chuck? Do you approve?