EXPLORE WITH US
Predator Realizes He's Going To Prison For Life: The Case of Mark Gooch
Predator realizes he's going to prison for LIFE...
The following podcast episode is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information in this presentation without speaking to a licensed attorney.
No one discussed in these videos has been formally diagnosed by EWU and our psychological analysis is based on the general behaviors and traits of the people discussed.
Predator realizes he's going to prison for LIFE...
The following podcast episode is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information in this presentation without speaking to a licensed attorney.
No one discussed in these videos has been formally diagnosed by EWU and our psychological analysis is based on the general behaviors and traits of the people discussed.
When a young Mennonite woman was found dead in Arizona. Okay, has it done.
Speaker 3:He has it, he has it, let's go.
Speaker 1:The police were desperate to discover why someone would take her several hours away from her home in New Mexico only to shoot her dead and dumper body.
Speaker 2:Get off the car. Get off the car, step back now.
Speaker 1:Little did they know that, as they worked with the Mennonite community to solve this terrible crime, authorities would end up discovering a decade's worth of unsolved crimes, all leading back to one depraved man. Get your hands up. Step away from the car.
Speaker 1:On February 22, 2020, cynthia Schultz was pleasantly spending her morning collecting firewood for her camp at the Sunset Crater National Park, around 20 miles from Flagstaff, arizona. While out, cynthia spotted a woman lying face down in the dirt. Thinking something might be wrong, she called out to the woman. However, when she didn't respond, cynthia had a horrifying revelation the woman was dead. Cynthia alerted the authorities and soon the area was swarmed with police trying to get to the bottom of this tragedy. We didn't move her nothing. He just stayed and went and looked, checked her and okay rigid as a ring of mortars.
Speaker 3:She was real stiff, cold.
Speaker 1:It was immediately clear to the detectives that this case was a homicide, as the victim had a gunshot wound to the head and her hands were bound together with duct tape. As they inspected the body closer, they noticed that the victim was wearing very modest and traditional clothes, which made them suspect she might be a Mennonite. Mennonites are a Christian denomination that practice a conservative lifestyle, dedicating themselves to their religion and only using technology that strictly necessary, such as basic phones. Through forensic comparisons, the police were able to identify the mysterious victim, his 27-year-old Sasha Krause, a Mennonite woman who had gone missing from New Mexico on January 18th, over a month before she was discovered. While police may have finally been able to give their victim a name, it was now time to uncover her horrific story and find out the truth about how she ended up murdered in a national park nearly 300 miles from her home. Through interviews and investigation, the police were able to determine that Sasha was a Sunday School teacher who had worked and lived on the lamp and light compound, a Mennonite community in Farmington, new Mexico. On the night of her disappearance, Sasha was making a quick late-night stop by the Sunday School to finish an errand. When she failed to come home that night. Sasha's roommates alerted the community and the police were soon involved.
Speaker 1:Unfortunately, the case had hit a dead end fairly soon after beginning, and it seemed like Sasha had simply vanished into thin air. However, not only did authorities now have Sasha's body, they were also able to recover her phone, a key piece of evidence that could likely point them in the direction of their killer. Through phone records, the police were able to deduce that Sasha hadn't just vanished, she'd been kidnapped. As her kidnapper drove her to Arizona, sasha's phone could be seen pinging off of select phone towers before it died Throughout her entire trip to Arizona. There was only one other device pinging off of those same towers, and it belonged to a man named Mark Gooch. Mark Gooch was an airman working at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona and at first glance, it appeared he had nothing in common with Sasha outside of his cell phone records. Nevertheless, lauren Nagel, the lead detective on the case, traveled to Luke Air Force Base and sat down with Mark for questioning. Detective Nagel introduces herself as Detective Jones, as she got married at some point between this interview and her appearance in court.
Speaker 4:Hi, thank you for your patience. I'm not really about that way. I actually come off with me and then I'll have to stay with the phone call, right? Alright? So I'm Detective Jones with the Sheriff's Office. I'm sure you're wondering what I want to chat with you about. Before some of us fill in, we're just going to go through some procedural stuff first.
Speaker 1:The interview takes place in an interrogation room on Luke Air Force Base and is an ideal setup according to the read technique, a popular method of interrogation. There's no barrier between Detective Nagel and Mark, allowing her to observe all of his movements and non-verbal communication. The walls appear to be bare, which is intentional to minimize distractions. It's also helpful that there's only one detective present, which can make the interview feel less threatening. Additionally, mark is seated near the door, which helps send the message that he's able to leave at any time. This may make him less defensive and more likely to talk. It can also help prevent any false imprisonment claims. Later, detective Nagel and Mark speak briefly about his responsibilities as a mechanic in the Air Force, before the detective asks about Mark's life back home. So what did you do?
Speaker 3:before Air Force, I worked for the diesel mechanic shop for about a year and did construction as well and grew a point for dairy farms. Oh yeah, that's pretty cool.
Speaker 4:Do you have siblings? Yes, man, six. Oh, wow, really, yeah, okay, big family. Tell me about them.
Speaker 3:Like how many brothers and sisters? I have three brothers and three sisters.
Speaker 4:Okay, got it and where are they at now? All over the country, all over. Yes man, are you the youngest?
Speaker 3:Yes man, who would you say you're closest with? I don't know. We kind of got separated pretty good after and everybody started moving out. So you're not close with any of them, though I talk with them on the phone here and there, but I'm probably closest.
Speaker 4:I made my brother back in Wisconsin. Oh God, which brother is that?
Speaker 1:It's Sam Sam. That was him. Mark comes across as a polite, well-mannered airman, but, as we'll see over the course of the interview, this is just a facade.
Speaker 4:So what do you do on your time off?
Speaker 3:I'm playing on my computer. Sometimes I play some games I can watch as possible, but work on my car a lot. I try to stay active, cool.
Speaker 4:Do you go to church or anything like that?
Speaker 3:No man, I go to church close to him.
Speaker 4:Oh, that's close to him. Coronavirus Gotcha. Is that something you did before it closed?
Speaker 3:Yes, ma'am, yes ma'am, I went to the 10th church quite a bit.
Speaker 4:Okay, If you don't want to be asking about that. What kind of religion did you grow up in?
Speaker 3:I grew up in a Christian. I guess the religion I guess is how you call it.
Speaker 4:Christianity is how it was raised. Oh, okay, any specific? Denomination of Christianity.
Speaker 3:Mainly they were called Mennonites. I'm not sure how to deal with it. Oh, not really. Tell me about that. Basically they drive dark color vehicles. They use flip phones when you have internet stuff like that so it was pretty sheltered, pretty sheltered, difficult.
Speaker 1:I got it With this admission. The police now have another unexpected link between Mark and Sasha. They're both Mennonites. When the detective brings up the topic of religion, mark starts to fumble with his words, indicating that the topic of religion may be something Mark doesn't want to talk about.
Speaker 3:In that last six months have you traveled out of state?
Speaker 4:anywhere.
Speaker 3:Yes, ma'am, when I came down here, I drove my car from Wisconsin down here.
Speaker 4:Oh, okay, so you drove from Wisconsin to Phoenix. Correct. Anywhere else.
Speaker 3:Pretty much all Stay in Arizona. I try to do as much hiking as possible.
Speaker 1:Mark doesn't know it yet, but he's just been caught in his first lie, the first of many. Using words like pretty much mostly and similar sentiments are qualifiers and often throw up a red flag to detectives. These words usually indicate half-truths or that there's something the individual may not wish to disclose. In this case, mark's saying that he pretty much stays in Arizona isn't true at all and he's hiding something very big. He also uses filler sounds such as a to delay answering, so he has time to think about his response.
Speaker 4:Again. You're probably wondering. You know why I'm here. So I'm a detective. I'm with Copanino County Sheriff's Office, okay, and I am working a homicide investigation. Okay, there was a girl named Sasha Kraus that was killed, did you hear about that case.
Speaker 3:I've seen it in the news. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 4:Tell me what you know about the case.
Speaker 3:Uh, basically the news report. She was from New Mexico, right, mm-hmm? And she left home a left home late evening and they found her in Northern Arizona, like Flagstaff area, correct, right, all right.
Speaker 4:So that's the case, that I'm working. Any idea now why I want to talk with you at all.
Speaker 3:Probably because I was probably traveling up in New Mexico area, probably.
Speaker 4:Yeah, that's exactly it.
Speaker 1:As the detective reveals why she's here interviewing him, mark begins to show more and more signs that he may be hiding something. When asked what he knows about Sasha Kraus' murder, mark vaguely says that they found her. This is a soft way to describe something as violent as a homicide, and they found her in Northern Arizona. When suspects shy away from using realistic words such as murdered or killed, this can be a red flag for possible deception, as they're minimizing the crime. Additionally, mark uses the qualifier probably three times in eight seconds, probably because I was probably traveling up in New Mexico area probably.
Speaker 4:So we've got these things called license plate readers. Okay, and your vehicle hit a license plate reader in that area. So tell me about that. You were traveling then you. I'm a little confused, because at first you said you hadn't trouble, but now Did you go to New Mexico. Yes, ma'am, your vehicle was picked up on that license plate reader in the general area on the same day actually that she went missing.
Speaker 4:And so what I'm doing at this point is I got to talk to everybody as you can imagine, that's my job Anybody who's in the area, anybody who could have seen something.
Speaker 1:Despite the fact that Mark appears to be intentionally lying, detective Nagel does a great job of calling him out for it while also remaining non-judgmental. She does this in order to keep Mark from feeling threatened and ending the interview, while also not letting him get comfortable in any of the lies he tells. The more someone repeats a lie, the more confident they will become. She also keeps him calm by not telling him the whole truth about why she's there, although she's telling Mark that she's just interviewing everyone who got picked up on a certain license plate reader. We know that Mark is actually her number one suspect and that he was found through phone records. This is just one example of the ways detectives can lie during interviews in order to get a suspect to tell them the truth.
Speaker 4:So why were you in?
Speaker 1:New Mexico that day.
Speaker 3:I was planning on going, so I was checking out many of our churches. I had traveled up to Flagstaff.
Speaker 1:Mark takes a big pause after he says he traveled, followed by his foot twitching, and then he says to Flagstaff, I had traveled up to Flagstaff. This is something called a cadence switch, which is essentially a disruption in the flow and inflection of speech In an interrogation. This can be seen as an indication of something being left out of a story. As the speaker paused and changed their speech pattern, I was hoping that skewer's orb was still open.
Speaker 3:they were closed due to coronavirus starting up, so I figured I'd go check out an online church up in that area. I knew some people from Wisconsin that used to live there and I wanted to go just attend this myth because I really been missing that social life. Is there any?
Speaker 4:reason why you didn't tell me. When I asked you if you've traveled, you didn't mention that to me. Is there a reason you didn't? No, I'm sorry, my memory just.
Speaker 3:I don't know, it used to be entirely day. I'm sorry for failing to mention that, but I was not trying to hide your withholding information. Okay, thanks.
Speaker 1:Once again, mark is caught in a lie. While explaining why he was in New Mexico, he mentions that he was wanting to go skiing. However, the ski resort he drove to, the Arizona Snow Bowl Ski Resort and Flagstaff, was closed due to COVID-19 restrictions. In actuality, the snowball didn't close for COVID until March well after Mark would have been there on January 18th. As he says this, he have shrugs with his right shoulder. It's barely perceptible, but lines up when he says I don't know.
Speaker 1:Internally he does know and is just making excuses, but he's not confident in his memory excuse. Mark is also sitting with his leg crossed in a way that creates a barrier between himself and the detective. He switched to this guarded position after he was asked about traveling. When questioned about why he didn't mention this trip earlier, mark's military formality helps him appear more truthful than he's actually being. He refers to Detective Nagel as ma'am and immediately apologizes for not mentioning the trip because he was tired. Unfortunately for Mark, no matter how polite he is, this omission is definitely a sign that he has a reason to keep this trip a secret, and the detective is certainly picked up on that.
Speaker 4:Do you remember that day then, when you went to?
Speaker 5:New.
Speaker 4:Mexico. So, yeah, I think I remember some of it. So what time about did you leave here to look Air Force Base?
Speaker 3:Probably left fairly early in the morning. And then what time did you say I was in the area?
Speaker 4:I don't have to go grab my. I've got, like the charts, the paper. What time?
Speaker 5:Well, let's again, let's go through the day. So when you say fairly early.
Speaker 4:What does that mean to you?
Speaker 3:I had probably about seven Okay, Seven is when I left the head up there, when something's like that for a while just got some, just stopped, got some fuel, I believe.
Speaker 1:This is one of the last fully truthful statements Mark says while recounting his trip to New Mexico. While he may think he's being sneaky with his lies, Detective Nagel knows a lot more than she's letting on and is ready to catch every lie Mark throws her way.
Speaker 4:Did you go anywhere else while you were in Flagstaff?
Speaker 3:No, no, not on the way up, yeah, pretty much straight driving had a really pretty snow cat mountain up there at that time. So you stopped in Flagstaff, you got gas, and then you think that you drove directly to the church in Fireington. I stopped in Fireington to get some fuel.
Speaker 1:Watch how the detective suddenly starts kicking her foot. Since this discussion is about the scene of the crime, she likely feels a lot of pressure with these questions trying to make sure she gets his story and also has what she needs to confront him later. With all of his deceptive behavior. Already, she's likely fairly certain that he is the person she's looking for, and these are really the high stakes questions.
Speaker 3:About two o'clock in the afternoon I had swung by the church to check their sign and see what kind of services was and they were. I think it was just Sunday.
Speaker 1:At this point in the investigation, Detective Nagel has spent a lot of time at Sasha's church looking for any sign of what happened to her on January 18th. During her entire time there, the detective has never seen any sign, even somewhat similar to the one Mark is claiming to have checked.
Speaker 4:Did you talk to?
Speaker 1:anybody while you were there.
Speaker 3:No, no, there was no one at the church and I didn't want to bother anybody. Did you like it? I don't know, is it?
Speaker 4:a church like what you grew up in or different at all it looked fairly similar, but it's not really the same.
Speaker 3:So I was just a little disappointed with the whole long drive and everything. I didn't really see it was working out long term to make it there.
Speaker 4:Yeah that is a long drive.
Speaker 3:It would be way too far to drive every weekend. So I talked to my friend. He wanted to go hiking on Sunday and I really wanted to make it for that. I worked with him in the shop.
Speaker 4:Who's that?
Speaker 3:friend His name's Kefley.
Speaker 1:Mark claims that he made plans with Kefley to go hiking the following day. However, according to Kefley himself, the two actually went to a swat meet, also known as a flea market.
Speaker 4:From what I'm understanding, it doesn't sound like you were there for very long, no no. And then, where did you go after that?
Speaker 3:I don't remember if I was going to go look for a hike or was. I did a head straight back. I think I started. Once he called me about the hike on Sunday, I think I started heading back.
Speaker 4:He called you Correct While you were over there. Correct, okay.
Speaker 1:According to Mark, kefley called him to discuss plans. However, the phone records disagree with Mark. Mark and Kefley only texted that day and, in fact, the only person that Mark spoke to on the phone was his brother, sam. Not only did Mark and Sam call, but they actually called each other six times for a total of nearly two and a half hours, which is longer than the two had talked on the phone for the last six months combined.
Speaker 4:On the way back home. Did you stop anywhere? I?
Speaker 3:don't know, I might have made it to Phoenix on a full-time counter on that after check Okay.
Speaker 4:So am I understanding correctly, you don't remember stopping anywhere? No, I mean is that fair to say? Yes, ma'am. Okay, do you remember what time you got back here at home?
Speaker 3:It was fairly late. It was probably Probably eight or nine o'clock. It's not a good day. Long day, man yeah.
Speaker 1:Mark makes a lot of lip and mouth movements, here known as micro-expressions. One of the biggest indicators of deception and hiding something is a movement called Disappearing Lips, which Mark demonstrates Once again. Mark's account of the trip contradicts his phone records. While he might say that he went straight home from New Mexico, the records actually show him stopping in Sunset Crater National Park for several hours, with Mark having officially told his story about where he was on the day of Sasha's murder.
Speaker 1:Detective Nagel is noticing more and more red flags. Mark consistently lies, hesitates and supposedly struggles to recall information. When he has asked about stops, he made times and what he was doing at specific points throughout his trip. When a suspect has a memory of extremes meaning their memory is either too good or too bad this is seen as a red flag to detectives. Just over two months have passed since January 18th, so it doesn't make sense that Mark is struggling so much to recall basic information about his trip. Given that this trip was pretty out of the ordinary for him, the trip should actually stick out in his mind even more.
Speaker 5:What do you think should happen to the person that did that to?
Speaker 4:Sondra.
Speaker 3:Sondra is Like what are?
Speaker 4:you getting at there? If we caught the person who killed her, what should happen to him?
Speaker 3:Well, he should probably live a lot of youth or maybe the Manai community has a way of doing things differently.
Speaker 1:In the read technique, this line of questioning is known as the punishment question, and it can be a good indicator of deception. Individuals who give vague answers are more likely to be deceptive than those who answer with strong, definitive punishments. Mark pauses for an incredibly long time after being asked what he thinks should happen to Sasha's killer, and he eventually settles on. I don't know. This is the exact type of vague answer that sets off alarm bells for detectives when it comes to the punishment question. After a few more questions, detective Nagel tells Mark that she's going to step out for just a few minutes to review her notes. After letting Mark stew for 10 minutes, detective Nagel comes back in and gets ready to really take Mark's story apart and figure out what exactly it is that he's lying about.
Speaker 4:On the way back. What time did you come back through the gate it?
Speaker 3:was dark, possibly eight or nine part of, probably later than, I'm not sure.
Speaker 4:What's a reasonable time frame? You're saying around eight or nine. What's the latest. You think you possibly came through that gate.
Speaker 3:Probably could have been one or two. Eight or nine or one or two is probably the most time frame that I can think of. It was dark when I came through.
Speaker 4:It's kind of a big time frame there, though I understand 8pm to 2am is pretty different, I understand, so you want to stick with that.
Speaker 1:Yes, ma'am. Now that Detective Nagel has informed Mark, his story doesn't add up. It's likely that he's going to respond with even less specifics than he was before, hence his six hour time span. If Mark is adamant that he got home at 8pm, but then video footage shows otherwise, it will reflect badly on his credibility. On the other hand, if he admits that it was 2am when he got home, then there's a large chunk of time that's completely unaccounted for between Mark leaving the church and arriving home. While Mark might be trying to avoid getting caught in a lie by avoiding specifics, in actuality this just makes him even more suspicious.
Speaker 4:So what if I told you that the time that you came in the gate that morning was 6.53 in the morning?
Speaker 7:I would not guess it was that late.
Speaker 4:That's a long time, yes, ma'am. So how do you explain that?
Speaker 3:I stopped and slept in the car. I went over the back. I had trouble staying awake, tried to stop and sleep multiple times, but that's, can I go to sleep? It was cold. Okay, I went right back.
Speaker 1:Okay, now Mark has to scramble to fill in the gaps that Detective Nagel is pointing out. Mark claimed he left at 7 in the morning on January 18th and, according to the detective's records, he didn't get home until nearly that same time the following morning. Not only is this around 10 hours after the original time Mark gave for when he got home, but it's almost 5 hours after the revised time he gave. It's also highly suspicious that he has never mentioned this supposed nap he took in his car on the way home, and it definitely comes across that Mark is doing anything he can to try and cover up his lies.
Speaker 4:Have you gone to Flagstaff any more than that one time?
Speaker 3:No, ma'am, except when I, possibly when I came down from Wisconsin to Lut I don't remember which route I took Okay, so after that this New Mexico trip, you have not gone back up to Flagstaff again. Is that right?
Speaker 1:No, not to my knowledge. Mark, saying not to my knowledge doesn't make sense here, because how could he travel somewhere without his knowledge? This is a selective memory statement, but in this situation it also just doesn't even fit with the statement, and he would have been better off going with I'm not sure, or I don't think so, or some other selective memory statement. He must be starting to really feel some anxiety about this, because his thought processes are less logical and his word choices aren't great.
Speaker 4:So I know that you went back up to Flagstaff a couple days later and I've got a couple different ways to confirm that, like your gate checkouts and evidence that you were up in Flagstaff, so did you go back to Flagstaff for some reason a couple days later?
Speaker 3:Possibly, went for a drive. Went to go.
Speaker 1:I don't remember when asked about going to Flagstaff. Again, mark hesitates for a long time before answering. Significant delays can be a red flag for deception. Some questions require thought, so it would make sense for someone to stop and think before answering. However, it doesn't take this much thought to remember if you recently went to a town two hours away from where you live, meaning that Mark's hesitation just comes off as suspicious. Clearly Mark isn't going to be truthful about what he was really up to on January 18th. So Detective Nagel changes gears and starts asking Mark Moore about his Mennonite connection to Sasha.
Speaker 4:Earlier, when we were talking, you mentioned how, when you're not born into the Mennonite church, we use that word outsider. You're kind of an outsider compared to people who are born in Sasha was like that too. Did you know that? No, her family was not born into Mennonite church, so I'm wondering if you're willing to kind of tell me I noticed you seemed. I just saw a little bit of emotion in you when we talked about that. Is there something that happened to you in the. Mennonite church that upsets you.
Speaker 3:Not really. It's just a way of life. I didn't really like it. I was happy to be out of it. My parents left the church.
Speaker 1:By stating not really. He's denying. Anything happened to him, but not strongly. By using a qualifying statement instead of just saying no. It suggests that there is something, but he doesn't want to talk about it.
Speaker 4:So, mark, what I do for a living is talk to people. I just feel like I can read people. I know, I don't know you, I'm not going to even retide, I do, but there's something there. Is it just something you don't want to talk about? Something that happened that made you leave the church.
Speaker 3:No, I pretty much left the church, with my parents deciding to leave.
Speaker 1:Mark uses another qualifier, but what is more interesting are his lip movements. It seems like his lip movements are his fidgeting behaviors, but he's probably had some training about not showing anxiety, both in the home he grew up in as well as in the military, so he doesn't have a lot of the bigger nonverbal cues that we look for. Yet these lip movements, which continue to return to the disappearing lips, make it clear that he's withholding information. It's almost like he's trying to hold in whatever it is he really wants to say. While Mark may be playing it cool, the detective knows he's hiding something.
Speaker 1:Before this interview even began, Detective Nagel was able to go through Mark's text messages and saw some concerning things regarding his views on Mennonites. In a text conversation, Mark and Sam are told by their brother, Jacob, a Virginia State trooper, that he had just given two Mennonites a speeding ticket. Mark and Sam are both overjoyed to hear this, and Mark even says that he hopes that Jacob treated the Mennonites like sh**. Sam makes a point of calling the Mennonites cultists, giving some insight into how he and his brothers feel about the religion. In another conversation between just Mark and Sam, Mark tells Sam that his surveillance on the Arizona Mennonites that morning was boring. The use of the word surveillance was incredibly alarming to authorities. Include them into the fact that he may have been planning some kind of attack on the community for quite a while.
Speaker 4:We have a detective talking to you, sam, right now. Okay, in Wisconsin, okay, and so. I want you to know that, for this main reason, sam's telling us some stuff and you're talking to me and I want to just make sure you know what both of you guys are telling us.
Speaker 1:Lines up and what I know a little bit about from what.
Speaker 4:Sam said is sounds like something's going on here as far as, like, maybe you have hard feelings against the Mennonite Church or maybe like a grudge or something like that.
Speaker 3:So let me get this straight. You're trying to. You're talking to Sam right now, huh? So it sounds like I need to get a lawyer because you're trying to pin something on me.
Speaker 4:Well, I read you your rights at the beginning of this. Yes, ma'am, and I'd like to see a lawyer now. You would like to speak with the lawyer? Yes, ma'am, okay. So I'm not going to ask you any more questions, then I am going to have you sit here for a few minutes and then I'm going to kind of explain to you what else is going on today. Okay, yes, ma'am, okay, you go with that lawyer. Correct All right.
Speaker 1:Detective Nagel is using a bit of the prisoner's dilemma technique, pinning one suspect against the other. We see him do a big anchor point movement immediately after, and his illustrators don't line up with his words. As soon as the detective leaves the room, mark unbarriers his legs. Detective Nagel's comments clearly struck a nerve with Mark and for the first time we see him change his reaction and become stern. He clearly doesn't like that. His brother is also being interviewed. Perhaps Mark has good reason to fear that Sam will say too much to the cops, as while Sam refused to answer the majority of questions during his brief interview he did say one thing that caught Detective's attention. Not only did Sam claim that Mark had a grudge against Mennonites, but when asked if he knew why the cops were questioning him, sam ominously replied no, but that he knew his brother and how. He is giving police even more reason to be suspicious of Mark. With his interview concluded, mark was served several search warrants for his phone, apartment and car, all of which proved to be very enlightening to the authorities. The first thing investigators noticed when looking at Mark's car was how spotless it was. Upon further inspection, they were able to recover a receipt that showed Mark had gotten his car heavily detailed on February 23rd, the day after it was announced to the public that Sasha's body had been found. Additionally, the police also discovered some black nitrile gloves in the car alongside some suspicious stains.
Speaker 1:Now the detectives are finally able to scour Mark's phone. More inconsistencies begin to pop up. According to his deletion records, mark had deleted several files and documents from his Google account early in the morning of January 19th, after returning home from his New Mexico trip. He also deleted several texts with Sam where he discussed getting his car detailed, stating that he wanted the detailers to clean the interior. Really well, with several concerning, if somewhat circumstantial, things found in Mark's phone and car, they had enough to detain him. However, police still didn't have enough evidence to actually connect Mark to Sasha's killing, never mind justifying arrest and guarantee a conviction. There was still the puzzling question of why. As there was no clear motive why Mark would have killed Sasha, investigators soon began interviewing and interrogating the people closest to him in the hopes that they could shed some light on the case. First, they started with Alex Golub, mark's good friend from basic training. For the most part, alex said that Mark seemed completely normal throughout their friendship. However, there was one odd moment, alex mentioned, that really stuck out to detectives.
Speaker 4:Has Mark ever talked about killing people to you?
Speaker 6:No, ma'am, Just the texts that we did have. We weren't going to go spec ops together and we were kind of looking at Takvi and he mentioned in one of the texts that something like it would he'd be happy to get paid for people.
Speaker 1:But, I was just like oh, I mean that's kind of like a huge thing.
Speaker 6:It's just a weird thing to say. So I was like, oh, that's just huge and also, you know, it's the enemy. So I mean I don't really take it as like he's wanting to kill an innocent. It's more like the enemy.
Speaker 4:Okay, these are exactly what you're referring to. Probably the highlighted conversation between you guys Is that what you were just talking about.
Speaker 6:Let's go Takvi together. Yes, ma'am, do you have the one where it says he yes?
Speaker 4:Versus. I would like to get paid to kill people. And I don't have the next page, but from what I recall of that conversation, you guys, like you didn't say whoa man, that's weird, or you know, you guys kind of just went on.
Speaker 6:I think I just typed his name in all caps because that's what I would always say If he said something just like strange While Alex laughed off Mark's comment.
Speaker 1:there's no denying that it's concerning. This text from Mark implies that he may have been harboring these sorts of morbid desires long before targeting Sasha.
Speaker 6:It was all it was about respect to like one guy in our sister class. He had his feet up on the desk one day and Gwich was like, oh, he should probably get your feet off the desk. And the other dude made, you know, a snarky comment like oh, you're telling me what to do, kind of thing. And I can tell that Gwich got pretty mad at that. I was like calm down.
Speaker 1:From Alex's story about Mark we can see some indications that Mark may struggle with anger control. The story is also indicative of excessive rigidity. People who are very rigid when it comes to social rules may often get into confrontations with others because they can't cope with seeing any rule breaking behaviors they deem inappropriate. While this might seem contradictory at first, given the accusations against Mark, he may feel that the rules don't apply to him. This is a trait typically found in individuals with antisocial personality disorder.
Speaker 4:How do you remember Mark reacting to stress?
Speaker 6:Just stiff as a board, very, very disciplined. Never you know, never screamed back, never lost his cool kind of thing. You'd see his face get red, but I thought he was just embarrassed.
Speaker 1:Alex describes Mark as stiff as a board and mentions his face turning red. These traits, in conjunction with how we saw Mark acting during his interview, could be signs that he's emotionally cut off. This is another trait that's common among individuals with antisocial personality disorder and is tied to their overall lack of empathy. While these few indicators certainly aren't enough to give Mark a full diagnosis, they can give us some insight into how he might think. As investigators question those around Mark, they learn something very interesting that could blow this case wide open. According to Kemper Keppley, mark's best friend at Luke Air Force Base, mark had secretly kept a gun on base for several months. However, he'd recently given the gun to another friend to store off base. Detectives were quick to track this gun down and bring it in for testing, which showed that it was the same caliber as the bullet that killed Sasha. However, while the police were in possession of Mark's gun, the case took a turn. None of the investigators were expecting.
Speaker 1:The detective is fine, with Kemper working with Sam to get some of Mark's belongings. However, he does have one request.
Speaker 1:Within a week of this call with Kemper, detectives were notified that Sam had reached out to Jeremiah Levesque, the last person who had Mark's gun before it was given to the police. While working with Jeremiah, the police listened in on a phone call between him and Sam, where Sam made plans to travel across state lines to Arizona in order to dispose of Mark's gun before the police could get it. In the call, sam told Jeremiah considering what's going on, if you're comfortable, I would say, get rid of the gun any way you deem fit. If not, I will deal with it whenever I get there. Jeremiah was then able to arrange a meetup point with Sam where they planned to trade Mark's gun. However, unbeknownst to Sam, jeremiah had been given a replica gun by the police and officers were going to be covertly hidden around the meetup site waiting to make their arrest. Target truck pulled into the second parking spot.
Speaker 6:Okay.
Speaker 1:I got it. I can't my phone. Where's your phone?
Speaker 4:Oh s***, Target is getting back in his car.
Speaker 1:Target has the gun.
Speaker 3:He has it. He has it, let's go, go, go go.
Speaker 4:Jared's office. Get out of the car.
Speaker 2:Turn off the car, step out now Get your hands up. Step away from the car, step towards me.
Speaker 1:Turn away from me now. Get on your knees. Get on your knees, put your hands behind your head. Passanger, get out of the car. Passanger in the back, get out of the car. With their sting operation successful and Sam Gooch arrested, it was time for the detectives to find out why Sam was so set on disposing of Mark's gun. Detective Troy Short was sent in to interrogate Sam and he was immediately met with resistance. You want to start from the beginning, kind of.
Speaker 7:I believe you think I know more than I do, and I'm so explaining what that means.
Speaker 5:You don't want to know what if I know more than you do? Help me understand that.
Speaker 7:I don't think this is going to be a productive conversation for me, and I Do you want to tell me about tonight?
Speaker 5:Yes, sir, okay. If you want to tell me why you guys can meet halfway across the country to pick up a gun. Yes, sir, okay. Do you understand why you're here in the room? Yes, sir, here's the deal. Sam, a part of me even feels bad right now because, like I told you back in Wisconsin, you weren't in focus, you weren't in a suspect, and now, because of some bad choices, you're in some serious trouble. Now, this serious is Mark. What do you mean? You know what I mean. He's in some serious, serious trouble, and I try to explain that to you back there. Is there anything you can do to help yourself right now, or help yourself out of this mess? Right?
Speaker 7:I'm much of a light too. I frankly do not believe you have my best interest in mind, and I do not think discussing this with you would be helpful.
Speaker 1:While Sam may be refusing to give the detective the answers he's looking for, he has yet to actually invoke his Miranda rights, whether or not Sam knows this. Refusing to answer a line of questioning is not enough to stop an interrogation and get a lawyer. We can see that Sam is being very cautious in how he responds to detective short when he pauses to take a sip of water after being asked a question. It's likely that he was doing this as a stalling tactic to allow himself time to carefully pick his words. Sam appears to have some prior knowledge about interrogations. As he is correct that the detective doesn't have the suspect's best interests in mind, he appears reluctant to speak as he likely doesn't want to incriminate himself or his brother further by saying the wrong thing.
Speaker 5:Why did he call you for this extensive period of time on that specific day, specific to the day that he's under arrest for murder? You know what I mean Extensive amount of phone calls that day for a labored amount of time, completely outside the normal of you guys' normal communication process. Why are you in Arizona? Why did you fly after across the country? Why did you obtain a new phone with a new phone number to do this? Why are you here picking up a gun that you know belongs to Mark? If you don't know what he did, then why would you do that? You know what he allegedly did. I didn't understand that. So you know he allegedly murdered somebody, correct? Okay? So why are you picking up a gun that belonged to him? Specifically when I told you when I interviewed you back in Wisconsin, do you know Mark has any guns? And you were like, no, I don't think he's allowed to have more bays. Do you know what I mean? Yes, sir.
Speaker 7:So what's the deal? Hey, would you like to collect all Mark's possessions as possible, if that gun is his?
Speaker 1:possession. How about you collect that as well? Sam refuses to tell the detective why he tried to dispose of Mark's gun, but there are a few possible explanations. Mark claimed that Sam was his closest brother. It's possible that he called Sam and used their close relationship to convince Sam he had to get rid of the gun, not because Mark killed someone, but because police thought he did. It's more than evident that Sam has a distrust of law enforcement, so it would make sense for Mark to pray upon this feeling in order to persuade his brother that if Sam didn't dispose of this weapon, the police were going to frame Mark for something he didn't do.
Speaker 5:It's. Attempted destruction of an incident Can't bring with events. Attempted Henry prosecution I mean there's two felonies in there like this is a big deal. So do you want to help me understand it? Do you want to explain it to me? Do you want to?
Speaker 7:I don't think so. What is next in this process? The next part you go to jail. Okay, the way I see it. Talking and discussing this with you, we will use it against me to take these charges stick.
Speaker 1:Um and defer the criminal mark. Since Sam clearly understands how his words could be used against him, it's odd that he's still agreeing to sit here rather than asking for an attorney, who are outright refusing to respond. It's possible that his curiosity got the better of him and he wants to find out how much the detectives know about Mark's crime. It's also possible that Sam is afraid and feels that if he at least agrees to sit in the interrogation room he may be able to dodge the consequences of having helped Mark With Sam's interview with a stalemate. The detectives are forced to look elsewhere for information. Throughout their entire investigation, the one thing they haven't been able to deduce clearly is motive. Was this just a random killing or was there something more at play here? While it's clear that Mark had some sort of grudge against Mennonites, it made no sense that someone with no prior criminal history would suddenly plan an elaborate murder six hours away from their home and target someone they'd never even heard of before. At least, that's what Detective Nagel thought until she spoke with some Mennonites from Wisconsin and discovered that Mark's past wasn't quite as clean as it seemed. In a phone interview with Mark's former pastor, james Luke Martin, detective Nagel learned that no one at Mark's former church was surprised to learn that he'd now been arrested in connection with such a heinous crime, as Mark had a reputation for taking revenge on others. Mark had also allegedly been involved in several robberies at the church. When the church tried to punish him for his involvement, his parents stepped in and decided to leave the church for being too critical of Mark. However, this was not the end of Mark's criminal activities.
Speaker 1:While living with his sister in Pennsylvania, mark was accused of stealing money from the local Mennonites. Soon after, everyone who accused Mark of stealing money discovered that their car suspiciously stopped working. After investigating further, these Mennonites found that sand had been placed into the oil pans of their cars, causing their engines to stop working, while those affected weren't able to prove it was Mark who put the sand there. It doesn't seem like a coincidence, given his interest in mechanics and apparent taste for revenge. Detective Nagel then spoke to Jonathan Martin, the son of Mark's pastor, who provided further examples of Mark getting caught stealing. Jonathan even said that when he was angry, mark would prowl around the Mennonite community to see what he could find. After speaking with Jonathan's son, detective Nagel learned that Mark had allegedly robbed the Martin's family store. However, charges were never pressed due to the fact that the store security camera had its memory card stolen, so there was never visual proof of Mark being the one who robbed the store, while there may not have been any evidence of Mark's involvement at the time of the robbery. Detective Nagel was able to actually find the security footage from that robbery on Mark's own phone, and it showed a man with Mark's hide and build robbing the store. In one of the photos, a car that looks suspiciously like Mark's could be seen in the background. With these photos, detective Nagel had what appeared to be tangible proof that these accusations against Mark weren't just hearsay.
Speaker 1:Eventually, the detective got a hold of Jared Ulrich, a man who claimed to be Mark's partner in crime in the past. Jared openly confessed to Detective Nagel about all the robberies he'd allegedly committed with Mark, and he described in detail how Mark would try to frame other people in the community for their crimes. There definitely seemed to be evidence that Jared may have been telling the truth, as a series of texts were found on Mark's phone, all of which had been recently deleted. In these texts, mark talked to Sam about Jared never understanding the real cost of getting caught. Mark then asked Sam to remotely wipe Jared's phone, something that he also asked Sam to do to his own phone after he fell under suspicion for Sasha's murder.
Speaker 1:While all of this information against Mark was damning enough, there was still one more disturbing truth to learn. Through many more interviews, detective Nagel was eventually put in contact with Andrew and Galen Headings, a pair of brothers who were close with Mark during his time in Wisconsin. Andrew recounted a time where he had confronted Mark for stealing, and during their conversation Mark was so cold and bitter that Andrew said he feared for his life. Galen had an even more disturbing revelation for Detective Nagel as he told her about Mark's alleged inappropriate actions towards women. According to Galen, mark confessed to him that he'd allegedly assaulted a young girl his sister was babysitting when he was around 10-13 years old. However, this claim has never been publicly proven and there's no evidence of it being true. Still, with this information, it became clear that Mark always had the capacity to harm others, and allegedly had many times in the past.
Speaker 1:Mark's motive in harming Sasha was also more evident than ever. All the unfounded anger and resentment he had towards the Mennonite community had been steadily growing over the years, and, as it did, mark took his revenge against them further and further. Up to this point, charges had never been pressed against Mark and he felt like he could outsmart anyone, even the police. With this misplaced confidence, mark decided to see if he could get away with the ultimate crime murder.
Speaker 1:It appears that Mark had gone to the Mennonite community that day in search of a victim and, tragically, sasha was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mark grabbed her from her car late at night and no one saw a thing. Still, that didn't prevent him from getting caught, unfortunately for him. While no one had previously pressed any charges for his theft, the state of Arizona was more than happy to charge Mark for Sasha's murder and put him on trial. Mark's trial began on September 24, 2021. In January of 2022, the jury found Mark guilty on charges of kidnapping and first-degree murder, earning him a life sentence For his help in covering up Mark's crimes. Sam Gooch pleaded guilty and received three years' probation. With both Sam and Mark dealt with, sasha Kraus and her family finally received the justice they deserve.