Triple M Podcast: Mystery, Murder & the Macabre
Ep. 1 - The Crotchless Killing of Jane Doe
Venturing into a time when victims and law enforcement had to make do without modern methods and communication, we brave the complex labyrinth of evidence that befell detectives in the case of the crotchless killing of Jane Doe. Laverne Pavlinac's ever-changing stories lead detectives down a confusing cascade of lie upon lie—leading detectives everywhere but toward the truth. Is the person that Ms. Pavlinac names as the monster of this story, and the culprit behind this heinous act of strange murder-really a monster at all?
Come along with me, JK Richards, as I peel back the layers of this true crime tale, fraught with chilling revelations, insidious twists, and depraved deceit—to probe the terrifying circumstances of this crime, as well as its investigation.
Even as we approach the cliffhanger for part two of this gripping saga, the suspense is palpable. We examine the potential suspects and the unnerving evidence the police. The stage is set for the next episode and I promise, the ride will only get more twisted, bothersome, and spine-chilling. Stay tuned, as we strive to uncover the truth behind the mysterious and crotchless murder of Jane Doe.
Venturing into a time when victims and law enforcement had to make do without modern methods and communication, we brave the complex labyrinth of evidence that befell detectives in the case of the crotchless killing of Jane Doe. Laverne Pavlinac's ever-changing stories lead detectives down a confusing cascade of lie upon lie—leading detectives everywhere but toward the truth. Is the person that Ms. Pavlinac names as the monster of this story, and the culprit behind this heinous act of strange murder-really a monster at all?
Come along with me, JK Richards, as I peel back the layers of this true crime tale, fraught with chilling revelations, insidious twists, and depraved deceit—to probe the terrifying circumstances of this crime, as well as its investigation.
Even as we approach the cliffhanger for part two of this gripping saga, the suspense is palpable. We examine the potential suspects and the unnerving evidence the police. The stage is set for the next episode and I promise, the ride will only get more twisted, bothersome, and spine-chilling. Stay tuned, as we strive to uncover the truth behind the mysterious and crotchless murder of Jane Doe.
I am JK Richards, the founder, creator and host of your beloved True Crime series, where we treat crimes seriously as your mysterious, murderous and macabre podcast In the past and still to this day. I am a criminal defense attorney where I view, assess, investigate, analyze and reassess evidence again and again. If you are one looking for true stories of mystery, intrigue, vice, corruption, may him violent malevolence, jealousy, greed, assault, insult, murder and the macabre, well, you are in the right place. Quite the introduction, don't you think? I'm so excited to have you here for our first ever episode, the Cronchless Killing of Jane Doe. And again, I am JK Richards and I am your host of the Triple M Podcast, mystery, murder and the Macabre.
Speaker 1:Jumping into this episode, imagine that you are a woman living in Portland, oregon in the United States, in 1990. It wouldn't be for another three years on April 30th 1993, that the internet would launch for the public at large. Finding your way across an unknown city or town in the United States or anywhere in the world required the use of a map and grid system. Rating businesses or deciding who you would hire for any kind of work relied almost exclusively on word of mouth. Email was really only used by the government, big businesses and universities. Text messaging on cell phones wouldn't exist for another nine years. Social media didn't exist and cash and checkbooks were the most common way to pay for anything that you bought. In many ways, the world in 1990 was a much, much larger, colder and more lonely place. It was easy to get totally lost and it was so easy to disappear without a trace, including any electronic trace, that others could follow.
Speaker 1:On the cold and I imagine it as a foggy morning of January 21st 1990, in Portland, oregon in the United States, detective John Ingram, with the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, was called out to investigate the oddest and probably what proved to be the most infamous homicide case of his career. Detective Ingram was tasked to go to the Columbia Gorge, which is approximately 17 miles east of Portland. Now you have to understand that, especially at that time, this is an obscure, out-of-the-way and heavily wooded area. Detective Ingram traveled up a long, winding dirt road in the gorge where he met up with other officers and investigators. And off to the side of that lonely dirt road, detective Ingram and his companions began investigating reports of a dead body in the woods. The body was only about 10 feet from the road, but you could not see the body from the road. The body apparently belonged to an attractive young woman, likely in her 20s Young woman had been asphyxiated to death and a choke rope was found close to the body. The body had been left semi-undressed, with her jeans pulled down around her waist to her ankles, which caused Detective Ingram and others to believe that a sex crime had also been committed. And among the most worrisome aspects related to the body was the fact that there was absolutely no identification to be found on or near the body. Detective Ingram and his counterparts had no idea how they were going to possibly identify this woman, and I am certain that from the outset, they worried that this could become just another horrible, unsolved homicide cold case. This is where, once again, you need to remember the time period when this investigation was taking place and how hard it could likely be to find the identity of this young woman. As luck would have it, they wouldn't have to wait long for help, or would they?
Speaker 1:The final and most disconcerting aspect of this unidentifiable young girl's dead body that was dumped in the woods, this is the fact that presumably the killer had cut the crotch out of her jeans before leaving the body in the woods. Detective Ingram has said that he has never seen anything like this in his career before. Now a question for you, the listener what concern does this fact cause, in other words, the crotch being cut out of the jeans Give rise to? We already have a dead young woman casually discarded off the side of the road in the woods without any respect for human life or human remains. She was left with her jeans pulled down around her ankles. She was choked to death, possibly one of the most horrific ways to die. Young girl had no identification on her and, beyond all of this, it appears that the killer took a souvenir for themselves the crotch cut out of her jeans. Souvenirs taken from the bodies of someone murdered are generally only taken by serial killers. I can only imagine the horror and the worry and the concern that this caused Detective Ingram and law enforcement.
Speaker 1:Without the internet, social media and the like, identifying the Columbia Gorge body would be tremendously difficult. So detective Ingram and law enforcement caused a rough pencil sketch of the victim's face to be commissioned by a sketch artist which was circulated in the local media, newspapers and local television and the like. This sketch is on the Triple M Podcasts website and I strongly encourage you to go take a look at it. It is a very, very rough sketch. Without intending any disrespect to the sketch artist, the sketch really doesn't look anything like the woman found by Detective Ingram in the Columbia Gorge east of Portland. Now, at this point, remember, as I said before, it wouldn't take long before Detective Ingram and law enforcement received help in identifying the body. But as they often say, be careful what you wish for. Possibly I'm providing more alluding for you than I should. In this case, I would employ the counsel. Be careful what you focus on.
Speaker 1:About a week after the sketch was published, a woman contacted Detective Ingram and stated that she believed the woman in the sketch was her daughter. Detective Ingram met with a relative of the female caller, who also knew the woman's daughter, and took this relative to the medical examiner's office. And, sure enough, this relative positively identified the body as belonging to the daughter of the woman who had contacted Detective Ingram. The young female murdered victim was Tanya Bennett. She was a 23-year-old woman and she lived with her mother. Tanya's mother described Tanya as very loving, very kind, but she liked to party, she liked the bar scene and it wasn't uncommon for Tanya to meet a man in a bar and spend a night or two with him. Now, if you thought the identification of the victim it being 1990, and no identification being on the body came quickly, you're gonna be amazed at how quickly the initial suspect was identified. Just remember the warnings that I've given you before.
Speaker 1:A few days later, that is, a few days after the identification of Tanya Bennett's body, a call came into the detectives area of the Sheriff's office, but seemingly not directly to Detective Ingram. It was a female caller stating that she knows who committed the murder of the woman in the sketch and that his name is John Sosnovsky. Seemingly officers didn't take down the name or number of the person who called and left the tip. Detective Ingram only had the name of John Sosnovsky, so he went to their police databases and began running various and different spellings of the last name Sosnovsky, and finally he found John Sosnovsky, and luckily he was on probation. Detective Ingram then called John Sosnovsky's probation officer, who told Detective Ingram that he too had received a phone call from John Sosnovsky's girlfriend, laverne Pavlenak. Miss Pavlenak had told the probation officer that her boyfriend, john Sosnovsky, was the person responsible for the murder of the woman in the sketch. Miss Pavlenak told the probation officer that she had heard John Sosnovsky telling another person in a bar that he had met Tonya Bennett. He said he picked her up and he murdered her later that night and that he then dumped her body near Vista House in the Columbia Gorge. And with that Detective Ingram and law enforcement thought all right, we've got something to go on here now. We have enough details now to initiate an investigation against a specific perpetrator. Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying that any of them said this. Rather, this is the kind of thing they thought, which is evident from what happened next in the case and how the investigation progressed from this point forward.
Speaker 1:Next, detective Ingram and his partner went to Laverne Pavlenak's home and they interviewed her there. Detective Ingram has stated that his impression of Laverne Pavlenak was that she was a pleasant, kind and older lady and that he found her to be honest and believable. When they asked why she hadn't come forward immediately with the information that she had about this case, miss Pavlenak explained that she is afraid of her boyfriend, john Sosnovsky, that he has a temper, that he is an alcoholic and that he has abused and harmed her in the past. She also stated, seemingly out of the blue that Mr Sosnovsky has an odd tick or behavior of incessantly tying all kinds of knots into rope. Miss Pavlenak was approximately 58 years old at this time and, oddly, mr Sosnovsky was approximately 40 years of age at this time, so quite an age gap between the two.
Speaker 1:Detective Ingram asked Laverne Pavlenak what she was doing on the evening of January 21st, to which Miss Pavlenak stated that John had asked her to take him to JB's Lounge in Wilsonville, oregon. Laverne claimed that she then went home and that John arrived home between 1.30 and 2 am and immediately took a shower. Miss Pavlenak also stated that the next morning she noticed that John had a bruise on his left hip and that he was complaining about his hands and wrist hurting him. The detectives asked if Miss Pavlenak would consent to a search of her residence and Miss Pavlenak gave permission for the search. Detective Ingram has stated that while searching in the bedroom he found an envelope addressed to John Sosnovsky and on the back of the envelope was written, quote T, period Bennett, good peace, end. Quote Peace spelled P-I-E-C-E.
Speaker 1:Detective Ingram has stated that at this point things were looking pretty bad for John Sosnovsky. To offer a counterpoint, I would point out that things seem to be lining up really, really well. Things aren't always as they seem to be, but sometimes they are, so let's just take a minute and recap here. Let's go over the evidence that we have so far.
Speaker 1:A young girl, later identified as Tonya Bennett, is found dead at the Columbia Gorge, east of Portland. A sex crime is believed to have occurred and the manner of death was a sphixiation by strangulation by a choke rope. Presumably, some or many of these details were provided in various releases by the press. As murder is always a hot topic in the news, a mere few days after the body is identified, a woman calls the Sheriff's Office where Detective Ingram works, as well as Mr Sosnovsky's probation officer, informing both that John Sosnovsky is the person who killed Tonya Bennett. Furthermore, this individual stated that she knows this because she overheard him, later on discovered to be her boyfriend, admitting to all of this openly in a bar to another person.
Speaker 1:And, upon being interviewed, this woman, laverne Pavlenak, points out John's tick of tying knots into rope, that he complained of his hands and wrist hurting the morning after Miss Bennet had been murdered and that he had a bruise on his left hip. And furthermore, the detectives find an envelope with the murder victim's name written on the back of the envelope which was addressed to John Sosnowski. It certainly and absolutely seems like the criminal investigation gods are smiling upon law enforcement, with all of these things just falling into place perfectly, the way they seemingly never do. While still at Miss Pavlenak's home during the interview with her, and after the detectives had searched her home, john Pavlenak arrived at the house. The detectives identified themselves as police officers and Mr Sosnowski volunteered to go with them to be interviewed. The following is an audio recording of the interview with Mr Sosnowski.
Speaker 1:So, when confronted with the envelope, Mr Sosnowski, responds stating I cannot answer that in full honestness with regard to whether or not it was his printing stating T period Bennet, good piece on the back of the envelope, generally and across the board. Any criminal defense attorney will tell you never speak with the police. Now, this is not out of disrespect for the police or in an attempt to be obstructionistic, but rather this is based in the fact that humans do not have perfect recall. Humans also have an innate quality of filling in the gaps with whatever they can grasp at the moment. So, even in a situation where someone desires to be, and is trying to be, honest and frank and forthright, they fill in the gaps. They tell a story based on what they can remember in the moment, but then, at a later point in time, after thinking about it more, they remember more and at some point in the future the story changes. Once that happens, you're absolutely considered to be a liar. You've changed the story. So, while Mr Sosnowski should not have gone and spoken with the officers voluntarily any of it if they would have taken him in for questioning which they can do involuntarily, to a degree at least until a person asserts their right to legal counsel, which cuts off any interrogation or questioning by police. The fact that Mr Sosnowski went with them and voluntarily was willing to be interviewed and questioned without legal counsel present in my opinion is indicative of one of two things Either he thinks he's so intelligent that he can trick the police, or it's indicative of innocence and in my opinion Mr Sosnowski does not strike me as an overly intelligent person or someone who thinks that he's overly intelligent. Now this is where in this story a new law enforcement entity comes into the case.
Speaker 1:On February 19th 1990, jim McIntyre's boss came to him and told him that they had this dead body that was found on January 21st, that investigators had been working the case, but that he, jim McIntyre's boss, needed the investigation to be moved forward. Jim McIntyre was an assistant district attorney. His boss, the district attorney, in Jim McIntyre's own words, his boss viewed him as someone who was a little bit reckless, a little bit over the edge, someone who would start directing people and start pushing people around to get things done. In a certain way, detective Ingram briefed Jim McIntyre on the case and where they had gotten up to. At that point Mr McIntyre was surprised that the detectives seemed to be stuck in their investigation and stalling out. Mr McIntyre directed them to find a way to corroborate Ms Pavlenak's claims and story, in other words, that John Sosnowski is guilty, or to disprove that John Sosnowski was involved in Tonya Bennett's death and murder. Now this is quite disconcerting because now you've got the prosecuting authority, the district attorney's office, essentially directing the investigation, the ongoing investigation of this case. In other words, you have those with the expertise that know exactly how to prove a case, what it's going to take, directing where the investigation goes and how the investigation proceeds.
Speaker 1:On the defense side of things, If defense attorneys ever did something like this, it would be considered witness tampering or evidence tampering. Now, legally. I'm not saying that the district attorney's office or law enforcement in this case, did anything illegal. This is actually fairly common. But just because it's common doesn't mean it's not a problem, and it is a problem. It's a very big problem. Generally speaking, the way this is supposed to work is that law enforcement conducts the investigation. They look into whatever was reported to law enforcement, they gather the evidence, they interview the witnesses, they put the case together. Once they've done that, they then refer the case to the district attorney's office or the prosecuting office and an attorney with the prosecuting office will review the case to determine whether or not they believe the probable cause exists, to then ask a court to allow them to file charges or to convene a grand jury.
Speaker 1:Shortly after Assistant DA McIntyre came into this case and became involved, detective Ingram received a follow-up phone call from Laverne Pavlenak. She stated that she had found some items that she thought would be of interest to law enforcement and to the investigation. So once again, detective Ingram and his partner went out to Laverne Pavlenak's home. Upon arriving there, ms Pavlenak gave Detective Ingram an old-style brown paper grocery bag which was stapled shut, and in it Detective Ingram found a purse. And in the purse Detective Ingram found a cut-out crotch section of a pair of acid-washed jeans. Detective Ingram claims that this set off alarms for him and it seemed too good to be true. But they still had to interview John Sosnovsky again and unfortunately the following is the interview that ensued in John Sosnovsky's own recorded statements. I make the above statement freely and voluntarily.
Speaker 2:I have been right of my rights, which I understand. I have seen T-Bandard at JB's truck stop on several occasions. The last time was 21 January 1990. I was visiting with Chuck who was playing darts. Later on in the evening Chuck lived and T-Bandard left shortly after. I believe she left to go to a motor hotel room to have fun with Chuck. Later that evening I saw Chuck and asked him for a ride. I believe I saw a body in the back of the car. I got into the front passenger seat. The body was wrapped in a blanket. The body was going to work female on both Dirtless ride home. The dead female was in the back of the car.
Speaker 1:So now we've gone from Sosnowski not knowing Tanya Bennett at all and knowing absolutely nothing about her death or murder To he got a ride home from his buddy, chuck, who had a dead body in the backseat of the car, which apparently Chuck didn't feel that he needed to hide from John Sosnowski, and Sosnowski's reaction to this was essentially hey, can I get a ride home with you? Oh, there's a dead body in your car. Well, that's fine, just take me home. Thanks, chuck. It's not credible, it's not believable, it's utterly farce and ridiculous. But it didn't deter law enforcement or supposedly intelligent attorneys in the prosecutor's office and I can't fathom why someone being investigated who knows they're being investigated for a murder or in relation to a murder would change their story in this manner. Knowingly, going from I don't know her at all to I saw her dead body in the back of a car and I didn't call the cops and it was my buddy and he was fine with telling me and I just had him give me a ride home. It just seems like something was in the water, causing everyone involved in this case to be stupid. But of course and one of the reasons I picked this case things are going to get a lot more stupid than they already have been, if you can believe that.
Speaker 1:Not long after the second interview with John Sosnowski, where he drastically changes his story, detective Ingram's partner informs him that the lab had returned the results for the cut out crotch section of acid washed jeans that Laverne Pavlenak had given to them. The crotch section of the jeans given to them by Laverne Pavlenak were not a match to the jeans on Tanya Bennett's body when law enforcement found her body in the woods. Again, the only conclusion I can come to is that there's something in the water. It's universal. Every single person involved in this case seems affected by the same intellectual problem and deficiency. I feel like I have to explain this again because it's just so mind-blowingly stupid. So, in short, laverne Pavlenak previously had given the law enforcement officers, detective Ingram and his partner, a cut out crotch section from acid washed jeans. This again was in the stapled brown paper grocery bag that Laverne Pavlenak gave to them. Specifically, the crotch section of the jeans was in a purse and the purse was in the brown paper grocery sack. So, in other words, the only conclusion that we can come to is that Laverne knowingly gave false evidence to the law enforcement officers, which everyone knows is a crime in and of itself.
Speaker 1:So Detective Ingram and his partner go out to Laverne Pavlenak's home once again and they confront her with the results from the crime lab that definitively determined that the cut out crotch section of jeans provided to law enforcement by Laverne Pavlenak had nothing whatsoever to do with Tonya Bennett's death, her murder and her clothing that was on her body when she was found.
Speaker 1:Immediately upon being confronted, laverne caved and admitted that she had provided the crotch section of the jeans fraudulently to Detective Ingram and his partner. As her excuse, laverne explained that she is just so terribly scared of John Sasnowski that he had harmed her so horribly in the past and that she really wanted him to get caught for the murder that he did commit, meaning Tonya Bennett's murder. And so she explained to the detectives that she decided to make it easy on the police by providing the false cut out crotch section of jeans to Detective Ingram and his partner, with Laverne providing this explanation. Detective Ingram has stated that he felt bad for Laverne and he felt that John Sasnowski must be a truly horrific monster, and so they somewhat wiped the slate clean with Laverne and they interviewed her Again, and here is what Laverne Pavlinak said this time.
Speaker 3:Okay.
Speaker 2:What happened during the evening hours of January 21st 1990?.
Speaker 3:Laverne and John Sasnowski calling To tell him it was in trouble then to come fast and to bring something large to wrap something in. What did you take with you when you went to see John at the J&B Lab? A little shot. When you arrived there, laverne, what did you find? A female. She was lying on her side, very close, very quiet. And John Sasnowski came up to the window. I asked if she said he's his worst man. I said I think we need to take her to a hospital. We need to report this to her. He says no, no, who did this, bro? You will not do it because I will kill you and your harbors family and your grandchildren. He opened the back door on the passenger side and pulled her out. He went off into the woods and he was gone about 15 minutes.
Speaker 1:So first John Sasnowski changes his story, which I won't deliver again, and now Laverne changes her story, from dropping John off at the bar, with John then returning home between 1.30 and 2.00 am, to John calling Laverne, telling her to come quickly, that she goes to him. The Tanya Bennett is dead upon her arrival, laverne telling John that she thinks that they should take the girl, the body, to the hospital, with John then threatening to kill her, her family and her grandchildren if she tries to force that or if she tells on him because he would go to death row for Tanya Bennett's death. And finally, with John going off into the woods, being gone for about 15 minutes and him then returning to the car alone, to say the very least. Here, once again, vastly, vastly different stories. Also, I really want to point out that supposedly, according to this new story from Laverne, john was gone for 15 minutes but the body was found 10 feet off the road. How's this possible? Just something I want you to think about as we move forward. It's at this point that Detective Ingram and his partner and law enforcement beside believe that they have enough evidence to arrest John Sasnowski for the murder of Tanya Bennett, and Mr Sasnowski was arrested at that time.
Speaker 1:Now, at this point, the detectives and law enforcement had no more actual evidence against John Sasnowski than what they had when they were going to Laverne Pavleneck's home to confront her about her apparent fraud related to her planted evidence of the fraudulent cutout jeans crotch section. The only thing more that they did have was Laverne's explanation about how big of a monster John Sasnowski is. In essence, the only thing more that they had was Laverne Pavleneck's corroboration that she had planted evidence. There was no new or additional physical evidence. There was no new or additional confession or testamentary potential evidence in the form of new statements from Laverne about what had occurred, just her explanation about why she had lied and provided false evidence to the police, and seemingly that was sufficient for law enforcement to determine that they had enough to arrest. At this point, detective Ingram and his partner had a meeting with assistant DA Jim McIntyre and they determined or I'm guessing the Jim McIntyre determined that they still needed more evidence to make a case stick against John Sasnowski, which is absolutely correct. I believe that it's for this reason that they then put together a plan to test Laverne's actual knowledge about the case using facts that she couldn't possibly know about the case, in other words, facts that had not been made publicly known through the press and media.
Speaker 1:They should have done this a long time ago and probably before they ever interviewed John Sasnowski for the first time. If you remember, the interview with John Sasnowski came about because the detectives were at Laverne Pavleneck's home after the initial phone call to the Sheriff's office and to the probation officer and after the first interview with Laverne Pavleneck and their search of the home during or at the conclusion of that interview with Laverne Pavleneck. In other words, the first interaction with Laverne Pavleneck. And again remember, john Sasnowski comes home, they speak with him right then and there the station, and be interviewed by them. So the only thing they had though emotionally maybe they felt like they had a lot at that point was what Laverne had told them and this envelope addressed to John Sasnowski, on the back of which was written T-Period Bennett, good Peace. Still, they should have waited longer and gotten more information from Pavleneck before they interviewed John Sasnowski. So finally, at this point we come around to them deciding to actually, in some meaningful way, tesla Bern Pavleneck's actual knowledge about this case against facts that she couldn't have access to in any other way than actually knowing those facts herself.
Speaker 1:So once again, the plans put together and Detective Ingram and his partner take Laverne Pavleneck on a car ride With Laverne. They drove up to the Columbia Gorge and up the long, winding, dirt road on which Tonya Bennett's body was found by law enforcement. They wanted Laverne to point out where the body had been dumped. They were testing to see if in fact she could identify where, supposedly in her most recent story, she and John Sasnowski had driven to and where John pulled the body out of the car, was gone for 15 minutes, supposedly to dump the body just 10 feet off the road. So again, they drove, and they drove, and they drove, as Detective Ingram has said about this quote. We proceeded up past Crown Point and Vista House to the area where the body had been dumped. We drove on past the area where the body had been found. We kept on traveling eastbound and then suddenly she said stop the car and turn around. Laverne said this gives me the creeps. And she pointed almost directly to where that body had been located. It couldn't have been a distance of more than 10 feet off. My gosh, she's nailed this End quote.
Speaker 1:Now this is where I have to make some observations about Laverne Pavlenak, and admittedly these are opinions and they involve some conjecture and speculation on my part. I believe, based on what I've discussed up to this point, that Laverne Pavlenak was a master people reader and a master manipulator, for reasons that will become apparent later on in this episode. I believe that Laverne Pavlenak was masterfully reading Detective Ingram and his partner's body language, as they were on this drive, and I believe that that is how she pointed out the exact place of the body's location. Assuming that in fact that was the case, I don't know anything about how Detective Ingram and his partner knew exactly where the body had been found. I don't know if they had gone up beforehand and placed a marker so that they themselves knew, in which case Laverne possibly, theoretically, could have spotted some kind of marker. But you have to remember this is a wooded area and if you've ever gotten lost in the woods, it's very easy, including on a road in the woods, for all of it to look the same Windy turn after windy turn. How do you know which exact turn you're on, unless you've driven that road a thousand times, and I have no indication that that's the case here. It's also possible that Laverne could tell where the body had been dumped, because so many police had been in and out of the area and the area was disturbed. But I also believe that she was a master people reader. Now, if you can believe it, this story is just going to continue to get more and more crazy.
Speaker 1:Five days after John Sosnowski's arrest, laverne Pavlenak calls Detective Ingram and she tells him that she wants to have a conversation with him and his partner. They need to come out to her house again. In response to this Detective Ingram's own words, quote oh crap, where are we going now? End quote. Obviously, this is because this investigation has already gone hither and thither everywhere, all over the place, and Laverne Pavlenak has been at the center of it all. But obviously they have no choice. They have to go out and talk to her again and see what she has to say, because again she's at the heart and soul and center of their entire investigation as well as their now arrest of John Sosnowski. So once again they go to Laverne's house and the following is what Laverne tells them when you drove over to JV's from your daughter's house and you pulled into the lot what did you see, if anything?
Speaker 3:I see John sat with the young lady and they appeared to be undrinked in a plain white. He said to her get in the car and hold as you continued to drive. There was a point that Tonya Bennett apparently agreed to have sex with John. Yes, she did. When they arrived at Carpenter White, they found out that I had come. I really didn't know where I was going. I was going to stand in front of the apartment. I went by and John came back to the car. Is that true? That's true. He went to the trunk and there was rope in there and he took the rope. I asked him why he ate the rope. He said I'm going to tie him up. I'm going to tie her up.
Speaker 1:More 12 minutes later and Chirping Crickets is about all that I have to say about this. This is where I'm going to leave you. Yes, on a cliffhanger, because there's part two to this story. I thought I would get it all into one episode, but that just wasn't possible. But I promise that episode two will be just as good. I'm JK Richards, I'm your host and I'm so grateful that you are here with me today. If you enjoyed this podcast, please contribute to our channel so that we can continue making wonderful content for yourself and for the rest of our audience. Once again, thank you and take care where on this podcast, I hope to never be telling your story.