Ep. 3 - The Crotchless Killing of Jane Doe, Part 3

How can a scrawled message on a bathroom wall lead to one of the most shocking miscarriages of justice in recent history? Let us guide you through the winding labyrinth of contradictions that is Laverne Pavlinac, John Sosnovske, and Keith Jesperson (the “Happy Face Killer”). We walk you through the major trial events, shedding light on the controversial role played by the court in withholding crucial evidence, potentially resulting in two wrongful convictions and life sentences.

From there, we navigate through the aftermath of trial. We also discuss the subsequent conviction of John Sosnovsky and the call from District Attorney Mike Schrunk for an investigation into potential wrongful convictions. The podcast doesn’t shy away from exploring the darker alleyways of this real-life crime drama, where appearances can be deceiving, and justice can sometimes hang by a thread.

As we reach the episode's climax, we lay bare the shocking twists in Taunja Bennett's murder investigation. New DNA evidence emerges linking a different man, Keith Jesperson, to the crime, shaking the foundations of the original convictions. We dissect Jesperson and Pavlinak's  conflicting narratives and the court's contentious decisions. The revelations leading to the unmasking of the true killer are suspenseful and chilling. Pull up a chair and listen in as we unravel this intricate tapestry of truth, lies, and unsettling questions about our legal system.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:26

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're in the right place. Again, and as always, I am JK Richards, your host of the Triple M Podcast, and once again, I'm so excited to be here with you today. This will be the last installment, I hope. I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure I'm the crotchest killing of Jane Doe, part three. It's been an interesting ride. There's a lot to this story and I hope you've enjoyed it. I certainly have enjoyed telling the story and researching it and providing that information for you. Please like and subscribe and support the channel and if you can donate a few dollars a month to the channel, that'd be great. I'm hoping to raise funds to be able to use those funds through the podcast to hire attorneys and staff to provide pro bono criminal defense legal services. But I also hope that I'm providing you sufficient value added in entertainment and information and education. So I'm hoping for a win-win-win With all of that said, on to episode three, the crotchest killing of Jane Doe, part three.

Speaker 1: 2:05

Okay, in episode two I recapped episode one, I gave you a bunch of new information that pertained to episode one and episode two and I left you off at the end of episode two, in the courtroom where I had told you about this message scrawled on a bathroom in a bus station in Livingston Montana, where some other individual wrote that they had killed Tonya Bennett in 1990, that they had raped her, loved it. They indicated that they were sick but they enjoyed themselves and the two other people took the blame and they are free, and that during the trial, despite the defense's ardent pleas for the jury to be able to hear this information, that came to light in the middle of trial. But the judge ruled that it was inadmissible hearsay lacking any indication of reliability. So in episode two we had an express, explicit discussion about what is hearsay and about some exceptions to the hearsay rule. Even if something is hearsay, so in my opinion this is not hearsay at all because, again, what are the elements to the definition of hearsay?

Speaker 1: 3:13

It's an out-of-court statement offered in court by someone other than the person who made the statement. Here's the kicker for the purpose of proving the contents of the statement, a defense attorney in this case wanting to present to the jury this message scrawled on a bus station bathroom wall, would not be being presented to the jury for the purpose of proving the truth of the statement, in other words, that whoever wrote that actually committed the murder of Tonya Bennett, but rather a defense attorney, would be presenting it to a jury. For the purpose of what? Showing that there is reasonable doubt that the attorney's client committed the murder? The statement does not say anything about Laverne Pavlenak murdering Tonya Bennett. Laverne Pavlenak isn't even mentioned in the statement. Statement expressly doesn't say anything about Laverne Pavlenak. So you can't argue that a statement that has no contents about why it's legally being presented, and the legal reason for presenting this is to show to a jury that there's doubt and therefore that the jury should acquit because there's reasonable doubt, because that's the legal burden that the state has to overcome.

Speaker 1: 4:22

That's the other thing. It's the state's burden. The defendant has no burden whatsoever. And why is that relevant, you ask? It's relevant because the judge held that it's inadmissible hearsay. Ah, here's the extra part With no indication of reliability.

Speaker 1: 4:37

Reliability A has nothing to do with analyzing whether something is hearsay or not. Reliability is not part of that legal standard or test. Furthermore, who's wanting to use a statement? The defendant. The defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever in a criminal defense trial. So we don't need reliability. All we need is to show that there's reasonable doubt, and we don't even really have to do that as the defense. All the burden is on the state to prove their case affirmatively beyond a reasonable doubt.

Speaker 1: 5:08

So the purpose that the defense attorney would be using this for would be for the purpose of helping the jury see that the state had not and could not overcome and satisfy their burden of proof of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. Why? Because there's someone else out there. We know it's someone else. Laverne Pavleneck is not in Livingston Montana, she's incarcerated and she's in trial. Someone else out there is taking credit for the murder and to keep that from a jury, wow, massive miscarriage of justice, and that will become relevant later on in this story at a legal level. So remember that Massive miscarriage of justice and violation of Laverne Pavleneck's constitutional rights, that the burden is all on the prosecution to prove their case against her, that reliability is not an issue, that she doesn't have to prove reliability of her witnesses.

Speaker 1: 6:02

And in this case, in this instance, the judge withheld an absolutely critical piece of evidence that directly relates to whether or not there is reasonable doubt that Laverne Pavleneck was the person who killed Tonya Bennett. Now, in episode two, I told you about how Wendell Birkland is this great attorney and I'm sure he is slash was but I have a hard time understanding how, and especially if it's true that Mr Birkland did not argue these very points, that it's not hearsay and that reliability doesn't matter. Furthermore, even if it were hearsay, the exact same exception to the hearsay rule that applied to Laverne's confession, a statement of material fact that, materially, is contrary to the legal interest of the party who made the statement, in other words, confessing that you're a murderer that's an exception to the hearsay rule. Well, someone else, for the exact same reasons, scrolling a message on a bathroom wall that, hey, I'm the murderer? Well, that goes against their material legal interests. Right, for the exact same reasons. Why is it? The exact same reasons? Because, just like Laverne Pavleneck's confession, that statement in that bathroom was a confession. So, the exact same legal exception to hearsay. Even if it were hearsay and I'm saying it's not, but even if it were hearsay the same exception applies and I have a hard time understanding why, if in fact, it is the case that Wendell Birkland did not argue this to the judge and maybe he did, maybe he did, I don't know that he didn't but there is some indicia, some indications later on in this story that make me think that Wendell Birkland did not argue with the judge about this being inadmissible hearsay. My best guess is that Wendell Birkland thought you know, okay, this is a message, some kind of crack message on a bathroom wall in Montana. Judge isn't going to let it in. Okay, I'm not going to fight that hard. But, as we all know, with hindsight comes 2020 vision and with 2020 vision comes the realization, or knowledge, or understanding.

Speaker 1: 8:17

I should have done that, I should have spent more time on that, I should have tried harder on that issue, because it's very possible that that could become a highly relevant, appealable issue at a later point in time. But there's another reason in this case and I don't want to spoil it. It's going to come later. Why, in fact, how everything panned out for Lovar and Pavlenak, her attorney, pushing harder on this issue would have helped in ways unrelated to a possible future appeal. Okay, and the other point that I had left you hanging on was the prosecution's closing arguments. So I'm going to tell you about that now, and, if you'll remember, this was in the string of highly chronological facts that I had told you. The story becomes very linear chronologically from a previous point in time, and so this is a continuation of that. So we get to the end of the trial.

Speaker 1: 9:13

I had told you that Wendell Birkeland's closing arguments lasted for more than seven hours, where he pleaded with the jury to see that there was a tremendous amount of reasonable doubt as to whether or not Laverne Pavlenak murdered or was involved in the murder of Tonya Bennett. At the very end of his presentation of his closing arguments, wendell Birkeland is reported to have said quote it doesn't make sense. Can't you see that this is all bogus? Shortly after that, wendell Birkeland sat down and then it was Jim McIntyre's turn. Imagine this in your mind Wendell Birkeland has just finished his seven hour plus long closing argument.

Speaker 1: 9:59

He's this incredible attorney. He's convincing, he's articulate, he makes a lot of sense, he makes great points about how and why there's doubt in this case and you need to understand. Also, attorneys are taught we're supposed to prepare in trial or for trial, to degree these grand speeches for opening and closing arguments. They're supposed to be compelling, convincing. Wendell Birkeland finishes. It's quiet in the courtroom. Everyone is waiting to see what Jim McIntyre will do. Jim McIntyre stands up. He's silent, he says nothing. He pulls out a tape recorder, places it on the desk and pushes play.

Speaker 3: 10:51

When you drove over to JD's from your daughter's house and you pulled into the lot, what did you see? If anything?

Speaker 2: 11:03

I saw John sat with the young lady and they appeared to be on the plane. He said to her get in the car, it's cold.

Speaker 3: 11:18

As you continued to drive. There was a point that Tonya Bennett apparently agreed to have sex with John. Yes, she did.

Speaker 2: 11:27

When we arrived at car point, they got out of car and we needed to get in the car.

Speaker 3: 11:32

He was like I just couldn't stand this one for a minute. When Baye and John came back to the car.

Speaker 2: 11:36

is that true? That's true. He went through 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 gonna tie him up More of a rope this way. So at that point you walked with John to where Tonya was.

Speaker 3: 11:59

Where did you see Tonya?

Speaker 2: 12:01

She was laying in a doorway and she was laughing. He told me to take the rope and put it around her neck. What happened then? Did John have sex with her? Yes, and I had my eyes shut because I knew what he was doing. I didn't want to observe it. He kept saying hang on, hang on. I must have tightened it as I was hanging around Getting her in the face. What was he hanging around His face? And then she became laughing.

Speaker 3: 12:54

Did you realize that Tonya Bennett had expired?

Speaker 2: 12:57

Yes, miss Cabinet, let me ask you a question, do you?

Speaker 3: 13:07

believe in your day that by pulling that rope tight did you cause the death of Tonya and Bennett?

Speaker 2: 13:19

Yes, you do yes.

Speaker 1: 13:31

Jim McIntyre pushed the stop button. He looked at the jury and he said quote. You listen to those words and that emotion and you will look at Laverne Pavlenak and see the face of a murderer. And then he sat down. That was the entirety of the prosecution's closing argument. In essence, jim McIntyre took Detective John Ingram's argument made to him by John Ingram after Laverne Pavlenak had changed the story so many times, wherein Detective Ingram says to Jim McIntyre quote Mack, I know it's screwy, but she's still credible. So nice, so open, come on in fresh pot of coffee like a grandmother. How could she possibly not be telling the truth and John Ingram also telling Jim McIntyre, quote. The thing is she didn't just say all of that to us. She told her daughter the exact same story just minutes later, right in front of us. How could this not be true? Her own daughter, she tells her own daughter. And in another account John Ingram argues to Jim McIntyre the emotion in her voice. Listen to the emotion in her voice. There's no way. That's not true. Jim had bought that off of Detective Ingram and the jury bought it off of Jim McIntyre.

Speaker 1: 15:04

As I told you in episode 2, after three days of deliberations, 12 Montenoma County citizens proclaimed Laverne Pavlenak guilty of felony murder of Tanya Bennett, as well as other crimes related to the story that she had told. In the end, nine of the jurors actually wanted the more serious charge of aggravated murder and the death penalty. Except for three members on that jury panel, pavlenak would have ended up on death row. Okay. So now we pivot back to John Sosnovsky and what's going on with him, with the benefit of the knowledge of the jury's findings of guilt against Pavlenak. Additionally, with the nine jurors wanting the more aggravated charge and the death penalty, and taking into consideration he and his attorney, considering how John Pavlenak would present to a jury versus Laverne Pavlenak and I assessed this in episode 2 Sosnovsky and his attorney had no appetite whatsoever for trial. They would have viewed it as the test case, which was Laverne's trial, shows that John has not a snowball's chance in he double hockey sticks.

Speaker 1: 16:18

If nine jurors wanted to fry Laverne Pavlenak with as much doubt as existed in that case, what would they do with someone like John Sosnovsky, a failed to launch 39 slash, 40 year old in a romantic relationship for 10 years with a grandmotherly woman like Laverne Pavlenak? I'm serious. Go look at the triple M podcast website. Look at her picture. I don't mean to be mean, but she looks like a grandma. That was part of detective Ingram's argument to Jim McIntyre as well, that she's this grandma and she does present that way. And he's a mean drunk, he's abusive, he's on probation. If they want to fry her, I can't even imagine what they would want to do to John Sosnovsky.

Speaker 1: 17:00

So in late March 1991 Sosnovsky pled no contest to a charge of felony murder. He drew a life sentence with a 15-year minimum term. So that's late March 1991 and everybody thinks that the case is over. A loving, kind, pretty overly friendly, naive and overly trusting 23 year old girl who lived with her mother tragically had died, been murdered. They were able to identify the body, they were able to find Tonya's family, they were able to find the murders and convict them. Case over, we can all go home and rest easy at night and the public can feel safe and secure.

Speaker 1: 17:40

But, folks, that's the thing about this well kind of thing, you're not safe when it's the wrong people that were nabbed, prosecuted and convicted. Look, I get that. There was this seemingly, seemingly, but it was only seeming seemingly compelling, clear and unequivocal confession that was taped and, yeah, you could hear the emotion in her voice and, my god, it sounds real, it sounds like she means it. All of the verbal cues. Go back and listen again to the confession. All the verbal cues are indicative that she is being honest and real and true and that she did this.

Speaker 1: 18:23

And while we would all assume that no one would admit to murder something that grave, with that gravity, with the types of consequence that come with that kind of admission, we all at some level know and have experienced ourselves, either in doing it or in having it done to us, that people lie, humans lie, all humans lie, without exception. That's not a commentary on lying, being good or being okay. Rather, it's simply a reality and we're all familiar with the saying you never truly know someone not really, not fully and not completely. And people do odd things for odd reasons, or at least they seem odd to us because we're not them. So, knowing this, why do we, time and again and again and again and again, employ this obviously flawed belief and system of attributing veracity, accuracy and truthfulness to a person or believing that they're being untruthful and deceptive based on what they say or how they say it, or what they do or how they do it. In this case that took the form of Laverne Pavlenak, with convincing emotion on a recorded statement confessing to murder.

Speaker 1: 19:50

In other settings, police officers often think someone's guilty because they're not grieving the right way, they're not acting how they would expect them to act. But every human being does what they do uniquely, because no two human beings are alike. When will we learn this? What should we pay attention to? Then? You ask me the evidence. What does the evidence say? What does the evidence show? Is there probable cause? And if you're a prosecutor, should you even bring charges? And if the cold, hard facts and evidence in their totality don't seem to substantially show that someone did this bad thing, this crime, then we shouldn't jump to conclusions. So, as I said, it's March 1991 and everybody, or most everybody, believes this is over and done with.

Speaker 1: 20:55

The wheels of justice continue to turn. Other cases come and go. 1992 comes and goes, 1993 comes and goes, 1994 comes, and in May of 1994, mike Shrunk case, your curious spelled SCHRUNK, who is the county district attorney, calls Jim McIntyre to ask him what's going on in the Tonya Bennett case and Jim McIntyre responds what are you talking about? That case has been over for years. Shrunk responded that he had caught wind of some rumblings about Laverne Palvinac and John Sosnovsky being wrongfully convicted. On April 29th 1994 a letter, a copy of which is on the triple M podcast's website, was sent to the Oregonian, a large newspaper in Portland Oregon. The letters author claimed responsibility for Tonya Bennett's murder and claimed that innocent people got the blame for his murder. Now I'll come back to this letter in a little bit Because I need to tell you a few things about Mike Schrunke, the county DA.

Speaker 1: 22:02

Mike Schrunke and his county attorney's office had earned uncommonly high regard for honesty and fairness compared to other prosecutors' offices in Oregon. It was said by defense attorneys that Schrunke's office was different than most and that his people weren't cowboys and they didn't charge up meaning that they don't overcharge people with criminal charges, that they shouldn't in order to leverage convictions at the actual level that they want to get convictions at. Mike Schrunke had a personal and philosophical aversion to overcharging and overreaching prosecution. This came from firsthand experience that he had as a kid. In 1957, there was a serious citywide corruption probe in Portland Oregon. A grand jury indicted Mike Schrunke's father, who at the time was the county sheriff. Eventually Mike Schrunke's father won an acquittal and he went on to serve four terms as Portland's mayor.

Speaker 1: 22:55

Mike Schrunke was in grade school when this all happened and watching his father go through this and have that experience and him having that experience as the child significantly shaped Mike Schrunke and caused him to be unwilling and undesirous to overcharge criminals. In an interview Mike Schrunke has stated that quote I grew up with this. I got exposed to liars. I can see how good, well-intentioned people can screw up. I've been through cases where cops made mistakes. It's an imperfect system. I understand that, so I'm skeptical. End quote. I take his quote unquote skepticism to mean that Schrunke was skeptical of police officer statements, evidence gathered, allegations made, and he wanted to actually see actual, real proof so that cases were proven and that the right criminal charges were brought in the first place.

Speaker 1: 23:50

So Jim McIntyre gets on this, for Mike Schrunke starts looking into this. For his boss, though, he wanted the Laverne Pavlonec and John Sosnovsky cases to remain over and done with. So Jim McIntyre went back to the messages scribbled in a bathroom in a bus station in Livingston Montana and in another bathroom in Umatilla, oregon, but McIntyre had no idea where else to look for anything. They had this letter, an anonymous author making written claims in bathroom messages and now also in the form of this letter. And while this is all going on, mcintyre had dozens of other cases and matters pressing. He was a senior prosecutor with three small kids and he was going through and had just completed a very hotly contested divorce where all of the professionals involved the judge, other attorneys felt that in fact Jim McIntyre needed to take sole custody of the three kids because his wife quote couldn't function properly, end quote, whatever that means. And by mid-summer of 1994, having no other leads other than two scrawled messages in bathrooms and this anonymous letter, jim McIntyre put the case file on the Bennett murder and Sosnovsky case back into storage.

Speaker 1: 25:06

All right, so now we are going to discuss this extremely creepy letter. It's six pages long. I have to tell you the writing. Well, you look at it and decide for yourself. The writing in this letter, in my mind, has a rather particular type of look to it. I'm not going to give you an idea. You judge for yourself. Go to the Triple M podcast website and take a look.

Speaker 1: 25:30

Now I do want you to know that finding this letter was wow hard. I had to resort to Reddit to be able to get a copy of this letter, and even then I didn't get an entire full copy of this letter. I got individual images of this page or that page from various sources, had to resize them and then was able to put it into one document for you to be able to view. So you're welcome. The letter begins at the very top with a smiley face Next to it. It says all five of five. I assume pages is what is meant, but in fact the letter has six pages.

Speaker 1: 26:08

The body of the letter begins I would like to tell my story. I am a good person. At times I always wanted to be liked, and it goes on from there. Give some history about his personal life. He'd been married, had kids, divorced, and he says that I always have wanted to be noticed like Paul Harvey front page, et cetera. So I started something I don't know how to stop.

Speaker 1: 26:33

On or around January 20th 1990, I picked up Sonia Bennett, but that was later determined that he actually met Tonya Bennett and took her home. In underlying text he then writes I raped her and beat her real bad. Her face was all broke up. Then I ended her life by pushing my fist into her throat. This turned me on. I got a high.

Speaker 1: 26:54

Then panic set in when to put the body. I drove out to the Sandy River and I threw her purse and walk them in a way and I drove the scenic road past the falls. I went back home and dragged her out to the car. I want to know that it was my crime. So I tied a half inch soft white rope, cut on one end and burnt on the other around her neck. I drove her to a switchback on the scenic road about one and a half miles east of lateral falls, dragged her downhill. Her pants were around her knees because I had cut her buttons off. They found her the next day. I wanted her to be found. I felt real bad and afraid that I would be caught, but a man and woman got blamed for it. My conscience is getting to me now. She was my first and I thought I would not do it again. But I was wrong. I went to truck driving school and learned to drive While driving. I learned a lot and heard of people that have gotten away with such a crime because of our nomadic life.

Speaker 1: 27:57

He then goes on to talk about other girls that he had killed. From the top of the last page, page six, he writes, beginning the first four lines underlined I feel bad, but I will not turn myself in. I am not stupid. I do know what would happen to me if I did. In a lot of opinions I should be killed and I feel I deserve it. My responsibility is mine and God will be my judge when I die. I am telling you this because I will be responsible for these crimes and no one else.

Speaker 1: 28:29

It all started when I wondered what it would be like to kill someone and I found out what a nightmare it has been. I had sent a letter to Washington County judges, criminal court taking responsibility to number one, but nothing has been. In your paper, this freedom of press, you have the ball, your game. I will be reading to find out. I used gloves and some paper as last letter. Quotation marks no points. Look over your shoulder, I may be closer than you think. That's the end of the letter. All I can say is creepy, contradictory and unhinged.

Speaker 1: 29:06

I thought it was a serial killer from the beginning because of the souvenir taken the crotch section out of the jeans. As I said before, this is still 1994. Jim McIntyre's boss asked him to look into this because he heard some rumblings about Pavlenak and Sosnowski being wrongfully convicted, and the DA, mike Schrunke, as a very strong aversion to the wrong people being prosecuted and convicted. But other than having two anonymous messages scrawled in bathrooms and this anonymous letter, jim McIntyre doesn't know where to turn, where to go, what to do, and so by mid-summer 1994, he puts the entire Sosnowski and Levern Pavlenak files back into storage.

Speaker 1: 29:50

But then comes 1995. Oh, 1995. Those who know me know why 1995 is important to me. But before we get into 1995 in this case, we have to turn to another case briefly. First.

Speaker 1: 30:08

In mid-March 1995, law enforcement had found the dead, nude body of Julie Ann Winningham. Her body had been dumped down a scenic bank of the Columbia Gorge Highway. I'm not certain if this Columbia Gorge Highway was in Oregon or in Portland, but it was a Columbia Gorge Highway. Julie Winningham was the girlfriend of one Keith Jespersson, and he was initially arrested on March 22, 1995 for her murder, however without obtaining a confession from him as Jespersson refused to talk to police, and upon having insufficient evidence, jespersson was released shortly after being arrested. But on May 5, 1995, according to some reports, not terribly long after his March 22nd arrest, law enforcement somehow found a letter that Jespersson had written to his brother on the day he had been arrested, in March, confessing to killing his girlfriend, julie Winningham, as well as seven other women, eight in total. The letter read, quote Hi, brad, seems my luck has run out. I got into a bad situation and got caught up with emotion. I kill a woman in my truck. It looks like I truly am a black sheep. I am sure they will kill me for this. I'm sorry I turned out this way. I have been a killer for five years and have killed eight people. End quote.

Speaker 1: 31:28

So, going back to April 29, 1994, phil Sanford, who was a reporter and writer for the Oregonian newspaper, receives the letter that I've already discussed in some links with you for you, from an anonymous person claiming responsibility for Tonya Bennett's murder. Again, we've discussed the letter. It's creepy, it's inconsistent and it's unhinged. And again, it's available for your preview, your reading and perusal, on the triple M podcast website. Well, phil Sanford begins investigating these claims. He requests and receives a bound copy of all the police reports, in this case, in Tonya Bennett's case. He reads the police reports and he finds obviously that the case against Laverne Pavlenak and her conviction, and therefore also the case against Johnson Snosky are paper thin. Not only are they paper thin, they are probably paper thin and also wet.

Speaker 1: 32:24

Sanford calls and speaks with Jim McIntyre. Jim McIntyre has said that he was even surprised that he took his call or had a phone call with Sanford. The two did not like each other and McIntyre tells him that he has no interest in this being looked into any further and McIntyre simply states that they got the right people for Tonya Bennett's murder. End of story. Sanford provided the letter that he had received to McIntyre and to law enforcement, and this will become very important later on. Now remember that Phil Sanford received this letter on April 29, 1994. We're still in 1994. But then once again, 1995 rolls in. At this point Jim McIntyre hadn't heard anything more about the Tonya Bennett case for over a year. That's according to Jim McIntyre himself. In McIntyre's own words, he said, quote then we had a hand grenade go off. End quote. I was not able to nail down the exact date of this, but remember that in 1995, keith Jesperson was arrested in Washington on March 22, 1995.

Speaker 3: 33:28

Yesterday in an exclusive interview with Channel 2 News, alleged murder of Keith Jesperson confessed to being the so-called happy face killer.

Speaker 1: 33:34

At that time, keith Jesperson was in custody in Clark County, washington, pending trial on the murder of his girlfriend. Based on this, I presume that quote unquote Channel 2 News referred to just a second ago was Channel 2 News in or around Clark County, washington, but I don't know this. Phil Sanford seems to be this really likeable and affable guy. He's able to charm people is the sense I get and he's intelligent, really smart. He strikes me as the typical liberal leaning media reporter type who is very concerned with social and civil rights, which is a good thing. Don't get me wrong.

Speaker 1: 34:13

In various reports and broadcasts watched both Jim McIntyre and Phil Sanford expressed dislike toward each other. I believe that McIntyre saw Sanford as a crybaby tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal type that always wanted to get in the way of law enforcement upholding the law. And I believe that Sanford saw McIntyre as not being willing to pay attention to very important and pertinent facts that did not support whatever conclusion that McIntyre had reached in obtaining a conviction in a criminal case, even if it meant injustice. And I do believe that Sanford got this right about McIntyre at least to a degree. Now, after Jesterson was arrested, he started putting it out there very extensively that he was what had become known as the happy face killer because of the happy faces on the letters. And I want to just give you a taste of Keith Jesterson, his personality, what he was like in the media.

Speaker 3: 35:12

I've come aboard. But the truth, I want to make sure it's out there. There is no doubt in my mind. I am him, I am the happy face killer.

Speaker 1: 35:23

Phil Stanford finds out about Keith Jesterson's alleged confession to Tonya Bennett's murder through a colleague and he begins pushing the Multnomah County DA's office for more information and for more to be done to investigate this. And at this point Phil Stanford now believes that it was absolutely the case that the wrong people were imprisoned for the murder of Tonya Bennett. A year earlier, when Stanford had provided the anonymous letter that he received at the Oregonian, the law enforcement, jim McIntyre had had the crime lab investigate the stamp on the back of the envelope and they successfully were able to lift DNA off of the stamp, but they didn't at that time have a profile to compare it to. So now in 1995, and probably begrudgingly, or at least hoping that it would prove that Jesterson was not the sender of the letter to Phil Stanford, jim McIntyre, at Mike Shrunk's insistence, had the state crime lab compare the DNA profile that they had lifted from the stamp on the envelope to Keith Jesterson's DNA. At that time again, he was in custody in Clark County, washington State, which is just north of Portland, oregon.

Speaker 1: 36:36

On August 17, 1995, mcintyre received a report from the state crime lab. The report was vexing, in his words. The state's lab experts, findings were unequivocal. The handwriting in the happy face letters matched the handwriting in Jesterson's letter to his brother. Fingerprints on the happy face letters matched Jesterson's handwriting and the saliva DNA retrieved from the stamp on the envelope of what was now being called the happy face killer letter was a match to Keith Jesterson's DNA. For the first time they had a live body saying that that same person killed Tonya Bennett, and not just an anonymous letter or a scrawled message on a bathroom wall.

Speaker 1: 37:21

Sadly, and in a mean coincidence, on the same day that the lab report came in, jim McIntyre, while sitting alone in his office, found out, along with his family, that his father had just been diagnosed with fatally terminal liver cancer. Jim McIntyre's father didn't have long to live after that. Also, you need to remember, jim McIntyre had gone through a hotly contested divorce that finalized not long prior to this. 1995 was a pretty horrible and difficult year for Jim McIntyre. Mcintyre considered his father a truly great man. He was a highly decorated infantry commander in World War II and in the Korean War. After retiring from the army as Lieutenant Colonel, he had directed public works projects for the Department of Commerce. Jim McIntyre shared in one report that his favorite story about his father was about the seventh game of the 1971 World Series Pittsburgh at Baltimore. Jim was 14 at the time and his father was a true Pirates fanatic. Jim's father let him meaning Jim and his friend use his two bleacher tickets while Jim's father sat out in the parking lot listening to the game on the radio. Jim and his friend were only four rows back when Roberto Clemente went over the fence to make the fantastical series winning out. Jim McIntyre and his children took care of Jim's ailing father day in and day out. After the diagnosis Jim took some time off of work amidst the Tonya Bennett case debacle and the news reports that were coming out, with Jim and his children watching Jim's father round the clock. But death came pretty quickly. Jim's father passed away on September 4th 1995. Jim buried his father on September 8th 1995. When Jim returned to the office three days later on September 11th 1995, mike Schrunke was waiting for him. He told McIntyre quote clear your docket. You're on Jesperson, full time end. Quote Keith Jesperson was even more eager than Pavlenak to confess to Tonya Bennett's murder.

Speaker 1: 39:21

Jesperson was so dogged and intense in his insistence that he was the happy face killer that's the name that he had been given by the Oregonian that a judge actually ordered Jesperson to stop talking. I'm quite certain that that was unconstitutional, but a judge did that In any case. Jesperson refused and ignored the judge's order. Jesperson insistently demanded and proclaimed that he alone killed Tonya Bennett and he wanted the credit. The happy face killer is known to have said, quote I won't be happy until I am replacing that man in the Oregon State Penitentiary. Jesperson wanted the noted criminal defense attorney Jerry Spence to represent him. He wanted newspapers to print his letters in full in their newspapers. He wanted everything put on the AP wire. And he's known to have said many times, quote the truth must be told on this case, as God is my witness. End quote On September 29th 1995, jim McIntyre, tom Felin, who is the defense attorney actually hired by Jesperson and given his name, I really have to say I wonder if Jesperson picked him for his last name, felin, though it was spelled P-H-E-L-A-N.

Speaker 1: 40:35

Funny name for a criminal defense attorney, though Anybody want a criminal defense attorney who is a felon couldn't get himself off Anybody. Anyway, also detective Chris Peterson this is the first time I've ever mentioned him and he was with the sheriff's office with Multnomah County and an officer from the Clark County Washington Sheriff's Office met at the Clark County, washington Sheriff's jail interrogation room next to the court or in the courthouse the reports were kind of confusing so that the Multnomah County prosecutor's office and their witness from the sheriff's office could interview Keith Jesperson about his claims of being the murderer of Tonya Bennett. Jim McIntyre had one purpose that he was there for. He wanted, he needed, to see if Keith Jesperson would or could provide, and if he knew, any details that only the killer of Tonya Bennett would know, in order to verify or debunk Keith Jesperson's claims that he's the murderer.

Speaker 1: 41:36

Throughout this interview and after the interview, keith Jesperson's credibility rose and fell. Jesperson got some of the details right, other details he got wrong. According to Jim McIntyre, jesperson spoke about unbuttoning Bennett's shirt, but she had been wearing a sweater. Jesperson talked of seeing the dumped body from the far side of a hairpin turn, which was physically impossible according to McIntyre. And on October 2, 1995, when McIntyre, detective Chris Peterson and others took Keith Jesperson out to the dump site of the body, jesperson ironically pointed to the wrong ravine. So where Laverne Pavlenak was able to figure it out and point to the right location, jesperson pointed to the wrong location for where the body was dumped. Now, right about now, I'm kind of guessing that you're wondering did he get us the recording of the interview with Keith Jesperson? And the answer to that question is yes, I did.

Speaker 2: 42:48

The date is September 29, 1995. At the time is 1035. Present at the Park County Sheriff's Office Defender attorney Tom Feeland. Deputy DA Jim McIntyre from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. Detective Chris Peterson from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. I understand that you want to talk to us about a homicide that occurred in Multnomah County in 1990. Is that correct? I guess I do, Okay. Okay, at some point did you meet a female that you were killed?

Speaker 3: 43:23

Yes, I did. You know what her name was? I found out it was Tanya Ben. I went out for a walk and I decided I'd go out and play some pool. I went to the new tavern and this gal walked over and gave me a hug like I was somebody's human. I shot through over a friendly, but she actually gave hugs to about everybody there. I invited her to dinner, but I was conscious that I didn't have enough money. I feel like I could go back to the house and I could get another $20 bill of the dresser.

Speaker 3: 44:01

My kids threw on the neck and went from there, but something just didn't seem right. I don't know if it was clicking for her or not. She was complaining, she wasn't excited yet and she made a comment something like well, I'm not getting there once, just for it to get it over with. It got pissed me off. I tagged her with my right arm. What do you mean by you tagged her with your right arm? What does that mean? I just lost my cool and I struck her inside the face and I never stopped psyching her until she was laying out. She said things that my wife used to tell me when we were having sex and just brought back memories. I was not. I don't think I was all there at that time. I was thinking of the fingerprints I left on the buttons. I took the buttons off her jeans.

Speaker 2: 45:03

Okay, so what happens next?

Speaker 3: 45:06

I take off the car and I go looking for a place I can go dump the body. I noticed a bunch of people parked around the vest, maybe three or four cars. I finally figured I'd just keep on going down the hill until I found a place. At that time I was really getting kind of panicky and I saw a big tree on the right and then I stopped in front of it. I just grabbed her and dragged her down the hill. You talked about a purse. Yes, I got rid of her purse. The next following morning I drove back out of there, followed generally the same path across the river. I pulled over to the wide spot, I took the purse and I tossed the contents and the purse out over the area. First I probably went 40 feet down off the bank.

Speaker 1: 46:14

Well, that's not creepy. I'm really surprised at the lack of emotion and just how candid and frank and factual he is in his description of this. Now I want you to compare that to the emotion in Laverne Pavlenak's confession. That was a critical factor that caused Jim McIntyre to rely on Pavlenak, and I'm certain it's a critical factor that the jury relied on in finding Pavlenak guilty and in nine of her jurors wanting to give her the death penalty for the death of Tonya Bennett.

Speaker 1: 46:53

Some time after this, still in the fall, jim McIntyre, detective Chris Peterson, jesperson, jesperson's attorney, tom Fallon, and three other armed sheriff's deputies all traveled together in an unmarked panel van and additionally another unmarked vehicle was with them, followed behind with additional armed officers of security. They drove up the Columbia Gorge near where the body had been dumped. Jim McIntyre wanted and needed to see if Keith Jesperson could identify anything specific that only the killer would know, to try and verify that Keith Jesperson was in fact Tonya Bennett's murderer. They took Jesperson all the way up the gorge to Vista House and then they drove the route on the dirt road where Jesperson believed that he had dumped the body. Jesperson told them to stop the van. He walked around for a while and then he said that he believed that quote this is where I dumped the body. I think I'm not sure. End quote. Both Detective Peterson and Jim McIntyre knew that this was not the right spot. At that point there were two switchbacks east of where the body had been dumped. At this point, the only thing that they had to possibly use to corroborate Jesperson's claims of being Tonya Bennett's murderer was where he threw Tonya Bennett's purse and belongings in the purse, in other words, by the Sandy River. They headed southbound up the Sandy River to the place where Jesperson said quote, this is the place where I threw the purse end quote.

Speaker 1: 48:30

At this point I'd like to discuss the obvious difference in the readiness and in the desire to believe Laverne Pavleneck's story which she recanted several times and then told different stories, even though she and Johnson Snosky had no kind of violent past or criminal record versus an in comparison to Keith Jesperson and his confession, where Jesperson has at this point proven to have murdered at least seven other women. With Mike Shrunk's insistence, jim McIntyre was somewhat panicking about being able to, one way or another, give his boss a clear determination on whether or not Jesperson was telling the truth or if they had already had the right people in prison for Tonya Bennett's murder all this time, and Jesperson was just a mass murderer that reveled in the attention of the media Again, remember, he's killed several other women, so he is still a mass murderer. At one point, shrunk began demanding daily briefings from Jim McIntyre regarding this investigation, and Shrunk had told the newspapers quote I don't want our office to do wrong. The last thing I want to do is have the wrong person in prison. As a side note, this is how every prosecutor, in my opinion, should be, and not just prosecutors, but every officer of the law and of the court, and I would go further to say society as a whole. We used to have that mentality, so Jim McIntyre is pulling his hair out. He has to get an answer for his boss regarding whether they've got the right people in jail Laverne Pavleneck and John Sasnowski or is this mass murderer that has some indicia of credibility telling the truth in claiming that he is Tonya Bennett's murderer? Well, jim McIntyre and Detective Peterson decide that they think that maybe Laverne Pavleneck can help them out of this mess.

Speaker 1: 50:29

I can't make this stuff up, folks. It really is true that life is so much more weird than fiction. This prosecutor and this law enforcement agency put this woman away for life and she nearly got the death penalty. And at this point I want to ask you who do you think committed this murder? I really wish, I really wish I could ask you. Maybe I should send out survey monkey surveys to my listeners. So, weird as it is, they go and see Laverne Pavleneck. This happens on October 4th 1995.

Speaker 1: 51:07

And if I understood what I read correctly, detective Peterson goes alone and meets with Laverne Pavleneck at the Oregon Women's Correctional Institute in Salem, oregon. Peterson asked her that if she was not involved in the murder of Tonya Bennett, how did she lead them directly to the spot where the body had been dumped? Pavleneck's response that it was very easy. From news articles she knew the spot was 1.5 miles from Vista House before La Terrell falls. Pavleneck stated that as they drove there she watched the odometer of the car that they were driving in. Peterson balked at this and asked her really you watched the odometer? The Truder Pavleneck formed. She pulled a Pavleneck and she revised her story. She said maybe she glanced at the odometer. Peterson didn't really even buy that explanation. Pavleneck revised again and she said that she couldn't actually see the odometer, but that there was red paint and or red tape marking the area. Also, pavleneck informed them that the newspaper actually had run a picture of where the body had been found. Law enforcement just didn't know that and for your viewing pleasure, there's a copy of that picture on the Triple M Podcast's website.

Speaker 1: 52:24

Detective Peterson asked his second question why did you confess to the murder? Pavleneck responded the detectives had come to her. They told her that there was insufficient evidence to hold Sosnowski. They told her they were going to have to release him and, fearing that Sosnowski would retaliate against her, she decided to implicate herself. When McIntyre heard this, when Peterson returned from seeing Pavleneck, he is reported to have thrown his hands up in frustration. This was because, according to McIntyre, pavleneck's description of tire tracks and broken branches didn't fit photographs of the scene or the detective's memories, that's Detective Ingram and Corson. Also, her given reason for implicating herself made no sense. It didn't make any sense that Ingram and Corson would have told Pavleneck that they didn't have enough evidence on Sosnowski and that they were going to have to release him. They had an airtight witness and Sosnowski was already in jail.

Speaker 1: 53:22

So McIntyre decided that he simply believed that Pavleneck had once again lied, threw her teeth about everything or just made random stuff up. That does seem to be the kind of thing that Laverne Pavleneck does Reportedly around the office. Mcintyre was known to have stated to colleagues, quote "'How to know the truth, however, to know for certain'. You know what happened? I don't know what happened and I do understand McIntyre's frustration. At this point. I have to give it to him that Laverne Pavleneck is close to being just about the very worst type of person to be in the situation that she is and was in". So they're still on the hunt for the truth. Jim McIntyre still has to report to his boss and find an answer about whether they've got the right people in jail or not and whether or not Jesperson is telling the truth about being the actual murderer. So they wired Keith Jesperson to a polygraph machine to test whether he is telling the truth about his involvement and his commission of the murder of Tanya Bennett. But this is to no avail. Jesperson kept coughing and moving around so much that they had to stop midway through the polygraph exam, with no results being achieved.

Speaker 1: 54:30

The search on the embankment took place on October 7th 1995, according to Jim McIntyre, the entire area by this time was covered in thick blackberry bushes that had grown since 1990. Because of this, they were confident that if Jesperson had thrown Tanya Bennett's purse and her belongings over this embankment they would still be there. At that time, a large team of explorer scouts, aided by sheriff's officers, cut away the blackberry bushes and searched the hillside and the embankment. There's a picture of this on the triple M podcast website. I think it's really interesting. They brought out scouts to search for something like this. Sadly, they found nothing no purse, no driver's license, nothing else. At this point they had no physical evidence, no fingerprints, no DNA or blood. After three weeks and many, many lab hours the state had not found a shred of evidence linking Keith Jesperson to Tanya Bennett's murder, or even her person, her body. This is when Jim McIntyre felt certain that Keith Jesperson was lying and that he had nothing to do with Tanya Bennett's murder.

Speaker 1: 55:43

On October 11th 1995, jim McIntyre began preparing to write his final report to District Attorney Mark Shrunk. He was going to report that he and the prosecutor's office could not act to change anything with regard to Laverne Pavlenak and John Sosnowski's convictions. Pavlenak had been found guilty by a jury. Sosnowski had pled guilty by way of a no-contest plea which has the same effect as a guilty plea. And just for the record, I think there was a specific reason why John Sosnowski pled no contest. And on this point, for those of you who don't have a criminal record, when you plead guilty you can't just say I'm guilty. That's insufficient, unless you're allowed to do a no-contest plea, and then you can just say no contest. But when you plead guilty you actually have to give the court what's called an allocution, and an allocution is telling the court what you did to be guilty. It's providing a factual basis for the guilty plea.

Speaker 1: 56:46

Well, detective Chris Peterson was not satisfied. After checking with Jim McIntyre first and, I assume, getting permission, detective Peterson ordered the Explorer Scouts back out to the embankment on Saturday October 14, 1995. This time they brought machetes and clippers. The plan they were going to hack away all of those Blackberry bushes. This hadn't been done the first time. Then they would search the bare ground. Jim McIntyre coached his son's soccer team and they had had a game on this particular day. This is not long after Peterson takes the Scouts back out.

Speaker 1: 57:23

Jim had just arrived home after the soccer game when he got a phone call from Detective Peterson. It was about 4 pm. He sat down on his bed and picked up his phone. Peterson asked if he was sitting and McIntyre said that he was sitting. Detective Peterson said quote Jim, I am holding Tonya Bennett's driver's license in my hands. End quote Jim. Mcintyre responded quote don't bullshit me. End quote Peterson. Quote I'm not, it's covered with mud. Looks like it's been here some time along with other stuff from her purse. End quote. Mcintyre then jokingly says quote go tell them to put it back. Jesus Christ, go bury it. I don't want to hear this. End quote.

Speaker 1: 58:06

Here's the thing Police, law enforcement and the prosecution had never known where even to look for Tonya Bennett's purse or its contents. Pavlenak hadn't known where it would be. No news accounts did or could have ever provided any information, because only Tonya Bennett's murder would know how and where they disposed of these things. And now Keith Jespersson had led them exactly to its location, which was several miles from where Tonya Bennett's body had been dumped. It was undeniably clear Keith Jespersson had information that only Tonya Bennett's murder could possibly know. He absolutely unquestionably had to have been involved in Tonya Bennett's murder. This isn't terribly surprising to me, but while McIntyre now believed wholeheartedly that Jespersson was involved in Tonya Bennett's murder, he did not yet concede or necessarily believe that this meant that Pavlenak and Sosnowski were definitely not involved in her murder and from what I can tell, this is what McIntyre chose to believe at this time that all three of them are involved in Tonya Bennett's murder.

Speaker 1: 59:18

Why? Because this is the easiest thing right for prosecution. It's a painful thing to consider the fact that you've put someone away that's innocent. They almost got the death penalty, two people got life sentences and the amount of work involved in fixing this kind of thing and the embarrassment of not getting this right. You'd lose sleep over it.

Speaker 1: 59:40

But to continue pursuing District Attorney Mike Shrunk's mandate to find the truth and get to the bottom of all of this, mcintyre had had investigators out trying to locate a woman named Roberta Ellis, who had previously been identified as Keith Jespersson's girlfriend at the time of Tonya Bennett's murder. Two days after Detective Peterson and the Explorer Scouts found Tonya Bennett's driver's license, they finally tracked Roberta Ellis down, much to Jim McIntyre's dismay. When Roberta Ellis was informed that Keith Jespersson was in jail for murder, she replied saying, quote oh, I've always hoped that what he told me was a dream end. Quote. When she returned from a trucking hall in late January of 1990, she saw that Jespersson had moved their mattress from the master bedroom to the living room. As she started to fall asleep that night, jespersson told her that while she was gone he had met a girl at the B&I Tavern, that he brought her home, that he killed her and that it had made him feel powerful.

Speaker 1: 1:00:47

According to reports, this news caused McIntyre to reel and he had to admit that. Here was evidence that put Jasperson in as in in to Tanya Bennett's murder, while taking Pavlenak and Sosnovsky out. The dates of Roberta Ellis' trucking haul, the B&I Tavern, even the mattress fit all of the right time periods and facts. But I can't make this up. But Jim McIntyre thought Ellis is Jasperson's ex-girlfriend. Possibly she could be getting even for some old offense that she felt Jasperson had caused to her. Because of this, on October 24th 1995, fbi agents administered independent and separate polygraph exams to Jasperson and to Pavlenak in order to see if Jasperson somehow knew Pavlenak and Sosnovsky. Both Jasperson and Pavlenak insisted that they didn't know each other and neither of them showed any signs of deception whatsoever.

Speaker 1: 1:01:51

Mcintyre resisted for one more day. He wondered if someone, anyone, could have fed critical information to Jasperson, enabling him to know things that he shouldn't. So McIntyre asked Jasperson's attorney if he could review his notes about the initial, very first meeting with his client, keith Jasperson. Now, normally that kind of thing is attorney work product and is privileged. But Jasperson wanted all of this, so he gave permission to his attorney to allow McIntyre to look at his notes. And what did McIntyre find in Jasperson's attorney's notes? He found that Jasperson had given his attorney all of the exact same facts and the same story from the very beginning, before Jasperson's story hit the press and before Jasperson had any contact with the media.

Speaker 1: 1:02:44

Mcintyre just wanted the whole entire thing to go away. But regardless of what he wanted, truth and justice now required him to act to undo what he had done five years previously. He now knew and accepted that not a single word of Pavlenak's stories had any truth to them. It had all, without exception, been total and utter lies. Hoping to fix all of this, mike Schrunk arranged for an expedited hearing at the Marion County Circuit Court in Salem, near where Pavlenak and Sosnowski were imprisoned.

Speaker 1: 1:03:21

On October 25th 1995, mcintyre and other prosecutors worked through the night to prepare a 21-page memo that summarized their conclusions regarding the innocence of Pavlenak and Sosnowski and the guilt of Keith Jasperson. On October 26th 1995, they were before the court. Mcintyre and Schrunk stated that quote "'We have made a mistake. If we knew then what we know now, we would never have prosecuted these people. This wrong must be undone". End quote.

Speaker 1: 1:03:54

Everyone believed that they had a done deal. It was an unprecedented scene, with all of the prosecutors, all the defense attorneys and all of law enforcement holding hands and singing let them free. Instead of immediately signing the release order, presiding circuit judge Paul Ibskum said that he had not yet had sufficient time to review the documents presented to the court, including the proposed release orders. Everyone was shocked by this. Mike Schrunk argued and pleaded with the court to sign the release orders. Judge Lipscomb refused and everyone left the court empty-handed. Four days later, on October 29th 1995, judge Lipscomb wrote in a written ruling that he was declining to release Pavlenak and Sosnowski. The opinions stated that while the state's brief was quote troubling, end quote it is quote not conclusive in establishing either the guilt of Keith Jasperson or the innocence of Pavlenak and Sosnowski, and much doubt still remains. End quote. Judge Lipscomb further wrote that quote under our rule of law, a jury verdict cannot later be simply set aside by some other judge. Likewise, following conviction and sentencing, the prosecutor loses nearly all power to cause any verdict to be set aside. End quote.

Speaker 1: 1:05:16

For the next month, prosecutors and defense attorneys worked together side by side to find a solution. On November 2nd 1995, keith Jasperson pled no contest to the murder of Tanya Bennett and he drew life sentence. And at that point Oregon State officially had two separate people in prison for the same murder, based on two entirely different theories about how the same murder occurred. No one could believe that a court in the United States would allow known innocent parties to remain in prison for crimes that they had not committed. And people began spitting. Metaphorically speaking, tom Fellen, jasperson's attorney, is known to have publicly and sarcastically stated quote who cares about the rule of law? There is no room to believe that these two people had anything to do with the murder. End quote. Pavlenak's attorney, wendell Berkland, is known to have publicly stated quote if the criminal justice system can't allow for the release of an innocent person when all agree she is innocent, then the criminal system is broken. In an interview with the media conducted at his local Elks Club, detective Ingram stated quote I used to believe I used to support the death penalty. I don't believe in it as firmly anymore. I feel helpless. Those two should not be in jail. If I could do anything to get them out, I would.

Speaker 1: 1:06:40

At a second hearing on November 27, 1995, judge Libscombe finally relented. By this time he had been deluged with briefs and investigative documents and also probably with very harsh letters from the public. At this hearing, judge Libscombe conceded that Pavlenak and Sosnowski indeed were innocent and, more to the point, he accepted the lawyer's proposals for how to free them For post-conviction relief. In essence, it's required that some violation of constitutional right must have occurred to undo the sentences and convictions such as Pavlenak's and Sosnowski's Under then existing Oregon State law. Sosnowski's release was quite easy. Libscombe ruled that his constitutional rights had been violated because Pavlenak at one point, while wired for sound by the police, had tried to get him to admit guilt. So Sosnowski was going to be released and his conviction overturned.

Speaker 1: 1:07:41

Pavlenak's release and or overturning of her conviction was gonna be trickier. Judge Libscombe stated that Pavlenak's conviction had been obtained legally and without violation of her constitutional rights. Judge Libscombe stated that her conduct had been a quote, a front to our entire criminal justice system. End quote and also quote. The cost to taxpayers has been enormous, the cost to Sosnowski incalculable, end quote. But, and despite this, the judge held that to continue to imprison a factually innocent person would violate Oregon State's constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, while Pavlenak's conviction would remain with her continuing to be quote legally guilty end quote she could walk free.

Speaker 1: 1:08:34

Sadly, this is where I have to say that the stupidity and intellectual ineptitude that I mentioned earlier even touched the judge, because Pavlenak's constitutional rights had been violated. Remember the judges ruling at trial about the messages scrawled on the bathroom wall in Livingston Montana, where the judge held that that was inadmissible hearsay with no indication of reliability. Regardless, in the end Pavlenak and Sosnowski got out and Jesperson got what he wanted and me? I was right all along. It was a serial killer. I'm your host, jk Richards. Thank you so much for being here with me today. I hope you enjoyed yourself. I know that I did. Please stay safe out there and I hope to never be telling your story.