Austin Yogurt Shop Murders /// Part 2 /// Episode:82 | Forensic Files

Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Applause] Welcome to True Crime Garage. Wherever
you are, whatever you are doing, thanks for listening. I'm your host, Nick. And with me as always is a man that just
like Guns and Roses, once he gets outside of the States, he just totally forgets where he is. He is the captain.
Hello, Sydney. Oh [ __ ] we're in Melbourne. Cheers, mates. Today we are drinking Island Reserve
Russian Imperial Stout by the wonderful people at Cisco Brewers Incorporated. Here's a great after-dinner beer.
Francisco Brewers Island Reserve is a jet black pore. It's a fullbodied, very dark in color beer. Good coffee and
chocolate flavor with nice hints of fruit. Garage grade four and a quarter bottle caps out of five. And this week's
beer was brought to us by these awesome peeps. We have Frederick in Sweden. Longdistance cheers to you, my friend.
Thank you, Frederick. Next up in parts unknown, we have Erica and Edna who say, "We would like to buy you guys a beer."
Well, Erica and Edna, we accept your offer and we like your G. We also have Wesley in San Diego. Stay classy,
Wesley. Wesley says, "I'm always amazed at the thoroughess of each and every case. Thanks for the great podcast,
Wesley. Thank you, homie. Eat the poop." Let's give a big shout out to Kent in Bloomington, Indiana. Thank you, Kent.
We also have Sarah in Columbia, South Carolina. She says, "This has become my absolute favorite podcast. Check out
Sweetwater Blue. It's my favorite beer." Well, thank you, Sarah. And I drank a few of those over the weekend just
perhaps. And last but not least, we have Adna and Djibouti who says, "Thanks. >> I have started telling people if I do or
do not like their jibs." Well, thank you, Adah Hana. Just remember, it's kind. It's very kind to grade jibs on a
curve, my friends. And like always, if you'd like to donate to the beer fund, go to true crimegar.com
and give us a little love. And like always, we like your jam. That's enough of the business. Everybody gather
around, grab a chair, grab a beer, and let's talk some true crime. [Music] [Music]
Come on, Michael. I think they all four of them were tied up, but I don't remember with what.
>> Who tied those girls up? >> Um, Bob did. >> All four of them. He had to had some help. He needed some
help. He couldn't have tied all four of them up by himself. >> I don't remember if I helped him or not.
>> Okay. You think you might have helped him? >> I I guess I did. >> Okay. What were they tied up with?
>> Come on, Michael. You know what? Were they tied? Just tell us. What were they
tied up with? >> White. It was had I remember being stretched with I think it was a t-shirt.
>> T-shirt. Okay. What else were they tied up with? >> Uh t-shirt. And >> go ahead. You remember?
>> You remember Michael Wales? Come on, brother. You know, you know, you know. >> T-shirt and I want to say electrical
cord. >> No, think harder. >> T-shirt and something else. Uh, >> I'm not going to tell you cuz you know.
I want to hear it from you. >> I'm trying to remember, guys. >> Something else. >> His t-shirt is something else.
>> And you have Robin time up. >> I think I guess I did. >> Yeah, you did. What were the girls wearing by the time
they were tied up? What were they wearing, Michael? That's a gimme. Yeah, >> that's an easy one.
>> Not a whole lot. >> Not a whole lot. >> They used their own clothes to tie them
up. >> Use their own clothes to tie them up. You and Rob. And by the time you were
done, what were they wearing? >> Say it. >> Nothing. >> Nothing. There you go. [Music]
Back in December of 1991 in Austin, Texas, four teenage girls were bound and killed in a small yogurt shop. The
store, of course, was robbed. And this is a this is a case that has gripped the city of Austin, Texas, and has gripped
the the state of Texas as well. We are sitting here now 25 years later, still asking the question, who killed these
girls? >> So, quick recap. When the firefighters show up to the I can't believe it's
yogurt shop, they realize quickly it's not just an arson, but we have a quadruple homicide. So that's going to
be a sign to Detective Jones and Detective Huckabe. And in my opinion, those two detectives, I think they
worked the case very well. They had a lot of issues here with the with the investigation. This being we have people
making confessions and that is tough because a lot of these confessions are pretty wild. Uh, according to Jones and
Huckabe, uh, they're they're able to easily quickly sit down with these different people, these confessors, and
figure out early in their stories that they don't know certain details of the crime, things that would have taken
place that evening or evidence that was left and collected at the scene. They're
unaware of what actually took place. So, we're able to quickly dismiss several of
these confessors. Eight days after the murders took place, they arrest Maurice Pierce, which had a 22 caliber gun,
which was the gun used in at least three of the murders, and he implements his teenage friends. Um, Jones and Huckabe
kind of get to the bottom of this guy is just kind of bullshitting. >> Yeah. And on top of that, the gun does
not match the ballistics of the bullets that were found on the scene. So, they they get rid of these suspects and they
clear them and they've moved on in the case. Right. So leads are starting to dry up now. And in 1992, we have a
madman that's running a muck in the state of Texas. He's a known serial killer. He was somebody that was
released by the Texas prison system. And he's been suspected of new killings. Well, they track him down in 1992 and
they suspect that he possibly could have done this crime because he was somewhat
in the area around the time that the crime was committed. He would have been in Austin, Texas. They can place him
there about 23 days after the crime. >> Yeah. Within a month, him and another person abduct a lady uh and they rape
her and murder her. >> Yeah. Uh she was abducted from a downtown car wash and this this crime
took place, the yogurt shop murders took place in North Austin City. >> And that killer's name, that serial
killer's name is Kenneth McDuff. He's eventually, you know, they stopped looking at him because there's really
nothing that ties to him as far as forensics goes. In 1994, Detective Jones, who was the lead investigator of
the yogurt shop murders, he receives a promotion and they move him off of the case. The case is considered cold at
this point. Now, in 1996, we have other detectives that would move in and start looking at this case with fresh eyes.
>> In 1997, we have a serial killer that is captured. He will become known as the
fast food killer. Yeah, he was a pretty bad dude and he was running a muck in the state of Tennessee. Uh what his emmo
was was he would walk into a fast food restaurant >> and he would really take the scene over.
He would he would take control of the scene by holding a gun to everybody. He would make a quick robbery. He would
usually steal the surveillance tapes if there were any. He would execute all of the persons in the store and then he
would leave. Within a very short time period from February 16th, 1997 to April 23rd, 1997,
he robbed three different stores. And in the course of he ended up killing a total of seven people. Yeah. And he's
not just a suspect because he is known to rob, you know, McDonald's or Captain D's and that, you know, the yogurt shop
would fall kind of in that line. Mhm. >> He is also from the area of Texas. >> Yeah. He was he was born in Texas and at
a young age he started getting in trouble with the law. In 1983 he robs a Houston steakhouse and he's convicted of
aggravated armed robbery. He receives a 20-year prison sentence for this. But he's parrolled after just 7 years. He's
parrolled in 1990 which and he stays in the Texas area. He becomes a truck driver.
>> So he was in the area at, you know, in ' 91. Yes. And during this time he's he's
driving a truck. He ends up in some kind of bad accident and he receives quite a
handsome settlement for this and he decides that he's going to get some plastic surgery because
>> it's funny that you said a handsome uh you know >> and then rolled it into plastic surgery.
>> Right. Right. >> Well, he's kind of an ugly kid. Um I'll go ahead and throw that out there. and
and he makes himself look a little better and he decides he wants to move to Nashville to become a a country
western singer. >> Nash Vegas. >> Yeah, I believe he wanted to become the next G Brooks.
>> No, but he had the talent of Billy Ray Cyrus. >> Yeah, I that might be that might be
giving him far too much credit. >> Uh but there are some reasons to suspect that he might have done this. This is
certainly something he would have been capable of. However, his crimes were a little bit different in the sense that
he he didn't rape anybody involved in these these crimes that he committed up in Tennessee. Now, I'm not saying he's
not capable of doing so. >> It really seems like his motive was for the money and a financial gain and it
wasn't, you know, where these crimes, these yogurt shop murders really seemed like to me more sexual in nature and it
just was by, you know, well, I'm leaving the crime scene. and I might as well take some money with me as I go.
>> Yeah. And at the yogurt shop, they only the whoever got away with this, they only took $540. And they spent a decent
amount of time there assaulting the girls. >> His crimes, he got into a place, he
would take as much money as he could. Most of the time, we're talking about upwards of 2,000 or $3,000 each time.
And he would he would leave no evidence and he would kill everybody in the store. He was quick in and quick out,
which is not what we saw in the yogurt shop murders. Plus, he was never known to work with anybody else. I think the
yogurt shop, it looks like a situation where you have more than one asalent. So, detectives looking into Paul Reed.
They kind of realize he's kind of a lone cowboy. He's, you know, he's not tag team back again. Um, but this will lead
them to go back through their notes and start to request some people that that Jones and Huckabe already questioned
back in '91. Yeah. They're going through the file. They're going over this case time and time again. And what they keep
going back to is this Maurice Pierce keeps standing out to them >> and his three friends that he has,
Robert Springsteen, Michael Scott, and Forest Wilbornne, >> the East Street Band.
>> Yeah. So, they decide that, you know what, this is the most likely situation.
These guys did it. Uh, Maurice Pierce looks very guilty. He has a 22 caliber gun on him just days after the crime. He
mentions the crime to people. >> He's kind of a natural-born criminal. >> Yeah. So, he is picked up and this would
be in October of 1999. They arrest all four men >> and they are going to sit each one of
them down individually. And now we're going to start getting some answers, some much long awaited answers that
we've been looking for in this crime. >> Well, they're going to start getting answers because they're going to force
these answers upon these these suspects. >> Yeah. To say that the interrogation was
aggressive might be an understatement >> of the century. >> Yes. Um so what happens is they pull in
the four, they're talking to him, right? Uh Maurice Pierce has got nothing to offer. you know, he keeps saying that,
"Nope, I I didn't have anything to do with this. I don't know what you're talking about."
>> Yeah. Even though, you know, Maurice at the time of 90 and 91, he was like 15 or
so. >> So, he's just this punk kid. He had the 22 caliber. He, you know, basically
implements his friends into the the crime. But that was just kind of him being a dumb, you know, dumbass
15-year-old. Yeah. I believe his statement was that he had lent the gun to Forest Wilbornne and that Forest had
used the gun in the yogurt shop murders. This is what put them on the radar from
the get-go. Now, when they're talking to them, as said, here's here's what their
thought is going into this. Okay, so they believe that Maurice Pierce is some kind of criminal mastermind and he
organized this whole uh robbery, right? And they believe that Robert Springsteen
helped and Michael Scott helped. They believe that Forest Wilbornne would have been the lookout guy or the driver. Um,
they believe that it would have taken a group of men to to commit these crimes. Now, keep in mind though, these are just
teenage boys at the time. >> Now, they're being questioned years later as adults, right? We have two of them that
might be willing to talk and we have two of them that they don't know anything, >> right?
>> Maurice Pierce, he doesn't know anything. Forest Wilbourne, he doesn't know anything. They're not admitting to
anything. >> In 1999, two of the suspects are 24. Uh, Michael James Scott is 25 and Forest
Welburn is 23. Now, they get Michael Scott to crack first, right? And this is quite the long process. We're talking
about hours and hours of interrogation. and to to listen to the confession, to view it, you will see that the story is
changing as Michael's telling it. >> Yeah. And if you listen to the trailer, that was about 7 hours into one of the
interrogations. >> Mhm. So, where he is, they finally broken him down. They finally get him to
the point where he admits that he was there, >> that he had taken place in the crime.
Now he they got to go through the details because they got to confirm that he was actually there.
>> Well, and that's the problem. >> Mhm. >> He doesn't know the details. >> No, he doesn't get a lot of them right
without being coaxed to to getting it right. You know, he would often give a wrong answer and they would tell him,
"No, that's not it. Think harder. You need to try harder." >> Yeah. The detective keeps saying, "I'm
not going to give you the right answer." Right. >> Yeah. >> Not going to give you the right answer.
But what he does constantly is he tells you when your answer is wrong. So by a process of elimination, you're going to
get to the right answer. >> Oh no, they were tied up with their clothes. Okay, they were tied up with
their clothes. Well, what clothes, >> you know, uh, well, maybe this part of their clothes. No, wrong. You know, and
he keeps doing that and until he gets the right answer. >> And just to paint the picture for you,
if you've not seen the confession tapes, >> Mhm. They Michael Scott, he is literally
sitting with his back up against the wall. I mean, he's pushed up against the wall and he has two detectives on each
side of him, right up in his face, and they're all sitting down in chairs and they are right up in his face and they
are very aggressive. Well, got the they got the good cop and bad cop going. They
got one cop that kind of leans back constantly and then the the main cop questioning is like maybe a couple
inches from his face. Yeah. So every time, no. No. >> Yeah. Yeah. You get you got the bad cop
saying, "No, you didn't get that right." And the good cop is saying, "It's okay,
Michael. You can tell us. We know you know the answers." >> Um, so they play that game for quite
some time. And we Let's go through Michael Scott's confession. Okay. He states that they were all four of them,
they were hanging out at the North Cross Mall, which was very close to the yogurt
shop, >> and that Maurice Pierce is in need of money. So he comes up with this idea
that we're going to go rob someplace and he actually picks out the yogurt shop. They agree to go to the yogurt shop.
>> Yeah. Which is probably a pretty common place for teenagers in that town because
most of the employees there are teenagers. >> He says that the the event starts off
like this. Maurice goes into the yogurt shop and places an order. And then Robert and Michael, they go in and they
ask to use the restroom. They want to go to the back of the store to see what's going on in the back. Now, during that
time, they're going to open up the back door and they're going to prop it open. >> And like we have from the reports, the
back door was propped open and the front door was locked. >> Yeah. And they're going to wait for the
store to close at 11:00. Now, after the store closes, Maurice and Robert are going to go back in through the propped
open back door and they are going to they have guns at this point and they are going to rob this place, right? Mhm.
>> What ends up happening is during the course of this robbery, they ask the women, the girls, I'm sorry, to remove
their clothing, uh, this being Robert. And then Michael Scott, he ties up the girls and he gags them. Then Maurice,
he's demanding money from the girls, but they refuse or they say something like,
"There is no money." And when this happens, Maurice shoots two of the girls. Robert then hits one of the girls
and he rapes her. >> Yeah. Which again, this all lines up with the reports. >> Now, the fourth girl is screaming and
she's begging for her life. She's begging that they do not shoot her. >> Um, Michael Scott then pretends to
sexually assault her. He's saying that he was being told by the other guys to to rape her and that he he just
pretended to sexually assault the girl. >> And he can't remember at this point which suspect handed him the gun. Yeah.
And it's at this point that he does shoot that girl and then he would go on to shoot Amy who was raped by Robert.
>> And at this point, Michael Scott then says he is the one that stacks the body
and he also says that he's the one that I think administers the the accelerant. >> You're exactly right.
>> Again, something that's a little strange because a 24 25 year old uh this is cop
speak. >> Mhm. You know, a lot of detectives that have looked detectives and lawyers that
have looked at these confessions say it's funny because that the actual written accounts because you have the
verbal confessions and we have those taped and those are horrendous enough, but then they have to take all those
statements and then now put them on paper. And basically by looking at the the written statements, these cops go,
"Well, it's kind of strange that the these kids are constantly using cop." >> Yeah. It's like they're picking up words
as they're going along and and they state that, you know, it would have been more common to hear a criminal say
lighter fluid rather than accelerant. Um, at this point, they leave the building through the back door. Uh, they
leave it propped open and Michael Scott says that the whole this whole thing only takes about 20 minutes from the
time that they enter the building after closing until they leave. Now, when they
get back to the vehicle, Forest Wilbornne is no longer in the vehicle. He has left.
>> Yeah. Rumor has it he's off somewhere playing a pretend game of pocket pole. >> Yeah. Actually, the the three boys drive
around and they're looking for Forest and they find him in a park. Uh they pick him up and then at some point they
are going to ditch a knife that they had taken from the crime scene. I'm guessing
this would have been to cut up some of the girls clothing or belongings to use them as, you know, bindings. Mhm.
>> Um the other boy that confessed, the man now, Robert Springsteen, his confession
is similar. It does line up with some of the things that Michael Scott said. >> Um one of those one of the key things
here is that they both admit that Robert raped Amy, which that's kind of a a a percentage kind of thing, right? When
you think about it, you have four asalants and one only they're saying only one girl was raped.
>> Well, I mean, let's go back a little bit on this because detectives, yeah, we
have four suspects, but detectives are already kind of leading them on to this idea that well, Forest was outside.
>> Mhm. >> That So there now there's only three, >> so you got a 33% chance of getting the
person right. >> That's true. That's true. Yeah. And they they both said that Forest was outside
as well. and they both said that the door the back door was propped open. It's a little unclear on Robert's
statement as to when he's saying the back door was propped open. Was it propped open to get back into the store
or was it propped open when they left the store? >> Um he also seems to have some knowledge
of the other bullet. Remember we said there was a second gun used in the situation. He seems to have some kind of
knowledge that there was a 38 involved, not just this 22 that they were already aware of,
>> right? Which again, all of this starts lining up with the reports. >> But again, his confession is much
shorter, much less detail, and there are parts of it, you know, that do not match
up with Michael Scott's. Uh there are some things that that these guys do not get right.
>> Yeah. And one of the main things that like defenders of these Austin 4 is what
we'll call them is that it's the, you know, Robert claims that he they stacked the bodies and then he lit the bodies on
fire, >> right? >> Which the initial reports from the the firefighters uh and the fire chief and
the fire investigation was that no, the bodies weren't actually set on fire that
it would have been the shelves. If you look at the crime scene though, they're right beside each other. Yeah, it they
would have been the body stack would have been about, you know, just four or five feet from this stock shelf, you
know, where you have plastic cups or I'm sorry, styrofoam cups and things of that
nature. Um, it's it's not crazy to to think that maybe this shelf wouldn't have fallen over at some point. U, but
Michael says that he had used these styrofoam cups with lighter fluid to to light the body stack on fire. Now, what
would end up happening is after they get these confessions, um they would go back
and they would find a new fire investigator to take a look at the crime scene. And this fire investigator says,
"You know what? I disagree with the previous findings. What actually happened is that the the body stack is
where the fire had originated from." >> Well, this is what is so freaking annoying, right? I mean, we see this
time and time again in these cases that go unsolved. Most of the time when a case goes unsolved, it's because these
detectives, not not Jones, not Huckabe, but these detectives go on this uh this mission, we have a theory, now let's
prove the theory. And like we've always heard, uh some of the smartest detectives that we met and that we've
interviewed, you know, trying to do our job a little bit better on the podcast, get some insider information.
It's the guys that say, "Look, I am not smart enough to to imagine what happened. So, I let the evidence present
itself to me and present the story to me. You follow the evidence. You don't come up with the theory theory and make
the shoe fit, >> right?" and and some of the detectives that we've talked to in the Columbus PD
have been really good about this and the idea that they've even said, "Hey, look,
when you're working on a homicide, you might have two, three detectives involved, sometimes more,
>> right? >> And they've talked several times about how they've had uh partners or people
that they've thought really highly of that would come up with theories >> and then they'd have to rope them back
in. Hey man, you're just you're just trying to make the shoe fit. Knock it off. This is not Cinderella.
>> Right. Right. And the the thing here is here's some other things that don't actually fit. Right. And these are
things in their written confession. So we have the the back door was propped open. One thing that they could not
agree on was what did they use to prop open the back door. One had said it was a rock. One had said that it was a pack
of cigarettes. The problem being here is that again, according to their story, the door would have been propped open on
two different occasions. So, it's possible that both items were actually used. >> Well, and let's let's just remind the
listeners, I mean, this is this questioning is happening in 1999 and not 1991. >> So, some of your account is going to be
off >> right now. One thing that that they couldn't get right to was they had said
that the murders took place inside the office. Well, this was a big red flag to the original detective that was on the
case, Detective Jones, because he states that when the police arrived on the scene, there was no evidence that anyone
had entered that office. It was a locked door and it was locked when they arrived. Um, the murders 100% took place
in the back room in that stocking area, in that prep area that we had talked about. And they probably know that for
well again this case is so tough because of the arson >> and and because the firefighters did not
know that they were going into a a crime scene >> and because they were trying to put out
that that those fires that probably really disturbed uh any blood splatter. >> Mhm.
>> So it you know we can't say 100% that that's where that happened. But what we
can say is that when detectives showed up on the scene, 100% that office was locked and they had to actually get a
key from somebody to unlock lock that office, which makes a lot of sense because who is left in charge of
shutting down the yogurt shop. >> Mhm. >> Two teenage girls, >> right? >> And and so the manager, I'm sure, would
go, "Okay, I'm going to lock this up." Or or maybe that was part of their duty. You know, you put the money away, lock
it up. Mhm. >> Um, but I don't think there was a key on on site and then I don't think there was
a key to the office that even the the teenage girls had. Well, and keep in mind too this under this premise, right,
according to their story, the whole reason anything took place there that night was because it was a robbery. The
motive was to rob the store and get money, >> which I think both of us agree that that
wasn't the motive. >> I I don't think so. You're exactly right. The thing here is though,
Captain, if the if the whole motive was robbery, remember we're saying that they
were inside that store under their own words for 20 minutes. >> Mhm. >> I would argue that it might be closer to
an hour that somebody was in the store. But regardless, there was a lot of things that took place once that store
closed. >> Mhm. >> And and a lot of things happening. And I can't I wouldn't be able to sit here and
have somebody tell me that there was a key in that store or that there was access to the key to the robbers and
that they didn't go into the office looking for more money or valuables >> if that if if robbery was the motive.
Now, Michael Scott did get the um the positioning of the bodies correct. He he had a a good idea of that as well as he
did know that Amy was not on the body stack. He knew that that she she was in a separate area. The problem I have with
this statement, and this is exactly what the police said, they said, you know, he
got he got the body positioning right. That that's really tough to do. And I will give them that. But here's where I
have a problem. >> Mhm. >> One thing he did not get right is he didn't he wasn't able to fully describe
the layout of the store. So, yeah, maybe you could get the positionings of the bodies right, but how could you get the
positionings of where they were inside the store? You see what I'm saying with if you don't even know or understand the
layout of the store? >> Well, and there's a lot of things and we'll we'll get right back into uh not
only what they got right, but how they got those things right right after this quick beer break.
>> Going through the items that the confessions got right and the things that they got wrong. Uh, continuing on
that path here, I want to spend a little bit of time talking about this 38. You know, we had mentioned that Michael
Scott doesn't seem to know about a second gun. He never mentions anything about the 38. However, Robert is aware
of the 38. >> Um, and this is presented as a problem for these young men and for their their
eventual prison sentence, right? because this this supposed 38 which we know existed. However, the police are saying
this was a fact that they kept close to them that the people in the general public would not have known about that.
I I tend to disagree a little bit with that statement >> because as we had said, there had been
50 confessions. And one thing that the police state was with with anybody that seemed to have knowledge of the crime,
they went out and looked for the 38 because they had other confessors say that, you know, I dumped the gun here.
>> Well, and we also have four teenage boys and the murder victims were four teenage
girls. So we're talking about a lot and and now eight years have passed. So you have eight years of a not a small town.
I mean this was about uh half a million people in Austin at this in ' 91. >> But you have a lot of people in this
community talking about this. This was huge news for them. So there is a lot of talk. So there is a very good
possibility that they and not and and also we're not talking about just four kids that have not been
involved in this crime. We're talking about four teenage boys that were basically arrested or brought in for
questioning 8 days after the event. >> Yeah. Yeah. So they may have been told about the 38 then. I mean, if you're
sitting in a room eight years ago and somebody's asking you, "Well, what about the other gun? What about this uh wasn't
there a 38 involved?" And and you're saying at that time you don't know anything about it. Well, it's easy to
jump to that conclusion when your back's up against the wall and you're being you're being forced to give answers that
that you might not have any knowledge of. >> Well, and you got this detective, you
know, 2 in from your face and I mean, he might have bad breath. Who knows? But the fact of the matter is, you know, the
the main point of all these confessions that is so blatant is that yeah, they did get some stuff right,
>> but how did they get that stuff right? >> Right. >> They didn't just say something, you
know, uh a perfect example in the trailer is when he says, "Well, yeah, they were bound up by I want to say
electrical cord." Right. >> Right. And he goes, "Nope, that's not it." They got to majority of these right
answers by the the detectives kind of forcing it. >> Yeah. They're they're really you can
hear you can hear especially Michael Scott. You can hear him kind of guessing answers and then he's looking to them
for approval. You know, did I get that one right? It's almost like it's almost like a a kid in school hoping to get the
right answer from the teacher holding the textbook and and the teacher keeps asking questions and saying, "No, that's
not it. Try it again." And and he keeps changing his answers or modifying his answers to get closer to what the police
know to be true. Now, on that 38, we do have Robert who does claim that they dumped it somewhere. And of course, they
go and look for it. Now, mind you, it's eight years later. I have had I've heard
people say, "Well, this this proves that they're innocent." Well, the gun easily
could have disappeared from wherever they placed it eight years ago, >> right? >> Um but but again, we have this situation
where they are arriving at answers. These aren't answers that they walked in and sat down with. The other thing that
I have a problem with here is you still have two guys that haven't confessed to anything,
>> right? You have two guy You have two guys that claim to know very much about the crime and two guys that seem to know
nothing. And even when they are presented by investigators, well, we know you did it because so and so told
us this and told us that. They hold true and they sit there and say, "Nope, I wasn't there. I don't know what you're
talking about." The the other thing too regarding Michael Scott's confession is that part on the tape where he says, you
know, he's asked who was there with you, right? and and he he names two of the other people. He names, you know, I was
there with Maurice. I was there with Robert, >> and I was there with Forest. And he and
he says it in a way that he's like asking a question. >> I'm Ron Burgundy. >> Yeah. And they take it as, okay, well,
now we got the four people that we wanted to hear. We wanted to hear all four of those names. Why? Because you
have to go back to 1991 when they originally questioned these guys. They need Forest to be there. Why? Because
the reason why they picked up Maurice and started questioning him about the yogurt shop murders is because he said
he lent the gun to Forest >> and Forest had used it in the yogurt shop murders. That's what put them on
the radar. So, they really needed Maurice to be there as well as Forest even if those two didn't confess to
anything, >> right? And with Forest, I mean, it's pretty simple. I mean the his interview
um you know I I believe it's with Dline I found very compelling and and very believable because he's pretty much
saying look I was not going to lie and and and and especially not going to lie about this.
>> Mhm. >> And there's no way I did this so there is no way you're going to get get me to
say that. Now, this is what this is what's weird cuz the community and obviously the victim's parents are going
to start going, "Well, these guys are monsters, right? >> These guys are savages." And um and they
need to be locked away, you know, maybe death penalty. >> And and because a lot of people have a
really hard time wrapping their head around why would you confess to a crime that you didn't commit?
>> Mhm. And I would like to believe that that would would just not be possible with me.
>> Mhm. >> But you know, nobody would know this until you were actually in that situation.
>> I had a situation many years ago where I was uh observing a trial, right? And I
had I was close to at an attorney that was involved in the trial and they put one person on the stand. And this is
before it got to an actual jury trial because they were trying to determine if they should just plea this thing out or
if it should go to a jury trial. And one of the the the attorney was representing
a person who wanted it to go to a jury trial. The defendant wanted it to go to a jury because they believe they were
innocent. Now, I don't know what actually took place, but I was in the hallway and I overheard what the
attorney was saying to the defendant. The attorney was saying, "Let's plead this thing out." And the defendant was
adamant. No, it's got to go to a jury because I'm innocent. I'm not pleading to anything. Right?
>> And the attorney said, "Well, the reason why I'm saying we should plea to this is
because they're offering a very low plea bargain. You know, it's something small
like pay a fine and we pretend this never happened." Right. >> Right. He's saying, "Let's just take
this penalty and agree to it." Why? Because the the man that was just on the stand that was on he was on the stand
for almost the course of a whole day. And he said, "You do not want him to be on the stand in a jury trial." And the
defendant said, "Well, he's lying." And the attorney said, >> "He might be lying, but here's my
perception of this guy, okay? And this is what I believe a jury will think. This guy comes off as not being very
bright. he comes off almost to be too dumb to lie where he he he would be perceivably believable to a jury, an
audience of such of a jury. Uh, and I I found this to be something that I kind of kept in the back of my mind when I
was when I was reviewing stuff regarding Forest Wilbornne because we have a guy here that never confesses to anything,
right? Mhm. >> And and on top of that, we have we have we have people from Deline, we have
investigators from the original investigation that that they all claim that, you know, Forest is not a bright
guy. You know, he's not a smart guy. You know, he couldn't organize a a twocar parade. Mhm.
>> Uh he here's the way he strikes me and and I feel bad for the guy because not
only was he brought to and and faced charges regarding this crime, but on top of that then publicly he's put down for
for his mental capabilities or whatever they are, >> right? And I don't to look I think it's
just frankly insulting. I mean, he seems he seems like a a nice character. And at
the end of the day, uh he was smart enough not to confess to a crime he didn't commit.
>> And the big problem I have with his portion of this, okay, he is stating, "I was never there." He he never admits to
anything. Right now, you got two guys that place him at the scene. >> Now, okay. Now, wouldn't investigators
say, "Okay, let's make a deal with Forest. Let's make a deal with him because guess what? But for us, we know
you were there. We were told by these other guys that you sat out in the car. You didn't have any involvement with the
actual rape, the actual tying up of the girls, the actual robbery, the actual killing of anybody. You were just on the
outside of the building waiting for these other guys to return. And by their own omission, when they when they
returned to the vehicle or returned outside of the yogurt shop, you had fled the scene. You you clearly didn't want
any involvement with this, right, Forest? Right. So Forest, why don't you tell us the truth and we might be able
to grant you immunity or we might be able to grant you a slap on the wrist and and because had they got a third
confession that would have been that would have been paramount in this case. >> Right. Right. But Forest has something
going for him in this case. Yeah. You got two guys confessing and saying that you're involved in the case, but you got
another one of the individuals saying, "Oh yeah, by the way, he wasn't there cuz I wasn't there and this [ __ ] didn't
happen." Right. Right. The other thing too is I want to know more about the timeline. One thing that they don't go
for in the confession, they want to know details of the actual crime, but one thing that they failed to do is to wrap
these guys up and on a specific timeline. And what I mean by that is we have Michael Scott who says that the
whole thing took about 20 minutes from the time we entered the building to the time that we left the building. Well,
what do we know? We know that the doors were locked at 11:00 p.m. and we know that around midnight the flames were
seen and firefighters were responding to a to a fire call. Well, okay. So, that's
1 hour. Well, now let's go ahead and look at what the neighbor said. Remember, the neighbor had said that we
have a situation here where we get a summary of his report of that night. And it would be nice to have the full report
because the neighbor states that he had heard some popping noises, >> thought something was a noise was coming
from the roof. He went outside to investigate and that's when he saw the door propped open along with a fire.
Okay. Well, here's here's a little bit of an issue with that. What time did they enter the building? Could could we
could we have had them narrow that down during this confession? because that seems to me to be an important part of
it because it it may not line up with what the neighbor is saying. >> Well, I right, which I understand all
that, but at the end of the day, this confession doesn't mean [ __ ] to me on the idea that this all this information
was forcefed to him. And if you don't believe that, uh, one of the things is when they're talking about, oh, well,
then then I put a gun to this girl's head, right? M. >> And uh then the detective goes behind I
can't remember which one it was. Michael. He goes behind Michael's head and puts a freaking gun to his head.
>> Yeah. >> And and so then then the detective is on record saying, "Well, I didn't put a gun
to his head. I put my finger on his head." >> No. No. You You showed the suspect a
gun. You then put something on the back of his head. I've I've seen the video footage. It looks like you put a
freaking gun on his head. >> Yeah. And not only that, he walks behind Michael to do so. So, so Michael may not
have known even if it wasn't a gun, you would assume it would be a gun, you know,
>> right? And I understand that the community is outraged and that they want answers and all that stuff, but you are
making up a bunch of malarkey, right? M and uh and so then you know just to fast
forward we can't charge two of them because we don't have confessions and we don't have any forensic evidence linking
these individuals to the crime and maybe part of that is due to the arson but now
we're going to put these two men on trial and the other two are just going to be let go.
>> Yeah. So yeah, quick breakdown of that is we have Robert who confessed, Michael
who confessed. Okay. So they're in a whole heap of trouble. We have Maurice does not confess to anything. He's he's
originally charged. However, they could not get an actual indictment. They couldn't get anybody to bring it to
court because of a few things. He didn't confess and on top of that, the gun that
he was was found on his person 8 days after the crime did not match the ballistic test. So, he's he's released
because of that and never fully tried for for this crime. Now, we have Forest. Now, he's in the same boat. He did not
confess to the crime. And the thing that's going to get him off was remember he way back in the day back in 1991 8
days after the crime after they pick him up and they're talking to him he actually hooked him they hooked him up
to a polygraph which he passed >> on that day. This would be one of the reasons that the original investigators
would let him go. But this would also be a reason that they couldn't try him for
this eight years later. Well, and another thing that I find really interesting is as they're going through
this process, you you got Detective Jones and you got Detective Huckabe saying, "Hey, we we question these guys.
>> We know what's up. These guys shouldn't be looked at. Why the hell are you guys
bringing them to trial, >> right?" >> And and they and then they see, you know, and then obviously they get to see
the footage of their interrogation and realize this is, you know, just just watch it. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure out that this this is awful detective work. >> So, Robert and Michael would go forward
and they would be charged with these crimes. Now, what takes place in their trial is uh Robert, they basically use
Michael's statement, his confession against Robert. And they use Robert's confession against Michael and they're
tried separately. However, not neither of those guys are called to the stand in those trials. So,
what takes place is you have Robert who is sentenced to death and it's later commuted to life because they they
decide that you know what, he was a teenager when the crime was committed and you can't, you know, you can't
charge a um a child and sentence them to death. Now, with with Michael, he's sentenced to life in prison.
What ends up happening is in 2006, these convictions are overturned because you you have we have the right to address
our people that accuse us of stuff. And because neither of these guys were called to the stand, they weren't able
to cross-examine what they had stated. Therefore, you have to overturn these charges.
>> All right. So 8 days after these crimes are committed that these teenage boys
are called in. 8 years later they are questioned again. Then they go on trial. They are put away, sentenced to life in
prison or death penalty which is then overturned and then several years of being in jail, they're released based
off of >> Yeah. They're not fully released. What they do is they they they hold them because they're going to try
them again, >> right? >> And they're now we're going to do it the right way is what we're going to do.
Well, they're being held for quite some time. >> Yeah. Of course, they don't make it.
It's just like with Adnan Sed, right? >> Mhm. >> You know, everybody got so excited,
right, that that, you know, he's going to get an actual trial. And I think, you know, the true crime community, uh,
whether or not you think he's innocent or guilty, everybody agrees that the trial was ridiculous. Right.
>> Right. And the evidence they had against this kid was ridiculous. >> Questionable.
>> Yeah. Very questionable. And so now we have a situation where he's just sitting.
>> Mhm. >> Right. >> He's sitting and waiting. Right. Basically, he's still in prison the
whole time, you know, you know, >> which is ridiculous. And the same thing's happening here.
>> Yeah. And not only that, you have the right to a speedy trial. And these guys
have already been in prison for quite some time. I'm sure they would like to be out, you know, while they wait for
their new trial, >> right? But during this holding time, what do we have? We get we get a little
forensic evidence. We get some DNA. >> Well, yeah. This all kind of comes to a close all the about the same time
because eventually the judge comes at the prosecutor and says, "Look, >> you've got to put together a case
against these guys and you got to do it soon. We're not just going to hold them forever while you wait to try them."
>> And they were ready to take and I I'm going to get the names wrong or or the order wrong, but they were ready to go
forward on the trial with one of the suspects. >> I believe it was Robert, >> right? And then with the other one, they
weren't ready. M. >> And so that was the thing was, well, if you guys aren't ready, well, screw you,
right? You know, if you're not ready, then you need to release this guy. And at the same time, like we said,
forensics comes up and then they take a DNA test. >> Yeah. They they have DNA technology that
was not available back to to them back in 1991. Now using this technology they they have
DNA and this is male DNA obviously and they are able to determine that the DNA that they found in Amy does not match
that of Robert. Now we have that makes a big problem with both of their confessions because they both said that
Robert raped Amy. Um, furthermore, this DNA does not match any of the four, >> right? And this becomes a big problem
cuz the only, you know, so the confession we know are wrong. >> We know that they they pushed him into
that, you know, they pushed Robert to claim that he raped the girl, which, you know, I think, um, would be a very
difficult thing to admit to doing. Um but nonetheless, you know, that that part of the story
doesn't line up, >> right? >> But now on top of that, we got five people. >> Well, yeah. Yeah. This is this is the
prosecutor pivoting and saying, "Okay, well, we can roll with that new evidence."
>> Right. Right. Yeah. Instead of going, "Hey, let's try to find the truth. Hey,
let's just make up this, you know, fictitious person." You we we have, you know, in this case, we have pretend rape
and we have fictitious people. And now you you there was no mention in 1991 of of a fifth person.
>> Police never there was a never a fifth person. Then all of a sudden now there's a fifth
person. These guys are still guilty. These guys are still guilty. There's just a fifth person we never heard of.
>> I mean this is just ridiculous. So what then happens is they're released. >> Yeah. in in 2009 uh they are released
and um rightfully so and the case does not die there. I mean, it does not end there because what would end up coming
out later would be that we would have the attorneys, the two defense attorneys, they come out and they say,
"You know what? There is evidence that there is a second and a possible third male DNA that was found at the scene."
>> Right? >> And we had always we had always suspected that more than one of the
girls was actually sexual assaulted, >> right? >> And the that's what the defense
attorneys are saying. Now, the prosecutor and law enforcement have never outwardly stated that. They've
always stuck to there's been one set of DNA that did not match any of the four guys. Therefore, there must have been a
fifth guy there. >> Yeah. But once they do the DNA testing, they have to present that evidence to
the defense teams. >> Well, and on top of that, these def these defense attorneys are saying not
only did this second and possible third DNA that was found not, you know, it didn't match these two guys, it didn't
match any of the four, right? So now, how many people are you going to start claiming were were there committing this
crime? >> And now and right and now we have two individuals that were arrested and spent
time in jail and they can go after um >> restitution. Yeah, they could go after restitution. The the the issue here
though is the state of Texas has a clause basically stating that just to be released from prison or to have an to
have an a conviction overturned does not mean that you are due restitution. You have to be proven innocent, which is
going to be very hard to do, especially when you have these false and law enforcement and a prosecutor
that still think that these confessions are valid, >> right? But you took the chance on doing
the DNA test >> and it didn't match, right? The the the glove don't fit. You must have quit,
right? Um so I think that's the proof. That's the proof that you're innocent. Who cares about the false confession?
Because not only did we have these two false confessions, we had what any, you know, 50 well 50 to 60 reported. I mean,
so it's it's just basically, you know, it's it makes our system seem like such a joke. And I'm sure there's people
listening in other countries that's going, "What the hell is wrong with the America's?" Well, we have law
enforcement down there that still want to try these guys for for this crime, which is
>> well, and that's the other thing is the when these guys get out of prison, right? They say this ain't over
>> because 10 years from now, they might come knocking at our door. >> And and that's kind of why they're like
actually moving forward with, you know, trying to prove that they're innocent so
we don't have to deal with this anymore. >> One of the one of the people that they
suspected is actually dead now. He's passed away. Very interesting story. >> So in 2010, this is Maurice Pierce.
Remember, he was the one that they thought was the mastermind of this whole crime that organized the whole thing.
And in December of 2010, he's pulled over by a Austin police officer and and well, two police officers. I apologize.
Now, his family would claim that that because he was imprisoned, and let's say imprisoned, because he was held for
quite some time while they were trying to bring him him to trial, even though they ultimately did not.
>> Um, he's stating, you know, that they have he has some kind of anxiety and all
kinds of issues from having been what he believes is harassed by the police, >> right? And um there's a situation here
where he's pulled over and this this traffic stop does not go well for anybody. He freaks out and he takes off
on freak out. >> He takes off on foot and eventually one of the officers catches up to him and
now we've got a fight going >> and during the course of this fight, Maurice pulled a knife off of the
officer and he stabbed the officer in the neck. The officer then shot Maurice, which
>> Don't Yeah, don't bring a knife to a gunfight. >> Well, he didn't even bring the knife,
first of all. >> Well, don't take the guy's knife that has a gun. >> But there's all there's all kinds of bad
problems here. The the Thankfully, the officer survived, and I don't lay any fault on the officer. I I believe he he
has to defend himself, and I think he did the right thing. The only problem is, would Maurice have had these issues
had he not lived this type of life? had he not gone down. >> Yeah. But you know what came first, the
chicken or the egg? I mean, what we do know was he was carrying around a gun in a mall,
>> right? When he was a kid. >> When he was a kid, not when he was not on the track traffic stop,
>> right? But what I'm saying is like it's, you know, he was kind of doing this [ __ ] way before, you know. So, the
moral of the story, don't do [ __ ] and you won't have a [ __ ] life. >> Yeah. He put himself in harm's way.
>> Okay. So, we have three of the four still alive. And like we've talked about before, we had these 50 to 60
confessions. So, uh, what we do want to bring up is that we had a very odd confession by a guy that we already
talked about in this case. >> Yeah. And one of those is from Kenneth McDuff. Now, he was the broomstick
killer. He was the one that we said was possibly in the area at the time of the crime.
>> He would have been very capable of this crime because he killed many, many women
and he did all of that in the state of Texas. >> Yeah. and he sometimes worked with other
indivi individuals. >> Yeah. And one thing that he did that that that is kind of interesting here,
right? He never admits to anything, right? He never confesses to any of his crimes. He's they had to bring him to
trial for every one of these crimes and he's convicted of them. And it's not until leading up to his his execution
>> that he starts talking to police. Now, this is just within days or weeks of his
execution. Now, he's executed November 17th, 1998. >> During this time, right around this
time, there's an anonymous source that comes forward that tells an Austin TV station, this is KV U
>> TV station, that McDuff confessed to the yogurt shop murders. Okay. And but they
also go on to say that that investigators are having a problem with this because he got certain key details
wrong about this crime, >> right? But it's also years and years it was seven years later.
>> Now let's keep in mind though >> and a guy that did multiple murders. >> He was asked by the original
investigators. He was questioned back in '92 by the >> original Jones. Yeah. >> And and he actually tells them now now
at this point he hasn't really confessed to anything, right? But he tells the two
of them, "Had I done that murder, I would have confessed to it. Why? Because I would have been proud of it, right?"
>> You know, that's this is the kind of a-hole that we're dealing with here. >> Right
>> now, here's where I have a big problem with the whole Kenneth McDuff thing, right?
>> His name. >> First of all, it's an anonymous source tells a TV station. >> Right. Right. Sounds a little bullish.
>> It's very fishy. First of all, we know from doing this show for so long and from the people listening to the show
for so long, >> TV stations, newspapers >> suck. >> They make things up sometimes.
>> You know, it would be very easy to say, you know, we cannot we cannot tell you
our source, but someone came forward and stated that he confessed to these crimes. I mean, that would be big news.
That would sell papers. That would get people to tune in to your TV station. The other problem that I have with this
crime is but leading up to his execution, he ends up admitting to everything. He ends up leading them to
bodies that they hadn't found yet, >> right? >> Why wouldn't he just confess to this one
as well? He he he stood to gain nothing or lose nothing by confessing to this. >> Well, it sounds like he did confess to
it, though. >> No, he he didn't. Law enforcement would come out and actively say he did not
confess to this. M >> it was only the media that stated that McDuff had actually confessed to the
yogurt shop murders. >> It's simply put, they have DNA, test his DNA. >> Yeah. >> Well, you have you have the um the head
of the Texas Department of Justice, his name is Glenn Castleberry. >> He actually says in a press conference,
>> Old Castleberry, >> he says when he's asked, "Did Kenneth McDuff confess to the yogurt shop
murders?" He says no, he did not. I've never heard that from anyone that McDuff said anything.
>> No reliable source. >> Exactly. >> Look, the the maybe he didn't confess to it because of
their ages. You know, you have two 17year-olds, a 15-year-old and a 13year-old. And maybe that's one of the
reasons why he didn't confess. Again, you have DNA. Test his DNA. >> He He had been convicted of killing
teenagers before. >> Right. I understand he was convicted of it, but what I'm saying is maybe that's
one of the reasons he I I would have to go back and look at all his confessions to different cases. You know what I
mean? So, like did he constyold woman? But did he, you know, so which which crimes did he commit that he that
he confessed to? And what were those ages of those victims? And maybe he's just not going to confess to uh the
crimes against teenagers. >> A couple of thoughts on McDuff. You know, yesterday you and I were talking
off mic and you had stated, you know, when we went through the description of the of the man that was seen in the army
fatigue jacket, >> right, >> that was standing in line and he ultimately just or orders a soda and
he's acting weird, right? >> Um, that description did match, you know, we talked about how it it vaguely
matched Kenneth McDuff. >> The issue is it matched Kenneth McDuff if McDuff were about 20 years younger.
you know that he it he is a white man. He does have the pointy nose. He has the clear deep voice, the clean shaven with
dark hair. You know, he matches all >> no scruff. >> The only problem is McDuff is about 63
and a half, 6'4. >> And and when I So he's about 4 in taller than what Croft described the man in the
army fatigue jacket as. So that's an issue. He's also about 20 years older than and I don't think that you would
have mistaken his age >> because at the time that McDuff was out and running around, not only was he
killing women, but he was also drinking heavily and smoking crack. So, I imagine
that he probably after serving after serving almost 20 years in prison, having a crack addiction, I'm guessing
he he does not look like a young 45, you know what I mean? And on top of that, he's balding in the front and balding in
the back by this time. So I don't think you would mistake him for >> no party in the front. No party in the
back. >> No party at all with Kenneth McDuff. >> Yeah. >> The other problem I have with him being
the person that committed this crime. It he his thing is he would have extended periods of rape and torture on
his victims. And what I mean by that is every one of his victims, he abducted them from one location, and took them
with him somewhere, spent a good amount of time with them before he killed them.
>> Mhm. >> My issue with this crime is Kenneth McDuff, I don't think, would have had
the ability to walk away from these victims. I don't think he would have been able to kill them on site and leave
them there. I think he would have seen this as an opportunity to take four girls with him someplace else and do,
you know, his whatever he does. >> Yeah. Which I see your theory. I think the the problem is um when you take in,
you know, when you take over this uh yogurt shop that maybe there was something that happened uh where he had
to change his plans. It's >> all I'm saying is that, you know, these parents deserve some answers. Uh the
victims deserve uh justice and and and they wouldn't get it if it was picked up. I mean, the just I mean, the justice
would already be done, but at least we'd have some closure. So, and I I don't know tons about DNA, so it's maybe it's
an issue where they don't want to test it too much because then eventually it goes away. But, uh, I I think he's
somebody that I think they should at least test. >> Well, and it's a little unclear here,
too, because we've we've had these very general statements that come out regarding this case because we have two
people. What even though I don't think it's likely that Kenneth McDuff did this crime
>> and as well as I don't think that it's likely that the fast food killer did this crime and and one point of that
being that that he never raped any of his other victims. uh there was there was rape that happened in this
situation. I'm not saying he's above it or that he's not capable of it. It just doesn't seem to fit what the two of them
did time and time again. >> Right. >> The problem here though that I have is the immediate question goes, well, did
they did they test the DNA against McDuff or against the fast food killer? And we get these very general statements
from people very close to the case, investigators, authors, media people, right? Basically what
their statement is is that they've tested this DNA against hundreds of suspects. So anybody that they thought
could have been involved in this crime has been tested. Well, that's a very blanketed statement. I would love to
hear someone just outright say Kenneth McDuff, we tested it against his, it didn't match,
>> right? >> You know, uh Reed the fast food killer, we tested it against his and there is no
match. >> Yeah. I think with Reed there there doesn't seem to be as many connections.
Now, we have a public and we have a law enforcement that is still hung up on these four guys. They still want to find
a way to charge them. We have the original investigators. >> Well, it's very much like like we said,
West Memphis 3. There's a innocent side for West Memphis 3. There's a guilty side.
>> Same thing with the Austin 4. >> We have the original investigators and we have attorneys and people close to
the case that are saying, "You know what? If if you want to solve this thing, >> Mhm. It's very solvable because we have
DNA and maybe at some point that this hits on some computer somewhere else in the country or maybe even in the great
state of Texas and we figure out who did this that way. But in time if we if we sit around and wait for that, we're
doing nothing productive in the in the process. >> So what these investigators, original
investigators and attorneys, people close to the case are saying the way to solve this case is to go back and review
what you know. Throw those confessions out. go back and review the evidence and see where it takes you. Well, we have a
big chunk of evidence right here that points to who committed this crime. Now, we talked about police interviewing the
customers that came in that day. So, we have an issue here, though, because I don't know how with it being 1991 and
they're not being surveillance, you know, I don't know how they they interviewed all of these people. They
must have did a a a public call to action and say, you know, if you were here on this day, come in so we can talk
to you. Now, they can check certain sales to verify if people were there or not. And the thing here is though, they
have two people that that they never speak to. Two people that are unidentified and that's it for that
entire day. And who are those two guys? Those are the two guys that the married couple said that they saw still in the
store just minutes before closing time. the two weirdos without yogurt. >> Yeah. They're sitting in a booth and
they're drinking cans of soda. >> So, we have all kinds of issues here. The first being that the law enforcement
has never publicly laid out the description of these two men. They've left it very vague, which I have a
problem with. It's 25 years later. Let's let's release that description. If if that married couple gave you a good
description, let's release it. Why did those guys not come forward? Okay. And first of all, I want to throw in another
thing here. We have that that other unidentified man that was in the army jacket that was seen just around 10
o'clock that night, he had ordered a soda as well. Now, we get a description of him from that former police officer,
Officer Croft. Now, one could one could assume that if you have two guys later that are claimed to be the only two that
were not identified, yet you have this guy in the army jacket that earlier was in the store and he's not been
identified. Well, he must have been one of those two men would be what I would surmize.
>> He doesn't have to be. He could have been sent in first to case the place and
then two other guys are sent in later and they're kind of observing everything, but they're going to be the
ones to take over. You open up the back door and then the army the army savage guy that just goes takes a pee. Uh
>> well he comes through because what we do have evidence of and and this would be
another thing that I think law enforcement has to come out with. >> Mhm. >> Is do you have DNA from two people or do
you have DNA for three people? >> You're exactly right and and I agree with that statement. But here's where
here's where I arrive at the conclusion that the man in the army jacket is one of the two men that was seen right at
closing time. >> And that being that we have statements from law enforcement saying that there
were only two unidentified customers for that day. Yet we have two separate stories taking place. One with two guys,
one with one guy. So that would be three unidentified customers for that day. What they're stating is there's two. So,
I'm arriving at the conclusion that the army fatigue jacket guy is one of those people seen sitting at the booth
drinking a can of soda right before closing time. >> Mhm. >> The other thing that you and I have
discussed too is what is the motive here? Well, the motive becomes very important when you cannot determine what
actually took place. Right. We we we both agree that we think the motive here was rape.
>> Is that correct? >> Yeah, I think it was sexual. Yeah. >> We we don't think that this the motive
was robbery. Why? because of the small amount of money. Two, they never broke into the office. And and three, they
could have just taken the money and left had everything gone their way. Now, one
would argue that it was a robbery gone wrong. I get the argument. However, what I'm stating here is that I see a
situation where you have two teenage girls closing a store on a Friday night. All right, they they claim that it was
very important to go back and talk to every customer from that day. I get that. But what I'm getting at is I
wonder if they talked to the customers from the previous Friday. If if the in fact the motive was rape, somebody knew
that that store was being operated by two teenage girls that were unattended by anybody else. They they see this is
the opportunity. >> Yeah. But if they didn't question anybody on other days that attended the
yogurt shop, uh that information is long gone and those witnesses are long gone.
And if they did come forward, how reliable would they be? >> That's correct. That's correct. The But
the thing here is I'm I'm going to stick on motive for a while. Okay. The other issue is if if the motive was in fact
rape, well then there was a murder that was used to cover up this rape. And furthermore, a fire that was set to
cover up the rape and the murders. Now, what we do know, one bit of evidence that we do know is that the lighter
fluid that was used to set the fire was not present in that store until this robbery took place. Therefore, whoever
did this crime brought the accelerant into the store with them. Right. >> This seems a little pre-planned to me. I
wouldn't bring lighter fluid to a robbery. Well, that's why there's a lot of speculation in the the city of Austin
that for some reason that this was some kind of insurance fraud or or or some kind of scandal like that. Yeah. And
I've I've heard those arguments. The thing that that I have a problem with on those is that why stick around and do
the rape then if that's if that's the actual case. You know what I mean? >> There's some sick individuals.
>> Yes. I I get that there's plenty of sick individuals, but but a job is a job. You
see what I'm saying? It it would make more sense to me. >> No, that's that's called a crime, not a
job. >> Crime. >> They're hired to commit this crime. >> Mhm. >> And it would make more sense to me to
get in there, do the job, and leave rather than to spend a amount of time in the crime scene.
>> Yeah. And normally I like to go down those, you know, conspiracy rabbit holes. This just seems
>> Captain Conspiracy. Captain for the last time people I was I was just trying to
be nice to Alex Jones and say I was fans of his captain doesn't like >> I really do not like Alex Jones. I just
watched a couple sometimes I'm just glad that we got a brain up Captain Conspiracy for a second because
sometimes yes I go down a couple rabbit holes and I watch his videos. I do believe he has an agenda. I do not like
that agenda. I think a lot of the stuff he brings up is complete malarkey horshit. Alex Jones, bad jib. Bad jib. I
do not like his jib. I I I'm just saying that overall I don't think he's like some horrible person and deserves to die
or anything. I think he has kids and and he's trying to make a living and and I think he's he's his agenda is money and
all this other [ __ ] you know, he says a bunch of [ __ ] for my Anyways, >> what the captain's trying to say here is
that the insurance scheme, the insurance conspiracy is far-fetched, right, at best, right?
>> It's farfetched like a lot of Alex Jones's ideas. >> Yeah. And so that would be a whole it'
take us a whole another day or two to explain that whole conspiracy to you. So we we don't believe in it and we don't
need to go through why. >> All right, go on. >> Yeah. Back to my rant. So I think here
all I'm trying to say right I just want to go into the short quick theory of it right the two guys that were seen in the
shop just before closing I think they were sitting at the booth I don't think anybody ever reentered the building
afterwards I think that they one of them got up locked the front door the other one approached the register if you look
at a diagram of the actual crime scene they were sitting in the booth that was closest to the register at the crime
scene photos that are shown later. That booth, that table is the only table that
sits there with an empty napkin dispenser. Right. They we we said that the the women the couple had stated that
they had saw the girls refilling the napkin dispensers. >> Right. >> The only one that wasn't filled was the
one at this table. The only one that didn't have a chair put on top of the table was this table as well. I think
they got up and they took control of the situation. I think they were targeting the two teenage girls that were there. I
think the motive was sexual. I think that unfortunately the other two younger victims just happened to be there that
night. That was a variable that they had not planned on. I do think that the Army
fatigue jacket guy did go back to the restrooms at some point because that area is blocked off from the rest of the
store. He wanted to double check that there was actually nobody back there. There wasn't a male manager or
additional staff back there that night. They wanted to carry out what they were going to do. Mhm.
>> I also think that the what kept throwing me off was this back door situation.
Okay. Because in the confession of these guys, they state that they had left the
back door open and came in later and police and firefighters find this back door open. The thing here is what I was
able to figure out last night is that the the building did have a sprinkler system. I think that this back door was
just basically left open to let that fire burn as long as it possibly could to burn off as much evidence as possible
before that sprinkler system would kick on and maybe possibly put out the fire >> and possibly just the way they left as
well. >> Yeah. Yeah. Could have just been happen. >> We're going to leave here and and and
just, you know, leave it open. It makes some sense. Yeah. >> Now, one one thing here, Captain, I'll
throw a whole little conspiracy since you like him so much, right? All right. So, we have the neighbor the
neighbor statement. I would love to hear what that full statement is or read that
full statement because I have some problems with that statement. This guy says he never hears any screams. He says
he hears popping noises and he goes outside to investigate and he sees the door open and that's when he sees the
fire. Now, I want to know how long it was from the time that he said he heard the popping noises to the time that he
went outside and saw the fire, right? Because we know that it took some time for this event to take place.
>> If he went out immediately and saw the fire, that when then that story is complete malarkey, that would make no
sense because then he would have he would have seen the killers leaving the building, fleeing the building, which he
did not say that he saw anybody. >> Mhm. Here's a little thing here. Uh I hope that they tested the DNA of that
store owner next door. >> Yeah. Okay. I think you're reaching there, but uh yeah, I'm sure I think at
the end of the day, they have this DNA and any possible suspects instead of trying to get people to falsely confess.
>> How about you just test that DNA? >> Yeah, that's really the only good thing in this entire story here is that they
have DNA. I think they'll catch this person or persons eventually. >> Well, hopefully. I I believe this family
and um and the victims, like I said, uh deserve justice and and deserve some answers. All right, wrapping up, we have
our recommended reading for this week. It is Wolf Boys by Dan Slater. You can pick that up by going to our website.
This is the true story of a couple teenagers that joined the Zetas, which is one of the worst, most brutal Mexican
drug cartels out there. You have a a story about a good naturatured teenager that turns into a feared assassin. So,
that's Wolf Boys by Dan Slater. Go to truegar.com, click on the recommended page and check
that out. You can purchase that along with anything else through the Amazon banner.
>> And follow us on social media at true crime garage. We are on Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube, you our
YouTube channel is uh >> blowing up. >> It's starting to blow up. But uh the Instagram bet I won and now we did a
double or nothing. So, if you're not on Instagram, not following us, it's a good
way to see kind of the characters of each case. We kind of try to post a bunch of pictures of each case, uh, you
know, different crime scene details and stuff like that, so you kind of get a visual idea of what's going on in these
cases, so it's not just our nasely drones. >> That's right. All right. Thank you all
for listening and thank you, Captain. We will see everybody back here in the garage next week. And until then, be
good, be kind, and don't litter. >> And don't smitter. Smash. Heat. Heat. [Applause]
[Music]

Austin Yogurt Shop Murders /// Part 2 /// Episode:82

Original Release: 2-17-2017

www.TrueCrimeGarage.com

In 1991- Austin, Texas 4 teenage girls were bound and killed in a small yogurt shop. The store of course was robbed. Four teenage boys would later be arrested and two of them found guilty of the murders. These convicted killers were eventually released when new evidence showed that the state's case was wrong. Now over 25 years later this case remains unsolved. Who killed these girls? Some still argue police had it right years ago, when they questioned the four boys and later arrested them. Some investigators suggest the killer or killers are unknown to law enforcement. Some point toward an insurance fraud scheme reaching high levels of the local judicial system.

Beer of the Week - Island Reserve: Russian Imperial Stout - By Cisco Brewers Incorporated

Garage Grade - 4 and a quarter bottle caps out of 5

Brief Summary

The episode discusses the 1991 yogurt shop murders and the flawed investigation leading to wrongful convictions of four teenagers.

Key points

Welcome to True Crime Garage. Hosts Nick and Captain introduce the podcast and their beer of the week.
The Yogurt Shop Murders. In December 1991, four teenage girls were bound and killed in a yogurt shop.
Confessions and Interrogations. Detectives interrogate suspects, leading to shocking confessions about the crime.
The Role of Evidence. The importance of following evidence rather than fitting it to a theory is emphasized.
Confessions and Inconsistencies. Confessions from suspects reveal inconsistencies and raise questions about their validity.
Confessions Under Pressure. Two suspects confess, but doubts arise about the validity of their statements.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

Nothing. There you go.

Michael's chilling admission about the girls' state after the crime.

4:50WatchOct 9, 2025

Tension

75/ 100High tension

More from True Crime Garage TV

Solve the Crime

Read a real case one clue at a time, then see how your call held up against the investigators.