Carnival of Lies ////// Part 4 | Forensic Files

Exclusively on AMC Plus. >> What is this place? >> A gripping new AMC Studios original
series. >> You'll find out soon enough. >> From executive [music] producer Ridley
Scott and acclaimed director Karen Kusama. >> Something feeds on our souls. >> Starring Dan Stevens, Judith [music]
Light, and CCH Pounder. >> I am not okay. None of this is okay. >> The Terror Devil [music] in Silver. New
limited series. stream now exclusively on AMC Plus. >> Picture this. It's the end of a long
week. You're unwinding in the tub listening to your favorite true crime podcast. And then chronic hives come
back again in the middle of the episode. What a wet blanket. Looks like another spell of itchy, swollen, red, or skin
colored hives. If you have chronic spontaneous urtdicaria or CSU, there may be a different treatment option. Worried
about your chronic hives interrupting our next episode? Learn more at treatmyhives.com/g.
>> [music] [music] [music] [music] >> 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 you may have seen last weekend walking the Vegas
[music] strip and a pair of booty shorts with his thumb out. Here is the captain.
>> Thumb out [music] or thumb in, it's good to be seen and good to see you. Thanks
for listening. Thanks for telling a friend. This week we are drinking Hoser Juice by
Double Trouble Brewing up in Toronto. Hoser Juice is a triple IPA and trust me, you will feel it. This baby is both
heavy duty and delicious. ABV 10.8% garage 3 and 3/4 bottle caps out of five. Let's give some thanks and praise
to our good, wonderful garage friends. First up, a double fisted cheers goes out to Cody Laauo and Mary Garcia
[music] in Woodville, Ohio. >> And a big we like your jib goes out to Savannah in Perth, Australia.
>> And last, but certainly not least, a special shout out to longtime friend of the show, Tim in Michigan. I saw him on
YouTube with his band Stealing [music] Copper, and he was sporting one of our True Crime Garage Alien Skull shirts.
So, cheers to you, Tim, and cheers to everyone who has contributed to the beer fund.
>> Yeah, all cans in [music] the air. Bw beer run. If you want to support the garage and get something in return, sign
up [music] on Patreon or Apple podcast subscription and get our bonus content off the record. If you're not listening,
you're missing [music] out. And Colonel, that's enough of the business. All right, everybody, gather around, grab a
chair, grab a beer. Let's talk some true crime. >> [music] >> We are back [music] to this blanket, my
friends. We are examining the blanket once again and so is law enforcement. And we have Michelle who originally
denied when it was found with the remains of her son that she had ever owned a blanket. That blanket in
particular, her mother and father do not recognize it as well. pressed with this
theory about the blanket. She is denying once again ever having seen the blanket
or ever owning one like it. To test that theory, however, investigators interviewed other people beyond the
scope of just Michelle and her parents. And one of these people would be Michelle's niece, Jennifer. the same
niece who had encountered Michelle at the carnival shortly after Michelle says that she realized that she could not
find her son Timothy. >> Well, and just to be clear, this blanket was showed to two people. So, she will
be seeing it for the first time. >> Well, or as the investigators are hoping, not for the first time,
>> right? I mean, the investigators will be showing it to her for the first time.
>> Correct. Correct. So, this is one of those shifts. It's a major shift in the story. a major shift in alliances and
loyalties. So, Jennifer had once been supportive of Michelle, but time changes people. Time changes those alliances and
loyalties. >> Yeah. But also, if Michelle just this is the only thing that has happened and she
goes to lead a normal productive life, but she hasn't. She has had run-ins with law enforcement over and over. Well, and
that's one thing that I always point out with these cold cases and why investigators should revisit them once a
year at the very least just to stir the pot to check in on everybody because alliances, allegiances, loyalties,
friendships, relationships, they all change with time. They can change over time and
people change sometimes with time and that affects their relationship. Now, regardless of what Michelle was doing or
what she had been caught doing, we should say that may not have been the major factor in the shift in their
relationship. As said, Jennifer was once supportive of Michelle. I don't know. I
don't have a hard date of when that changed, but Jennifer's life had changed during this time period as well. She
gets married. She has two children of her own. She becomes drug addicted. She's addicted to heroin. She went to
Florida for rehabilitation. Now, why she is at while she's at rehab while she's in the program, her children go to stay
with Michelle. >> So, she must have still been supportive of her at that time. There's no way that
she could think that Michelle did something to her own son and then she's like, "Hey, could you watch these kids
for me for a while?" >> And if one goes missing, no, no big deal. So while Jennifer is away at
rehab, Jennifer's mother and Michelle together without Jennifer decide that Jennifer's condition, her
situation is too serious. It's serious enough that they are not going to allow returning the children to Jennifer once
she completes the program. So instead, the children are turned over to Jennifer's mother-in-law.
And it sounds like this was somebody that Jennifer really did not like. Jennifer later regained custody,
but she viewed Michelle's role in this situation as a betrayal, a deep betrayal. And
>> you think >> it didn't wear off. It's not something that you just like, all right, that
happened and now we're moving on. No, this this hurt. It cut deep and it stayed fresh. Investigators attempted to
use that to reopen a channel, right? They encouraged Jennifer to message Michelle on Facebook
and bring up Timothy's case. Their general hope that Michelle might confess or slip into some incriminating
statement. The Facebook exchanges take place, but nothing comes of it. Nothing good for the investigation.
>> Yeah. >> Or nothing incriminating regarding Michelle takes place during those
exchanges. So the investigators showed Jennifer physical items connected to the evidence to or at least to the remains
that were found. So they show her the blanket, a pillowcase, and a red jacket. Jennifer's reaction was immediate and
very specific. And as you were saying, Captain, this is very important because this would be the first time that
investigators are showing these items to Jennifer. And as I was saying, in hopes
that maybe she had seen them prior to them showing them to her for the first time. They say her reaction is
immediate, though. And and there they say that she told them the blanket had in fact been in Michelle's apartment.
>> Mhm. and specific, like I said, she said that she specifically remembered Timothy
using it to wrap himself in that blanket at times when Jennifer was babysitting him.
>> Yeah, but this is a little bit of a double-edged sword because you're showing her this information. She knows
why you're showing her this blanket and she already has this vendetta now against Michelle. So, I think it's like
as law enforcement, you probably are going to get excited because now we're going, "Okay, this is possibly evidence
that we can link her to the crime scene." So, that's not good for Michelle. Great for the investigation,
but we have to also take it with a little bit of a grain of salt because we go, is Jennifer telling us the truth?
>> Yeah. And this blanket is going to be an ongoing point of contention in this case because look to to put it short and
sweet and to provide no clarity at all on the matter. Basically what takes place is they show this blanket to
everybody who they think may have seen it at one time in Michelle's possession or inside her apartment. And for every
person that they can find that says, "Yes, I've seen that before. it was in Michelle's possession or in her
apartment, they find another person equally as close to Michelle who says, "No, I've never seen it before." And if
it was in her apartment, I would have seen it before. >> So you you basically get, let's put a
roughly a handful of people that say, "Yes, I've seen it before in her apartment and a handful of people that
have been in her apartment equal number of times or maybe even more, like her own parents saying, "No, I've never seen
that item before." And in the end, what's even more troubling regarding this blanket is we know that it was
tested or it's stated that it was tested when it was originally found with the remains. That didn't yield any evidence
or clues. Now, we do know that when they're revisiting this angle of the investigation, after talking to Michelle
again, after talking to Jennifer and others regarding this blanket, in the end, even the material science did not
cleanly settle the question of was this blanket Michelle's and Timmy's or not. So, they're retesting, they're testing
again. Hairs recovered from the blanket and the pillow ca case did not match Michelle's DNA. So, just one more fact
added to a case already crowded with contradictions, accusations, and items that seem to point somewhere without
ever fully arriving >> to a real conclusion. I think they were hoping, look, if we show this blanket to
10 people and nine or 10 of them tell us that I've absolutely seen it in her apartment, we got her. When that didn't
happen, when there was when it was parted down the middle, equal sides, they went to the science and the science
didn't tell them that it belonged to Michelle, >> right? But if you get them to say, "Hey,
this is her blanket. Maybe it gets her to crack it." You're not going to be able to go to trial with this blanket.
And I I just don't believe you're going to get a conviction just because of this. But with the misinformation, the
lies, the if you could bring other things, you're building a case. But then, man, I with law enforcement,
they're probably going, "Okay, well, half saw it, half didn't, but the science is going to prove it either
way." And when you get nothing, when I'm talking about a kick in the dick, right
in the dick. On August 6th, 2014, a date that would have been Timothy's 29th birthday, the long dormant case
launched forward again in a way that felt extremely overdue. After a sealed indictment was returned by a grand jury,
Michelle was arrested in Florida and formally charged with the murder of her son, Timothy. For the people who had
watched the story twist and stall for years, it was a moment that carried a lot of weight, maybe even some relief.
Think about that for a minute. The day that they finally arrest Michelle, >> yeah,
>> Timothy's mother for his murder, on that day, if he were alive, he would have
been about six years older >> than his mother at the time of his disappearance. >> Yeah. Now, from there, the case moved
into the grinding machinery of pre-trial litigation. Lawyers on both sides brought forward extensive legal
arguments, each trying to define what the jury would be allowed to hear and what would be kept outside of the
courtroom entirely. This is where I don't think most of us Joe public here realizes that a lot of times this is
when a case can be won before the jury is even brought in for the actual trial. This is going to decide what is allowed
to be argued and what cannot be presented at all at trial. And as we've seen, this is one where you really got
to get down in the muck and the mire and and and shoot. We went through the FBI report. They were saying digging through
the mud by hand. That's what you kind of have to do with this case to arrive at any real conclusion in my humble garage
opinion. >> Yeah. So, we're not going to go through all of it because it took days to come
to these decisions. But in a pre-trial ruling, the New Jersey Superior Court drawing the lines that would shape
everything that came next, the court concluded that Michelle's active omission, and some of this is confusing.
It's a bit legal jargon, but we'll go through it. Michelle's active omission and her hindrance to the investigation
through her statements could reasonably establish circumstantial evidence of guilt. Basically, that meant the
prosecution would be allowed and permitted to argue what Michelle did not do and what she said in ways that
obstructed investigators and that that could be treated as meaningful proof when placed alongside
of other facts of her guilt. So, meaning everything that she said and did not say
during the investigation could be presented as well as everything that she did and did not do. Yeah, I think it's
uphill battle, but I guess after almost 30 years, you want to at some point you have to roll the dice, right?
>> By the same ruling also imposed strict limits because some evidence was excluded. Of course, the polygraphs
would not be allowed. That's standard procedure, right? The judge also shut the door on another dramatic piece of
the saga and this was one that you had said for you was a big big big red flag. So Michelle's self-kidnapping hoax was
not allowed to be presented to the jury. >> Well, essentially that wasn't connected
to this case at all other than she said >> people that kidnapped her said I'm not
allowed to talk about my son's case anymore. >> True. It's it's a little difficult
though, right? Because when she's presented with proof of those fake FBI business cards, she comes clean. That's
the one time like if she is guilty of other things, that's the one time she comes clean,
>> right? >> And but we know she was presented with people saying, "Hey, that blue and white
blanket did we found some people that said it did belong to you." >> Yeah. >> But of course, very different cases. And
maybe that's why the other thing that they would not allow for the prosecution, the judge would not allow
an expert witness. this was an expert on women who kill their children. Just like
you pointed out with that kidnapping hoax, that's really not part of the case. I mean, I guess you could argue
that it is, but this expert witness, she's not an expert witness in regard to this specific case. Right.
>> Right. So instead of leaning on a generalized behavioral expert to frame Michelle as fitting a
particular category of people, so the state would have to build its case without that kind of
>> Yeah. But that would be like >> testimony. >> The prosecutor is calling an expert to
explain why serial killers kill their victims. or like in West Memphis when you call a
guy who has a purchased degree from out of state >> as an expert witness on the occult
>> when you weren't able >> though >> when you weren't able to completely >> convince the court that the occult was
even involved in the in the crimes at all. >> Yeah. You have to prove it it was a
ritualistic sacrifice before you can called the expert on ritualistic sacrifice.
>> Of course, one physical object that continued to be at the center of the prosecution's narrative is that blanket.
It wasn't just another exhibit. It was going to be major battleground at this trial. And again, their theory was like
this. The blanket found near the recovered remains highly suggestive that Timothy had been taken from his home to
the place where his remains were eventually recovered. and most importantly suggests that he was never
at the carnival at all. So, we talked about some of the people that said they had never seen the blanket before. Uh, a
few more people. And th this is interesting because at least one of these people have made actually
now that I review it and think about it more, all three of these people have made statements at some point that are
without saying they believe Michelle's guilty, they've they have statements that would be indicators that maybe they
believe that she's guilty, but don't want to say it directly to the newspapers. So Michelle's brother,
Michael, is one of those people. Her former fiance from from the period when Timothy went missing, you know, cuz we
she's had multiple several relationships afterward. But this is the fiance from the time frame that remember she stopped
off at the bar, asked the uh the person driving her home when they were recovering an item to bring to the scent
dogs. She had asked, "Hey, could you stop at the bar? my my boyfriend's bartending. I I need to tell him what's
going on. So, this would be that man from that time period. And her landlady from the time that she rented from this
woman when Timothy was still alive. So, these three people who all have made statements that make it sound like they
think she's guilty. They all being honest on the stand said, "We've been in her apartment dozens of times. I've
never seen that blanket in her possession or in her apartment before. So, that doesn't help. That undermines
the prosecution's narrative. >> Yeah. >> And then, of course, we have Jennifer, her niece, who says, "Yes, I've seen it
before." We have Jennifer's friend who occasionally babysat Timothy. >> But Jennifer again has a motive. So,
well, and then her friend her statement's weird because her her friend at one point says,
"I remember a blanket. It was some somewhat similar to that. I don't think it was that one because the one I'm
remembering had a different pattern. Yet later she identified the blanket found at the Raritin Center site near the
remains as one that she had in fact seen inside a Michelle's home during the early 90s."
>> Right. What is a blanket? It's not a smoking gun. >> Yeah, they found another babysitter who
babysat Timmy telling police that the blanket was in the house as well. So again, this is it's it's difficult. This
blanket of course is going to be the battleground as we can clearly see. And again, as I stated earlier, during the
course of the investigation, what they learned is for every one person we could say that they had seen the blanket in
Michelle's possession or apartment prior, we can find another person who says they've never seen it. And they
presented, the defense presented photographs of where Michelle and Timmy were living
and in the background or even on a person, you could see a blanket or blankets in the background. And of
course, this is for the defense. So all of these photographs that were shown of Michelle and Timmy and where they were
living at the time leading up to the disappearance, not you never see that blanket, the blanket in question in any
of those photographs. Of course, we have prosecutors that are will be walking the
jurors through the case history starting from 1991, focusing attention on what they argued
mattered most, the changes in Michelle's story over time. They emphasized not just that the story had changed, but
there were multiple versions of the story, suggesting inconsistencies that could be read as guilt
rather than mere confusion. And we've went through those stories, right? They're they're very, very different.
It's not like you can misremember that you forget seeing a knife or a knife held to a person or that two men and a
woman were involved when you first say that nobody, you know, he just I turned and he was gone.
>> They also presented and highlighted Michelle's admission from her time working in that fulfillment center, her
discrepancies and her work history that she provided to investigators. And it it
it looks like what we see in a lot of trials that the prosecution that their approach was going to be
cumulative. Take, you know, take the small fractures in her story and in the case. So we have
conflicting accounts, questionable timelines, disputed details, and then press them all together.
>> Yeah. And I think the other thing they're they're probably hopeful of is the sympathy for the victim. We have a
five-year-old child. And so if we can build this little pile of evidence and then have this sympathy and guilt go
through the jury that maybe they'll convict solely on that. But also I think I think this case is pretty weak.
But I understand at some point you again it's it's almost [music] 30 years on. You you got to roll the dice.
Exclusively on AMC Plus. >> What is this place? >> A gripping new AMC Studios original
series. >> You'll find out soon enough. >> From executive producer Ridley Scott and
acclaimed director Karen Kusama. Something feeds on our souls. >> Starring Dan Stevens, [music] Judith
Light, and CCH Pounder. >> I am not okay. None of this is okay. >> The Terror Devil [music] in Silver, new
limited series. Stream now exclusively on AMC Plus. >> As routines shift and summer plans
begin, it's easy for learning to take a backseat. Makes it simple to stay sharp and keep
skills fresh in just a few minutes a day. LL is an award-winning online learning platform that helps kids truly
understand what they're learning. Whether they're building math confidence, strengthening reading and
writing skills, or reviewing science concepts from preK through 12th grade with personalized interactive content
that adapts to each child's level and pace. L is used in 96 of the top 100 school districts in the US and studies
show kids who use score higher on tests. Proven in all 50 states. It's an easy way to support learning now through
summer and into the next school year. Make an impact on your child's learning. Getl now and Going West True Crime
listeners can get an exclusive 20% off of EXL membership when they sign up today at exl.com/going
west. Visit.com/goingwest to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price.
>> Summer always changes how you get dressed. You want pieces that feel lighter and more breathable. Things that
are easy but still put together. That's where Quint comes in. They focus on highquality essentials that feel and
look amazing. Think breathable linen and soft organic cotton. And Quint goes way
beyond clothing. They have custom upholstered sofas, ceramic cookware, premium bedding, and more for your home.
It's the kind of brand you end up recommending to everyone for everything. I've been recommending Quint for a
couple years now. And I've been shopping quint.com for a couple of years now. Why? Cuz they keep me coming back. Cuz
they got the good stuff. I love their classic fashion. They got me looking good for any situation. And you can shop
quint.com for men's fashions, women's fashions, shop for kids. They have travel essentials. And here's a secret.
I've purchased a lot of gifts on quint.com. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quint.com/g
for free shipping on your order and 365day returns. Now available in Canada, too.
That's qui nce.com/g for free shipping and 365day returns. quint.com/g. Picture this. It's the end of a long
week. You're unwinding in the tub listening to your favorite true crime podcast and then chronic hives come back
again in the middle of the episode. What a wet blanket. Looks like another spell
of itchy, swollen, red, or skin colored hives. If you have chronic spontaneous urtdicaria or CSU, there may be a
different treatment option. Worried about your chronic hives interrupting our next episode? Learn more at
treatmyhives.com/g. All right, we [music] are back. Cheers, mates. What happens in Vegas goes on off the
record. [laughter] >> That's right. It typically does. >> Cheers to everybody. Thanks for joining
us once again here in the garage. Of course, the jury, you know, the prosecution wants the jury to also
understand and see and hear about what they thought was her unemotional demeanor when presented with news or
information about the case. her demeanor as being angry and frustrated and ending
questioning, ending polygraph examinations by storming out of the room, shouting at people. But again,
it's it's troubling because none of this, like you were pointing out before the break there, Captain, none of this
to me is conclusive hardcore evidence. >> Yeah, I would have to >> It's a lot of suggestive stuff. Yeah. I
mean, I might find her guilty of being a pile of [ __ ] or a giant bag of salty dicks, but to me, if I'm looking at this
evidence, I'm like, this is not enough to convict somebody of this crime. Well, and then we'll get into this next part
here because we kind of went through the discrepancy of people's memories on the blanket, right? That's that was a
big battleground. The other part of the battleground is going to be what witnesses do we have at the trial
who saw Timmy or somebody that they thought was Timmy or saw Michelle by herself with no little boy with her at
the carnival. And look, the short of it here is the same as the blanket. Basically, for every one person that
said that they saw somebody that they thought could be Timmy. So >> yeah, >> one one part that was difficult for the
defense and for this case is you have two people who would take the stand and say, "I saw someone at the carnival who
could be Timmy." He fit the general description of Timmy. And then you have the one woman who says, "I saw a woman
who could have been Michelle with a boy who could have been Timmy. And then later I saw that same woman walking
around shouting and calling out the name Timmy or Jimmy. So your two people that
say Timmy may have been at the carnival are people that did not know Michelle did not know Timmy. That makes them
difficult to be great solid witnesses. Now the flip of that is you have a couple people that say I saw Michelle at
the carnival. never saw her with a a little boy. One one that I found to be the most interesting was the testimony
that it was a woman who took the stand who recalled waiting in line at the carnival at a refreshment stand. So,
this could be the refreshment stand that's come up several times in this case, >> right?
>> It's not said [snorts] that way. It just it said a refreshment stand. So, we'll
we'll leave it as that. But this woman says, "I'm waiting in line at the carnival at a refreshment stand with
Michelle." The witness said she briefly chatted with Michelle while they waited. But in
her telling, something essential was missing. She did not see Timothy. She did not see a little boy. And she says
on the stand, her testimony, that Michelle did not speak of him. So to that witness, it was as if there was no
child there at all. And of course, prosecutors used this statement, this testimony, as well as others to account
this account to reinforce the argument that the carnival scene might have been staged and that the truth lay elsewhere.
>> Yeah. But her original story was she's at the refreshment um station without her son. Another
thing that I've been pondering for the last week is so we find this blanket but we we don't find our victim
clothed, right? Um it's the problem is we find our victim a skeleton and a partial one at that. So, it it's
look, I'm not a medical examiner, but my my take on this is I with the way that the remains were found to me, it's
clothing or no clothing, it's not really suggestive of anything. I I wouldn't expect even if the body was
placed there fully clothed, I wouldn't expect given the state that it was found in to be clothed at the time of of the
discovery. >> Right? And where I'm going with this is she is telling us whether she's saying
I turned around and when I turned back around he was gone or there was this lady and these two people were saying
Timmy was wearing a red tank top and these printed pants or printed shorts. And so if those aren't found at the
disposal scene then maybe that's evidence of something. And then also, let's just say Timmy was never there.
And she goes and then she sees a little boy that kind of looks like Timmy. And so when they go, "Well, what was he
wearing?" Well, Timmy was wearing a red tank top and these printed shorts, right?
>> Mhm. >> Well, then somebody might have saw that individual. Does that make any sense?
>> Yes. So now we have these eyewitnesses that go, "Well, I saw this boy wearing
this stuff, so I'm assuming because I don't know him that he's Timmy." So these people that are saying that they
saw Timmy, these are not individuals that knew Timmy personally. >> So correct. >> These eyewitness accounts, I mean, it
just I think these are on both sides, whether she's innocent or guilty is kind of a nothing burger.
>> Absolutely. I think these are people with the intention of helping and their information is incomplete.
It's it's not strong enough to suggest one way or the other what is right. >> Absolutely.
>> So now let's get that's why when you have all this you have to go back to the
science. Okay. So the science that's presented at trial is one. So that they they presented
evidence to establish that tides could not have washed the body up the creek from the river. Really what they're
doing here is they're aiming to close off an explanation that might suggest accidental or natural movement of the
remains. >> Right? rather than intentional placement. >> They're what they're saying is
>> we believe and we have experts that will back this up that where the partial remains were found is where they were
placed when they were discarded. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Now the flip of of that science.
Okay. So you have that science, right? But now let's go to the other science. The defense is facing a case largely
built on circumstantial evidence. Well, actually, let's take this a step further because you can get
a conviction. You get a lot of convictions and rightfully so. Convictions, not all the time, but I
believe the majority of the time off of circumstantial evidence and and circumstantial cases. You can take that
to court, you can get a victory, and I think the majority of the time that they are right. here it's less of
circumstantial evidence or a circumstantial case. It's more of circumstantial interpretation.
>> Yes. >> Of everything. So the the defense very smartly uses science to challenge any of the reliability of the
narrative about the blanket. So they presented a forensic expert who reviewed the documents and photographs and said
that they doubted any meaningful con connection could be drawn between the blanket and the crime. So this expert he
also questioned whether it could be proven that the blanket had been there for as long as the remains had been
there attacking the assumption that the blanket and the remains shared a long-term link. Okay, so this was from
uh New Brunswick News, I believe. I'm sorry, from the home news. Summarization here for you, Captain. A
defense expert testified in New Brunswick that a blue and white blanket found near 5-year-old Timothy Wilty's
skeletal remains in 1992 was unrelated to Timothy, his death, or his mother, Michelle. Retired NYPD forensic
scientist Nicholas Petreco said he reviewed FBI and New Jersey State Police lab reports and photos. He says the
blanket was never sent to him and found no link between the blanket and other nearby items, including waistband
remnants and a pillowcase, a balloon, a shovel, and a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle sneaker found about 15 to 20 feet
from the remains. Patreo said investigators found no fibers connecting the blanket to the waistband or
pillowcase, no hairs on the blanket, and no blood on the blanket, pillowcase, or
sneaker. He testified that smothering or strangulation usually leaves trace evidence, hair, saliva, skin cells, or
sweat, even after laundering or environmental exposure, though he acknowledged some cases show none. He
concluded the blanket had not been in contact with Timothy, his room, his mother Michelle, or her car, despite
earlier indications by three babysitters as a blanket used by Michelle and Timothy. A New Jersey state police lab
found a hair on the blanket, but determined it was not Michelle's, and no fluids or DNA were detected. Petraco
also questioned how well the blanket appeared preserved if it had been outside for 11
months. So, he's questioning if the blanket was even there the entire time that the remains were there.
>> Right. If I'm the prosecution, I don't know if I'm bringing this case to trial.
And like I said, I understand it. You got to roll the dice. But I just don't I just don't know. It's tough because what
they did was they brought it to the grand jury and then the grand jury comes back and says take it to trial. It it's
it's tough because you would find if in a review of the judicial system and these especially homicide cases often
times when a grand jury tells you move forward with charges and take it to trial, they do. Not not in all cases. I
mean, the the John Benet Ramsey case is one that comes to mind. Um, there are several other cases that we've covered
that didn't end up at trial. The Boys on the Tracks case, grand jury said, "Take
that one to trial, I believe, if I'm recalling correctly." >> So, what does the jury find in this
case? The other thing that the defense is going to challenge and this is you you would do this absolutely a good
defense team would is remember we have a scenario where the county's medical examiner
ruled it a homicide but also stated in the report that the cause of death could not be determined from the remains due
to the decomposition. >> Yeah. And this to me is similar to h having having a trial where you have no
body because we have a body but we can't even determine if there was a crime. We
don't have factual evidence where we go hey victim died of strangulation. We just have dead victim.
>> Right? And so for me, the the hurdle that needs to be cleared or to cause the person to collapse on
the track in front of a crowd to be laughed at is the carnival, right? Because if Timothy never goes to the
carnival, then that is the one thing that I would say conclusively to me says, "Mom killed boy dumped him over in
the swamp land." >> Yeah. >> In the marsh land. If he went to the carnival, then it's reasonable to
believe and actually everything would point to she's absolutely innocent. She's surrounded by people minutes after
she she's only there for what? We went through the timeline what 30, 45, maybe 60 minutes.
>> Yeah. >> She didn't have time to do anything. So, it's reasonable to conceive.
It's reasonable to believe the idea that whether or not he was at that carnival,
his remains were probably placed where they were found either a short time before she went to
the carnival or somebody else did it and they were placed there not too long after the
>> he once she says my son's missing now we have searches and she's basically in
she's basically in police custody for the rest of the night. She doesn't even have her vehicle once she goes back from
the carnival. So, yeah, like you said, the the crux of all this is did Timmy go to that carnival or not?
>> This doesn't have a lot of what to do with what we were just talking about, but back to the trial and you had
mentioned the passage of time between the time he goes missing in ' 91 until when you have a trial in 2016.
the coroner who worked the case in 92 himself, he could not testify. He was deceased by
the time of the trial. So on the stand, you have somebody testifying on his behalf based off of
reviewing photographs and the reports, right? And on top of that, you have a defense
that's saying, "Well, you the coroner himself in 92 couldn't tell us how the boy was killed." It's reasonable based
on the findings and where you found the boy and the the situation and the state of the remains to conclude homicide. I'm
not arguing that. But this is just another incomplete portion of the case because he himself in '92 couldn't
conclude how the boy was killed. So, the person on the stand isn't going to be able to do it either.
>> Yeah. To me, this is just part of the prosecution's job is to paint a picture, but the picture that
they're painting is just too blurry. We don't have enough details. >> Yeah. And one of the more interesting
parts of the trial was Michelle's defense team called a man from Arizona. This is a a man with a fairly extensive
criminal background. He testified that a former cellmate, the cellmate had lived
in Georgia but ended up in a cell with him in Arizona. I believe they that he that this man the cellmate confessed to
him to raping and murdering a young boy near Atlanta City. Okay, so this is very
strange because they're not even in the same state as New Jersey. The man who he's accusing of saying this to him
never says the name Timothy or Timothy Wiltsy and says if if he did say this to his
cellmate. He says he raped and killed a boy a young boy in or near Atlanta City.
So then he learns about the Timothy Wilty case and says, "Oh, he didn't mean Atlanta city. Nobody that lives in
Georgia says Atlanta City. He must have meant Atlantic City, which would be close to where this boy went missing,
>> right? >> This But again, so we got a blurry case. Uh the prosecution has a blurry case,
but the defense is uh putting on their defense with a blurry case. >> Yeah. And I
>> No details here. I hesitate to I'm not going to say the guy that was accused because he did go to the trial and he
took the stand and he's like, "Look, I I didn't kill a kid in New Jersey. I I don't even you know I don't even know."
>> Yeah. >> I I I didn't kill a kid in New Jersey. I don't know what you thought I was going
to testify to, but >> But did he uh admit to killing a kid? >> No, >> I killed a kid, but it definitely wasn't
New Jersey. >> Just Just to back Just to tell you how truthful I am. >> Yeah. I mean, when I'm killing my kids,
I don't want >> It was in Atlanta City. It was in Atlanta City. I was telling the truth
the first time. After the testimony of 68 witnesses, the jury began the deliberation. This is in May of 2016.
During this deliberations, a juror member told the judge that the foreman was secretly conducting an independent
investigation. When the judge talked to the foreman, the foreman admitted to researching FBI evidence collection
protocols. So that foreman was dismissed and an alter an alternate juror was seated in his place. Of course, the
defense moved for a mistrial, which they should, but the judge denied it, which probably should have been done as well.
And just before the 25th anniversary of Timothy's disappearance, again, this is May of 2016, the jury returned a guilty
verdict for firstdegree murder. >> Jesus. >> Now, because of >> because of the problems, the
complications with the jury, we're going to take it's going to take almost a year
to get to sentencing. So, it's January of 2017. The judge sentenced Michelle to 30 years
in state prison without the possibility of parole and she began serving that sentence in New Jerseys in a New Jersey
women's prison while her appeals move forward. >> Again, I'm not saying she didn't do it.
I'm just saying you got to prove it. >> Well, I I and I'm with you. I don't, regardless if you think she's guilty, I
don't think that there's evidence, enough evidence presented to say beyond a reasonable doubt that this
woman killed her son. I >> Well, and also, let's just reiterate something, though.
>> Other pieces of evidence in this case that I think paint a a more detailed picture that she is more likely guilty
of this than innocent. Those weren't allowed at trial. So, it's even I don't know. It's It
doesn't seem like enough evidence to me. >> Right. Do you think she's innocent or
guilty regardless of what was presented at trial if you had to pick? >> I mean, I'd have to lean towards guilt
because I have no 100% proof that this boy was even there. And there's so many things like if she would have if this
would have happened, right, and and she was looking for her son and then she comes across people she knew, right?
Like like they they see her actively looking, but does that make any sense? I I just think there's all these missteps
and then the changing of the stories and then then her behavior afterwards. I I don't know. I just think it's it's
all very bizarre. But then this case is really difficult to me too because I also question did her actions and what
she said and and the untruthfulness quote unquote untruthfulness did that all stem from feeling like she was under
a magnifying glass by law enforcement like it's the chicken or the egg? I don't know that you could win or should
win an argument in the court of law that she killed Timothy, but I absolutely believe in my heart of hearts that she's
guilty. And I base this on two solid factors of reasoning for me. Just applying logic here, some simple logic.
One, I think her absence is a huge indicator of guilt to me that she did this. And what I mean by her absence is
one of the versions, probably the most violent version and one of the final version she gives of he was abducted
story is that she feared that the abductors would harm him. But the abductors also told her that if she kept
quiet or if she played along or whatever the words were or made up to be that they
would return him in a month, in one month's time yet she moves. I get that you may have financial difficulty and we
said in her defense maybe she had to move because she couldn't make the rent. The land lady thought that she was
innocent. The land lady who later decided that she questioned Michelle and if Michelle was guilty did not know any
of that information about the changing stories or the failed polygraph examinations at that time. The land lady
a may have given you a break. You've relied on your father for help financially multiple times in your short
23-year life and as an adult and as a mother. That's when you call dad and say, "Dad, I got to stay here. They're
going to return Timothy. I got to be here when he comes back." Where would you The most likely place if they were
going to return him would be via a phone call to her home or on her doorstep somewhere that they knew that if that
were true that she would find him. So her absence is a huge indicator. And later we learn a couple of things even
after that month passes. Okay. So, shortly after he disappeared, one thing that we learned at uh this was either
during the trial or during the appeals process was she was having the neighbor check her answering machine. You're not
pulling me. The only way you're pulling me from that answering machine if my kids's missing is if I'm out boots on
the ground looking for the kid myself. >> Right. >> Number two takes goes on two trips
before the body is found. We know one of them she went to Florida for 2 weeks and
and the statement the claim was that she was seeking counseling while she was down there and she went I don't know
where the other trip was but it's been reported that she took two trips between the time that her boy went missing and
when his remains were found 11 months later. So her absence is a huge indicator to me that she did this. And
and it's twofold. one that if you really if you were told and you really believe
that he would be returned, you would be where he could be returned to you. You wouldn't leave the area. Number one. And
number two, her absence is an indicator that she couldn't take the heat. She need it was the her only reprieve,
my friends, was to go down to Florida where she wouldn't have to beounded or questioned by she wouldn't have to come
up with answers. Yeah. But >> she wouldn't have to make stuff up to to satiate the the police in their
investigation and their questioning of her. She could get a two week reprieve where she could go down there, buy some
time, collect her thoughts and try to get a clean break, a a real true story and narrative that will that she can
tell them that they will understand and believe. >> Yeah. In her defense, we're assuming
that these individuals that have this horrible thing happened to them have the mental and emotional the mental and
emotional capabilities to handle the situation. >> Yes, I am I am making that assumption.
>> Yeah. >> But >> but we all do it, right? We go >> She wasn't a mother yesterday. She had
been a mother for five years. Mhm. >> She's a mama bear and been a mama bear for almost six years at this point. He
disappeared in May. He has a birthday in August. When you know I I I just I don't
understand how that mama bear part of her. Look, some people never have that. There
are of course there are good parents and there are bad parents. We went out of our way and we made sure to include
rightfully so the people who presented her as a good mother. My other thought too, Captain, is she's too resourceful.
She makes fake FBI business cards. She fakes her own abduction. She does this, that, and the other thing when she needs
to save her own butt, cover her own hide. Where was all that resourcefulness when her son was missing? She sat on her
hands. >> Well, in fairness, >> she moved out of her apartment. >> If she took us right,
>> she went down to Florida >> would know she's guilty. >> In the end, >> through the appeals,
>> at the end of the day, yeah, >> it was later determined, it was argued and argued and reargued in October of
2021. The court concluded that even if homicide was assumed that the state had not proven Michelle's state of mind an
essential element for purposeful murder rather than lesser offenses such as reckless or negligent homicide. The
court stated that even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, no rational jury could find
without speculation that Michelle purposely or knowingly caused Timothy's death. Michelle was released from prison
that evening in October of 2021. >> Her attorney said she cried when told the news and called the decision a
victory for convictions based on evidence, not speculation or emotion. Michelle's brother, Michael, who
believed that she was in fact guilty, criticized the ruling, saying [music] it denied justice for Timothy. Want
[music] to thank everybody for joining us here in the garage each and [music] every
week. Thanks for sharing these stories on social media. The best way to support the show is join us on Patreon or Apple
[music] Podcast subscription for our bonus content and the first 50 episodes of True Crime Garage. Colonel, do we
have any recommended reading for the beautiful listeners? Yes, sir, Captain, we do. This week, our case, The Murder
of Timothy Wilty, is one of New Jerseys most notorious cases and murder mystery.
So, in that vein, how about a book from one of True Crime Garage's favorite New Jersey True Crime authors. Cheers to
Jesse P. Pollock. This is one of Jesse's latest works titled Room 100: Sid Nancy
and the Night Punk Rock Died. Room 100 chronicles the tragic story of Sid Vicious and Nancy Spongen's well,
her murder. punk rock's very own Romeo and Juliet. Through a wealth of archival material, plus new and exclusive
interviews from rock luminaries, critically acclaimed true crime writer Jesse P. Pollock's book is the first to
be solely devoted to popular music's darkest hour, the murder of Nancy Spongen. Did Sid kill the love of his life in a
drug induced stuper? or had Nancy been the victim of a robbery gone wrong. This one, it's a very good book, an
incredible mystery by one of our favorite New Jersey true crime authors, Jesse P. Pollock. Check that one out.
We'll have it listed on our website on the recommended page. That is Room 100, Sid, Nancy, and the Night Punk Rock
Died. >> And until next week, >> be good, be kind, and don't litter. Heat. Heat.
[music] [music] [music] >> [music] >> For those crazy busy, crazy hungry days when cooking family dinner is off the
table, there's Applebee's all you can eat. A table full of unlimited favorites for just $15.99. You get all the tender
signature riblets, all the crispy boneless wings, all the golden brown double crunch shrimp and endless classic
fries at a familyfriendly price. Applebee's all you can eat for just $15.99 per person per order. Now that's
eating good in the neighborhood. Limited time only. So hurry into your nearest Applebee's today.
>> Courage. I learned it from my adoptive mom. Hold my hand. >> You hold my hand.
>> Learn about adopting a teen from foster care at adopt us.org. You can't imagine
the reward.

Carnival of Lies ////// Part 4

Part 4 of 4

www.TrueCrimeGarage.com (http://www.truecrimegarage.com/)

May 25th is National Missing Children’s Day. President Ronald Reagan proclaimed May 25, 1983 as the first National Missing Children’s Day. He established the annual observance to bring national awareness to child safety and encourage communities to prioritize protection efforts. The date was chosen to mark the sad anniversary of the disappearance of Etan Patz, a six-year-old who vanished from a New York City street corner on May 25, 1979. Twelve years after Etan Patz disappeared and on National Missing Children’s Day 1991, a five-year-old boy named Timothy Wiltsey vanished from a Carnival in Sayreville, New Jersey. This week in observance of National Missing Children’s Day, we take a look at a case that will never leave the hearts and minds of many. This is the unsolved case of Timothy “Timmy” Wiltsey. To learn more about National Missing Children’s Day and/or the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children go to MissingKids.org (http://missingkids.org/)

Beer of the Week - Hoser Juice Triple IPA by Double Trouble Brewing

Garage Grade - 3 and 3 quarter bottle caps out of 5

More True Crime Garage can be found on Patreon and Apple subscriptions with our show - Off The Record. Catch dozens of episodes of Off The Record plus a couple of Bonus episodes and our first 50 when you sign up today.

True Crime Garage merchandise is available on our website’s store page.

Follow the show on X and Insta @TrueCrimeGarage / Follow Nic on X @TCGNIC / Follow The Captain on X @TCGCaptain

Thanks for listening and thanks for telling a friend. Be good, be kind, and don’t litter!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com (https://pcm.adswizz.com) for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Brief Summary

The episode examines the murder case of Timothy Wilty, focusing on evidence, witness testimonies, and Michelle's trial for his murder.

Key points

The Terror Devil. A gripping new AMC Studios original series that explores dark themes.
The Blanket Controversy. The blanket found near Timothy's remains becomes a major point of contention.
Michelle's Arrest. On August 6th, 2014, Michelle was arrested and charged with her son's murder.
Conflicting Accounts. The prosecution aims to build a case on Michelle's inconsistent stories, suggesting guilt.
Weak Case for Prosecution. Despite the emotional appeal of a child's death, the evidence against Michelle is weak.
Eyewitness Testimony. Witnesses claim to have seen Michelle and Timmy, but their reliability is questionable.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

This baby is both heavy duty and delicious.

Describing the beer of the week, Hoser Juice.

2:17WatchJun 4, 2026

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.