The Yogurt Shop Murders /// Part 2 /// 867 | Forensic Files

Welcome to Off the Record. I'm your host, Nickime. >> It's good to be seen, and it's good to
see you. Off the record, thanks for listening. Thanks for telling a friend. >> True Crime podcast. Be good, be kind,
and don't live. First time. >> Gather around, grab a chair, grab a beer. Let's talk some true crime.
>> The second episode in the series was titled The Fifth Victim. Rotten Tomatoes description of this
episode is trauma continues to haunt the community as family members search for healing, resolution, and ways to hold on
to the memories of the girls. The initial suspicions around the four teenage boys lead nowhere. After several
false leads and wrongful arrest, homicide supervisor Hector Palano is found to have coerced a suspect into a
false confession and is reassigned. Lead investigator John Jones is diagnosed with PTSD and is taken off of the case.
That's something you were talking about earlier in our conversation here, seeing
Jones, Detective Jones, and his struggle and what this case has done to him on a
physical, emotional, probably even a spiritual level. And I when we catch up with Jones later, so I don't know, they
didn't go into this. If they did, I missed it. So, we see Beverly Lowry a couple times
during the docu series, and she is just such a brilliant author, brilliant true crime author.
If you're for the folks in listener land, if you watched the documentary and you loved it, read her book. If you
watched the documentary and you hated it, read her book. If you thought it was okay, read her book. The book is if you
are into the case and want to know a lot more about the case, the actual case information, read her book. And why I
say she's so brilliant is the way this is a very complicated and a very lengthy story. And what makes her brilliant is
the way that she constructed the story. the the order that she chose to take the
reader on this journey with her was absolutely brilliant. But in her book, again, I don't know if the docu series
covered this with Detective Jones, who I seem to I like. I don't know why. I just
feel like I like this guy. >> Yeah. >> I I feel like he's the kind of guy like, "Hey, let's have a couple beers and
shoot the shit." Like, I think I think he he just seems like that kind of guy. But he, from my understanding, if I'm
remembering from her book correctly, I think this case in his job cost him more than just what we see on the screen. He
he ends up getting a divorce. You see, uh, at one point, you know, you see his daughters there. And I think he said
something in Beverly, so he would meet with Beverly Lowry and they would have breakfast like many, many mornings in a
row and they would go over the case together. so she could write the book. She said that when they were meeting and
going through the case file and talking about the case, some of it was hell for this guy cuz he was having to like
relive stuff in front of her and experience things almost again. You know, you have a case here where four
victims are all female victims, young female victims. Detective Jones is the only male in his home. You know, it's
his wife and it's his daughters. and he said something to Beverly Lowryly to the
effect of I was the only guy in the house. Well, there was the dog, but he ran away.
And you know why I think you would dig Jones? I I believe he was a music major in college and he was he was going to
school for I I don't remember what instrument he played, but he was a music major at a college in in in the area
there and he needed money and he they the Austin PD were hiring right when he got I believe he graduated college and
he's like you know what I'll just this is a job that will pay well it have good benefits Um, I don't know that he
intended to be there for and make a career out of it. Yeah, he he was a music major.
>> Well, and a lot of that probably has to do with what he saw. It's one thing to
examine these cases from afar, but for the individuals, the first responders that showed up at that scene that night,
that forever changed their lives and and probably their their futures. And it's the it's the terrible burden of feeling
like you let the victims down and you let the families down. Hell, he says and he said, "Look, maybe I did get too
close to it." But again, how could you not, right? You can't fault a guy for getting too close to a case, especially
one like this one. He said at some point that one of the victim's parents told him like, "We think you need to take a a
vacation and kind of get away from this for a while." Like, can you imagine the griefstricken parents have to tell the
detective to take a break because they can see what it's doing to him? I was thinking about this. There's a handful
of cases that we have covered. Maybe we've covered them multiple times, but and I won't say which cases those are
for me, but there's two or three cases that if somebody brings up in conversation, I I really just don't want
to talk about it anymore. I didn't get the uh maybe I get it now that we're having our conversation, but the title,
the fifth victim, maybe maybe Jones is the fifth victim. >> No, I think it's everybody.
It's the family members like the >> It's the four boys that get accused. >> Yeah. I mean, look, I think there's
people that are out there that can still look at these guys as viable suspects. >> Mhm.
>> And I and I think that's okay. I one of the things about this documentary that
irked me a little bit and I don't know how you feel about this but whether it's the prosecutors or it was the defense
team didn't seem like a lot of people wanted the truth as much as they just wanted to be right.
>> I agree with that. I I don't know. I don't know if I agree with it across the
board, but I definitely look >> definitely not across the board, but like you see that over and over and
look, it could just be at that time and maybe that person changed their stance on on some of this stuff later. I think
there's many moments where people are making statements where you're like, are you just do you just want these four
guys to be guilty or are you trying to find the truth of what happened? Well, and that that is why I think I like
Jones so much because with every theory that's out there, every possible suspect, he always goes back to, well,
you where's the evidence? We got we got to be able to and we got to be able to prove it. It doesn't matter what we
think, we got to be able to prove it. Where Johnson, who's received a whole lot of praise, and look, he does have a
great career. I'm, you know, he's taken on a lot of big cases, but with Johnson,
I'm not going to say that I dislike the guy, but it's but you can easily see that when something doesn't when parts
of the confession don't does not fit the evidence, he will then rework it to fit
to make things fit. Even with the fire, remember, he's the one that goes back and says, "Well, we talked to the fire
guy and the fire guy said, "You know what? it it could have started over here or it probably did start this way. And
when the gun doesn't match multiple times, then it's like, well, those 22 bullets get all messed up and they're
they're easily damaged and it would be too tough. But no, that's like I get what you're saying, John. Johnson, and I
get what maybe the conversations are behind closed doors about the bullets aren't going to you're going to have a
tough time testing these bullets or getting a match on them. But I've also heard other people talking about this
case, people that are qualified, people in law enforcement in in the two books that were written about this case that
very flat out say the bullets didn't match, the ballistics didn't match, and they were tested multiple times. And and
they don't sit there and try to rhyme or reason why they didn't match. It just didn't match. Like it that's not your
gun. That's not your gun. And even when presented with that, Johnson later says something or or somebody presents the
idea of, "Well, we know Maurice Pierce had access to other guns." Yeah. I think you have to have a level head about you.
And I think he says in episode 4, I wish I would have wrote it down, but he basically said, "I had a thought of what
happened and then the confessions prove that." Okay. So, you had a theory and then you got people to confess to the
theory that you thought was plausible. That's not how it works. That you should interview these guys and then if they do
confess, that points your investigation into a certain direction. Now, this this
is not proof of anything, but it's it's very interesting. So, at least I find it
to be interesting. I think everybody will here. Before we started talking today, I gave you a picture in in in our
uh fury here. You uh in frenzy, you may have you may have lost it, but um >> is it the one where you're you're hung
just above the knees, >> right? >> If you shake my trousers down my trousers down, I'm just hung below
the knees. >> Call me low knees, Nick. Um >> long ball, Larry. when they're talking
when they're talking with Springsteen, one of the accused, and he's the one that ends up going on death row. And
when they first sit him down years later, and they said, "Uh, you know, what were you doing that night?" And he
goes, "Well, I was doing what I did almost every Friday and Saturday night. I went to the Rocky Horror Picture
Show." And they go, "Well, you couldn't have." He, "Why not?" He says, "Well, it
wasn't showing that night." Well, I gave you a picture and we'll put this on our
our uh social as well. That's a lie. I mean, I have I have the newspaper advertisement of the Showtimes. You
know, when when we were kids, you didn't have to get online. Um you would either
call the movie theater to hear the Showtimes or you would look in your newspaper. And it's right here, North
Cross 6 the at the North Cross Mall, >> right? >> And it says Rocky Horror Picture Show
rated R midnight showing at midnight. So it doesn't mean that I'm not saying that
this picture here means that they didn't kill the girls. I'm not saying that this
picture here proves that he couldn't have been at the yogurt shop because he was at the Rocky Horror Picture Show
because what we do know is when the flames were reported, so when the call goes in that there's a fire at the
yogurt shop before they even know that anybody's dead, that call, we have the bus, we got the fire truck on the way at
11:47 p.m. So, what do we know about that? We know the killers were gone from the yogurt shop and it was on fire at
11:47 p.m. We know that the no sale button was recorded as being pressed to open up the
register giving access to the money at 11:03 p.m. And this is something we went through extensively in our previous
episodes. Here's the thing. you if you didn't, you got to go back and listen to those episodes. And we'll we'll give you
some information on those on how easy it will be to find them here in a minute. But one of the things we went through
was everything, all these horrible things that happened inside of that tiny little yogurt shop happened between
11:03 p.m. and 11:47 p.m. That's not up for debate. There's so much [ __ ] that's
up for debate in this case. That's not up for debate. That's those are facts. So everything that happened, every
horrible thing that happened in that yogurt shop happened in the course of 44 minutes. Conceivably, could somebody
have done that, set the place on fire, and then went the what, 2 miles from the yogurt shop to the North Cross Mall and
gone and seen the Rocky Horror Picture Show at midnight? Absolutely. >> Right. But what we can say is that
statement from police to Springsteen that got him jammed up real quick cuz you saw how quickly that frazzled his
brain. that that that statement is not accurate when they say, "Well, it wasn't even showing that night, so you couldn't
have been there." Well, it actually was. And I I have the newspaper here to prove
it. Friday, December 6th, 1991, Northcross Mall, Northcross 6, Rocky Horror Picture Show, midnight. And we
have to go a little deeper here. You have four individuals when they're talked to by law enforcement, almost all
four of them say, "Well, what were we most likely doing? were probably hanging around the mall. What would be connected
to the mall, the the cinema? So, it's not a definitive alibi by any means. My my argument against these four boys is
if you went to the show, where's your receipt? It's not uncommon, especially during this time, you go to the movies
that you kept your stuff. >> This doesn't come up until like seven years later, though. If they have a
movie stub from seven years ago, I you know what I mean? So that that's where when Springsteen gets jammed up on this.
>> No, I understand that. But I'm saying when they're initially questioned, if you have four individuals that you
think were somewhere and they can prove that they're somewhere else and normally
when you get a stick when you get a ticket stub, not only does it say, "Hey, Rocky Horror at midnight, the midnight
showing, it normally also says when they printed out that ticket." So if that ticket was printed out at 11:30, that
would almost be an alibi. >> So what I'm saying is I I get your point. It jams him up seven eight years
later. But when they're initially questioned, I think there's >> But see, I would have to go back because
I'm I'm not convinced that Michael Scott and Springsteen were even spoke to originally. remember they the the the
whole idea of what happened days later when when Maurice Pierce is arrested with a gun in the mall when he spoke to
their whole the police if they if they thought these guys were involved in any way shape or form it their theory then
was completely different than what it was seven or eight years later. I'm not I I would have we would have to ask the
officers, but I would want to dig through it. Maybe I'm misremembering or maybe there's a part of the docue series
that I'm not remembering correctly, but I believe from everything I've reviewed that only Maurice Pierce and Forest were
talked to back in 1991. Right. But if we just take their two statements, both of
them were uh we're probably at the mall, two of them. So, if you do investigative
work, if you do your freaking job and you call these four guys in, then we're going to get some kind of answer of
where they're at. And it's it's not crazy to think that seven, eight years later that these kids don't remember
what they were doing that night. >> Yeah. So, that's where they get jammed up is is when they're talking to him
seven years later. And this is where you got to give Johnson some credit because
he's like all four of the guys say that they were to they were together that night, but each one of the four says
they were in a different place or doing a different activity. So he's like their
alibi is no good because it would appear that all four of them yes they were together but three of them are either
misremembering or incorrect or all four of them are misremembering or incorrect or all four of them are lying and they
didn't know what lie the other one was going to tell us >> right >> and so that that's where you got to give
Johnson correct where you where you really got to question the investigation early on and keep in mind they had so
much stuff going on the you get the closer you go back. The more you go back and the closer to the actual murders,
the more of a frenzied in investigation it is because you have everybody all these investigators getting torn and and
pulled into 9,000 different um directions. >> Well, and I think it's I think it's a
good move to pull Palano off the case because >> this individual was not interested in
the truth. This in this individual was good at interrogation and getting people to just say whatever
they thought he wanted to hear. >> Mhm. >> And again, it's pretty simple. We got
these four individuals. If they were properly questioned and properly vetted within a month of the crime, we we
wouldn't be sitting here with all these unanswered questions today. >> Well, we wouldn't have the I think one
thing that has made this case way more complicated than it is or should be is are these four actually guilty? And for
a lot of people in law enforcement and people close to this case, there's still people out there to this day that
believe that the four these four guys did it, >> right? And I think there's some family
members, which would be part of the fifth victims >> that still think that these guys are
guilty. I again, we look at these cases through our lens. In my mind, I can't understand without physical torture
somebody confessing to a crime, a heinous crime. Now, if you said, "Well, this uh this kid uh stole some bubble
gum from the local corner shop and we brought him in for questioning and there's real there's really no penalty,
no severe penalty." So, you got them to confess. Okay, I see that. My brain will
always have a hard time wrapping its head around confessing to a heinous crime. >> Oh, yeah. Especially when we're talking
about rape and murder and multiple murders. And it look, but here's the part where the docu series failed, I
thought, because they really went into exploring false confessions. And I'm glad that they did because that's the
most difficult part for me to wrap my head around, too. When I when I watch >> portions of Michael Scott
confessing or >> or getting, you know, them dragging the confession out of him, when I watch
portions of Springsteen going through the same thing, I say I'm like that they there's no way there's no way that they
would say this. But where the docu series failed is they need to have those guy cuz what we what we don't understand
what gets they're sitting down with the cops and both Scott and Springenstein believed that if I just tell them what
they're trying to get me to say that at some point I'll get out of this room and
then we can sort it out later. Like they'll hook me up to a lie detector. They'll they'll further investigate the
things I said and they'll find out that that that I'm not correct because I mean
you saw the part and they I wish they would have expanded on this part here because I've seen longer versions of
these um interrogation and I that's what I call it. This this is an interrogation. This isn't questioning.
Michael Scott is telling them over and over again. He's like I'm either lying or I don't know or I can't remember.
can't remember. >> And it's like he's he's trying to tell everybody like I'm saying the [ __ ] you
guys want me to say because I'm lying to you. I'm lying to you because I that's the only way I think that I'm getting
out of this room. The docue series does talk and throw a lot of shade on, well, you know, the cops the cops are allowed
to lie to you. The detectives are allowed to lie to you. And if you don't know that, well, then you're going to
make a false confession. I don't give it. I don't care. I'm I'm totally fine with detectives lying to suspects. I'm
totally fine with that. I have no problem with that at all. >> Right. >> And I I actually like that they can that
they can lie to the suspect or the innocent person or or witness or whoever. I like that. Why? Because most
of the people they talk to in interview are lying to them. So, let's keep let's keep it an even playing field here. What
I don't well where I will not get on board with is when that cop takes the gun and pokes Scott in the back of the
head with it. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I cannot believe anything that comes any word that that poor man
says after you stick a gun to his head. I can't believe any of it. I can't believe any of You can't do that. That's
I I mean >> I question that individual's character and their integrity. And again, you you
can lie. Sure. There's also ways about doing this job where you don't have to lie. You can give little bits of
information that would imply something, but you don't have to flat out lie. But real quick, one of my problems with any
of these confessions or any confession in general is if we have two killers. Well, have you ever gone to a party and
then you come back from the party and your your friend says, "Oh man, you you almost got into a fight with this guy."
And you go, "Well, I don't remember it that way." I mean, it got a little heated for a second, but their story
becomes different than your story, right? So, that's first of all, also this notion that people commit crimes,
especially a crime like this one. Let's just say hypothetically this was done by
individuals that are more peers of the victim. These are not psychotic killers that are going around killing people for
some demonic entity or some fantasy world that they made up in their mind. We know of cases where serial killers
remember the victim's names and their height and what they smelled like and where they and they remember all these
details. this to me if it if it is a killer of their peers, these people because it's a traumatic
situation, even though it's a traumatic situation that they're causing, they're not going to remember all the details
anyways. So, you got the whole, well, your story is going to be different than mine. And then, I didn't remember
everything that happened. And then you have well after interrogation if you get these individuals so worked up and then
afterwards you go hey let's take a lie detector test they're going to do shitty on the lie detector test. I mean this is
one of the reasons why we don't interview certain individuals right after a crime because they're not in a
good emotional state. So you're not going to get a good reading. And then you have another problem is that in
confessions, people will lie to minimize their involvement. So you have all these things working
against you, but on top of that, you have these law enforcement agents that don't have a
level head. They lack character. And and I say lack character because I don't think these guys were interested in
getting the truth for these victims. they were interested in getting a result that they already determined in their
mind. >> Well, when when Jones says maybe I was too close to it, I actually think that
the other guys, some of the other detectives were too close to it because I think that at some point I do think
that Johnson, and this is why I try not to fault him so much, I do think that Johnson really thinks that these four
guys did it. And I think that that has that he's too close to it that he's got he he he locked into this idea and he's
got blinders on. And remember the original when they originally speak with Pierce in Wellorn in in 1991 when when
they originally speak with Pierce, the best they could get Pierce to agree to is that they drove up near the the
yogurt shop uh up by the plaza and Forest said he wanted to do something with the gun.
and he he let Forest out and Forest took the gun and then he went down to the creek with the with the skin heads.
That's what Pierce told them. And then Pierce left that vehicle left with with Scott and Springsteen in it. And so
that's what they were working originally. And we talked and I know I'm kind of going circling back to something
we've already discussed, but you know, they wired up Pierce and tried to get him to get Force to say that same stuff
on a recording and and that didn't happen. forced. It was like, "No, I was joking around, man." Um, you know that.
So, with Johnson though, it's like, uh, the fire information's wrong. Well, okay. Well, uh, here's an investigator
that says, "Well, maybe the fire did start on on the girls." It didn't. Okay. Well, the gun doesn't match multiple
times. Well, the the the bullets are probably too damaged, right? >> No, that's not what other people were
saying. The DNA doesn't match. Oh, well, it's contaminated. It's it's that's where I have a problem with Johnson.
It's like, dude, you've you've you've had time and time again science telling you that these these aren't the guys and
you refuse to believe it. You you you have an answer for that. And it's and I I can understand that's one thing the
docu series did great with with the with the DNA. They should have gone a little
more into why it's not contaminated because I think there's still people walking around that believe that it
could be contaminated. Here's the deal. And I, you know, we recorded our other episodes years ago. You know, one in in
in 2021 when we did 30 years later, we went into some of this information here. And I
tell I tell you what, if you want to know more about the the DNA and the investigation and and those parts, we
did a great job with that in in our 2021 coverage. >> That's goddamn right. We're giving
ourselves a pat on the back. >> We did really good with in our first two episodes in 2017
where we received and thank you for the emails. I remember 2017 we got I we got all these emails and like your guys's
theory on on who did it is the best I've ever heard. We we kept pointing to the fact that there were two individuals
that were still in the yogurt shop when it was closing time. >> Right. Those two people have never been
identified. Those two people have never been talked to by police as far as we know. So what happened was that in their
investigation, they went back and they were able to identify and give names to every person that entered that walked in
and out of the yogurt shop that night with the exception of these two men. One thing the docu series doesn't talk about
is and here's the other problem. two men. Now, >> when these when the DNA doesn't match
any of these four guys, well, then you have Johnson go, "Well, there must have been a fifth guy with him." You know,
he's got two answers for the DNA. It's either contaminated or there was a fifth guy. No, no, no, no. We are looking for
two guys. There was two different types of There was two different male donors, if you want to. I hate that they call
that term. >> Uh there were two different rapists. Let's call them that. There were two
different rapists there that night in the yogurt shop. >> [ __ ] bags. >> You're looking for two guys. So you So
you're not looking for your fifth accomplice. You would be actually looking for number five and six. And I'm
here to tell you four people didn't kill these girls. Two guys did. Two guys killed the That's what the DNA tells us.
And why can I tell you that it's not contaminated? because there was other DNA that was found at that same scene
that was they were able to trace who it belonged to and confirm where it came from. So, if that if that DNA wasn't
contaminated, then it stands to reason that the other two wasn't as well. It was two guys that killed these four
girls. And I'm sorry to say this, too, but they didn't kill them for money. They didn't kill them for money. I'm
sorry. I wish I wish it would have been I wish these people would have been less
evil. I wish what was done to these girls was less cruel. But I'm convinced that these two guys saw two young girls
working behind the counter and s thought, you know what, we're going to stay in here tonight. We're going to do
some terrible [ __ ] And then oh, when they started to put things into motion, we didn't realize there were two other
girls in the back here. I think going off of my old notes here, Captain, I think it was $540 that was in the
register. They didn't do all this evil [ __ ] in 44 minutes for $540. They didn't. They This was This was
absolutely sexually motivated homicide. 100%. [Music] Oh, [Music] [Music] all right, we are back. Cheers, mates.
Thanks for telling your mother. Thanks for telling your brother. Tall can hands in the air.
Onward and upward. Heated Colonel. Spicy Colonel. >> I'm just praying that I can get out of
the garage today without before I have a heart attack. >> A couple things on on this
investigation. I I agree with you somewhat. You go. Well, we got this fire. This expert says it started here,
but this expert says it could have started this other place. Okay. Go ahead and call one of them not an expert
because I already explained why the fire didn't didn't start on the on the victims. But go ahead.
>> Right. But you you're also the one that said, "Well, I don't think it's a science." So if it's not a science, then
maybe it could have happened differently. And we're only getting this other information again from these
confessions. So it's an investigator trying to make it fit. But let's just give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's
say he's not trying to fit the narrative. You're just investigating it. I got these confessions. Some of what
they said is true and some of what they said is not true. But this fire thing, okay, it kind of there there's there's
two points of thought, so I just can rule that out. Moving on to the next one. All this gun, this gun evidence.
Well, one expert says this, this, the other this other expert says this other thing. Okay, just cross it off the list.
But there's more and more investigative work that you have to do. Once you find that this expert says this evidence is
right, a different expert says it's wrong, it's just in the nothing pile. And if you keep doing that, you get less
and less stuff pointing towards these four individuals. And again, it goes back to the initial interview that you
brought up that I think is really important. and you go, "Well, the initial confession was, well, I gave
this guy my gun and he left the car and we went somewhere else." I I think they just messed so many things up. And I
also think it's a it's a mistake sometimes to go, "Hey, we got $100,000. Come come give us your
tips." because the amount of nonsense tips that you have and unless you have all hands on deck and multiple, you
know, agencies working this case, you're not going to have the time or the effort
to track down all these quote unquote leads. >> I I can't get on board with that. I
mean, I know I said that in the Amy Bradley case, but that's that's a whole different scenario. You're you're
introducing a $100,000 $200,000 reward to a piss poor country. Sorry, but that's the situation filled with with
the population of that country. 95 90% of the people there poor. Like that's different than
>> No, I understand that. But I'm just saying if I was an investigator, I would stay away from it. I I think we've seen
uh in the yogurt shop murders, I don't know if that helped. And I don't think some of the of what they did in the Deli
murders case helped as well cuz they they were getting so many leads coming in from all over the place. I mean, one
of the leads that they show you in the documentary is is just some lady sitting there in their office going, "Well, my
theory is that they set the fires to cover up the crime." Like, no [ __ ] Sherlock. But and and all I'm saying is
you run the risk. Yes, you you could have a big payoff. Somebody could come forward with some more information and
maybe it would make more sense and I maybe I could get on board with it in the fact that you think it's more than
one individual and we have evidence that more than one individual. So the probability of them telling somebody
else is is more likely obviously. But I but I do think there was just so many freaking mistakes made.
>> The DNA evidence says it was two people that that that at least two people were
there that night. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the DNA evidence points to that and I think the gun
evidence points to that. >> And then there there's other people, you know, there's a a theory that has
somehow managed to stick around over all of these years and kind of float out there. And I don't know why it's not
been squashed and quashed, but because a 380 was involved that it that it was police. There are people that that think
that there's some kind of police involved that that police committed this crime. That's that didn't
happen. I mean, if if there were if there were some sexual deviant uh cops, then then maybe that's what happened.
Um, but I I really think it was still the two guys that were in there when they closed because
>> Yeah, but that could be a a cop that is not on duty. >> No, I I get that. I That's I wouldn't
expect it to be a police officer in uniform. Um, >> we have cases where law enforcement has
picked up >> Oh, no. I'm not I again I'm not saying that it's not a possibility. I said that
I said is if if you have a sexual deviant cop then yeah absolutely. But yeah, I mean that again, this is what
this is what aggravates me about the yogurt shop case is that it it gets it's easy for it to get very very complicated
and that's where everybody gets so far away from what actually happened. And and it's we're this case has been made
to be way more complicated than it absolutely needs to be. And that is why that in large part is why this case
hasn't been solved. >> Well, and and I I firmly believe that. And I think that and I don't it's so
difficult. I get it. It's so difficult. But you got to just be able to push this
crap aside cuz that's at the end of the day a lot of it is crap and you just got
to get to the bare bones of what we know happened. >> Yeah. And and to that point, I think one
of the things the documentary doesn't do well is all they're presenting is that there is there is a DNA sample from a
unknown male and they're not saying two men, >> right? That's why that's why if you want
to know a lot more about the the actual case, the investigation, what happened at the yogurt shop that night, that that
a lot of this stuff is not a mystery. >> Mhm. >> A lot of this stuff is known. It's been
documented and it can and it is well known to the people that have gone looking for it. I've gone looking for
it. We covered a lot of it in 2017, covered more in 2021, and we're dipping our toe again here today. But if
>> well I said online and I was telling you this before we started today was I watched the documentary then I rewatched
part three and part four. I was telling a bunch of people if you haven't seen this documentary it's well worth
watching. I do think it's well worth watching. But at the time I was thinking now it's probably a four and a half
bottle caps out of five. But after re-watching the third and fourth and just thinking about how they have this
platform 4 hours, they could have left un no stone unturned as far as getting out the information to the public. And I
think the more information you get out to the public, the more you're able to possibly get this case solved. But they
didn't do that. And I think they took more of a emotional stance. Again, it's not a bad documentary. I like the way it
was produced. I like that it was a little more raw than what has been coming out like the Amy Bradley case.
But again, goes back to the Amy Bradley um docue series. They just leave about a
bunch of [ __ ] out. You you you make a whole documentary and you don't explain that there's been a ton of other
sightings of Amy not in distress and Amy by herself and Amy not by her capttors.
Like why didn't you want to tell that part of the story? Why aren't you telling us in this documentary? Not only
do we have one sample of one man, we have another sample of a different >> Well, and that's the thing. We we've
talked about this on Off the Record plenty of times with with when we've had behind the scenes uh looks at at these
documentaries or these true crime shows and how they do things. They're they are
the Look, we may look at it as it's their job and their duty to tell us everything and do a really great
investigative piece. >> They're like the cops. they can lie to us, >> but they're but they the way they look
at it is they're creating something that's entertaining and not that they're doing an actual
investigative piece. And that's why that's why and and I'm not trying to be some nerd or some snob or something when
it comes to these cases, but that's why I've I often say like I don't watch much true crime
on TV. I don't because I I've never very few times have I found it to take me to
the next level on a case. I liked this docue series because this case is one that I always kind of return to. The
reason why I liked the docu series was it fired me up and it got me looking at the case again. Often times I'll watch a
docu series or or if I happen to catch a show on something that a case that we've
covered. 95% of the time, man, it never it never inspires me to go back and look
at the case. >> Yeah. But I think you would agree with this sentiment. I think these documentaries are really
important if you are if you're unfamiliar with the location. I think any armchair
detective out there, if you're fascinated with a case, if you're trying to solve a case, and I know to some
people listening out there, that's silly. Oh, these armchair detectives think they're going to solve stuff.
Well, they they help out a lot more than I think they're ever going to get credit
for. But I do think it's really important to see to visually see the crime scenes to vis visually see these
different locations. I mean, you learn a lot about the layout of this location. Not so much about the inside of the
location cuz that's been covered a lot, but you learn a lot about the parking lot and behind and the and the creek and
how it's not that far from the mall. I mean, you you do learn a lot about the location. I think that's why it's
important, but again, it's very frustrating when you and and I'll make this statement. It's very frustrating to
me because when I watch a documentary and you think you've learned so much and then you start diving in, you realize
how much they left out. But most of the time when I read a true crime book, I'm not walking away doing a deep dive and
finding a ton of new information, unless it's a very old book. Correct. Yeah, you
usually don't put down the book and go, I wonder what they chose to leave out. But yeah, so again, thanks for the
emails when we covered it in 2017, but truth be told, that theory, as great as it sounds, um, and as convincing as it
may have been in 2017, it's the one that I still stick to. But that wasn't ours.
We didn't come up with that on our own. That was actually >> Well, I didn't. that well no it came
it was the one of the defense teams actually came up with that and it was it was a group of people that worked on
that and it wasn't just to defend one of the accused. It was also um it involved
I I believe a magazine or some periodical. I I can't remember which. I I'm sure we probably said it in 2017. I
think that's still the best theory that's out there. Then regarding the fifth suspect, right, the Well, it has
to be a fifth guy. Episode True Crime Garage episode 529, the Beatatric 6. The Beatatric 6. Listen to that episode
because And I think that was part of Mind Over Murder or something like that. I And you know what? Here's what I
wondered. I I wasn't going to go watch that because again, read the book on it. It that's another HBO docu series and I
think they did six episodes. So, here's what I wondered about, Captain. The yogurt shop is four episodes. Four
victims, four accused. Did they just do four episodes? Because four, four, four, it kind of fits like
the Beatatric Six. Six people accused, they did six episodes. I I think to tell the in in HBO's defense to tell the full
story and really examine the yogurt shop murders the way that I think it should be examined would be about 8 to 10
episodes and maybe they just didn't have just weren't able to dedicate that much
to it. I hope that they didn't pick the four episodes because there's four victims and four accused. I hope that
they didn't pick six episodes for the Beatatric 6 because there were six that were just because of the number
>> is already there for them. Um because here's the thing, we told the Beatatric
6 story in about an hour's time. We've we're we're probably what 6 hours on yogurt shop easily.
>> Yeah. So here but back to the Beatatric 6. So, in Beatatric, Nebraska, 68-year-old Helen Wilson was murdered
and they had DNA in her case. So, what happened was they arrest the wrong person, get this person to give a false
confession, and then years then as time goes by, they figure out that the DNA doesn't match this person. Well, then
the investigator is like, "Cool. That means they had an accomplice. So there has to be a second person involved that
matches the DNA. So they arrest another person, get a confession out of them. That DNA doesn't match them either. This
happens till they get six people. The DNA matches none of them. Like when are you going to stop just pulling in people
and tying them and saying, "Well, what a whole half a dozen, more than a half a dozen people broke into this home in the
middle of the night and did this." That's what the investigator came up with. That's the best that they could
come up with when the DNA didn't match. Didn't match. Didn't match. It doesn't match here either. It doesn't mean there
was a fifth guy. It doesn't mean there was a sixth guy. >> It was two people that murdered all four
of these victims. Maybe there was a third one there, but I I I would wager Franklin that it was two people. Now, I
wanted to make sure we included a couple things before. Well, I think you could make some argument that we have two
individuals that were in the yogurt shop around the time the yogurt shop was closing. This is definitive by
eyewitnesses. >> Yes. >> But then also what is a possibility is that these individuals left through the
back. So one could argue >> they unless they climb through the ceiling, they left through the back
door, >> right? And so I think somebody could argue well maybe there was a individual
in a car that you know once everything started going down that they moved the car around to the back and then they
picked him up. Someone could make that argument. What is fascinating though is the fire
should have and could have destroyed all evidence. The water could have and should have destroyed all evidence, but
it's a miracle that it didn't. And we have two samples. So that's the minimum, right?
>> Yeah. And I, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the K, so I think the killers walked in through the front
door. I think they were there when it closed. And when you have two guys that are there at closing time that have not
been identified, have never come forward. The no sale button is pressed at 11:03. Like those two things
happening in that quick succession and them not being the killers. That's a difficult hurdle to clear.
>> I agree. >> That's a very diff. And then 44 minutes later the place is burning and
everybody's dead. Total chaos. Total what did Jones call it? Wholesale carnage. 44 minutes later. I wouldn't be
sh They they they went in through the front door during the time that the store was open. They stayed there when
it was closed. They set things into motion. Pulled the gun on one of the girls and left the CocaCola in the cup
on the counter. That's what set that into motion. When she turned, I think they ordered a Coke. One of them said,
"Hey, I'll take a Coke before we leave." And when she turned around that, boom, gun in the face. And that started
everything. They left out the back door after they set the place on fire. I wouldn't be shocked if they lived in
those apartments that were over there. I wouldn't be shocked if they arrived on foot. If there if there was no car, no
driver, and if there was a third guy, great. I mean, maybe you could sell me on that, but I I have a hard time
believing that the air quotes getaway driver waited outside in a car for for an hour for No, I'm not saying you. I
just There's other people that presented this. I have a hard time thinking that the getaway driver just sat out there
patiently for an hour >> waiting on these guys. >> Yeah. Yeah. And my gut feeling because
of on the movements of these individuals because we don't have eyewitnesses talking about
>> we have eyewitnesses talking about these two individuals that were seen in the
yogurt shop. >> Mhm. >> We don't have these eyewitnesses of of some car driving away from the the
scene, you know, erratically and because of the age of the victims. It's just my
hunch, but I'm saying that this individual is closer to their age as opposed to being in their 30s or 40s.
This is just my >> and the FBI profile will agree with you on that. the FBI. >> I did not know that. But um
>> and so the here's the thing real quick before with the books. If you want to know a lot more about what happened that
night, what they do know absolutely happened that night at the yogurt shop, you have to read Beverly Lowry's book,
Who Killed These Girls? If you want to know more about, and I apologize to Corey Mitchell for saying this, he's
he's a great true crime author, but some of his information in the early part of
his book, Murdered Innocence, is just factually wrong. Like a couple but but in his his book came out about a more
than a decade before Yogurt Shop before Who Killed These Girls did. So Beverly Lowry had access to better information.
>> Yeah. She had the advantage. Yeah. He reports in early in the book that one of
the witnesses who spoke at length with law enforcement stated that he overheard one of the girls, there was a boy that
went to the back of the store. And police have always been interested in that that young man. I call him a boy,
but he's he's not a young man. He goes to the back of the store. Yes, you should be concerned about him because
their theory on how the four guys that they accused of doing it two that they actually took to trial was that that boy
who went to the back was one of these four guys and that what they did was they unlocked the back door so they
could go in through the back door as soon as the store closed. That makes sense. It's it's a could be. But he
reports something as the witness overheard one of the the worker girls telling this young man that he tried to
order a Coke and she says we only have Sprite. Well, we know that that's not correct because we know that there was a
a Coke that was on the counter after the fire was put out. So, we do know that they had Coca-Cola. So, there's there's
some details in there that are questionable about what he reports of that night. But again, he limited
information. What you want to read murdered innocent by Corey Mitchell for is he goes way into very deep into the
the me the two Mexican men that were that were arrested and were that that said they were tortured by Mexican
authorities. He goes way nobody else goes that deep into that portion of the story, which was a huge deal at the time
because everybody thought that they had solved Yogurt Shop. I know that the docue series doesn't talk much about it,
but that was a huge deal in this story. And that was shortly after the murders. And again, we talked about this already
in our conversation here today that it wasn't those Mexican guys cuz they their details, even when it was beat out of
them, were incorrect. Yeah. But that's the problem. If you do things that aren't ethical, putting a gun to the
back of a suspect's head, uh, beating and trying to beat information out of these individuals, then this person
always has a defense. And so I would love to say, well, these these three individuals, they're not responsible.
These the the guys that were um deported back to Mexico, that they're not involved at all. What? I can't say that
100%. But what I can say is I don't have that answer because the situation wasn't
handled correctly. >> Yeah. And see, that's again this it's over complicating this case. The DNA
tells us that the four that were accused didn't do it. And I know that that's it's it's very difficult for people to
and even myself. I circle back on times and go, well, maybe that then I have to remind myself, no, the DNA says they
didn't do it. And again, so if these four were involved, now you have to have two more people. You have to have six
people that did this. And six people didn't do this. Four people didn't do this. The Mexicans that were arrested
and confessed to it didn't do it. Certain that this DNA information tells us more. I mean,
sometimes the DNA will tell you, well, it it is a it's a man. We know the sample is from a male and we know that
the sample is from a white man. Do do we do we have information? >> No. >> That we know that comes from the DNA
sample other than it's a man. >> It's no other than it's two men, >> right? Sorry, I I misspoke.
>> No, that's as far as what's been released to the public. Now, I I can't say that they don't have more than this,
but everything I've examined only we only know that it's it was two men. We we don't know ethnicity. We don't know
their background. You know, they can do the um >> snapshot DNA is the lay term for it, but
wanted to real quick read two two things here. the holdback information, which you can see very quickly that the the
investigators created a list of 13 pieces of evidence that they were going to hold back. You
can see even in the docue series how quickly a lot of this information leaked out. But what's interesting about this
hold back information, the reason why we know it today is because two of them went to trial. And so ultimately some of
these smaller details came out eventually. So all 13 pieces of holdback information are now public if if you
want to review them, it's in Beverly Lowry's book. And so straight from her book one, how and where the fire was
started was hold back. So they know or at least they firmly believe how and where it was started.
>> Right? >> So you don't need to go back to a different expert and get them to say
something differently. This was part of your holdback information from the very beginning, how and where it was started.
Now, what what's what's interesting to me is I I would hold my hand to God and swear that I know where the fire was
started. How it was is interesting. Do was there some type of accelerant? If there was, do they know what that
accelerant was? Uh number two, the key in the front door there. That's how we know that they had already started their
closing duties. They stuck the key in the front door. How much money was taken? That wasn't that was never made
public. I believe that I've dug it up and I think it was $540. Number four, how the girls bodies were
arranged. We now know that that's been public obviously and that that started to leak out very quickly. What was used
to bind the girls, their own clothing, we know that that the office was not entered. The office was not entered.
That's why I'm telling you this is a sexually motivated homicide, not robbery motivated homicide. If money was their
number one concern and they got distracted by rape and torture, murder, they would have then maybe they just
lost their minds and didn't go into the the office. If robbery was the number one motive, they would have figured they
would have entered that office looking for more money and valuables. They didn't. The office was never entered.
That the office key was still underneath the cash register. So, the girls had access to this key to get into the
office. the caliber of weapons, which of course we know is a 22 and 380. That two
pairs of the victim's underpants were missing. They never recovered two pairs of underwear from the scene. They're
gone. That Amy's leather bomber jacket is missing. Her leather coat, her leather jacket gone. One of the killers
took it. Trophy. Amy's Amy was bruised under her chin from a blow of some kind. So, that's where they got Springsteen to
say that he hit her, >> right? >> Uh 12, that Amy was strangled and what she was strangled with. 13. That Amy was
shot twice with two different caliber of guns. That was the original holdback information. Now, to your credit, my
friend, my dear captain, the FBI profile. Oh, I do want to give a we got to say something here. I found this to
be incredibly awesome. So the FBI agent that was brought in to lead the FBI agents that the mind hunters if you will
that were brought in to put together this profile, the leader was Judson Ray. Okay, that or Jud Ray, some people just
call him Jud Ray. Judson Ray, that name may sound familiar to you because when we covered the Forces of Evil killer, he
was part of that investigation. And in fact, when we've talked Mine Hunter the series before, the character Jim Barney
from series from the second series is based off of Judson Jud Ray, the African-American FBI agent at the
Atlanta field office. So, I I thought that that was cool that the uh they they didn't just bring in somebody we've
never heard of. They brought in Judson Ray was part of this outfit that put together this profile and it reads more
than one person was involved. One of them with a dominant personality. Keep in mind they had no DNA when this was
put together. This was put together in 1992. The asalants are probably white in their late teens to mid20s. See you uh
were you working for Judson Ray? Um, >> Judson was working for me, but I I'm learning stuff throughout the years.
>> The one with the dominant personality in all probability did not finish high school in school. Would have been
considered an underachiever with less than average grades. Resents discipline. Would have been a discipline problem for
school officials and parents. Has an explosive personality. Angers easily, especially when drinking alcohol or
using drugs. An impulsive person who acts without considering the consequences will engage in physical
confrontation only when he has the advantage. Will not engage in any confrontation with an adult male without
friends present. Probably unemployed or working in a menial job. Will have a history of changing jobs. Is not
dependable as an employee with a high degree of absenteeism. lives in a dependent relationship with
an older person, possibly a parent, frequents the area of the ICBY shop, familiar with the streets and stores in
the area, probably a resident of neighborhood. Wow, I haven't read this in a long time. I And I referenced those
apartments earlier. I I think I think that there's a good chance that that person is in that area, was in that area
in late 91. Probably has a criminal record, may be abusive to women, may seek out women who are younger and less
adequate than himself. Has no remorse about killing the victims, but is under tremendous stress from fear of
apprehension because crime may not have gone as planned. also very concerned about loyalty of his accompllices
because they may be feeling regret. Disharmony may be developing between the offenders as stress level rises as well
as increased paranoia because of which they may maintain close contact with each other in order to keep a close
watch. In time, this may change into a falling out leading to violence. Number four, immediately after leaving the
crime scene, offenders would have gone to a secure location to clean up or change clothes, although the crime scene
does not indicate they would have had a lot of blood on them. Five offenders may
have returned to the area that night to watch police and fire departments or they may have left town, may have missed
some work days. End of profile. And of course, that describes thousands and thousands of people. But, you know, if
they were local to the to the level of being in the neighborhood, they could have easily watched the fire department
and the police trying to make heads or tails of that horrible, horrible crime scene.
[Music] I want to thank everybody so much for joining us here in the garage each and
every week. If you listen on Spotify or Apple Podcast app, please leave a fivestar review. It really helps out the
show. And until next week, be good, be kind, and don't litter. [Music]

The Yogurt Shop Murders /// Part 2 /// 867

Part 2 of 2

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

This week we take a good solid look at a case that has weighed heavy on the hearts and minds of everyone in the Lone Star state’s capital city. The Austin Yogurt Shop Murders is one of most infamous cases in Texas history. Despite the efforts of the APD it remains unsolved. In 1991 four girls were killed at the I Can’t Believe it’s Yogurt near the Northcross mall. Victims - Amy Ayers (13), Eliza Thomas (17), Jennifer Harbison (17), and Sarah Harbison (15) were shot and killed in the shop’s backroom before the business was set on fire. Police had many leads, some that turned into arrests, and two accused were charged, convicted, and released. Just this month HBO released a four part documentary titled The Yogurt Shop Murders.

True Crime Garage’s previous coverage;

November 2021 - The Yogurt Shop Murders episodes 539 & 540

February 2017 - Austin Yogurt Shop Murders episodes 81 & 82

Beer of the Week - Home Ec Partners by More Brewing Company

Garage Grade - 4 and 3 quarter bottle caps out of 5

Pet lovers visit our friends and follow pet lovers Chewy at the below link.

CLICK HERE

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 covers the emotional toll of the yogurt shop murders investigation, focusing on Detective Jones and the flawed confessions of suspects.

Key points

The Fifth Victim Episode. The episode explores the haunting aftermath of a crime and its impact on the community.
Detective Jones' Struggles. Detective Jones faces emotional turmoil and PTSD from the case, affecting his personal life.
False Confessions Explored. The discussion delves into the complexities of false confessions and their implications.
The Role of Lies in Interrogation. Interrogators can lie to suspects, but what happens when the tables turn?
Confessions and Memory. Confessions can be unreliable, especially under pressure. How do memories differ?
The Case of the Yogurt Shop Murders. Two men were responsible for the tragic events at the yogurt shop, not four.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

Can you imagine the grief-stricken parents have to tell the detective to take a break?

Reflecting on the emotional toll on Detective Jones.

5:34WatchAug 27, 2025

Tension

70/ 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.