Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
Hey, everybody, it's Lacey and I'm Lauren. And welcome to another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: And today we're continuing Spooky October and we are going to think about some cases where there has been paranormal elements in it and just talk about those.
But real quick, I guess something scary, maybe, possibly I had in a dream last night involved Lacey. So. So let's see what her reaction is. So last night I dreamt that you came to me and told me you have been sick a lot lately. And we have.
[00:00:40] Speaker A: What?
[00:00:41] Speaker B: Well, this. We. You were sick a lot. We were worried something really bad was going on.
Then it turned out you were pregnant. Oh, dear Lord.
[00:00:50] Speaker A: I am not pregnant.
I have been sick a lot, but I am not pregnant.
[00:00:54] Speaker B: That you were worried and then you went to the doctor and you found out you were just sick because you. You were pregnant. So you might want to go take a test today.
[00:01:04] Speaker A: Oh my gosh. Then it would be Lola Westin failure, cuz.
[00:01:10] Speaker B: Well, come on, it does fail.
[00:01:14] Speaker A: Oh gosh, that would be insane. So Matt got a giraffe at the zoo at Boo at the zoo. And he's like, we have to name it. I said, we're going to name it. He's named it Sister, say it's a sign.
Mark would fall out.
No, I would because I get so sick, like Lauren said, when I'm pregnant.
Well, I'm not pregnant. Should. Should that change and Lelo Estrin fail, I will alert all of you. Clearly so.
[00:01:47] Speaker B: Well, there was this one time. I will say, since we're talking about all this spooky stuff. I dreamt this girl I knew had a miscarriage. I didn't even know she was pregnant. Yeah, she had a miscarriage and she literally did, so.
[00:02:00] Speaker A: Oh my gosh.
[00:02:01] Speaker B: I just feel like you need to go take a test today and let us know next week.
[00:02:06] Speaker A: Well, you know, this may be tmi, but I will know this week, honestly, if I need to take a test or not. So, you know, I'll get through this week and if nothing happens, I'll take one next week. Deal?
[00:02:20] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:02:21] Speaker A: Okay, moving on.
So I know one thing is we'll talk about our own creepy encounters. And I have to tell you this, Lauren, so do you remember, I don't think we were live on the episode. I think we were like, at the end and I had a toy go off in my office.
[00:02:40] Speaker B: You remember that?
[00:02:42] Speaker A: Okay, so my new paralegal has been here, I guess about six months. She's been flying solo since about July.
So this Happened when my new paralegal was here and my new paralegal is pregnant.
So we were like wrapping up an episode, I think when it went off. But Lauren and Wendy that produces this podcast for us, she heard it as well. I go over to the toys that I have in the corner for my kids or any kids that come in my office, and the toy was off.
So it's the creepiest thing that I go over there and I see the toy going. And I was like, oh, I need to turn it off. It was already off.
So the other day, Kayla Money, paralegal, she's in here and she's chatting and we're talking about her daughter and talking about Christmas and that toy goes off.
And I'm like, oh, my gosh. She goes over there, she goes, I need to turn it off. I said, no, it's off. She picked it up and it was off again. And she looked at me and she said, did I ever tell you I lost a nephew when he was 4 months old? I was like, no. She said, yeah, I've always sworn he follows me around and he was just my baby. Like, it was very devastating. Like, I miss him. I miss him so much. And she's having a little boy and I swear her nephew's in my office and like, not bad. You know, I. I don't think creepy things necessarily mean bad things, but I think, you know, with her having this boy and her nephew, I think he is following her and he's coming into my office to play and be with her. And yeah, I swear her nephew is coming to my office with her sometimes.
I can't explain it, it's just. It's wild. So anyways, I think that's what's happening in my office.
[00:04:28] Speaker B: So as far as creepy things, I guess here is a case and this was a criminal case. A guy, let me, I think it was, he tried to murder somebody.
But anyways, let me see. I'm trying to pull the case up real quick.
Okay. It's a famous case which is from the 1980s and he stabbed his landlord.
[00:04:54] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:04:55] Speaker B: And his defense is. Arne Cheyenne Johnson is. I probably am saying his name wrong. The first one is a R N E. But it is a famous case where a man believed he was possessed and that is why he stabbed his landlord, because he was possessed.
He was convicted of first degree manslaughter in the killing of his landlord. He actually got out of jail on this and never had any other issues in any other times but this.
But one of his whole defenses was that he was possessed.
[00:05:33] Speaker A: Interesting.
[00:05:35] Speaker B: Obviously, the court in this situation did not buy it.
[00:05:40] Speaker A: Right.
[00:05:41] Speaker B: But I guess in your situation as a criminal defense attorney, if a client came to you and said, I'm possessed. I mean, obviously in this case, he got charged, he was guilty. He stands by the fact he was possessed.
It became a Netflix documentary and actually is one of the reasons for the films, the conjuring from what Google says. But his attorneys did run with the defense. So in your situation, how would you have handled this?
[00:06:12] Speaker A: Oh, we're going to turn my work calls off.
[00:06:19] Speaker B: Sometimes.
[00:06:20] Speaker A: If that's the only thing you've got to work with, you got to go with it.
You know, like, I just read a book, and this man murdered his pastor, and he wouldn't give motive and he wouldn't. But he wouldn't plead guilty either.
And like, he confessed to it, and he still wanted a trial. And so, you know, the attorney wanted to say that he was not in his right state of mind, that he was a prisoner of war. He's like, no, I was in my right state of mind.
Like, you know, so the only thing he did was like, small little challenges because he didn't have much to work with. So sometimes you don't have much to work with. So if that's what you got, you throw it at a jury and see what happens. I mean, could you only got as much as you.
As much as the evidence shows and your client gives you.
[00:07:07] Speaker B: So if a client told you they were possessed and they wanted to take the stand to talk about it, how would you counsel them in that situation?
[00:07:19] Speaker A: So somebody is saying that more than, like, I do think people can be possessed. Yes. But more than likely they are not mentally well. So I would ask for a competency evaluation for sure. If somebody is saying they're possessed, to make sure that they are, you know, that they can assist in their defense. Because I do think it would be ineffective assistance of counsel if I didn't.
If they came back competent and able, like we kind of talked about that last week with Ed Gein, because he was not competent. So if it came back that the person was competent, they wanted to go to trial, I can advise clients whether or not they should or should not take the stand, but it's their constitutional right.
So there's only so much I can. I can do. I can't allow a client to get on the stand and perjure themselves.
But if it's.
I don't know that that would be perjury. If somebody truly believes they're Possessed, like that's what they.
[00:08:11] Speaker B: If they honestly thought it. I mean, yeah.
[00:08:15] Speaker A: I think I could just tell the judge that I, you know, advised my client and this would not be in front of a jury, but I would be like, you know, your honor, I've advised my client not to take the stand, and he's decided not to heed that advice and. And would like to take the stand or she. And. And that's all that I could really, really do and just let them kind of say what they want to say.
[00:08:42] Speaker B: I mean, I guess if you truly believed it, it's not perjury, like, because it's your belief. And then inside of this, there are people who consider themselves to be paranormal experts or demonologist experts, even in this. Out of this, like a priest who, you know, believes in possession and exorcisms and all that.
How would.
How do you think, could you qualify them as an expert or because it's such a different type field, do you think that would get in?
[00:09:21] Speaker A: So I will say in South Carolina, I feel like our burden for an expert is pretty low. So it just is. It's more information than the jury would. Would. Would know. So it's not a huge burden to give.
And. And as far as expertise, it's always up to. Up to a judge. So, I mean, if that's all you've got to work with, I mean, maybe throw it out there and see what happens. But I don't know. I. I would say that. I think it's in our state.
Most of the judges I know, I think, would say that that is not expert testimony and would probably not allow it in, but it would be an argument. And if the judge doesn't let it in, it would be an issue to bring up on appeal to try to say that that information should have been given to the jury.
[00:10:12] Speaker B: And there's another paranormal case that has got a lot of attention. It was a situation where a woman's daughter died.
And the woman.
This was an old case. It was from, like the 1890s.
They closed it. They said it was an accidental death, all this type stuff. But then the woman kept. It was. Her daughter was married and everything, and she kept.
Her daughter's ghost was visiting this woman, and she came out and said, no, I wasn't accidental death. It was murdered. My husband, murdered me.
And this is what the woman's daughter was telling this woman in her dreams or visiting her type stuff. They ended up opening the case and realizing, yes, this wasn't an accidental death, it was a murder. And ended up getting charged with murder. So I guess in today's time, the woman just constantly kept going and telling him she was murdered, she was murdered, she was murdered. How do you think that would play in, Dave? Or you think like if you had a victim's family, family member.
[00:11:19] Speaker A: If I'm being honest, because I've listened to so many true crime podcasts, I watch crime shows all the time.
[00:11:27] Speaker B: I.
[00:11:29] Speaker A: And I don't mean to be disrespectful to our law enforcement officers. I don't necessarily think it's all them. I think it's probably people above them. But if it, if the case is closed, they want to leave it closed. There's so many open cases, there's so many cold cases.
So if they have a reason, they tend to not reopen it.
Like just last night, me and Mark were watching this Unsolved Mysteries episode where they said this girl was died by suicide by throwing herself on train tracks. Well, it's not like I'll. Maybe we'll get in that story later on, but it definitely was not a suicide. I mean, there's just hard, hard evidence. But because they initially ruled it a suicide before any investigation, before they even found her close clothes, my tie ad, because her clothes were not at the spot of the train incident, they would not reopen it. So I think if that happened and somebody came and said, I think you need to reopen this, I don't think they would. Most people at most law enforcement agencies, if it is, if it is ruled an accident, a suicide, or, you know, it, it's shut, it's closed, it's done. The. They're moving on to the next thing. And I think part of that is they just have so many cases, so much to do. So if one chapter is closed, they're not wanting to go back and reinvestigate and reopen it. So, I mean, I think it's phenomenal that she was able to do that because I've heard multiple, multiple stories of things that just didn't add up, didn't make sense with the initial cause of death should be further investigated. And they literally just refused to reopen it. I mean, we got the Scott Spivey thing going on right now, whether or not that was self defense or not self defense. And they keep wanting to get it reinvestigated. They keep wanting to leave it closed and shut that door.
I did. I do think they're looking at it again, but it's, it, it's taken a lot of public push to get to that Point.
So I think that's what would have happened in that case as well. She's very, very lucky that she found somebody that would listen to her and hear her out and get them to reopen that and investigate it further.
[00:13:39] Speaker B: I mean, it's just interesting, I guess, sometimes that where we see, like, cases.
I don't know, I think sometimes we all have that gut feeling and that type stuff that something happened and it wasn't right, I guess. So realistically, what would you need to prove they really need to reinvestigate this case? Like, if, you know, for, you know, it wasn't suicide or, you know, it wasn't an accident. Like, what type stuff are they actually gonna want you to show for them to put any effort into it?
[00:14:12] Speaker A: Well, in this case, like, I was watching last night. I think there was enough, like, I still don't understand, like, this girl was upset with her parents. She's 18 years old.
She decided to take a walk.
And, like, within half a mile, they. Well, they found her dead at the train tracks. Let me just say that the conductor or engineer and student engineer said that they saw her leap in front of the train. But then they changed their stories that actually they didn't see anything because it was too dark.
So that was it. They just ruled it a suicide. Her family kept trying, like, where's her clothes? Because her shoes weren't there.
She was only in her bra and panties, which typically goes to show sexual assault. That's where your mind jumps. There was never a rape kit done. They never attempted DNA.
The family actually located closer to the house, her shoes, and they later found closer to the house her.
Her headband. Her headband and her shoes were found, and that was two miles from the train tracks. So to make.
[00:15:21] Speaker B: Barefooted, like.
[00:15:22] Speaker A: And her feet were clean.
So you're saying that right near her house, you find her shoes in her headband, and then she walked 1.75 miles to where she's down on the train tracks with no shoes.
And they're saying, along the train tracks where there's glass, wood, all of that, but yet her feet are clean. To me, that's enough to reopen it. For me, the. That's enough to say, hey, what, do we still have to test for DNA? Can. Can we still do a rape kit? We need to look at this further.
And they just. They didn't.
And. And that was just so. So for me, I think that's enough. That would have been more than enough. When you find her clothes, and they never found her shirt and her shorts. When, when somebody is naked, especially a female you, and you find articles of her clothing miles away and you're going to rule a suicide. That's enough. So I don't know how to answer that question.
I don't get law enforcement's thinking sometimes, and like I said, sometimes I think it's the higher ups just want to say, hey, this is what's closed. We've got other fish to fry. We've got to move on.
And they do. They have other victims and other families. I don't think it's like Nessus, like being like mean or vindictive that they're saying they're not going to open stuff. I don't want to say that because I truly don't believe that.
I just think they just have so much on their plates. And so, you know, I think you just have to catch the right officer that, that really cares to get it right.
[00:16:57] Speaker B: Speaking of kind of all this stuff and like cases being pushed aside, if a case is a cold case, realistically, how much work do they even do on those? Are they just like.
[00:17:11] Speaker A: I think every agency is different. And from my understanding, a lot of agencies have like certain cold case detectives or they just have like maybe a couple people, like a smaller number going back and reviewing stuff.
But, you know, there was a case in Lexington from the 90s that just came back and they believed to have solved it. I think it's gone to trial and he was convicted, I'm pretty sure, but it was a kidnapping of a little girl.
And do you remember Danielle Castillo from Band?
Her husband's sister was kidnapped in the 90s in Lexington.
And so I had like seen a Facebook group, so that's kind of how I was able to follow. And since I live in Lexington, I kind of followed it. But they, they solved that. And I, I don't know, I don't know if maybe there was a detective that worked the case that just never gave up on it or.
I know the mom just never gave up on that being solved, you know, and, and kept like pushing. They always like kind of had a suspect, I think, in mind and somehow they were able to get additional evidence. But, you know, I think there's several different. I think agencies do it very different ways. I do think if a detective works a case and it goes cold, sometimes they just hang on to it and they don't give up and they just stay on it until, you know, maybe they solve it or maybe they don't. But yeah, yeah, I mean, look at the yogurt shop murders, those were just solved. And when they did the was it on the Netflix documentary, I mean, that lead detective still had all his materials and he would still go back through it and look at stuff. And I think he, you know, he's not even with that agency anymore, but he just cared enough to keep looking back through it, wondering, is there anything he missed?
[00:18:59] Speaker B: It's kind of interesting to think about sometimes. And I will say with all of this, if you're wondering, there is no statute of limitations on murder. So, like, if you murdered somebody, like, yes, there's statute of limitations on some cases, like you're not going to be charged for shoplifting 20 years later kind of thing. Like the things like murder, there is no statute on, so it can be 50 years later.
[00:19:22] Speaker A: But some states, and I know this from watching Cold justice, that was a show that was on a few years ago, they do have some states there's statute limitations for.
For like second degree murder. We don't have that here. We have like manslaughter, but there are statute limitations for that. So I remember sometimes when they were looking at cold cases, they had to be able to prove that it was. That there was. There was malice, that it was planned, that it is first degree murder.
[00:19:55] Speaker B: It wasn't just an accidental killing. Correct.
[00:19:57] Speaker A: Yeah. So they would have to be able to prove that element when presenting the case to the D A if they were able to get enough or they were coming to the show and say, hey, you know, we had to. To make this, you know, stick, we have to be able to prove this element because otherwise the statute of limitations is ran.
So, yeah, so some states do have that.
[00:20:20] Speaker B: Well, I think it's interesting just to see how our justice system plays out with paranormal stuff and that, you know, it did work in one person's favor that, you know, her daughter visited her and she got a conviction. The other didn't go over well to say that they were possessed. They still. And I guess the thing is, even if you are possessed, you still committed that crime. You may just not have had the intent. And he was charged with manslaughter, which does mean, like, he wasn't planning. They didn't charge him with planning this murder. So I guess in some ways being possessed would be like being drunk or something. I don't know how the law would actually look at it if we got there. But he still did commit the crime.
It is interesting, but next week we're going to talk about our own paranormal experiences and Wendy's going to be on here with us to discuss her paranormal experiences. And then we'll be concluding our spooky season for Halloween.
[00:21:15] Speaker A: Yep. I can't wait. All right, I'll see you next week. Bye. Bye.
