2:00

sign up with promo code DD

2:02

for a special offer that includes

2:04

a four-week trial, plus

2:06

free postage and a free

2:08

digital scale and no

2:11

long-term commitments or contracts. So

2:14

just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone

2:16

on the top of the page and

2:18

enter code DD. Go

2:20

ahead right now and save yourself and or

2:22

your business both time and money

2:25

with stamps.com. Oh and

2:28

thanks stamps.com for sponsoring the show.

2:31

We really really appreciate you. While

2:37

the defense team is dealing with the

2:39

uncertainty of what is going to happen

2:42

with Allison and her continued representation of

2:44

Anthony Garcia, we are still

2:46

plugging along preparing our defense

2:49

in what can only be described as a

2:52

very very complicated case as

2:55

the trial date in September looms like

2:57

a dark cloud over our heads. Meanwhile

3:01

the county attorney continues to turn

3:03

over new discovery as Omaha PD's

3:06

investigation into the case proceeds as

3:08

they are constantly trying to

3:10

dig up additional evidence to assist

3:13

in convicting Anthony Garcia. While

3:16

much of the newly discovered evidence appears

3:18

to be nothing more than a desperate

3:20

reach by the state, that matters not

3:23

because the fact is is that we

3:25

still need to address it. We still

3:27

need to fight it via motion work

3:29

because if we fail to object to

3:31

the introduction of evidence then it very

3:34

well may end up being presented and

3:36

entered into evidence at trial. At

3:38

which point the likely result

3:41

will be that the issue will most

3:43

likely be considered to be waived for

3:45

the purposes of appeal in the event

3:47

that Anthony Garcia is convicted. Now

3:52

looking objectively at the state's case based on

3:54

the evidence that has been tender to us

3:56

thus far, it basically boils

3:58

down to this. With respect

4:00

to the 2008 Hunter Sherman

4:03

homicides, the state has

4:05

no forensic evidence whatsoever linking

4:08

Garcia to the crime scene. No DNA,

4:10

no prints, fingers or shoes.

4:12

They also have no proof

4:14

such as phone or banking

4:16

records that place Anthony Garcia

4:18

and Omaha, Nebraska on

4:20

or around the date of the homicides.

4:24

Now what the state of Nebraska

4:26

does have is Cecilia Hoffman's statement

4:28

regarding the alleged confession made by

4:30

Anthony Garcia, as well as a

4:33

few eyewitnesses that state that they

4:35

observed a small gray or blue

4:38

SUV parked approximately a block away

4:40

from the Hunter residence, and Garcia,

4:42

in fact, did own a gray

4:44

Honda CRV back in 2008. Some

4:50

of these very same witnesses also observed

4:52

a man in an ill-fitting suit carrying

4:55

a satchel-like bag, walking on the

4:57

Hunter streets on the

4:59

day of the homicides. The

5:02

witnesses gave varying descriptions of the man

5:04

that they saw in terms of facial

5:07

features and skin color. Ultimately,

5:09

a composite sketch was created, which,

5:12

frankly, bears little to no resemblance to

5:14

Anthony Garcia. So

5:17

in theory, these eyewitnesses could

5:19

be viewed, in a light

5:21

most favorable to the state, to

5:23

be potentially solid witnesses. But

5:26

the reality is that after Garcia

5:29

was arrested, Omaha PD visited nearly

5:31

all of those eyewitnesses in order

5:33

to see if they

5:35

could positively identify Anthony

5:38

Garcia from what is called

5:40

a six-pack photo array, which includes

5:42

a photo of Garcia, along with five other eyewitnesses. The

5:45

result of that was that not

5:47

one of those eyewitnesses positively identifies

5:49

Anthony Garcia, and, moreover, several of them

5:51

identified as a six-pack photo. different

6:01

individuals altogether. Finally,

6:04

as far as the 2008 homicides go, they have evidence

6:08

that Garcia was terminated in

6:11

2001 from Creighton University's pathology

6:13

department and that

6:15

in the week that preceded the homicides

6:17

that Garcia had been terminated from

6:20

his residency at LSU due

6:22

to the fact that he had failed to

6:25

list his residency at Creighton on

6:27

his application. That,

6:30

my friends, is the sum total

6:32

of the state's case against Anthony

6:34

Garcia for the 2008 homicides. This

6:37

lack of any substantive evidence

6:39

against Garcia will ultimately

6:41

result in the state attempting

6:43

to introduce some very spurious

6:45

evidence into the case in

6:47

the very near future, which

6:49

we will get into very

6:51

shortly. Now,

6:54

the 2013 double homicides of the

6:56

Brumbecks is certainly a

6:58

different story, as it is clearly the

7:01

stronger of the two cases and,

7:04

quite frankly, has been the primary focus

7:06

for us, as the

7:08

evidence is far, far

7:10

more problematic. Now, the

7:12

fact is, is that the Brumbecks

7:15

homicides mirrors the Hunter

7:17

Sherman homicides in the sense that

7:19

at the crime scene, there exists

7:22

zero evidence linking Anthony

7:24

Garcia to either brutal crime

7:27

scene. There's no DNA, no

7:29

prints, no matching fibers,

7:31

there's nothing. There's also

7:34

no eyewitnesses that saw anyone entering

7:36

or leaving the Brumbecks residence or

7:39

walking or driving around the neighborhood

7:42

at the time that the state believes

7:44

that the Brumbecks were killed. What

7:49

the state does have in that case

7:51

is that Anthony Garcia was

7:53

present in the city of Omaha on

7:56

Mother's Day of 2013, as they have a receipt. that

8:00

he was at a Wingstop restaurant where he

8:02

made a purchase of food or drink

8:04

in the amount of seven dollars and some

8:06

change. They also have

8:09

evidence that alleges that Garcia had

8:11

searched for the addresses of both

8:13

Chandra Bhutra and the

8:15

Brumbex on his phone on

8:17

or around the date that the state

8:20

believes the Brumbex were killed. They

8:22

also have evidence that Garcia purchased

8:24

a handgun that was the same

8:27

make and model as the

8:29

gun that law enforcement believes was used

8:31

during the Commission of the homicides at

8:34

the Brumbex residence. So

8:36

while it's true that Omaha PD cannot place

8:38

Garcia at the Brumbex home on the 12th,

8:41

they do have circumstantial evidence

8:43

that fits very neatly

8:46

into the state's revenge-themed narrative.

8:50

The state also has the collateral evidence

8:52

from the attempted burglary at the Bhutra

8:55

residence on Mother's Day of 2013. The state

8:57

alleges that

9:00

the swab that they took from

9:02

the back door of the Bhutra's

9:04

residence provided them with enough DNA

9:06

for a profile to be developed

9:08

and despite the fact that the

9:10

profile had multiple contributors, the

9:13

lab results stated that Garcia could

9:16

not be excluded as a

9:18

contributor. The fact

9:20

is is that it is a very

9:22

weak profile and the state is

9:24

acutely aware of this as evidenced

9:27

by the fact that in very short order

9:29

they will be sending off whatever biological

9:32

material they have left to

9:34

a private startup lab called TrueAllele

9:36

in order to have that company

9:39

attempt to develop a more

9:41

complete DNA profile with the

9:44

company's new technology. This

9:46

will soon become a hotly

9:48

contested issue as we sought

9:50

to have this new profile

9:52

excluded but that is for

9:55

another day. So heading

9:58

into trial we certainly have some

10:00

serious issues that we need to

10:02

contend with in order to combat

10:04

the state's narrative. Our

10:08

primary focus from the beginning of the

10:10

case has been to challenge the state's

10:12

timeline as to when the

10:14

Brumbach homicides may have taken place. Because

10:17

as you may recall, the Brumbach's

10:19

remains were not discovered until the

10:21

Tuesday following Mother's Day in 2013.

10:26

Not only does the fact that there don't

10:29

appear to be any witnesses that saw or

10:31

heard anything during the

10:33

late afternoon of May 12th of

10:35

2013, including four or five

10:37

gunshots that would have been fired from outside

10:39

of the home into the

10:41

home, cause us to have serious doubts

10:43

about the brutal double homicides taking place

10:46

when the state believes it may have

10:48

happened, but the fact

10:50

that Roger Brumbach's body is

10:52

still in rigor mortis when the medical

10:54

examiner is finally able to inspect the

10:57

bodies somewhere between 52 and

11:00

56 hours after

11:02

the state believes the homicides to have occurred.

11:05

That fact alone has the entire

11:07

team convinced that we need to

11:09

prove, despite having no burden to

11:12

meet, that there is no way

11:14

that Garcia could have committed these

11:16

crimes because they didn't happen when

11:19

the state is saying that they

11:21

happened. Because Garcia

11:23

was long gone from Omaha,

11:25

Nebraska when we think

11:28

that the Brumbach's may have been slain. So

11:31

how do we do that? Well, what

11:33

we need is a witness that

11:36

laid eyes on Garcia shortly

11:38

after he left the Omaha area, and

11:41

not only saw him, but actually

11:44

recalls exactly how he looked and

11:47

how he was acting at

11:49

the time. Our private detective

11:51

is doing everything in his power to

11:53

find such a person, and guess

11:55

what? Steve

11:57

Yonkey may have just found. exactly

12:02

who we are looking for. Welcome

12:04

to Defense

12:07

Diaries. I'm

12:10

your host

12:12

Bob Motta,

12:16

and this is

12:18

episode 58. We

12:33

left off last episode with the county

12:35

attorney filing a motion for sanctions against

12:37

Allison, alleging that she had

12:39

harassed and intimidated material witness Cecilia

12:41

Hoffman. The media of course

12:44

found out about the motion before

12:46

we did, and it was

12:48

the press who in fact alerted us to

12:51

its very existence. We

12:53

of course were furious as we

12:55

knew that nothing that the state

12:57

was alleging had happened had actually

12:59

taken place, and that this was nothing

13:01

more than a PR move by the state

13:04

to cast some serious shade on

13:07

Allison and the team heading into

13:09

trial. The

13:11

media, as would be expected, picked up the

13:13

story and ran with it, like

13:15

a runaway freight train. In the

13:17

meantime, we prepared and filed our

13:20

response, and the matter is set

13:22

to be heard in late July. Meanwhile,

13:25

we have Steve Yankie, our private detective

13:27

out in Iowa, trying

13:30

to track down a witness that

13:32

potentially could be very, very

13:34

helpful to us in attacking

13:36

the state's timeline. So that

13:39

gets you caught up. Let's dig in.

13:44

So I'm bringing in Allison now to ask

13:46

her about what may have been going on

13:48

in her mind during this

13:51

timeframe, because maybe there are things that

13:53

she was thinking that she

13:55

was in fact keeping to herself. So

13:59

after the state filed its motion

14:01

seeking to have your ProHoc VJ

14:03

ticket pulled, meaning that

14:05

you wouldn't be able to practice in

14:07

Nebraska and specifically would no longer be

14:09

on the team. What

14:12

were you thinking in terms of

14:14

confidence level as to whether

14:16

or not you would remain on the case? I

14:19

was pretty damn confident that I'd remain

14:21

on the case and that there would

14:23

be zero ramifications because I

14:25

felt very sure the recording clearly

14:28

showed that I had no impact or

14:31

influence over anything that Cecilia Hoffman

14:33

said. And

14:35

I assumed once the judge listened to

14:37

the actual recording and heard

14:39

that Cecilia Hoffman volunteered the

14:43

information about not trusting what she

14:45

had heard, not sure of what she

14:47

had heard to an open

14:49

ended statement that Steve Yanki

14:52

presented to her, that that

14:54

was going to be the end of it there. Well

14:58

that's great for you, but I don't know if

15:00

I ever told you, but I was pretty damn

15:03

nervous about you getting the boot. Not

15:05

because you did anything wrong, but

15:07

instead due to the fact that we were

15:10

out of towners and we were

15:12

getting old boy networked to death out

15:14

there. I think at

15:16

this point in time, Judge Doherty had denied

15:18

every single motion that we had filed, including

15:21

the critical motions for change of venue and

15:23

the motion to sever the charges. I

15:26

mean, the fact is revoking your

15:28

pro hoc VCHA status made

15:31

it so much easier for the judge to

15:33

potentially remove you from the case. That

15:35

in the fact that there are three of us as

15:39

far as the sixth amendment right to counsel

15:41

choice argument goes. Now

15:43

we realized all this of course, but

15:45

as you sit here today, can

15:47

you recall what else you did

15:49

between the time that we filed our response and

15:52

the end of the month when the motion was set for

15:54

hearing to try and get in front of this thing? transferred

16:01

a copy of the interview to the state.

16:05

And we may have also included it

16:08

to the judge as an exhibit to

16:10

our response. But I

16:13

looked through kind of my old

16:16

emails and what I was doing between

16:18

June and July on this case. I

16:21

was working on DNA. I was

16:23

working on Charles Zimmer. I was

16:25

working with the PI Steve and

16:27

another local PI to interview additional

16:30

witnesses. So to me, I was

16:33

working on several other things.

16:35

And this was honestly, it was

16:37

not in my mind

16:40

that this was an issue for the purposes

16:42

of the case itself. Now,

16:44

I want to be clear. I did not

16:46

give Allie these questions ahead of time. I

16:48

wanted her spontaneous responses to them. Oddly,

16:51

she just answered the question that I was

16:53

about to ask, which was setting

16:55

it up that in September we have a trial

16:58

date that's set and it's fast

17:00

approaching. And I wanted her to talk a

17:02

bit about how much this sideshow pulled

17:04

her away from dealing with

17:06

what mattered most, which of course

17:09

is our client's trial, which as you

17:11

just heard, it didn't affect her

17:13

at all. And she was only

17:15

focused on the things that mattered. Now,

17:19

as you just mentioned, another huge factor

17:21

for us as a team was

17:24

that it was you who had taken the reins

17:26

on the critical DNA issues with

17:28

respect to the DNA, which the state

17:30

alleged that Garcia had left on the

17:32

door handle of the Butra's basement door.

17:36

Now, do you think at this point in time that

17:39

strategically the County Attorney was more

17:41

than aware that it was you

17:43

that had the firmest grasp on

17:46

that particular science and

17:48

that that fact was the

17:50

true motivating factor in trying to get

17:52

you removed from the case? I

17:57

can't say it was a particular science or

17:59

particular. particular area that they were most concerned

18:02

with. But as far as wanting to get

18:04

me removed from the case,

18:07

I honestly think overall they did

18:09

have an issue with a strong,

18:12

assertive female lawyer. Now, yeah,

18:14

they have women lawyers in the prosecutor's

18:16

office as they do in every prosecutor's

18:19

office. And they almost always

18:21

on any serious case

18:23

where it's going to trial, they've got

18:25

a male and a female counterpart. But

18:28

still, I was the

18:30

one who was, and I

18:33

went back again and looked at my emails

18:35

in June through August, June of 2015, I was

18:38

peppering them. I

18:41

was reaching out to their expert for DNA

18:43

things. I was sending

18:45

them demands for more material.

18:47

I was asking about their

18:50

lab standards and missing things and

18:52

all sorts of things related to

18:54

DNA. So although

18:57

I can't remember the precise hearings, because

18:59

we did have some pretrial hearings for

19:02

DNA at some point, they would have known

19:04

from me handling that motion and

19:08

being the lawyer speaking during

19:10

a hearing on that, that that was

19:12

going to be what I was covering

19:14

for sure. But honestly, I

19:16

think I

19:19

felt overall kind

19:21

of like they didn't understand why I would speak

19:23

so much in a room with you and your

19:25

father there. To me, I

19:29

felt that. And I'm

19:31

very sort of

19:33

tough skinned. I don't

19:35

often feel like, oh my

19:37

gosh, I'm being treated a certain way

19:39

because I'm a woman, even if I

19:41

am. It's just not

19:44

something that is typically I'm

19:46

feeling or overly aware of or

19:49

overly worried about. But

19:51

I did get the sense that in

19:54

a room with a male

19:56

judge, a male and

19:59

a female prosecutor. and then two

20:01

male defense attorneys and myself

20:04

that eyes were looking, wondering

20:06

why I would be the

20:08

most outspoken on certain issues. Obviously

20:10

not all the time, but

20:13

I did kind of get that sense there. And I

20:15

also think that they know that having

20:17

a woman for the same sense that

20:19

they want to have a male and

20:22

a female prosecutor on a serious

20:24

felony trial, they would want to

20:27

deny the defense that female voice

20:29

because the female voice is important.

20:31

That's why they want to have it. So I

20:33

think it's twofold, but

20:36

to your original question about the

20:38

DNA, I do think because

20:40

like I said, in that timeframe, I

20:42

was actively discussing

20:45

DNA. I was actively communicating with

20:47

their expert and their office about

20:50

DNA related issues. So I do think

20:52

that that's something they were aware of,

20:54

but I don't think that

20:56

was as much the driving factor,

21:00

like specifically DNA. But

21:02

I think they did want to get me off the case whatever

21:05

way that they could. I

21:08

don't think there's any doubt about that. And I've

21:10

said it many times throughout the course of this

21:12

podcast that the fact of the matter is that

21:14

you were the one that was papering them to

21:16

death. They knew exactly what you were

21:18

bringing to the table. And they

21:20

also knew that out of the three lawyers,

21:23

the one that would have the biggest impact on

21:25

being removed from the team was

21:28

you. If you pulled you out, that

21:30

would be devastating to us because if they

21:32

pulled my dad out, we probably survive it.

21:35

If they pulled me out, we probably survive

21:37

it. We pull you out. It's

21:39

a major gaping hole in

21:41

a lot of different ways, not just a trial itself,

21:43

but the pretrial work that you were doing was

21:46

next level and it was driving them

21:48

nuts. And we're

21:50

going to find out in very short order what

21:53

exactly happens with Allison on

21:56

this case. Meanwhile,

21:58

Steve Yanki on the show. Our private detective

22:00

has arrived in West Des Moines, Iowa, in

22:02

order to try and talk to the woman

22:04

who was working the front desk at

22:06

the motel that Garcia checked into a mere

22:09

couple of hours and some change after

22:12

the state believes that the Brumbacks had

22:14

been killed. In

22:16

trying to hunt down who exactly had been

22:18

working that day, Yaki had

22:20

gone into the motel six and spoke with

22:22

the manager on duty in order

22:25

for them to look up who had been

22:27

working on May 12th of 2013. The

22:31

manager was able to come up with that information

22:33

for Yaki and Yaki gave him a

22:35

business card, requesting that he hand

22:37

it to the clerk and if she

22:39

were so inclined that she call him back

22:41

so that he could set up an interview. So

22:45

the question still remains, will she talk to

22:47

Steve? And if so, what if

22:50

anything will she recall from that random day over

22:52

two years ago? Look, memories

22:54

don't get better over time. That's

22:56

a fact. And another fact

22:58

is that everyone on the defense team

23:01

understands exactly how important this

23:03

clerk is and what she

23:05

may recall about Garcia is

23:08

to our case in terms of dismantling

23:10

the state's timeline. The

23:13

question of whether or not she will talk with

23:15

Steve is answered in very short order. When

23:18

Yvonne, the clerk calls Steve

23:21

and agrees to meet with him the

23:23

following morning at 10 a.m. So

23:27

Steve, of course, gets a room at the

23:29

Motel 6 and

23:31

at 10 a.m. he meets at the

23:34

front desk with Yvonne.

23:38

Let's see what Yvonne remembers. Okay,

23:41

good morning. This is a detective Steve Yanki

23:43

with Suburban PI. We're doing the interview on

23:45

the Garcia case and I'm interviewing Yvonne

23:50

at the Motel 6 in East Des Moines.

23:52

Good morning Yvonne. West Des Moines. Oh, I'm

23:54

sorry, West Des Moines. And it's 10 o'clock

23:57

in the morning. And Yvonne and I

23:59

spoke briefly. at the front desk while

24:02

guests were checking in and out during the lull. And

24:05

I wanted to have a private time, so now we're

24:07

in the break room and I'm going to have her

24:10

reiterate the statement that she gave to me basically

24:13

while we were at the front desk. Is

24:15

that accurate enough? Yes. Would

24:17

you identify yourself, please, for the audio? My

24:20

name is Yvonne O'Hara. I'm a GSR

24:22

at the Montel 6 here in West Des

24:24

Moines. What's a GSR? A guest

24:26

service representative. Okay.

24:29

And earlier I asked you for your date of birth and your

24:31

home address and phone number and I have that in the file.

24:33

Yes, sir. How long have you worked here at Montel 6? Eight

24:36

years. Eight years? Do you work

24:38

anywhere else? No, just here. You're a

24:40

full-time employee? Yes. And are

24:43

your guests, are your always guest service? Is that what

24:45

you always do? I'm

24:48

guest service and I'm also head housekeeper.

24:50

Okay. So do you always work the

24:52

front desk or do you sometimes do housekeeping duties? I

24:55

do mostly front desk, but I do

24:57

housekeeping duties. We're

24:59

going to go back to what's

25:02

easiest to identify as Mother's Day of 2013.

25:07

You checked in a guest here at the

25:09

hotel. Excuse me just a moment. Okay.

25:14

And just for the audio, one of the employees walked

25:16

into the break room, but we're going to go ahead

25:19

and follow through. So

25:22

we're going back to Mother's Day of 2013 and there was

25:24

a guest who checked in who became a

25:27

person of interest in a case in Omaha, Nebraska

25:29

at a later date. And Omaha

25:31

police have talked to you about this person, haven't they?

25:34

Yes. Did they talk to you here at the hotel or at your

25:36

house? Right here in the front desk.

25:38

Okay. Right here at the break room. Oh,

25:40

in the break room, okay. And how many times have you

25:42

talked to a detective? Just once. Just

25:45

once and that was the, do you think the Omaha police

25:47

department? Yes, he was the Omaha detective. Was

25:49

Des Moines with them? Was Des Moines PD with him? No,

25:51

he was alone. Alone? Okay.

25:54

I don't see any other person. No, he was alone. Alone?

25:57

Okay. I

26:00

asked you earlier about the surveillance video because

26:03

you can see the surveillance screen behind the front desk.

26:05

And tell me, is the same system

26:08

in place right now? No,

26:10

it is not. It has been replaced. Okay,

26:12

can you describe briefly the old system, how things

26:14

are over? No, it's basically the same as

26:16

this one is now. Just the,

26:19

we got newer cameras. I mean,

26:21

it basically does the same thing as the old system did. It

26:24

still works off of a VCR

26:26

tape, or it tapes it. And

26:29

you told me there was a tape for every

26:32

day. Can you explain that? Yes, there's a tape

26:34

for Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Every

26:37

morning it gets changed out by the

26:39

manager. So the Sunday tape is

26:41

only saved until the founder. So there's one

26:44

week, yes. Okay. So

26:46

by the time the police interviewed you, it

26:48

had been more than a week. Yes. Correct,

26:51

okay. Okay. As

26:58

far as you can recall your duties on

27:00

that Mother's Day Sunday, it was an afternoon

27:02

shift that you worked. Describe

27:05

your duties that day. I

27:07

just basically check in guests, deal

27:10

with situations if there's any problem

27:12

situations, but basically just checking in

27:14

guests. So you were on front desk

27:16

duty that day, not laundry, or? Front desk,

27:18

yes. Okay, not housekeeping. And

27:20

who worked with you? You

27:23

worked alone the entire shift? The entire three of them? Yes, the whole

27:25

three of them. Okay. Now

27:29

the person that you checked in has

27:31

been identified, his last name is Garcia.

27:34

So we'll refer to him as Mr. Garcia. Do

27:37

you recall checking him in?

27:39

Yes, I do. Do you

27:41

recall the detectives asking you about checking

27:43

him in? Yes.

27:46

And did the detective show you a photograph of

27:48

the person they said it was Mr. Garcia? Yes,

27:50

that's how I remembered him. And

27:53

I remember that picture that they showed me.

27:55

You had mentioned to me that you're good

27:57

with faces. That's an important part of this

27:59

identification. Do you think that you're a good, good

28:02

person to recognize faces? Yes, I

28:04

really did have faces, names, I can't,

28:07

but faces pretty well. Yeah, I

28:09

mean, the names, I'm terrible with the names too. You'd

28:12

think a detective would be like, you know, I

28:14

remember everybody. No, it's hard. And

28:16

I see a million faces every day, but I still remember

28:19

a certain ones. All

28:21

right. Now we are cooking with

28:23

gas as Yovan for whatever reason

28:26

specifically recalls Anthony Garcia coming

28:28

into the Motel 6. And

28:30

checking in on Mother's Day of 2013, the

28:33

fact that Omaha PD spoke

28:35

with her within a week of the homicides

28:38

taking place and further told

28:40

her that he was suspected of committing

28:42

homicide must have helped lock

28:44

him into her psyche. But

28:47

let's see what else Yovan

28:49

can recall. So especially

28:51

when they come and talk to me and then

28:53

he made a confrontation with me. And what was

28:55

that conversation about? Where does the Mexicans

28:57

hang out? Where was the street for the

28:59

Mexicans to hang out in my home? 14th

29:02

street. That's where he said he wanted

29:04

to taco. Okay. Mexican

29:06

food. So

29:08

14th street, is

29:11

that more of an ethnic neighborhood in, is that

29:13

East or West? It's East

29:15

14th street. Is that Des

29:17

Moines or West Des Moines? It's Des Moines. Okay.

29:19

And that's a neighborhood predominantly Mexican.

29:22

Mm hmm. So

29:25

when he checked in, can you

29:28

tell me about the check-in? You had mentioned you

29:30

thought something was unusual about when he checked in.

29:33

Because he didn't have any luggage. Usually

29:35

people when they check in, they have luggage

29:37

with them or clothes or something. He didn't

29:40

have anything. He just gave me

29:42

his ID. I checked him in and he left. And

29:44

do you remember what room you put him in? Not

29:47

too sure. I know it was 127, maybe 120. Something

29:51

around there. I know it was on the first floor. Did you

29:53

put him on the first floor for a reason? No. Okay.

30:00

Did you, you had told

30:03

me earlier that sometimes people will scam you about the,

30:05

you know, how many people are in the room. Did

30:07

you think that maybe he was checking in for one

30:09

or two or do you recall if you checked in

30:11

for two people? Well, when he was checking in, I'm

30:13

sure he only said one adult. And

30:17

the only reason why I made him suspicious because later on

30:19

I saw him walk by with the second person. What

30:25

when we heard these words come out of

30:27

your bonds mouth, as we listened to Steve's

30:29

interview, our minds were blown for

30:31

multiple reasons. But the

30:33

primary reason being that according to

30:36

the state's evidence, there was

30:38

no time for Garcia to stop

30:40

anywhere on his way to West

30:43

Des Moines. There

30:45

is no indication in Garcia's banking records

30:47

that he stopped anywhere, let

30:50

alone somewhere where he could have withdrawn money.

30:53

So who is this mystery woman?

30:56

And where did she come from? I

30:59

mean, there exists no evidence

31:01

from any of Omaha PD's

31:03

forensic searches of his devices

31:06

that include any searches for sex

31:08

workers on various websites. They

31:11

also have all the records of

31:13

his incoming and outgoing calls

31:15

on Garcia's phone account. There

31:18

were no calls that took place. So

31:21

where did she come from? How

31:23

did she get there? Who

31:26

is she? Let's see what

31:28

else Yvonne recalls. Hey

31:32

y'all, Ali and I love the

31:34

sponsor of this episode, and that's

31:36

GAB. And I mean love.

31:39

Look, we have kids and

31:41

without question, our biggest fear

31:43

and battle with our kids right

31:45

now is the amount of

31:48

screen time that is spent on

31:50

social media and who knows what

31:52

else as everything is accessible to

31:54

them. I mean, it's terrifying not

31:57

having control over the content that our

31:59

kids are consuming. and we're being made

32:01

to feel guilty by our kids by denying

32:03

them access to certain apps or

32:05

to the devices themselves. And if your

32:07

house is anything like ours, you're hearing constantly

32:09

from your 10, 11, 12 year olds, hey,

32:13

mom, dad, I wanna have a

32:15

phone, I wanna have a watch, and it's not fair

32:17

because all my friends have one. And you

32:19

know what? There's some truth to what our kids

32:21

are saying, but we are

32:23

trying desperately to keep them

32:25

safe and healthy. So what are

32:27

we to do? Well, along

32:31

comes the hero of our story with

32:33

devices that make us, the

32:35

parents, the heroes of our kids'

32:37

stories. Well, who is this hero,

32:40

you may be asking? Well, of

32:42

course, it's Gab. They are the

32:44

leader in safe smartphones and watches

32:46

for kids, tweens, and teens. Gab

32:49

devices were built from the ground up

32:52

with no social media apps and no

32:54

internet browser, which allows us as

32:56

parents to take back control of who

32:59

and what our kids are exposed to.

33:01

You know what one of the coolest

33:03

things about Gab is, is that it's

33:06

tech that our kids actually

33:09

want, which is a massive

33:11

part of this equation. On Gab devices,

33:13

there's unlimited talk and text, a clean

33:15

music streaming app, and over 100 third-party

33:18

apps that can be installed at your

33:21

discretion. Gab phones are also

33:23

outfitted with smart filtration that

33:25

proactively blocks harmful content before

33:27

it ever reaches your kid. Imagine

33:30

taking that constant worry out of

33:32

your lives. We love

33:34

it so much. It was a game changer

33:36

for us and our 12-year-old who was begging

33:38

and begging and begging for a phone or

33:41

a watch, and we kept saying, next year,

33:43

maybe, then along came Gab,

33:46

and our daughter absolutely loves it. She

33:49

can access both her school apps as

33:51

well as her debit card app, and

33:53

there are tons of fun and educational

33:55

apps available so that our kids aren't

33:57

suffering from FOMO. Now, if all that

33:59

sounds amazing. election

36:00

is that around 730? You

36:02

think he walked out? And

36:04

you mentioned that he was

36:07

with somebody. What is

36:09

it about the two people that made you

36:11

think they were together? They

36:13

were walking side by side and then they

36:15

came back together. Okay.

36:17

And we'll talk in a little bit about

36:19

them coming back. But they were—so you described

36:22

walking side by side. Were they holding

36:24

hands? No. Let's

36:27

talk about how—let's talk

36:29

about the female person.

36:32

Can you describe her? She

36:35

was short, short hair, and

36:38

she had shorts on, and she had tattoos. How

36:41

about race? Hispanic.

36:45

Okay. And her hair. Do you remember a color of her

36:47

hair? Dark. The

36:50

tattoos. What can you tell me about them? Were they on

36:53

her feet or legs or hands or back? It

36:55

was on her arm. Okay.

36:59

Do you know what the tattoo was of?

37:01

Could you tell? No. They were

37:03

a little attached. Let's say they just walked

37:05

by. Okay. And we're going

37:07

to—in a little bit, I'm going to try to take

37:10

a picture of your vantage point so I can kind

37:12

of see for reference later where, you know, it wasn't

37:14

40 feet away. It was— Just right

37:16

there from the front. Right in front of the

37:18

front desk. Within 10 feet or so. Right? Is

37:21

that correct? Mm-hmm. Okay.

37:29

So he checks in, no luggage, checks

37:32

in to your recollection for one, is what you

37:34

think. He goes down at the

37:36

hall, the first floor, towards his room, and then you

37:38

go about your business. About

37:41

a half hour later—and when I ask you this, could you

37:43

say yes or no for just for the recording? So

37:46

about a

37:48

half hour later, which would be around

37:50

7.30-ish, you saw him

37:53

leave, and he left through. He came from

37:55

the direction of his room and

37:59

went past the front desk. desk and out the

38:01

front door. Yes. Did you ever see his vehicle? No.

38:04

Okay. Well,

38:06

the girl didn't arrive. You

38:08

didn't see her at check-in. So how could she have

38:10

gotten with him? How could that

38:13

happen? On the side of our

38:15

buildings, there's extra doors. We have on

38:18

the back ends, there's a door on each side of the building

38:20

and on each side of the building, there's two doors. So there's

38:22

a total of four doors. So she could

38:24

have came in from that back door. Would

38:27

he have to let her in? Yes, he would have to

38:29

let her in. Is that door alarmed? No.

38:31

Okay. So you would have no way of knowing when the door was open. No, but

38:34

they just have to be open with the key. Unless

38:36

you're on the inside. Yeah. So

38:38

from the inside, you can just open it. Yeah.

38:40

Does the system log the use of the key?

38:43

And can we go back and look

38:45

at that date and say, oh, this

38:47

key was activated? Probably in our audit

38:49

packs. It'll

38:52

tell you in our audit packs because we

38:54

run key logs every

38:57

month for our audit packs. Did

38:59

the police ask you for that? No.

39:02

Okay. But

39:06

that key log entry wouldn't have counted,

39:09

right, if he opened the door from the

39:11

inside. No. It just counts when

39:13

we make keys for them up at the front

39:15

desk. Somebody

39:17

would have had to physically go back there and check

39:19

that door to see who key opened

39:21

it with our scanner. Okay.

39:39

So when after they left,

39:42

you watched them leave and they were side by side

39:44

and you had the impression they were together and then

39:46

you said they returned. Do you know approximately what time

39:48

if they left around 7 30, do you know about

39:50

what time they returned? Like maybe

39:52

9 30, 10 o'clock. Okay.

39:56

And how

39:58

explain, describe that. have

46:00

a bunch of recordings from a bunch of

46:02

different creators that I'm going to create a

46:04

little episode, a little bonus episode with

46:07

some of your favorite creators just

46:09

talking shit and I'm gonna make

46:11

that patreon only.

46:14

Patreon only and probably members for

46:16

our YouTube channel, which is Defense

46:19

Diary podcast on YouTube. Make sure you're

46:21

checking that out. Make sure you're subscribing,

46:23

sharing, all the good things over there

46:25

as well. But yeah, keep an

46:27

eye out for that because I'm gonna try to get

46:30

that done this weekend. And then finally,

46:33

last but not least, to you, our

46:35

faithful, beautiful listeners who are so, so

46:37

very patient with us. We

46:39

love you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Beyond

46:42

the moon and back. Because without you

46:45

guys, I'd just be an old man

46:48

talking about an old case. Talk

46:50

to you next time.