Last week we told you about 20-year-old Maggie Hume. The young woman from Battle Creek, Michigan, who was found strangled in her apartment, her body hidden under a pile of blankets. We laid out three potential persons of interest, but investigators began to turn their attention toward her boyfriend, Jay Carter.
In episode two, we introduce you to two more murdered young women from the same county as Maggie.
It was a cold Winter morning on February 3, 1983. 17-year-old Patricia Rosansky was nearly done with her 25-minute walk to Battle Creek Central High School where she was a junior. However, when the bell rang for class that day- she was nowhere to be found.
School administrators made an announcement over the loudspeaker asking any of her classmates who may have seen her that morning to come forward. Several did, but their tips did not lead to Patricia.
An article in the Battle Creek Enquirer.
Her last known sighting was at the intersection of Calhoun Street and North Avenue, which was within eyesight of the school. Looking at the path from her house at 59 South Broad Street and plotting the walking path to the school on Google Maps, it is clear she would have had to bypass the campus to end up at the intersection.
So what drew her to this location?
Patricia Rosansky's path on Google maps from her home to school and the intersection where she was last seen.
One classmate reported seeing her walking with a man, but that man has never been publicly identified by police.
Patricia's body would not be found for two months. It was April 6, 1983, when two people look for scrap materials at a well-known dumping ground discovered her partially-clothed decomposing body under an old refrigerator door. Police identified her through her dental records. An autopsy showed that she had died by blunt force trauma to the back of the head and that she had been sexually assaulted. April 6, 1983, when two people look for scrap materials at a well-known dumping ground discovered her partially-clothed decomposing body under an old refrigerator door. Police identified her through her dental records. An autopsy showed that she had died by blunt force trauma to the back of the head and that she had been sexually assaulted.
While Patricia was still missing, 17-year-old Karri Evans vanished. She too had been walking on a public street in Bellevue, a town about 13 miles from Battle Creek. It was only a few weeks after Patricia disappeared, but likely because Karri was labeled as a "runaway" the cases were not immediately linked.
Several weeks after Patricia's body was found, someone hunting for mushrooms stumbled upon Karri's remains. Police have been tight-lipped on the details surrounding the discovery, but they did reveal her body was covered by tree limbs and brush. She was partially clothed. A medical examiner determined she was strangled but said it did not appear that she was sexually assaulted.
Police were not sure if the cases were connected, but they haven't ruled it out either. One prosecutor is quoted in the paper as saying while there are several coincidences, there are also significant distinctions between the killings.
Suddenly, Calhoun County had three young women who had been found murdered within months of each other. Each of their bodies were obscured in some way.
After more than a year without answers, police announced a reward for information on Patricia's case would be doubled. However, only for a short time- a period of 30 days. The day after the announcement, at least six people came forward with information. All of them pointed to the same man.
Thomas Cress was a 28- year-old man who lived a few houses down from Patricia. He had an established intellectual disability in which he could not read or write and had the mental capacity of an 8-year-old. After a months-long investigation based on the collection of tips, police made an arrest. This action was taken despite several facts that did not line up.
During the trial, the prosecution presented the tipsters' testimony through direct examination, which means they all showed up in court and told their stories under oath while being questioned by the state's attorney. The six witnesses, who all knew each other through familial connections or prior relationships, told different versions of the same story. Thomas Cress had either admitted to killing a woman around the time Patricia was murdered, or had shown them where he discarded the body.
Thomas Cress Source: Mlive.com
However, a defense witness testified as to being with Thomas at work the morning Patricia vanished.
His trial lasted nearly a month and ended in his conviction. One of the tipsters collected a $5,000 reward.
So we have three murders in Battle Creek, Michigan. One man has been found guilty, closing the case on Patricia Rosansky. But what about Maggie Hume and Karri Evans?
Over the next 18 months, there was nothing new to report in the investigations of either of these women. One of the cases, the murder of Maggie, remained a high-profile case, but the other, the disappearance and murder of Karri, seemed all but forgotten.
However, in September of 1986 investigators received information that would shake the investigation.
Detectives in Arkansas reached out to investigators in Battle Creek about a man named Michael Ronning who was serving a life sentence for a murder in AK. He had a lengthy criminal history, had grown up in Battle Creek and had confessed to multiple murders across the U.S.
Battle Creek investigators were intrigued and decided to interview him. Boy, did that open a can of worms. It turns out that Ronning had lived in the apartment below Maggie Hume during the time period when she was murdered. He had also been living in the area during the time that Patricia Rosansky and Karri Evans were murdered.
By 1992, Ronning agreed to talk with investigators in exchange for more information on the killings he had committed. Michigan investigators stuck a deal and the transfer was made. Ronning eventually confessed to the murders of Maggie Hume, Patricia Rosansky and Karri Evans. However, his confession was riddled with errors and some began to speculate that he had memorized certain details of the crimes from public case files in order to get transferred to a state where hard labor prison work was not part of the punishment.
Attorneys for Thomas Cress sprang into action and tried to get his conviction thrown out. It was overturned initially. However, after a lengthy evidentiary hearing- it was upheld and the Battle Creek investigation into Michael Ronning lost steam. Ronning was fond to have falsely confessed to Rosansky's murder.
An argument was made that he also falsely confessed to Maggie Hume's murder. Part of the evidence brought forth was a discrepancy in his confession, where he claimed to have watched Maggie through a window in her apartment from a spot where he had allegedly been fishing the night of her murder. Evidence was brought forth that showed the view was blocked by trees.
Physical evidence that could have cracked the case wide open was destroyed by a rogue prosecutor in the early 1990s. Karri's murder still remains unsolved, as does Maggie Hume's.
However, a semen sample left in Maggie's underwear could be a compelling piece of evidence to revisit. Jay Carter, long a person of interest by police, claimed the underwear Maggie was wearing while he was with her before she died was rolled up on the floor of her room.
Police Photo of Maggie Underwear Source: Blaine & Pardoe
If that's the case- his semen shouldn't be in the different pair of underwear found with her body.
We then go through Jay's timeline of events that night as he recounted it to the police, and it reveals even more inconsistencies.
Join us for this episode, and afterwards...let us know where you stand? Who do you think killed Maggie Hume, Patricia Rosansky, and Karri Evans. And do you think it was the work of just one killer?
Sources
Pardoe, Blaine & Hester, Victoria. The Murder of Maggie Hume: Cold Case in Battle Creek (2014)https://www.amazon.com/Murder-Maggie-Hume-Battle-Creek/dp/1626195277
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mi-court-of-appeals/1206251.html
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/1032405.html
https://www.newspapers.com/image/204714980/?terms=maggie%20hume%20&match=1
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2010/12/gov_granholm_grants_release_of.html
https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2010/12/flint_lawyer_who_worked_for_ye.html
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106shrg74753/html/CHRG-106shrg74753.htm
https://www.newspapers.com/image/204648047/?terms=rosansky&match=1
https://www.newspapers.com/image/204648276/?terms=rosansky&match=1
https://www.newspapers.com/image/204648081/?terms=rosansky&match=1
https://www.newspapers.com/image/206164125/?terms=rosansky&match=1
https://www.newspapers.com/image/210119725/?terms=rosansky&match=1
https://www.newspapers.com/image/210119559/?terms=rosansky&match=1
https://www.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/02/detective_dismisses_murder_con.html
Transcript
Katie KaplanHost00:00 Hey there, fellow sleuths, we are your true crime hosts. EmHost00:03 I'm Katie Kaplan and investigative journalist and I'm M of former special agent and you're listening to Two Sleuths. Speaker 3Host00:31 Warning this podcast contains graphic content that may not be suitable for all listeners. All suspects or persons of interest discussed on this podcast are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Listener discretion advised. Katie KaplanHost00:47 Welcome back, fellow sleuths, to part two of the Battle Creek Murders. In part one we told you about the 1982 murder of 20-year-old Maggie Hume. She was found strangled and hidden under a pile of blankets in her bedroom closet. The night before she had spent some time with coworkers and then a few hours with her boyfriend, jay, who had come over to her apartment, watched some TV and had sex. Jay decided not to stay the night, even though he normally did, and it was Maggie's first time staying overnight alone in the apartment. As her roommate was gone for the night. Jay says he left Maggie's apartment around 11 pm, making him the last known person to see her alive. As a result of their investigation and interviews of Jay, police were forming the strong suspicion that Jay Carter murdered Maggie. EmHost01:35 About six months into Maggie's investigation, there was another murder in Battle Creek, michigan. This time it was a 17-year-old girl named Patricia Rosansky who was last seen walking to school. Then, two months after that, a third murder, 17-year-old Carrie Evans, vanished when she was just out for a walk and the residents of Battle Creek began to fear that a monster might be out there preying on young women. It was the winter of 1983. The morning of February 3rd carried a typical chill that one might expect for a Michigan winter. Around 8 am that morning, 17-year-old Patricia Rosansky, dressed in an off-white coat, jeans and white mittens, began her walk to Battle Creek Central High School. It was the same route she and her fellow classmate took every morning, but this walk would be different. This walk would be Patricia's last and the last known time that anyone would see her alive. Katie KaplanHost02:30 Patricia was beautiful, with dark hair and a big smile, and she was one of the new kids in class Less than a year before she had relocated to Michigan from the East Coast. Patricia had been born in Philadelphia and grew up between Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Her mother died when she was 11, and it doesn't appear her father was in the picture. She was taken in by her older brother and his wife, which is how she ended up in Battle Creek. EmHost02:56 And despite experiencing tragedy and being uprooted, patricia seemed to be adjusting okay. She was described as an above-average student and back in New Jersey she had been active in her school's junior achievements program. She had also enrolled in courses outside of high school, specifically health-occupational classes because she was interested in the medical field. Katie KaplanHost03:16 On that cold February morning when she disappeared. She had been walking to school with a friend, but at some point along the way that friend decided to stop and sneak a cigarette. Patricia decided to continue on on her own. When the bell rang in class that morning, patricia wasn't there. An article in the Battle Creek Enquirer says that the school made an announcement over the PA system, asking anyone who may have seen her to come forward. The principal is quoted as saying several students reported seeing Patricia. One claims to have even seen her in school, another said he saw her entering a house. The investigation that followed placed Patricia's last known whereabouts near the intersection of Calhoun Street and North Avenue, about a five-minute walk from school. In fact, another newspaper report from the time says it was within eyesight of the campus. EmHost04:08 Police said there was no indication that Patricia planned on not going to school that day. But what's interesting is that this intersection is not along the direct route. Patricia would have been walking to school that day. Now her address is listed as 59 South Broad Street and the school's about a 25-minute walk from her home, but when you plug that address into Google Maps you see that she would have had to overshoot the school to make it to this intersection where she was last seen. Now this intersection is still very close to campus, just across the street, and maybe it was a well-known spot back in the day where students would hang out before the bell ring, or maybe something or someone else drew her here to this spot that day. Katie KaplanHost04:48 Today. There's a small convenience store there called K&A Food Mart, but looking at the property history, it was built in 2007. So if you lived in the Battle Creek area during the early 1980s and can tell us, please let us know. We'd love to learn more about it. It would also be pertinent to know where Patricia and her friends separated when the friend went to sneak that cigarette and where the house the classmate allegedly saw her entering was. And here's another interesting detail the eyewitness who saw Patricia at the intersection across from campus also said they saw her there walking with a man. To this day, that man has not been identified, and exactly how she disappeared remains a mystery, but her fate would be revealed about two months later. EmHost05:33 And we'll get right back to that in just a minute. But first, during those eight weeks, another young woman would go missing Before anybody had any answers about Patricia's disappearance, 17-year-old Carrie Evans vanished from the nearby town of Bellevue, only about 13 miles outside of Battle Creek. Now Bellevue is a tiny town. The population in the 80s was just over a thousand people. Carrie was last seen on a Sunday, march of 1983, walking down Main Street. Carrie had moved to town about four months before she disappeared and she was living with her grandparents. She was born in Anchorage, alaska, and moved around a lot growing up because her father was in the military. Eventually, as she got older, her parents divorced and she had been living with her mother in Manchester, michigan, about an hour away, before she moved in with her grandparents to Bellevue. Now her obituary does mention a brother and a sister who also lived in Manchester and her father had been stationed in New York during the time she disappeared. Like Patricia, carrie was a junior in high school and, according to her obituary, she played the clarinet. Katie KaplanHost06:41 As I was looking through the old newspaper clippings I noticed there were no pictures of Carrie alongside the articles and there weren't a lot of detail surrounding the circumstances of her disappearance. Maybe it was because it happened in that small town, or maybe her family didn't want the attention. Either way, it is kind of sad. Carrie was initially labeled a runaway, which delayed her being reported as missing. That took nearly two weeks. So here we are at the end of March in 1983. Two teenage girls are missing not far from each other in southern Michigan. It would be a couple of more weeks before the public would get some answers. In early April, two people who were out collecting scrap materials stumbled upon a decomposing body at the bottom of a steep ravine in an area only about six miles from Battle Creek Central High School. EmHost07:32 Now this ravine was the site of an illegal dumping ground that was cluttered with debris. The body of Patricia Rosanski was said to have been covered up by a refrigerator door, and the scrap collectors had found her underneath. After they lifted it up, her body was so decomposed investigators had to use dental records to identify her and, based on her state of decomposition, it was determined that she had likely been killed shortly after she vanished from outside the school only about two months earlier. Police said she was found partially clothed. Her pants and underwear had been pulled down to her ankles, and an autopsy showed signs of blunt force trauma to the back of the head and neck, and it was these blows that had caused her death. She had also been sodomized prior to her murder. 08:15 If this wasn't bad enough, the autopsy revealed one more disturbing finding Two pieces of tree bark had been shoved deep into her throat. Investigators believed this was used to stop her from screaming during her attack. Several defensive injuries showed Patricia fought back against her killer. There was also some physical evidence left behind. Clasped in Patricia's hand were several hairs. Investigators believed she might have ripped them out of her assailant's head. It was also during the autopsy that they learned Patricia had been on her period and it was in her sanitary napkin that they found that not only had semen been left behind, but also a pubic hair that still had the root attached, and today this evidence would have provided Incredible leads, likely enough to identify the killer. Katie KaplanHost09:01 But back in the early 80s DNA was only really used for blood typing police now had a murder and a missing woman, but obviously the discovery of Patricia Rosanski's body didn't bode well for Carrie Evans. It wouldn't be long, only about another month, before those worst fears were realized. Carrie's body was found in a wooded area by some people who were out hunting for mushrooms. Her body had been concealed as well, but this time the killer used tree branches and brush. She was found about 13 miles from where Patricia's body had been found weeks earlier. 09:36 Police didn't release a ton of information about the condition of her body, how long they thought it had been there or if she was thought to have been killed there or somewhere else, but one newspaper article reported she was partially clothed. However, police said they had no reason to believe she had been sexually assaulted. They did say that she had been strangled to death. However, they did not specify if she was strangled manually or with a ligature. So now we have three murders within months within the same geographical area, and it's quite the puzzle for investigators. One prosecutor is quoted in the paper as saying while there are several coincidences, there are also significant distinctions between the killings and this is the kind of stuff Katie and I are here to talk about, stuff we're here to explore. EmHost10:22 So we've got differences and similarities, and what can we learn from those? We know Patricia and Carrie. They're both 17 years old, they're juniors in high school. They were murdered only six weeks apart. Both of them had dark hair and they were also very petite. The circumstances of their disappearances were also the same. They were last seen while they were walking. Their bodies were found in wooded areas, concealed by debris from their surroundings. And even though Carrie was last seen in the town of Bellevue, she wound up in Battle Creek where her body was discovered. And now, this last part might not be a factor, but nonetheless it's quite interesting that both girls were new in town. And while there are some more similarities, then there are differences. The differences are quite significant. First off, the cause of death Patricia was killed due to blunt force trauma to the head and Carrie was strangled. The other major difference was that only one of the victims had been sexually assaulted. Katie KaplanHost11:17 So after Patricia's body was found, the chief of police requested a task force be created to investigate, and that's exactly what happened. Three different agencies, from the state level down through a local township, joined forces and began looking into the case, which also garnered attention from the silent observer program in Michigan, which is similar to crime stoppers. They posted in a few newspapers that they were offering a $2,500 reward for information that led to an arrest, but time ticked by and the investigation stalled and any leads eventually ran out. EmHost11:52 Then, almost a year later, in January of 1984, one of the investigators was quoted in an article saying that they had led an extensive investigation into Patricia's murder. But it had been quote fruitless and frustrating. There was no word from anyone, with information Unquote. So basically, the past year no tips from the public could come in. But in that same article, the silent observer announced that for the next 30 days they would double the reward money for any information leading to an arrest in Patricia's murder. That increased this reward to five thousand dollars, which today would be equal to about 15,000. The very next day, no less than six different people called to provide police with information on Patricia's murder In a case that in the last year had received no tangible leads. It was quite the 180, especially when all six tipsters were pointing their finger at the same man. Each caller named Thomas Kress as Patricia Rosanski's murderer. Katie KaplanHost12:54 So the police start looking into Thomas. They learned he was 28 years old and at the time Patricia went missing Was living just a few houses down from her on South Broad Street. Thomas had a criminal history and had been busted for a few burglaries, but up to this point he had nothing violent on his record. Every single one of those tipsters who came forward after that reward was doubled were interviewed. Over the next six months. As Investigators continue to look into Thomas and their stories all lined up with one another, police were confident they had found their man. However, it wasn't a total slam dunk. For instance, there was an issue with some of the physical evidence. Remember those hairs that were found clutched in Patricia's hand. They were compared to Thomas and the lab came back saying that they had different characteristics. So it did not appear to be a match and there was actually no physical evidence that tied Thomas to the scene. And Thomas was given a polygraph test, which he passed. EmHost13:53 There was also the fact that Thomas had an established intellectual disability In which he could not read or write, and he had the mental capacity of about an eight-year-old. Yet despite all of this, when the case was presented to the district attorney, they decided to move forward with the homicide charge against Thomas Kress, based solely on the tipster statements. So in early January of 1984, more than a year after her body had been found, thomas Kress was arrested for the murder of Patricia Rosanski. The case went to trial and it lasted 26 days. The prosecution presented the tipster's testimony through direct examination, which means they all showed up in court and told their stories under oath while being questioned by the state's attorney. So let's go through them and learn what information they had that landed Thomas at the center of Patricia's investigation. Katie KaplanHost14:43 Well, the first witness was a man named John Moore who had been roommates with Thomas. He testified that one night in February of 1983, right around the time Patricia had vanished, thomas came home and told him that he quote felt better because he went and knocked off a piece of ass and quote, and John later Testified that Thomas actually admitted to killing Patricia. The next witness was a man named Terry Moore, who also lived with Thomas and John. He testified that in July of 1983, thomas actually brought him to a wooded area and pointed out where Patricia's body had been found. He told the court that his brother, walter Moore, and a woman named Cindy Leslie were also there when this happened. EmHost15:26 Walter and Cindy were also called as witnesses. Now it's important to note that Walter is a convicted felon and he was first interviewed by police about this case while he was under arrest for different charges, and because of this, walter and the police ended up striking a deal. If Walter provided them with information about Patricia's murder, then he would be given consideration for the current charges against him. Now I don't know what those charges were, but I do know that some of them did end up being dropped, and so he went on to testify in Thomas's trial. 15:57 Walter said that Thomas told him he had picked up Patricia and that the two had smoked marijuana together. He said Thomas tried to have sex with her, but she refused. So Thomas raped and killed Patricia. Then he went to dump her body in a wooded area. That was the same wooded area that he later showed to Walter, terry and Cindy. When Cindy Leslie got up on the stand to testify, she recounted the story about Thomas taking them out to the spot where he dumped Patricia's body and said that Thomas had told her about how he had covered Patricia's body before he left her there. Katie KaplanHost16:28 So, as it turned out, cindy was the first tipster who called in to the silent observer on the day that the reward money was doubled, and therefore she ended up getting the $5,000 in reward money that was given out on November 21st 1984 and, according to newspaper coverage, it was the largest payout by far in the history of the silent observer. Now there were still three more witnesses who would take the stand on the case against Thomas, each one providing just a little bit more information. Candymore testified that Thomas came to her house every day in the spring of 1983 and on two different occasions had told her that he had killed a girl named Patty and put her in a ditch and Emery de Bruin testified that in May of that same year he was at a bar with Thomas when Thomas told him that he had raped and killed a girl because she refused to have sex with him. EmHost17:22 Thomas also told Emery that it was the perfect crime because nobody would know about it. The final witness was Shirley House, who rented the house to Thomas and his roommates the same roommates who were now all testifying against him. Well, shirley testified that one day she had been there repairing the front steps when she overheard Thomas telling someone that quote. I cannot believe I got so hard up. I had to kill a bitch for a piece of ass. Unquote. Katie KaplanHost17:46 I the state prosecutor was Conrad Sint, and after presenting his witnesses, he rested his case. Then came the defense's term and, as we know, it's pretty rare for a defendant to take the stand in their own defense, especially in a murder case. But Thomas did just that and he denied killing Patricia. It was here that his alibi was presented to the jury. Thomas Kress had been delivering newspapers during the time. Patricia had been walking to school, and he was able to present a witness, doug Moore, who said he and Thomas were in the same car all morning delivering newspapers. 18:21 Thomas also denied making any of the statements that the state's witnesses had testified to and finally, during his cross-examination, thomas admitted that he had been to the location where Patricia's body was found. He, like many others, used this location as an illegal dumping ground. During closing arguments, the prosecutor pointed out that it would be pretty hard to argue against six different people who had just testified under oath with similar stories. The defense attorney counter-argued by telling the jury that he did not find the witnesses credible and he pointed out that they all had the prospect of financial gain as a motive to lie, because the reward money had been doubled. There was also one other glaring issue for the prosecution. The medical examiner who had determined that the strands of hair found clutched in Patricia's left hand did not belong to Thomas Kress. EmHost19:13 After both sides rested, the judge provided the jury instructions for the charges against Thomas, informing them on the different elements of the crime that would result in either a first or second degree murder conviction, as well as the option of manslaughter, and it was up to them, the jury, to determine not only guilt or innocence, but if they did find him guilty, to which degree he was responsible. Katie KaplanHost19:35 The jury deliberated for eight hours before returning to the courtroom, and when they returned they read their verdict. They had found Thomas Kress guilty of first-degree felony murder. EmHost19:47 This entire case was such a gamble for the DA to take to trial, based only on witness statements and no physical evidence Beyond that. The physical evidence they had was basically a sculpatory. I've had DAs and AUSAs turn cases down that have had way more evidence than this. It is extremely rare for them to move forward on a case that's built solely on witness statements. But the gamble paid off for the state and now they had a conviction in Patricia's murder. 20:14 Another thing that's interesting and you might be asking is why Thomas' counsel didn't mount a diminished capacity defense. Well, in doing so, he would have first had to have been admitting to the guilt of this crime. Now, if there had been physical evidence in a strong case against Thomas, then they might have tried this defense. But it's likely they didn't do this because they probably thought it'd be pretty hard for a jury to convict Thomas based on witness statements alone. Especially considering Thomas had an alibi and the physical evidence didn't match him. They most likely felt confident that the jury would pull in their favor. Now, in my opinion, it does seem to be a fairly surprising verdict. But I wasn't there, I didn't sit on that jury and I didn't hear the direct testimony for each witness. I also didn't get to see their cross examination or any attempts at impeaching their testimony by the defense. But beyond reading court records for Thomas' trial and appeals, we cut a glimpse into what might be another reason the jury came back so quickly with a guilty verdict. Katie KaplanHost21:12 So in that book we referenced several times in the first episode called the Murderer of Maggie Hume, cold Case and Battle Creek, there's a segment that talks about a detective named Dennis Mullen who eventually took over the Maggie Hume case. About two years after Thomas Cress's trial, detective Mullen ran into reporter Mark Crawford. He had covered the entire trial and as he and Detective Mullen were chatting about the case, he mentioned that if he had sat on the jury he also would have found Thomas guilty, solely for the reason that Thomas' attorney was Ted Henshel. Apparently, ted was a very dislikable guy, especially in court. To quote the book directly, mark said about attorney Ted Henshel quote one time in court his own client knocked him out of his chair. He was simply the worst. Thomas was probably innocent, but the jury hated Henshel so much that they convicted him. End quote. Could this? EmHost22:09 really have been the case A man being convicted of murder just because the jury disliked his attorney. We all once believed that the judicial system is always a fair process, but we've seen times throughout history that it's not always the case and at the end of the day, it really does come down to a decision of 12 of your peers. After the trial, thomas was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. During the sentencing hearing, he told the court that he was innocent. His sister was also in the courtroom that day and after the sentence was read out, it was said that she stormed out of the court, yelling that her brother was not guilty. So we have three murders in Battle Creek. Katie KaplanHost22:48 One man has been found guilty, closing the case on Patricia Rosanski. But what about Maggie Hume and Carrie Evans? Over the next 18 months, there was nothing new to report. One of the cases the murder of Maggie Hume remained a high profile case, but the other the disappearance and murder of Carrie Evans seemed to be all but forgotten. As we just mentioned, detective Dennis Mullen was now leading the investigation into Maggie's murder case and in September of 1986, four years after her killing he received information that would consume his life and Maggie's investigation for the next decade. The Arkansas State Police reached out to the Battle Creek PD to pass on some information. They had a case in which a 19 year old woman named Diana Hanley had been kidnapped and murdered in Jonesboro, arkansas, and a man named Michael Ronning was convicted for her murder. EmHost23:43 Arkansas PD went on to tell Battle Creek that after they arrested Ronning for the murder, he had consented to several interviews. During one of them, he confessed to committing multiple murders in different states, but he stopped short of telling police which states and who he claimed to have murdered. So their first step was to see if there was any validity to his claim that he might be a serial killer. They started with his criminal history, which was lengthy, but the relevant charges included attacking the murder of a man who was killed in a car, and the charges included attacking a female family member with a hammer and attempted rape and armed robbery charge in California back in the 1970s and arrest for raping a drugged sex worker, as well as a charge for a decent exposure in Oregon. Looking through his criminal history and other background information, they learned that Ronning lived in several different states Beyond California and Oregon. He had also lived in Arkansas, texas, louisiana and Michigan, specifically Battle Creek Michigan that's actually the town he grew up in. Katie KaplanHost24:39 Arkansas police went through Ronning's residential history to see if any of his movements linked up to other unsolved murders, and they started in Battle Creek. And now that Battle Creek PD knew about Mike Ronning, they looked into his residential history in town and made an unsettling discovery Just four days before Maggie was murdered, Ronning had moved into the apartment directly below. Now this apartment was actually rented by Ronning's brother, Steve, who was a quadriplegic, but Mike had helped Steve move in. Also there helping Mike and Steve move in was Ronning's girlfriend who, side note, is a second cousin, and a woman named Angie who was moving in with Steve as a permanent caretaker. EmHost25:21 So all of them would have been in that apartment around the time Maggie was murdered. In fact, when the police canvassed the apartment complex for witnesses, they talked to Steve and Angie. So after learning about Ronning, the police went and looked back at their notes. However, they noticed that Steve and Angie hadn't even mentioned that Mike, Ronning and Vicki were also staying at the apartment and they might have also been potential witnesses to something. So when they pursued this, they found out that Ronning and his girlfriend had left for Texas the next day. 25:50 As it turns out, the night Maggie was murdered, there was a small party in Steve's apartment. When they were re-interviewed, Steve said that Ronning left the party around 11.30 pm that night, telling everybody he was just going to go fishing at the river down at the end of the road. Now Steve's caretaker, Angie, said that she went to sleep that night around 2 am and Ronning still hadn't returned to the apartment by then. And he hadn't returned by the time. Police were canvassing the next day either. When he finally did get back to the apartment, Angie told him the cops had come by asking about a murder in the building, and Ronning allegedly grabbed Angie by the arm and said quote you didn't tell the police. I was out last night, did you Unquote? Angie would later say that this incident scared her, so she didn't tell the police anything after it happened. And then the next day, Ronning and Vicki left for Texas. Katie KaplanHost26:40 Mike, ronning and Vicki, however, did return to Battle Creek, which is in Calhoun County, at the end of the year, in 1982. 26:47 That means that Ronning was living in the area during the time that Patricia Rosanski and Karen Evans disappeared. 26:53 Upon learning that Ronning had a criminal history and was in the area during all three murders, battle Creek PD became extremely interested in learning all they could about him. 27:04 So when Detective Mullen, who was heading up the Maggie Hume investigation by this time, learned that Ronning had gone on to marry his second cousin, vicki, he looked her up, and at that point she just so happened to be sitting in the Calhoun County Jail. So he paid her a visit and Vicki would go on to tell the detective a piece of information that started him down a path of pursuing Ronning as Maggie's killer. She told him that she had purchased a pair of shoes for Ronning out of a Sears catalog before Maggie's death. Detective Mullen returned to the jail with a 1982 Sears catalog and Vicki identified the exact shoes she had purchased for Ronning. He went out and obtained a set of those exact ones and compared them to the imprint left in grass on top of the utility box that was just below Maggie's apartment. Now, we posted a picture of that imprint on social media during last week's episode so you can check it out there. EmHost27:57 And when he compared the impression left on the utility box against those shoes Vicki bought for him, they were a match. For Detective Mullen this match was as good as a smoking gun and he became convinced that he had a gun. And he became convinced that Ronning murdered Maggie. He certainly had the means and the opportunity to be Maggie's killer. But you also have to consider that thousands of these shoes were purchased and Detective Mullen didn't actually have in his possession Ronning's actual shoes, just the word that his wife purchased these shoes for him. I also never saw if Ronning's shoe size was obtained and if that shoe size actually matched what was left in the grass impression but resolved in his theory. Detective Mullen flew out to Arkansas in an attempt to interview Ronning in 1987. It ended up being a fruitless trip because as soon as he sat down with him, ronning told the detective to go pound sand. Katie KaplanHost28:47 Not to be discouraged and because Maggie's case was still at a standstill. Detective Mullen tried again a few years later, in January of 1992. And this time Ronning agreed to talk. During their interview Ronning suggested that he was responsible for at least six homicides, but he remained vague. He said he would only cooperate and provide more information if Detective Mullen could get him transferred to a prison in Michigan. EmHost29:15 In my experience, a request like this is usually a non-starter for the prosecutor's office. It takes a lot before a transfer like this would even be considered. It's also extremely political. Katie KaplanHost29:26 And that really held true in this case. Before Detective Mullen could go through the hoops of trying to get a move like this approved, he needed a sign of good faith, and so Ronning told him that he was responsible for the murder of Patricia Rosanski, the murder that Thomas Kress had already been convicted of. Ronning said he could prove it and show them where he left her body. He also said he would agree to a polygraph test after the transfer was made. EmHost29:53 Now this isn't really solid information, especially when the DA's office back in Michigan had already cleared that case. But nonetheless, detective Mullen started to set the wheels in motion, and this is when Ronning's attorney, keith Hall, got involved. Detective Mullen arranged a meeting between the current Calhoun County prosecutor, john Sully, along with additional Battle Creek police officers and Ronning's attorney, keith Hall. The goal of this meeting was to see if they could prove that Ronning was responsible for the murders of Maggie, patricia and Kerry. They agreed the only way to prove this was to get Ronning to talk about these crimes, and if he was able to provide them information that was not known to the public, then they were willing to start lending some credence to his confession. 30:37 Now this specific point about needing information from Ronning that only the killer would know about the crime Untainted and pure information that was the main focus of this meeting. Da John Sully reiterated this point throughout the meeting and they all agreed that if Ronning accurately confessed to the murder of Maggie Hume and pled guilty, then they would allow his transfer from Arkansas to Michigan where he could carry out the remainder of his sentence. Another step in cooperating Ronning's involvement was to obtain his fingerprints plus hair and DNA samples. This step flew in the face of keeping the facts of this case away from Ronning, and that's because they chose to get these samples through a search warrant and a search warrant has an affidavit. That affidavit lays out the facts of the case and Ronning is entitled to a copy of that affidavit. Why they didn't ask Ronning for his consent to obtain these samples to show further cooperation is beyond me. Katie KaplanHost31:36 Instead, that affidavit detailed the crime and the subsequent investigation, including Maggie's cause of death and the exact location and position her body was in when she was found details that had never been made public. This created problem number two in regards to keeping Ronning's confession untainted. This issue, however, wasn't really brought to light until much later, when Ronning's attorney testified that Detective Mullen had granted him access to look through the entire police files for both Maggie and Patricia's murders. This means that Ronning had access to all of those little details for both crimes, and Detective Mullen confirmed that he did in fact allow this to happen, but said he didn't know he wasn't allowed to do that. EmHost32:21 Now this is a detective who's had over 20 years of experience. Yet he said he didn't see a problem with granting access to every detail of both murders, the details unknown to the public, to the attorney representing a suspect who planned on confessing to these murders in order to get a prison transfer that he wanted. Now I definitely don't want to sit here and Monday morning quarterback another detective's moves in a case, but this is one that's just a common sense rule that we know not to break his investigators. But, as we said, this move by Detective Mullen wasn't discovered until much later. Even with the wheels in motion to get Ronning transferred to Michigan. It's not an easy process and it would actually take several years before both Michigan and Arkansas governors would actually agree to this transfer. Eventually, in 1996, the agreement was made and Ronning was transferred to Battle Creek. Katie KaplanHost33:13 This transfer agreement had a few stipulations. First, ronning would provide information on the homicides he committed in Michigan and all other states. Second, ronning would not be given the death penalty, even if he confessed to the homicides he was suspected of in Florida and Texas, states, which carry the death penalty. In exchange, ronning would agree to waive his Miranda rights, take a polygraph test and confess to every murder he had ever committed, while the entire thing was recorded. As if we haven't already heard some details on this agreement that might raise some eyebrows, this next bit is truly shocking. According to court documents, when Ronning was polygraphed, we saw that he was only asked one single question, and that question was have you killed three people in Michigan? EmHost34:02 Now polygraphs work off of yes, no questions. But Ronning had an agreement to uphold as part of the transfer, which was to fully submit to a polygraph. So why, when they had unfettered access to him, did they only choose to ask one vague question? Now they could have and in my opinion they should have asked him more detailed questions, such as did you kill Maggie Hume? And then from there they get into more details such as did you enter her apartment through the balcony? Did you strangle her? And so on and so forth for each victim. We see a lot more problems with Ronning's videotaped confession. First off, regarding Maggie, the night of her murder he told them that he was strung out on cocaine. When he left his brother's apartment to go fishing, he said from where he was fishing he could actually see Maggie in the window of her bedroom. Katie KaplanHost34:53 But this was false. Detectives determined you could not see Maggie's window from where he said he was fishing. We even checked ourselves on Google Maps and we'll post the bird's eye view of the fishing spot and Maggie's apartment complex. There are big trees in the way obstructing any view Ronning claimed to have. He went on to say that after he saw her he stopped fishing and decided to scale the wall to get on her patio. This seems like it could be another inconsistency. EmHost35:20 It does, and maybe it's just the verbiage he used, but we all know that a wall wasn't used to scale her balcony. It was actually a utility box that had been used to boost the killer up over the railing. Katie KaplanHost35:31 And then he told investigators. When he let himself into her apartment through the patio door, he walked into her room and found her sleeping. He said she woke up and saw him standing in her room, at which point he told them she just said hello. EmHost35:44 Yeah, I doubt it. No woman's going to calmly respond to waking up to a strange man standing over her bed. Katie KaplanHost35:51 Right. And this part of his confession becomes even more farfetched when he says that she agreed to have sex with him and promised that she would be nice Afterwards. He told Detective Mullen that he strangled Maggie using his arm, but then tried to cover up her cause of death by kicking her in the neck and face a few times. EmHost36:11 For someone who has access to the case file, he sure seemed to be getting a lot wrong. We know Maggie was strangled with a ligature and yeah, there was reference to two blunt force trauma events to her head. But overall the facts of the crime scene just didn't sound accurate to Ronning's versions of events. Katie KaplanHost36:28 And the police thought the same thing. In total they found 37 inconsistencies with Ronning's confession about Maggie's murder. But then he also provided some really accurate information. He says he stole Maggie's wallet to make it look like a burglary and then left out the front door where he buried the wallet out by one of the parking lots in the apartment complex. EmHost36:49 So he did get things accurate, such as the wallet and where it was buried, but, let's not forget, he had access to the affidavit and his attorney had access to the case file. Yet he still did get a lot of things wrong. Since it wasn't our last episode, to refresh your memory, the killer couldn't have left out the front door because when her roommate came home that morning, she said the apartment was locked with the deadbolt, and it's not one of those doors that you can lock and then close behind you. After confessing his version of events to Maggie's murder, he moved on to Patricia Rosanski. He said he came across Patricia walking that morning and he just pulled up alongside her in his vehicle. He then pulled out a starter pistol and shoved it in her face while ordering her into his car. He said he then drove her into a wooded area, forced her out of the car and made her take her clothes off. 37:36 Then in this recorded interview, you actually hear Detective Mullen chime in and say quote, we found her clothes folded. Does that jog your memory? Unquote, and I'm sure most of you sleuths will recognize that for exactly what it is A textbook example of a leading question. It's problematic for a number of reasons, one of which is it's one of the leading causes for false confessions. Apparently, the entire recorded interview of Ronning is riddled with leading questions and different props made by Detective Mullen. Investigators who truly care about finding the actual guilty party are extremely wary of false confessions, and we're very careful to not reveal a single unnecessary detail during the interview. We are also taught to let them tell their entire version of events with as little interruption from us as possible. That first go around. That way you can get their truth down on paper, even if it's a flat out lie. Only then do you go back and pick apart their version of the truth. Katie KaplanHost38:33 Ronning went on to say that he strangled Patricia and hit her in the head with a rock. Afterwards he claims to have put either a large piece of sheet metal or refrigerator door over her. This is a detail that had previously been printed in the papers and, don't forget, his attorney also had full access to Patricia's case file. He then moved on to Kerry's murder, and Ronning said he did the same thing. To get Kerry in his car, he used the starter pistol to threaten her. 39:00 That was about it when it came to the details he provided for Kerry. Maybe it's because he and his attorney didn't have access to Kerry's police files and there were also hardly any details that had been printed about her case in the local paper. Fulfilling yet another one of Ronning's obligations, detective Mullen took Ronning out of prison so that he could show him the location where he murdered Patricia. This show and tell outing was also videotaped, and after two attempts Ronning was not able to find the right location. They never said why, but it doesn't seem. They even asked him to show them where Kerry was murdered. EmHost39:37 Now that Ronning had technically confessed to all three murders, the DA had to evaluate them to consider what to do next, and that decision was going to be complicated, especially given the fact that Thomas Kress had already been convicted and sentenced to life for the murder of Patricia Brzezanski. 39:53 And then, before anything could be decided, ronning did something that nobody saw coming. 39:59 He got a hold of Thomas Kress's attorney and told him that he'd just confessed to the murder of Patricia Brzezanski, and this spurred immediate action from Thomas's attorney, who quickly filed a motion to get his conviction dismissed or at the very least order a new trial. With this potentially exonerating evidence and this was a problem for the district attorney's office they likely had to be thinking that they had already convicted somebody of Patricia's crime. As far as they were concerned, that case was closed. They were trying to quietly vet this new confession by Ronning before they confronted the possibility that maybe the wrong guy had been convicted. That way, if they deemed Ronning's confession to be false, then in their eyes it was no harm, no foul. They didn't need to take any additional steps since someone already had been convicted for her murder. But they didn't get that chance because just as quick as Ronning confessed he made that call to Thomas's attorney and then the cat was out of the bag and this left the DA and the Battle Creek PD scrambling. Katie KaplanHost41:01 The motion Thomas's attorney filed on his behalf stated that he should be granted a new trial based on the following grounds First, that Ronning had confessed to the murder of Patricia, while Thomas had always maintained his innocence. Reason number two is something that we haven't told you about yet. In the years since Thomas's conviction, half of the witnesses who testified against him at his trial had since recanted. And don't worry, we will come back to this. But we want to move on to the third reason that was cited in this motion, and that was the claim that Thomas's counsel at trial was ineffective because they not only lost but failed to introduce a piece of evidence. And what evidence was that, you asked? 41:42 Well, it is described as an audio tape. Specifically, it was a recording of a phone call in which one of the prosecution's witnesses, walter Moore, allegedly admitted that he and the other witnesses who came forward for the reward money had set Thomas up by testifying that he had confessed to them. If this recording does in fact exist, it would show that, apparently, going into the original trial, thomas's attorney had evidence that at least one of the prosecution's witnesses was lying under oath. But we've read through all of the court documents and no other evidence of this recording has ever surfaced. EmHost42:19 On November 5, 1997, the trial court started evidentiary hearings and by December they made the ruling that Thomas would be granted a new trial. They did make note that of the three reasons presented in the motion, they were not going to be considering the third point, which was that alleged evidence of a recorded phone call. The court also said that with respect to the witnesses recanting their testimony after the trial, the court found evidence that could impeach the testimony of these witnesses. But ultimately we are quote not convinced that this evidence standing alone would justify ordering a new trial. Unquote. So they admitted it right there that there was evidence that these witnesses lied under oath, but they acknowledged in the court documents that the only reason they were granting Thomas a new trial was because of Ronning's confession. In response, the prosecution filed a series of motions to fight Thomas's new trial and in August of 1998, another evidentiary hearing was granted to the prosecution, who had since taken a stance, and they decided that Ronning's confession was false and they wanted the opportunity to present evidence attacking the veracity of his confession. Katie KaplanHost43:32 So one year after Thomas was granted a new trial, another round of evidentiary hearings began. Throughout the process, the prosecution presented evidence like expert testimony on the manner of Patricia's death and witnesses who claimed Ronning admitted to falsely confessing to her murder. By the end of those hearings, which wrapped up in March of 1999, the court overturned the previous court ruling and denied Thomas a new trial. There were a lot of details presented during these hearings regarding the evidence the state showed to prove that Ronning's confession didn't actually align with the facts of Patricia's murder. So if you like reading court documents, like we do, we've linked them for you in the show notes. But to summarize, several different medical experts testified that Ronning's claim that he had used a rock to hit Patricia in the head just once was inconsistent with the injuries she actually sustained during the murder. EmHost44:27 And testimony provided at the hearing also rejected that there was any evidence to show that Patricia had been strangled, as Ronning had claimed. They also cited the fact that he couldn't find the murder site after being given at least two attempts to do so. Among the four witnesses who testified, claiming that Ronning told them he had lied about committing Patricia's murder, one of them was from a woman named Melissa. Ronning had been Melissa's legal guardian during the time that Patricia was murdered and the two had a close relationship. She said that Ronning had admitted to her that he did in fact kill Diana, the woman who was murdered in Arkansas, the case he had actually been serving time for when Battle Creek PD got involved. But Melissa said that he told her he had planned to falsely admit to killing Patricia so he could serve out his life sentence in Michigan so as to be closer to family. Katie KaplanHost45:18 Ronning had another reason to get out of serving his sentence in Arkansas. Part of his sentence there involved carrying out hard labor, and prisons in Michigan did not impose that kind of sentence. Ronning went on to tell Melissa that he memorized facts about Patricia's murder by reading transcripts of Thomas's court proceedings, which were public records. The last thing we will say about these hearings is that the court ultimately rejected its prior reliance on Detective Mullen's professional opinion that Ronning killed Patricia, and the court documented this finding by concluding that quote. It would be inappropriate to enhance the credibility of Ronning based upon one investigating officer's professional opinion unquote. They also acknowledged that there was a major difference of opinion of the truthfulness between Detective Mullen and the DA's office, whereas Detective Mullen was convinced of Ronning's guilt and the DA rejected it. EmHost46:12 Okay. So let's not forget, this entire hearing was about whether or not to grant Thomas Cress a new trial. The court ended up ruling that Ronning had falsely confessed to the murder of Patricia Rosanski, and they also documented that there was evidence that several prosecution witnesses could be impeached for their testimony against Thomas. And the court continued by stating the fact that there was absolutely no physical evidence against Thomas. We said we'd come back to the recanted witness testimony made during Thomas's trial. While, following the conviction of Thomas, the state's witnesses Walter Moore, candy Moore and Cindy Leslie all recanted their statements the ones they made against Thomas at his trial. So they basically admitted to perjuring themselves, and Cindy Leslie was the one who was paid out that $5,000 by the silent observer because she called in the day after the reward was doubled. She later admitted that she only called in the tip the one that led to Thomas's arrest because she and the other witnesses agreed to lie so they could collect and share the reward money. Katie KaplanHost47:17 And it gets worse. There is evidence to show that in January of 1992, prosecutor John Solly was aware that Ronning had claimed responsibility for the murder of Patricia Rosanski. He was in conversations with Battle Creek PD about working with Ronning to obtain a full confession. However, a few months later, in May of 1992, he authorized the state police to destroy all of the evidence in Patricia's murder. This included the semen found in her sanitary napkin and the foreign pubic hair sample that had the root attached. Deputy Attorney Solly also kept this information to himself, and it wasn't until four years later that law enforcement even learned that the evidence had been destroyed. 48:03 The use of DNA was at this time becoming more commonplace, so obviously this was devastating information Because he destroyed this evidence. There is now no way to further prove or disprove Ronning's or Thomas's involvement because they couldn't be compared to the amazing DNA evidence that once existed in this case, and we already know that Thomas did not match the evidence of that hair found in Patricia's hand. If this evidence hadn't been destroyed, with the advancements that have been made in DNA today and the utilization of genetic genealogy, we are confident we would be able to know who really murdered Patricia. EmHost48:43 The appellate court would later be quoted as saying that DA saw Lee's choice to destroy the evidence knowing that the wrong man might be in jail was quote deeply disturbing unquote. The good news is that in 2004, federal legislation was created named the Innocence Protection Act, and part of this act addressed the destruction of evidence. Prosecutors are now no longer allowed to destroy DNA evidence even after a conviction is made. In light of all of this, the University of Michigan's Innocence Project took on Thomas's case, but as they were working on his exoneration in 2010, governor Jennifer Granhold, in her very last week in the office, decided to commute Thomas's life sentence to time served and he was released from prison 25 years after his conviction. 49:33 This pardon, however, doesn't clear his name and the felony conviction for Patricia's murder is still on his record. So if the courts found Ronning's confession false in regards to Patricia's murder, then what do you slu-sync about his confession for Maggie and Kerry's murders? We already went over the inconsistencies just based on some of the information in his mirandized video confessions. And again, kerry's a mystery. If you look at the fact that the DA's office has never brought charges against Ronning for either of their murders, I think that says a lot. But to play devil's advocate and just look at the basic information, what are the odds that a convicted killer lived below Maggie for five days and that during those five days she was murdered? Katie KaplanHost50:19 So where does that leave us? Carrie's murder is still unsolved and, as far as we can gather, it doesn't seem that it's being actively investigated. So let's share Carrie's story, let's fight to have her case prioritized, share this episode and spread the word. She was young, with her whole life in front of her before it was stolen from her. She doesn't deserve to be forgotten, and if you knew Carrie, we want to hear from you, we want to know more about her life and we want to get a picture of her. Maggie's case, meanwhile, is also still unsolved, or should we say no one has been arrested for it? If we completely discredit Ronning's confession, the outstanding person of interest is her then boyfriend, virgil J Carter. EmHost51:03 And there is still a lot to be considered when examining his potential involvement in her murder and after researching this case, we still have a lot of questions. First off, how come a search warrant for Jay was never issued to search his vehicle or his place of residence? Just imagine if they'd searched his car or apartment the next day and found grass clippings. His shoes could have been examined during a search warrant of the house or while at the police station during those first interviews. The ligature which was used to strangle Maggie to death has not been reported as being identified. 51:36 Now this could be something the killer might still have in his possession, or at least he might have had in his possession the few days following her murder. These are the kinds of things that someone should have looked for during a search warrant. We also never saw any documentation that the police even asked for consent to conduct any of these searches. There isn't even documentation to say if Jay was examined for injuries that might have come from a struggle, and we know he had plenty of contact with the police right after she was murdered. All of this to say because Jay really did appear to be their primary person of interest from day one, back when his story started changing. Katie KaplanHost52:11 There was, however, a bit of police work done into the timeline of Maggie's murder. That proved to be really interesting and it highlights additional inconsistencies in Jay's statements. We know Jay provided his timeline of events for the night of Maggie's murder. The lead detective at the time, Nick Pestin, decided to put himself in Jay's shoes and go through those events exactly as Jay said they happened, Starting off with examining the records from Jay's employer. They showed that Jay clocked out of work at 9.54 pm that night and it takes about eight minutes to drive to Maggie's apartment. So that puts his first arrival at 10.02 pm outside Maggie's apartment, but remember she wasn't home yet. EmHost52:52 This timeline is actually referenced in that book that we've linked by Pardo and Hester, but Detective Pestin's work isn't really broken down into great detail in that book, so we're going to go ahead and add some of our own legwork here, thanks to things like Google Maps. So, moving on, jay claimed he waited outside of Maggie's apartment for a few minutes when he learned that she wasn't home. He then drove to the Urban Dill Ritzies on Michigan Avenue. Now, this restaurant showed that it was about 0.8 miles from Maggie's apartment, so Google Maps tells us that it's about a three-minute drive to Ritzies restaurant. 53:25 We don't know exactly how long he waited for her at her apartment, but we're going to be on the safe side and give Jay the benefit of the doubt in this timeline that we're constructing. So let's say he was super impatient and he only waited for Maggie outside of her apartment for about two minutes. Well, that's going to put him at the Ritzies parking lot around 10.07 pm. Then, according to Jay, he said he went inside the restaurant and asked to use the phone where he tried calling Maggie. So how much time do you think that we should allot for this, katie? Katie KaplanHost53:54 I would say no more than five minutes would be fair, but let's just pick in the middle about two and a half, three minutes. So that brings us to 10.10 pm. Now Jay doesn't say how long after he is at the restaurant before Maggie happened to drive by, but we know that. He says she saw him and then pulled into the lot. Then they talk and we know he had asked her where she had been. Jay also says that during this conversation she told him she smelled smoke or oil coming from her car. And he says that they checked the car out while they are still there in the parking lot, but then he told investigators that the lighting wasn't good in the parking lot so they decided to relocate and drive back to her apartment. So again, let's err on the side of brevity and say Maggie pulling in, chatting with Jay and checking her car only takes about five minutes. EmHost54:41 So we are now at 10.15 pm and, as we already know, it's a three-minute drive back to Maggie's apartment, 10.18 pm. 54:48 He told police that once at her apartment he examined her car in the lot, after which they went inside and had sex, Jay said. Then he made himself some soup and popcorn. It was after all of this had just happened. Jay said that they then received a phone call from Maggie's roommate who said she wouldn't be home from the airport until 4 am. And this is why this timeline is so important, because police have phone records and those records show that the roommate called exactly at 10.19. So by our generous timeline, that would leave one minute for Jay to check her car outside the apartment, go inside, have sex, make a snack and then receive the phone call from her roommate. Police found this pot of soup and bowl of popcorn in the apartment the next day, which cooperates that he did do these things. So how did all of these activities take place in the 25 minutes from when Jay got off of work, from the time the roommate called and spoke to Maggie? Well, Detective Peston didn't think they did. Katie KaplanHost55:48 Before we dive into this, we want to add an interesting note here that we learned about from the book that we've been referencing. It's in regards to Jay telling police that Maggie claimed her car smelled of smoke or oil. After she was murdered, her family took possession of her car and they told police that they never noticed any smell coming from it. The Humes had actually used the same mechanic shop for years, including for Maggie's current car, and police learned that just two months before she was murdered Maggie had come in to have the valve cover gasket changed on her car and since it was a new part, it lessened the likelihood that oil or smoke would have been an issue. But even more interesting is that Maggie stopped at the shop the day before she was murdered to get gas and the employee apparently said that he and Maggie had interacted and had a conversation and that she definitely would have mentioned to him if her car was emitting any bad smells. So this timeline. EmHost56:42 What does this tell us? Well, the most obvious thing is that Jay is lying about something Because his sequence of events just don't fit and, at the very least, he's omitting or misdirecting the police away from something. The two confirmed phone calls came in at 10.19 and 10.30. And we know Maggie was inside her apartment with Jay when she answered both calls. We know it was her roommate, maggie, that called at 10.19 and Jim that called at 10.30. And when Jay is interviewed he actually confirms that Margaret did make that first phone call. However, it's that second phone call from Jim that Jay told police was actually from an obscene caller, the one who, in Jay's opinion, said he sounded like a black man. Now why would he lie about that? 57:25 We can see two possibilities, and really a combination of them might be the truth. First off, jim calling Maggie late at night might have caused an argument between her and Jay. It's likely that Jay was at least vaguely aware of Maggie's true feelings. For Jim, angelicy is a powerful emotion and second, he might have lied about this just to provide a lead to police, creating a potentially unknown suspect so as to throw them off the truth, which hypothetically, would be that he actually was the one to kill Maggie, and there's also the fact that Maggie had been telling friends she was trying to end things with Jay, something Jay had experienced firsthand through their several breakups before her murder. Katie KaplanHost58:05 So I actually came up with a third possibility for why there might be a discrepancy with the caller. This is something that M and I had talked about off the recording. But if they were in a jealous relationship, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Maggie lied to Jay about who the caller was because she didn't want to tell Jay that her ex-boyfriend, jim, was on the phone calling her late at night. What we do know is that Maggie's actual murder window is between 11 pm and 4 am. It would be really helpful to know what time Maggie called and got that busy signal, because that would really pinpoint how early the struggle started within that several hour window. That struggle is believed to have been what knocked the phone off the hook and then eventually led to Maggie's murder. We know that Jim called several times by 11 30 pm and had gotten that busy signal. So I think we have a clear picture that Maggie likely had been murdered by 11 30 pm. 59:06 The 4 am end time to that window is really just when her roommate arrived home from the airport, but remember she had peeked into Maggie's room and didn't see anybody. 59:16 So that timeline that we just watched through after Jay got off of work puts him at Maggie's apartment as early as 10 18, although it likely could have been several minutes. After that, jay told police that he only stayed there at Maggie's apartment for about an hour, so giving him the benefit of the doubt he had left by 11 18. That leaves a 12 minute window for someone else to break into Maggie's apartment and murder her, before 11 30, when Jim started calling over and over and receiving that busy signal, and also Lee's call came in between 11 and 11 30. So we asked you, sluths, what are the odds that someone else broke into Maggie's apartment and murdered her in those 12 minutes? And then why would they go through the effort of hiding the body? We need to ask who would be motivated to take the time to try and hide a body in the same room where they were murdered in. EmHost01:00:09 I mean, if you think about it, you sluths have likely heard about dozens of murders and crime scenes. So think back on the ones that you've heard where someone broke in and killed someone while they were in bed the Golden State killer, the night stalker and then think of all those one-off murder cases you've heard where a female was murdered in their own home. You'll see that all of those victims were left where they were murdered. Because what does a killer gain by moving a victim a few feet away from where they were murdered? In most cases, the answer is nothing. They normally just leave the scene. So this case is highly unusual. It seems like it was done to prolong her discovery in an effort to manipulate the timeline or to make her time of death harder to pinpoint. It also could serve as a function of giving the killer more time to establish an alibi or come up with a possible explanation for their perceived involvement. Katie KaplanHost01:01:00 There is something else that we want to revisit In reading through what the authors extrapolated from the case files when writing their book on the case. 01:01:08 They touched on the DNA that was found with Maggie and they give off the impression that police might be able to prove something if the DNA matches. Jays Remember he told law enforcement that they had had sex that night, but in the crime scene photos that they got from their FOIA request you can clearly see a pair of underwear rolled up on the floor next to Maggie's bed. Now Jay told the police that that particular pair of underwear was what she was wearing before and after they had sex. But when Maggie's body was discovered she was wearing another pair of underwear and they said that the seamen they found was on that pair of underwear that she was wearing. We don't know if in the last few years this DNA has been tested again. If it does match Jay, it could possibly be a lot more compelling than law enforcement might have originally thought back in the 1980s. Also, we don't know what kind of details they got when they interviewed Jay, specifically if he had told them whether or not he and Maggie had had unprotected sex. EmHost01:02:08 The truth is that today, maggie's murder is still unsolved. Now, we are not here to accuse anybody. Our job is to simply look at and evaluate the facts of this case. And, let's not forget, there's a confession on the table for Maggie's murder. So what do you, sleuths, think? Do you think that someone we've talked about today is responsible for Maggie's murder, or is it possible that it's someone who is still yet to be identified? Actually, while we're recording this episode today, I just found out Katie and I have very different opinions on who we might think is responsible for Maggie's murder. Katie KaplanHost01:02:41 We won't go into what that is or why, but we can only hope that Battle Creek PD has preserved the evidence in Maggie's case and is still working on it, using the advancements that we have today to revitalize the case. We are seeing so many cold cases cracked daily by running old DNA and at least at one point we know there was DNA in Maggie's case. I'm also secretly hoping that they found the ligature in Maggie's apartment and have been keeping that information from the public. Imagine the DNA that they could pull off of that today. Sadly, maggie's father passed away in 1997 without ever seeing his daughter get any justice. Her mother, lori, and her brother John are still among Maggie's other family and friends who have been waiting decades for answers. We were happy to learn that they found a way to turn this tragedy into something good by honoring Maggie's memory and creating a scholarship in her name. EmHost01:03:35 And there are still two other victims who have yet to really see their cases solved. Of course, some do see Patricia's as a closed matter following Thomas' conviction, while others only saw it as a miscarriage of justice. Of course, the real destruction of true justice in this case was when the prosecutor destroyed the DNA evidence in Patricia's case when they knew that they had someone else out there claiming responsibility for her murder. The ability to fully exonerate or condemn the person responsible for Patricia's murder was also destroyed that day. But someone out there likely knows something. So if you have any information that could help shed light on Patricia's case, please call Calhoun County or Battle Creek PD. Katie KaplanHost01:04:17 And finally, there is Carrie, and I hate how little we know about her life and especially that we don't even have a photograph of her. We don't have any idea what kind of evidence investigators have or if they have any that could be useful or reexamined today. I know that there are still people out there who know and love Carrie and we would love to hear from you so that we can share more about who she was as a person. We honor her life anyways and keep her memory through talking about her case and trying to help bring about justice. EmHost01:04:49 If you know anything about the murders of Maggie Hume, patricia Rosanski or Carrie Evans, please contact Battle Creek Police Department or Calhoun County Sheriff's Office. Also help us out. By sharing this episode with your friends, you can help the memories of these three women live on and hopefully spur some action into their investigations. Katie KaplanHost01:05:09 Don't forget, you can share an episode through text message or write to social media from your podcast player. Maggie Hume, patricia Rosanski and Carrie Evans did not deserve to die, but they deserve to be remembered. Next Monday is our off week, so we'll see you right back here on September 25th with a brand new episode. Until next time, stay vigilant and stay curious, fellow sleuths.