Podcast Summary
Detective Robert Terry's unique approach leads to new witnesses and evidence: Thorough investigations and revisiting old evidence can lead to significant progress in unsolved cases
The investigation into Shelley Wiley's murder gained significant progress when detective Robert Terry took over the case in 2009. Terry's approach was different from previous investigators, as he brought in people who hadn't been interviewed in decades, including Fred Lamb. Fred, a former cop and sheriff's deputy, had a complicated past. He had served in the Navy and Vietnam, lost some hearing, and later became a maintenance worker at the jail. During their first interview in 2009, Fred mentioned something curious: the results of the polygraph he claimed he took in 1985, which he said showed he was too truthful. Terry seemed unaware of this detail before the interview. Fred's connection to the case was not clear, but his revelation added a new piece to the puzzle, highlighting the importance of thorough investigations and the value of revisiting old evidence.
Detective Terry's interview with Fred leads to a breakthrough in a decades-old murder case: A 7-hour interview with a suspect, conducted over a decade after the crime, led to a confession and a DNA match that solved a decades-old murder case.
During an interview in 2009, Detective Robert Terry questioned Fred, a potential suspect, about his involvement in a murder case. Due to Fred's military background and previous relationship with another suspect, the interview was conducted by Gary, who had not worked with Fred for over a decade. Terry did collect a DNA sample from Fred but did not compare it with samples from the crime scene at that time. Years later, in 2015, Fred's DNA was finally matched with blood found on the door of the apartment where the crime occurred. In 2016, Terry took the case back and conducted a crucial interview with Fred, hoping to obtain a confession. The interview was recorded and lasted over 7 hours. Despite Fred's relaxed appearance, Terry, who was younger and wore a formal attire with a gun and handcuffs, pressed for answers. This eventual match of Fred's DNA with evidence from the scene was a significant breakthrough in the case that had eluded investigators for decades.
Approaching a witness as an ally instead of a suspect: During investigations, adopting a collaborative approach with witnesses can lead to clearer recollections and potentially valuable information.
During an interview about a 1985 incident, Terry, a detective, approached Fred, a witness, not as a suspect or a witness to a crime, but as a colleague and ally. Fred's story remained mostly consistent, except for one detail: he initially claimed he didn't react to a woman's screams, but later said he went to find a payphone to call for help. Terry seemed interested when Fred mentioned parking on Monroe Street, where crucial evidence was found. Fred was unsure about his parking location and asked for a map to clarify. Witnesses at the scene reported seeing Fred's truck in the parking lot during the emergency response. If Fred moved his truck beforehand, it's unclear when he had the time to do so. The interview focused on clarifying Fred's memory and confirming details.
Detective Terry Turner's Interrogation Tactics in the Shelley Case: Detective Terry Turner used various tactics to obtain information from suspect Fred, including reenactments, showing a possible match to a bloody boot print, and asking about the accelerant used in the fire.
During a police interview in the 1985 Shelley case, Detective Terry Turner used various tactics to obtain information from suspect Fred. Terry had Fred reenact how his blood got on the door, and later noticed a picture of a bloody boot print at the crime scene. Although Terry didn't know the specifics of the boot print, he showed it to Fred, who identified it as a possible match to his own boots. Terry also asked Fred about the accelerant used in the fire, assuming Fred had used it in a panicked state after the crime. It's important to note that police officers are generally allowed to exaggerate or lie during interviews, and in this case, another detective had falsely told a woman that her fingerprint was found on evidence. This interaction between Fred and Terry highlights the investigative techniques used during the Shelley case and the potential influence of false information on the investigation.
Detective Terry's focus on the fresh blood on the door: Detective Terry links Fred to the crime scene through his DNA on the door, unsure if Fred's memory is clearer now or during initial investigation. They aim to solve the case by identifying the perpetrator on August 17, 2016.
Terry, a detective, had only one solid piece of evidence linking Fred to the crime scene - Fred's DNA matched the blood on the door of apartment number 3. Terry and Fred were discussing the results of the DNA testing, which showed that the majority of the blood samples belonged to Shelley, the victim. Terry was unsure if Fred's memory was clearer during their current conversation or if it was clearer during the initial investigation. He believed that the blood on the door, which was fresh and in the proximity of the crime scene, belonged to the perpetrator. Terry emphasized that they were going to solve the case, with the two important dates being October 20, 1985 (when the crime occurred) and August 17, 2016 (the day they would identify the perpetrator). Fred maintained his innocence, stating that his blood was at the crime scene but he did not commit the crime.
Suspect's boot prints found in crime scene blood, but blood was also on top: Evidence contradicts suspect's account, with inconsistent blood spatter patterns and presence of suspect's boot prints in blood, suggesting involvement in crime
The evidence found at the crime scene contradicts the suspect's account of how the blood got there. The suspect's boot prints were found in the blood, but there was also blood on top of those prints, indicating that the suspect had walked in the blood after it had already been spilled. The suspect had not mentioned this detail in his initial statement in 1985, and the blood spatter expert's analysis of the door blood suggests that the blood spatter pattern is inconsistent with the suspect's story. The evidence seems to point to the suspect's involvement in the crime, despite his repeated denials.
Fred's shifting denial: The reliability of a suspect's denial can shift during interrogation, raising questions about their involvement and the accuracy of their memory.
During an intense interrogation between Detective Terry and Fred Lamb, Fred's denial shifted from "I didn't do it" to "I don't remember doing it." This subtle change could indicate a potential defense mechanism or lack of clear memory, but it also raises questions about the reliability of his denial. The investigation is far from over, and it's unclear how Fred's lack of recall will impact the case moving forward. The conversation between the two men reveals the complexity of memory and the challenges of determining truth in criminal investigations.
Fred's Confusion and Denial Despite DNA Evidence: Despite strong evidence, a person's denial and memory lapses can complicate investigations, raising ethical questions about arrests based on DNA alone.
Even when faced with compelling evidence, a person's denial and inability to remember certain details can complicate the situation. Fred, who is under investigation for a murder, expresses his confusion and denial, despite the DNA evidence pointing to his involvement. He struggles to come to terms with the situation and contemplates how to explain it to his loved ones. The interview ends with Fred calling his family to inform them of his arrest, but he mistakenly calls his wife by the wrong name. The case, now in the hands of the county attorney, raises questions about the morality of arresting someone based on strong evidence, even if they have no clear recollection of the events. Ultimately, both Fred and the investigator must move forward, with Fred facing the consequences of the evidence against him.
Interrogation raises questions about evidence against Fred Lamb: The interrogation of Fred Lamb revealed potential inconsistencies and lack of full context in the available evidence, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigation and accurate communication in criminal proceedings.
The interrogation of Fred Lamb, as portrayed in the video, raised questions about the existence and presentation of evidence against him. The interviewer, Terry, seemed to imply a larger body of evidence than what was available in the case file. Fred, trusting the police, appeared to accept Terry's version of events without question. However, upon closer examination, some of Terry's statements seemed to be taken out of context, potentially skewing the perception of Fred's guilt. The case file, which the speaker had been studying, did not contain all the information presented in the interrogation. The speaker's mother, who had only heard snippets of the interrogation, formed her own opinion of Fred's guilt based on the limited information she had. This incident highlights the importance of context and the potential for misinformation in criminal investigations.
