As has become tradition here on Trace Evidence, we kick off a new year of the podcast by taking a look back and answering all of your questions and curiosities.

In today's special Q and A, I'll be answering a series of questions submitted by listeners over the course of the past few weeks.

In addition, at the end of the episode, I'll commit some time to addressing the status of the podcast, future plans, and a few different ways in which you can get directly involved if you're so inclined.

This is Trace Evidence twenty twenty four wrap up, Q and A.

Welcome to Trace Evidence.

I'm your host, Steven Pacheco.

Wow.

When I started pulling questions for this episode, surprised by the sheer number.

In the interest of time, if I saw the same question or a very minor variation of the same question, I've just blended it together into one to reduce repetition.

I obviously can't address every question I was asked, but I tried to grab up all of the pertinent ones or ones that I haven't been asked a lot in the past.

In the future, you'll have the opportunity to submit more specific questions on a more regular basis.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

After I finished answering all of these questions, I'll be dedicating sometime to a so called state of the podcast address where I'm gonna talk about some new things coming down the pike in twenty twenty five.

But without further ado, let's jump right into your questions and kick this thing off.

All right, we'll jump right in with question number one, And just before doing that, a quick preface.

If I mispronounce your name, I apologize.

I'm doing the best I can hear.

Some of you sent me pronunciations, others didn't, so it's sort of a roll of the dice.

But our first question comes from Margaret.

She writes, Hi, Steven, I've been a huge fan of Trace Evidence for years, and you inspired me to create my own blog, True Crime Musings dot com.

Well, congratulations, I was wondering if you would consider covering the case of release you Rudd.

She was an eight year old girl who disappeared from a Washington, DC homeless shelter in twenty fourteen.

We have a basic idea of what happened, but the main suspect took himself out and the case has been at a standstill ever since.

Release's case is on my list for future potential cases, but that's a list that has over three thousand cases on it that I haven't touched yet.

The simple answer would be to say, yes, at some point in the future, I'd like to cover this case.

The long answer is that it's a little bit more complicated than that.

A lot of other podcasts have touched on this case, and when I dig into it, I often see a lot of the same recycled information, and then really what it's all about is less about analyzing the facts of the case and more about what is someone's theory of it?

What does someone think happened here?

And I think this is one of those cases where I probably wouldn't be able to provide you with a ton more information than what you already know.

Really, where I would.

Come into play would be in the second half of the episode, when I do the analysis on theories.

So the only reason I haven't done this case yet is because almost every time when I've taken a look at it and thought maybe now is the time I want to do it, somebody drops a podcast episode on it, and then I try and wait a little longer.

I don't want to step on other people's toes, and on the occasions in which I've released an episode about a case around the same time as somebody else, I haven't really liked that.

I like to try and spread it out a bit.

So that is the case I absolutely plan to cover at some point in the future.

It's going to come down to scheduling if I can find new information and something extra to add to it.

I really don't like doing cases where I have nothing additional to tell you, and I'm just giving you information that you probably already know.

So if I'm able to dig into that case and find new information or something, maybe an angle that hasn't been looked at, absolutely If not, it'll probably wait a little longer.

But it is a case that I've been looking at for years and one that I would love to cover at some point in the future.

Our next question comes from John the Play, who asks will you ever make a video about the disappearance of Jennifer Kessey among others that haven't been talked about.

With last week marking eighteen years since Jennifer Kessey disappeared, this was a pretty popular question, and I was asked different variations of it from Kevin, Jesus Angela, and Jim.

The short answer is I would really like to cover Jennifer Kesse's case at some point in time, but sort of in the vein of my previous answer on Releisia Rudd, this is a case where I feel like it's gotten extens coverage.

There was a standalone podcast on it, there's been documentaries made about it, there's been just investigation Discovery TV shows about it.

There's been a lot poured into this case, and for me, when I've watched different things on it and listened to different things on it, it all kind of comes down to the same basic details that everybody knows, but that can't actually lead you anywhere.

It's like the video they have of the suspect.

You can watch that all day long, but you can't really make out enough to do anything with it.

And even with the new stuff that they've done where they were able to describe what the kind of clothing he was wearing, it didn't really answer any questions.

So for me, whether or not I ever did the Jennifer Kessei case would depend on a couple of different things.

One would be new information coming out I don't want to do an episode where I just regurgitate to you what you've already heard other places.

In addition to that, I would like there to be some kind of a lull for lack of a better term.

I know that we're always talking about how cases need to tension, and I agree, but there's sometimes where a lull in that attention is helpful, and at least for me, I like to do a lot of cases when they've kind of dropped into that lull, when everyone's sort of moving on and it's not to say that they have forgotten about it, but it's not getting as much attention as it previously was.

Then I can come out with an episode and sometimes that jogs memories or it makes people go back and look at other things.

So sorry for rambling here a little bit, but yeah, I would love to cover Jennifer Kesse's case, but with the volume of information that is available out there, I would not want to fall short and fail to do it justice.

Jennifer Kessey's case is a case that you could absolutely do another standalone podcast on, and you could probably do ten to twelve hours on it, whether or not I could squeeze all of that down into an hour and forty five minutes to two hours.

I probably could, But would I be doing justice to a case that's already had probably better, more extensive details than I can give.

I'm not sure sure, but I'd certainly take a shot at one point in time.

Our next question comes from John Chance, who asks, outside of true crime, what kind of TV shows or movies do you watch?

Well?

I don't watch a ton of TV these days, partially because streaming has become so bloated and expensive that I just don't want to pay for all those different subscriptions.

I watch Jeopardy almost daily and IDVR General Hospital, let it build up for weeks, and then binge the hell out of it a few nights in a row.

There aren't really any new shows that I pay much attention to, unless you count wrestling.

I mostly spend my time watching older shows Seinfeld, Frasier, Three's Company.

Currently, I'm on my fourth binge of mind Hunter, and I still consider it a crime that that show isn't coming back for a third season.

On the other hand, I'm a huge movie buff, although I admit twenty twenty four was kind of a lackluster year for new movies.

I have a ton of favorites I go back and watch from time to time.

Tombstone, Halloween, Zodiac, just to name a few.

In all honesty, I spend much of my time on YouTube just watching funny or interesting videos.

I love psychological analysis videos where they break down the how and why of someone's behavior or get deep into brain processes in its biology.

I also love history videos, whether it's discussing specifics of the Revolutionary War, one of my favorite periods in time, or where they have experts answering questions like what was medieval life really like?

How accurate is this movie versus that one.

I'm kind of a nerd, but I embrace it and enjoy it.

Next we have a question from Krista Bossoni, who asks, since you mentioned Evanitz, I was wondering if you would look into another case he is connected to the Root twenty nine stalker.

This is near to me as I grew up in the area at the time.

Can't tell you the number of times I traveled on Route twenty nine alone and was about the same age as the victims.

Gives me a bit of a chill.

Well, Christa, yeah, I mentioned Richard Evidence in the most recent update episode when I was discussing the murder of Justin Turner.

Apparently he is being looked at as a potential suspect in a lot of different cases, and they're working right now to try and narrow things down so they can complete a full timeline of travel to determine where he was and when in regard to several unsolved cases.

According to some of what I've read, it looks like evidence was in the area for some of the crimes, and so called insiders say he is very carefully being considered a suspect in the Route twenty nine Stocker case.

I'd like to see a little more detail on that.

I know some of the cases that are often considered a part of that group have been solved over the years with different suspects being involved, So I'm curious to see how they think evidence fits in and what evidence they have, if any, to link him to these crimes.

From everything I've read about evidence, I wouldn't put anything past him.

He seems to have been skilled manipulating victims and covering his tracks.

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to find out that he was the Route twenty nine stalker, or that he has even more victims under his belt than law enforcement currently presume.

At some point in time, I'd actually like to cover the Route twenty nine Stoker case.

I've always found it interesting, and I imagine giving your personal experience traveling that route, I bet you've got a much deeper understanding of it than I ever possibly could.

That being said, it's one of the cases I'd like to dig into this year, along with a few other similar ones from around the country.

I've held off on those in the past because I've always struggled to nail down the logistics of writing episodes with so many different victims, But I'm hoping to get into some of those this year, and the Route twenty nine Stalker could be one of them.

Our next question comes from Diego Serra, who writes, I think that you said that you went to school for psychology.

Have you ever thought of using what you learned to analyze cases or suspects?

Well, before we jump the gun and give me too much credit, I attended college long enough to get an associate's degree, a two year degree, but I couldn't afford to continue on with school.

I did major in psychology, and I took every psychology class the school offered, which entailed intro to psych, biological psych, abnormal psych, criminal psych, and forensic psych.

I'm fascinated by the mind, how it works and why, and especially as that applies to criminal behavior, particularly those of psycho and sociopaths, narcissists, and others with antisocial personality disorders.

Obviously, given my earlier mention of mind Hunter, I'm into behavioral profiling, and I've read some of the works of John Douglas, as well as doctor Robert Hares, Without Conscience and The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley, to name a few.

But there's so many books on these topics today that it's difficult to keep track.

At the same time, I'm not a practicing nor even a fully educated psychologist, and so I don't feel it would be proper for me to apply those skills, at least directly.

Sometimes I apply some psychology to suspect analysis for the theories section, since that's the part of the podcast where we veer a little away from the buy the book matter of fact approach and I do a little more speculating.

I've certainly utilized psychology when trying to figure out patterns of behavior, approaches to crimes, and some analysis of seeing details.

I try not to dig too deep there, though, as it's extremely easy to get lost in all of that and find yourself saying things that you can't prove, or worse, developing a bias that you can't talk yourself out of because you can't even see it.

Lately, I've been taking a long look at geographic profiling, and several folks knowledgeable in that topic have been kind enough to provide me with some pretty intensive reading materials.

It's still a develop helping science, but I'm pretty fascinated by it, and I hope at some point that I get to try that out in some of the cases where that analysis might lend a hand.

Next up, Jay asks, I've been having a tough year managing my relationships whilst focusing on my goals.

It feels like everything has been going sideways for the past few months since you've had your personal ups and downs this year.

What's your best piece of advice on being positive?

Thanks for always being a person I can relate to well, Jay.

I'm really glad that you can relate to me, and I try and be pretty open about my struggles, whether they're mental health related or physical health or whatever in between, because I get a lot of comments and messages from people like you who find it helpful.

So firstly, I'm really sorry to hear that you're having a difficult year.

I know I'm much that sucks, but try and keep focused on the horizon.

There's always a new dawn tomorrow.

I'm certainly no expert on best practices, especially when it comes to staying positive, but I might have a few ideas that can help.

Whenever I'm feeling really down, whether it's about something specific or just general depression settling in, I try to remember times where I felt better or I was happier, and I dramatically increase my physical activity.

Don't get me wrong, you don't have to hit the gym or anything, although that can help, but just getting out of the house and into the fresh air could make a major difference, whether I go downtown to walk around, or take a nice drive and blast music, or even get some yard work done.

The sun has an amazing ability to help increase mood, probably because of all that vitamin D, but it does really help also when I'm out there doing whatever in my yard.

I get to listen to some of my favorite podcasts or audio books, and that makes a big difference.

Now.

I don't know if this would work for everyone, but I found that when I'm really struggling, sometimes the best way to pull myself out of the dark is to help someone else.

It could be simple like sending a little gift to a friend or taking someone out to lunch.

It could be more hands on writing for someone making something for them, but it doesn't always have to involve money or creativity.

Sometimes lending just your time means the world to someone else.

Find a friend who has a hobby or a family member and get involved with it, even if it's just.

For that day.

Got someone in your life who's always asking you to do something and you never want to do it.

Give it a shot, even if you don't enjoy it, you might put a smile on their face.

To me, and again this is my own personal experience, sometimes the easiest way for me to feel good is to go out of my way to help someone else feel good, whether that's hanging out, doing something together, or even just listening.

It's really hard to help yourself to shine a light on the dark inside of your own head.

And your own heart.

But it's really easy to help someone else, and oftentimes you'll be helping yourself at the same time, whether you realize it or not.

Next up is a question from Katerry, who's been a listener and supporter of the show since almost the very beginning.

Ka Terry writes, Hey, Stephen, what John or Jane Doe case would you like to see solved?

Also, on a personal note, what perspective have you gained this year?

Thanks for the question, Ka Terry.

There's a lot of different doughcases that grab my attention.

I've covered a few, but one I've really found myself pulled into over the past year has been the Albuquerque Jane Doe.

She was founded at a Super eight motel in June of nineteen ninety one, and they think she might have been from California and could potentially have been known as Becca.

There's a lot of curious details about the scene, including a photo that shows this unknown woman and a man who hotel staff identified as the guy who rented out the room.

The photo was apparently taken within days or possibly hours of the unknown woman's death.

It was thought that the man in the photo was named Eduardo it took years to track him down, and by the time police found him, Eduardo had passed away.

Police were surprised, however, when his family was shown the photo and they noted that the man in that photo was not Eduardo.

It's a really weird, sad, and wild case, and I'd love to see it solved.

At the same time, I may end up covering it this year, but there's a lot to dig into.

Usually when I do Jane or John Doe cases, I'm really trying to find everything that I can because there's so few details.

But the Albuquerque Jane Doe has a lot of dedicated researchers looking into it, so there's a great wealth of information, even though it doesn't provide all the answers.

In regard to the second half of your question, what perspective I've gained this year?

Something I've been kind of dealing with is that sometimes it's okay to take a breath.

I'm really hard on myself.

I push myself hard, and a lot of time that leads me to burn out or just to feel absolutely terrible, and it's not good for me mentally or physically.

There's a lot I want to do and a lot I'd like to accomplish, but it's all worth nothing if I'm carrying so much frustration, anger, and unhappiness with me.

I hope in twenty twenty five to give myself a little more grace and to transform my frustrating work sessions into more fulfilling and productive ones.

Next up, Robert b asks what are your thoughts on the use of genetic genealogy and how it's being used to solve so many cases.

I don't think it would be stretching a truth to say that genetic genealogy has revolutionized both cold case and dow case investigations.

We've seen a ton of cases solved in the last few years through this method, and others have pointed towards new and sometimes previously unknown suspects.

Personally, I find genetic genealogy really interesting and I'd love to get involved with it somehow.

I'm not sure where i'd go for what I could do.

But if there's one thing I'm really good at, it's researching and finding old family information.

I do it every week when I work on a case.

That being said, I've been saying this for years.

In one of these days it's going to come true.

But I think that as this approach to solving cases becomes more popular and more organizations and labs get involved, it's going to become more competitive, and we may see that what was once too costly for a small police department to deploy may become a regular technique.

At the same time, I think there will be legal challenges going forward.

There hasn't been at least that I've seen a major precedent or standard set, and it's still a little bit of the wild West.

But as access to DNA becomes more vast and easier to utilize, there will come questions about how far your personal rights extend.

My fingerprints are my fingerprints.

You're not finding them at a crime scene unless I put them there or they were planted.

You're not matching them unless I have them on the record, or you manage to track me down and get a warrant for my fingerprints.

However, if you have my DNA and you go into one of those databases and you connect to an ancestor and work your way down to my uncle, do I have any rights in that regard?

Right now?

It seems the court says no, you share DNA with this person, and they allowed their DNA to be searched.

I'm all on board with that, but I think at some point we're gonna see a case that really challenges just how much of your genetic data is yours versus the person who uploads their own personal genetic profile.

Technology moves really fast, so fast that oftentimes the courts are ruling on things that happened years ago and everything so far behind.

I'm not a legal scholar, nor am I well versed enough to make a cogent argument one way or the other.

But it just feels like this is going to be a hot button topic, especially as it begins getting utilized more and more.

Twenty twenty five could end up being a really interesting year when it comes to genetic genealogy.

Our next questions come from Patreon supporter Sanade, who asks of what percentage of cases you cover or don't cover regarding missing people?

Do you believe are people who simply chose to walk away from their lives and start fresh.

Also, any chance you'd look into Ireland's Vanishing Triangle.

Ireland as a country is smaller than South Carolina or Indiana, yet many women went missing.

I grew up within the triangle.

My dad used to drive behind me when I drove to work and when I returned.

I used to think the idea that some people leave and start over was just an excuse used by law enforcement when they couldn't get anywhere in a case.

The more I've worked on the podcast and invested time into other true crime related material, I don't think the numbers as low as we often believe.

I have no major basis for this.

I haven't done any studies.

It's just my own personal accounting.

But I think in general, maybe as many as five or eight percent of disappearances are self chosen.

We've seen several cases in the last few years where it turned out someone who went missing back in nineteen sixty four really did start a new life with a new name, and it's only through DNA and genetic genealogy that it's being learned.

But I also think there's a cutoff.

Older cases have a higher likelihood.

It was easier to start over back then.

Today, with everything digital and there being so many ways to track people and keep tabs on them, it seems more difficult post nineteen seventy five.

I'd probably say less than five percent of cases.

Think about all the things connected to us now, social security, credit, bank accounts, digital footprint, social media, etc.

It's kind of hard to just vanish.

I still in the vast majority of cases, though, believe that most people have not chosen to disappear and start over.

Something probably happened to them.

In regard to the vanishing triangle, that's something I've been asked to dig into previously.

For me, it's all about the availability of information.

One case having one hundred sources and another having only twelve can often be the deciding factor in a case whether I'll cover it or not.

I have to be able to paint a mostly complete picture.

Otherwise I'll just be sitting here reading bullet points and you won't know where I'm going or where I've been.

I'd love to dig into the cases and see what I can make of it.

I just have to be sure there's enough for me to work with and turn over, rather than generalize summaries or opinions and speculation.

Also, just for the record, just a father sounds like a pretty great guy.

The next question comes from wend Oregon, who asks do you know if there are any new updates on missing mom Nancy Moyer?

This case has baffled me Nancy's case is not what I'm overly familiar with, although I do know some details and her name appears on my list of future case possibilities.

For those of you who haven't followed the case, thirty six year old Nancy Moyer, mom to two daughters, went missing out of Washington State in March of two thousand and nine.

There haven't been a ton of developments, although they did have a confession from a neighbor and co worker of Nancy's named Eric Roberts.

Roberts claim to have murdered Moyer and allowed police to search several properties before recanting his confession, and it appears that without additional evidence, law enforcement has hit a wall, at least in regard to that suspect.

There's another known suspect and known killer named Bernard Howell, but other than the fact that he was a killer active in that area, they don't appear to have a ton to tie him to Nancy's case.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any real updates that provide additional information or insight.

However, there is a possibility I could cover Nancy's case this year.

It depends what I can get out of Washington State.

If you've ever noticed, if you pay attention or look at where I've covered cases before, there are some states where it's just really hard to get information out of them, even if you're looking at newspaper archives, and Washington State is one of them.

So fingers crossed, we'll see what I can find next up, Alman asks Hi Steven, First of all, thanks for the hard work.

As always, longtime fan here was wondering if you would entertain the idea of having a guest once a month, a fellow content creator.

I would love to have someone like the Missing Enigma or a collaboration with him would be cool.

Well, first of all, thanks so much for listening and being a longtime supporter.

I don't foresee adding in any kind of guest segment or collaborations in the future.

I kind of develop my own formula for the show and I like keeping it that way.

Evidence then theories all told from one perspective.

I think if I were to incorporate guests or collaborates, it would be on a different podcast, and right now I don't have time to work that out.

On the other hand, I have appeared on a lot of different podcasts and will be appearing on another true crime one soon to do a collaboration.

I'll keep you all posted about that when it becomes more clear.

Our next question comes from Danny, who asks, how do you think the Deadman family was connected to Asia degree through the church?

Well, do we know for certain that they were connected to Asia at all?

Most of what I've read, and obviously police have left out a lot of pertinent details, but most of what I read notes that they don't believe there was a major connection between Asia, her family, and the Deadman's I don't want to speculate about the case at this time, as law enforcement have requested that people keep their pontificating to a minimum, but I wouldn't be shocked to find out that there was no major, solid connection at all.

On the other hand, it seems unlikely they'd be involved in her disappearance and probable murder without a prior connection.

But without additional information, it's really hard to say right now.

Unfortunately, we're just gonna have to wait and see what they find.

Our next question comes from Chris Stevenson who asks my question and I hope the answer is no, but have you ever gotten threats because of your research?

And then Danny from the previous question threw in, or just family members complaining in general.

Kind of Sometimes I get angry emails or rants from people who tell me they're gonna do horrible things to me, or that if I'm not careful, I could end up the next victim.

Blah blah blah.

It's not really worth my time, and I don't worry too much about it because generally people who are serious don't email you in advance to let you know they're planning to do you harm.

On top of that, I'm pretty well armed and a good shot, so if someone did decide to come at me, they're gonna have to get a little bit more than they bargained for.

As for family members complaining.

No, not really.

I've had only one.

Major negative experience with a family member, and that was someone who wasn't mad I covered the case.

They were mad I didn't ask their permission to cover that case.

This person felt I should have gotten there okay, which kind of blew my mind because in that particular case, the more exposure you could get the better.

Usually when I hear from family members is because they want to fill in the blanks or talk more about the case with me.

Which I absolutely am always open to.

It often sheds light on the circumstances and tells me things I didn't know before that give me new perspectives on the case.

Next up comes out of Miles, who writes, why do you insist on continuing to cover up for the black market book barn?

We deserve an answer?

Oh yeah, what do you like about Robert Stack and Keith Morrison?

I'm sure my friend Rob.

Would love that.

All these years later, people are still talking about the book Baron, so I appreciate the reference.

And to those of you who don't know it, I released a video on social media I don't know a couple of months ago of an Unsolved Mysteries segment that I filmed when I was in high school as sort of a joke, in which we followed a guy who stole books from a library who was called the book Baron.

Moving on to your actual question about Robert Stack and Keith Morrison, I think the voices are the number one thing.

They both have a way of discussing things that draws you in.

There's this folksy sort of aspect where they make you feel like you're not watching a TV show, but maybe You're sitting on our barstool next to them and just chatting at the same time.

Robert Stack's voice also freaks me out, and I can't fall asleep to unsolved mysteries because of that, unless I want to have nightmares.

Next up, Chris Stevenson asks have you personally uncovered new evidence in a case where the police asked you to keep it secret?

For now, I realize this is basically a yes or no.

It's a tough question to answer.

I'll give you that I've absolutely uncovered things that had not previously been discussed.

I've been on multiple phone calls with law enforcement in different places around the country to discuss certain details.

I once got a call from a police chief and an assistant district attorney who wanted to know how I'd found out some of the details I'd uncovered.

And to say that that was an experience is an understatement.

I imagine when that case is eventually solved, my name's going to be in their records somewhere.

I don't know that i'd say any police have asked me to keep anything particularly secret, but I have picked up on subtle suggestions that it might be in the best interest of the case to keep things quiet, and I always do.

I don't ever want to endanger an investigation by talking too much.

I don't care about the credit or the celebrity.

I want the case to be solved.

While not your question, Another interesting thing to ask me might be have I ever included something in an episode at the request of law enforcement.

I'll save you the suspense.

Absolutely, and sometimes it's not necessarily a fact, but more so something specifically designed to get under someone's skin.

Next up we have.

Andrew Guarino, another Patreon supporter.

Stephen is the staying a weekly show.

Your comments about it changing are concerning to some of us.

The shorter answer is, yeah, I plan to get it back to being weekly.

I don't think I've made any comments about changing the show per se, just that I have some ideas of adding to it.

Look, the truth is, things have been really difficult for me in the past year year and a half.

From health issues both physical and mental, to natural disasters and family problems, to internet and cable issues.

I've definitely been in a position where it's been two steps forward and one step backwards.

Sometimes it's hard to pull yourself out of that, and when things just keep coming one after the other after the other, you can get knocked down and find it's really difficult to pull yourself back up.

I get that it's been frustrating for listeners.

It's been frustrating for me too, though I greatly appreciate those of you who have lent support as opposed to the random, snarky comments I see here and there.

All of that being said, I'll get more into it after the Q and A when I address the podcast, but yeah, I aim to get the show back to weekly.

Pam Fitzgerald asks, do you think Zodiac or John Bennet will ever be solved?

DNA?

Maybe?

Ugh, Zodiac probably not.

Even if you did solve it, the community of Zodiac investigators and researchers is so snippy and beholden to their own ideas that I doubt it'll be fully accepted.

Short of making a genetic match, a fingerprint match, finding items specific to the murders, and probably pulling that executioner's hood out, I don't think there will ever be an overwhelming acceptance of an identified Zodiac killer.

It could happen, but after all this time and what seems to me to be compromised DNA samples that aren't helping anyone.

I highly doubt it.

As for John Bennet, I hold out hope that the case will be solved, but it was so bungled up from the first moments it's hard to imagine it will be.

It's really a shame.

I would love to see justice for that little girl, but I think it's going to be very difficult to do much with it.

Who knows, maybe new DNA analysis will shake things up, but for now, I just don't have a lot of optimism.

Next up, Georgia English asks who do you think killed the Black Dahlia?

Honestly, I have no idea.

The only thing I feel like that I really know is that ninety nine percent of people who claim to know who the killer was, or to be related to the killer, or to have found irrefutable evidence always turn out to be wrong.

Sometimes they screwed up and confused information.

Other times they blatantly lied.

I kind of gave up on reading about and researching the case because it feels like one where the world has been so flooded with bs that it's hard to see the forest for the trees.

It's kind of like the Zodiac.

It's a divisive case, and I sincerely doubt we'll ever know for sure who was responsible for why they did it.

Next up, Diane Daly asks are you going to be at this year's crime Con in Denver?

Well, I can't say for sure, but right now it doesn't look good.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to attend crime Con again.

I've been there every year since twenty nineteen, and I've always wanted to visit Colorado.

It's one of the few states on my list that i haven't been to yet.

That being said, I haven't heard back from crime Con in regard to my application, and the person who has always been my point of contact hasn't replied to my emails, So at this point, I'd say it's up in the air.

If you'd like me to attend, you can always reach out to crime Con via email, on their website, or tagging them on social media and letting them know that you want to see trace evidence there.

The truth of the matter is your voices carry a lot more weight than mine does when it comes to attending crime con.

Our next question comes from Mark Kasmirski, who asks do you have any favorite murder mystery novels?

And or movies, fiction or documentary.

Honestly, I don't read a ton of mystery novels.

Usually I give up halfway through because I either figure it out early or it's one of those stories where they leave out pertinent details just to throw you a curveball at the end, which pisses me off and I think is just cheap and annoying.

While mystery novels aren't necessarily my thing, there are some I've enjoyed.

I'll always recommend The Last House on Needless Street, as well as What Came Before He Shot.

When I was a kid, I read a book called The Dead Man in Indian Creek, which, while done in a teen novel style, was really entertaining and caught me off guard.

It's a teen novel, but it definitely goes outside of teen readership.

I'd say the same thing about The Vandal by Anne Schraff.

As for movies, I love Zodiac Flawed, though it may be The Frozen Ground is a really interesting movie based on the butcher baker killer Robert Hansen out of Alaska, though it's fiction.

I think La Confidential is a really interesting murder crime mystery.

A documentary I recently came across and found really compelling was called Freed to Kill, and it follows the atrocities of Kenneth Allen McDuff.

Honestly, I could probably go on for hours about mystery and murder films and documentaries, but I think those are some pretty good starting places.

Next, Mike R.

Rosen asks, Hello, even how are things going?

My question is do you think there are any episodes of yours you think you should re upload because you feel it could use the extra exposure and you have more listeners, or there is just one little thing that could break the case.

Honestly, yeah, I think there's a lot of episodes that I should not just re upload but redo entirely.

The extra exposure would be nice, and now that I have more listeners, that would expose it to more people.

But in reality, the truth is there are many episodes that I did early in the catalog that need to be redone for a lot of different reasons.

My audio wasn't as good early on.

I hadn't yet hit my stride in how to do the research or how to properly tell a story.

If I'm being totally direct, I'd like to completely overhaul and redo at least episodes one through fifty.

I probably wouldn't mind touching up more, maybe all the way up into the seventies, eighties, or even nineties.

I haven't yet figured out how I would.

Do that, though.

Would I want to re release the episodes or just simply replace the current versions with new and updated ones.

I also worry that people might get annoyed if I started redoing episodes here and there, as folks always want something new.

It's something I've been thinking about for a while, and eventually I'm gonna make a decision on it.

I'll probably post some kind of a poll or ask for listener insight before I make that decision.

Though, what do you think should I redo some of my earlier episodes?

Kristin Henderson wrote for The Q and A, What case have you covered that you are surprised hasn't been solved yet?

Well, there's a handful of cases where I can't believe they still haven't found the answers or at least made an arrest.

Off the top of my head, i'd say Robert Wan, Garrett Phillips, Missy Beavers, Danielle Imbo and Richard Patron, Lily Aramburrow, Logan Schendelman, my Terse Richardson.

I could go on, but yeah, there's a lot of cases I struggle to accept remain unsolved.

When there's a lot of evidence and a good suspect and a hard working investigator and a dedicated law enforcement agency, they can move mountains sometimes though it doesn't matter how hard you try, you can't get so much as a paper clip to budge.

It's pretty crazy how it all works out sometimes, but I'm hopeful that many of those cases will eventually be solved.

Next Chris Stevenson asks some of the true crime cases on Unsolved Mysteries used to freak me out, especially the police artist drawings.

What murder case stuck with you the most on Unsolved Mysteries?

Mine would be forty nine or Hugs case and the girl kidnapped while on the phone with her boyfriend.

To be honest with you, many of the Unsolved Mysteries episodes that really stuck with me.

I ended up covering Kurt Sova was the first episode of the pod, so he certainly sticks with me to this day, and I continue to research it.

I feel like the answer is there, it just hasn't been found yet.

Beyond Kurt I'd say Norman Ladner's is a case that really bothers me, and I fully believe that was a murder.

Angela Hammond, she was the girl kidnapped while on the phone with her boyfriend.

That one's especially strange given the circumstances and the police update released a few years ago suggesting it was a case of mistaken identity was bizarre.

One that I personally am invested in which I don't see getting a lot of coverage is the murder of David Cox, who was involved in an incident which inspired the film A Few Good Men.

Our final questions today come from Lucy Dutton, and since she asked several, I'm gonna take them on one at a time.

First, she asked, what motivated you to start up your own true crime podcast?

Well, it was a couple of different things.

Primarily, I was really into true crime.

Grew up as an unsolved mysteries, an America's most wanted kid, so the fascination with the unsolved has always been there.

Mostly though, I started listening to true crime podcasts and while I enjoyed them, they always felt incomplete.

I wanted more detail.

I had questions that weren't addressed, and so I figured I had two options, complain about it or go out and do it myself in my own way, and that's what I ultimately decided to do.

Next Lucy asked, do you have a case which you feel particularly connected to or just can't let go of?

Why and what are your theories.

I do feel really connected to a few different cases, but the one that immediately came to mind is the kiss and kill murder of Betty Williams.

I don't know if it's something about the time period in which it took place, or having grown up as somewhat of an outsider myself well, feeling some connection to this poor young woman who was creative, artistic, and talented, but who was sort of in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Even just five years later, and she would have been in a completely different scenario.

I find it hard to accept that people didn't push harder for her to receive justice, knowing that she was murdered, whether she allegedly asked for it or not.

Someone took her life from her and he was allowed to just move on.

I don't personally believe the story, and I one hundred percent believe that mac Herring knowingly and maliciously murdered Betty Williams, and I wouldn't be shocked at all if there was some kind of a pregnancy scare involved in that motive.

Lucy then asked, do you have any friends in the industry.

I do have some friends, but not a lot.

I don't want to put much negativity into this since we're towards the end of the Q and A.

But like all things in life, people are often not what they seem, and meeting people you look up to can result in a lot of regret and frustration.

There are a lot of amazing people in true crime podcasting and true crime YouTubers and everything true crime, but there's a lot of scum out there as well who want to make a quick buck and don't care what rules or people they bend or break.

I mean, remember, I've been plagiarized by a podcast that to this day is praised for their amazing work.

Let me put it this way, if you see me interact with another podcaster online or in person, if you see me post pictures with one of them, they're one of the good ones.

I avoid the rest, Like the plague and Lucy's final question and the final question of this entire Q and A, what part do you enjoy most about creating your podcast?

The research.

I can spend countless hours, and I often do when it gets me into trouble, just digging deeper and deeper and deeper.

I get a question in my head and I don't want to stop until I find the answer.

I love going through newspaper archives and reading every word.

I get thrilled when I dig into family trees and historical documents and start making connections.

I really enjoy running background checks on people involved in the case, requesting police files and getting to thumb through them when, on rare occasions, they actually send me something.

There's something so exciting and emotional about tracking things down, putting the pieces in place, and getting the lay of the land.

Honestly, if I could make a living researching cases and nothing more, that would probably be my perfect job.

Wow.

I knew there were a lot of questions, but I didn't think theyre'd end up being as many as they were.

Either that or I might be a little long winded.

But anyone who's ever listened to an episode of the show knows that I like to talk.

I really want to thank all of you who sent in questions, listen to this whole Q and A, and who year after year, continue to support me and the show.

All of that being said, I now wanted to take a couple of minutes to discuss trace Evidence and where I'd like to take it as we enter our eighth year as a podcast.

First things first, as I mentioned in one of my answers, I would really like to go back and reduce some of the early episodes of the show.

What I'd like to know from you is how you think that should be done.

Should I release new episodes, like say episode two forty seven, as a redo of an earlier episode, or should I re record and then go back and just replace those earlier episodes with that new recording.

So in order to hear it you would have to go back on YouTube.

I have no choice.

I have to do a new upload because you can't replace files.

But with the podcast itself, I could replace the original audio with new fuller length episodes.

Next, I've been knocking around this idea of adding a new segment to the end of episodes where I answer a few listener questions or respond to comments on the previous case.

For instance, if in an episode, I cover a disappearance and there were a lot of questions or comments on it in the next week's episode.

At the very end, I could answer a few of those questions or address a few of those comments from the previous episode.

So basically, two forty six questions would be answered at the end of two forty seven, to forty seven questions at the end of two forty eight, and so on.

I try to reply on social media when I can, but I can't always keep up with it, and folks often have similar questions.

So I thought this might be a good idea, and I'd be curious on hearing what you think about it.

Speaking of YouTube, I'm looking into doing the videos a little differently.

Currently, I do them as a repeating slide show, mostly as a time saving effort, and because a lot of listeners tell me they don't even watch the videos.

They just use it like a podcasting platform, put the video on and listen through headphones without looking at their phone.

I never imagine the YouTube channel would get to fifty thousand subscribers, let alone the more than one hundred thousand I currently have, so I wasn't exactly prepared.

I've thought of adding in video, whether it be stock footage to flesh things out a bit more, or maybe even clips of me sitting at my desk discussing the case intercut with the photos the way it currently is.

I don't know why, but for some reason, people really want to see you when you're discussing a case.

And while I don't fancy myself the kind of guy to sit at a desk with a green screen behind him, if that's what you want, I can probably make that happen.

I mentioned that I wanted some ways to get you, the listener a little more involved in the show, and I definitely want to find ways to make that happen.

I've thought about putting out openings for listeners to record certain quotes so I can play them instead of reading a quote directly while I record.

I've also considered creating some kind of a social media team to help promote the show, discuss episodes, gather reviews, and so forth.

I've been working on adding more merch to the shop lately, and I had a few listeners make suggestions which I really appreciated.

Would anyone out there be interested in pitching some merchandise designs for the show.

We would have to work out some kind of a profit sharing deal, though, to be honest, merchandise is not really on the charts when it comes to actually making money, but it's a start and it could get your name out there even if you don't have artistic abilities.

Just an idea for a design would be something I'd be very interested in hearing.

What do you want want to wear?

What kind of shirt would attract you, What isn't in the shop that you would like to get.

Beyond that, I'd also love to know what ideas you have to grow the podcast and get it more exposure.

The landscape of social media and podcasting has changed so much.

I'm just trying to stay ahead of the curve.

I started the show in my early thirties and now I'm in my early forties, so maybe I'm a little behind the curve.

I'd also like to run some contests this year, maybe do some giveaways, not just of Trace Evidence merchandise, but also true crime books and movies of interest and who knows what else.

Finally, I know it's been a difficult year and a half and my release schedule has kind of been all over the place, and there's been a severe lack of episode releases.

This is the result of a bunch of different stuff, but I do want to say that, despite questions and fears of the contrary, I do not plan to keep things this way.

The ultimate goal is to get back to releasing new episodes every week, and I'm on my way to making that happen.

Episode two forty six is as I speak in the final edit, and we'll be dropping next week.

I haven't decided on a release day yet.

It used to be Thursdays, but I wasn't all that crazy about it.

I might shift to Wednesday.

I don't know.

I'll have to see how it feels.

I might even change days for a couple of weeks in a row until I find one that seems to click right.

Regardless, I want you to know that as we enter twenty twenty five, I am dedicated to getting the show back on track, getting back to weekly releases, and raising up trace evidence higher than it's ever been.

I have a lot of big ideas, and I want to make them come to life.

I think with help from amazing listeners like you, end a little more time and dedication, there's no limit to what can be accomplished.

So I want to thank you all for listening and for lending your ideas, support and care to both the show and myself.

Please reach out to me on social media, which you can find all links to in the link tree in the show notes.

You can also always email me at tracevidencepodat gmail dot com or comment in the Facebook group.

I want to thank you again for listening and I hope you'll join me next week for the first unsolved case of twenty twenty five.

On the next episode of Trace Evidence