968 thoughts on “Questions??? I Have Plenty!!!”

  1. ©Baylor University 47 home. There was one out of TSTC [Texas State Technical College] that did, but, you know, they got(??)—so most of the time that’s where you met, were in bars. SUTCLIFFE: Let me—I should have asked this a little while ago. Are you able to say who some of your co-workers were you kind of helped you along when you got to narcotics? |01:28:18| BAIER: Oh yeah. Yeah, I don’t have any problem with it. None of them are working now. Of course, when I first went into narcotics Truman Simons was the sergeant. Mike McPhee was probably the most influential. He’s the one that kind of—he’s my mentor, kind of. I mean, he was an older guy. In fact, he went on to—I think he retired from the PD. I don’t know if he retired or quit, but he went on to the probation department, I think—McLennan County probation. Real fine gentleman. Oh, gosh darn it. Mike Larrew, who—he’s passed away. Mike was probably the person that I’ve met that had the best gift of gab for getting somebody to tell you all that you wanted to know. The problem with Mike—he was lazy, and he just very seldom followed up on it. I mean, he truly with a little prodding, he really—and he was. He was a good officer, but he—and the sky was the limit for him. Tompkins, Tompkins. God, what was his last name, or first name? Willie Tompkins, Willie Tompkins. Real fine guy, real quiet. Oh, Ramon Salinas. I think, in fact, Ramon came shortly after I got there. So how many is that? Is that like— SUTCLIFFE: Five?
    ©Baylor University 48 BAIER: Let’s see there’s—that may have been all. Mike McPhee, Willie Tompkins, Mike Larrew—and there was one more—Ramon Salinas—oh, Dean Priddy. SUTCLIFFE: Well, I had a thought of something I was going to follow up with you about, but naturally, it escaped my mind completely. But I think I was kind of curious about the difference and the challenges, at least in your first go-around with narcotics, compared to patrol. I mean, you mention the difference and the dangers, but the challenge, the different challenges you faced. |01:31:03| BAIER: You know the challenge, I think, in narcotics was—you were not—your work product was engaged by somebody calling in, generally speaking. Where in patrol, your work product is all service response to police, or citizens’ call for police assistance, where narcotics is more the self-initiated type of activity where you have to go out and stir the bushes to be able to generate any kind of activity that you’re supposed to. I’m trying to think of the—and that was probably the challenge of it, was to be able to—especially going in, I remember I was pretty nervous until they told me just go to the bar. |01:31:58| And I said, “Well, okay.” And it wasn’t two weeks into it, because they said, Grow your hair out, and of course, it wasn’t too long that I find out you could buy dope short hair, long hair, it didn’t matter. And it just mattered to—this is what I tried to express to one of the chiefs. He was saying, “You don’t need your hair long to buy dope.” I said, “I

    Like

    Reply

  2. ©Baylor University 49 understand that, but it makes me feel more comfortable. And if it’s going to make me feel more comfortable, then—and I’m going into that situation.” |01:32:32| Plus, I found too that—there are certain interviews where you need that coat and tie, and you need to look like a businessman, like an FBI agent. And then there are interviews where you need to be more laidback, and most of the clientele that we were dealing with weren’t white-collar. You know, they were street urchins and people that ran the street, born and raised on the streets. And I found that they shied away from the suit and tie because their initial blush was, He or she thinks I’m better—or they’re better than I am. Whereas if you come in in a more relaxed environment, or clothing and demeanor, they’re more willing—even knowing you’re the police, they’re more willing to open up to you. SUTCLIFFE: Were y’all doing—I know it was called “narcotics”—or who was doing anything related to prostitution at that time? |01:33:37| BAIER: Yeah, we—basically it was called “vice.” We did liquor law violations, prostitutions, prostitution deals. Now, the scope of our prostitution generally was Elm Street and off of Seley [Avenue]. And to be quite blunt, the only time we would respond would be to—when we got a complaint from a citizen. We truly tried to cultivate most of those prostitutes into contacts and sources of information because they could tell you a lot what was going on.
    ©Baylor University 50 |01:34:18| And yeah, they—so right or wrong, up or down, in or out, we kind of turned our head to that activity unless we got complaints from the businesspeople, which really wasn’t fair to the businesspeople. Seley, over on Seley wasn’t as bad, because that was Seley and North Loop. That was a little more out of the way. But there was girls. You know, they call it the High Curb(??)—right there on Elm Street, and they’d prance up and down in their hot pants and halter tops—now later on, we made projects out of both the girls working it. And then later on, we would put the girls on the street and then arrest the johns. So yeah, that was a big evolution from the way we used to work. And it’s even evolved more because they’re even using the computer, the internet. SUTCLIFFE: Well, in fact you brought up something I was kind of wondering about. Since y’all didn’t have any women in Vice at the time—how y’all did the— |01:35:24| BAIER: We didn’t/didn’t even(??) approach the johns, except for if by chance, let’s say we get a complaint on a prostitute who we know is a prostitute, maybe be using as a source. We couldn’t go up to her, because she wouldn’t make the statements that we needed her to make, so we may sit back, watch her get in the car with somebody, and then go down an alley or a back road, and then we would stop them. We would pull them both out, talk to them about their story, and ultimately, either she would confess, or he would confess. Then we had the option of putting them both in jail for prostitution, or one of them, or neither one of them depending upon what they had to offer, and that’s what
    ©Baylor University 51 we would work on. What are you going to give us in return for you not going to jail for a prostitution case? |01:36:25| And so that’s the way we would work it, because with only five of us there in narcotics, and most everybody were pretty much—I only went my junior and senior year in high school, so I didn’t know a lot of folks. And I don’t think Dean did, but Mike did and Willie did, and McPhee did, and he came in from the military, so he knew a little. But they’d all been in patrol for a period of time, because you had to go through the patrol first. SUTCLIFFE: Um—dang it, I hate when—oh, I remember what I was going to ask you. You know, nowadays we hear a lot about the pimp who controls the woman or women. I mean, they’re essentially— BAIER: Right. SUTCLIFFE: —working for him. Was it that way back then or were they more, I hate to say sole-proprietorships, but I mean were they working for themselves, or— |01:37:23| BAIER: Well, there was a—there was a time when I first started. We had a—gosh, I wish I could remember. There was a Grande Courts on one side of Elm Street, which has since been torn down. I think the library’s there now. Across the street was a row of one-room places, and they called it something. I don’t remember what it was. I remember pulling
    ©Baylor University 52 up there, and there’s a lady sitting on—and these were fairly attractive white ladies. They were sitting on chairs outside each one of these little rooms. And I remember talking to one of them, and she told me that she was a housewife in Dallas. Now, I don’t know. I can’t promise you this, that this is fact, but she said she’s on a circuit—that she runs from Louisiana to different places in East Texas, to down in Waco, and then up back to Dallas, and she’ll—about a month—and then she’ll do her prostitution deal. And you know, which amazed me because I just didn’t think Waco was that kind of place at the time. I hadn’t seen that. |01:38:28| And there was only one case that I remember us making on a guy where he had multiple females, and most of the females that we arrested back then, of course, were from Waco, were local Waco residents, and most of them were heroin addicts. You know, crack really hadn’t hit yet. Crack didn’t come in till—I want to say ’88. But methamphetamine—heroin was big on the east side, methamphetamine was the white man’s curse, and weed was kind of everybody’s. You know, there wasn’t any designated race or creed for when it come to marijuana. SUTCLIFFE: How long were you in narcotics this first go-around? |01:39:27| BAIER: Well, the chief of police believed that you lost touch with reality if you were there over two years, and I tried explaining to him time and time again—we were no different the way we did things than the detectives in crimes against persons or property,

    Like

    Reply

  3. ©Baylor University 53 and I stayed there about a little—over two years. It was like almost three, four years, and then they moved me to auto theft for two years. No, not even two years. It was—in fact, Reese [Knight] and I were in auto theft. I was there for probably eight months. Maurice was there for about two years, I think. But then after auto theft, they moved me back to narcotics for some unknown reason. |01:40:09| And that was—and I’m not sure how the years add up, but that was—and then I stayed there for probably another year, year and a half, and took the sergeant’s test and then made sergeant I think in ’82, and then reassigned patrol. And that only lasted about six months and then was put on the special assignment with the triple murder in Lake Waco. I did that for a couple years, and then—anyway, I’m getting way ahead of myself, I think. SUTCLIFFE: Well, no. That’s okay. That’s good to have that in my mind. Did you enjoy auto theft? |01:40:52| BAIER: No. I had nightmares because back then—first of all, I didn’t like working days with a regular schedule. In fact, the lieutenant over there—see, I always told them—I said, “I would rather come in at noon and work till eight, because people that are getting—” Back then, CBs [citizens band radios] were big, AM/FM radios of course, cassette decks, but batteries and hubcaps, and I kid you not—I’ve had nightmares back then of hubcaps chasing me down the street. We got—oh, it was ridiculous. It was—but they wouldn’t have it. No, your job is: work eight to five. But I said, “I can get ahold of
    ©Baylor University 54 the complainants. They don’t want me calling them at work. They’d rather me call them at home. And if there’s burglarized from home, I want to go see the car and where it’s parked there, and it’s got to be after five o’clock.” So, I’d kind of would sneak off on my own after five. I’d take a city car, and I’d go by them. And finally they said, Your job is eight to five. We don’t want you here after five. And I thought that was such an uninspirational way to run a business, and so I didn’t like auto theft at all. |01:42:15| Plus, you would get—each region, I would probably get ten cases a day, and well for five days, that’s fifty cases. And you were required to try to contact—so when you read the report, you just read the ones—or you read them all, or scanned them all, but you just really looked at the ones that looked like you could do something with. The ones where: Yeah, I came out in the middle of the—you know, or I heard something about midnight and went outside and all my hubcaps were gone. “Well, did you see anybody? Did you hear anybody?” “No, no, no.” “Okay, thank you. If we come up with them, do have any markings on the hubcaps?” “No, they’re just general hubcaps.” We’d close it, and they weren’t getting a service they truly desired. We didn’t have the staffing to be able to get it. And so yeah, it was—and it was reactive and not—I mean, we just read the reports. And it was—plus, you had to wear a suit and tie, and I really didn’t like that. |01:43:20| And so anyway, they transferred me back to narcotics for, I don’t know, I don’t remember exactly how long it was. It may have been another two years. But in ’82 is when I decided that I’m going to take the sergeant’s test, because if they’re going to

    Like

    Reply

  4. ©Baylor University 55 move me like that, I’m going to make them pay for it. And I really didn’t expect—I didn’t study like I should’ve—but I really didn’t expect it, but I made it. And then I went back to patrol. And suddenly I—patrol sergeants back then didn’t go to calls. You went to the coffee shop. First, you drank coffee in the police department till—let’s say eleven to seven shift—you’d probably drink coffee and talk about stuff that had nothing to do with what you were supposed to be doing till probably midnight, you know, 12:30, and then you may drive around and meet each other again for coffee. And I couldn’t do it. I said, “Listen, I—” And I’d show up on calls, and of course the troops were all paranoid because I said, “Listen guys, I’m not driving around just to be driving around. I’ve got to get out. And don’t think I’m here throwing stones in your direction.” But fortunately, that didn’t last long either, so they probably didn’t last more than six months maybe, before the triple murders. SUTCLIFFE: So, you were supervising officers out on the street when you went back to patrol. |01:45:05| BAIER: Correct. They were—usually you had four or five, and to give you a little mindset of what the general way of thinking was—I remember I had two young officers, and one of them ended up being a—well, both of them ended up going to other law enforcement, but they worked a robbery where they got a license number on a car. And I had pulled up there to talk to them about it, and I said, “Well, where did the license come back—registered owner come back to?” And they said, Oh, they’re off of Calumet Street [Calumet Avenue] in East Waco. I said, “Okay, have you been over there?” He said,
    ©Baylor University 56 “Well, we can’t go over there. That’s outside our—not only outside our beat, it’s outside our district.” I said, “What does that badge say?” He goes, “What do you mean? It says City of Waco. I expect both of you two to go over there. You remain out of service until you get over there and find out who owns that car, because the registered owner doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the person driving it. And then, you get over there and find out what the history is on that car and find out—get names and numbers on people that that’s registered to. We can do that?” And I go, “Why, of course.” But that kind of gives you the mindset of a lot in the police department was—they were more report writers than investigators, and which, again, is a sad thing. Now, we do have some officers that would ride that horse till it turned into bones. They’d milk that call to no end, and so there has to be a happy medium. |01:46:50| SUTCLIFFE: Well, we’re at an hour and forty-six minutes of me pulling stuff out of you. That’s actually been easy. BAIER: Well, like I say, I hate talking about me and others because I’m just that way. SUTCLIFFE: Well no, this is really good information. Like I say, it’s interesting to me personally, and it’s just good history for the PD in general. But I think it might be good to go ahead and pause for the day, because truthfully, I’ll eventually kind of want to quiz you about the Lake Waco murders, but I don’t even want to get started on that right now. BAIER: Yeah, that may be a time-consuming—because there was a lot that went on during that period of time—a lot.
    ©Baylor University 57 SUTCLIFFE: Right, yeah. So why don’t we pause for today and we’ll figure out a time to get back together, but again I really do appreciate you taking the time to do this. I’ve enjoyed it personally and I enjoyed— |01:47:50| BAIER: Well, as long as you enjoyed it personally. I—you know, it’s like I told you about my dad’s memoirs, his history—I found it very valuable. But to be honest with you, I’ve never, even upon reflection, I don’t think I’ve ever done anything that—all I did was work. And it really—you know, there were times when I think I had impacts on individuals, but I wasn’t out there to save the world, you know? I truly—and I think most police officers go out there with the intent of helping their fellow human being. I think it evolves into a different way to look at life. I know it did for me. And—but I still think under the layers of the onion, the idea of trying to help your fellow man is the inspiration for most police officers. There are many that get into it as a power trip, but I think most of them get in trying to better human nature. Well, human beings. SUTCLIFFE: What motivated you when you were on patrol? I mean, obviously there’s a paycheck to earn. BAIER: Right. SUTCLIFFE: But beyond that, what— |01:49:14|
    ©Baylor University 58 BAIER: No, I tell you the first—probably, I would have paid them to be in patrol when I was out there. I would have paid them to let me play their game in narcotics. I mean, I was having so much fun. I guess you could say I was raised in a Father Knows Best type of environment where even though I knew there were gray areas in life, people’s lives, right is right and wrong is wrong. You don’t beat somebody, shoot somebody, steal something. |01:49:48| I worked a burglary (??) when I was right out on an old gentleman in East Waco. He had saved and saved and saved for this new television, and somebody—and he put it on a payment plan. Somebody kicked in his front door, took this television, and now he had nothing, and he still had to make payments. And I thought—and that made a big impact on me. This guy, he was probably my age at that time, still working, hands calloused, worked probably all his life, and somebody took his entertainment away from him, and that struck me really strong. And so, I think—I think most peace officers, until they get so, so immune to that plight as well as being what they would consider “burned by the administration,” you know, because there have been very few supervisors, and I’m talking about supervisors—assistant chief, commander, commander, assistant chief, and chief—that really, that I’ve been around. |01:51:10| Probably Larry Scott, even though he created a lot of turmoil in the department, he was one that I always looked at that really was concerned about the well-being of the troop, of the person on the street where the rubber meets the road. Now, the others may have, but I
    ©Baylor University 59 didn’t have that kind of relationship with them. Yeah, I think he was the only one that I really thought his orders had—the way he ran the department was based upon what he thought was best for not only the troops but the department all together. And all the others—most of them forget where the rubber meets the road and get in their ivory tower with lack of oxygen, and you know, they go braindead. |01:51:59| So, I’ve got to tell you, and I’ll let you go. It’s funny—a guy, Bob Fortune—I was sitting in there talking to him. We were in the office, and this new lieutenant comes walking again, and Bob congratulated him on promoting and getting up. He goes, “But you’re standing erect. What’s the deal?” The guy goes, “What do you mean?” “Well yeah, I thought when you made commander, they jerked out your spine.” (both laugh) I said, “Well—” SUTCLIFFE: Well, thank you for taking the time, and we’ll figure out a time to get back together then. BAIER: Okay. end of interview

    Like

    Reply

  5. Well that’s all of the first interview, again not much Lake Waco Muders related. The second interview is the only interview that delves into the Lake Waco Murders and only in the first half of that interview. Hopefully I will have that posted in the next few hours.

    Like

    Reply

  6. ©Baylor University 1 Baylor University Institute for Oral History Dennis Baier Oral History Memoir Interview Number 2 Interviewed by Sean Sutcliffe September 19, 2019 Waco, Texas Project: Waco and McLennan County (General) SUTCLIFFE: This is Sean Sutcliffe from the Waco-McLennan County Library. Today is Thursday, September 19, 2019, and I am interviewing, for the second time, Mr. Dennis Baier. Our interview is taking place at the Waco-McLennan County Central Library and is sponsored by Baylor’s Institute for Oral History as part of its Waco and McLennan County project. Last time, we discussed your growing up, coming from Oklahoma, travelling around, military family, coming here, graduating, and accidentally becoming a police officer. (laughs) BAIER: Pretty much. SUTCLIFFE: And so, I got to thinking a few days ago when I was thinking to prepare for this again, any follow-ups I needed, and I want to ask something, and I don’t want it to sound leading. I’m always afraid some of my questions are going to sound leading, and that’s not the intention. When you started back in ‘74, I’m curious about—and I wrote the word “disconnect” because I don’t know another way to put it. This probably won’t come
    ©Baylor University 2 out like I want it. But we’ll just say “disconnect” or “differences” between the older officers and the younger officers in their methods, in their attitudes. Or was there? |00:01:25| BAIER: Oh yeah. I think every generation or—I think starting out—it was a whole new world to most of us. Not many or not any that I really remember—there may have been one or two—that came from a law enforcement background. So, most of them weren’t. Most of them—a lot of us, I mean we were just looking for a new experience or looking for a job. I also think most people—when they’re young and energetic and idealistic, when they get out of the academy, they think they’re going to right all wrongs. Where the older ones had been out there and realized that your main job was to go home at night, and that was said on several occasions. You know, “Your main job out here is to go home.” |00:02:20| And I do think that as I looked in at the changes that were made—or being made when I was on my way out—that those changes to those young people as they were learning the new processes, were fresh and eager to them. They didn’t have a background like we did one way or another. And the older troops in the old time—and I probably gave them mentally a not fair evaluation, because I remember thinking on many occasions, I wish they’d just retire and get out of the way of us. And I think in policing, as in a lot of public service, you—after a period of time, you get very disgruntled with the—how do I say it?—with the processes and the bureaucracy to get things done.

    Like

    Reply

  7. ©Baylor University 3 |00:03:34| I mean, there was a time in narcotics where we were getting our oil changed on a private contractor cheaper than what our city garage would charge the police department, and so we just started doing that. And of course, when they were found—when we found out—when they found out about it at the bureaucracy, they said, Cut it out, can’t do it anymore. Another occasion, we were doing an undercover operation, a property sting, and I was given like, I don’t know, [$]15[,000], $20,000 for cars, but I couldn’t buy a car and then sell it at the end of the operation. I had to lease it. And I’m going, You know, that doesn’t make sense. And at the time—and I don’t remember how much it was—you know, we could have bought two real nice cars and had something to get back. But where the lease—you know, we were going to spend fifteen hundred dollars a month on a lease. And that didn’t make sense to me. |00:04:43| On another deal, I want to say it was pretty much—no, it was a different undercover operation. It was a—got a federal grant that the city wanted to take part in it. Part of the federal grant was—we do an undercover operation, and so, we wrote up what our aspect was, thinking we’d never get it because we asked for four computers, rent of a building, three cars, desk, paper copier, printer, PC, and all of that. And they granted it. And we go, Wait a minute. So, I’m in a meeting along with the commander, and a—up at the City Hall with the grant coordinator and all of this, and she was telling me all of the things that we needed to do for this grant. And I looked at her kind of quizzically, I guess, because she says, “Is everything okay?” And I told her, I said, “I finally figured out what this is
    ©Baylor University 4 all about. It’s like an epiphany. It just came to me.” And I said, “It’s our job to go out and arrest people in this designated zone area according to the grant, and it’s your job to make it as difficult as possible to do it.” (Sutcliffe laughs) And she kind of snickered. |00:06:11| And—but as you probably well know, grants come with quite a burden, and that was probably the first grant that I’d really been involved in. So, I—back to my point, or your question, I think the one thing in law enforcement—it changes every day. I mean, every day, there’s court cases coming out in some area of the country that if you are diligent enough, you need to keep on tracking because it may not affect you now, but it’s almost like a groundswell. It ultimately will come this way, and if you’re not geared to keep up with it, then you know, then you need to move on. |00:07:01| One other incident—there was a—and this was shortly before I retired. There was a court case, I cannot remember the name of it, but it was out of—not Travis County, but the county—Williamson County where a district attorney failed to reveal all of the notes to the defense attorney, and the court ruled basically that—you need to let this guy out because you wrongly convicted him. And I wish I could remember the name of the court case. So anyway, we were concerned about that from a narcotics standpoint because we kept certain—our process that we used there to document our controlled buys, our interviews with our informants, our surveillance activity, all of that was put in a work copy file, wasn’t an official record of the Waco Police Department. So—and it was all down inhouse. We had our own database and all of that.

    Like

    Reply

  8. ©Baylor University 5 |00:07:59| And so, I called the DA. At that time, it was Abel Reyna. And I said, “Hey, I need to set up a meeting with y’all so you know exactly what we do over here so we don’t get crossways later on down the line.” He goes, “Great. How about 10:30 tomorrow?” I said, “Super.” So I talked to my commander, and I said, “Listen, I’m having a meeting over there tomorrow with Abel, and I really think you need to go too because he needs to understand our process over here so we don’t get bit later on.” He goes, “I don’t know.” I said okay. He said, “I don’t know if we should go over there and talk to them.” I said, “Why not?” I said, “Nobody else in the police department knows our process.” And he goes, “Well, let’s pretend we didn’t have this conversation,” and I thought that was kind of odd. I said okay. Next morning, I come into work and sitting on my desk is a note from the assistant chief saying nobody will talk to the district attorney’s office except for me and somebody else—he and somebody else. And of course, I looked at the commander and I said, “Where did this come from?” He goes, “I don’t know.” And I go okay. |00:09:11| And the point I’m trying to make is: the chief—assistant chief didn’t know what we did. The assistant chief—never been in narcotics, never—he had kind of gone up through the personnel training aspect. And I don’t know if I told you this, but one chief came in and talked to me and asked me how I thought the police department was. And I said, “Well, it’s kind of like one of the hooptie cars.” And he goes, “What do you mean, ‘hooptie car’?” And I said, “Man, it’s got a, you know, $20,000 paint job, it’s got $10,000 rims on it, it’s got a $15,000 stereo, but it doesn’t run.” And of course, the conversation was more
    ©Baylor University 6 about that, but I think that’s one of the things that older troops—and this is a long drawn-out story—they get frustrated with the criminal justice system from a standpoint of—many of them did—that they see an offense, they arrest, and then the person gets off with less than what they think they should have, and that grows frustrating. Plus, all of the bureaucracy that comes down from the top, they forget where the rubber meets the road and they put all these -isms on the troops that are trying to work, and so that’s always a conflict. |00:10:34| SUTCLIFFE: Again, I don’t know any other way to ask this. I’m just going to ask it. You commented that growing up, or my sense was that—growing up in a military family, you were around a variety of races and ethnicities. It was no big deal who you worked with. You said you spent the night at other people’s houses. They could be black, Hispanic, whatever. Did you—did you find—did you find that that attitude was, did you have any resistance to that when you started? BAIER: From? SUTCLIFFE: Fellow officers, especially older officers? |00:11:20| BAIER: No. You know, I didn’t really flaunt it. You know, the n word was used quite a bit. I—you know, I’m not saying—I have said it before, but I’m not one to use that as part of my vocabulary. I really got frustrated when people would use any derogatory remark about somebody’s race or religion. I just didn’t think that was the place for police.

    Like

    Reply

  9. ©Baylor University 7 You know what I mean? You can do that in your clan room or you know, in your—by clan, I meant family. I don’t mean Klan. You can—but you don’t do it. It’s like I’ve always told all the troops. I said, “We all are prejudiced and biased in certain ways. You know, I’m not crazy about vanilla ice cream. I like mine with a little flavor. But policing, you leave that at home when you come to work, because you’re basically—I think the thing as far as races that I go is—and not too many of the officers that—you know, they say churches are probably the most segregated organizations there are in this country. When I started out, I would have to say the police department was right in there. |00:12:49| I mean, there were very few minorities. Now, when I started there, there began a push for more people of color. And I do think that working alongside—if you’ve never seen yourself, then stereotypes that you’ve developed over years, you’re going to hold to be truthful. And it’s not till you’re able to see that there are other people that put your britches on the same way you do. You know, and I think one of the aspects in athletics that helped me. You play with all kinds of people, and if they don’t do your job or you don’t do yours, then the whole team fails. And so, I think athletics was instrumental in my developing a worldview of different races and people. SUTCLIFFE: You mentioned last time that in ’82, you were promoted to sergeant, and you were assigned to patrol briefly. BAIER: Right. SUTCLIFFE: I think you said like eight months?
    ©Baylor University 8 |00:13:59| BAIER: I don’t remember, but it wasn’t—it was long enough for me to—in patrol, I always loved going to roll call because the guys and gals out there, they would cut you no slack, and it was real. It was just a lot of fun to go to roll call. And—but it wasn’t six, eight months before—I couldn’t remember when I made sergeant. I think it was like in January or February. And then the triple—maybe it was March—and the triple murders happened in the summertime. And then it was only a month after they happened that I was teamed up with Truman Simons to review reports. SUTCLIFFE: Would you have been content to stay in patrol, do you think? |00:14:59| BAIER: No, I think the nice thing about patrol is every day’s different, and when you check off in the evening or at the end of the shift, it’s over, and tomorrow’s a brand-new day. And you really don’t—my personality—in narcotics and auto theft and special crimes, you carry those cases home with you. I mean if not physically, mentally and emotionally. And so, it was kind of relaxing to be in patrol for a short period of time, but I don’t—I think eventually I would have wanted—I don’t think I would have ever wanted really to promote up because I just didn’t like—and I probably should have. |00:16:00| Several commanders and assistant chiefs said I should have promoted, but I enjoyed being a street cop, and that’s who I identified with—that’s who I was. And I wasn’t probably the—at least early in my career—really keen on paperwork. You know, I

    Like

    Reply

  10. ©Baylor University 9 wanted to be talking with people. (phone rings) Excuse me, let me turn this off. I don’t know how to turn—there, that’ll do. I’m sorry. |00:16:35| SUTCLIFFE: You know, I keep thinking one day someone’s going to, just for the fun of it, invent a rotary dial cellphone. That’s probably not impossible, but— BAIER: I would love it. I would love it. SUTCLIFFE: You mentioned last time that you were transferred out of narcotics and that one of—and this didn’t sound like a criticism per se but just a statement—that at the time, the chief was concerned about officers losing touch, as you said, with reality. BAIER: Correct. SUTCLIFFE: Did you feel that? |00:17:08| BAIER: No, I truly didn’t and primarily because at that time, detectives—being property detectives or even crimes-against-persons detectives—we had people staying there for ten and fifteen years. And the chief felt like that narcotics, because of the clientele that we deal with, that they needed—and he used the word “lose touch with reality.” And I explained to him, and he left me there a little longer. I was there three years, three and a half years. But he—I told him that, Yeah, if you’re out working undercover for a solid year where you—or six months or eight months—where you have no contact with any
    ©Baylor University 10 other people other than a select control group, and you’re eating with these people; you’re living with these people—yeah, you can kind of lose touch. You truly can. |00:18:09| And on one undercover assignment, I could really sense that on that sting deal because really, on that property sting that we did, it was about eight months, a year, and I was only—I managed it on the outside. Then we lost one of the undercover officers, so I went back undercover with the other Waco PD officer that was involved. And I got a sense during that—unfortunately, I recognized that if you’re not careful, you can start identifying with these people as your cohorts and not your objective. And it wasn’t bad, from an emotional standpoint, to realize that they are humans also. They’ve just got habits. But I also think there needs—you need to maintain that separation. But as far as even now, I mean, I think the last time I was assigned narcotics—of course, as a supervisor, a little different than a troop. |00:19:27| But I think it was, like, ’88 or something like that, and that was all the way up to 2014, I guess it was, when I retired. But we saw our officers every day. They came to the office every day. They—we interacted with them every day, and we could see if things—and there were officers that were letting certain cases get to them and frustrated. And we had to learn to pull them off that for a period of time and kind of ease them back into it on certain cases. And I really—I really felt my—you know, I was in special crimes for a year and a half or two years, something like that, and working murders and robberies and rapes, I think it was harder on me emotionally than it was drugs. Drugs, were—you

    Like

    Reply

  11. ©Baylor University 11 know, if they’re doing it today, and they’re doing it tomorrow, we can pick the time and locations that’s advantageous to us. A murder, a robbery, a rape is—you know, you’re actually dealing with a true, true victim, and when you can’t put all the puzzle together, it gets emotionally frustrating. SUTCLIFFE: Were you—before I get into the Lake Waco murders—were you specifically transferred to special crimes for that purpose? |00:21:05| BAIER: No, no. That—basically what happened was—Truman went to the chief, and of course, he and I talked about it. He and I were sergeants at districts abutting one another, and he and I talked about it. Of course, he was out there that night—when they found the body, so he went to the chief and—talking to him, his first theory was that it was a snuff film, where they actually kill somebody on film, and it’s incorporated into a bigger film. And I’d never heard of it—but you know, I’d read some things on it after he brought it up. |00:21:53| But then anyway, he goes to the chief. This is what he tells me. He went to the chief and asked that he and I be put on as kind of a—our job, our objective, was to do nothing but read the reports that were already processed. We were to not follow any new leads, just make certain all the old leads—all the i’s had been dotted and the t’s had been crossed. And I thought it was a good idea because they had six or eight detectives on it at one time, and after that culminated—I’m trying to remember. After Truman quit and went to
    ©Baylor University 12 the sheriff’s department, I was put in charge of special crimes, and that’s—so it kind of, I guess, evolved into that. And that’s when they—and prior to that, it was nothing but crimes against persons. |00:23:06| After that, there was special crimes. You still had crimes against persons, but special crimes, there were only myself and I think three detectives. And we would’ve worked aggravated assaults and attempted murders and murders. And crimes against persons was still handled—rapes and robberies and simple assaults and things like that. So—and that was kind of an evolutionary—now, as it turned out, of course special crimes, J.R. Price is just super. He was a round peg that fit a round hole, and he commanded a lot of respect from people. I mean, he’s—he actually developed the unit to what it is today with the investigators and really worked hard with the crime team tech people. So, I had nothing to do with all of that. SUTCLIFFE: Who—you probably already figured out that I enjoy documenting names for history’s sake. Who were you working with in special crimes at that time? |00:24:25| BAIER: Okay, it was Bobby Luedke, Ramon Salinas, and Melissa Simms. SUTCLIFFE: Were you working that night of the triple murders—at patrol, that is? BAIER: No, I don’t think I was. In fact, I’m pretty sure I wasn’t. And if I was—see and again, I’ve never read the book, so I really don’t know how it’s chronicled in the book. I

    Like

    Reply

  12. ©Baylor University 13 may have been working that evening, but it would have been in east Waco or south Waco. It wouldn’t—Truman was northwest Waco. SUTCLIFFE: Let me take a step back briefly and ask this. Based on your experience in special crimes, what kind of—what makes a good detective in special crimes? Or is it any different from any other detective? |00:25:43| BAIER: No, I don’t think it’s any different. I tell you, especially to—one of the things, I think, that makes a good peace officer or police officer is one that—one, allows other people to talk and is able to talk with them but that are observant and of course, chronicle everything that goes down. I mean, you go to a crime scene, and of course, they photograph it first, but we did the same thing in narcotics where you photographed the crime scene, and then we—we tried to instill in the guys and gals, let’s do this systematically. But it was real hard. It’s like dogs on a hunt. They want to find the dope; they want to find the money; they want to find the guns; they want to find the evidence, and the good ones will actually take their time and process the crime scene, where—and the other good detective will not make up his or her mind of the outcome prior to the investigation. And that—that happens more—too often than it should. Where you get a set of facts, you formulate the outcome, and you look for evidence to ensure that outcome comes to fruition. Where a good detective will basically let the evidence speak for themselves. And that’s truly what you should do. SUTCLIFFE: So, what did—what was your sense, based on reading the reports, of what happened out there at Lake Waco?
    ©Baylor University 14 |00:27:50| BAIER: It was really, really bizarre, because truly—probably most of the murders prior to ’84 or ’85, when crack cocaine hit the streets of Waco—most of the murders pretty much solved themselves. There was a direct correlation between the victim and the suspect. This is what’s so odd about this case is there was—two of the three deceased knew one another closely. The third girl, or the other girl, Raylene [Rice], knew Jill [Montgomery] but really didn’t know [Kenneth] Franks. And according to our understanding at the time, none of them knew David Spence or knew of the—well, the main connection between all three was the Methodist Home. And I think in retrospect, I don’t think the original detectives concentrated as strongly as they should at that common area. |00:29:18| Now, I’m not saying—because it was—I mean it was a really, just—look, I knew one of the guys in the one of the reports that they had interviewed, a Bobby Brown(??). Was raised down the street from him, and I said, “That’s one person I know. Let’s go talk to him.” So we went and talked to him, and he’s the one that kind of turned us on to Muneer Deeb. And then Willie Tompkins was working out at—wasn’t Safeway, was the—he was working security at the Albertsons out off Valley Mills. And he ended up—Willie and Truman were close friends. And Truman—or Willie ended up knowing Muneer Deeb through—because he’d go shopping out there. So, all of this twist of fate just kind of fell into place, and that kind of put us on the trail to the people that knew Muneer. And then when we—I remember interviewing this one girl one night right behind the store.

    Like

    Reply

  13. ©Baylor University 15 |00:30:44| She was living on a little apartment back there, and I don’t remember her name. But that’s when she brought up the insurance policy—that Muneer had taken out an insurance policy on her. And of course, he had wanted her to marry her so he could become a citizen. And then of course, I check with my dad, because he was in insurance at the time, and I said, “Can I take out an insurance policy on anybody?” He goes, “No, you have to have an insurer’s interest to be able to do that. You just can’t take a policy out on somebody.” And she was not an employee there, so that aroused our suspicion. And then Truman recognized the fact that Jill Montgomery and Gayle Kelley looked similar. I never saw it. To me, they—of course, I never saw Jill in person like Truman did. So, Gayle Kelley was one that—and she knew Muneer Deeb real well. In fact, she knew of David Spence because David Spence hung out at the store. You remember the name of the store? SUTCLIFFE: Yeah, because we used to pass it going home from church when we lived on Herring [Avenue]. It was Rainbow—was it Rainbow Drive Inn? |00:32:08| BAIER: I think so. I think so. I forget. So anyway, it evolved pretty quickly over less than a week, probably, that we had centered in on Muneer Deeb, the insurance policy, Muneer Deeb trying to get Gayle Kelley to marry him, and David Spence hanging out there at the Rainbow, I think it was, Rainbow Drive Inn, and then David’s girlfriend. And of course, David got put in jail for sodomy, and all of—everything was kind of fitting together.
    ©Baylor University 16 |00:32:58| Then somehow or another, Truman came up with some information that Muneer’s feeling the heat and is going to leave and leave the country. And during that time, I said, Truman, I said that—and so we arrested him. He was arrested and put on a polygraph, and he passed. And that’s when Felipe—yeah, Felipe Reyna was the—and he was leaving at that time, the DA’s office. He was in—he said, “I’ll dismiss—I’ll take the heat on it. I’m leaving office anyway.” And Scott and all of us said, No, it was our move. We’ll accept it, and it’s just what it is. |00:33:51| So anyway, I got the bright idea to go to call Baylor and find out—talk to a professor out there that knew something about the culture and the religion of people from where Muneer was born and raised. And I forget the professor’s name. We met him at home, and he basically told us—and since then I’ve read other things about it—but you know, if I’m raised that this shirt is red, and you see it as blue, there’s really not a lot to convincing me that I’m saying that I’m going to learn it’s blue. And he said, depending upon the tribal unit that his family and extended family was raised in, there’s a real good chance that he would not have the normal guilt feelings of a—that a normal person in this country raised would feel. And I remember talking to a polygraph operator about that, and he was reading a case study where a guy passed a polygraph, and—Did you commit this? Did you kill this person? And he said no. And he got no beep. However, when he asked him, “Did you get blood on your hands?” And it just went wild. Evidently, the mind is such a magnificent thing that it can control your emotions in many regards. So

    Like

    Reply

  14. ©Baylor University 17 anyway, we realized that was an uphill, especially him passing the polygraph, and that’s when Truman quit and went over to the SO [sheriff’s office], and I lost semi-contact with him. Ramon and I stayed on the case, really not going anywhere, and then Truman ultimately came up with the first confession he got off of Anthony Melendez. And he called me over at nighttime, and I read it, and I said, “Something’s wrong with this.” He said, “What’s that?” He goes, “David didn’t own this car at the time of the murder. He had a different car.” |00:36:24| And we ended up hunting down that car, and basically bought it and put it in the impound lot and had it reprocessed. So, there were some inaccuracies. And that’s not—you know, a lot of folks at Waco PD really didn’t like Truman’s personality or his—he carried everything real close to the vest, and I remember having a conversation with the chief along with Ramon Salinas and the assistant chief when Truman went—worked out of the DA’s office. And the chief wanted to know whether or not we should go over there and work with them, or we should just let them investigate the case. And I—I told him then that if we allow them to do it, then we lose all control and all knowledge of it. And I said, “We may not have any control of it once it gets to the DA’s office, but at least we’ll know what’s happening.” So, he agreed, so Ramon and I were basically reassigned to the district attorney’s office to work with Truman and Ned Butler on the case. SUTCLIFFE: Um, what was—what were the—how was Truman Simon to leaving the PD to go to SO viewed? |00:38:18|
    ©Baylor University 18 BAIER: I knew pretty much—see, he and Jack Harwell were real close friends. And I knew, as did Truman, even though he never told me, that he would ultimately end up in a supervisory position over there. But he wanted to be next to David Spence in the jail cell. And you know, that—and of course, I read up on the Stockholm syndrome when all that was going on because I was just afraid whatever came out of it was not going to be good. And—but David never confessed, and I think most of the inmate testimony that was ultimately—some of it was used, but most of it was pretty much discredited with them knowing that if they could find something on David, that they would receive leniency on their case. |00:39:28| And that’s one real—I mean, I think it’s a tool to be used by law enforcement. But it’s one that needs to be done with kid gloves because once one person in the jail knows something, they all do, and it was like a—almost like a feeding frenzy over there. At least that was my perception of it. Now, I didn’t interview any of the guys. Truman interviewed them all. So, I don’t know exactly what transpired during the interview, if there were, like you said, leading questions—if there were hypotheticals thrown out, and then they would go do the hypothetical and come back. You know, I don’t know that. But I was, and so was Ramon, concerned about that event happening and tainting the whole deal. SUTCLIFFE: Was there any negative reaction to the way that Simons or to his— |00:40:44|

    Like

    Reply

  15. ©Baylor University 19 BAIER: Oh yeah, yeah. Yeah. Lieutenant [Marvin] Horton was in charge. He was the one in charge of CID at the time, and Sergeant [Bob] Fortune, who I have a lot of respect for, was probably the lead supervisor, and Ramon Salinas was the lead officer—detective on it. And when Truman went off on a tangent, and Truman had a way of—again, he was not really a team player. And it wasn’t that he was out for—I never saw him brag about things or heard him brag about things, but he really wouldn’t confide in you with everything. He may give you enough to bait you, but he wasn’t going to throw everything out on the table and let the good and the bad and the ugly up. And that went crossways with a lot of the supervisors there. Horton didn’t like him, and one time, Fortune and Truman were both sergeants in the tact [tactical] squad, I think. But they worked closely together, and it kind of surprised me when they had a breakup, and it was all over the triple murder and the handling of the investigation. SUTCLIFFE: Did—well, did you then or do you now think it was not a good thing that y’all didn’t interview the suspects? |00:42:25| BAIER: At the time, we didn’t know about them. And I can’t—I want to say—I’m not even for certain of the critical point where Gilbert and Anthony Melendez brothers were associated with David Spence. It may have been through David’s girlfriend, and I can’t remember her name. I think she’s living in Colorado now doing real well, but at the time, she was here—she was—looked awful. But yeah, I’m not sure how we got connected between Gilbert and Anthony. Anthony was in jail on another charge, I want to say—gosh, I wish I could remember exactly the connection. And then that’s when Anthony
    ©Baylor University 20 confessed and he brought in his brother, and then that Texas Ranger and I went up to Fort Worth, found him, and brought him back to Waco, which was—I’m not for certain totally. Well, I’m sure it was legal at the time, or they wouldn’t have, but he had a warrant out of Corpus [Christi] for a similar incident. And so this—Joe Wiley, Texas Ranger Joe Wiley, and I had gone up the week before, or the day before, and I couldn’t get Fort Worth to help me. |00:44:05| So I went and got Texas Ranger down here. And we went up there, and we waited, and he got out of his car, and we snatched him up. Took him to Tarrant County, got him a warrant. He spent the night; we picked him up the next day and took him to McLennan County where we held him for that warrant out of Corpus Christi. And that’s when—both Gilbert and Tony were assigned attorneys, defense attorneys, and they ended up confessing to it. SUTCLIFFE: You know, of course, there’s been attempts in the last few years, I’ve seen in the paper, to use DNA to try to prove innocence and stuff like that. BAIER: Right. SUTCLIFFE: Were you satisfied with the end result of the case? |00:44:51| BAIER: Well, several things kind of bothered me on it for—number one is Ramon and I didn’t do a lot of interviewing of pertinent witnesses. We were not there when Gilbert

    Like

    Reply

  16. ©Baylor University 21 and Tony were interviewed, so we really don’t know all the dynamics going into setting it up, and then the questioning in line. I flew out—when Ned Butler—Ned Butler came from Midland, I think, and he’d worked a murder where there was bitemark evidence, and he had hired Homer Campbell out of Albuquerque to do the analysis. So, Ned’s looking at the photograph, and he goes, “Damn, that’s a bitemark and there’s a bitemark.” |00:45:39| So, we got ahold of Ned—or we got ahold of Homer Campbell, and Ned Butler and I flew to Albuquerque. And I’ll never forget, it was—we had plaster casts and photographs of David Spence’s teeth. So, we walked into this dentist’s office, and it was right at five, and he was finishing his last couple of patients. So, we sat in the waiting area, and he gets out and I meet him—real nice gentleman. We walk back into his office. He gets out some measuring items and measures the teeth with the photograph and the bite marks and all of this, and he goes, “You got your man,” and it was that quick. And I go, “This can’t be that easy. This is forensic odontology.” So he says, “You got your man.” |00:46:40| So anyway, I’d gone—prior to that, I’d gone twice to Coronado, California, to interview a guy who was from Waco that committed—didn’t kill the two girls, but committed an assault on two girls and tied them up on the beach and used shoestrings to tie them up, which was like the girls were. The knots were slightly different, but the shoestrings—so anyway, we go out and interviewed him, and that was another bizarre story. But anyway, we come back, and when the bitemark evidence comes out, I said, “Let me call the guy in San Diego.” So, I call the polygraph operator in San Diego that I met, and I said, “Hey,
    ©Baylor University 22 do y’all have any forensic odontologists out there that you use and trust?” And he goes, “Yeah, I’ll give you this name.” So, he gave me this guy’s name, and I wish I could remember. I think he testified for the defense in this trial—in this triple murder trial. |00:47:49| So I called him up, and I said, “Hey, listen. Do you do bitemark comparison?” He goes, “Sure, no problem.” I said, “Listen, but before I get the casts out to you and the photographs, I want you to know another forensic odontologist has already looked at it.” He goes, “Is it Homer Campbell?” And I said, “Yeah.” He goes, “Well, we’ve been on the opposite sides of a lot of times.” I said, “Oh, okay.” Well, that makes me feel better because if they’d been on opposite sides, and they agree on this one, then it’s black and white. It’s cut—so, I go to Vic Feazell and I say, “Hey, what do you think about getting another forensic odontologist just to solidify what Homer thinks?” He goes, “Oh, that’s a great idea. That’s a great idea.” |00:48:35| The next day, it was shot down. I don’t know what happened behind the scenes, but they said, No, we’re just going to go with Homer. And I feel bad that I didn’t push that, and I wished I had taken a cast—a plaster cast of his teeth and photographs out there—just to verify it. And as I remember, I think he testified in the trial and said that basically they could be bitemarks, but there’s no way that you could compare the marks left with any kind of comparison—is what he testified. While Homer testified that within a medical certainty, that was David Spence. I did—and you asked me about the outcome.

    Like

    Reply

  17. ©Baylor University 23 |00:49:25| Another time during the investigation, Ned Butler says, “Dennis, you really don’t believe David, Gilbert, and Anthony did it, do you?” I said, “No, I’m not saying I don’t believe. I just don’t know.” And he said, “You want to talk to David?” I said yeah. So we marched down there, and we went to the jail, and it was one of the interview rooms that was kind of off the beaten path, and the light wasn’t on. There was a table and two or three chairs in there, and it was a real small room, rectangular. And David came in, sat down, and Ned and I got in there. And I got kind of close to him but not so close as to make him uncomfortable. |00:50:02| And I just went into this dialogue about—David, you’re fixing to go—we’re fixing to go to trial, and a story’s going to be told. The mother and father of all three kids—every time the phone rings, they think it’s their child calling them saying, I’ll be home. Every time a car pulls in the driveway, they think, Oh she’s finally home, or he’s finally home. And I said, “You know what happened to them. They need to know. I’m not reading your rights. None of this could be used against you. I just want to be able to tell the family what happened to their children. That’s all.” And this went on for a period of time. The lighting was perfect, and I—to me, it looked like David’s eyes were starting to water. And he looked at me, and it was like he was right on the edge, and then he said, “No, no. My attorney’s told me not to say anything.” And I said, “Okay, the story’s going to be ours, not yours, and it may never give rest to those kids.” He goes, “I’ll tell you after the
    ©Baylor University 24 trial.” Of course, after he was convicted, I went to him and he said, “My attorney says I’ve got appellate decisions that got to go through, and they’re just afraid of upping it.” |00:51:20| And see, Russ Hunt—he and I were close friends. He was the defense attorney. And he called me at home from time to time and said, “I had David put on a voice stress analysis. It’s different than a polygraph.” And I said, “Really?” He said, “Yeah, and he passed to not having committed the murders.” And I said, “Well, let me look into it.” So I went to the library and started looking up voice stress analysis, and all the studies that I read was—the polygraph can be right 75 percent of the time. Voice stress analysis is about 33 percent of the time. And so, I told Russ, and he goes, “I don’t know” or “Hell no(??), but you can ask more questions on the voice stress.” And I said, “Well, you’re going to have to come up with another rabbit out of the hat.” |00:52:09| I think David, Gilbert, and Anthony did it, and I think the seed was planted by Muneer. But I don’t—I’m assuming since all the appellate court went through and came back and went through and came back, that it was done legally. But because I was in it, and then out of it, I still have a lot of questions as to the techniques used. And I’ve had defense attorneys that worked with Anthony and Gilbert said, “Yeah, they did it. Don’t worry about it, Dennis. Don’t lose any sleep over it.” But whether you did it and whether we did it right are two different things. I never really got upset if a defense attorney beat us in court or if a prosecuting attorney decided to reduce a case for a specific reason because I mean, you just learn from those events. But I just wanted to make certain we did it right,

    Like

    Reply

  18. ©Baylor University 25 and evidently Ned and Truman and Victor Fred [Feazell] did it right because they had the opportunity for all the appellate processes. And you know, I think David was put to death, and I know Tony died in prison, and Gilbert may have. I’m not for certain about Gilbert or vice versa. SUTCLIFFE: Did you have any, or do you have any kind of lingering questions? I mean, you mentioned some of them just now. Or maybe I should ask the question this way. If you could do it all over again regarding—specifically regarding the murder investigation, what would you have done differently? And you’ve answered some of that already. |00:54:17| BAIER: Yeah, I think one of the things I would do would be to—number one, is try to—and it’s like I’ve—I’ve taken several psychological evaluations during my time down there. And one of them stood out in my mind. They said I was a porpoise—that I can swim in all waters, you know? And I find that, in a lot of regards, a detriment because to me, the world is gray. It’s not black and white like my dad. And I would have started off with trying to bridge the chasm—the gap between Truman—our role in the investigation and the lead role. And I think right off the bat, when we were assigned that, we were suddenly perceived as outcasts and not part of the team, and I would have done more to soothe those feelings. |00:55:17| And that was one of the things that I learned in working narcotics in multiagency deals is—that’s what I did as much as anything is—DPS or DEA or MSO would get mad at
    ©Baylor University 26 something that we were doing or didn’t like what we were doing, and I was spending as much time following the investigation or as much time trying to soothe feelings and get them back in the fix than I was actually following the investigation. That’s one thing I would have done. |00:55:48| And I would have incorporated, or tried to incorporate, one of them in our interviews, because they had—and thinking back, they had the same evaluations or the same not-trusting feelings with our interviews as I did—Ramon and I did—with Truman’s. And the only way to alleviate that is to, Hey, come along, and be a part of this. And let us give us your—we want your insight. Very little communication between the two groups. In fact, I know when we decided to go ahead and get a warrant and pick up Muneer, I mean that really rankled the lead group. I mean, really did. And then, when we had to let him go, they felt justified in their feelings, and so yeah, from that point on, there was a sharp divide, especially between Truman and that crew. And he realized that he had to go somewhere else, and the county was an opportune place to go. SUTCLIFFE: Bear with me while I write a note here. Do you think—and I know I’m asking a lot of hindsight questions. I realize that. BAIER: Right. SUTCLIFFE: Do you think it took longer than it should have, or was that a factor—a result of the headbutting, I guess you could say? |00:57:43|

    Like

    Reply

  19. ©Baylor University 27 BAIER: Part of (phone rings)—dadgum it. Part of it was the headbutting (hangs up) or the lack of communication between the two groups, and I think the other part was—we were inundated with, or the police department was—with so many leads, going in a hundred different directions. I mean, like I say, there were probably eight or ten—they pulled folks in from all patrol to follow leads. The one bad thing about that is—there were some officers that would talk in the public about certain leads, and then basically, that leads to more leads, and it was—yeah, I think part of it, again, was—[Bob] Fortune was really one that wanted to be right. So, he was being very cautious about any information that came up. |00:58:42| Plus Lieutenant Horton, which I really like, but Kenneth Franks’s father—god, I forget his name—was gay. And Lieutenant Horton would not let anybody interview him but him—but Lieutenant Horton. And I’m going, That doesn’t make sense. Why don’t you let the lead investigator do it? Well, it just so happens Ramon was the lead investigator, so Ramon and I interviewed Kenneth’s father’s lover, and we were at the PD at the time. Truman was already over at the SO, and the first meeting we had with him, Ramon was very uncomfortable. |00:59:36| And it was—almost got to be humorous to me and the other guy. Finally, Ramon got up and left, and I finished up the interview, and two days later, he came back and handed me this book and says, “Give it to Ramon, please.” It was Understanding the Homosexual. And Ramon is a great guy, and he’d give you the shirt off his back, but he was Hispanic,
    ©Baylor University 28 very much a macho man, and just didn’t—I mean, things were black and white to him too, and it was kind of humorous. He and I—I hadn’t talked to him in a while, but he and I have laughed about it before. But I mean, I guess I’m trying to illustrate that there wasn’t a solid line of committed communication—transfer of information between parties that were acting involved in the investigation. SUTCLIFFE: You mentioned going to California to interview this other dude. Do you—do you feel like everyone who was involved was held accountable? Well, I say that. I guess Deeb was eventually— BAIER: Yeah, he— SUTCLIFFE: —acquitted on a second— BAIER: Right, yeah. SUTCLIFFE: —retrial. But beyond him, do you feel like everyone was held accountable? |01:00:59| BAIER: Yeah. I had, and this is double hearsay, which is really not evidence in court. But I had a district attorney’s investigator tell me that during the trial—Spence trial here—that there was a specific jail guard that would take him to and from the courthouse and the jail cell and got to be friends with him. And he told—David told this jail guard that, Yeah, those are my teeth marks, but I didn’t kill them. So—and you know one of the things I think you look at, or at least I did for a period of time after that final trial, was—try to keep track of other areas, and I did this well into narcotics—where similar cases

    Like

    Reply

  20. ©Baylor University 29 may have happened in this country, you know? I mean, and that’s hard to do because you really can’t put out “Hey, anybody know—have this?” But you try to keep—you know, I would go over the internet, different places, their newspaper and their radio station over the internet, and just scurry the nation to see if there’s anything, because somebody that did this is going to do it again unless they’re stopped. |01:02:33| And I can never find anything, even though it was an unofficial survey, of any crimes like this happening. Bishop, the guy in San Diego or Coronado—his name just flashed into mind—was a weird fellow, and he was a suspect, and a lot of people thought Tab Harper was also. I didn’t know Bishop that well, but Tab Harper, I knew. He was, later on, got to be an informant of ours in narcotics, and he was just a dope-fiend, drug-addict bully, and without help, he couldn’t have controlled three people. That’s why you needed three people at least. |01:03:27| And I don’t know the—didn’t know the personalities of Kenneth nor Jill nor Raylene, but I got the sense—and this is one other thing I wished we had done—had really done a profile on their personalities by talking to everybody that knew them, whether they were fighters or pacifists. Raylene, I get the impression that she was very mild-mannered. Jill, a little more domineering. But Franks, I really—according to the confessions—they all three were pretty, or Jill was pretty combative, but Raylene and Kenneth were pretty submissive.
    ©Baylor University 30 SUTCLIFFE: Well, you said something that made me think of something else, and of course it escaped my mind. But I guess what I would ask—before we move on to any other topic, is—is there any else about, and I don’t want to beat it to death, but is there anything else about the murders that I haven’t thought to ask about that comes to your mind? |01:04:46| BAIER: I kidnapped a girl. It’s really kind of a funny story. They told me to go find this girl. Did I tell you it already? SUTCLIFFE: Unh-uh. BAIER: And I said okay. So I followed some leads and went to Tyler and then Longview and then to—keep wanting to call it Wabash, but I’m not sure if that’s the name. [ed. note: The name is Waskom.] It’s right on [Interstate] 20 just before you cross into Louisiana. SUTCLIFFE: Waskom! BAIER: Waskom! SUTCLIFFE: Yeah. BAIER: That’s where it was. And over two days, I finally got to Waskom and went into the little store there. I mean, there wasn’t anything there, and I said, “Hey, I’m looking for this girl. Do you know—?” And I wish I could remember her name. And he goes, “Oh, she looks familiar.” And I said, “Well, that’s the reason I’m here. I kind of thought

    Like

    Reply

  21. ©Baylor University 31 you would know if she was from here. It’s the last (phone dings) they would come in here.” And they said, Yeah, let me call the sheriff. So, the sheriff came in—of the town or the chief of the police, and said, “Yeah, she was a feisty girl. Yeah, she moved into Bossier City or Shreveport [Louisiana] with these two or three guys.” |01:05:52| And I said okay. So, I wrote down their names, went to Shreveport, got a motel room, called Shreveport PD. I gave them the names. They said, Yeah, we—there was like $5,000 found in a motel room where she registered, and they left it, and the maids found it. She went back to retrieve it, and the maids had called the police. And they asked if it was her money, and she goes, “No, it’s So-and-So.” Well, he needs to come in and claim it, and he wouldn’t because it was drug money. And so, I said, “I’m looking for her. All I want to do is talk to her. I don’t want to—you know, I’m not going to arrest anybody.” They said, Okay, if you need something, call us. |01:06:36| So they gave me some leads, and I went and knocked on some doors—and was really, I think, just what I was doing—was hitting a hornet’s nest, because some people would answer the door at the trailer houses, and I could hear them walking. Some people wouldn’t. Finally, I got talking to one person. I said, “Listen, all I want is to talk to this lady. That’s all I want to do. But the more I’m around here, the more I’m going to cause y’all a bunch of issues. So let me talk to her, and then I’ll be out of your hair, and you won’t have to worry about me ever again.” They said, Well, we’ll see what we can do.
    ©Baylor University 32 |01:07:12| That night, that motel I was staying in had some kind of barbecue and margarita machine out there, and I was out there talking to the employees and some of the people that were staying there, and lady comes in and says, “Dennis, there’s somebody on the phone that wants to talk to you.” So, I get on the phone. I said, “Yeah, this is Dennis Baier.” And they go, “So-and-So is in room such-and-such at this motel,” and then hung up. And I go, “Crap.” So, I called the Shreveport detective, and I said, “Listen, I got a call that this gal I want to talk to is in this room at this motel.” And he goes, “Well, be careful because that’s a seedy area.” And I thought to myself, If it was Waco, I’d send somebody—I’d send troops with him, and he didn’t. |01:07:58| So, I drove up to this motel, and the door was slightly ajar. And I knocked, and she was standing on at the other end of the room, and it was just a regular, small motel room. And she looked like hell. I mean she wasn’t beaten up, but her eyes were—she was drooping. Her nose was running. And I said, “I’m So-and-So.” And she goes yeah, and she kind of nodded. And I said, “Man, looks like you could use a cup of coffee.” And she goes, “Oh boy, could I ever.” I said okay. So, she kind of stumbled out. I put her in the backseat, and she lied down and went to sleep. I went to the motel room, picked up all my luggage, paid, and crossed the border. Got to about Tyler, and she woke up. I said, “You ready for your cup of coffee?” She goes, “Oh, I’d love it, and I’m hungry.” And it just so happened to be—what is it? A biscuit, something biscuit, some kind of chain, little IHOP type, right there on the road. So, I pulled over. I said, “Okay, come on out.” She didn’t have any

    Like

    Reply

  22. ©Baylor University 33 shoes, so I had to give her a pair of my loafers—extra pair. We went in there, and she ate. And oh, she was stunk, and she looked just horrible. |01:09:07| Anyway, got her—she got in the car and went back to sleep. About six o’clock, I’m calling Ramon. I said, “You need to get me a motel room.” And so, we got her a motel room, and we got her in DePaul, and I remember her testifying. And she got dried out and did a good job of testifying. I just cannot remember her name. I know somewhere in my notes I’ve got her name. And it gives me—yeah, you committed a federal offense, kidnapped somebody. Well, I didn’t say where I was going to get the cup of coffee. Just, you know, it’s another universe. |01:09:46| But no, I think I do have, like I say—some of the regrets I have of not being more of a bridge between the two, and I think that would have solidified a lot, would have eased a lot of the feelings, because I don’t think—I’ve never known a peace officer to manufacture evidence for the purpose of convicting people. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I’m saying I’ve never seen it. I have seen and witnessed—now, I’ve seen officers lie on affidavits, but it was—and fortunately I got him to turn it back in because I knew it was a lie. |01:10:33| It was a deal where a little weed warrant, and this patrol officer—he wanted to be in narcotics so bad—brought the affidavit to me. And I knew where he got the source of
    ©Baylor University 34 information, and I knew it was more than forty-eight hours old. And I said, “You just need to go turn this in because this is a week old, at least,” and explained why, and he did. And everything was better after that. But I’ve never seen anybody plant evidence or anything like that, and I don’t think Truman would manufacture the—one of the problems I had with Truman would be that he would decide the end and then find things to piece it together. |01:11:22| Because he absolutely denied that Bishop had any part of it without ever talking to him. He denied Tab Harper had anything to do with it without ever talking to him or following the peripheral guidelines that led to their—led to their names being brought up as far as suspects. So that’s the only, I think, misgiving that I have about his investigative techniques. Very good interviewer. So that’s—that’s about the only regret and that it happened, period. SUTCLIFFE: You mentioned—I almost hate to keep asking these because they’re hypothetical and they’re hindsight, but I’m going ask it anyway. You mentioned in our last interview the respect you have for Sergeant Fortune as an interviewer. Do you think—again, it’s almost not even worth asking the question, but I can’t resist. BAIER: Well, don’t. SUTCLIFFE: Had he (laughs)—had he gotten ahold of some of these suspects at the time? |01:12:29|

    Like

    Reply

  23. ©Baylor University 35 BAIER: Oh yeah. Yeah, I—there’s—I would have felt more comfortable with the—everything being equal. If it came from Bob versus Truman, I would put a little more credence in it being truthful. There were some things, and I listened to a little bit of the taped confession, and there was some very strong leading questions in there, and there wasn’t—there were some open-ended questions. There were some questions that should have been dealt with. The answers should have been dealt with in a deeper subject matter. But no, I think—fame and greatness are two different things. Fame is self-serving; greatness is serving others. And I think, if I had to psychoanalyze, which I’m not qualified to do, but you know, I would have to say Truman was looking for fame, and [Bob] Fortune was looking for greatness. SUTCLIFFE: After the—well, let me get my timeline straight here. How long were you in special crime? |01:13:58| BAIER: God, I wish I could remember. Probably a year and a half, maybe two years, not counting the time in—truly focused on the triple murder. A pretty short period of time, and I’m trying to remember. This happened in ’82. Probably two years. And like I say, it was really—other than being on-call, it was one of the easy—except for one murder case that we got that I—we couldn’t prove. And I took it personal. And basically asked—told them I needed to leave, or I was going to embarrass the department and myself, and—because I had taken it personal. And then, they ended up putting me in records for a period of time, and then, on a year-long undercover sting operation. |01:15:08|
    ©Baylor University 36 But yeah, back then, most murders pretty much solved themselves. There was a, like I said earlier, direct correlation between the victim and the suspect—where the triple murder was so unlike that. We just weren’t—I don’t think we were trained specifically. I mean, you look at the crime scene—and I hate to go back to the triple murders—but they had news people in there. They had people walking all over it. They—in today’s time, they’d just shut Koehne Park down, and they’d shut Speegleville Park down, where nobody could go, and then we’d have taken our time. Because once you get the crime scene secure, there’s no sense in being in a rush about it. Just take your time. I mean, yeah. That was a—we were not—we just weren’t trained, educated, for such a diverse crime scene, such a massive crime scene, and now because of that, I think they are much better trained. SUTCLIFFE: What year did you go to—I’m asking all this to get me set up for some more questions—what year did you go to DEU for the rest of your career, I guess? |01:16:27| BAIER: I want to say about ’88, maybe ’87. And in my mind’s eye, I’m trying to figure out. ’82—I was promoted, and the triple murders happened. ’85, yeah. The end of ’85, or maybe it was—yeah, the end of—the first of ’86 is when we started the undercover deal. So, I probably wasn’t in special crimes more than a year, minus the time involved with the triple murder. Probably a year, year and a half. SUTCLIFFE: I mentioned when you and I first met, and we were talking about this, that I had previously interviewed Cliff Hoida, who was undercover at University High School. And I—again, it’s snooping for other people, it’s research for a librarian. (laughs) I’ve

    Like

    Reply

  24. ©Baylor University 37 seen your name mentioned in an article related to that, and it was only in the sense of—had to do with signing off on something, I think it was. What do you recall, that you can say, was your involvement with that, if any? |01:17:51| BAIER: I don’t remember anything. I truly don’t. I remember I was in narcotics when it was going on, and we were aware of it, but the—but I don’t remember much about that at all. That was kind of a unique situation, especially for Waco. That was about eighty—oh, when was that? Was that in like— SUTCLIFFE: ’87? BAIER: Seven? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. |01:18:24| SUTCLIFFE: That was—it was funny because he told me about it. And we have some of the high school yearbooks here, so I went back and looked and found his name that he was working under or living under, and it was very interesting to look at that. But it was pretty fun. I enjoyed learning about that. Tell me—well, I’m just going to dive right into this. Again, anything I ask, it’s not—I don’t have preconceived; it’s not leading; it’s not intended to be or anything. But I’m aware, just because I was a nerdy newspaper reader back in my younger days, that there was conflict between some officers and Chief Scott back in the eighties. BAIER: Yes.
    ©Baylor University 38 SUTCLIFFE: What can you elaborate about that? |01:19:18| BAIER: Well, he was—you know, he went from, I think, a lieutenant or commander to a position of assistant city manager, I think, over at the City Hall, to chief of police. And when he was a lieutenant over here, he was probably one of the most innovative and outgoing and really enjoyed—I mean, he’d give people days off if they did a good job. I mean, just let them get off. And he—and you know, he let bike patrol come downtown, especially during midnight where they could go in and out of the buildings without being heard. I mean, he was very innovative, and I think when he got to be chief of the police, everybody was just truly excited about him. |01:20:04| And the one thing great about him is you knew right where he stood. He didn’t mince words too often. I know, and I told him this, in reference to one commander he had—I said, “You know, one of the problems I can see is that you’re surrounding yourself by people—yes-men—that were only going to tell you what you want to hear. And I think that’s a problem. You need to get somebody in the inner circle that’s going to say, Time out; King’s X. Let’s do this way.” Now, I also think part of the thing was—now, he was young at the time and innovative, so he wasn’t one of the older crowd—that “do as I say, not as I do,” and “all I expect is ‘yes, sir’ out of you.” But I—and I’ve said this from time one—I think there is a point in time when you’re in the upper levels of the administration, and you forget how the rubber meets the road. You lose sight of the

    Like

    Reply

  25. ©Baylor University 39 information and the intellect of the people that are down there working day in and day out, and what may be best for them is—what you think is best for them, may not be. |01:21:36| And I’ve seen too many times, orders come down. Plus, I think there were a lot of young, new troops, and Scott was of the opinion—If you work for the man, you work for him. If you can’t work for him, then quit and go somewhere else. But there was such an influx of young people, because when I went to the academy, there was eighteen in our class, which wasn’t the largest, but it wasn’t the smallest either. And such an influx of young people, plus most of the folks coming in had some college, which I’m not saying college makes you smarter. It just broadens your horizon. And I think that added a little bit to the turmoil of that. I had good friends on both sides, and I think he allowed things to happen without really—or he would tell certain people, Well, it’d be nice if this happened, and they would take it upon themselves to do it. When in fact, they were—they really shouldn’t have been doing it, or they should have asked more questions about it before they did it. And there was a lot of that going around. He had a couple people in his hip pocket that would do anything for him. |01:23:14| And he—like I say, I admire Chief Scott. I think he was much a man, but I also think he let certain people have too much latitude. SUTCLIFFE: Were the complaints about people being transferred—were the complaints about him using transfers as a form of punishment a legit complaint?
    ©Baylor University 40 |01:23:48| BAIER: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I had a good friend of mine who was in conflict. He was president of the association or real active in the association, and he was put down in the jail as a report review officer. And all he—a lot of people smoked at the time, and which he did. He was allowed a fifteen-minute break in the morning, fifteen-minute break, an hour for lunch. Otherwise, he had to be in a cubicle reading reports about that big (signals), about probably a ten by ten room, if that big, with a desk and a chair. And it was trying to get him to quit and—go somewhere else and quit. |01:24:46| Gosh, there was one other occurrence that I had in mind. Oh, I had a—a guy wanted to come to narcotics, but he was in charge of—at that time it was the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and he was the president of that. And he asked me—he came to me. He said, “Dennis, if I go to narcotics, will I have time to continue to do that?” And I said, “Well, you should have more time, because we work 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. and we’re off Sundays and Mondays. So that gives you all day to do any of the IBPO [International Brotherhood of Police Officers] stuff,” of which I was never involved in any of it, really. And he says okay. And so next thing I know, he comes down here. I said, “Well great, I’m glad to see you’re here in narcotics—got transferred.” And at that time, there wasn’t a testing process. You just put in your letter, and they chose—pew (indicating speed) and you went. And he says, “Well, I had to withdraw from president of IBPO because chief told me I wasn’t going to—he wasn’t going to have anybody in that position in narcotics. And I said okay. And that’s what I’m saying. So, you got something

    Like

    Reply

  26. ©Baylor University 41 if you did what he said, and you got things taken away if you didn’t. I never had that problem with him because he knew all I cared about was doing my job, and the politics—whether it be the association or the IBPO—I just didn’t get involved in it. SUTCLIFFE: Who—what was there, a root cause, that would cause an officer to have a conflict with him? Where I’m going, what I’m thinking—or what I’m wondering, not thinking, but wondering specifically—did it have to do with union—the union side of it? |01:26:33| BAIER: Probably so. Probably so, and I’ve never been a big union man. I do believe that management and labor should be able to come to a table like this, sit down, and say this is the pieces of the pie; this is what we can allot out; this is what we can’t, because of A, B, C, and D, and everybody should understand that. I know life is not that simple, but I probably—the association was gathering strength at that time, and that was probably the—plus CLEAT [Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas]. That was the start of CLEAT, which is Combined Law Enforcement—something or another. |01:27:23| And everybody was pretty much members of CLEAT and the association, and CLEAT was a little more radical, where the local association was basically a benevolent association to put flowers on your grave when you died and give your estate a thousand dollars or something like that, and where CLEAT was more active politically, and they had more bite with their bark than the association did—both in Austin as well as locally.
    ©Baylor University 42 SUTCLIFFE: As best as I can remember—and I say that to ask you to correct me if I’m wrong—eventually Chief Scott was transferred back to Personnel. BAIER: Exactly, yeah. SUTCLIFFE: Was that—do you feel like that was the only resolution to the problem? |01:28:18| BAIER: I really don’t know. I kind of gathered that Scott said, “I want out,” and David Smith, who I really like, was city manager, and said, “Okay, we’ll do that.” And yeah, so I don’t know if Scott did it as a resolution. You know, if you take the log out of the fire, then the fire’s going to die. Or you take out oxygen—but I think there were still enough people that at the department that respected Scott, especially in management positions that would have—the fight could have gone on. Now, would the fight have been productive, and it would it have ever ended? I don’t know because I don’t know if Scott is the kind of person that can forgive. You know, he may be able to forgive, but I don’t think he’ll ever forget. And so yeah, that may have been a way to ease the transition to a little smoother department. I forget who was chief of police after that. [Gil] Miller, I guess, from Austin came. Yeah. SUTCLIFFE: What do you feel were Chief Scott’s greatest accomplishments? |01:29:40| BAIER: Well, I think what—you know, I think originally, starting out, he really, before Scott was chief was Roznovsky, I think, and Roz was probably the nicest man you’ll ever

    Like

    Reply

  27. ©Baylor University 43 meet. Super fine fella, but I don’t think he had a personality for policing and people—or for being the chief of police. I mean, I remember being a rookie and him being the chief, and him saying hello, and that just didn’t happen back then, and him actually concerned how my day was going, and I’m going, Wow. Yeah, Roznovsky was a super nice individual. I just don’t know, in looking back, that he had the wherewithal to make tough decisions, right or wrong, good or bad, in or out. |01:30:38| That’s—like Truman said, “The buck stops here.” And I think Scott was a pleasant alternative to that because things would get done. They wouldn’t stay in committee. And like I say, he added a new blood, a new idea, to a lot of the policing concepts, especially for patrol, and that’s where he was. Now, I spent most of my time in narcotics or whatever. And plus, Scott was not afraid to try new things. Some of them were off the wall, but he wasn’t afraid to look at them and see whether or not it could be done. SUTCLIFFE: Can you elaborate on any of the things he tried? |01:31:23| BAIER: Well, we had an officer go to Florida where they were doing reversals. And he comes back, and he says, “We’re going to do reversals.” So Scott—I don’t remember whether he pulled me in the office or he got narcotics supervisors up there. And this guy was saying, We’re going to take care of the drug problem because what we’re going to do is—we’re going to put black agents on the street, and we’re going to give—sell them twenty dollars rock, and then we’re going to go down and arrest them. And I go, “No, no.
    ©Baylor University 44 You can’t do that. You can’t do that. First of all, if, according to the state statute, if we do reversals, the dope has to be quantitative and qualitative and analyzed both prior to and afterward.” And I said, “What happens if they swallow it? What happens if they throw it out and we can’t find it? There’s no evidence.” And he said, “Well, we’ll come at it a different way.” Well, that’s what Scott said, and they ultimately did. |01:32:24| They got a city ordinance that said—I forget the exact wording on it, but basically it was—if you’re in this area for the purpose of buying dope, you could be cited for a class C misdemeanor. So, we would put agents out there. We would video-record it, what they had asked for, and we’d tell them, Yeah, go around the corner. And we’d go around the corner, and they’d snatch and grab, and we’d write them a citation for this offense. |01:32:52| Another time, he decided to do an undercover sting. Scott did a property sting. And so, this officer—who was in personnel-in-training—got one of the applicants to say, Yeah, I’ll do it. He was a businessman in town. He ran some kind of business, and so he wouldn’t be associated with the department. So anyway, Scott called me up, and I was in records at the time, and he said, “Can you meet with this officer and this guy in a motel room somewhere and interview him for him to see if he can do the job?” I said sure. So I meet him at the motel off of [US Highway] 84 and Lake Air [Drive]. I think it’s Barnes & Noble now. And I meet this guy, real nice guy. He looks a good part. I mean, he could play the part, no doubt about it. I ask—you know, everything was going real good, and I
    ©Baylor University 45 said to the officer, I said, “Well, has he passed the polygraph?” “Well no, we’re going—we do that(??).” I said, “Has he passed civil service?” No. |01:34:03| “Well, how can you guarantee him a job in the department? What if he goes on this, shuts his business down for a year, and then can’t get in on the police department? He needs to go through those steps and go through the psych, go through all the stuff. He doesn’t necessarily have to go through the academy. He can go to the academy afterwards. But he needs to pass all these tests before we hold him hostage for a year and then he doesn’t get it.” And he goes, “Oh, you’re right. You’re right. He didn’t pass the polygraph, and he couldn’t pass civil service.” So, that’s when Scott said, “Can you put together a team to work this undercover?” And we did. We got a guy out of Bell County, and one of our young officers here, John Yates, and they did, and then we put up a storefront. Fort Worth gave us the electronic equipment, and we rocked and rolled for about a year. SUTCLIFFE: Was this—I may remember it from when I was younger and reading it in the paper, but I have definitely seen articles since then from my work here at the library. But was this that Operation Catch A Thief? BAIER: Yeah, yeah. SUTCLIFFE: Tell me more about that. |01:35:15|

    Like

    Reply

  28. ©Baylor University 46 BAIER: Well, basically we wanted to come up with a name. And I said, “Okay. How about CAT Sales?” And why is that? Well, Catch-a-Thief. And everybody liked it. Everybody says great, so we had these business cards put out. Capital C, period, capital A, period, capital T, period, “Sales.” And it was one of the first people we bought property off of—he says, “What is CAT Sales?” He said, “Well, that’s our owner.” He goes, “You sure it’s not ‘Catch-a-Thief’?” (laughs) And he goes, “No, that’s Carl A. Thomas.” And from then, I go—oh, I got real paranoid after that. Yeah. SUTCLIFFE: So, what was the basic purpose of this? |01:36:02| BAIER: The purpose—we went in, the purpose was to—and John Yates, and I wish I could remember that gentleman’s name from Bell County, were the two undercover operatives. And then there was Lieutenant McCollum and Dean Priddy and myself. Those two ran the cameras, and I ran logistics outside for them, and we rented a little shop off of Barnard Street. And we built in a room in between, had one bay and a door where we could videotape and record both sides. And the purpose was to identify and arrest thieves in Waco-McLennan County. Again, burglary and theft was running rampant, and Scott wanted to do something about it. So we did and it’s like the old saying goes, “If you build it, they will come.” |01:36:59| And you know, I finally I had to tell them, Guys, we’ve got too many stolen cars. We are creating a stolen car. Because they would go down to these used car lots, go on a test
    ©Baylor University 47 drive, get a key made, and then come back later that night and steal it. In fact, one night, we had one guy come in, drive his car in the lot, shut the door in the bay area, and says, “How much will you give me for this car?” And he’d stolen two or three, and so we were at the limit. And I said, “I’ll give fifty dollars for it.” “Man, okay. Give me fifty, but I need the battery because the battery on it ran out, and I had to take the battery from my car to get in here.” (laughs) So, I mean there were some comical deals. I mean, we’d write them checks, and they’d go up to—is it Twelfth [Street], Thirteenth [Street]?—Twelfth, and cash them. We’d write them checks for the stolen property. And of course, the check came back with thumbprint, and you know, yeah, I mean, it was fortunate that we didn’t run into any geniuses. |01:38:06| The sad thing about it was we were getting property that was stolen, but we couldn’t identify where. So, then I said, “Well, we’re going to have to—and plus, what are we going to do with all this?” My garage at my house was full of stolen property. John Yates had acres out on China Spring, and we rented one of these semi-trailers. We had it stacked full of property. We had cars parked out there at his place because we couldn’t—we finally ended up getting the cars recovered pretty close afterwards so that they wouldn’t sit forever, and—but we were having trouble identifying where the burglaries were coming too. And of course, then the people got to asking us, What are you doing with this? Well, we’re taking it out of town. That’s why we ask you, Is it hot, or is it not? If it’s not, then we’ll sell it in town. If it’s hot, we want to get it out of town. |01:39:01|

    Like

    Reply

  29. ©Baylor University 48 And so, then I said, “Guys, we’ve got to make some cases. Any of them that are dope dealers?” Well, yeah, they’re all dope dealers, but they’re burglars too. I said, “Well, then buy dope off them, because dope is—.” So we started buying speed and heroin off of them, along with the property. And that’s where really actually most of the cases ended up was drug cases based upon stolen property. Man, we had this lady out in McGregor. I wish I could remember her name, but she had a little crew working with her, and they would go to vacant houses and take up carpet. I mean, everything. You’d have to have—bring a U-Haul to them to do it. And then they’d take a penny on a dollar for it. You know, it was—we went about a year, and about the last four months, I was working undercover with John. And yeah, it was pretty successful. They ran another one after that with Frank Turk and—guy, he went into computer crimes, and he quit, retired. They did real well too. But they almost had to buy dope to be able to link it all together. SUTCLIFFE: Were you surprised by how successful y’all were? |01:40:32| BAIER: Yeah, because really, we did get—the problem is we had to find a way to get the property back to the people or to the insurance company. Because what was happening—and that was one logistic we never looked at, and we just said, Well, we’ll run it for six to eight months, and then we’ll return all the property. The problem is by that time, most the property—the insurance—it belonged to the insurance company. And it really wasn’t fair to the insurance company, per se. So, on the next deal, we got together, and they formulated a plan to be able to get the property back to the insurance or the insurer. Yeah, like I said, we had cars that—I remember buying three brand new Volvos stolen off the
    ©Baylor University 49 lot in—out of Dallas-Fort Worth and paid $500 a piece for them. Brand-spanking new—had 200 miles on it basically. And how that guy got us, somehow down the loop, he heard about us and called us and said, “Yeah, come on. Let’s do it.” |01:41:45| The other one, real funny one—I’ll try to be quick on it—is I had this one guy that was coming in all the time. We’d made four or five cases on him, and he kept telling John, he said, “Listen, I’ve got this jeweled sword that I’m going to steal. Will y’all buy it?” John says, “Well yeah, bring it.” He goes, “No, I need some help.” He goes, “I can’t help you.” He goes, “Either you’re going to help me, or I’ll find somebody that will, and that—somebody that will buy it.” And he was on us like this for probably a week or so. John comes to me, and I said, “Find out. He won’t tell me where it is.” He says, “We’ll get in the car, and we’ll go there.” So, I go to this Chief Scott and he says, “Go find out.” So, one evening we head off. Darren(??), John, and his partner from—I think it was Belton. |01:42:39| Anyway, they were in our undercover van along with the crook, and they’re southbound on the interstate. So, I’m following. And I told them beforehand, You put him in a motel room. We’re hoping that he’s our—we are his only mode of transportation. We’ll get another motel, so—we’ll know where he is. So, they did. So, I pull up beside him in this other motel we’re getting(??). I said, “Well, what did you find out?” He said, “It’s a jeweled sword.” I mean, he said it’s a massive sword, and he said, “It’s some guy by the name of Darrell Royal.” And I go, “Darrell Royal? You don’t know who Darrell Royal is?” Neither one of them were athletes or whatever. He goes no. I said, “Dadgum. The

    Like

    Reply

  30. ©Baylor University 50 football stadium is named after Darrell Royal.” So we go to our motel room. I dial up Austin PD and I said, “Listen, I don’t know where you’re going to direct me, but this is what I’m doing.” He goes, “Well, Darrell Royal’s house is in Travis County.” So I call Travis County. They said, We’ll have a detective there at your room tomorrow morning at eight o’clock. I said okay. Eight o’clock. Man, they’re pounding on the door. So, I bring him in. I tell them we’ve got this guy that’s going to—wants to burglarize Darrell Royal’s house, and it’s got a jeweled sword in his house that he was there and saw. And they go, How does he know Darrell Royal? Evidently the story is that he knows a girl, who knows Billy Joe Schaver and that they were all at a party at Darrell Royal’s house with Willie Nelson, and he pulled out the sword. And he wants to go get the sword. |01:44:18| And they said, Really? I said yeah. Well, they knew Willie and Darrell were close friends, so I said, “The only way—the guy’s carrying a gun. We’ll try to get him off. But I hope you understand if we take him down, then it’s going to bust our deal in Waco. We would like for y’all to take him down.” And they said, We’d love to. So I said, “Go get Mr. and Mrs. Royal’s permission to burglarize their house (Sutcliffe laughs) and we’ll do it. If not, then you’ll stop the car, and you’ll arrest him for the gun violation.” And they said okay. So, they went and asked Mr. and Mrs. Royal, and they said yeah. So, they left that next day, and both our—excuse me—guys were in the car. And I told them sheriff’s deputies were in the closet and in the house, and they left the door open so they wouldn’t bust it. And I said, “For no reason you go into that house. You let him go in.” Okay, okay. “Now, but I want you out of the car. And if your hat is on, that means he’s got the gun on him. If your hat is off, that means you have the gun.” Because I told him, “We
    ©Baylor University 51 need to get that gun. We don’t want him killing somebody in Darrell Royal’s house.” So anyway, he got out of the car with his hat on, so—but there were two burly Travis County folks waiting in the closet, and when he pulled that sword out from underneath the bed, they snatched his ass up. |01:45:50| So, we’re at the Travis County Sheriff’s Office, and I’m sitting down there talking to—I don’t know, a detective or whatever, and Darrell’s over there getting pictures with all these deputies. And he comes up and says, ‘Dennis?’ He said, “You want a picture with me?” I said, “Coach, 1970, I got a letter from you—’69, actually—saying, ‘We’re really looking forward to your coming football year. Have a great one and I’ll be in contact.’ I never heard from you.” He looked at me and he goes, “How tall are you?” I said, “Five [foot] ten [inches] and a half.” He said, “What do you run the forty in?” I said, “About four-six.” He goes, “Dennis, I’m sorry, but you’re not big enough or fast enough.” And I laughed and we laughed. And I said, “Besides that—I’m a graduate of the largest Baptist institute in the world, Baylor University, and what would Grant Teaff say if I got a picture with you?” And he goes, “Screw Grant Teaff.” But those two—that was pre-cell phone, and he would—his wife would call me at home about once a week, just saying, Hey, have you heard anything? I said, “I’ll call and check with Travis County.” And they were the sweetest people. Truly both of them—he a gentleman, and she quite a lady. SUTCLIFFE: That’s funny. So, you went and asked them for permission burglarize their house? |01:47:18|

    Like

    Reply

  31. ©Baylor University 52 BAIER: Their house, yeah. I just—you know, we weren’t going to do it without them knowing about it, and if they were totally against it, we’d figure out another way because we had three or four cases on the guy. I wish I could remember his name. Yeah, he was plenty hurt burglarizing Darrell Royal’s house in Travis County. You just don’t do that. Just don’t do that. SUTCLIFFE: I wonder—again, this is more stuff that I’ve read about through research and my work here at the library. I’m wondering if you can speak to the conflict between the PD and the DA’s office. BAIER: Under Feazell? SUTCLIFFE: Under Feazell. BAIER: Oh yeah. SUTCLIFFE: And again, mind you—I’m not taking sides. I don’t have an opinion. |01:48:16| BAIER: I really—I don’t remember where I was at the time. I don’t remember whether I was in—I know at one time I was in narcotics because Feazell wanted the control of the narcotics unit. And I told him, You don’t want control. You want a separation. We need the checks and balances. You don’t—if you have a prosecutor that’s in with us, riding with us, he or she becomes a witness to the crime, and you need somebody that’s standoffish that’s going to be checks and balances, to make certain that we’re doing what we need to be doing.
    ©Baylor University 53 |01:48:58| And—so, where was I? That may have been before. Anyway, at some point in time—when Donnie Tidmore and his group—Stan Presley, I think, was over there at the time, who I really respect, and Donnie Tidmore, I respect. Evidently, they got on some information, and I was not privy to it—information that Vic’s office was taking bribes, basically, for particularly DWIs, and they went to the assistant United States Attorney, Jan—Patterson? SUTCLIFFE: That sounds right. I can’t swear to that, but that sounds right. |01:49:49| BAIER: Yeah, I think it was Jan Patterson. She’s a real nice lady. And they began investigating, and of course, that turned into hostile feelings, because according to some—now, I just can’t believe it—but that Vic caught people trying to wiretap his phone. I’m not for certain about wiretapping, but I don’t think he’d do it—have to do it on the pole outside the person’s house. You go to a connection point, you know? And of course, now it’s much easier but—and also stealing his trash. And if I were him, I’d have been upset too. Now, I think one of the missed points on that whole deal was the United States Attorney’s office pulled Jan off the case right before trial. And you know, who does that unless there’s something amiss—to me? |01:50:52| And that thing was doomed for failure right from the start, once the trial started. I mean, and in fact, I talked to—during all that time, I remember talking to an attorney general—

    Like

    Reply

  32. ©Baylor University 54 assistant attorney general out of Austin for the state—and he said, “You know, the problem with Texas—if you’ve got a bad DA, you’ve got a bad DA. There’s nothing’s going to happen to them unless you vote them out. You’ve just got to vote them out. Attorneys aren’t going to convict another attorney. They’re not going to do it—very unlikely.” SUTCLIFFE: Was there—aside from him wanting to have more control over narcotics—was there additional conflict? |01:51:43| BAIER: The only thing I can think of—and again, I was not familiar with all the inner workings that—I wasn’t involved in any—is that evidently one of the narcotics officers got word that one of their suspects got off of a deal because the attorney paid Feazell or one of his underlings. And that’s what I think generated—and they got to looking at DWIs. And—but I’m not for certain of the exact seed that germinated into that big blow-up. Because I mean ,it was—in fact, I got a bumper sticker, and I don’t remember getting it, but it said, “Forward Feazell(??) to Fort Leavenworth.” And I don’t know where it is, but I think too—before Feazell moved into office, we pretty much—I mean, officers could walk right in and go. |01:52:55| When he got in there, he had locked doors. You had to ask, and I think that’s a good idea personally. You don’t want somebody just walking in, whether it be a police officer or private citizen, where you’ve got evidence stacked up and things like that and paper that
    ©Baylor University 55 is not for public consumption, you know, reports. I just—I had no problem with that. Some people did, but I didn’t. |01:53:24| I think part of Vic’s problem—I mean, he was so young and energetic, and again, he had a lot of good ideas. It just—I think he was—and I don’t know. I truly don’t. I know he was paranoid of all the police, because there’s one day at a driving range off of Lake Air Drive, I walked in there, and he was there. And I was walking out to a little stall to hit. And his boy wasn’t this big. (signals) He says, “See that? That’s one of the policemen you need to be worried about.” And I didn’t have anything to do with his deal. Yeah, I had nothing to do with his deal. SUTCLIFFE: Let me back up—because my mind is random, and I just thought back to something I meant to ask you earlier, which was—when you went to records, what was your job over there as a sergeant in records? |01:54:23| BAIER: Well, the chief called and asked if I’d go, and I said, “Sure. I mean, you’re the one that—you kind of can assign me anywhere. You can assign me to the low-water dam if you so choose, and I can either choose to or quit.” So he said, “Yeah. I need you to go to records,” because they put in a brand new computer deal, and that was the beginning of our computer—before, everything else was paper, and they had just bought this whole new computer system and stuff. So, that was—and I felt like, eh, that’s something I need to be on the ground floor, you know? I said, “Being inside is not my forte,” but I tell you,

    Like

    Reply

  33. ©Baylor University 56 it was one of the hardest things I ever did, truly. I mean, all the women—they fought, and I would have to bring them in the office when I’d come in. I’d say, Okay, tell me your side. And wait a minute, I’ll let you tell your side, but we’re going to—now, let’s all be friends, you know. Oh, it was a—plus, I was cooped up inside, and I just don’t like to be cooped up inside. And then of course, boy, I hit some button one midnight shift, and it started running reports, and I didn’t know how, any idea how to stop. It just kept running and running. I had to call Harry Carothers and say—who was in charge of it—How do I turn it off? He goes, “Hit this button and that button,” and I must have burnt half a redwood forest down. SUTCLIFFE: (laughs) Well, I’m thinking here. We’re coming up on two hours, and I want to start asking you about your move back to DEU, but I’m kind of almost hesitant to get into that right now. |01:56:13| BAIER: Well, make it easy on yourself. I can make it another day. You’re not taking vacation, though, today are you? Right now? SUTCLIFFE: Tomorrow, no. So whose idea was it for you to go back to DEU? |01:56:33| BAIER: It was kind of a process that was—that folded over from the undercover C.A.T. Sales, where we had all this property and all this dope, and we hadn’t been to trial on any of it, and so they just moved me into the drug enforcement office. And at that time, I
    ©Baylor University 57 want to say H. E. O. [Harold] Steig was the lieutenant, and there was Monroe Kelinske as a sergeant, and Billy Kevil as a sergeant. |01:57:07| So, for a period of time, I was doing my own thing along with John Yates, trying to process the property, get it back to the owners at the insurance company as well as the dope that we had seized—make certain it was processed, and get ready for court for whatever cases that we needed to go to court on. And then it just kind of evolved where I stayed there, and John went back to patrol. He didn’t want to play dope anymore, and like I say, I stayed. So, there was kind of a—and Monroe Kelinske and I were field supervisors, and Billy Kevil was in charge of the two-day people that would handle all the patrols—drug cases that came out of patrol. And then Monroe and I would supervise the field agents out in the field. SUTCLIFFE: You mentioned earlier—I thought—I guess I was going to ask you this later, maybe, but now is as good a time as any. You mentioned something about testing. At one time, there was no testing—you just put in a request. BAIER: Right. SUTCLIFFE: When did that come about, and what did that involve? |01:58:27| BAIER: There was a—again, I don’t know whether it was the association or CLEAT—pulled up a case where somebody in some other jurisdiction had filed a grievance, and—

    Like

    Reply

  34. ©Baylor University 58 or it may have been, they were redoing the general orders. It was part of the general orders—transfer policy was established. And in there, they delineate the steps in transferring to a different—now, you can be transferred within your patrol. You can be transferred anywhere in patrol if there’s an open spot and you have seniority and whatever. But to go from patrol to CID, patrol to narcotics, patrol to computer crimes, patrol to anywhere else, you have to take a test for it. |01:59:19| But I can’t remember the nexus of why that actually occurred. I think it had something to do with—they were rewriting the general orders, and somebody would come up with a grievance where somebody had filed somewhere that it wasn’t fair. So, then they put the onus on whatever unit it is, in our case drug enforcement, to develop a test that fit the parameters of the procedure. And one of the problems was—in narcotics, I can attest to this personally, is that—yeah, it gave us—because the written test was probably 80 percent or 70 percent of the transfer, it gave us people that knew how to read and write and remember, but it provided us very few clues as to their people skills. |02:00:11| And I remember the commander—me talking to the commander, I said, “It’s taking all our intuition, all of our people skills out of it. And I said, “And that’s what we want over here.” And he goes, “I’d rather be more fair or try to be at least objective about it than subjective.” And I kind of agree with him, but for all the years I was over there, I was always trying to massage the situation to try to find out more about their investigative skills, their people skills, and never was very successful but tried all the time.
    ©Baylor University 59 SUTCLIFFE: But why test at all? I mean, I know aside from the grievance, but just on principle, why test someone who’s already become an officer? |02:01:10| BAIER: I think the reason was, and to some degree I believe in it, there is a real strong tendency for a good old boy, and I think that’s what they were trying to eliminate, was the fact that–I’m going pull my friends with me wherever I go. And I remember we had one Hispanic guy. Boy, he interviewed, but his test score wasn’t good. He was one we all wanted. I mean, his—we had the oral interview, and then we have a—we developed a—where they would interview somebody. We’d find somebody they didn’t know, and we would set up a scenario and basically, even with that, we had to set up a grading system for—did they get this answer; did they get that answer; did they solicit this question? So, it was semi-objective but really not. I mean, we tried not to be too objective about it—or subjective about it—but we really wanted him. But he just didn’t muster the written test part. And I—but I do believe that that’s the reason they went to that, is to keep cronyism out of it. SUTCLIFFE: Can you—I don’t know if you can. Can you speak to what was tested? |02:02:49| BAIER: Yeah. If they came to health and safety, or if they came to drug enforcement, we would do—I got away from the health and safety code because that’s in a book, and they can find it. What I started doing was looking through court cases, and I would print up Supreme Court cases, Texas court cases, and maybe Louisiana or wherever, California,

    Like

    Reply

  35. ©Baylor University 60 I’d pick up—and primarily centered on search and seizure, and stop and frisk, and things that are critical. And they’d get a stack this big, and you know, maybe four or five cases. And there would be questions on the test in reference to that. Now, there would also be a couple health and safety codes. But we would identify the certain area in the health and safety code that would pertain to the test, so it wasn’t like they were going to have to remember all these exotic names of all these drugs. I mean, that’s—we had one sergeant who wanted to do that. I said, “No, that’s—all that is is a catch them. That’s stupid. Do you—can you spell it even?” No. “You know, so don’t worry about that. That’s what the book is for.” SUTCLIFFE: What was different—aside from ten years, I guess—what was different about it when you went back? Well, that and you were a supervisor—when you went back the second time compared to your first time there? |02:04:27| BAIER: I think the supervision with both Monroe, me, and Billy Kevil and then the commanders Steig and [Eldon] Swenson were over there. And that’s when we were at Bridle Path, where the zoo is now. We really looked much closer, and we—there was—even though we had different offices, we would always talk about what each other was, each other’s troops were doing. We set up a deal where on Tuesdays—first thing, we would all have a staff meeting with everybody. And as a troop, you were required to tell us what you were working on. “No, I don’t have anything.” Well, you then you didn’t do anything last week? Or—and the reason we’d have it on Tuesday, because we started work, and Monday through Friday, it was like—well, it still was six to two, but we ended
    ©Baylor University 61 up changing it to three to eleven, so they would have some opportunity to go to the DA’s office without overtime or comp time or the DPS or wherever at USA’s office. |02:05:39| So—but we developed a staff meeting, so there was more communication between all of the parties there to include officers. We still didn’t have a system of notes where it was compiled and everybody had access to it. It was still kind of—I had my notes in my drawer; you had your notes in your drawer, and the two shall never meet. And so yeah, that was one of the biggest changes, I think, was the amount of supervisors that they put over there. Because when I first started, there was one sergeant, and then we really reported to the captain. When I went back over there, there were three sergeants, a commander, and then assistant chief and a chief, and so, there was much more supervision then it was. And to be quite blunt, I was pretty fortunate that I was—I knew most of the tricks that the guys were going to try to pull and things they wanted to do that we shouldn’t be doing, and so did Billy. So, I think, that the supervisors over there both wanted to be there—all of them wanted to be there, plus they had experience with it. And so I—and I think that was the biggest difference. SUTCLIFFE: You mentioned in the first interview—I think there was something like five of y’all the first time you were over there. BAIER: Right. SUTCLIFFE: When you went back, how many—aside from the three of y’all—how many detectives or whatever y’all want to call them were there?

    Like

    Reply

  36. ©Baylor University 62 |02:07:31| BAIER: There were probably—let’s see. One we had working days, and there were probably eight, and at one time, there were—it evolved into where each one of us sergeants had five troops. Five troops plus—and then there were—well, not each of us. Two sergeants had five troops, so there were ten investigators. And one of those—in fact, we had eleven investigators at one time because it was—he or she was doing the day work. And they did away with that position, so I think at its peak there were probably ten or twelve officers, three supervisors, and a secretary. Now it’s evolved in I think—well, when I left, I think there were ten officers, two supervisors, or two first-line supervisors and then one commander. SUTCLIFFE: You mentioned in the first interview that when you went in there originally, y’all would hit the bars, I guess you could say, and try to make your buys that way. Can you speak to how the tactics had changed when you went back? |02:08:55| BAIER: Yeah, I think number one is—to work undercover, you have to have a certain personality. Not everybody has that, and so as much as we would like for officers to be broad based and all of them be able to do all things, we recognized real early that there were some people that just didn’t have what it—the BS that it took to do undercover. So, of course, they morphed into more things. One of the things that we did pretty extensively was—since we didn’t have—since they did away with the city jail, we no longer had access to our prisoners before they bonded out. We really tried to work the county jail hard to develop sources of information.
    ©Baylor University 63 |02:09:47| Plus, there were—many times we would do kind of like what you talked about, your taillight traffic stops. We’d have a patrol stop somebody because of a taillight out and whatever, smell marijuana, and then take them from there. Plus, we’d put out our—you know, we’d talk to patrol constantly, or I had the troops talk to patrol. And I even went to a couple of roll calls where I’d say, Hey, if you get out here and you stop somebody, and it’s a minor amount of dope—I don’t care what kind, heroin, weed, and they’re not being disrespectful—I don’t have a problem if you call us and let us come out in the middle of the night and interview. Because as long as they’re identified, we can get a warrant anytime. But that’s your decision. I’m not telling you to or not. I’m just saying, Give us some help, and we’ll try to help you in your area as far as drug houses go. And that worked out real well, and especially the young troops that we got from patrol, who still had connections, they were getting called all the time to go out and say, you know, their beat partner would say, Hey, remember? Come out here and talk this guy. I think he wants to help himself. |02:10:56| So, and that was—we didn’t do a whole lot of—when I was back the last time, I’m trying to remember. We did very little barroom hopping. It was all kind of that way. Because really being in a bar, it creates potentially a lot of issues. Number one is you’ve got alcohol, and if you’re in there too long, then you’ve had probably too much to drink unless you’re very, very diligent about it and nursing it. And one hand, you don’t want to be seen as a nurse, you know. And so it’s very—the one places they would hit would be

    Like

    Reply

  37. ©Baylor University 64 the—if I could—you know, the topless places because all those girls knew what was going on, and all you had to do was make one of them a case. And basically, they were a source of information that was almost never ending. Yep. |02:12:04| Yeah, plus you could sit in there and—but you, again—you had to be careful about drinking because the waiters. We had—I forget where it—I wasn’t in narcotics at the time. But we had one officer get in there and spent—they bought a bottle of champagne. I bet you they spent $150, $200. And you know, I can remember when we would get $60 a month for buy money. That was it. And he spent, you know, six months worth of—and didn’t buy any dope. That was all table dances and champagne and beer. I’m going, Lord, lordy, lordy. See, I’m trying to remember. That’s kind of confusing. I’m going to have to go back and search my memory because I don’t remember where I was during the Tidmore—you know, I must have been in records at that time. |02:13:09| I think I was. It was right after the sting. No, it couldn’t have been. I need to re-sort that out, because again, my timeline in my mind is—because I remember getting a call from the chief asking if I wanted to go into or if I’d go into records. You know, it’s funny how some things you have pictures of, and other things are just blurry, and—but then I don’t remember. I could have sworn that was what may have been. It was during—right before, and that’s what it was. The Feazell deal with Tidmore’s group happened while we were doing the undercover. I wasn’t associated per se with the department. Yeah, it was after records. But that’s where I was during all of that.
    ©Baylor University 65 SUTCLIFFE: I think I’m going to save more of the DEU stuff for the next session. BAIER: Very good. SUTCLIFFE: But I do want to back up and ask this, because naturally it slipped my mind the first time. Going back to Operation CAT—was there a diversity in your so-called customers? |02:14:50| BAIER: Oh yeah. Yeah, in fact we had to—we bought heroin and stolen property from African Americans, Hispanics, whites. It was—probably most of them were either African American or white, as far as races go. But again, we bought some stuff we just had to throw away. I mean, it was a junk, but we had to buy it to try to lure them in. And then some of them would bring us good stuff, and others we’d have say we’re not taking. You can take that back. But we hated to because somewhere in there, there may be a serial number, there may be a mark that will lead to us where that item was stolen from. And that’s why I say that—we ended up buying heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, just about—I don’t think we bought any acid. We haven’t seen a lot of acid. But I think in general it was successful. But we had to go out and recruit. |02:16:11| In fact, part of the deal was—I got the call from DPS—a guy that I have the highest regard for. And DPS had been using this two brothers, black brothers, in Austin. And basically, what they did was set up a deal where—if they’d go out, and they’d go to bars and whatever, kind of take the place of us—they would introduce an agent to people they

    Like

    Reply

  38. ©Baylor University 66 had met, and they’d buy dope, and then they’d introduce the agent to them. So, I said, “Bring them all up. Let me talk to them.” So they did, and well I talked to them, and they got paid per case, and a per diem on driving up here. We got them a motel or an apartment and basically put them in place. And we told them, I said, “We’ll give you buy money to go out and buy dope. We’re not paying you for defending(??). One of my troops has to be there and actually receive the dope and pay the person. You can be there, but you also are going to be a witness.” And they said, Fine, fine. They signed the contract and the whole bit. |02:17:29| So that’s how we got a lot of our customers, because they were driving a brand-new Lincoln. They could go anywhere. They had a gift for gab, gift for gab. And then it all fell apart. Well, it really didn’t fall apart on our behalf because our guys were there buying dope. When they bought—and then we’d always make two cases, at least two cases off of every person—even when they’re not there—the two undercover hires, agents. I guess you’d call them hired guns. When it was all said and done, I called Billy Kevil, and I said, “Billy, do you want these two guys? They may be of some benefit for you. You know, you could probably pay them for a search warrant as well as for defendants.” They said, Yeah, so he went, and I said—Odie and Danny(??) was their name—goodbye and good luck. So, they rocked along, and they did some bang-up cases with them. About six or eight months later, I get a call from Deputy Reagan(??)—who’s the doctor, chief chemist out at DPS—and said, “Dennis, we’ve got a problem.” I said, “What’s the problem?” And I said, “These cases that Danny and Odie(??) make?” Yeah. Well, they went to Corpus afterward and worked with DPS down there. DPS started
    ©Baylor University 67 testing the quantitative and qualitative and found that there was a high amount of some kind of aspirin, specific kind of aspirin, enmeshed with this cocaine. |02:19:09| So, I ran the test up here, and it also was messed with cocaine. So I called Billy and I said, “Billy, how did you do this?” He said, “Well, we’d send them into places, and they’d bring the dope out, and we’d pay them.” I said, “You didn’t put an agent in there with them?” No, no. I said, “Your cases are gone. They’re ruined.” And so, they ended up having to dismiss all those cases. I mean, it was—even though we got quality crooks, and they actually bought dope off of them. The problem is between them buying the dope and giving it to the man, they scraped off a portion and put the powder—the cutting agent in there, and then wrapped it back up and gave it to them. So, did that answer your question? SUTCLIFFE: Yes. BAIER: Kind of, sort of? SUTCLIFFE: Yeah, no— BAIER: Yeah, because they were our net. We used them on CAT Sales to actually broaden our horizon. Now, the guys would go to bars and pass out cards, but we used them. They’re the ones that really jumpstarted us.

    Like

    Reply

  39. ©Baylor University 68 SUTCLIFFE: Was it—can you definitively say, or is it to your sense that almost—a lot of everything you bought—the property anyway—through the Operation CAT—was related to drugs? Or is that too broad of a statement? |02:20:46| BAIER: That’s pretty broad. I think most—because of the street level we were working at—yeah, I’d say most of them. They weren’t there. They weren’t burglarizing to buy bread and milk. They were burglarizing to get dope. They almost all had a habit, and so, I would venture to say that I would think that drugs were the driving force behind it in most, probably 80, 90 percent of the time. In fact, I can’t think of any of them. There may have been one person that was working that stole off his job. But most of them were break and shatter. And most of them were home. Very few of them were business burglaries. Most of them were home burglaries. SUTCLIFFE: Can you recall— BAIER: Or shoplifting. Shoplifting was a big deal. SUTCLIFFE: Can you recall, or do you know how many were local versus out-of-county jobs? |02:21:48| BAIER: Yeah, I’d say that close to 100 percent were local. Yeah, we had maybe one or two that says, “Don’t take this to Falls County,” you know, so that gave us a clue where to start looking, or Bell County. But that was pretty much the extent of it.
    ©Baylor University 69 SUTCLIFFE: Were y’all able to clear quite a few cases? |02:22:17| BAIER: Not truly as many as I wanted to, because there were so many times—and I talked to the property detectives about it. People don’t think it’s worth reporting it in a lot of instances. You get your car burglarized, and you get, I don’t know. If you’ve got a gun in there, and it gets stolen, you’re going to report it. But you know, if it was a hundred dollars in cash, you may not report it. You say, Man, they’ll never find that hundred dollars in cash so I’m not going to report it. If—the other problem with it is—if the item stolen wasn’t expensive to them, regardless of what it is, what level they’re on, they may not report it either. And the problem with that is you develop patterns by reporting it, and that’s what I would tell everybody. I said, “You need to report everything because a pattern can emerge.” Even if you report it but say I can’t tell you—you know, this was stolen, but I have no identifying marks, and I know you’ll never find it. But you can develop patterns that way—areas of operation. |02:23:34| And I think a lot of the property just had to be disposed of. Tools and stuff like that were either shoplifted or taken out of the back of a truck that nobody said—I’ll just go down to Harbor Freight [Tools] and buy me another one. And that—so a lot of it had to be—we couldn’t identify specifically and—too, a lot of the owners would come down and says, No, that’s not mine. Because the insurance had already paid it off, and they knew that they would have to pay insurance back, were they to get this property back. So, I think there was some shenanigans going on in that direction.

    Like

    Reply

  40. ©Baylor University 70 SUTCLIFFE: Why don’t—I know you’re going to be gone for a little bit, but why don’t we go ahead and stop? And I kind of hate to stop because I’m enjoying this, but it will give me a chance to kind of rethink— BAIER: Yeah. SUTCLIFFE: —and make sure of any follow-ups and stuff like that. And I’ve really, you know, sucked the life out of you, probably. |02:24:43| BAIER: No, I’ve still got to go by Home Depot. SUTCLIFFE: Oh, that’s right. Yes, you do. BAIER: Yeah, and I don’t know if I’ll go out. I told Karen I’d make her dinner tonight, and I’ve got this—you know, she’s on a low-carb diet, so I try to figure everything out. You know, I found this—she really liked it—it was a chicken enchilada with green sauce recipe. So I think I’m going to go home and make that for her. SUTCLIFFE: Well, that sounds like a plan to me. Thank you again for taking time to do this. BAIER: No problem, it’s— SUTCLIFFE: I’ll stop the recorder, and we’ll figure out a time to get back together again. BAIER: Sounds good. end of interview

    Like

    Reply

  41. So, that’s all of the second interview, the only interview they discuss the Lake Waco Murders. I’ll get around to posting the third interview at some point but it has little to no value for us interested in the Lake Waco Murders.

    Like

    Reply

  43. Thx for detailed replies to my quest. I still dont know what to think. I lived around neighborhoods between methodist home and lake waco and ive heard some guy say he would kill some if they ever sold him fake drugs and countless other people saying similar things like rhat, it could be tough guy talk, even though their are countless examples of murder for stupider reasons. Thats why i think that the methodist boy was going to be killed either way by some idiot dealer or lakey and the deeb conspiracy wasnt really needed and the girls were just wrong place wrong time.

    Like

    Reply

    • Marky, I’m always happy to reply to inquest, it keeps the conversation going. Thank you for your comments. Did you live in Waco in 1982? And again I still believe the drug burn scenario is quite plausible but that doesn’t preclude Spence, Deeb and the Melendez brothers. And the rumor going around was not that Kenneth sold some one fake drugs, it was that he owed some one for some drugs. Maybe just a rumor but multiple sources reported the same as to the amount of money Kenneth owed; $500. Either that information came from one root source and then others repeated it, not impossible, we have that in this case with people seeing Tab Harper in Koehne Park the evening of July 13th. We have multiple sources reporting this, the number I usually see thrown around is 6. But when you look into it, read the police reports, none of those people actually saw Harper or were even in Koehne Park the night of July 13th. They had all heard Tab Harper was there from one source; Rusty Escott. Once the original investigators realized this and that they had wasted so much time tracking down this bogus info, they were done and suspended the case, without following up others leads that would have bared better results. So we can’t say that the genesis of the rumor of Kenneth’s drug activity was one root source, spread and reported by others . I doubt it, that story/tip/lead is just so prevalent in the police reports. The calls pointing the finger at Tab Harper all came from kids in two days after the murders; Thursday July 15th and Friday July 16th, then Waco PD spent nearly two months tracking that info down. Information on Kenneth’s drug activity came through out the investigation. But it is the amount of money that many people knew is the thing that sticks out to me, they agree it was $500. No one could say whom exactly Kenneth owed the money to and Waco PD never could find out but the amount seemed to be well known. Which brings me to the question; Why did Jill Montgomery and Raylene Rice cash three checks between them for a total of a little over $620? Second question; during the trials bot Muneer Deeb and his business partner, Karim Qusem testified that after they closed up their store, in contradiction to Christine Juhl stating and testifying she closed the store with Deeb that night, they went to look for some one that owed Deeb money, who was this? Just a couple questions from the multitude I have.

      ;

      Like

      Reply

  44. I moved to centx in 86 and didnt ever really hear much on story until i read the texmo article this year but theres still drug and crime problem in area. Im more into ghost hunter stuff shows and forums this is only time ive gotten into crime story because of waco nostalgia and its still less crazy than davidan story which is to weird for me. Ive only read a tiny fraction of ur site so mayb il change my mind on deebs role if i can get thru it. I dont listen to podcasts but i mite try urs since the amt of info.

    Like

    Reply

    • Mark, did you read the book Careless Whispers? That’s how I first came across the case back in the mid to late 80’s. Of coarse the book has a totally bias view and probably bends some facts but it is a great way to get an overall view of the case from the beginning . Then it is so interesting to see how the narrative and peoples stories and recollections have evolved so much over the years. I’m not sure if I would rate crimes that garner national attention by their craziness, maybe other than the Manson murders, for just pure craziness they can’t be beat. The Branch Davidian massacre was a nation tragedy and injustice. All cases are tragic in their own way. I thing the thing that sticks out with the Lake Waco Murders, is that there was a bad situation going on between the teenage girls from the Methodist Home and Muneer Deeb at the Rainbow Drive – In. It looks as if a number of people knew about it and turned a blind eye towards it until the three teenagers were killed and then people wondered wow how could this have happened and how did it happen and they still have many questions and no one can be sure 100%.. Funny one mention ghost hunting, I’m presently in Gettysburg PA., very well known for it’s haunted history. If you are into that kind of stuff check out the Gettysburg Hotel on YouTube.

      Like

      Reply

      • Thx 4 recs i will see if i can get that book in audio online or a
        audio reader access i dont read books anymore due 2 eye strain mostly audio or in small chunks like searching this site and other ghost,etc. forums/social media. Gettysburg is one i want to look at it seems deep south has some mystical connection vibe with just about everything. Nice point on tragedys like davidans and others i guess another reason this case is interesting is it has a strange vibe like camp crystal lake meets jfk where everyone has it out for methodist boy and its in the 80z im big on 1920s50s80s nostalgia and other novelty events.

        Like

  45. Well, I just finished listening to the latest podcast dealing with the Lake Waco Murders. It is a 4 part series that came out a little over a month ago. As is usual with these podcast the misinformation and mistakes are too numerous to detail each one. It took me three days to get through the approximate hour and a half of content. There was one thing mentioned I would like to get into, it’s not very often you hear about this aspect of the case and it is very important as to where the case stands today. The podcaster did not delve deep into the matter but at least it was good to hear it at least mentioned for a change. This has to do with the fingernail clippings taken from victim Jill Montgomery. In the podcast it states that the M.E. didn’t or couldn’t find any DNA under the fingernails. Which is true, in the autopsy the M.E. states there was organic matter present but it could not be determined if it was plant or animal because there was too much dirt or soil mixed in. Apparently with the advances with technology had has changed over the years and in that last decade or so those same fingernail clippings could provide some of the answers everybody wants. But where does all this stand now? Again, as usual nothing in this case is easy, simple and clean cut. I will share the podcasts first and then later I will comment and question things. Although I do not recommend these podcast for anyone looking for accuracy on the facts of the Lake Waco Murders but it is still good to see the interest in the Lake Waco Murders still exist and these podcast help keep the case in the public conscientious.

    Like

    Reply

    • Hi I’ve received several msgs regarding comments on your site about the murder of my friend Robert Frueh. You and I corresponded about his death several years ago. These new comments indicate that one of your readers knows Robert’s murderer. I’ve tried to enter that conversation but frankly cannot navigate wordpress. Can you help? It’s my understanding that the guy who murdered Robert killed himself around 2019 or 2020.

      On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:14 PM Careless Whispers or Contrived Convictions

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • wrtergrl, What can I do to help??? I will surely do what I can. And I would love you to join the conversation. I have to say I have serious questions as to the identity of the guy I was told was the killer.

        Like

      • I can’t seem to get back on the site–not sure how/why I can’t? Do not remember my password and can’t get the site to send me a link for a new one.

        In regard to the identity of the guy who killed Robert, I’m pretty sure I found his identity and that he committed suicide. After you sent me the police report on Robert’s murder a few years back (thank you very much) I did some digging around. I found an old newspaper report/obit that named the guy. The newspaper was based in a community close to Robert’s hometown in Iowa. Tried to contact the writer but he never responded. Maybe dead or maybe he didn’t want to get involved. I have his name as well. I’m pretty sure the guy named in the obit killed himself–around the pandemic time. Don’t know for certain, but surmise this based on comments on the funeral home site. Then found a woman around Waco who must have been his sister on FB–she was obviously in grief and I just couldn’t contact her to satisfy my curiosity.

        Happy to share his name with you as well as other corroborating tidbits–but I’m reluctant as I don’t know who you are really? I mean are you the same guy I originally corresponded with or ??? Can you help me out here? I thought maybe you have a crime podcast but can’t find one?

        >

        Liked by 1 person

      • wrtergrl, are you still having problems getting on the site??? I see you are able to comment, so I don’t understand, sorry!!! I believe I’m the guy you corresponded with before and I did send the police report to someone that new Robert Frueh from before he moved to Waco. The person I sent it to changed their user name once and if this is you this would be the second time you have changed it that I/m aware of. But did you change it this time because you couldn’t your old info??? I have never done a podcast the idea has come up a couple times and I worked on one for a short while but nothing came of it. I wasn’t aware Robert Frueh had a sister but you knew him a lot better than I. I know his brother took care of matters after the murder. Of coarse I would love for you to share the name you have but I understand your reluctance. But just to be honest from a researchers point of view, this has always been a problem with this case, you get info or little tidbits from people but then they don’t want to share it or put it out there. This makes it impossible to verify or have discussions on any number of subjects. Just with Robert Frueh, there is some speculation from some that he could have been involved with the murders. He certainly knew Kenneth Franks, lived close to Kenneth, was a drug dealer and could have been perceived as an easy target for some young punk interested in getting involved in drug dealing as Kenneth apparently was, all these things make Robert Frueh at least a person of interest. Now, personally my view is he wasn’t involved but it’s difficult to prove when we can’t answer a simple question, like who killed him. I’m pretty sure the name you would provide will be different from the name I got last week from another person. It’s just a vicious circle, people say they have information but don’t want to put it out there to be scrutinized and it just gets added to the ever growing pile of could be, might be, but for now it goes on the endless list of unsubstantiated and maybe a couple years from now another person will add another name. Where does it get us??? That’s why I hope you will strongly consider sharing the name, right out in the open, let there be reasonable and respectful debate, that is the only way we will ever be able to bring the issue of Robert Frueh’s involvement to an end!!!

        Like

      • Hi–yes, I’m both HGG and wrtergrl. I changed my name a few years back because I couldn’t get in using my old HGG name! I’m the person you sent the highly redacted police report to. I’m not putting the suspected killer name out in the open because what if I’m wrong? What if the obit writer got the name wrong? The guy I think killed Robert is dead, pretty sure of that. And he still has family in Waco. The sister I referred to in my earlier email is not Robert’s sister (he had only brothers) but the suspected killer’s sister.

        I will share the name with you privately if you send your email? We have to be 100 percent sure before we slander someone. I’m about 99 percent sure. I mean why would an obit writer from a local midwestern paper use that name? Maybe he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to? Or maybe he got it wrong. I have a hard copy of the obit–but I’m away from home until the end of Sept, so I can’t take a pic and send. I’m a writer and have been working on a book for sometime. Are you working on a book?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Again I understand,, again anything I could get is extremely appreciated. My email is bbb2359@yahoo.com. Are you writing a book on the case??? If I can ever get close to finding anything that could reasonably be the truth I will write a book. But honestly after 30 years I don’t think I’m any closer to the truth than I was back then, although the thought of writing a book didn’t come up until a couple years after I started this page, all this was just a hobby before all this!!! Don’t want to put a book out there that’s more about opinion than fact!!!

        Like

      • Also I’m aware of the relationship between Robert and Kenneth Frank’s dad. They knew each other well. In fact, I think Robert baptized him at some point. Maybe before he, Robert, got pulled into addiction?

        Liked by 1 person

  50. I know I have repeated this many times over the years, to the point of nauseum, yet I find the need to repeat again! With each of these podcast it seems we get further and further from the truth, with each passing year the facts get blurrier and blurrier. And as time passes and we lose the primary parties connected to the case we lose the opportunities to find answers to the questions and the truth. Does anyone listen to the Vic Feazell podcast? I’ve listened to a few but they are very boring, it’s just an ego trip for Vic Feazell and doesn’t really go anywhere. I only reason I listened to any of them was Vic kept advertising he was going to do some podcast on the Lake Waco Murders, which as far as I know he never did but again I didn’t listen to all the podcast, so if there are some podcast that deal specifically with the Lake Waco Murders, please someone let me know. In the podcast I listened to I only heard Vic mention the Lake Waco Murders in passing. I even messaged him a couple times to ask him about it and like the other inquiries I have sent him in the past, I get no reply. And now that it seems he is getting away from doing podcast, I think he only did one last year. It is very disappointing to say the least but the most annoying thing about it is how on many of his podcast he goes on about how there are so many loose ends with the Henry Lee Lucas case and he believes lose ends should be tied up. Hello, reality check Mr. Feazell, there’s this case you were involved in called the Lake Waco Murders that has more loose ends than any case in the history of American justice. Maybe you should practice what you preach, preacher man.

    So it’s these disappointments we find in the podcast world, the anticipation of hope and enlightenment, only to left in the dark, scratching your head wondering WT…..?!?!?!? It makes me wonder, I take it that a lot of the people doing these podcast are college students more interested in media or mass media production rather than investigative journalism but shouldn’t they have an obligation to fact check and get the facts correct? Do they understand there are still people living with the awful consequences of the terrible events of July 13, 1982. Nothing can be done for the victims that were killed that night nor the 4 men originally convicted of the murders, they are all long gone now, the only thing we can do now is for their memory. But there are still plenty of living victims on both sides of this case and they have been living with these consequences for more than 40 years now and it has be compounded by the controversy and questions left with these case and with so many people coming forward saying they can prove the wrong men were convicted. Can anyone really imagine what that must be like to live with for over 4 decades? The questions, the doubts, the uneasiness and insecurities And to think this has been going on longer than the internet has been around, which opened up the case to so many people like myself. Before the internet in 1993 I had only read a book, a book I thought had all the answers but through the internet I found that might not be the case and to think the family and friends of those involved had been living with these issues for close to a decade before that. So will the internet finally help provide the answers many have been looking for for so long. I believe that has to be part of the hope when we see another article posted or hear about another podcast but up to now we have been left disappointed. I guess I should get off my rant for the moment, leave it for my next post and get into the one little piece of information that has some value from the latest podcast.

    As I said earlier this was one of the few podcast that mentions the all important fingernail clippings. As with most aspects with the Lake Waco Murders there is some controversy with the status of these clippings. As stated in the podcast in the autopsy nothing of evidentiary value found be found during the initial examination and tested, there was just too much soil or dirt. So at the time it looked like this was a dead end. Even when the subject of DNA and DNA testing first came up in the late 90’s- early 2000’s, we only heard about hairs, the strips of towels and shoe strings used to tie the victims hands behind their backs and some fibers found on the victims bodies, which were at some point identified as coming from automotive carpet, found in cars, trucks and vans. We didn’t hear anything about the fingernail clippings, which didn’t seem odd at the time considering that the autopsy discounted them as a useful source to collect DNA. So all we first hear about being sent to the California lab is the hairs and strips of cloth. The California lad reports they didn’t find anything, then the legal battles begin. The answer that they didn’t find anything is somewhat ambiguous, what does it actually mean? To me it means the lab was unable to make a match between the samples collected at the crime scene; the hairs and cloth strips and the samples collected for comparison. DNA samples were collected from 9 people; David Wayne Spence, Anthony Melendez, Gilbert Melendez, Terry “Tab” Harper, James Russell Bishop, Keith Boatman, is was Harper’s sister’s boyfriend and owner of the van Tab sometime used, Two of the Wilkins clan, brothers or cousins I can’t remember which ones at the moment there were a number of Wilkins law enforcement looked at during the investigation and finally Christine Juhl, who was Spence’s girlfriend at the time of the murders. So that was a decent range of samples but I believe they could have collected from more individuals, especially from the guys that were with Spence at some point on the night of the murders. So, if the lab’s response “We didn’t find anything” means they didn’t make a match from any of those subjects of coarse there would be questions. But the biggest question is; what samples did Fred Dannen sent to the lab in California to be tested. We get a hint of the complex nature of this confusing web in 2012 during a court preceding. I have to add one of this the biggest problems with this case was that Fred Dannen and Bernadette Feazell were the main source of information released to the public for more than 2 decades and they both had personal agendas. Fred Dannen is shadier than a rain forest and Bernadette Feazell is a person of low caliber, neither one of them could or should be trusted, it’s such a travesty that they were given so much reverence for so long. Anyway, during the court hearing it was revealed that Fred Dannen had sent the fingernail clippings to the lab in California for testing and the lab was able to extract male DNA from the clippings, a major breakthrough!!! But the lab won’t release their findings, they are claiming work product or intellectual property which is protected by law. But I believe we are missing part of the story, which wouldn’t be surprising. The lab in California was run by Dr. Edward Blake and he is or was the leading expert in providing DNA evidence during trials. He was testified in over 100 cases, more than any other expert in the field. If is lab found something that could answer questions why doesn’t he release it as he has done so many times before? Something just doesn’t add up. What we do find out is Fred Dannen did not send all the samples to the lab, he kept possession of some. It can be argued that Fred Dannen didn’t sent all the samples to be tested because of cost, which could be true. But as Vic Feazell has stated many times, you can find it on the internet, that Fred Dannen didn’t send the DNA samples collected from Spence and the Melendez brothers to be tested, again the cost issue could be the reason but if you were trying to find the truth and prove these men were innocent you have to send their samples to be tested. You can’t say their DNA wasn’t found if you didn’t send their samples to be tested but that’s how Fred Dannen operates. A few years after this court hearing in 2012 and things were still in limbo and held up in court, Fred Dannen contaminated some of the DNA samples in his possession. His driver made a statement that some of the sample had fallen out of the envelopes and fallen in the back seat of his car. I believe the samples that were contaminated were the fibers of the automotive carpet. When the State learned of this development they stated they would contest any DNA findings related to any of the DNA samples that Fred Dannen had in his possession. With this Fred Dannen took off to Mexico, where I believe he is still today being some theater director or something. But where does that leave the DNA battle and the fingernail clippings? If Dannen send the fingernail clippings to the lab in California, which seems to be the case, then I would have to question if the samples sent to California could still be considered part of the samples contaminated by Fred Dannen? I would say if the lab had them and still has them, then no, they were not contaminated and are still capable of providing answers. Where does this case stand today? The recent podcast mentioned these fingernail clippings but did the podcaster realize the importance they hold? And that’s the problem with these podcast, they are just repeating the same articles over and over again and doing a terrible job of that, not even getting what they read right at times. If only they would do a little research on their own then they might be a little more useful and worth listening to!!!

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment