The Silicon Valley Beat

Mountain View Police Department

Police and podcasting? Say what? It's true! Welcome to the Silicon Valley Beat, the Mountain View Police Department's foray into the world of audio. Each episode, we will go behind the scenes of what a police department looks like in the heart of Silicon Valley (can anyone say, Google?). We'll look at the history of policing, both near and far, and we'll even invite on some special guests as we take a look at law enforcement in the 21st century. So plug in, podcasters. And enjoy any edition of the Silicon Valley Beat. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

  1. Case Closed

    03/18/2020

    Case Closed

    He almost got away with it. Almost, but not quite. Listen to the stunning conclusion of what happens when suspect Daniel Garcia is asked to simply tell the truth about what happened to Saba Girmai back in 1985. This is the final episode of our first limited edition series, Silicon Valley Beat: Major Crimes. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [[Disclaimer: The Silicon Valley Beat, Major Crimes, is a podcast that deep-dives into major cases investigated by the Mountain View Police Department. Because this podcast covers investigations including critical incidents and homicides, what we discuss here may contain material that is not suitable for all listeners. Names and other sensitive information may be changed to protect the identity of the innocent.]] On last week’s episode -- investigators were finally able to meet the man they thought was a suspect in the death of 21-year-old Ethiopian immigrant Saba Girmai. But over the course of a two hour conversation, Daniel Garcia, suspect number one, suddenly began to break any and all theories about his involvement in the case, providing reasonable doubt at every turn. Then suddenly, the course of the conversation changes, and finally, the death of Saba Girmai may see some closure. This is the Silicon Valley Beat: Major Crimes. [[opening bumper]] Episode 5: Case Closed Saul Jaeger: “I got a lot to lose.” That was the moment that changed everything for Detective Chris Kikuchi and Investigator Nate Wandruff. Everything that had been assumed, every second that they felt their one shot at solving this case was slipping away, suddenly, they were right back in it.  Chris Kikuchi: When we first met, we always like to establish rapport with someone. We’ve never met them before. We asked questions related to his family, and he was very talkative, which is good, because anytime someone will speak, we just like letting them continue on as long as they do. Because we want that person to become comfortable speaking with the police. And he was.  Katie Nelson: Let’s look at that a little more closely. Why is rapport with anyone, but particularly a suspect, so important in investigations? According to the work Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research, Regulation, published in 2006, rapport with an interview subject, including suspects, in a criminal case, is “the heart of the interview.” In fact, in a study titled: Police Interviewing and Interrogation, establishing some kind of rapport with a suspect was the fourth most used technique during questioning. In short, rapport in this case was a huge factor in establishing any sort of communication line between Daniel Garcia and the detectives. Having never met before, this rapport was vital to establishing a quick, but solidly built, foundation on which the interview could continue in hopes of having any resolution to the case.  Chris Kikuchi: He kind of portrayed himself as pretty relaxed as he was speaking with us. He was very talkative. He wasn’t asking too many questions, which you kind of expect. If detectives come out to speak with you during a probation meeting, he wasn’t asking a lot of questions, which I thought was peculiar.  Saul Jaeger: “Peculiar,” Kikuchi said. Remember, Kikuchi was concerned that this expedition down to Fresno would not lead to any results and thus far, he seemed to be somewhat right. But was Daniel Garcia’s lack of questions proof of his innocence? Or perhaps, proof that maybe, there is something more there?  Chris Kikuchi: As we were speaking, he just basically got into a little more detail about an incident that occurred regarding her basically stating she had scratched him. And that was how the DNA was under her fingernails. Unprovoked, she had scratched him. Again, that’s during some incident where she was asking him for food or alcohol. He said no. She scratched him. So, that’s how he kind of explained the DNA.  Katie Nelson: A perfectly plausible reason for why Daniel Garcia’s DNA was underneath Saba’s fingernails. The fact that we had the DNA at all was extraordinary, as you learned back in Episode 2. And, if Daniel Garcia had stuck with that story in fact, he would have technically been the victim of an assault.  Chris Kikuchi: At that point, he kept on mentioning that, he never admitted harming her or doing anything to her at that point. So we just kind of stressed, “Look, just tell us the truth, that’s all we want. We just want hte truth.” At which point, then he started giving a little bit more. He said something to the effect of “I have a lot to lose.” Then he finally gave a little bit more detail and description as to what happened during the incident.  We’re getting something now, right? And we just wanted him to continue talking.  Saul Jaeger: And there was about to be another bombshell. Katie Nelson: Similar to other episodes, what you are about to hear is actual audio from the interview with Daniel Garcia. It contains strong language and content that is not suitable for all listeners. Discretion is strongly advised.  Chris Kikuchi: Just the truth, that’s all we want. Saul Jaeger: “We just want the truth.” It’s what they had come for all along. Five small words, and yet a very crucial request. Daniel Garcia looked at the detectives then, and something, some essence in the room, shifted. And that was when everything changed.  Daniel Garcia: We got into a confrontation. Yeah, we did. We got into a confrontation. As I was getting into my car, she jumped in the car. I told her to get out. She didn’t want to get out. I reached over and I grabbed her. She passed out, and I didn’t know she passed out. I just thought she was passed out. And she didn’t move anymore. I drove somewhere, I don’t know where it was, and I thought she was still alive, and I threw her in the garbage can.  Katie Nelson: “Threw her in the garbage can?” Is that what someone who is innocent does to someone who they think may still be alive? Daniel Garcia: I went home. Nobody else was involved. Just me and her. That’s how it went down. It was fast. I don’t know what happened to her after that, I’ve never seen her again until you showed me that. Now I know what happened to her.  Detective whispers: “Wow.” Saul Jaeger: A shocking admission. After professing they had never touched, Daniel Garcia admits to discarding Saba’s limp body into the trash. If you listen closely, you can even hear one of the detectives breathe, “Wow,” in the stunned silence that follows Garcia’s revelation.  Daniel Garcia: It wasn’t a big argument. It was over in a matter of minutes. I just remember strangling her.  Chris Kikuchi: How did you do it? Daniel Garcia: With my hand.  Chris Kikuchi: With your left hand? Daniel Garcia: I don’t think both of them. I don’t remember. I just remembered I strangled her. But I never, ever did anything else to her. I never had sex with her, nothing.  Investigator Wandruff: Alright. Alright.  Katie Nelson: And there it was, in all its honest, albeit initially brief, detail. After nearly 30 years, detectives were finally hearing from the mouth of the man who killed Saba just what had happened. It had been a long, slow road to this moment. Relief, and almost a sense of bewilderment on the part of the detectives, can be heard as they said ‘Alright’ in response to what Garcia was saying.  He almost got away with it. Almost, but not quite.  It was ultimately asking for the truth that set this case free.  At 2:05 p.m. on January 3, 2013, Detective Chris Kikuchi read Garcia his Miranda rights.  Chris Kikuchi: I’m just going to read your Miranda warrant, ok?  Daniel Garcia: What? Chris Kikuchi: Your Miranda rights, ok? You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand? Daniel Garcia: Yes. Chris Kikuchi: Anything you say may be used against you in court, do you understand? Daniel Garcia: Yes. Chris Kikuchi: You have the right to the presence of an attorney before and during any questioning, do you understand? Daniel Garcia: Yes. Chris Kikuchi: If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you, free of charge before any questioning if you want, do you understand? Daniel Garcia: Yes.  Chris Kikuchi: Ok.  Katie Nelson: And then, we began to learn just what happened the day Saba was killed, inside a white Ford station wagon, outside an apartment complex in San Jose on January 18, 1985. Here is Daniel Garcia, in his confession, telling Kikuchi and Wandruff just what happened.  Just another reminder: This section contains strong language. Listener discretion is advised.  Daniel Garcia: It was like I was telling you. I got home from work, same story. I got home from work, I sat down. I was eating my dinner. She came over asking me for money, food, stuff like that. I told her, “I work hard for mine, you need to get a job bitch. Leave me alone.” She kept pestering me. I got up, she slapped me.  And then she scratched me. I just went to my room, thought nothing of it. Came back downstairs, she was still there. Again, she got in my face. I told her to get out of my face, you know what I mean. Get out of my face. And she kept blah blah blah blah blah blah.  Investigator Wandruff: So what happened during the second confrontation. She got up in your face, you said. What does that mean?  Daniel Garcia: Yeah, she got up and she started calling me names, you know what I mean, and stuff like that.  Investigator Wandruff: Yeah, but do you remember what she called you? Daniel Garcia: F****r, a*****e, whatever. You know what I mean? I told her to get out of my face And she just kept going and going.  And then I jumped in my car. She jumped in my car. She wouldn’t get out of my car. I kicked her. Told her to get out of my car.  Investigator Wandruff: What car were you in, do you remember? Daniel Garcia: Oh that car

    27 min
  2. 02/24/2020

    Who is Daniel Garcia?

    Finally, when it seems like investigators are closing in on a man who may be connected to Saba Girmai's murder nearly thirty years later, it all begins to fall apart. In an hours-long interview with Fresno resident Daniel Garcia, detectives learn just how his DNA ends up under Saba's fingernails, and it's a perfectly plausible explanation. Once so full of hope, now investigators think that once again, Saba's killer may have slipped free. This is the fourth episode of our special edition podcast series, Silicon Valley Beat: Major Crimes. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [[Disclaimer: The Silicon Valley Beat, Major Crimes, is a podcast that deep-dives into major cases investigated by the Mountain View Police Department. Because this podcast covers investigations including critical incidents and homicides, what we discuss here may contain material that is not suitable for all listeners. Names and other sensitive information may be changed to protect the identity of the innocent.]] On last week’s episode -- a new lead brought a new hope to a decades-old cold case. But as we began to reinvestigate the case, Saba’s life in and around Mountain View continued to remain shrouded in mystery, even more than two decades later.  But with DNA evidence now tying a known criminal to the case, the question becomes -- how did Daniel Garcia know Saba Girmai? This is the Silicon Valley Beat: Major Crimes. [[Opening bumper]] Episode 4: Who is Daniel Garcia? Katie Nelson: At the time, Garcia’s formative years were spent in a city once known as being part of “the Valley of Hearts’ Delight.” San Jose, once a bountiful farming and orchard community, began to shift into more of a concrete jungle towards the 1980s with the impetus of Silicon Valley beginning to show in companies that planted their seeds in and around the area, including Intel and IBM.  San Jose’s population in the 1980s boasted more than 620,000 people, up from less than 450,000 just a decade earlier. Today, San Jose is home to more than 1 million people, making it one of the largest cities in the country.  Fresno, Garcia’s new home, very much mirrored the growth of San Jose. Once a small farming community, Fresno has grown into a city of more than half a million people, making it the fifth most populous city in the state. San Jose is the third most populous.  Daniel Garcia was no stranger to brushes with the law. In and out of the justice system for a majority of his adult life, the arrest record for Garcia was decades old, with crimes running the gamut. In fact, his adult record begins when he was just 20 years old, living in the San Jose area.  In the span of seven years, from 1979 to 1986, Garcia was arrested five times by the San Jose Police Department. His arrests included multiple incidents where he was under the influence of a controlled substance and, at least once, he resisted arrest.  His record begins to show even more aggressive behavior after he moved to the Fresno area. He was arrested for willfully harming a child, assault with a deadly weapon, sexual battery, and driving under the influence, among other charges.  His last arrest -- in December 2012 -- was just one month before he would meet Detective Chris Kikuchi and Investigator Nate Wandruff. [[interlude]] Saul Jaeger: But his arrest record doesn’t make up all of who Daniel Garcia is. Like every person, there’s more to his story. Daniel Garcia also is a father of four. He is a brother. And, he has a father who lives in Mexico, but they aren’t close. Daniel was a Bay Area native, born in San Jose, where he actually lived in the 1980s, after he left high school in Fresno. At least one former girlfriend would describe him as ‘cool.’ When speaking with investigators, Garcia noted if he had stayed in high school, he would have graduated in 1978.  Daniel Garcia is also a recovering drug addict.  After dropping out of school, Garcia worked various labor jobs, digging trenches and working on construction sites. He was exposed early to drugs -- the seventh grade, he later recalled -- starting with uppers and downers. He avoided heroin, though, because a family member had died after using the drug, he stated.  Garcia was sure of one thing, though, when it came to his preference when he was using -- his favorite drug was PCP.  NEWS SAMPLE OF rampant PCP use in the 80’s  Katie Nelson: Phencyclidine, sometimes known as angel dust, rocket fuel, killer weed, or the ‘peace pill,’ is actually an anesthetic. It sedates its users, creating a trance-like effect. Those who use PCP have described its effects as creating an ‘out of body’ experience.   When someone uses PCP, they can, among other effects, experience hallucinations, delusions, and paranoia, and a person can become exceptionally violent at the peak of their high. The drug is highly addictive, and can be fatal.  According to Garcia, he used PCP for about 15 years, beginning after high school. He used PCP until just before 2000, when while high, he was involved in a serious collision that injured a woman.  While high in Fresno, for example, Garcia said he and others engaged in a water fight in the backyard of a home. Police were called at some point. When officers arrived, one of them attempted to grab Garcia, and he noted that he thought it was a friend and actually “flipped him” over.  Saul Jaeger: In another instance, Garcia experienced such intense hallucinations and paranoia during one high that he broke all of the windows at his mother’s home in Fresno, and yet another time, he removed all of his clothes.  Garcia recognized he needed help after his collision in 1999, and he stayed sober for more than 13 years, he said.  [[interlude]] Between 1984 and 1987, Garcia lived in and around the downtown area in San Jose. Though he didn’t have a license to drive, he said, he still drove around in his sister’s purple, 1968 Chevrolet Impala. When she took the car back, Garcia remembered buying a late 1960s plum-colored Plymouth Fury, which had a loud, aftermarket exhaust.  He had that car for less than a year.  According to Garcia, one day, the car experienced mechanical issues, so he dumped it in the Pacheco Pass, and it was impounded. He never saw it again.  Garcia knew the Mountain View area, too, confiding at one point he even had an aunt that lived in the area. He knew of Moffett Field, but it had been years, perhaps, since he had been back.  Katie Nelson: During some of his time living in San Jose, Garcia noted that he lived near a 7-Eleven, in a complex on Reed Street. At the time, he lived there with his cousin and his cousin’s girlfriend. This simple statement may become very important later.   It was in that same complex that Garcia first met Saba.  [[interlude]] Saba made quite an impression on Garcia, it seems.  In speaking with investigators, he recalled her as being ‘thin’ and ‘wild.’ When shown a picture of her nearly three decades later in 2013, Garcia didn’t hesitate in his acknowledgment that he recognized her. “I’ve seen her,” he said, underwhelmingly.  When another picture was provided by Investigator Wandruff who, for clarification, asked if it was possible that Garcia maybe didn’t recognize Saba, or if, perhaps, he thought she was maybe a different woman. “No,” Garcia said. “I remember that face.” Here is Daniel Garcia talking about Saba as he knew her back in 1985.  Saul Jaeger: Just a quick warning, what you are about to hear are portions of the actual interview with Daniel Garcia and the investigators. There may be content and language not appropriate for all listeners. Discretion is advised.  Daniel Garcia: To me, she was just a happy, kooky, money-making girl. Yeah, she would come around sometimes with no shoes, no jacket, no nothing, crazy and hungry. And if you were drinking, she wanted your beer. You were getting high, she wanted to get high. That’s how she was, that was how I knew her. I mean, she wasn’t my girlfriend, she wasn’t nothing to me. She was just a trick around the complex.  She came and left, came and left. That’s how she was. She came and left. Came and left. Sometimes, she’d be gone for two weeks, three weeks, then she’d show up again.  Katie Nelson: In 1985, in fact, Garcia distinctly recalled an incident where Saba ‘scratched’ him as he was trying to eat.  Daniel Garcia: It wasn’t a fight. It wasn’t a fight. I didn’t hit her. She scratched me. End of story, you know what I mean? I didn’t fight her, physically hit her, physically do anything to her. I’m just saying, I never had any contact other than being scratched by her. Sexually, physically, or anything. Besides her slapping me and clawing me.  Saul Jaeger: According to Garcia, that was the last time he saw Saba. He moved, he said, sometime after that incident.  He said when he went upstairs after the incident occurred, he noticed he was bleeding. He had scratches on his face.  “When I went upstairs, I could see imprints from her fingers,” he noted. But initially that was as far as he provided.  The next day, Garcia said, while at work, his father inquired what happened to his face. Garcia explained that he didn’t call police about the alleged attack because, in his words, “she didn’t have anywhere to go.” Garcia never told his cousin, with whom he lived, about the incident, nor, according to Garcia, did his cousin ever ask about the scratches on his face. However, and this is important, this was not what Garcia initially told Kikuchi and Wandruff.  In his first iteration of the story, Garcia claimed he told his cousin about the attack, and that his cousin “laughed.” “Of course I was mad, but like I said, I wouldn’t hit a woman. I never have. She scratched me and I went inside and that was the end of it,” according to Garcia.

    15 min
  3. A New Hope

    02/18/2020

    A New Hope

    Nearly 25 years after Saba was killed, a lead on this decades-old cold case emerges. But with this new hope comes an almost "too good to be true" feeling for one detectives. "Who in their right mind would admit to killing someone?" he wonders. But, he has a lead to follow, a case to build. It just comes down to one thing -- whether or not the man whose DNA is under the victim's fingernails admits to what he's done or, some believe more likely, provides the perfect seed of doubt to bring down the entire investigation. This is the third episode of our special edition podcast series, Silicon Valley Beat: Major Crimes. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [[Disclaimer: The Silicon Valley Beat, Major Crimes, is a podcast that deep-dives into major cases investigated by the Mountain View Police Department. Because this podcast covers investigations including critical incidents and homicides, what we discuss here may contain material that is not suitable for all listeners. Names and other sensitive information may be changed to protect the identity of the innocent.]] On last week’s episode we talked about -- DNA, the ultimate tool to use to pursue investigative leads in a case. In 1985, in a remarkable adaptation well ahead of its time, a Santa Clara County coroner clipped fingernails that could, one day, hold the secrets to Saba’s killer. The investigation hit snags though, and soon turned cold. But when a new lead shows up more than two decades later, we have to ask ourselves -- are cold cases ever really cold? This is the Silicon Valley Beat: Major Crimes. [[Opening bumper]] EPISODE 3: A NEW HOPE Saul Jaeger: The start of the holiday season, a time of hope and goodwill.  In 2008, while some began to string up lights at their home, gather family around to celebrate good tidings and cheer, at the Mountain View Police Department, it was a time of reflection, and certainly of cautious hope.  On December 1, then Captain Max Bosel was head of the Mountain View Police Department’s Investigative Services Division, home to the trove of detectives who investigate cases ranging from homicide, to robbery, to kidnapping, to cold cases.  “While assigned as the Special Operations Captain,” Bosel wrote in a supplemental report, “I reviewed the January 18, 1985 homicide of Saba Girmai. Based on the fact that the victim’s body was lifted into the dumpster where she was found, I believed the suspect’s contact DNA could have been left on the victim’s clothing or property. This technology was not available during the initial investigation.” “I inquired about the availability of evidence items in order to determine if there was physical evidence that could be analyzed for DNA,” Bosel went on to write.  In his report, Bosel noted that five items were re-sent in hopes that, perhaps, after 23 years, advances in technology could present an opportunity to re-examine the case and perhaps even identify and arrest the person responsible for Saba’s gruesome murder.  Katie Nelson: Those five items included: -- her black, plastic wrist watch, that had been found on her left wrist -- her blouse  -- a sample of her scalp hair -- a sample of hair from other areas of her body -- and, fingernail clippings from both of her hands While he was never arrested, Bosel noted that the man some had described as Saba’s boyfriend was still a person of interest and, following any results from the Crime Lab, “should be contacted for an interview.” [[interlude]] The incredible news came in the form of an unremarkable fax on January 12, 2010, just after 6 a.m. In a letter dated just days before, a CODIS administrator with the California DNA Data Bank Program, a section of the California Department of Justice, wrote a letter to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Crime Lab. An excerpt from the note reads as follows: “The DNA profile from your evidence sample was submitted for search against the CAL-DNA Data Bank and resulted in a candidate match to an individual profile in the database. This offender hit constitutes an investigative lead in your case.”  This was the moment everyone had been waiting for. This match, and the name included in the letter, was 23 years in the making.  Saul Jaeger: But even with this incredible leap in the investigation, we could not get ahead of ourselves. We had to re-open the investigation as if to begin from scratch, and to build a case so airtight, that there would be no question, if an arrest was made, that we had our man.  Nevertheless, we finally had a suspect. It took nearly 25 years, but there he was. Who was he?  But as we said, first, we had to go back to the beginning.  Katie Nelson: You see, when investigators catch a break on a cold case, they must be meticulous going forward. They have to essentially open a new investigation, with the original as well as any new evidence, to go back and ensure that there are no holes, that every question that could possibly arise has an answer.  As Detective Kikuchi says:  Chris Kikuchi: DNA is not enough. Because, that explanation of ‘yeah she scratched me’ during some kind of argument where she wanted food … technically, he’d be a victim. If she scratched him, if he stuck with that story, we would not have anything.  Katie Nelson: You’ll hear more from Detective Chris Kikuchi later on in the series, but he was the lead detective assigned to the Saba Girmai investigation when it was reopened in 2012. Yes, 2012. If you’re listening closely, that’s four years after the DNA was resubmitted for testing. We’ll address that later in the podcast as well.  Saul Jaeger: So, investigators began at square one with a decades-old homicide, but with two crucial pieces that had been missing for so long -- a lead … and hope.  First on the list of interviews: Saba’s suspected boyfriend, who you’ll remember from the first episode failed his polygraph examination. We needed to figure out why that happened.  On the morning of April 21, 2010, officers again interviewed Saba’s alleged former boyfriend. Remember, this man originally disputed his relationship with Saba, despite multiple people telling investigators they were an item. The man claimed he didn’t date her, only that they sometimes lived together.  According to police reports, the man said the following: “With her personality, [[sic]] honestly, I don’t know where she could have been at any given time,” he added. (Saba) knew ‘various people,’ she had ‘a lot of friends and a lot of acquaintances,’ but she never took any of them to his residence.  He also added that he “did not know any of the places Saba would frequent. He also did not know where she would go or which “club or bar” was using the red stamp that was discovered on Saba’s hand when she was found in the dumpster that January morning.  More than 20 years later, he remained adamant that he had nothing to do with Saba’s murder. And, there was still no real answer as to why he had failed the polygraph exam.  Katie Nelson: A small blow. But what we began to realize as we once again looked into this case, it was clearer than ever that Saba had a distinct inability to stay in one place for long.  Detectives reached out to and spoke with several former friends and family members about Saba. Saba’s friend “Tena,” who had since relocated out of the area, stated she had known Saba while she lived with family in San Jose. Tena said Saba was “intelligent,” and that any accent she may have from her former life in Africa was long gone. She stated while Saba didn’t talk much about herself, she did “laugh” frequently and was seen often walking in and around San Jose.  When pressed if she knew of any male companions Saba may have caught a ride with, Tena stated she never “saw any male with Saba, so she would not be able to identify any suspects by looking at photographs.” Even years after her death, Saba’s life was still very much shrouded in mystery.  [[interlude]] Saul Jaeger: Throughout the re-opened investigation, Saba’s family was always on investigators’ minds. Helping them to learn the truth about what happened to her, and why, was paramount. Katie Nelson: The emotional implications of this case reached far and wide. Detectives realized that this wasn’t just about closure for the family, it was a little bit about closure for themselves as well.  Again, here is Detective Chris Kikuchi. Chris Kikuchi: It’s a pretty horrible way for anybody to die. She was basically tossed out like trash, just thrown into a dumpster. And you know, partially clothed. I don’t know, it just, to me, she wasn’t treated as a human. Nobody should be killed, obviously, but to be disposed of in that manner, that was just horrible.  Saul Jaeger: In April of 2010, investigators called Saba’s sister, who had come to visit California in 1984 with Saba.  Much like with other interviews we conducted as we re-opened the case, Saba’s sister did not know much about Saba’s life once she came to California.  Throughout this investigation, this was a common theme. But how could Saba’s sister not know what she was up to, where she had been? That question was never really answered in any of our reports. Nobody seemed to know where she was, or who she was with, at any given time.  Again, remember, this was the age before cell phones, before social media, before any immediate way to contact somebody. Perhaps it was pretty easy to disappear. Katie Nelson: She said Saba did not tell her much, most likely because Saba thought her sister would not approve of her extracurricular activities. She did say that her sister, like how many others had described her, was “friendly,” but that she believed the way her sister lived her life “put (Saba) at risk.” She added, though, that she did not recognize the C

    17 min
  4. Then and Now

    02/11/2020

    Then and Now

    The case seemed open and shut -- someone was lying. Or was it that simple? It doesn't seem like a long time ago, but it's been more than 30 years since Saba's death, and in that time, technology has advanced at a rate far faster than most developments. So we have to ask ourselves -- could this case, as it was, have been solved with the tools of the trade at the time? This is the second episode of our special edition podcast series, Silicon Valley Beat: Major Crimes. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [[Disclaimer: The Silicon Valley Beat, Major Crimes, is a podcast that deep-dives into major cases investigated by the Mountain View Police Department. Because this podcast covers investigations including critical incidents and homicides, what we discuss here may contain material that is not suitable for all listeners. Names and other sensitive information may be changed to protect the identity of the innocent.]] Saul Jaeger: On last week’s episode -- a young woman, newly transplanted to the Bay Area, found dead in a dumpster. A 20-something immigrant, in the prime of her life, taken too soon. Her death puzzles investigators -- who killed Saba Girmai? The one lead detectives had -- a lie detector test that indicated Saba’s apparent boyfriend wasn’t being so truthful about his relationship with her. But was that enough to pursue him as a potential suspect in her murder? This is The Silicon Valley Beat: Major Crimes.  [[Opening bumper]] Episode 2: Then and Now   Katie Nelson: It would have appeared that police had a major lead.    ‘Deception indicated’ reeks of foul play, or at the very least, that something was wrong. Or, does it?  The investigation into finding Saba’s killer seemingly comes to a stop in April, 1985. There are no notes beyond that the polygraph exam showed something was perhaps amiss between Saba and her alleged boyfriend. There was no glaring error, no hesitation in his responses, no obvious sign of a tell that he was lying.    In short, it simply wasn’t enough. In California, for lie detector test results to be admissible in court as evidence, both the prosecution and the defense have to agree on their use.  Saul Jaeger: John Larson, a medical student working for the Berkeley Police Department, invented the first polygraph in 1921. This first polygraph simultaneously traced a subject’s blood pressure and respiration. Under Larson’s assumptions, irregularities in blood pressure and breathing patterns would indicate lies.  Katie Nelson: But that’s for the modern technology, when in fact for centuries, humans have looked for reliable means to detect lies. In ancient Hindu and Chinese civilizations for example, authorities would look for lies by asking a suspect to chew a grain of rice and then try and spit it out. In China, a dry grain of rice would be indicative that the person was lying. In India, rice was believed to stick to the mouth of those who were guilty.  So, by April 1985, the investigation had stalled mainly because the evidence trail went cold. And truthfully, that is something that many departments grapple with on a daily basis.    In some cases, this reality haunts us. Because who knows what could have been, what steps could have been the turning point if we had just had one more piece of evidence, or one more lead? But talk to anyone who later worked on this case and you will hear a unanimous agreement that in Saba’s case, at the time detectives did everything they could to try and pinpoint her murderer. But with no DNA evidence, no cameras, no witnesses, it certainly made the investigation that much more difficult.    Saul Jaeger: What is fascinating here is just how much work the detectives actually did at the time that ended up being game-changers when advances in investigative techniques – chiefly, DNA – became available over 25 years later.    DNA was brand new to investigative work back in the 1980s. Remember how we mentioned that fingernail clippings were taken during the autopsy on Saba? That the medical examiner automatically knew to do that at the time was extraordinary.    Why?   Because it wasn’t until later that DNA was first used to solve a major crime.    In 1986, a revolutionary -- and new -- DNA testing process helped police solve two cases in which two teenagers were raped and murdered in and near the village of Narborough in England.  Katie Nelson: Here is a clip from a 2017 documentary that highlights the use of DNA evidence in its early iterations to capture and convict murderer and rapist Colin Pitchfork back in the late 1980s.  [[Clip from documentary]]   Saul Jaeger: In that investigation, DNA blood samples were obtained voluntarily from roughly 5,000 men working or living near where the crimes occurred. The testing ultimately led to the conviction of a local bakery employee in January 1988.    This begs the question – what did detectives have at their disposal in 1985 to help further the investigation of this case, and what would this investigation look like if it were to take place today? Katie Nelson: We sat down with Lt. Mike Canfield, who most recently headed our Investigative Services Division, which is where all major crimes – including cold cases – are investigated. Mike also played a role in investigating Saba’s case in 2012 and 2013.     On this episode you’ll hear from Mike how the bones of investigative work haven’t changed much, but what has been phenomenal is how tools have helped elevate the idea of what is “good old fashioned police work.”  Here’s Lt. Canfield. Mike Canfield: The main tenets of investigations in law enforcement have not changed, we’ve just added new tools. But in regards to how detectives would talk to people then, I think now we would use technology to narrow down that field and start looking at ‘Ok, based on this person’s cell phone patterns or their social media patterns, we’ve narrowed down their main, most important connections to six people.’  And so instead of doing canvassing, where you’re talking to everybody at a bar or everybody who might possibly know this person, we’re able to use better analysis and narrow down the number of people we have to talk to.  Katie Nelson: Keith Wright, a former detective in England, agrees. In an article he wrote for Police One, in July 2019, Wright talks about how just roughly 30 years ago, CCTV was still a new thing, and only a handful of private companies had it. Today, it’s one of the first things we consider in an investigation, he said, but in the 1980s, it was probably one of the last.  Saul Jaeger: Keith Wright continues -- in the 1980s, in the absence of DNA, CCTV, location devices, social media, cellphones, and high-tech covert equipment, investigation in those days relied heavily on interviewing, particularly in investigative divisions.  “The art of the interview was king. If you could find what buttons to press, catch them in a lie and sell them your product -- prison -- you might just prove the case. Nothing to it.” “When you look at the changes in technology in society during and since the 1980s, this incredible change has made a huge impact on our lives, both as people and as law enforcement officers.” And he’s right. What will the next 30 years bring? And this brings us back to today.  Katie Nelson: So, that’s how our investigative work today has been helped in terms of how traditional police work has been elevated by new technologies. But what is the one thing that has changed the way in which we have improved investigations now? It’s a cell phone. Mike Canfield: Virtually every victim of a violent crime then, if they were in our current time, would have a cell phone. And that would create a volume of information to pour through and look through so their connections in cell phone, their location based on the cell phone, their last actions before the homicide, maybe even where the cell phone went after the homicide -- we’ve certainly seen those. I think the biggest change is everyone, well virtually everyone, has a computer on them virtually all the time. And that opens up so much more information and a whole other field of investigation for these cases.  Saul Jaeger: This then took us to the science of crime scene investigation in 1985; how it was completed, how it differs -- or not -- from today, and what they were looking for at that time.  Mike Canfield: You know, one of the main tools would be crime scene analysis, predominantly probably looking much more for fingerprints than for DNA obviously at the time. But they would also be looking for trace evidence, perhaps fibers that were transferred from a vehicle onto a person that they could later match.  So, there was definitely an emphasis and a skill placed on crime scene analysis and photography of the scene, for sure.  And then, in fact I bet, a lot of detectives were probably more skilled in this in the past and ... with so much more riding on interviews and information from people versus machines and computers, you have to be able to speak to people very well and figure out who has information for your case and while I don’t think it’s a lost art -- we do have some people who do a fantastic job -- it was practiced more then and probably in some ways they were better at it than we are a profession now.  Saul Jaeger: Another major difference is the prevalence of video cameras in our society. This wasn’t the case in 1985, but today, cameras are everywhere.  Mike Canfield: Video surveillance today is dramatically better obviously now than it ever was before. And, it’s not just video surveillance at a store, but they’re everywhere. Front doors have cameras, people’s personal homes have cameras, bridge tolls have cameras. There are opportunities, and it’s not always recorded, but there are opportunities to

    19 min
  5. The Body in the Dumpster

    02/03/2020

    The Body in the Dumpster

    It was a dewy January morning, just two days before the Bay Area would host its first Super Bowl, right in Mountain View's backyard at Stanford Stadium. When a man picking through the trash comes across a body while hoping to find some cans to earn a few extra bucks, the police are called. The story starts like this: A young woman, strangled to death, seemingly without any identity whatsoever. Her case baffles detectives. As they slowly learn about who the woman was, and where she came from -- her story spanning continents and major global moments that led to massive aid movements -- another pressing question begins to enter their minds: who would want to harm her? Who would discard her behind a grocery store, in a sleepy Silicon Valley town, and more importantly, why? Could a murder really happen in the home of high tech? This is the first episode of our special edition podcast series, Silicon Valley Beat: Major Crimes. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For those in need of audio assistance, or who are hard of hearing, we have included a transcript of this podcast for you here. Please see below. [[Disclaimer: The Silicon Valley Beat, Major Crimes, is a podcast that deep-dives into major cases investigated by the Mountain View Police Department. Because this podcast covers investigations including critical incidents and homicides, what we discuss here may contain material that is not suitable for all listeners. Names and other sensitive information may be changed to protect the identity of the innocent.]]   [[Opening bumper]] Episode 1: The Body in the Dumpster   Saul Jaeger: He started the morning like he had others before – shuffling through dumpsters behind the Safeway on Stierlin Road, looking for any cans for which he could get maybe a couple bucks. It was early still, just before 7:30 a.m. on what witnesses, and police reports, described as a dewy January morning. He may get lucky.   As he leaned over to pluck through the trash, the man startled. Amongst the cardboard boxes and the discarded fruits and vegetables, a leg poked out from one of the dumpster bins, dark in color. The man wasn’t sure if it was a mannequin, or worse, a body. He ducked back to the rear of the store, and alerted a manager. Something wasn’t right.  [[steps on gravel]]   The manager, and a few employees, walked back outside to the open dumpster, lids thrown back well before the man looking for cans arrived. Dew dusted the discarded waste, and as soon as the manager leaned over to inspect what was within, he turned around and went inside to call the police.    [[Siren blaring]]   A two-man fire crew were first on scene. Leaning into the bin, one firefighter reached out for a pulse, putting his two fingers to a wrist. The wrist was cold -- too cold. He stepped back and waited for the police to arrive.    It was January 18, 1985.   [[”Careless Whisper” by Wham! begins to play, newscasts of time overlap as reports are read]]   Katie Nelson: That January was known as a “one of the most intense arctic outbreaks,” according to the National Weather Service. Wayne Gretsky scored his 400th career goal that month. VH1 debuted, and Madonna owned the radio waves with her “Like a Virgin.” Two days later, the first Super Bowl hosted in the Bay Area, at Stanford Stadium, would be televised across the US on three major networks.    More locally, Silicon Valley was in its “Golden Age,” where tech was booming and we began to see the first iterations of the lore that this section of the Bay Area holds for modern day entrepreneurs. The CD-ROM had recently been introduced by Sony and Philips, revolutionizing the way in which we would come to share information and entertainment in the coming years. Apple had introduced the Macintosh just one year before in January 1984. And, the first “Windows” operating system was released by Microsoft.    Mountain View, though, smack in the middle of all this growth, was still very much a suburb. Homes were ranch-style, and the local dump had closed not two years before to help restore the beloved shoreline and wetlands. Could a murder really happen in the home of high tech?    This is Doug Johnson, longtime resident and historian of the Mountain View Police Department. Doug Johnson: I wondered what brought somebody to Mountain View back in 1985 because there wasn’t really a lot of reasons to come to this town. Shoreline was still landfill. The downtown was -- it hadn’t changed much since the 40s. Castro Street was two lanes in each direction and was basically empty.  You could stand on the railroad tracks and you could look down at El Camino and see cars going by because there wasn’t really much going on, going on downtown. And, um, there was no club scene or anything like that. The only reason, the only regional draw if you will in Mountain View at the time, was probably St. James’ Infirmary. And it was kind of fun saloon with a ten-foot statue of Wonder Woman as you walked in the door and peanut shells all over the floor.  Katie Nelson: In 1985, Mountain View certainly wasn’t the town that we know it today, with a bustling downtown and multi-billion dollar corporations. But again, could a city, now home to tech giants, and once thought of as a quaint corner of Silicon Valley, really be the place where someone could be murdered?        Saul Jaeger: On that cold, winter morning, that’s exactly what Officers Schlarb and Barcelona were trying to find out when they made their way over to the Stierlin Road Safeway.    As the men peered inside the dumpster, they saw a woman, lying face down, wearing a striped, long-sleeved shirt, a green sock still on her right foot. A gold and brown high-heeled shoe dangled from her covered foot.    She was petite and thin, a little over five feet, with a cropped haircut. Her head was turned just so. Gently looking around her body, officers saw nothing obvious to indicate what had happened to this Jane Doe.    But could there be a clue somewhere, among her clothes, perhaps in the bags surrounding her body, that could point the officers to the killer?    Would the police find the killer in the man who was walking back and forth to his car on Vaquero Drive late the night before? Could the suspect be the person who drove by a home late at night on the same road with a loud muffler, stop near the Safeway, and drive off?   Katie Nelson: A Stierlin Road resident noted his daughter had been studying late at night on January 17, hours before the body was discovered in the dumpster, and heard a car peel out in the driveway adjacent to their home. A Hackett Street resident told police he had heard from a mechanic at the Union 76 gas station, just down the road from where the body was discovered, that he had seen two men arguing with a black woman in their car.  Any one of these clues could lead to something more. Door by door, police searched for answers. More than a dozen cards were left, requesting help, to call if anyone remembered anything that could possibly help. At least six of the requests went unanswered.    [[Interlude]]    Almost immediately, officers on scene that morning encountered a complication – the woman had no identification on her. The red, faded stamp on her left hand, typically indicative of a visit to a bar at that time, was of no use – the only local bar at the time that stamped red did not do so the night of the murder, according to the police report. The shoe that dangled from Jane Doe’s foot, while manufactured in Santa Maria, could not be narrowed down to a particular purchase area as the shoes were sold across the United States. The investigative technique of simply tracking purchases via a credit card was still nearly a decade away.    Saul Jaeger: The watch that was still fastened on her left wrist had no engraving, no personalization to possibly guide the detectives to a family member or loved one. The ring on her left ring finger too, did nothing to help the mystery.    Jane Doe could be anyone, from anywhere. Her family, her friends would have no idea what had happened to her.    But this much was certain -- something bad had happened to Jane Doe.     Here’s Don McKay, a retired sergeant with the Mountain View Police Department, who back in 1985 was the sergeant in charge of investigations.  Don McKay: Um, they discovered this early in the morning. It was still dark when I got the call, about finding a body in the dumpster behind Safeway, just sort of scattered, like she was just dumped there. This Safeway was on the corner of Bailey and Montecito.  Well, there were several police cars there. It was very isolated back there. There’s some apartments that back up to that dumpster and there was nobody there so it was just sort of all us. Brought some lights and stuff and tried to work the scene. We didn’t have a lot to go on. It took us a while to ID this person. We could tell she was missing a shoe, we figured maybe we’d find that. From what we remembered, she was fully clothed, but I remember thinking: “Here we are, the week of the Super Bowl, and Super Bowl’s at Stanford. And I’m thinking, ‘I got a hundred thousand extra suspects’ that I wasn’t planning on.  It looked like she had been strangled, but we weren’t for sure. We didn’t find that out until we got to the autopsy.  Katie Nelson: By 3 p.m. on January 18, 1985, Jane Doe had been brought to the coroner with the hopes that he would have a better idea of who she may be.    The coroner on duty that Friday afternoon at Valley Medical Center began his methodical examination.   The first sentence of the autopsy reportnnotes just how petite the victim was. The coroner noted she weighed just 95 pounds. She measured only 4 feet, 8 inches tall. On the right side of her forehead, a small cut was noted. A front tooth,

    26 min

Ratings & Reviews

4.9
out of 5
22 Ratings

About

Police and podcasting? Say what? It's true! Welcome to the Silicon Valley Beat, the Mountain View Police Department's foray into the world of audio. Each episode, we will go behind the scenes of what a police department looks like in the heart of Silicon Valley (can anyone say, Google?). We'll look at the history of policing, both near and far, and we'll even invite on some special guests as we take a look at law enforcement in the 21st century. So plug in, podcasters. And enjoy any edition of the Silicon Valley Beat. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.