I appreciate y'alls journalistic integrity a lot in the presentation of the Texas Monthly Crime podcasts. All too often, podcast hosts try and insert themselves too much and make it more about their journey rather than the actual investigation. As a Texan, I also appreciate the insight you all have into the police operations themselves, it's sometimes a bit alarming to hear about how things used to be run in the not so distant past. Looking forward to hearing the last episode next week.
I have a few questions for you both:
1) why do you think that Heath Davis' involvement in the trafficking of underage girls / sexual assault was not more of an issue for the San Angelo cops?
2) there have been multiple people that have pointed the finger at Jimmy Burnett, are there plans to exhume the body for residual DNA testing?
3) if there was someone on the inside as a member of the police force behind it or at least involved, that would make sense with the "lost" evidence, Sally's ID, etc. Do you have an idea who it could be since you have gone through the records of officers on the force at that time and also interviewed several of them? And if so, have you uncovered if there are any relations (family or otherwise) to any of the four main suspects?
4) it was mentioned previously that somewhere between 5-8 people were involved. Have you found who the others might have been involved beyond the four "main" suspects listed by Nick Hanna?
5) do you have plans to investigate a more recent case again like with Tom Brown's Body where some of the suspects may not have died since so much time has passed?
Thanks so much and appreciate all the work y'all do!
1) I asked two officers who were around at that time, and they felt it could have gone both ways. Some officers would have downplayed statutory rape at the time, while others would have not. What was odd to one officer I spoke to, however, is that no one took it more seriously because of the allegations of holding the girls against their will. Krsitin had also told us that a police officer told her mother at one point that the girls were prostituting themselves, so that attitude may have played into it as well. – Rob
2) Sheriff Hanna was asked about it, and he didn’t respond to that question. We can’t initiate something like that, but I personally am going to keep up to date on whether Hanna is even considering it. I’m also interested in trying to get Heath’s possessions. – Rob
3) You’ll hear more about a possible police connection in Episode 7 next week. But one thing to keep in mind is that even though we bring up this possibility as a cause of the teens’ deaths, a leak about them talking could have come from other places as well, whether the sheriff’s office or the teens themselves. Unfortunately, there are no records (at least after a records request) on the license incident at all. Almost every officer I interviewed didn’t even know the story. So unless someone was involved with the case, they probably wouldn’t know. It was mentioned briefly in some media account(s) but with no details. -- Rob
4) That was from Jimmy Burnett’s notes on 5-8 people. Seems like too many to me, but I think we all agree that it was more than one person and likely a small group. Gosh, there are many other possibilities of other people we’ve ran across, but none that have as much evidence against them as the main suspects described in the podcast. – Rob
5) Another case more recent. Well, I don’t know yet. It definitely could be easier. The number of key sources and investigators deceased in this case was/is a serious impediment. Marshall Stewart is particularly frustrated by lack of recent action by authorities because he realizes this. – Rob
Thanks for listening and notes! Overall I have wondered why many of these issues weren’t better followed up on, or were just shrugged off, it seems. The current investigators are also frustrated by it, but they can only work with information they have. It does seem there were many people involved based simply on the circumstances and the fact that both were killed in the same manner. I have a few more cases I had looked into with the Texas Rangers, all are cold cases so face many of the same challenges. A few have been solved, so it would be easier to tell the story and then explain how it was solved. Perhaps that’ll happen in the future! – Karen
Do you feel that the police are helpful in your investigation, that they think you might come up with new info that they can use, or do you feel like they just want you to go away?
The main problem I have is with the group idea and the four main suspects is that all of them seemed to be implicated separately. No one can account for where the four were that night but for sure no one saw them with any of the others or with anyone else. Most of the stories seem to be that one of these four telling someone else that they had committed the murder without mentioning anything about the other three.
Maybe it was just two of the suspects? Would you pair them up? Gilbreath and Schaffer, Burnett and Davis? Or do you think those lines cross? Or would you think others were involved?
Something that always strikes me in listening to journalistic podcasts is the different ways the hosts put themselves out there to get the story. In Shane & Sally in particular, there is a lot of real-time audio of attempting to contact people and being rejected included in the episodes. What went into making the decision to keep those bits of knocking on doors and hearing "they don't want to talk to you," instead of cutting them out, and what has it looked like for you two to develop the persistence to keep reaching out? Does it ever surprise you when certain people agree to talk to you or refuse?
For me, it’s a bit for the listener, and I don’t know, maybe a bit of ego. To me, as a listener, I don’t want to just hear something like, “But we couldn’t find them.” Or, “We just gave them a call.” I think there needs to be a sense that this work is really difficult, particularly after trying to find people 35 years after the event. If it were easy, and I had everyone’s phone number, I could have contacted everyone in a month…instead of the year and half we’ve been doing this. I get surprised and confused all the time by people talking or not talking. Sometimes they flip on a dime. The most frustrating is when someone starts talking and you agree to continue the conversation, then they ghost you. As for persistence, I’ve been trained in that for decades. I will keep calling and texting over and over, and maybe door knocking, until they say they don’t want to talk. One time I texted someone like 10 times, and they finally said, “Wrong number.” :) – Rob
We really liked showing the effort taken and I believe it really gives the audience a sense of place, as well as illustrating the effort it takes to tell this type of story. Rob’s tenacity was amazing and really speaks to the rabbit holes and false leads in this case. I call him Brave. - Karen
I should note that several people would talk to Karen–or talk more–instead of me. Having different styles of communication helps engage with different types of people. – Rob
These Texas Monthly podcasts are all great. I've been a reader since the 1970s, especially Molly Ivins. Personally, when you have a good story, like all three of these podcasts, I want as much info as possible. I think getting the door slammed in your face, etc., is part of the story.
Yes they do, "Shane And Sally" is their third true crime pod. The other two are "Tom Brown's Body" and "Stephenville" and they're both excellent as well.
Also, what is your personal theory about why Sally’s missing license was found on the floor of the police dept? I mean, your own opinion? I find the slackness of law enforcement and the detectives appalling here.
If you want me to be frank, the whole “fell out of toolbox” story is BS. The information investigators got from a written statement was a guy named Chris Schrier, who said he talked to Dusty Large (the alleged toolbox thief) about a license after the theft. That statement was given in 1995, six years after the crime. The question you might ask is why would it take so long for the investigators to question someone on those toolboxes? The problem is: we’re only going off the records we have. Sheriff Hanna could have a slew of notes on interviews with people in 1989 regarding Dusty Large and those toolboxes that we don’t know about and that aren’t being shared with us. I also think it’s fishy that Schrier is told by Dusty that the toolbox came from Steve Schafer’s driveway. (As you heard in the pod, it was just a home of a friend that he hung out with.) To me, it sounds like someone might have been trying to point evidence at Steve Schafer. But we can’t be sure about any of this. Schafer isn’t talking any more. Schrier won’t respond (or isn’t getting the message), and Dusty is in prison and not responding to email. And as Hanna notes, he can’t be sure either. Obviously officer Swick found it. Another report says officer Wayne Phillips found it and reported it. But Swick is confident and sure he did. There’s also NO reports on it at PD. – Rob
The lack of law enforcement due diligence and general reporting of what went on is appalling, and this is why there is continual questioning about who was involved. If there were records, they weren’t kept well. Later reports mention notes from the original investigation, but then those reports are missing. Also missing are key pieces of evidence, like the Whataburger receipt. Regarding the license, it’s just so intriguing it would turn up there, see Rob’s note! - Karen
As a 3rd generation “Angeloan” it is not surprising to me that this case hasn’t been solved. San Angelo has a very tawdry side that I believe is unlike anywhere else. It’s one of the largest cities in the state that is not connected to an interstate, which somewhat takes the transient theory away. It’s also the ONLY city in the state that “elects” the police chief. This opens the door for a number of scenarios that could indeed obstruct an investigation of this caliber. I was 4 when this happened and the “satanic hysteria” that stemmed from it was felt years. San Angelo definitely has a dark side….
I used to work for an ad agency in GA and since we placed ads in TM we got copies of the magazine. It was my favorite of all the ones we repped and I’ve enjoyed the podcast so much.
A couple questions!
1. What’s the best part and WORST part of doing these podcasts for you?
2. Do you ever come in contact with folks who won’t speak to you, but their story is almost necessary?
3. What’s the HARDEST part (mentally/physically or emotionally) for you with doing this sort of journalistic approach with podcasts and telling someone’s story?
Thank you! Please keep putting out podcasts!
Best part is trying to help the families move something forward so that they can get answers. Worst part: Having hundreds of names bouncing around in my head and sleepless nights. Every person I’m trying to find likely involves several more people trying to track them down.
2) Yes. Most people will speak, but many don’t want to use their names. They are scared or not accustomed to having reporters contact them. But I can think of a couple people in particular who just won’t respond or who refuse to talk who are critical.
3) It is emotionally draining to be working on something where kids were killed. I usually don’t feel it until the story is done, but in this case, it likely will continue. – Rob
1) The best part is meeting these real people and being able to get their story out there. Especially in a small town like San Angelo, many we spoke to felt they have been ignored or forgotten over the years. The worst part is that we may or may not be helping them, but the hope is that we are at least bringing the story back to the forefront.
2) As for the people that won’t talk, I’m pretty amazed at who DID talk with us. Many were happy to dive right in and tell me what they knew. There were some key people that agreed to talk but wanted to be off the record, so we had to be careful on putting the story out there without breaking that confidentiality. Rob is tenacious in the phone calls and tracking. Then, many people are fine to ghost and simply not reply in any manner.
3) I found it particularly strange being out there in San Angelo, and hoping we were really safe. The harsh reality is these are real people. When speaking to some that were truly afraid and felt threatened day to day, that brings home the reality. Speaking to the parents makes it all very real. The hardest part is dredging it up for them again and opening up old wounds. I cried a few times during interviews. -Karen
Hi. Listened to the first episodes of Shane and Sally. To me (an Army vet trained at Goodfellow AFB), a possible military suspect seems VERY CONSPICUOUSLY missing. Most servicemembers are trustworthy but obviously not all of them are great folks. Is this an angle that’s been explored? I assume so. Is there a reason it’s not being openly discussed in the investigation?
The simple answer is that no report ever listed anyone involved with the base, nor did anyone we talked to. There was one person that remembered Sally might have been involved with or talking to an “airman” there a few years before, but the person couldn’t remember a name other than “John.” That was not much to go on, and again, no other evidence of anything else.. – Rob
I remain very hopeful this will get solved. There are so many clues and as one Texas Ranger says, it just takes one person digging deeper to find the key answer to it all. Or someone coming forward after all these years. Although many have passed on that were around there, many still live in San Angelo and want this solved. - Karen
I think it can be solved. I think a major problem though is that investigators have already looked into so many leads so many times that they don’t feel it’s productive to keep looking at them again. However, as you’ll see in episode 7, there’s one more thing about the gun that no one seems to be following up on. It’s frustrating. You’ll also hear next Tuesday about the possibility of the Attorney General Cold Case Unit taking the case. – Rob
Huge fan here. Please keep putting out podcasts, I beg! (I’ll be here Tuesday for the AMA!)
Thank you! See you then!!
I appreciate y'alls journalistic integrity a lot in the presentation of the Texas Monthly Crime podcasts. All too often, podcast hosts try and insert themselves too much and make it more about their journey rather than the actual investigation. As a Texan, I also appreciate the insight you all have into the police operations themselves, it's sometimes a bit alarming to hear about how things used to be run in the not so distant past. Looking forward to hearing the last episode next week. I have a few questions for you both: 1) why do you think that Heath Davis' involvement in the trafficking of underage girls / sexual assault was not more of an issue for the San Angelo cops? 2) there have been multiple people that have pointed the finger at Jimmy Burnett, are there plans to exhume the body for residual DNA testing? 3) if there was someone on the inside as a member of the police force behind it or at least involved, that would make sense with the "lost" evidence, Sally's ID, etc. Do you have an idea who it could be since you have gone through the records of officers on the force at that time and also interviewed several of them? And if so, have you uncovered if there are any relations (family or otherwise) to any of the four main suspects? 4) it was mentioned previously that somewhere between 5-8 people were involved. Have you found who the others might have been involved beyond the four "main" suspects listed by Nick Hanna? 5) do you have plans to investigate a more recent case again like with Tom Brown's Body where some of the suspects may not have died since so much time has passed? Thanks so much and appreciate all the work y'all do!
1) I asked two officers who were around at that time, and they felt it could have gone both ways. Some officers would have downplayed statutory rape at the time, while others would have not. What was odd to one officer I spoke to, however, is that no one took it more seriously because of the allegations of holding the girls against their will. Krsitin had also told us that a police officer told her mother at one point that the girls were prostituting themselves, so that attitude may have played into it as well. – Rob 2) Sheriff Hanna was asked about it, and he didn’t respond to that question. We can’t initiate something like that, but I personally am going to keep up to date on whether Hanna is even considering it. I’m also interested in trying to get Heath’s possessions. – Rob 3) You’ll hear more about a possible police connection in Episode 7 next week. But one thing to keep in mind is that even though we bring up this possibility as a cause of the teens’ deaths, a leak about them talking could have come from other places as well, whether the sheriff’s office or the teens themselves. Unfortunately, there are no records (at least after a records request) on the license incident at all. Almost every officer I interviewed didn’t even know the story. So unless someone was involved with the case, they probably wouldn’t know. It was mentioned briefly in some media account(s) but with no details. -- Rob 4) That was from Jimmy Burnett’s notes on 5-8 people. Seems like too many to me, but I think we all agree that it was more than one person and likely a small group. Gosh, there are many other possibilities of other people we’ve ran across, but none that have as much evidence against them as the main suspects described in the podcast. – Rob 5) Another case more recent. Well, I don’t know yet. It definitely could be easier. The number of key sources and investigators deceased in this case was/is a serious impediment. Marshall Stewart is particularly frustrated by lack of recent action by authorities because he realizes this. – Rob Thanks for listening and notes! Overall I have wondered why many of these issues weren’t better followed up on, or were just shrugged off, it seems. The current investigators are also frustrated by it, but they can only work with information they have. It does seem there were many people involved based simply on the circumstances and the fact that both were killed in the same manner. I have a few more cases I had looked into with the Texas Rangers, all are cold cases so face many of the same challenges. A few have been solved, so it would be easier to tell the story and then explain how it was solved. Perhaps that’ll happen in the future! – Karen
Do you feel that the police are helpful in your investigation, that they think you might come up with new info that they can use, or do you feel like they just want you to go away?
The main problem I have is with the group idea and the four main suspects is that all of them seemed to be implicated separately. No one can account for where the four were that night but for sure no one saw them with any of the others or with anyone else. Most of the stories seem to be that one of these four telling someone else that they had committed the murder without mentioning anything about the other three. Maybe it was just two of the suspects? Would you pair them up? Gilbreath and Schaffer, Burnett and Davis? Or do you think those lines cross? Or would you think others were involved?
Something that always strikes me in listening to journalistic podcasts is the different ways the hosts put themselves out there to get the story. In Shane & Sally in particular, there is a lot of real-time audio of attempting to contact people and being rejected included in the episodes. What went into making the decision to keep those bits of knocking on doors and hearing "they don't want to talk to you," instead of cutting them out, and what has it looked like for you two to develop the persistence to keep reaching out? Does it ever surprise you when certain people agree to talk to you or refuse?
For me, it’s a bit for the listener, and I don’t know, maybe a bit of ego. To me, as a listener, I don’t want to just hear something like, “But we couldn’t find them.” Or, “We just gave them a call.” I think there needs to be a sense that this work is really difficult, particularly after trying to find people 35 years after the event. If it were easy, and I had everyone’s phone number, I could have contacted everyone in a month…instead of the year and half we’ve been doing this. I get surprised and confused all the time by people talking or not talking. Sometimes they flip on a dime. The most frustrating is when someone starts talking and you agree to continue the conversation, then they ghost you. As for persistence, I’ve been trained in that for decades. I will keep calling and texting over and over, and maybe door knocking, until they say they don’t want to talk. One time I texted someone like 10 times, and they finally said, “Wrong number.” :) – Rob
We really liked showing the effort taken and I believe it really gives the audience a sense of place, as well as illustrating the effort it takes to tell this type of story. Rob’s tenacity was amazing and really speaks to the rabbit holes and false leads in this case. I call him Brave. - Karen
I should note that several people would talk to Karen–or talk more–instead of me. Having different styles of communication helps engage with different types of people. – Rob
Ha, true- we have different styles and people respond differently. -Karen
These Texas Monthly podcasts are all great. I've been a reader since the 1970s, especially Molly Ivins. Personally, when you have a good story, like all three of these podcasts, I want as much info as possible. I think getting the door slammed in your face, etc., is part of the story.
I had no idea Texas monthly did pods. Such a great publication. I’ll def check it out!
Yes they do, "Shane And Sally" is their third true crime pod. The other two are "Tom Brown's Body" and "Stephenville" and they're both excellent as well.
Also, what is your personal theory about why Sally’s missing license was found on the floor of the police dept? I mean, your own opinion? I find the slackness of law enforcement and the detectives appalling here.
If you want me to be frank, the whole “fell out of toolbox” story is BS. The information investigators got from a written statement was a guy named Chris Schrier, who said he talked to Dusty Large (the alleged toolbox thief) about a license after the theft. That statement was given in 1995, six years after the crime. The question you might ask is why would it take so long for the investigators to question someone on those toolboxes? The problem is: we’re only going off the records we have. Sheriff Hanna could have a slew of notes on interviews with people in 1989 regarding Dusty Large and those toolboxes that we don’t know about and that aren’t being shared with us. I also think it’s fishy that Schrier is told by Dusty that the toolbox came from Steve Schafer’s driveway. (As you heard in the pod, it was just a home of a friend that he hung out with.) To me, it sounds like someone might have been trying to point evidence at Steve Schafer. But we can’t be sure about any of this. Schafer isn’t talking any more. Schrier won’t respond (or isn’t getting the message), and Dusty is in prison and not responding to email. And as Hanna notes, he can’t be sure either. Obviously officer Swick found it. Another report says officer Wayne Phillips found it and reported it. But Swick is confident and sure he did. There’s also NO reports on it at PD. – Rob
The lack of law enforcement due diligence and general reporting of what went on is appalling, and this is why there is continual questioning about who was involved. If there were records, they weren’t kept well. Later reports mention notes from the original investigation, but then those reports are missing. Also missing are key pieces of evidence, like the Whataburger receipt. Regarding the license, it’s just so intriguing it would turn up there, see Rob’s note! - Karen
Thank you! This is fascinating.
As a 3rd generation “Angeloan” it is not surprising to me that this case hasn’t been solved. San Angelo has a very tawdry side that I believe is unlike anywhere else. It’s one of the largest cities in the state that is not connected to an interstate, which somewhat takes the transient theory away. It’s also the ONLY city in the state that “elects” the police chief. This opens the door for a number of scenarios that could indeed obstruct an investigation of this caliber. I was 4 when this happened and the “satanic hysteria” that stemmed from it was felt years. San Angelo definitely has a dark side….
That sounds right up my street. Look forward to starting it
I used to work for an ad agency in GA and since we placed ads in TM we got copies of the magazine. It was my favorite of all the ones we repped and I’ve enjoyed the podcast so much.
Amazing. Thank you so much!
A couple questions! 1. What’s the best part and WORST part of doing these podcasts for you? 2. Do you ever come in contact with folks who won’t speak to you, but their story is almost necessary? 3. What’s the HARDEST part (mentally/physically or emotionally) for you with doing this sort of journalistic approach with podcasts and telling someone’s story? Thank you! Please keep putting out podcasts!
Best part is trying to help the families move something forward so that they can get answers. Worst part: Having hundreds of names bouncing around in my head and sleepless nights. Every person I’m trying to find likely involves several more people trying to track them down. 2) Yes. Most people will speak, but many don’t want to use their names. They are scared or not accustomed to having reporters contact them. But I can think of a couple people in particular who just won’t respond or who refuse to talk who are critical. 3) It is emotionally draining to be working on something where kids were killed. I usually don’t feel it until the story is done, but in this case, it likely will continue. – Rob
Thank you!!
1) The best part is meeting these real people and being able to get their story out there. Especially in a small town like San Angelo, many we spoke to felt they have been ignored or forgotten over the years. The worst part is that we may or may not be helping them, but the hope is that we are at least bringing the story back to the forefront. 2) As for the people that won’t talk, I’m pretty amazed at who DID talk with us. Many were happy to dive right in and tell me what they knew. There were some key people that agreed to talk but wanted to be off the record, so we had to be careful on putting the story out there without breaking that confidentiality. Rob is tenacious in the phone calls and tracking. Then, many people are fine to ghost and simply not reply in any manner. 3) I found it particularly strange being out there in San Angelo, and hoping we were really safe. The harsh reality is these are real people. When speaking to some that were truly afraid and felt threatened day to day, that brings home the reality. Speaking to the parents makes it all very real. The hardest part is dredging it up for them again and opening up old wounds. I cried a few times during interviews. -Karen
Hi. Listened to the first episodes of Shane and Sally. To me (an Army vet trained at Goodfellow AFB), a possible military suspect seems VERY CONSPICUOUSLY missing. Most servicemembers are trustworthy but obviously not all of them are great folks. Is this an angle that’s been explored? I assume so. Is there a reason it’s not being openly discussed in the investigation?
The simple answer is that no report ever listed anyone involved with the base, nor did anyone we talked to. There was one person that remembered Sally might have been involved with or talking to an “airman” there a few years before, but the person couldn’t remember a name other than “John.” That was not much to go on, and again, no other evidence of anything else.. – Rob
Sorry I don’t know if my question posted. How hopeful are you that this crime will be solved?
I remain very hopeful this will get solved. There are so many clues and as one Texas Ranger says, it just takes one person digging deeper to find the key answer to it all. Or someone coming forward after all these years. Although many have passed on that were around there, many still live in San Angelo and want this solved. - Karen
I think it can be solved. I think a major problem though is that investigators have already looked into so many leads so many times that they don’t feel it’s productive to keep looking at them again. However, as you’ll see in episode 7, there’s one more thing about the gun that no one seems to be following up on. It’s frustrating. You’ll also hear next Tuesday about the possibility of the Attorney General Cold Case Unit taking the case. – Rob