Yeardley: [00:00:06] Hey, Small Town Fam. It’s Yeardley. How are you, guys? I am so happy that you’re here with us today to listen to Part 2 of The Weight. Now, if you haven’t listened to Part 1 yet, I highly recommend you do that before you start Part 2. On the other hand, if you have listened to Part 1 and it’s been a minute, or you’re just the person in your world who keeps all the plates in the air all the time and you cannot be expected to remember the minute details of the case from Part 1, I will, of course, bring you up to speed on everything you need to know and where we left off.

[00:00:42] As for Part 2, all I’ll say for now is that it’s one of my favorite endings to an episode ever. And unless you have a little black pea of a heart like the grinch or Mr. Burns on The Simpsons, I believe the epilogue to this episode will put a smile on your face and be a gentle reminder that sometimes when you see a light at the end of the tunnel, it’s actually sunshine and not a train. Please settle in for Part 2 of The Weight.

[music]

Yeardley: [00:01:21] Hi, there. I’m Yeardley.

Dan: [00:01:23] I’m Dan.

Dave: [00:01:24] I’m Dave.

Paul: [00:01:24] And I’m Paul.

Yeardley: [00:01:25] And this is Small Town Dicks.

Dan: [00:01:28] Dave and I are identical twins.

Dave: [00:01:30] And retired detectives from Small Town, USA.

Paul: [00:01:32] And I’m a veteran cold case investigator who helped catch the Golden State Killer using a revolutionary DNA tool.

Dan: [00:01:38] Between the three of us, we’ve investigated thousands of crimes, from petty theft to sexual assault, child abuse to murder.

Dave: [00:01:45] Each case we cover is told by the detective who investigated it, offering a rare personal account of how they solved the crime.

Paul: [00:01:52] Names, places, and certain details have been changed to protect the privacy of victims and their families.

Dan: [00:01:57] And although we’re aware that some of our listeners may be familiar with these cases, we ask you to please join us in continuing to protect the true identities of those involved out of respect for what they’ve been through.

[unison]: [00:02:07] Thank you.

Yeardley: [00:02:17] In Episode 1 of The Weight, you heard about the murder and rape of Sonia Stone, a young mother living in Carmel, California, who was killed inside her home in October 1981. You met Detective Lins, who, along with his partner, was the first deputy called to investigate the case. You also met Judge Bob, who was a deputy district attorney in Monterey County, and the man who prosecuted the prime suspect, Michael Glazebrook, in a 1983 trial that ended in a hung jury. Of course, a hung jury means that law enforcement can try their suspect again, but it only makes sense to do so if you have better evidence than you had in the previous trial. And in the case of Glazebrook, they didn’t.

[00:03:06] As the years dragged on, the case limped along in fits and starts, pockmarked by moments of hope that would ultimately be dashed and end in frustration once again, until there’s a break. Welcome back, Detective Lins and Judge Bob. Thank you both for joining us again today.

Lins: [00:03:27] You’re very welcome.

Yeardley: [00:03:29] It’s an honor and a pleasure.

Bob: [00:03:31] Thank you, Yeardley. It’s good to be back. Good to be anywhere at my age.

Yeardley: [00:03:35] You’re funny, Bob. I assume you’re referring to the fact that you both turn 80 this year. Bravo you, guys. So, Detective Lins, in Part 1 of this case, you told us about the immense weight that you carried with you for years for not being able to find something that would trigger a new trial for Glazebrook.

Lins: [00:03:57] That’s correct. From 1983 all the way until 2009, there was nothing that we could do about this case, but wait.

Dan: [00:04:10] So, you guys are just waiting for technology to catch up to be able to process the evidence you had already seized in 1981.

Lins: [00:04:18] Right. Exactly.

Dave: [00:04:20] What was Michael Glazebrook doing for the last 40 years?

Lins: [00:04:24] I don’t think he was doing anything particularly great, but he was working. He was a coach for youth sports. School bus driver, I think was his last work. He was respected in the community.

Yeardley: [00:04:38] Did he stay in that community?

Lins: [00:04:40] He never left.

Yeardley: [00:04:41] Wow, that’s so arrogant. Where was Sonia’s four-year-old daughter at that time?

Lins: Sonia’s daughter Sasha went to live with other family. As you can imagine, that whole family had been in a turmoil for the last 40 years. Sonia’s mother and sister kept showing up in my office, going over to the DA’s office, talking to the DA himself. The family really kept pressuring the DA’s office and hoping that that would do something. Sonia’s parents would send my wife and me a Christmas card every year. In that Christmas card, they would say, “Is there anything more going on with the case?” And of course, I would write back and say, “No.” That was the only contact I had with the family.

Yeardley: [00:05:33] Lins when was the next time you saw Sonia’s daughter, Sasha, who was four at the time of the murder?

Lins: [00:05:39] I met her for the second time when she was 18 years old. Sasha came to my office and demanded something be done regarding her mother’s murder. She was really angry that the case had not been resolved yet, and had quite a yelling match with me, as you can imagine. But I was able to take it, and I had to explain to her that, I’m really sorry, Sasha, but I’m now with the District Attorney’s office. The case still belongs with the sheriff’s department, and I couldn’t really tell you what they’re doing with it right now. I know it’s cold, I know they’re waiting for something new to come up, and if and when that happens, then they’ll start reinvesting.

Yeardley: [00:06:25] And Bob, you were basically in the same boat as Lins. I’m curious if you ever thought that maybe you had been wrong about Glazebrook that maybe somebody other than him had killed Sonia.

Bob: [00:06:39] Well, when I tried the case, I knew who did it, but I didn’t know exactly how it went down. I was still perplexed at this crime scene, what in the hell happened? So, 1995 rolls around, and my nephew, Gary Scott, you may have heard of–

Yeardley: [00:07:02] [laughs] Yes, your nephew is our producer, Gary. He’s the best. His nickname at Small Town Dicks is G Money. I don’t know why. We just made it up and it stuck.

Bob: [00:07:14] G Money? [Yeardley laughs] Very cool. So, Gary, you learned from me enough about the Glazebrook case, so that when you read John Douglas’ book, you then turned me on to John Douglas’ book.

Gary: [00:07:35] That’s right. 1995, I read a book called Mindhunter. There was a chapter that, given the conversations I had with my uncle about a cold case that had been on his mind for over a decade, I knew he had to read this book.

Bob: [00:07:52] And John Douglas is a famous FBI guy who pioneered profiling. The book is a fascination, because it explains how the FBI got on to profiling. It was largely through Douglas who had this idea. They had a bunch of unsolved serial murders around the country. So, Douglas decides to go and talk to serial killers, convicted in prison serial killers, expecting that they would likely give him the finger.

Yeardley: [00:08:33] [laughs]

Bob: [00:08:34] But it turns out they couldn’t wait to talk to him. They were so proud of what they had done and the way they had done it. They were spilling their guts to John Douglas about how they would revisit the crime scene, how they would always be present at the funeral, how they would always be around if there were any press conferences, they just got off on being the one in the group, who knows?

[00:09:10] Well, you come to Chapter 14, and the title of the chapter is Who Killed the All-American Girl? John Douglas and the FBI, over the years, had developed this fabulous database about cases. All over the country, the FBI had seen crime scenes just like ours. And so, Douglas writes this chapter as though he’s speaking to a detective, and he says, “So, you find this beautiful, dead young girl in her own home having been sexually assaulted. She’s been murdered. You haven’t solved the case, ” he says to the detective. He goes on to say, “You will have spoken to the killer, because the killer will be a neighbor.”

Yeardley: [00:10:08] Wow.

Bob: [00:10:10] Yeah. And I’m going, “Well, [Yeardley laughs] go on, Mr. Douglas. You have my attention.” Mr. Douglas says further, “Your killer will be stocky, muscular, not attractive to women. He’ll be a tradesman.”

Yeardley: [00:10:31] What?

Bob: [00:10:31] And get this one, “He will have a dishonorable discharge from the military.”

Yeardley: [00:10:37] Stop it.

Bob: [00:10:39] Yeah, I’m just flabbergasted. I’m just blown away by this. Goosebumps on goosebumps when I read it and realized for the first time that he was singing my song. He goes on to tell me the answer to my question, what happened? Mr. Douglas says, “This guy will have seen the victim in the neighborhood. He is a loner. He’s a loser. He wants her in the worst way, but he can’t have her. And so, he decides that he’s going to pick his time and place, and he’s going to have his way with her. So, he goes to her house.” This particular scenario, she’s always killed in her own home. He doesn’t go there to kill her. He goes there to have sex with her, and he doesn’t think it through.

Yeardley: [00:11:34] God can’t get over how Douglas is just summarizing these kinds of cases, but his description is almost identical to what happened to Sonia.

Bob: [00:11:43] That’s right. Now we know Sonia just went home for a second to pick something up, and I think Glazebrook probably saw her go in. He’s across the street working on his boat. He sees her go in. It’s dead quiet. He says, “This is the time.” So, I think he opened the door and she’s just coming out as he’s coming in. And he gets in, he gets through the door. She fought him then, and she scratched his face. She was probably yelling and screaming. He was a very strong guy. And now, he’s only got two choices. He’s gone down for a felony rape, or he has to shut her up. And so, the pantyhose is laying right there. Douglas says in his book, “The victim is always killed with something that is found at hand. The killer never takes a weapon with him.”

[00:12:41] That fits along with the profile. It fits. So, it turns out the FBI has seen this crime scene over and over and over again. And John Douglas is writing a chapter about it, and I’m reading this chapter. I’m not kidding you, the hair on the back of my neck was standing up. For the first time, it enlightened me that this case was not unique that crime scenes similar to that had occurred all across the United States. And the FBI had been called in on many of those crime scenes as they are called in by small-town detectives, Small Town Dicks, if you will, where they have a big-time crime in a small-time town, and they need help from people who have experienced similar crime scenes. It was an epiphany for me right then. I now felt, and I now feel that I know what happened.

Yeardley: [00:14:17] Bob, I am stunned by the accuracy of Douglas’s description of your suspect. Without him even having any knowledge of your case, he totally nailed Glazebrook. So, it’s 1995, and now you have a profile of the killer, but it still isn’t enough to reopen the case. So, what happens?

Bob: [00:14:37] Over time, the sheriff’s office had still pulled this case out periodically and tried to see if there was anything new. Got nothing.

Yeardley: [00:14:46] It’s devastating. So, when do you first catch a break?

Bob: [00:14:50] In 2009, I am walking out of court. I’m working at the Salinas courthouse and I bump into this retired FBI agent. He comes up to me and says, “We’re going to take a look at Glazebrook.” Particularly, they wanted to take a look at the material that was under her fingernails. They wanted to use this new DNA technology. And I said, “Great. Wow.” A couple of months later, I get a call back from this guy and he says, “Well, we did the DNA work.” There was plenty of sample. They did the fingernails. They improved on ABO blood type, but in their opinion, not enough. If it is not wrapped with a red ribbon, 100% certain conviction, they’re not touching it trial wise. And they didn’t. And so, we all had our hearts broken again.

Lins: [00:15:55] Yeah.

Bob: [00:15:56] You keep turning stuff up and it looks great and it’s never enough. It seems like no matter what you do.

Yeardley: [00:16:03] And then you think about the evolution of DNA from when the time the crime happened in 1981 to now. This DNA testing that we almost take for granted is so critical to the work of solving these types of crimes, isn’t it?

Lins: [00:16:21] Right. I do remember when DNA testing started to happen, but it was in its infancy. In the 1990s, Bob and I had often talked about the case, saying, “Yeah, wouldn’t it be great if the DNA would come through on this?”

Bob: [00:16:35] Yeah. Now, DNA technology is not all that old. People think it’s been around forever. It hasn’t been. In its early stages, it was very difficult to work with as evidence. I mean, you had to have a string of really deep biochemical experts before you could lay a foundation for the admission of DNA. It was a mess. It was very good if you got it in, but it was hard to deal with.

Lins: [00:17:02] That’s correct.

Yeardley: [00:17:03] So, basically, like Dave said earlier, you guys are just waiting for the technology to catch up with the evidence you had. We do have one of the great CSIs of all time sitting right here. Paul Holes, can you give us a little history of DNA? When did the technology start coming into use and when did it become really useful?

Paul: [00:17:25] Now we have to remember, 1981, 1983, DNA wasn’t even on the horizon as far as law enforcement forensic laboratories were concerned. This is the era of ABO testing and protein testing, in some instances. This was not very discriminating at all. When you think about the ABO blood group, which is used for when people donate blood, for people to have, if they’ve lost blood as a result of an accident, their trauma, or they’re having surgery, you want to match up the ABO type or you could have serious medical consequences. Well, forensics jumped on this ABO testing to help try to discriminate between bloodstains, as well as semen and saliva evidence. But the population statistics were poor. If I had a blood stain at a scene and they came back as an ABO type A, well, roughly 40% of the population has a type A. The same thing. If it’s a type O, roughly 40% of the population has a type O.

[00:18:33] So, it didn’t really discriminate much. You prayed as a forensic scientist doing this old serology that you would get a more rare ABO type, you hoped for a B, which was roughly 10% of the population, or an AB, combination of both A and B, and that’s roughly 4%. But there was a gravitational shift with this human identification roughly in 1985 over in Britain where Dr. Alec Jeffreys and Peter Gill discovered DNA testing. This was so much more discriminating. This was the old RFLP method, restriction fragment length polymorphism. This is a technique. It’s like using molecular scissors to cut lengths of DNA into smaller fragments, and different people would have different size fragments. The problem with this is it required a lot of evidence DNA, and it had to be in good shape because it was looking at cutting the DNA at certain spots in order to get a test result. Well, most forensic samples couldn’t, didn’t have DNA that was insufficient quantity, as well as quality in order to be able to do the test.

[00:19:56] The next big shift, we’re getting into the early 1990s, where you have this PCR test, this polymerase chain reaction, which is like a molecular xeroxy machine. This was huge for forensic science, because now I have a lot more DNA, so I can now turn my attention to generating a profile. This is the fundamental technology that is used today. Shortly after that, we saw this shift to short tandem repeats areas in the genome in which there’s like a stutter. The same pattern of DNA happens over and over and over again, these short segments that repeat. And different people have different number of repeats in certain areas. And so, this is what we call today STRs. And so, by the late 1990s, STRs became the standard, and we started to see the shift in terms of the FBI’s database. This is the modern era of DNA testing.

[00:21:04] So, now when we start talking about this case in 2009, they test the sample using DNA from underneath the fingernail. This is where I’m confused about what test they did or what happened during that testing, because we are in 2009 in the modern era of STR testing. If they had gotten a full STR profile from underneath the fingernail, we would have seen population statistics in the quadrillions or quintillions. So, that’s where I start wondering, what test did they do? Did they run into issues with the STR technology from the 2009 era in which maybe they had a mixed sample, because this is from underneath the victim’s fingernail. So, her DNA is going to be a contribution to this sample. Did they get inhibition? So, now they only have a few of the markers from the offender in order to be able to generate these statistics. So, I’m not sure exactly what’s going on there.

Yeardley: [00:22:05] Thank you. So, 2009 comes and goes. Another moment of hope leads to another massive disappointment. DNA evidence has brought you closer to proving Glazebrook is the killer without a doubt, but still, still no new charges are filed. My God, you must have thought that was it, right, that this case is going to go unsolved forever, and Sonia is never going to get justice.

Lins: [00:22:31] I was just totally devastated, and basically, I lost all hope. I thought at that particular time in 2009, the DNA testing ability was superb. I didn’t think that that it was ever going to get any better. I thought that the case was just– there was nothing more we could do. I’ve lived with that case all the time. It never went away. It’s one of those things, what could I have done better? You question yourself, was there something I could have done? You just don’t know.

Yeardley: [00:23:08] But thank goodness, that’s not the end of the story. So, what happens next?

Bob: [00:23:14] In August of 2021, I was out on assignment up in Northern California. And this one afternoon, driving back to Chico, where I was staying, I get this phone call from my wife. And she says, “Have you ever heard the name Michael Glazebrook?” I said, “Yeah, what in the hell?” And she said, “Well, Michael Glazebrook has just been arrested for the Sonia Stone murder again.” And so, I get off the phone, I call up the ADA, and I said, “What? What’s going on?” So, the Monterey County DA went through their cold cases, and they using the State Attorney General and not the FBI, forensic people, did some DNA work on once again, Sonia Stone’s fingernail. I almost broke out in a sweat.

[laughter]

Dave: [00:24:18] Lins, how did you get the news?

Lins: [00:24:21] Well, I got it before Bob.

Yeardley: [00:24:23] [laughs]

Lins: [00:24:24] Early 2021, maybe February or March, I got a text from the detective from Monterey County Sheriff’s Office who had been assigned this case in 2020, said, “Well, I’ve got a case that’s probably near and dear to your heart. Do you know the name Michael Glazebrook?” I go, “Yeah, and of course, my heart’s pounded.” He says, “Well, we’ve reopened the case.” The detective said that they were expecting that the DNA was going to work this time. So, you can imagine, just every day waiting and waiting and waiting. And so, finally, I got this text. He said, “It’s a positive match. There’s no way it’s anybody else, and we’re going to go put Michael Glazebrook in custody.” I’m just jumping up and down for joy. I was just so excited. I was waking up on Christmas morning as a young kid. I was ecstatic. And so, Glazebrook was arrested on August 15th, 2021.

Yeardley: [00:25:26] It’s just incredible how in the last decade, DNA technology has continued to improve at warp speed.

Bob: [00:25:34] That’s right. Between 2009 and 2021, the technology had advanced to the point where now the chances that the material under Sonia Stone’s fingernail did not come from Michael Glazebrook are 1 in 6.5 quadrillion.

Yeardley: [00:25:56] Hooray.

Dan: [00:25:57] I love those outcomes when you get the DNA report and you’re like, “Well, there aren’t that many people on the planet.”

Bob: [00:26:04] There aren’t that many stars in the universe.

[laughter]

Yeardley: [00:26:09] So, we’re good on this one. [laughs]

Bob: [00:26:12] Well, they still have to go to trial. And here’s another thing. When the cops went out to arrest Glazebrook this last time, they all wore Levi’s.

Lins: [00:26:22] Yeah.

Yeardley: [00:26:22] [laughs] Because Sonia worked for Levi’s, and it’s kind of a, “Fuck you. Here we come.” [laughs]

Lins: [00:26:27] That’s it. Exactly.

Yeardley: [00:26:41] Hey, Small Town Fam. Want to support upcoming seasons of Small Town Dicks? Well, consider becoming a Patreon member for $5 a month. When you join Patreon, you get access to content that’s only available to our Small Town Super FAM. So, that means you get special segments, outtakes, and you get our regular episodes early and ad free. It’s a pretty good deal, I got to say. I might be a little biased, but listen, I wouldn’t steer you wrong on this. So, we would love it if you would go to patreon.com/smalltowndicks and show your support. Thank you so much for listening. And now, here’s an ad which if you belong to Patreon, you wouldn’t have to listen to you. [laughs]

Yeardley: [00:27:45] So, here we are. It’s 2021, and the Monterey DA’s office is getting ready to go to trial again, finally. They’ve tested the material found under Sonia’s broken fingernail, and it’s a match to Glazebrook. What other evidence do they have?

Lins: [00:28:02] The pantyhose, her clothing, her fingernail, and the vial of Glazebrook’s blood.

Yeardley: [00:28:09] What exactly are the charges that Glazebrook is facing after his arrest in 2021?

Lins: [00:28:15] Glazebrook was charged with first degree murder, rape, and murder under special circumstances.

Bob: [00:28:23] So, murder in the first degree with special circumstances being murder in the course of the commission of a rape. Bail was sent a million dollar bail and Michael Glazebrook posted a million dollar bail. So, once again, Glazebrook free and pending trial in Monterey County for the murder of Sonia Stone.

Dave: [00:28:52] Had held onto the Carmel property? Is that how he accumulated this money?

Lins: [00:28:56] It’s his parents’ home. His parents had passed away and passed on the– No play on words there. Passed on the property to him, and he used that to make his bail.

Bob: [00:29:08] Did he sell it or did he put it up as bond?

Lins: [00:29:11] He put it up as bond, but I also know that he has also given $300,000 to the defense attorney at this point. So, he’s come in to quite a windfall there.

Bob: [00:29:25] And this case being this case, of course, the quadrillion is not without any qualification at all. The fingernail scrapings, and the fingernails themselves and the blood associated with the scratch were all wrapped in a wax paper and were stored in an envelope that also contained, as I understand it, a vial of Michael Glazebrook’s blood.

Yeardley: [00:29:56] Oh, Jesus.

Bob: [00:29:58] It was in the same envelope, and the blood vial got broken, and some blood leaked out, but it did not compromise the other sample. This breakage happened years and years ago. The fingernail scrapings and blood samples were not compromised by that episode at all. As a matter of fact, they got a very strong result. But of course, the defense attorney is not going to just let that go.

Dan: [00:30:32] Oh, he’s going to focus right in on that.

Yeardley: [00:30:35] And in our last episode, Lins, you’d mentioned there was a sexual assault kit. They’d done a rape kit.

Lins: [00:30:42] Yeah. The sexual workup was done during the autopsy. After the autopsy, in October of 1981, I picked it up and took the evidence to a private laboratory where it was tested. We got the blood evidence back from that private laboratory. But the big problem was the sexual assault workup kit disappeared. They put that aside, sealed it away. That’s something none of us knew. So, the sexual workup kit remained sealed up, locked up for 40 years. As time passed, we had just totally, completely forgotten about it. And so, the trial was scheduled to start on October the 31st of 2022.

[00:31:34] The district attorney’s office at that time had no idea there was a sexual assault kit. So, they actually had no idea that evidence ever existed. And that particular paperwork that said I had done that was lost. Totally lost. I mean, the originals, everything was gone. And so, the detective from Monterey County Sheriff’s Office went up to the private lab, and the sexual workup kit was still there, all locked up with the original paperwork that I left behind in 1981. They sent this sexual assault kit swabs off to another laboratory and said the trial would restart on January 30th, 2023 in the hopes that we’d get the testing back. The sexual work up kit was tested. The swab they’d taken off of her right nipple came back with Glazebrook’s DNA on it.

Yeardley: [00:32:31] Yes. Yes, yes. So, now, you have a second DNA hit from Sonia’s body that matches Glazebrook. Oh, my God. Was it blood?

Lins: [00:32:41] What it turned out to be was saliva. And that particular swab that was taken was well preserved. Nobody had ever touched it for 40 years. The defense could not defend that. They tried to question the DNA under the nail because of the leakage we talked about. But that saliva, there was no way they could say that was planted or whatever, because at the time that swab was taken, he was not a suspect. It did come back prior to January the 30th. So, they started the trial.

Lins: [00:33:29] The trial started January 30th, 2023. You have to keep in mind that we’re talking about a 40-year-old case. Everybody who was involved in it has also aged 40 years. During the trial, you worry about what’s going to happen. The case is all flowing back into my memory, and I’m going to be testifying in front of Sonia’s daughter, Sasha, who’s now a young woman in her early 40s. I’m really nervous about actually meeting her and seeing her again. I met her first when she was 4 years old, the second time when she was 18 years old. It was a real pleasure to meet her again last year when we first went to trial on this.

Yeardley: [00:34:12] Who testified for the prosecution?

Lins: [00:34:15] As it turned out from the original case, the only people that ended up testifying in this were Carol, the woman who found Sonia, one of the property clerks who was still employed after all these years, and me. We were the only ones that testified from that time period. All the others that testified in the current case were scientists.

Yeardley: [00:34:38] What was Glazebrook’s defense strategy?

Lins: [00:34:41] Well, they were trying to attack the DNA evidence, but they didn’t have any experts to refute it. On their side, one of the attorneys just started talking about what he knew about DNA. It was actually a bunch of gobbledygook, is the best way I can describe it. It made absolutely no sense. I think it’s hard to refute DNA evidence. It was impossible odds that it could have been anybody else. The defense did not bring anyone to testify for Glazebrook. They did have one person read his mother’s testimony that she did in that last preliminary hearing.

Yeardley: [00:35:20] When you get on the stand, Lins, how does it go?

Lins: [00:35:23] I think that I was able to set the scene for the jury. The only two people that were able to do that were her best friend and me. And we were able to set the scene for the jury, and they were able to hear from me exactly what I did. So, just as an example, when I’d be asked by the defense, “Well, you were prejudiced against my client, weren’t you?” And I said, “Yes, I was.” “Well, why?” “Because he had a scratch on his face. Because the blood matched his.” They try to put you in a position where you get defensive and then you start saying silly things. I’ve just always found to be as truthful as I can. If I made a mistake, yeah, I made that mistake. And if I didn’t make one, they’ll back off.

[00:36:03] I know that every law enforcement officer you guys talk to has tried to explain to you why we do things the way we do. These cases are very fluid when they start– And you got so much going on at the same time. I can look back on this case now and say, “Yeah, there’s a lot of stuff I could have done that’s different.” This is stuff that sometimes people will think about after time goes by, and, “Well, why didn’t they do that? Why didn’t they do this?” Well, it’s because the case is moving fast. And then as you get on a certain trajectory, hindsight is a wonderful gift, as we all know.

Yeardley: [00:36:37] Lins, what was it like seeing Glazebrook again in person?

Lins: [00:36:42] The first time I saw him, I was sitting up on the witness stand and I was asked if I could identify Michael Glazebrook. The ironic thing about this is, when I first met Michael Glazebrook, he was wearing a face mask because he was working on a boat. After 40 years goes by, he’s sitting there behind his defense attorneys wearing a face mask because of COVID, but I still recognized him right away. And they asked, “Can you identify him?” And I said, “Yes, that’s Michael Glazebrook sitting right there, right behind the defense counsel.”

Yeardley: [00:37:22] What was Glazebrook’s affect? Did he deny it till the end?

Lins: [00:37:29] You have to imagine, this guy– When we first went to trial, he was in his mid-20s. Now he’s 66 years old. He’s no longer the muscle-bound person he was. He’s basically pretty shriveled up. He looks like an old man, but he has a look about him that has never gone away from me. Kind of a cocky, I can do anything I want look. You can’t get me. That was his attitude. Then there he was, giving that same look up on the stand. I still recognized him right away.

Yeardley: [00:38:03] How long was the jury out in deliberation?

Lins: [00:38:08] The jury went out 03:30, 4 o’clock in the afternoon and only deliberated for about an hour. They came back the next morning, deliberated for about five hours to six hours, and announced that they had a decision. So, they brought everybody back in the court.

Dan: [00:38:28] Tell us about the moment.

Lins: [00:38:30] We’re just all nervous. We’re all pacing. All of a sudden, we get this notice. The jury is back, they have a verdict, and that’s a positive feeling because we’ve gotten rid of the bad choice, a hung jury. There’s still another bad choice that can come up not guilty verdict. So, we all nervously go filing into the courtroom. Sitting on the prosecution side is Sonia’s daughter, Sasha, Sasha’s father, and friends of Sasha. I’m sitting in the pew right behind Sasha, next to my wife. The jury comes marching in, Sasha is shaking, my wife is practically in tears sitting beside me. I’m reaching across the pew in front of me, and I’ve got my hand on Sasha’s shoulder. And then the judge asks the jury, “Have you reached a verdict?” And the jury foreperson stands up and says, “Yes, we have, your Honor.”

[00:39:35] They have verdict forms there, one for each charge. The judge looks at them, makes no expression, and then hands them to her clerk to read. And the clerk reads each one. On the first count, the count of murder in the first degree, the jury finds Michael Glazebrook guilty. Oh, man, heart starts to slow down. On the second count, murder under special circumstances, the jury finds the defendant Michael Glazebrook guilty. And then the final one, on the count of rape, the jury finds the defendant guilty. Then the defense gets up and says, “Your Honor, we request that the defendant be allowed to remain out on bail before sentencing.” And the judge says, “Absolutely not. He was just found guilty of all three charges. This man is going behind bars.” He was then handcuffed and let out of the courtroom.

[00:40:44] Suddenly, I’m just I’m totally relieved. I feel like I’ve been vindicated, because as I’d mentioned earlier, I had been called a liar in open court during the 1983 trial. I was called a liar in the print media, I was called a liar on the television broadcast, I was called a liar on radio broadcast. I felt a huge burden removed from me, and I felt that finally somebody believed me. I felt extremely thankful that this happened for Sasha. And this man who’s been walking around free for the last 40 years now has gotten his comeuppance.

Yeardley: [00:41:37] And Bob, I gather you were not at the trial, but how did you feel about the verdict?

Bob: [00:41:43] I feel very gratified that, in my view, justice has finally been served. But as soon as I heard that quadrillion number, the ball game was over pretty much in my mind. I knew there was a lot of hard traveling going to have to happen. But with one in six quadrillion odds in your favor, there would have to be some off the wall, crazy procedural thing, or some totally inexplicable event that might compromise the evidence in the case.

Dave: [00:42:25] Thank God they left over some sample of that DNA.

Lins: [00:42:28] Yeah. The thing about that is that’s the third test.

Bob: [00:42:32] It’s the third test.

Lins: [00:42:33] From the same fingernail.

Lins: [00:42:35] And to your point about, thank God, Sonia–

Dave: [00:42:41] Fought back.

Lins: [00:42:42] Yes, thank goodness. I was really disappointed that I couldn’t be there for the sentencing, which happened on June 7th, 2023. And the judge sentenced him to life without parole. So, overall, I just felt thankful that I had actually done something right.

Bob: [00:43:07] I was taken aback when I heard that the verdict was murder first with a rape special circumstance, because that’s just as far as the evidence in this case could possibly take it. That’s a life without the possibility of parole. It did whack me in the side of the head that the jury took it all the way, as they should. But the emotional part for me has been Sasha, the daughter of the victim. I talked to Lins about this this morning. We all wonder how important is our work. So, we solve a murder crime and throw the perp in prison. Great. How important is that? What are the consequences of what we do? How do things really play out?

[00:44:06] Most, all of us, when we finish working on even these big cases, we hop onto the next one, and we never find out what this has meant over the course of time to somebody. To me, this saga, this long story, culminating after 42 years, presents an opportunity, unparalleled, in my experience, to hear from the child who has a story to tell about how this has affected them that we’ve never heard verbalized. And for me to hear from Sasha what this has all meant, it’s just the rarest of opportunities. I want to hear from Sasha.

Yeardley: [00:45:14] Hi, Sasha. It’s Yeardley.

Sasha: [00:45:16] Hello.

Yeardley: [00:45:17] And I have Dan with me.

Dan: [00:45:19] Hi, Sasha. Nice to meet you, so to speak.

[laughter]

Yeardley: [00:45:23] Thank you so much for taking the time to sit down with us for a few minutes, Sasha. I really appreciate it. One of the things that the detectives who come on our podcast talk about often is that there’s no such thing as closure. They strive to get answers for the victims and the victims’ families, but this notion of closure is, one, I think, that’s embodied mostly by people who’ve never been in a situation like yours. And so, I wonder now that Michael Glazebrook has finally, finally been tried and convicted. Where does that land for you?

Sasha: [00:46:05] Well, it’s definitely a step in the right direction. I’m very happy that justice has been served, and that the officers never gave up on the case, and that they cared about bringing it to justice, and that they worked really hard to bring it to justice. I think that the closing statement of sentencing being that they didn’t believe in life without parole.

Yeardley: [00:46:30] Who said they didn’t believe in life without parole? The defense said that?

Sasha: [00:46:34] Yeah. Because we send our defendants to jail to become pillar citizens in the community of which they stated labor had been. [Yeardley laughs] And for us, I think that what was missing is a confession and an apology would have been helpful to bring that more to closure for us. Dad and I both asked for restorative justice, because I think that for us, we would have liked to shared the actual impact with him, and had him realize the impact, and start to confess and say that he was sorry.

Yeardley: [00:47:15] Yeah. Can you tell me what restorative justice is? What is that?

Sasha: [00:47:19] Sure. Restorative justice is when the victims face the perpetrator within the mediator. So, it’s an opportunity with a mediator to express to the perpetrator how they impacted, in this case, 42 years of your life. Statistically, they’ve found that it’s very impactful for the perpetrator to hear that, and then start to actually do some correct work to become a better citizen. It was something that we asked for. I don’t think that it can be actually mandatory. So, Glazebrook did not allow us to do that. So, being that, we didn’t really pushed us forward to file the civil suit.

Yeardley: [00:48:05] So, you filed a civil suit against Glazebrook?

Sasha: [00:48:07] Yeah, we filed the civil suit yesterday. So, Glazebrook has been served a civil suit from the family.

Yeardley: [00:48:16] And that’s a civil suit, a wrongful death suit?

Sasha: [00:48:19] Correct.

Yeardley: [00:48:20] Great.

Dan: [00:48:22] 42 years is a very long time. I’m sure that there are a range of emotions that you experience over the course of four decades. Can you tell us what it was like when you heard that there was some traction being made in this case toward a resolution? What that felt like for you?

Sasha: [00:48:44] Yeah, we pursued it for so long and so many times that it was hopeful, but also, there was quite a time period of, you don’t want to be too hopeful because so many times throughout that process, this may not be enough evidence. This may not be able to be opened. The preliminary may not be approved. So, definitely overwhelming. So, I think just having those realistic measures and being informed in worst case scenario was helpful.

Yeardley: [00:49:17] Yeah, of course. So, Sasha, when the verdict is read guilty on all three counts, what are you thinking? What are you feeling?

Sasha: [00:49:29] Yeah, it’s a really good question. Going through trial is, I don’t think people realize the last two years, almost like– Almost every day, I was dealing with something. So, whether it’s the lawyers, the prosecutors, the police, or the defense going after dad or something, it’s pretty all-consuming to go through a trial. I don’t think people understand that there’s the preliminary, and then there’s holds and the media comes and just dealing with that for two years, it’s a roller coaster. So, going through the trial, reliving, sitting through all the pictures, and all of that is it’s a lot. So, it was a very emotional week. And then also [giggles] you’re running into the perpetrator like in the hallway.

Yeardley: [00:50:20] Oh, my God.

Sasha: [00:50:22] It’s a lot. You really get to see what you’re made of. I’ll never forget the moment of the verdict. It was just really one of those moments where I sat down and I just said, “God, this is in your hands. It has been 42 long years, and I just give it 100% up to You. And whatever You come back with, I’m going to be okay with.” It was really just like a moment of having that piece of, it’s going to be okay no matter what. And then the verdict came back. Guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of rape, guilty of use of a deadly weapon and the special circumstance. I think in that moment of just like giving it up, it was just, “Okay, that’s amazing.” After all of it, it was just peace answers and the right answers.

[00:51:14] So, I think for other people that are at different stages of the process, they needed to see him handcuffed and brought off. For me, I just needed to hear the verdict and I didn’t need to see any of the rest of it or– His family has a whole journey ahead of them. And it was a day of like the peace that passes all understanding.

Yeardley: [00:51:38] What an incredible answer. Sasha, tell us about your victims advocate work. At what time did you decide you wanted to become a part of that community?

Sasha: [00:51:51] I was interested in finding out everything that I already needed to find out through the case and be informed of. And then, it, I guess, helped me to just think of it as what would this be like for somebody that hasn’t had 40 years to process it that is dealing with trauma right now. So, what it’s like to go through this process? What is it to go through a preliminary trial? Rape has a statute. Now, there’s a special circumstance. Who’s the district attorney, prosecutors? Who are they? What does that mean? What are the advocates, defense attorneys and private eyes, and what can they do? What are they allowed to do? What are the legalities behind that? So, just each step of the way, I’m trying to really write a book of the details of going through a case, and what are the advocates doing really well and what’s missing that we make sure that we can advocate for to make it easier for future victim survivors to walk through this, and have there be a justice system that is evolved to match the progress in DNA and where we’re at today.

Yeardley: [00:53:03] That’s incredible. Obviously, there’s no handbook on how to handle a tragedy like this. And so, to have advocates who actually know what you, another victim, are going through, I can only imagine is everything, like, you must feel like you actually get me. It just seems like the shared experience that there’s healing in that shared experience as dreadful as it is.

Sasha: [00:53:34] Yeah, the advocates have done an incredible job. It really is everything to have someone holding your hand through the process. If they don’t have answer to be able to help you to get to that answer. A huge advocate for advocates and for programs to make sure that there’s enough advocates, because they’re stretched so thin, just as our officers are. It’s really a need. People don’t know until they’re in it, what a difference it makes. But it really does make all the difference in the world. There’s so much to be done. I don’t know if people out there are aware that it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the Bill of Rights for victims was established. It wasn’t until the 2000s that states actually started adopting it.

[00:54:19] We’ve come a very far away. There’s still a really long way to go. And due process is very important. I love the Innocence Project, because there are people that are wrongly committed to jail. So, we want to make sure that due process exists. But there’s a missing element of victims having the same amount of rights as defendants do. Currently, it’s still unbalanced. It breaks my heart when I turn on the television and see every other show being about police brutality. Not to take away from that that is a problem. At the same time, we really need to honor the police out there that are doing an amazing job, and figure out how to recruit more of them, so that we are supporting our police force and our safety. So, I’m really passionate about advocating for both those things.

Yeardley: [00:55:17] Fantastic. We agree there are a lot of failures in supporting law enforcement in order for them to do this job that is, as I always say, just not normal. It’s not normal to encounter people on their worst day like that’s your 9 to 5. That’s just not a normal job. I love that you are pro law enforcement as well as pro victim. You’re right. I mean, you certainly know firsthand, but there are a lot of holes in the boat. I’m so grateful that people like you, and other victims’ advocates, and just people around the world are working to shore up those holes in the boat.

Sasha: [00:55:55] On the victim side, I had the amazing honor of speaking at this year’s National Crime Victims’ Rights Weekend. It was a tough balance looking into the face of– That’s going to make me cry. [sobs] Just looking into the audience of an entire courtyard full of people that are waiting for justice for their families.

Yeardley: [00:56:21] Yeah.

Sasha: [00:56:23] And I worked on that speech so hard, because it just what do you say, how do you try to bring hope and healing and support? I’m so glad that the DA has an event like that where people can say the name of their loved one, feel gotten, feel heard, bring a picture, get a chance to come and say, “We’re still waiting for justice.” And be honored by the District Attorney’s office, the prosecutors, and all the police officers that come and are there for them on that day. It’s just so many people working so hard and so much crime out there. So, how do we be part of the solution, rather than say, it took 42 years to get this case solved, and we could have gone down that road and all the things that were done wrong, but you just deal with what you have at the time. There wasn’t DNA technology at that time. So, how can we all be part of the solution and come together to try to make a world that has less and one day, no crime.

Yeardley: [00:57:28] [laughs] That would be amazing. But then, people like Detective Dan would have been out of a job. But that would have been fine.

Dan: [00:57:34] I would gladly be unemployed if there was no crime.

Yeardley: [00:57:38] [laughs]

Sasha: [00:57:39] World without crime. That’s my vision. That’s my crazy vision.

Yeardley: [00:57:42] I’m with you.

Dan: [00:57:43] I love it.

Yeardley: [00:57:44] Sasha, how are the advocates who worked with you, you personally?

Sasha: [00:57:49] The advocates are incredible. Just some incredible people. Right down to therapy dogs that come in, Norma Jean comes and hangs out with you in the back.

Yeardley: [00:57:58] [laughs]

Sasha: [00:57:59] Yeah, they just take care of everything. The family got a chance to thank them in the back room after the sentencing. All the investigators, the prosecutors, the police, and the advocates, and therapy dog and the chief of that program all came in, and our family was able to say thank you to each one of them, which was a really touching day and moment. And then also put together a little pay it forward bag for the next family, which had journals, and tissues, and pens, and Rubik’s Cubes, and [Yeardley laughs] all the things they had provided to us.

Yeardley: [00:58:39] I think maybe one of my favorite parts now is the Rubik’s Cube and the journals and the tissues, the little pay it forward box. Like, who thinks of that? Only somebody who’s already been in it. I just think that stuff, those details are everything. Sasha, I’m so glad Detective Lins put us in touch with you.

Sasha: [00:58:58] I love Detective Lins. [Yeardley laughs] Detective Lins and Terry. They are fantastic. We have been on a journey since I marched into their office at 18 threatening to, I don’t know, take them all to court or something.

Yeardley: [00:59:12] [laughs]

Sasha: [00:59:13] Love them endlessly. They’re like family to me. And so is Officer Wilson who took the reins from Lins the last two years, and has just been my brother and my support and my everything. He’s just been amazing. I also just met Officer Pat, who is the one who told me at my school, and I remember that very clearly. So, it was pretty cool to meet Officer Pat. I’ve only met Judge Bob briefly, but appreciate all that he’s done as well. And also, I always forget to mention Judge Butler, who was just so fair. Sometimes, I didn’t like it, but I liked it to both sides. She really is an example of how the law is supposed to go. She followed it to the letter and was so thorough. The whole team was so, yeah, really grateful.

Yeardley: [01:00:11] Amazing. Thank you so much, Sasha. It really has been an absolute delight chatting with you. You’re just lovely. I just want to say those advocates that you’re working with in all the different organizations are so lucky to have you, to have somebody who gets it and who’s as articulate and thoughtful as you are. I can only imagine it’s just a huge asset.

Sasha: [01:00:35] Amazing. Thank you, guys.

Yeardley: [01:00:37] Absolutely, Sasha.

Dan: [01:00:39] If there’s anything we can do for you as you move forward in your advocacy, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. We’d love to help you.

Yeardley: [01:00:48] Absolutely. This has been such a pleasure. Thank you so much for taking the time, and for trusting us, and letting us hear how you are.

Dan: [01:00:57] We’re so humbled and grateful for your time. Thank you so much.

Yeardley: [01:01:00] We are. Thank you, Sasha.

Sasha: [01:01:02] Thank you.

Yeardley: [01:01:06] Well, Small Town Fam, that concludes The Weight, as well as Season 12 of Small Town Dicks. We want to thank Judge Bob and Detective Lins for bringing us this case. Now you all know why we called it The Weight. Gentlemen, we wish you both the very best. And let’s hear it for turning 80, hu-hu. I have loved this season. I honestly think it’s one of our best yet. And the team is so grateful that you have taken these journeys with us, and chatted with us on our social channels, on Patreon. I’m telling you, hearing from you is everything. Of course, we’re already hard at work gathering cases for Season 13, which will be coming to your ears this fall. In the meantime, we’ll be sharing some delicious bonus nuggets with you this summer. So, you don’t forget about us. So, don’t go far. I’m going to say it, here I go. I’m saying it. Are you ready? Thank you for listening. Nobody is better than you.

[music]

Yeardley: [01:02:15] Small Town Dicks is produced by Gary Scott and me, Yeardley Smith, and coproduced by Detectives Dan and Dave. Our production manager is Logan Heftel. Our senior editor is Soren Begin, and our editor is Christina Bracamontes. Our associate producers are Erin Gaynor and the Real Nick Smitty. Our social media is run by the one and only, Monika Scott. Our music is composed by John Forest, and our books are cooked and cats wrangled by Ben Cornwell.

Dan: [01:02:47] If you like what you hear and want to stay up to date with the show, visit us on our website at smalltowndicks.com.

Yeardley: [01:02:54] Small Town Dicks would like to thank SpeechDocs for providing transcripts of this podcast. You can find these transcripts on our episode page at smalltowndicks.com. And for more information about SpeechDocs and their service, please go to speechdocs.com.

Dan: [01:03:11] And join the Small Town Fam by following us on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @smalltowndicks. We love hearing from you.

Dave: [01:03:19] And if you support us on Patreon, your subscription will give you access to exclusive content and merchandise that isn’t available anywhere else. Go to patreon.com/smalltowndickspodcast.

Yeardley: [01:03:31] That’s right. Your subscription also makes it possible for us to keep going to small towns across the country-

Dan: [01:03:38] -in search of the finest-

Dave: [01:03:39] -rare-

Dan: [01:03:40] -true crime cases told-

Dave: [01:03:41] -as always, by the detectives who investigated them. So, thanks for listening, Small Town Fam.

Yeardley: [01:03:47] Nobody’s better than you.

[Transcript provided by SpeechDocs Podcast Transcription]