The Susan Powell Case Files | Beaches & Airplanes | Bonus Episode 11

Summary

---

Cold Podcast: Susan Powell Case Files

Episode: Beaches & Airplanes (Bonus Episode 11)

Host: Dave Cawley
Original Release Date: December 6, 2024

---

Episode Overview

This bonus episode of Cold revisits the Susan Powell investigation, focusing on the persistent intrigue around clues offered by Susan’s young son, Charlie, during early police interviews after Susan disappeared in 2009. Host Dave Cawley explores how children’s memories, language, and trauma intersect with criminal investigations, examining both the literal and symbolic meaning of Charlie’s references to “crystals,” “beaches,” and “airplanes.” Through archival audio, police interviews, Powell family home videos, and an in-depth conversation with children’s forensic interviewer Brianna Martinez, the episode critically analyzes how investigators interpret and act on children’s statements in high-profile cases of domestic abuse and disappearance.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Lasting Mystery of Susan Powell’s Disappearance

• Public Attention Shift: Fifteen years after Susan vanished, online interest and amateur theories have faded, but questions still arise, often focusing on unsearched locations with names like “Crystal.”

  • [00:00] Dave Cawley: “The Facebook groups that once buzzed with tens of thousands of members... are pretty quiet these days. Every once in a while, someone new joins and posts a question asking if this or that place has ever been searched.”

• Origin of the “Crystals” Clue:

  • The persistent focus on “crystals” comes from Charlie Powell’s 2009 police interview. At four years old, he repeatedly referenced crystals as the place where Susan was left behind during a family camping trip orchestrated by his father.
  • [01:18] Charlie (audio clip): “My mom stick. Where a crystal are... Where our crystals are.”

2. Dissecting Charlie Powell’s Testimonies

• Camping Story & Contradictions: Dave revisits the timeline: Josh Powell took the kids camping overnight in a snowstorm—the same night Susan disappeared. While Josh told police Susan stayed home, Charlie repeatedly said she went camping and did not return with them.

  • [02:54] Detective: “Well, what did you do last night?”
  • [02:57] Charlie: “Go camping.”
  • [03:14] Detective: “Who were you camping with?”
  • [03:16] Charlie: “My dad and my mom and my... My little brother.”

• Fantasy and Fact: Charlie claimed to have gone on an airplane and to a beach, both geographically implausible in relation to the events. Dave underscores the risks of taking preschooler statements too literally, noting such stories often mix real experiences and imagination.

  • [04:31] Charlie: “You went to an airplane yesterday? Yeah. And our airplane brings us to Dinosaur National Park.”

3. How Children Remember and Disclose Traumatic Events

• Complexity of Child Testimony:

  • Interview with Brianna Martinez, a forensic interviewer at the Weber Morgan Children's Justice Center, provides insight into children’s developmental limitations, trauma responses, and the importance of open-ended questions.
  • [07:04] Brianna Martinez: “It’s intimidating, first off. And a lot of kids have trauma... that can bring up some previous trauma... This is just like a neutral place for them to come where they know they're not in any trouble.”

• Building Rapport & Eliciting Memories:

  • Forensic interviews prioritize building trust, avoiding direct or leading questions, and using episodic memory exercises to encourage more accurate recall.
  • [12:41] “The research shows that you get three to five times more accurate information from a child when you're asking... open-ended questions than when you're not.”

• Understanding Developmental Gaps:

  • Young children struggle with time, sequence, and geographic specificity.
  • [09:45] “They’ll struggle with a time something happened or a specific date, but the details of the episode they can give you...”

4. Interview Contamination and Coaching

• Second Interviews & Contamination: After authorities lost Susan, Charlie was re-interviewed months later, but gave less detail and seemed evasive, likely due to coaching by Josh Powell.

  • [18:23] Detective: “Did somebody tell you to keep a secret?”
  • [18:26] Charlie: “No. Only my brain did.”

• Forensic Challenges:

  • Brianna Martinez explains why repeated interviews can lead to inconsistent statements, particularly if the child's environment becomes a risk for coaching or suppression.
  • [22:38] Brianna: “Especially if their disclosure from their first interview to the second interview is completely different... you really have to kind of dive into it and ask those follow up questions.”

• Best Practice Evolution:

  • The science in this field has drastically improved in 15 years, prioritizing open-ended, non-leading techniques to avoid false or contaminated disclosures.
  • [24:03] Brianna: “There’s research going on all the time... There was a lot more of those direct questions or leading questions back then because they didn’t know what they didn’t know. And now we know that those open-ended questions are going to get you more accurate information.”

5. Symbolism of “Beaches” and “Airplanes” in Charlie’s Memory

• Reconstructing Meaning:

  • Dave suggests “beach” refers to the pond outside Susan’s workplace, the only real “beach” Charlie likely knew, and “airplanes” to watching flights at the nearby airport—both familiar components from family outings captured on video.
  • [28:13] Josh (video): “Tell me what you think of that airplane. Come here. Look at me and tell me what you think of it.”

• Theory on the Crime Scene:

  • Dave revisits his theory: Josh possibly left Susan’s body near her workplace before the camping alibi. The “beach” and “crystals” were really the pond and decorative rocks near her office, not literal geographic clues.
  • [31:31] Charlie: “And at night, my mom said, sleep where of flowers and a crystal glow.”
  • [31:45] Dave Cawley: “Whatever Charlie might have known about Susan’s death, he never developed the ability or opportunity to share it better than this.”

6. The Heartbreak of Lost Potential

• Reflections on the Powell Children:
  • The episode closes with Dave reflecting on the tragedy of the two sons’ murder at the hands of Josh Powell, and the haunting possibility Charlie might have revealed the truth had he lived.
  • [31:45] Dave: “Charlie would be 19 going on 20 if he were alive today. I sometimes wonder what kind of young man he would have become, whether he would have escaped his father’s poisonous influence and found the words to truly tell us where the flowers and the crystals grow.”

---

Memorable Quotes & Key Timestamps

Crystals as Clue

• [01:18] Charlie: “My mom stick. Where a crystal are. Where what are you. Where our crystals are.”

Factual vs. Fantasy Statements

• [04:31] Charlie: “You went to an airplane yesterday? Yeah. And our airplane brings us to Dinosaur National Park.”

Interviewing Child Witnesses

• [12:41] Brianna Martinez: “You get three to five times more accurate information from a child when you’re asking those open-ended questions than when you’re not.”

Disclosure & Coaching

• [18:23] Detective: “Did somebody tell you to keep a secret?”
• [18:26] Charlie: “No. Only my brain did.”

Children’s Changing Statements

• [22:45] Brianna: “You can tell that something has... Especially if their disclosure from their first interview to the second interview is completely different...”

On Missed Potential

• [31:45] Dave: “I sometimes wonder what kind of young man he would have become… whether he would have... found the words to truly tell us where the flowers and the crystals grow.”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment Summary | |------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:00 | Context on Susan Powell’s case, public interest, and origin of the “crystals” clue | | 02:54 | Contradictory accounts by Josh and Charlie about camping with Susan | | 05:53 | Interview with Brianna Martinez begins - forensic child interviewing explained | | 12:41 | Importance of open-ended questions and their impact on accuracy in child interviews | | 17:32 | Second interview with Charlie - less detail, signs of coaching, reluctance to answer | | 18:58 | Handling reluctance and second interviews (Brianna), nuances of disclosure in children | | 24:38 | Home video evidence: family at pond, airport visit, and analysis of “beach” & “airplane” | | 31:31 | Reflection: “flowers and crystals” in Charlie’s memory, episode closes on lost potential |

---

Tone and Style

The episode maintains a measured, investigative tone, combining compassion for the victims and rigor in analyzing evidence and psychological concepts. Dave Cawley’s narration is calm, methodical, and deeply empathetic, especially when discussing the complexities of childhood trauma and memory. The conversation with Brianna Martinez offers a professional, educational perspective, demystifying the challenges investigators face when relying on statements from very young witnesses.

---

Conclusion

“Beaches & Airplanes” serves as both a critical reflection on the Susan Powell investigation and a primer on interviewing children in traumatic situations. By blending true crime inquiry with forensic psychology, Dave Cawley demonstrates why some clues—especially those voiced by traumatized children—are far more complicated, subjective, and heartbreaking than they first appear. The episode leaves listeners with a profound sense of both the limitations and possibilities inherent in seeking truth after senseless tragedy.

---

Transcript

[A]

This podcast includes discussion of domestic abuse and other forms of violence. While not explicit, it's probably a good idea to use discretion when listening. And if you or someone you know is experiencing abuse at the hands of a loved one. Help is available in the United States. You can visit thehotline.org to be connected with free resources in your area. Fifteen years have passed since the last time anyone saw Susan Cox Powell. The Facebook groups that once buzzed with tens of thousands of members, all clamoring for answers are pretty quiet these days. Every once in a while, someone new to Susan's story will join and post a question asking if this or that place has ever been searched. The comments will inevitably turn into a discussion of abandoned mines, caves, or crystals.

[B]

There was flowers and crystals. That was colorful.

[C]

That was what?

[B]

That was colorful. Colorful, yeah.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

I understand why many people think crystals are the clue that will lead us to the discovery of Susan's remains. It goes back to what Susan's son Charlie said during this police interview the day after Susan came up missing.

[B]

My mom stick. Where a crystal are. Where what are you. Where our crystals are.

[C]

The crystals.

[B]

Crystals? Yeah.

[C]

Is that what you're saying?

[B]

Crystals? Yeah.

[A]

But I've seen people take this way too literally. Assuming Charlie, at four years old, had encyclopedic knowledge of places with crystal in their name or picturing underground caverns with walls sparkling with gemstones. I think the truth of what Charlie was trying to say is. Is much more simple. Maybe it's been a while since you listened to Susan's story. Let me refresh your memory about the basics. Susan's husband, Josh Powell, took the couple's two sons, Charlie and Braden, camping in the middle of the night, in the middle of winter, in the middle of a snowstorm. On the night Susan was last seen.

[D]

We did a little camp fire.

[E]

So you have the campfire. What lead to it's campfire.

[D]

Just hung out for a few minutes, have a marshmallow or two, and that's about it.

[A]

Josh said he'd mixed the days up in his head, thinking it was a Saturday night into Sunday instead of a Sunday night into Monday. When the boys didn't show up for daycare on Monday morning, the daycare provider sounded the alarm. At the same time Josh was telling this story to police in West Valley City, Utah. Charlie was corroborating it.

[C]

Well, what did you do last night?

[B]

Go camping?

[A]

Charlie said camping is where you make s'. Mores.

[B]

We hold our marshmallows over a fire with a stick.

[A]

The detective wanted to know if Charlie's mom, Susan was there when they roasted these marshmallows.

[C]

Who were you camping with?

[B]

My dad and my mom and my. My little brother.

[C]

Dad.

[B]

Your mom and your brother? Yeah.

[A]

She asked who came home, and that's when Charlie said Susan stayed behind with the crystals.

[C]

Your mom stayed where the crystals are?

[B]

Yeah. Is that what you said? Yeah.

[A]

Josh didn't know Charlie was being interviewed? Not until the lead detective on the case, Ellis Maxwell, confronted Josh with what Charlie had said.

[E]

One of our detectives just interviewed your children, and your children are telling our detectives that mom went with you guys last night and that she didn't come back.

[D]

She did not go with us.

[A]

Two conflicting stories. Someone wasn't telling the truth. It's easy to assume Charlie's story is the accurate one, because why would he lie? But the problem with cherry picking pieces out of Charlie's interview is it ignores the other things he said that didn't make any sense. Like when he said he had gone on an airplane to go camping or to the beach on the way home.

[B]

You went to an airplane yesterday? Yeah. And our airplane brings us to Dinosaur National Park.

[A]

Josh did not take his sons on an airplane the night he likely murdered Susan. And the family lived in landlocked Utah, hundreds of miles from the ocean. So what. What beach could Charlie have been thinking of? I've uncovered clues deep within a trove of Powell family photos and home videos that could help solve that riddle.

[D]

Charlie, where's Mommy? She went over there. Huh? Say bye bye, Mommy.

[C]

Bye bye, Mom.

[A]

This is a special bonus episode of Cold Season 1, Beaches and Airplanes from KSL Podcasts. I'm Dave Cawley. Getting reliable information out of preschool aged kids is tricky, especially when they've experienced abuse or witnessed traumatic events.

[C]

It's a scary situation for kids. Maybe they have only talked to one other person about this, or they're not ready to talk about it and someone just found out and now they're being brought here to talk to a stranger about everything that's happened. Right?

[A]

That's Brianna Martinez. She's a forensic interviewer with the Weber Morgan Children's justice center in Northern Utah. Children's justice centers, or CJCs for short, are kid friendly spaces where specially trained interviewers like Brianna can assist with investigations into crimes like child abuse or domestic violence. They are also called children's advocacy centers in other parts of the country.

[C]

It's just a safe place for kids to come to kind of talk about what has happened to them. It's not a police department or child protective services Building just a safe place for them to talk.

[A]

Brianna was not personally involved with the interview of Charlie Powell 15 years ago, but I wanted to get her perspective to help us understand what goes on behind the scenes with that kind of investigation. Here's my interview with Brianna.

[E]

So why not bring a kid who has been through, let's say, abuse to a police station? I mean, I think most people would imagine you as an investigator or, say, a detective. You bring the person in, you sit them down in the cold, sterile interview room and ask them questions. Why does that not work so well with kids?

[C]

It's intimidating, first off. And a lot of kids have trauma. I mean, they've been through a lot of things. Some kids may have had trauma with police officers in the past or child protective services in the past, and that can bring up some previous trauma for them that could be scary. I mean, some kids even think they might be going to jail because they're going to the police station. So this is just like a neutral place for them to come where they know that they're not in any trouble and they're just able to kind of talk about what's happened to them.

[E]

Building rapport building. You sit down with. With a kid, I imagine you're meeting them for the first time pretty much every time.

[C]

Yeah.

[E]

And you need to establish that. That they're safe, that anything that they tell you, you know, is not going to come back to harm them. How do you go about building that rapport with somebody you're interviewing?

[C]

So when they get here, I'll go out to the waiting room and I'll introduce them. I'll let them know that my job is to talk to kids. Then we go in the room and we'll go over some of the rules for the interview. We'll tell them, like, if I ask you a question and you know the answer, then tell me if you don't know the answer. Don't guess or make things up. If there's something that you don't want to talk about, tell me that you don't want to talk about it. And then we'll ask them to promise to tell the truth. And then we move on to our rapport building section where, you know, we just spend some time getting to know the kid, Talk to them about things that they like to do, things that make them happy, something that's made them sad, and let them know, like, you talk about good things and bad things that have happened to you. And in that portion of the interview, you're kind of gauging where this kid is at in terms of talking to you. Right. You can kind of see, like, this kid's pretty standoffish. They seem pretty reluctant. So I'm going to spend some more time talking about the things that they like to do. See, you know, make them more comfortable. After that portion, we'll go through an episodic memory practice. They kind of refer to that as like the dress rehearsal of an interview where we'll talk to them about a really good day that they've had recently. For example, Christmas. Right. Tell me everything that happened on Christmas, and you'll kind of work through that event. Like, okay, so you open presents. Tell me everything about opening presents, and then you'll move on throughout the day. And then that's when we'll transition over to the disclosure portion of the interview.

[E]

When you say episodic memory, I think I can understand what you mean by that. But you're basically asking about one specific episode, something that's happened, right?

[C]

Yeah.

[E]

And I imagine older kids, you know, teenagers, preteens, they're probably pretty good at that. Younger kids, do you find that they struggle with, you know, times, places, stuff like that, when you ask about episodic.

[C]

Kinds of things, Specifics, Yeah. They'll struggle with a time, something happened or a specific date, but the details of the episode they can give you, so they can tell you, you know, where it happened, what happened, who was there, and they can walk you through that whole episode. But if I say what day did that happen on? It's Tuesday, Thursday, last week, yesterday, you know, so they struggle with time like that, but they're able to tell you about the episode of Christmas.

[E]

Okay.

[C]

Although they may not know what day of the month Christmas is on.

[E]

I understood. Part of the reason I ask that is I'm thinking about, you know, an investigator. You're probably very focused on some of those kinds of details and the way a child's mind works that just may not be there. Right. So you really have to kind of think about how you approach those conversations. And I think what you're describing with episodic memory makes sense. You're asking the child to describe it in their language, in the way that they understand it.

[C]

Yeah, yeah. And there are other ways to get that, you know, day and time specifically. And sometimes kids will say it. They just say it in their own way. You know, for example, they'll say, well, it happened. We had just gotten the brand new blue couch, so that's not a day or a time. But you can go and talk to other People and say, what day did you get that blue couch? Right. So you're able to find out the day in another way. The kid is just not able to tell you that specific day that it happened.

[E]

What are some of the considerations, concerns specific to kids versus any other kind of interview?

[C]

So when talking to kids just in a general day to day conversation, it's a lot different than the way that you talk to kids in a forensic interview. For example, when you're talking to a kid just about their day, you say, how was school? Did you go to school? Did you do math? Those are not the types of questions that we always ask in forensic interviews. So you're focusing more on those open ended questions. Tell me everything that happened today. Oh, you said you went to math. Tell me everything that happened in math. And talking to kids obviously is a little bit different than talking to adults because they're not on the developmental area that we're at as adults. Right. They haven't gotten there yet. And so you kind of have to talk the way that they talk. You know, you have to use the words that they use and you just have to kind of match their level when you're talking to them.

[E]

You mentioned open ended questions. I want to get a little more into that. So if I, you know, sat down with a kid and I wanted to know specifically about an event and I need a very, you know, say I'm a, I'm a detective and I have a very specific question about evidence I want to ask them and I drill on that and the kid goes versus like you're saying, you kind of invite them to tell a story. It sounds like from your experience. How are the differences in responses from kids based on those two different approaches?

[C]

Well, the research shows that you get three to five times more accurate information from a child when you're asking those open ended questions than when you're not. And with a kid saying like, oh, I don't know, that's their answer. And that's kind of what you have to take when you're in a forensic interview with the kid. So what you want to do is ask those open ended questions, which is like, tell me everything that happened. Okay, you said this and then what happened? What's the very next thing that happened? The very next thing. And when you walk them through that episode of the event that they're talking about, most of the time they're able to give you the information that you're looking for as a detective. Right. When you go in and you say, did this happen? Did this happen? Did this happen? You're not getting that full story, as you say, you're getting those bits and pieces of information that the child is giving you because of the way that you're asking those questions. Whereas when you say, tell me everything that happened from this point to this point, they're going to go through and narrate that whole entire event for you.

[E]

Is there a risk if you ask those really direct questions of especially I'm thinking like a younger child, that they tell you what they think you want to hear?

[C]

Yeah. So I mean, there's a difference between direct questions and leading questions. So for example, a direct question is, what shoes are you wearing? What color is the car? A leading question is, you're wearing a brown shirt. Right. So when you ask those leading questions, kids are going to be like, well, is that what you want me to say? Yes or no? Like, oh, yeah, I am, I'm wearing a brown shirt. Right. Whereas you say, tell me everything about the clothes that you're wearing. Well, I have a brown shirt on, I have brown shoes on. Things like that. When you ask those leading questions, it's hard later on because it's like, is that kid saying that because that's actually what happened or are they saying that because I said that and I implied that that was something that was happening. So you want to avoid those leading questions and instead open it up and say, tell me everything about your clothes.

[E]

Right. You have to be really careful doing what you do.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, you have to be pretty careful.

[E]

Do you ever find that? And especially with younger kids, I'm thinking about the way, you know, even with my own relatives, nieces, nephews, you know, you talk to them and it's like, what are they talking about? You know, they, they're using.

[A]

Whatever they're picturing in their mind and they're telling.

[E]

You, you're thinking, that doesn't make any sense. Like, does that happen a lot in these kinds of interviews where they're maybe describing something that on the surface you don't follow?

[C]

Yeah, yeah. There are times where they'll say things that you're like, I'm not understanding. And so that's why you ask those follow up questions and try to get more information from them. But you know, you do the best that you can and the child is doing the best that they can. So you really just have to accept where they are at developmentally and they just may not be able to put it into words. And so you try to do those follow up questions and you try to get more information from them. But at the end of the day, whatever they can tell you is whatever they can tell you. And as a forensic interviewer, sometimes you just have to accept what they tell you.

[E]

That's what it is.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

In the case of Charlie Powell's interview, he had told the story to the best of his ability. It wasn't his fault that that didn't lead police to Susan. But what Charlie said the next time he met police definitely raised suspicion Josh Powell had something to hide. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, I believe Josh Powell was being honest when he said Susan didn't go with him on the camping trip the night of her disappearance.

[D]

She was not with us. And if my kids said that.

[E]

Do your kids lie, then? Do your kids lie?

[D]

Sometimes they do.

[A]

It's likely whatever happened to Susan occurred before Josh took Charlie and Brayden out to the desert. Police weren't able to arrest Josh back in December of 2009 because they didn't have hard evidence to prove Susan was dead. You might recall Josh packed his boys into his minivan a little over a week later and moved to Washington state. West Valley police wanted another crack at interviewing Charlie, though, so they worked with the Pierce County Sheriff's Office in Washington to get a warrant. It authorized deputies to seize Charlie and Braden away from Josh so they could be interviewed at a children's advocacy center in Tacoma. The same detective who had first interviewed Charlie in Utah also conducted the second interview three months later in March of 2010. But the result was less than ideal.

[B]

Charlie, has anybody talked to you about your mom? No, I not know where she is. She got lost somewhere.

[C]

She got lost somewhere. Tell me about your mom getting lost.

[B]

I don't know where she got lost. I didn't saw where she got lost. You didn't see where she got lost?

[A]

Charlie squirms in a video recording of this interview. He tries to change the subject. The detective keeps turning back to the topic of camping and Susan's disappearance. Charlie becomes agitated.

[B]

We can talk about students or camping. I. I always keep things as secrets.

[C]

Did somebody tell you to keep a secret?

[B]

No. Only my brain did. Your brain did.

[C]

What else did your brain tell you about the secret?

[B]

My brain? My brain won't tell me to say that.

[A]

It seemed likely Josh had coached Charlie during those three months to keep him from saying anything incriminating. Let's go back to my conversation with Brianna.

[E]

What about when somebody you're interviewing maybe seems evasive, like they. They're either. They don't want to talk or they definitely don't want to talk about the thing that you're there to talk to them about. How do you handle that?

[C]

I, you know, in my experience, I've dealt with reluctance a lot. But, you know, we just remind them. My job is to talk to kids about things that have happened to them. I talk to lots of kids about things that have happened to them, and we kind of dive into that reluctance a little bit more when I can sense that it's happening, or when they straight up tell me, like, I'm not comfortable talking about this, you know, tell me more about not feeling comfortable. Tell me what you think will happen if you talk about what's happened. Is there anything that I can do to make you feel more comfortable? And there have been times where kids are like, nope, not ready. Nope, don't want to talk about it. And you go through that reluctance with them, and sometimes they're just not ready, you know, and when that's happened in my experience, and kids are just not ready, I let them know, like, if there's a time that you do feel comfortable and you do want to talk to me again, you know, tell someone that you trust and we can talk again. So I leave that door open for them. And I have had kids come back that said, you know, I'm ready to talk about what's happened.

[E]

So I've read, though, that second interviews are generally not the recommended approach. Is that right?

[C]

Yeah, it depends. You know, in situations like that where we haven't gotten a disclosure from the child, and they're telling me straight up, I'm not ready to talk about this right now, we haven't talked about anything, you know, and so it doesn't matter if they come back again because there's nothing that's happened. You know, it's like we're starting fresh again. But, yeah, there are instances where we will get a disclosure from a child and the detective or CPS will want more information. And so we really have to think about it and work through it and see, like, what information is it that you're looking from, from this child? And can we get it somewhere else? Because they've come in and they've told me everything that they can think of. Is it really worth going through a whole nother interview just to get that one little piece of information? Another example, though, is kids will come in, make a disclosure, tell me that they've told everything, go home, live their life, and then they're like, oh, wait, like, I forgot to tell this lady something. I want to Go back and talk to her. So if that's the case and that does happen and we've talked about it and we decide that a second interview will be beneficial for the child, I'll bring them in, I'll talk to them about the information that they want to give me and then I'll ask him about it. You know, what made you want to tell me about this now? Like what kept you from telling me about it last time we talked? And we'll just work through those things.

[E]

One of the things I read was in a second interview it's preferred to have the same person do the second interview. Is that right?

[C]

Yeah. Yep.

[E]

What's the reasoning behind that?

[C]

The reason is, is I've already built rapport with the kid, I've already talked to them. And a lot of times when second interviews happen, they happen relatively close to the first interview. Not always, obviously, but most of the time they happen relatively close. So when it happens close like that, kids usually remember you, you've already talked to them, you know, you've already built rapport with them, they remember your face, they kind of know what's going to be happening already.

[E]

So in a situation like that, I'm imagining, you know, in a short time frame, let's say it's even the same investigation. What about the risk of having coaching if they go back into, let's say a home environment where.

[A]

A parent or.

[E]

Caregiver or whatever says what did you say to that person? And don't say this, don't say that. Can you tell when they maybe come back for a second interview that hey.

[C]

Something'S gone on, you can tell that something has. Especially if their disclosure from their first interview to the second interview is completely different. You know, sometimes kids will come in and say this and this and this happened. And then the next time they'll come in and it's like talking to a brand new kid. So when that happens, you know, you really have to kind of dive into it and ask those follow up questions. You know, if this is their disclosure now you need to go in and ask like tell me more about that, get those details and then say, so I'm a little bit confused. Last time we talked you told me about this, you know, tell me about that and see their explanation of why it changed from this day to this day. Right. And then talk to law enforcement and CPS and say like compare those two interviews because they are different. And then they have to continue their investigation.

[E]

It's their job to figure out what's going on.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[E]

Wow, that's tricky. The interview that I'm focused on happened in 2009, 2024, 15 years. This field has changed a lot in that time. Is that fair to say?

[C]

Yeah, yeah, it has changed a lot.

[E]

A lot of focus on kind of learning, scientific approach to this. And I imagine that's still going on.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, there's research going on all the time. I'm constantly learning new things. But yeah, things have changed a lot. You know, I haven't been around that long. I don't know what it was like back then. I have heard stories, I have listened to interviews and they are different. They. There was a lot more of those direct questions or leading questions back then because they didn't know what they didn't know. And now we know that those open ended questions are going to get you more accurate information from the child. And so we really rely on those open ended questions from those kids.

[A]

At the start of this episode, you heard a clip of Josh asking Charlie, where's Mommy? And Charlie responding, mommy's gone. That video was recorded In April of 2008, about a year and a half before Susan disappeared. Josh had taken Charlie and Brayden to visit Susan at her work on that day.

[B]

Show me where are the ducks? Where do we need to go? Over that way. Oh, you want us to go this way?

[A]

Susan skipped her lunch so she could spend time with her boys. They went to a large pond right outside the Wells Fargo call center where she worked. That pond is always crowded with seagulls, geese and ducks.

[C]

Say, come here, ducks. Is anyone brave enough to get this big piece?

[D]

Good job, Charlie. You've attracted them.

[A]

Josh's eyes are glued to the video camera. He shoots clips of the boys from several angles while also criticizing Susan's duck feeding technique.

[D]

Don't crumble it, Susan.

[A]

There are a lot of little moments like this in Josh and Susan's home videos where Josh talks down to her, but it can be subtle. Like in this next clip. Josh turns the camera over to Susan so she can get a shot of Josh walking hand in hand with the boys over a small wooden bridge.

[C]

Walk with daddy.

[D]

Come here, Charlie, hold my hand and then we'll go see if we can find a fish. Come here.

[A]

The boys don't cooperate. They're tired and not all that interested in being movie props. Susan points the camera at Brayden as he fidgets with the plastic bread bag.

[B]

Oh, he gives up. All right, get down on this level.

[A]

You know, I gotta go from the outside. You probably wouldn't pick up on Josh's constant low level nagging of Susan as anything serious. But I think it reveals a lack of respect and affection. And that's when he knows he's being recorded. Susan's lunch break is over. She heads back into the office as Josh loads the kids into their car seats. He starts the engine, then points the camera at Charlie.

[D]

Charlie, where's Mommy?

[B]

Mommy's gone.

[D]

She went over there, huh? Say bye bye, Mommy. Where's she going? To that building.

[A]

Josh starts driving away from Susan's office.

[D]

Is it work? Does Mommy work in that building? What does Mommy do for work?

[A]

Upstairs, Susan's work sat in an office park right next to Salt Lake City International Airport. Sometimes, after visiting Susan, Josh would drive over to a spot at the south end of the airport, right off the end of one of the runways.

[D]

All right, we're gonna go see if we can look at the airplanes for a minute. And then you get to go home to take a nap, okay?

[B]

Charlie, don't you take a nap?

[D]

You don't?

[A]

When they reach the airport. In this video clip, Josh leaves Brayden unaccompanied in the minivan so he and Charlie can go watch the airplanes.

[D]

Tell me what you think of that airplane. Come here. Look at me and tell me what you think of it. Come on.

[B]

Pink gun.

[D]

Do you like this place? Are you glad that you get to come to the airport?

[A]

I presented a theory in the finale episode of Cold Season 1. I suggested Josh might have left Susan's body near her work on that Sunday night in 2009 before heading out on the camping trip with Charlie and Braden. This home video and others like it reinforced my belief Charlie associated his mom's workplace with airplanes. During that first interview with the detective, Charlie said he had flown on a plane both on his way to go camping and on the return.

[B]

We went home in an airplane. Oh.

[C]

What about when you went last night camping?

[B]

When you were all done, what did you do? We went to a beach when he was old, dad.

[A]

To my knowledge, the only real beach Charlie had visited before Susan disappeared was along the Puget Sound in Tacoma. And that's obviously not where he was the night his mom vanished. Instead, I believe Charlie's beach was probably the pond outside Susan's work. And that lines up with what Josh said he did on his way home from the camping trip.

[D]

I thought. I thought she was at work.

[E]

You went to her work, right? Yeah, to pick her up. What time did you get there?

[D]

Probably 5:35. 5:35, something like that.

[A]

But there's a two hour gap in Josh's timetable that afternoon from when he left this first voicemail for Susan around 3:30.

[D]

Anyway, hopefully he got to work okay. And of course you may call. We're planning on picking you up to.

[A]

When he left her a second message claiming to be in the parking lot outside her office.

[D]

Hello, I'm out here, so I'm.

[C]

Just waiting for you.

[D]

So anyway, I'm in Toronto.

[A]

Josh wanted to convince police he thought Susan was at work. We can safely assume that was a ruse and he knew she was dead. It was after dark by the time of that second voicemail, so I doubt Charlie would have been able to tell where he was from the backseat of the minivan. But maybe he saw the pond, his beach, earlier than Josh was like us to believe. What if Josh was there during the daylight, during those two hours between 3:30 and 5:30? Maybe Josh went to see if anyone had yet found Susan's body at whatever place he had left her the night before. Upon seeing she was undisturbed, concealed under a blanket of fresh snow, Josh decided he could still pull off his plot. But he didn't consider Charlie, who tried to tell us the following day where his mom was.

[B]

And at night, my mom said, sleep where of flowers and a crystal glow.

[A]

Whatever Charlie might have known about Susan's death, he never developed the ability or opportunity to share it better than this. As we know, Josh killed his sons and himself on February 5, 2012. Charlie would be 19 going on 20 if he were alive today. I sometimes wonder what kind of young man he would have become, whether he would have escaped his father's poisonous influence and found the words to truly tell us where the flowers and the crystals grow. Cold is researched and written by me, Dave Cawley. Audio production and sound design on this episode by Andreas Martin. Mixing and mastering by Ben Kiebrick. Michael Bondmiller composed our main theme with additional guitar stuff by. Well, you know. Cold is production of KSL Podcasts. Our executive producer is Cheryl Worsley. Special thanks to Paul Anderson of Workhouse Media and Dave Beazing of Sound that Brands. And as always, thank you for listening.