Rachel Hansen | The Pickle Jar, the Threat, and the Missing Horse (Part 2)

Summary

CRIME WEEKLY PODCAST SUMMARY
Episode: Rachel Hansen | The Pickle Jar, the Threat, and the Missing Horse (Part 2)
Date: June 19, 2026
Hosts: Stephanie Harlowe & Derrick Levasseur

---

Episode Overview

This episode concludes the two-part deep dive into the mysterious murder of Rachel Hansen. Stephanie and Derrick revisit Rachel's life, explore the key events and leads surrounding her June 2022 homicide, dissect possible motives, and analyze both public speculation and law enforcement’s response. The hosts also discuss the frustrations and grief faced by Rachel's family as the investigation stalls, and the ongoing search for justice.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Rachel Hansen’s Background & Timeline

• Rachel Hansen was a 19-year-old aspiring horse business owner and recent real estate licensee.
• She moved back into her Gilbert, Arizona apartment on June 1, 2022 due to unpaid rent from tenants subleasing her place.
• Three days later, on June 4, she was killed in her apartment after someone broke in and shot her (03:50).

2. Crime Scene and Investigation Challenges

• Rachel's bedroom door was found kicked in, with a bootprint as the only significant physical evidence (05:55).
• Very little physical evidence was found; the bullet was recovered, but the caliber remains confidential for “guilt knowledge” purposes (06:38–08:04).
• The front apartment door was shut but not forced open. It was unclear if Rachel left it unlocked or if the intruder had a key. Rachel and her fiancé had switched the lock days prior, but there was no key for it— it could only be locked from inside (08:37–10:47).
• No important forensic evidence, no eyewitnesses, no surveillance cameras at the complex, and most neighbors reported not hearing any disturbance or gunshot (19:06–20:00).
  • Derrick: “It’s 2022...To be in a large establishment or complex with zero security footage is insane.” (19:31)

3. Theories and Notable Leads

Subletters and Apartment History

• Rachel subleased her apartment to a woman found on Facebook Marketplace; police were frequently called to the unit due to disturbances and suspected drug activity (64:52).
• Rachel experienced a disturbing incident on June 2, waking up to find a strange man in her room who left a jar of dill pickles behind. This prompted her to change the locks (67:27–71:31).
  • Derrick: “More than likely this guy...walks in there with his key, his jar of pickles, not even knowing the previous tenants no longer live there.” (68:05)
• The possibility is raised that her murder could have been a case of mistaken identity, with the intended target being the previous occupants (93:05–93:22).

The Horse Dispute – “Dash”

• Days before her death, one of Rachel’s treasured horses, Dash, was taken by former ranch employers due to a business dispute.
• Dash was only returned to Rachel's family after Rachel’s murder and payment of money.
• Ranch owners held the horse as “ransom” for owed money but were ruled out as suspects by police—motive to kill was deemed illogical given ongoing attempts to recover funds (25:59–36:23).
  • Derrick: “99% of the time, they’re not going to kill the person who owes them money. Because then you’re never going to get what you’re after.” (26:23)

The Threat from Joe Matt’s Father

• Rachel’s fiancé, Joe Matt, intended to spend the night with her but was called home by his father unexpectedly on the night of the murder.
• Joe Matt’s father had previously threatened Rachel: “If I ever see you again, I will kill you.” (51:51)
• He has refused to speak to police regarding her murder.
  • Stephanie: “The reason Rachel was alone that night was because Joe Matt’s father called...for a random emergency at midnight...This doesn’t look great.” (59:02)

Law Enforcement’s Handling and Frustrations

• The family expressed frustration at police for:
  • Not holding a traditional press conference.
  • Withholding the 911 audio—only a transcript was given, despite the family’s wishes (48:44–49:02).
  • Heavily redacting all released case files and reports (56:58–57:26).
• Derrick: “You can’t solve it, and yet you’re still choosing to redact things and not release everything...It could be a little bit of pettiness or at least letting everyone know, ‘We're still in charge of this investigation.’” (55:42)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Stephanie (on lack of surveillance):
  “This wasn’t like 1990 or 2001. It’s 2022...Surveillance cameras are cheap now!” (19:06)
• Derrick (on murder motive):
  “There were no signs of sexual assault, no signs of a robbery. So those motives are off the table. So clearly this becomes a deliberate, targeted hit. And yet it was conducted by someone who appears to be an amateur for no particular reason.” (75:52–77:37)
• Stephanie (on redacted reports):
  "Why are you releasing things that are so redacted and why are you not making any moves? Like, I don't believe that the police have no idea what happened here. I think they know what happened here." (84:44–86:21)
• Derrick (on mistaken identity):
  “I believe the actual target that night was the previous people living there...they got the wrong person.” (75:52)
• Stephanie (referring to the reward for information):
  “Anyone with information about Rachel’s case is encouraged to submit an anonymous tip to Silent Witness...a reward of up to $20,000 is available.” (93:35–94:11)

---

Timestamps for Critical Segments

• Timeline Recap and Case Summary: 01:55–05:00
• Crime Scene Analysis & Entry Discussion: 05:55–13:01
• Lock Change and Apartment Vulnerability: 08:37–12:47
• Lack of Surveillance Frustrations: 19:06–20:49
• Horse/Dash Dispute: 25:59–36:23
• Suspicions on Joe Matt’s Father: 51:51–63:43
• Subletters, Facebook Marketplace, Pickle Jar Incident: 64:52–71:31
• Discussion on Police Withholding Information: 55:42–57:51; 84:44–86:21
• Mistaken Identity & Cartel Theory: 75:52–93:05

---

Tone and Language

• The tone is empathetic, analytical, and at times frustrated with law enforcement’s opacity.
• Both hosts are candid about uncertainties and welcome audience theories.

---

Conclusion/Summary of Theories

• The most plausible scenario, per the hosts: Rachel was the victim of mistaken identity, likely related to the illegal activity of former tenants. The murder may have been a botched hit carried out by local or cartel-connected criminals.
• The hosts do not believe the horse dispute or Rachel’s fiancé (or his father) are likely directly involved, though they note the circumstances are suspicious and warrant further inquiry.
• Rachel’s family continues to struggle with a lack of closure, but persists in keeping her memory alive through Rachel’s Rescue.

---

Call to Action

• Listeners are urged to contact Silent Witness (480-WITNESS) with any information.
• The hosts plan to make a donation to Rachel’s Rescue and encourage listeners to help, underscoring the continued impact Rachel’s story has had.

---

Epilogue: Rachel’s Legacy

Rachel’s Rescue, the non-profit started in her honor, has saved hundreds of dogs—becoming a living tribute to Rachel’s love for animals and drive to help others. Her family’s commitment and the podcast’s awareness aim to keep hope alive for an eventual resolution.

---

For more information or to support Rachel’s Rescue:
[Link to be included in episode notes]

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow.

[B]

And I'm Derek Levasseur.

[A]

So today we're picking up with the second and final part of the Rachel Hansen case. And I'll give you a little summary quickly. But before I do, do you want to say anything, Derek?

[B]

Yes. Yes. As anybody who's on YouTube right now, you can see I'm wearing our exclusive CrimeCon crime weekly collab. Vegas style. Sold out. We don't have a single one left. This is all we got. Thank you to everybody who purchased it. And so that's the bad news. You can't get that one. That's something that you have to get. You have to go to CrimeCon if you want one. But the good news is we had a lot of new merch that we launched at CrimeCon. We actually launched it a week prior on our Patreon. But for anybody who's seeing the Crime Weekly dailies that we put out when we were there, we have some really cool merch designs. We got the no theories, just vibes. We also have the allegedly sweatshirt, which arguably might be my favorite design we've ever done because it's kind of subtle until you read it and then you get to see Crime Weekly on it. But those items are going to be in the Crime Weekly store. The. Those are items that we're going to be carrying as long as you guys want them. So this is also the more high quality material that many of you asked for. This is comfort colors.

[A]

We got. We got a lot of requests for comfort colors.

[B]

Yep. And so all of the new merch is in that. Is in that, that brand. So go check it out. You can go to crimeweeklypodcast.com we are going to be carrying that merch that we were selling at crimecon. So if you weren't able to make it, you can still pick up that merchant and it's available now or it should be available within the next day or two if you don't see it up there. So be on the lookout for it. That's all I got.

[A]

Bolo.

[B]

Bolo.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

There you go.

[A]

Bolo. Okay. So by the spring of 2022, 19 year old Rachel Hansen was building the life she had always wanted. She was running her own horse business, planning a future with her fiance, and she had recently earned her real estate license. But when the people subleasing her apartment stopped paying rent, Rachel found herself facing unexpected financial stress. Determined to handle the situation herself, she moved back into the apartment on June 1, 2022. And just as a note for anybody who was wondering, because we were talking about it in part one and I just figured it out. There is a difference between when the old tenant has a contract with a new tenant for the apartment and when a landlord has a contract with a new tenant to fulfill the old tenant's contract. And that is the. The. The landlord making a contract with a new tenant for the old tenant's lease is called subletting. And when the old tenant is making a contract with a new tenant, that is called subleasing.

[B]

So learn something new every day.

[A]

Yeah. So both things can happen, but they are not interchangeably used terms because I thought they were. And that noted the more you know. So just three days later, during the early morning hours of June 4th, Rachel called 911 and told dispatchers that someone had broken into her apartment and shot her. Despite the efforts of first responders and surgeons, Rachel died a few hours later. Her family was left devastated and struggling to understand who would want to hurt a young woman known for her kindness, her love of animals, and her determination to help others. As investigators began looking deeper into Rachel's life, they discovered several troubling leads. Rachel had reported threats to police just months before her murder. One of her prized horses had been stolen only days earlier. And there had been several strange encounters at her apartment in the days leading up to the shooting. In investigators would need to determine whether any of those events were connected to Rachel's murder and whether they could lead them to the person responsible.

[B]

Can we talk about that for a second? Because that's the issue with this case. I think the crux of where people are. On one hand, you're going to talk about these different incidences that need to be addressed. But on the other hand, I think it's significant to reiterate that she had only been in that apartment for three days and. And prior to that, someone else had been living there. And I know I really harped on this last episode, but to me, that is just as, if not more important than these other incidences you're gonna talk about. No, I scratched that. They're all equally important. Everything has to be treated as if it's a potential lead that could lead to the suspect. But for me, her only being there for three days, just. I can't let it go. I really can't let it go. And it really does give so much credence to at least one theory, which would be mistaken identity. But these other things are interesting as well, and I can't wait to hear what anybody out there who hasn't heard about this case before thinks. Because there's gonna be people who disagree with me and think, oh, you know what? I actually think that this is more in line with what could have happened.

[A]

So, yeah, I was just gonna say so the timeline, three days after she moves back in, could be seen multiple ways. It could be seen as, oh, it must have been mistaken identity. Or it could be seen as they were waiting for her to move back in so they knew where she was so they could kill her.

[B]

Yeah, I wasn't even gonna go there. I thought you were gonna say, like, because she was moving back in. You have to assume that there were a lot of trips back and forth to the car. So if you have someone who's living there or in the area, they're gonna get multiple attempts to see her and

[A]

go, oh, wow, someone new moves in.

[B]

It's a new cute girl who's moving in.

[A]

Yeah. Or maybe she. She left and she moved out of her apartment. And then the person who was, you know, targeting her didn't know where she had gone to. And then she comes back, and then this person, okay, she's back. I better strike now.

[B]

Yep. And that's the thing about this case. It can be perceived. The same piece of evidence can be perceived multiple ways.

[A]

Well, on June 4, 2022, the Gilbert Police department officially began a homicide investigation. Rachel's third floor corner apartment was processed for evidence, but there wasn't much for investigators to work with. As we talked about, in Rachel's bedroom, door had been kicked in. The door had been closed because Rachel was fostering two puppies at the time and had them in the room with her. Investigators found a visible bootprint on the door, but beyond that, there was very little physical evidence left behind. They were also able to recover the bullet that killed Rachel, although the caliber has never been publicly released. What do you make of that? Is that something guilt, Knowledge that they. Because they have so little, they want to have something to catch someone up with?

[B]

Yeah. Well, I mean, think about it. Not to be too logical about this case, because there's emotional, there's emotion attached to it. I mean, a young woman was killed, but she was shot. They've released that she was shot. For the public to know the caliber of the weapon, it ain't gonna help solve the case. So you keep that internal. And if someone comes forward, whether it's a witness or someone alleging to have committed the crime, if they're able to provide the caliber weapon, when there's a lot of different Calibers out there that would give some validity and credence to their story. So that is a little nugget that I would absolutely keep internal. I am 100% on board with the decision. It doesn't help the public in finding the killer.

[A]

I mean, it might. I don't think. If you're. If you're saying we're looking for someone in this area who might have had

[B]

a 9 caliber, a 9 millimeter weapon, you know how many there are?

[A]

Yeah, I don't know, but I think, you know, it seems like such a small thing to withhold, but when you look at it, like I said, they didn't find a lot when they're processing the apartment, so they don't have a lot to use for guilt knowledge.

[B]

Whether it was a 9 millimeter, a.380, a.40 caliber, whatever it was, there are hundreds, if not thousands in that immediate Arizona area. So for someone to say, yeah, we're looking for someone who would have possession of a 9 millimeter weapon, the pool is gonna be thousands of people. But to this specific case, if someone comes forward and provides that information, when it's not publicly known now, it becomes something that you can actually sink your teeth into.

[A]

Yeah, I agree. So as investigators worked the scene, they tried to determine exactly how the shooter had entered the apartment. The front door was shut when first responders arrived, but investigators weren't sure whether it had been locked, whether the killer had a key, or whether the door had simply been left unlocked. So basically, they're saying this person came to the apartment door. It wasn't kicked open like the bedroom door.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So did this person have a key and a way to get into the apartment, or did Rachel just go to sleep and leave the door to the apartment unlocked?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Now, Kim told us that she does not believe the apartment door was locked that night. She explained that on June 2, just one day after Rachel moved back into the apartment, Rachel and Joe Matt had replaced the lock on the unit. They used an old lock from jot's father's house and installed it themselves. But the problem was that they didn't actually have a key for it, so the lock could only be secured from the ins. So here's my question. Why did Rachel feel the need to change the lock? Is it because she had been subleasing the apartment to other people? And because it wasn't the landlord subleasing the apartment? Rachel couldn't ask the landlord, hey, change the locks now that I'm coming back in, because I don't want somebody out there having a key and the ability to access my apartment? Like, was Rachel already kind of suspicious of the people that she had been leasing the apartment to, to the point where it was like, hey, let's just throw in this old lock from Jot's father's house so that we don't. We don't think that the, you know, the other tenants have the ability to get into this apartment.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, there's a couple things that you can address when it comes to this lock. First off, I'm not so sure that if she took the time to put the lock in, she wouldn't have locked the door from the inside. Obviously, it's to prevent people who had previous access to the apartment from getting in. So if you have this new lock, even if you don't have a key to open it from the outside, you could definitely lock it from the inside before going to sleep. The second thing that I can take from this information is more than likely it wasn't someone who had access to this lock previously, like, someone connected to Joe Matt, because as Kim said, nobody had the key. So nobody showed up at this apartment with the door locked and used the key to open it. So the only way really in here was either a, the door wasn't locked, or B, Rachel let this person in. But we know that's not true because she was in bed sleeping, and the door shows that. So it only leads you to one logical conclusion, which is that unfortunately, for whatever reason, Rachel didn't lock the door. More than likely forgot to.

[A]

But that's weird. Why go to such lengths to make sure you have security by changing the lock and then forget to lock the door?

[B]

I mean, listen, I think we all, as human beings, and I'm sure you'll agree with me on this. I ask myself every day why I do some of the sh t. I do. You know, there's been times. I'll give you a perfect example. Crime con. I bought that whole priest outfit, right? I had. I was showing you guys my card, my little binder that I had at the wedding. Like, I was. So I spent so much time getting it, and I went down to grab a sandwich in Caesar's palace, you know, to grab some food. Grabbed the sandwich and literally left the binder down there. Lost it.

[A]

Oh, no.

[B]

And I'm someone who's so thorough with investigations and doing all this stuff, and I found myself up in my room a day later, looking for it, realizing exactly what happened. And I sat there, and I'm like, you're Such an idiot, you know? Like, it's so commonsensical. It was right there in front of you, right next to the bag of food, and yet you forgot it.

[A]

So who do you. Who do you think has a Crime Weekly fan? Or, I mean, I don't know, Brother fan.

[B]

I didn't try to find it. I tried to find it through security. I had my name and information in there.

[A]

Yeah, it's a little scary.

[B]

So somebody. Somebody kept it for sure. But I say that to say, you know, you're moving into an apartment, you're busy, your mind is elsewhere, you got the puppies you're trying to take care of, and you forget the most simple thing, and that's locking the door. It happens.

[A]

And I mean, yeah, usually that becomes part of your routine. Right. But she hadn't been in that apartment for months, and now she's back in, so she hadn't really created her routine there yet.

[B]

I'll also put this out there. Jo met. Left relatively late, if I remember. And. And so is it possible that she was in bed? And because Jot was the last one to leave the apartment and did not have a key, he was unable to lock the door from the outside before, you know, going where he went.

[A]

Well, so Joe Matt was supposed to spend the night with Rachel on June 3rd. But remember, his father called shortly before midnight and told him he needed to come home. And as Joe Matt was leaving, he reminded Rachel to lock the front door behind him, but he said he never heard the lock engage. He turned around and then reminded her a second time, and Rachel told him she would lock it, but then he then left without confirming whether she actually did.

[B]

Damn it.

[A]

Kim believes that Rachel may have already been half asleep when this happened. In her opinion, Rachel likely intended to lock the door, but simply fell back asleep before doing so.

[B]

Yeah, and that's directly from her mom, so, yeah, she would know her better than us.

[A]

But whatever happened, investigators knew one thing for certain. Someone entered Rachel's apartment, did not have to really force entry, and then they kicked in her bedroom door, stepped into her room, and shot her while she was still in bed, and then fled the scene. So we are going to take a quick break. We'll be right back. Can I ask a question that might annoy a lot of people?

[B]

Those are usually the best kind, so sure, go for it.

[A]

Okay, so if you're spending money on supplements every month, which a lot of us are, how do you know your body is actually absorbing them?

[B]

Yeah, I don't think most people, including myself, even Think about that part sometimes.

[A]

Well, I overthink everything. So we spend all this time looking at ingredients and labels and looking at reviews. But according to the absorption company, the real issue is absorption. Most standard supplements absorb at less than 16%, which means a huge amount never actually gets used by your body.

[B]

Yeah. Which kind of defeats the whole purpose.

[A]

But that's why the absorption company focuses specifically on making supplements with pharmaceutical grade absorption technology. So your body can actually utilize what you're taking. And one product that caught my attention is their WLP one. Because everybody seems to be talking about GLP ones these days, Right? Yeah.

[B]

And not everyone wants to take injections.

[A]

I don't. No. No, I don't. Right.

[B]

I'm aware.

[A]

I'm terrified. I'm terrified of needles.

[B]

You're not alone.

[A]

So WLP1 is a daily supplement designed to support weight management, metabolism and appetite control, using ingredients clinically proven to increase natural GLP1 activity. It's a different approach for people looking for support without, you know, a lot of the trade offs that come with prescription options. And I've also been looking more closely at magnesium lately. Y', know, I'm not the best sleeper. I'm a night owl. So, magnesium.

[B]

I take magnesium every day.

[A]

It's really good for you. It supports over 300 functions in the body. But most magnesium supplements absorb incredibly poorly.

[B]

And that's kind of what you've been saying, right? We could be taking these medications without actually getting the full benefit.

[A]

Exactly. And so the absorption company's magnesium is designed for significantly better absorption, helping support sleep recovery, stress regulation and overall wellness.

[B]

So start taking supplements your body can actually absorb. Go to absorbmore.com and enter crime weekly at checkout for 35% off your first order. That's absorbmore.com and enter code crime weekly at checkout for 35% OFF your first order. This is also interesting because I guess you can dissect this any way you want, right? The person who shows up doesn't know who's inside. Or they do. Right. And they try, they hand check the front door. It opens. So they open the door and then they can see that the bedroom door is shut. And I'm asking myself, and I'm also asking you, Stephanie, and everyone else listening and watching, why not just slowly turn the doorknob and open the door without making a sound? So you have that element of surprise. Why the decision to boot the door in and startle everybody? And truthfully, I don't have the answer. I have some opinions, but I'll ask You first.

[A]

I would say it's because they didn't know what was waiting for them on the other side of that bedroom door. The person or persons they thought were on the other side of that bedroom door would be a little bit more hyper vigilant than they appeared to be at that point. So maybe the person or persons behind that bedroom door, in the attacker's mind, they know that someone's coming for them. So why are they leaving their door unlocked? Are they expecting me? Is this a setup? Right, and then. So it's like, yes. Kick the door in for the element of surprise. Don't just, you know, quietly walk in and someone in there is waiting with a gun aimed at you to shoot you.

[B]

Right. So you run into. You rush into the apartment, adrenaline's pumping, you boot the door. You don't even check to see if it's unlocked. You just boot it and you shoot whoever's in the bed and you flee the area. What does that say to you about this person?

[A]

I mean, that they were there for.

[B]

Are they a professional? Are they an amateur?

[A]

What's not a professional? I wouldn't say so, no.

[B]

Yeah, I agree. I agree. It sounds like someone.

[A]

Somebody that had a mission to do and, you know, wanted to get in and get out.

[B]

That's it. They were sent there to shoot this person, or they wanted to shoot this person, and they wanted to be there as little time as possible, and they weren't really thinking clearly. They ran into the apartment, booted the door.

[A]

They wanted to reduce the danger to themselves. I think, like, I don't want to be creeping around here with someone possibly lying in wait, expecting me to come. I want to really, like, just do

[B]

it and go do it and be out. One shot and you're gone. Yeah, I mean, I'm interested to hear guys, pause this video. If you're watching on YouTube or even on audio. Leave a comment, leave a review, Let us know what you think. Because this right here, we're starting to develop a profile on this person, and it's not a lot to go off of. I. I concede that point, but it's all we got. And so I think it's important to talk about and dissect it, even though it's such a minor thing, because we're trying to figure out the mentality and the mindset of this person at the time the crime was committed to.

[A]

Well, investigators also looked through the apartment to determine whether robbery could have been a motive, obviously, but nothing appeared to be missing. Rachel hadn't brought many Belongings with her yet. She had a mattress, a box spring, a small number of personal items. But there was no obvious sign that anyone had searched through the apartment or rifled through anything or taken anything. So police then began speaking with neighbors in hopes that someone had seen or heard something unusual. But that effort didn't produce many answers either. None of Rachel's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious person, and none of them reported even hearing a gunshot. In fact, several neighbors didn't even realize anything had happened at all until police officers arrived at the complex. Investigators also requested surveillance footage from the apartment complex, hoping it might provide some clue about who entered or left the property that night. But they quickly ran into another problem. According to the apartment complex, there were no security cameras anywhere on the property. And that was incredibly frustrating for both investigators and Rachel's family. Family. And it's surprising to me because this wasn't like 1990 or 2001. It's 2022.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

What. What are you talking about? You don't have any cameras anywhere on the property.

[B]

What did I say in the Jennifer Kessie case, which was obviously a little older. I. I truly believe at this point, if you're. If you have the money to build these buildings, it should be a legal requirement to have a surveillance system up

[A]

and running, Even just for, like, car thefts and stuff.

[B]

You know, I mean, insurance companies should require it.

[A]

I agree.

[B]

It's in 2022, and especially now. We should not live in a world where you. You are in a large establishment of complex a building, and there's zero security footage being recorded. That's insane.

[A]

Yeah. Surveillance cameras are cheap now. They're easy to connect to your phone. Anybody can do it, really. If I can do it, anybody can do it.

[B]

It's cutting corners by the build, the people who are managing the building, and. And it's. It's unacceptable.

[A]

Yeah. I think it's just laziness because, like I said, it's not even an expensive endeavor at this point. And obviously, you can understand this was incredibly frustrating for both the investigators and Rachel's family, because as it would be, this wasn't an isolated, remote property or like, an older apartment complex that hadn't been updated. Rachel lived in a relatively newer apartment community in a pretty nice area of Gilbert. And the lack of working cameras meant investigators lost what could have been one of the most. I mean, the best critical. Yeah. The best opportunities to identify a suspect.

[B]

Or, by the way, it serves as a deterrent as well.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know which building you're going to hit the one that has running cameras or the one that doesn't?

[A]

Which. Which apartment complex are you going to when you want to, you know, just start busting windows of cars and grabbing anything you can. The nice one in. In the nice area. That's a newer apartment complex where we know there's no cameras. Yeah.

[B]

Yep. No apparent security system. Yeah, Sounds like. Sounds like the winner to me.

[A]

I'm surprised they didn't have issues, bigger issues before this, honestly, but.

[B]

Sounds like a lawsuit, but. I mean, who. Who am I?

[A]

The lack of surveillance footage wasn't the only thing that frustrated Rachel's parents. They were also disappointed that police never held a press conference asking the public for information following Rachel's murder. At that point, as we've talked about, investigators did have very little to work with. There were no known witnesses, no surveillance footage, no murder weapon, no DNA evidence, and really no clear motive. So Rachel's mom, Kim, believes getting the community involved immediately could have made a difference. She felt that someone out there might have seen something important without realizing it. Maybe not at the apartment complex, but, you know, on the road or in a different business or a different location or somebody even just driving erratically away from that area. Something that could have given the police some lead. When she later raised these concerns with police, the chief pointed out that the department had posted on Facebook asking for information. But from Kim's perspective, that wasn't anywhere close to the same as standing in front of the community and publicly asking for help solving Rachel's murder. As the investigation into Rachel's murder continued, detectives searched for a motive. The problem was that Rachel wasn't someone who had enemies. Everyone investigators spoke to described her as kind, hard working, well liked. She wasn't involved in criminal activity. She wasn't living a high risk lifestyle, and there wasn't an obvious person investigators could immediately point to as a suspect. But there were a few things in Rachel's life that stood out and warranted a closer look. But for a long time, the only one that was publicly discussed involved Rachel's prize horse, Dash, who was pregnant at the time of Rachel's murder. So the weekend before Rachel moved back into her apartment, Dash disappeared from the ranch where Rachel had been living and working. As information about Rachel's case spread online, many people began speculating that Dash had been stolen and that whoever took the horse was demanding money for Dash's return, like a ransom. Some people even theorized that Dash's disappearance could be connected to Rachel's murder. There were allegations online that Rachel had been receiving Threats related to the horse and was being harassed in the days before she was killed. Now, police have never publicly confirmed those rumors. In fact, when asked about potential motives, investigators were careful not to discuss any specific theory. They stated, quote, identifying a potential motive in this shooting is part of our ongoing investigation. Any leads or tips submitted by the public are actively being worked on. End quote. I love how the police, whenever they don't want to tell you something, they're like, that's part of this active investigation.

[B]

That's the catch all. That is the catch all.

[A]

It's like, what color are your shoes, Officer? That's part of our active and ongoing investigation. And I can't tell you and don't look down because I don't want you

[B]

to know the whole Dash thing. When I covered this case, I looked into this, and I know that we had a chance to speak with Kim as well, but it's. There's more to this story.

[A]

Yeah. Because when we spoke with Kim, she told us that Dash wasn't really stolen, at least not in the way people were claiming online.

[B]

So what you're telling me, Stephanie, is what people are reporting on online.

[A]

Things got taken out of context online. Yeah.

[B]

Are not true sometimes.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

Mind blown.

[A]

I want to preface this or not preface this because we already said stuff, but I want to. To add to this and say, listen, some great theories have appeared online, and some great information that is accurate and is helpful appeared online.

[B]

Yeah. It's hard to disseminate between it now at this point.

[A]

You have to kind of take it and then proceed with that little branch and see where it brings you before you just believe it, though, because.

[B]

Good way to approach.

[A]

You can't discount everything, and you can't just, like, accept everything. You got to really, like, parse through it.

[B]

The problem that happens is someone. They present themselves as someone who is in the know, and then that information becomes fact.

[A]

Yeah, but even if they were. Even if they're like, I worked at the ranch where Rachel worked and where Dash was stolen. Even if you did, that doesn't mean you know the complexities and all the details of the situation.

[B]

But when that gets substantiated as fact and then everyone's working that as their foundation. Now you're building a house on a foundation, and we're all destined for failure.

[A]

So apparently the situation centered around the owners of the ranch where Rachel had been living, working, and boarding dash by May of 2022, as we know, Rachel's relationship with the ranch owners had deteriorated significantly. We know Rachel wasn't happy, she was trying to think of what else she could do. And Rachel's mom, Kim, explained that the conflict stemmed from a deal invol an expensive quarter horse. Now, Kim doesn't even know all the details, only that the transaction didn't play out the way everyone expected it to. And as a result, the ranch owners believed Rachel owed them money. Eventually, the situation reached a breaking point. Rachel quit her job at the ranch and made plans to move back into her apartment in Gilbert, which, as we discussed in Part 1, had been subleased to tenants who weren't paying rent. So it was kind of two things happening at once that made sense. The, the tenants aren't paying the rent, so you got to do something. Either got to pay it for them or move back in and pay it yourself. And the place where you're living and working, things are not panning out there. And so you don't really have that place to live anymore. So it's kind of like a perfect storm of events bringing Rachel back to her apartment in Gilbert.

[B]

Yeah. And here's what I'll tell you about cases or, or crimes where you have two parties and one party believes the other one owes them money. Not all the time, but most of the time, 99% of the time, they're not going to kill the person who owes them money. And why would that be, Stephanie?

[A]

Well, because they want the money.

[B]

They're never going to get the money. Right. They'll take other measures. They'll send threats, they'll go after people they care about, but they don't normally go after the source of the money because then the whole reason behind it becomes a dead issue. You can no longer get what you're actually after. So let's just remove the fact that this was a 19 year old girl, this was a horse, this didn't rise to the level of a coordinated hit. But even if it did, you're not going to go after Rachel directly. You maybe you're going to send a message, but you're not going to kill her because then you're never going to

[A]

get a scent unless. I don't know. I know there, there are times where people are killed with money disputes or in money disputes because maybe those people are like, well, we're never going to get the money, so we want your life. But it seemed like this money, it's

[B]

usually much more extreme than this and

[A]

it goes on longer. This money dispute seemed to be fairly

[B]

new and there's, and there's even more to it, I believe with Dash But I don't want to get ahead of it.

[A]

So, yeah. On May 29, ranch owners informed Rachel that she needed to remove all her belongings from the property, and that included her horse, Dash. Right.

[B]

Allegedly, she owed money to. But she's. They're going to let her take the horse. They're this concerned about it. Why not hold the horse's ransom?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

So see what I'm saying here.

[A]

So the. The ranch owners are saying, on May 29, which is not a lot of time, I will be honest here. They're like, on May 29, they're like, you got to get all your belongings off the property, including this horse, which is. By May 31, she had to do that. So you got, like, a couple of days. They're being jerks.

[B]

Yeah, no doubt. Doesn't make them killers.

[A]

No. But then they said, you know, if you do that, if you get all your belongings, which isn't a big deal, but this horse off the property within, like, two to three days, we won't charge you rent for the month of June. Obviously, Rachel is like, well, I don't have a lot of time, but I don't want to be charged rent for the month of June. So she immediately got to work preparing for the move. But remember, Rachel's mother, Kim, was out of town at that time, so she would normally step in and help, but she couldn't. Todd and Rachel's brothers stepped in to help, so they loaded Rachel's belongings and transported them back to the Hanson family home. We got the belongings out of the way, but since Rachel couldn't move back into her apartment until June 1, the plan was to store everything there temporarily. And then after dropping off Rachel's belongings, Todd and Rachel hooked up the horse trailer and headed back to the ranch to pick up a Dash. But while they were on their way, Todd received a text message. According to Kim, the message stated that Dash had been removed from the property, and it included the phone number for the ranch owner's attorney. So that was it. When they arrived at the ranch, Dash was gone. Rachel and Todd didn't know where the horse had been taken to, but they did know who had removed the horse and why. In the following day, Todd contacted the attorney to find out what was going on. According to Kim, the attorney essentially told them that Dash would be returned once Rachel paid a certain amount of money.

[B]

There you go.

[A]

So Dash was being held for ransom. Basically.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. And that's the point. Right.

[A]

So initially, I don't like these ranch owners. This is myself.

[B]

Well, no, I mean, it's the whole thing. And that's why it's. It's tough, because I know some of these facts, and we don't usually get there. So I'm trying to present it in the form of where you are in the story. But here's the thing. Initially, and there's probably more to this story, but there was an initial agreement. They weren't even concerned about the rent as long as they got it off. And then they made the decision that, hey, we're probably not going to get the money, so we are going to keep the horse, right?

[A]

Yeah, but they told her, get the horse off. And, you know, then. But they. That's kind of misleading. And I don't like that.

[B]

It's like, oh, no, I'm not saying I agree with.

[A]

You know, the horse would be one of the last things to move. So while she's moving her other belongings, they pulled a. A quick little, you know, sleight of hand here. I don't like it.

[B]

And there might have even been intentional where they made it seem like, oh, yeah, you guys can take the horse. And then as soon as Rachel leaves, they. They. They hide the horse. But I say all this to say these people, ranch owners, probably have a little bit of money. They have the horse. They're going through attorneys. Right. We may not like the approach. We may not like them as people, how they handled this, but it doesn't sound like people who handle things behind closed doors, where they're calling their friends, you know, in shady places, to go handle this and send a message. It's just not the vibe that I get, especially when they're in possession of the horse.

[A]

I mean, they're legitimate business owners and stuff. They probably have enough money. They're just being. They're just being.

[B]

Yeah, they're being petty. There's no doubt about it.

[A]

Not murderers. But I don't like them. That's all I'm saying.

[B]

Fair, you know, but they have the horse. They could sell it behind closed doors, get their money and then some.

[A]

Oh, I'd be pissed. And they're going to sell my horse. You can't sell someone's horse without papers. You can't do that.

[B]

They also can't kill.

[A]

You can't keep someone's horse hostage and wait for payment either, to be honest. I don't know.

[B]

It's a civil issue. It's a civil issue. I'm not super familiar with the leasing and all that stuff for the horse, but for the sake of this conversation, and if you guys disagree with us, by all means, push back. It doesn't sound like the type of people who are going to get say you got to talk to our attorney, but then they're going to go hire contract killer to take this girl out.

[A]

But still, I don't. The league. The legality of just taking someone's horse and holding them for some money they allegedly own. You. I don't even know if that's possible. I would have called the police.

[B]

There's probably a civil complaint.

[A]

Yeah. And Ben, like, go get my horse, go get Dash.

[B]

Civil dispute at minimum, maybe a criminal dispute for sure. But when we're thinking about the motive of these people. Right. They're trying to pull money out of Rachel for this horse. Right. They're holding the horse. As we basically said, they're holding the horse ransom. It wouldn't be in their best interest for them to kill the person that they're trying to solicit money from that

[A]

they're trying to extort money out of. At this point, let's be honest, that's

[B]

a better way to describe it. That's correct. But it's kind of contradicting to what their objective would be in this particular situation.

[A]

Yeah. And like I said, this is happening days before she dies. So if you're going to have her killed for money, you're probably going to wait a little bit longer. Cuz what? The fact of the matter is, obviously Rachel's devastated when she finds out what's going on with Dash. She spent the final days of her life desperately trying to get Dash back, and that included posting repeatedly on Facebook, attempting to contact the people involved. She even started selling personal belongings, including saddles, which are quite expensive, to raise money. So she's trying to get the money to pay these people. Why would they have her killed when they know she's actively trying to raise money to get Dash back? They're going to be like, you're not getting our money fast enough. No, that doesn't make sense.

[B]

Yeah, more than likely they wouldn't. Not 100%. But it doesn't seem likely that these are the people we're looking for.

[A]

And I'm sure the police explored this avenue of investigation because it was one of the few they had.

[B]

Doesn't even seem like Kim really believes that. I mean, she's talking about it, she's not downplaying it, but she's giving us more details about it.

[A]

Yeah, she's like, dash wasn't stolen, it was just some weird business dispute. Now, at the same Time as all of this is happening, I feel so bad for Rachel because she's trying to move back into her apartment and figure out the next steps of her life after leaving the ranch, which she thought was gonna, you know, be a pretty long term thing. There was a lot of stuff happening in Rachel's life during those final days. And the situation involving Dash was obviously consuming much of her attention. We know how Rachel felt about horses and animals, and specifically ones she had formed a bond with. This was going to be tough for her emotionally. Now, sadly, we know Rachel was killed before she could get Dash back. After her murder, the Hansens made the decision to pay the money and have Dash returned. So Rachel's family paid these ranch owners their money for Dash. And at that time, they didn't know whether the situation involving Dash had anything to do with Rachel's murder. And they felt like Dash was one of the few pieces of Rachel they still had left. So after she dies, Rachel's family, they do get Dash back, which, I don't know, like, some people could say that was the motive. Like, they kill Rachel and then her family pays to have her horse. I don't know.

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

I think they know that they would have done that.

[B]

Yeah, right. And at that point, if that's the whole reason to try to. Rachel's already dead, you know, so it's. It's fruitless. But the fact that the horse was turned over after the exchange of money was made, again, I just. I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. But it doesn't sound like these are the people tied to Rachel's death. I feel like, unfortunately for them, they were going through a civil dispute with her at the time of it, which is gonna raise some eyebrows. And I think it's important to consider all options, but once they no longer seem viable, you gotta move on to the next one.

[A]

Well, here's the thing. So Rachel's family doesn't know at the time. Does Dash have anything to do with what happened to Rachel? They don't know for sure.

[B]

Fair enough.

[A]

But it is something connecting them to Rachel. So they buy Dash back, but they didn't want to bring Dash directly home to them. Like they didn't want to bring Dash to the Hanson family home and farm. And so they had a friend to step in to help. So that friend met with the attorney of the ranch owners, completed the transaction, paid the money, met with the transport company, and then took Dash to a property located far away from Gilbert. And while Dash was staying there The Hansens took additional precautions. At their home, they installed cameras. See? Apartment complex. How easy it is.

[B]

Not hard.

[A]

They added locks. They did everything they could to make sure that their property was secure before eventually bringing Dash back. Now, at the same time, investigators continued looking into the situation involving the horse, because, like I said, it's one of the few leads they have to go on at this.

[B]

Gotta go. You gotta run it.

[A]

Eventually, the police determined that while what happened between Rachel and the ranch owners may have been illegal. Because that's messed up. Yeah. And the timing was certainly unfortunate. The individuals involved were not connected to Rachel's murder. So that's what the police determined. I'm still like, it's kind of. It's kind of like a gangster sort of thing, though, to be like, we're going to take your horse for ransom.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Like, it's not allowed, you know? Yeah. Very Dutton Ranch kind of thing.

[B]

Yeah. This is in Yellowstone, I think. I think it. It's unfortunate of the timing, but again, even if you. I don't know anything about these people, but it wouldn't make sense to kill the person that you're trying to get the money out of.

[A]

Yeah, but it doesn't make sense to steal this. This young girl's horse to make her pay. You. Like, this is kind of.

[B]

It doesn't make sense. But we know that type of stuff happens all the time. And usually you take measures to try and get the money that you feel like you're owed. And one way to quickly ensure that doesn't happen is by killing the person that you're trying to get the money from. So it's like, I understand why people are interested in this and talk about it online. I do not believe that's what occurred here. I think I've made that clear over the last two episodes.

[A]

Anyways, well, we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back. Okay. Derek, quick question.

[B]

Shoot.

[A]

Have you ever noticed that cat people don't just like their cats?

[B]

No. Cat people are absolutely committed. And I'm saying that in the kindest way possible.

[A]

Yes, yes. They. They know their cat's favorite sleeping spot, their favorite toy, their preferred window, their entire personality profile.

[B]

Yeah. And somehow every cat has a personality profile at this point.

[A]

Tons of personality there.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Which is why our sponsor, Smalls, makes a lot of sense. Because Smalls makes fresh human grade food for cats using high quality ingredients you can actually recognize. It's formulated specifically to help cats thrive.

[B]

Yeah. And that's important because cats aren't supposed to eat the same things that we feed most of our pets.

[A]

Exactly right. Because cats are obligate carnivores, which means they need real meat to stay healthy. Healthy. Unfortunately, a lot of traditional cat foods rely on meat byproducts, fillers, cheap grains, and artificial ingredients.

[B]

Yeah. So basically the cat food version of junk food is what you're saying?

[A]

Yes. And Smalls is different, though, because their fresh recipes are made with over 80% animal protein and contain zero fillers. And the results speak for themselves. 88% of cat parents reported better digestion, softer and shinier fur, and more energy depending on play with their favorite toys after switching to Smalls, which is exactly

[B]

what you would want when your cat is basically a member of the family.

[A]

Oh, yeah. So stop serving your little carnivore a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time. Because you are a Crime Weekly listener and viewer, you can get 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com crime weekly. So that's actually amazing. 60% off your first order is a great deal. One last time that 60 off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com crimeweekly. Okay, so now Dash is away from the ranch owners. The police have investigated. They say ranch owners have nothing to do with Rachel's murder. And with that information, Rachel's family felt comfortable bringing Dash home. And Dash later gave birth to her full. Kim raised the foal for about a year before sending her to a ranch for professional training. But six months later, Kim realized that Dash wasn't doing well without Rachel. As Kim saw it, Dash seemed lonely and needed a purpose. So she sent Dash to the same ranch where the baby was being trained so they could be together. And so, with the Dash lead rolled out, investigators continued searching for a motive. But for two years, very little information was released publicly about what they were working on behind the scenes scenes. During that time, Rachel's family and fiance continued speaking with the media and doing everything they could to keep attention on Rachel's case. Joe Matt remained especially close to the Hansen family after Rachel's death. In fact, he moved in with them for about three months because it helped him feel close to Rachel. Even after moving out, he continued visiting the Hansens for dinner almost every night. And Kim told us that Jot still has a wonderful relationship with their family. They consider him part of their family.

[B]

Yeah, and I want to talk about Joe Matt, but I also just want to go back to the horse, the ranch owners, one more time. I know that I'm saying because they, you know, we're trying to get money out of Rachel, they couldn't be involved. I would like to think, even though I haven't seen the entire investigation, although more documents have been released at this point, I would like to think that that conclusion by law enforcement was based on many factors, not just the fact that they wouldn't kill the. The money that they're trying to get. It would be about alibis. It'd be about their location, where they are, their history, who they frequent, their associates. All of that would be. Would be considered as well before saying they weren't responsible for this. Now, as far as Joe met, when we're talking about potential persons of interest and suspects, Jomet is another person who has been dragged through the mud by a lot of people online and believe that maybe he could be responsible for this. And for what it's worth, and this is something that's been known all along, as you just mentioned, Jomet has remained very close with the family. And according to law enforcement and everybody close to this case, there's no way that Jomet did this.

[A]

I don't think he did either. I mean, obviously, his father. The alibi of his father saying, you got to come home, that should really kind of solidify.

[B]

Did he own a gun? Would he have access to things like that?

[A]

What's his motive? What's his motive?

[B]

Yeah, he just. They just got engaged.

[A]

So as they navigated their grief, Kim and Todd also continued fostering children. About six months after Rachel's murder, they welcomed another foster child into their home, a teenage girl who needed a safe place to stay. Kim told us that continuing to foster wasn't an easy decision, because, remember, we talked about in part one how they had already made the decision to stop when Rachel came into their lives. And the only reason they took Rachel in was because she was related to another child they had in their career. Yeah, but now after Rachel's death, the Hansens are like, okay, let's revisit this. And Kim said, quote, my initial reaction was, I'm not ready for that. I can't do that. I am in the depths of grief right now. But we did, because that's what we felt called to do, and she's been a blessing. I 100 believe that Rachel had something to do with that. Just like, God, send her to my home. They'll take care of her. End quote. So nearly one year after Rachel's murder, the Hansens found another Way to honor her memory. They started Rachel's Rescue. Kim told us that during the COVID pandemic, Rachel and Kim had spent two years fostering female dogs and their litters of puppies. Kim told us it brought an incredible amount of joy into their home during a difficult period of time. Rachel loved the work and dreamed of someday starting a rescue organization of her own. Now, at the time, Kim wasn't interested in running a rescue. She loved caring for the dogs, but she didn't want the responsibility that came with managing a non nonprofit organization. But after Rachel's death, she decided it was finally time to make her daughter's dream a reality. Rachel's Rescue officially received a non profit status on June 1, 2023, almost exactly one year after Rachel was murdered. Today, the organization is still operating and has become a full time job for Kim. She told us that while the work is demanding, she's grateful for it because it gives her something meaningful to focus on and help fill both her time and her heart as she continues navigating life without Rachel. And I totally see that actually. I mean, you think about like how much work the Hansen's already had with, you know, they have a lot of children at their home, they got a lot of animals there. But then, and you're like, why would you want to add on to it? Well, you lost your daughter. The case is unsolved. She was brutally murdered. No one knows why, no one knows who. And that is going to fill up your head non stop. If you have any downtime, it's going to be haunting you during the day, it's going to be haunting you at night while you try to sleep. So the more busy you can stay and the more exhausted you can make yourself, the better I think your mental health will be.

[B]

We see that a lot.

[A]

Yeah. And, and I think that's why a lot of parents who lose their children in this way or who have missing children, they throw themselves into not only raising awareness for their child's case, but for the cases of other children and other people. Because it's a purpose, but also this is something to fill my time and my brain with or I'll go crazy.

[B]

I can't imagine. We talk about it all the time. I can't imagine being in this position. And I have so much respect for the families that are able to continue on with life, although it's much different. But I personally feel like I'd curl up in a ball and just die.

[A]

I do too.

[B]

The courage and the strength that it takes to put one Foot in front of the other. It's a strength that I've never experienced.

[A]

I mean, we probably would figure out a way to do something similar, I hope. But without being in that situation, imagining that situation feels unimaginable.

[B]

No, I mean, when Mason, my dog, passed away, I was curled up in my office. We were for three weeks crying my eyes out. I just can't imagine. I don't even want to think about it. But, yeah, I. Whenever we meet these families, it just. I'm in absolute awe of their, like, even their fortitude, just what they're able to do in spite of what they do. Yeah. Yeah. It's incredible.

[A]

Well, Rachel's rescue has also become an important way to keep Rachel's story alive. Kim explained that people frequently ask whether she is Rachel when they hear the name Rachel's Rescue, and that naturally opens the door for conversations about Rachel, her life, and her unsolved murder. Now, while the Hansens ran Rachel's rescue, the investigation into Rachel's murder continued. Every few months, Kim and Todd would meet with investigators to get an update on the case and see if there had been any progress. And the response was usually the same. Detectives would tell them they were still actively working the case, following leads and pursuing different avenues of investigation. Kim said investigators told them they would go down one rabbit hole only for another lead to surface. But beyond that, there wasn't much information they could share. Now, at the same time, Rachel's family found themselves shut out from much of the investigation. They were not allowed to review the police reports or the medical examiner's report. They couldn't listen to Rachel's 911 call, and they weren't permitted to see the body camera footage either. And whenever they asked whether they could review these materials or why they couldn't review these materials, they were told it was because the case is still open. And I saw recently in, because, like I said this, this case is going on still, and there's articles coming out about it, but they said, you know, a lot of the case material had been released and the transcript of Rachel's 911 call had been released, but the audio, it appears, still hasn't been. So the family still to this day has not heard that. That 911 call from, from what I read online.

[B]

And I don't know, maybe, maybe that's going to change. I don't know why they wouldn't let them listen to it.

[A]

Exactly. That's what I was going to ask you. Why what's going on here?

[B]

Even if it's not a recording of it. Like where they just play it for them in their presence.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So if they really want to hear that, although. And I don't know the answer to this, but part of it. Could it be that officers are saying this is a horrific phone call? It's not like you think.

[A]

I don't think that's their decision to make.

[B]

Well, technically it is. I'm not saying it's the right for them to make that, but they have the right to not release that.

[A]

They have the right to release it if they have a legitimate purpose. As far as the investigation goes, they don't have the right to make the decision for Rachel's parents. We don't think you can handle this.

[B]

No, I, I'm. That's. There's two different things there. You're conflating two things. What I'm saying is they could put it under the umbrella of it's for the investigation, and nobody would be able to dispute it because it's an omission of the crime being that occurred. So they're going to be covered legally to not release that information. But I'm asking you, even though that's the. The excuse they're using, could it be internally that they're saying this is this girl dying, she's in extreme pain. We. We don't want her parents to remember her that way. I'm not saying they have that right, but could it be the reason?

[A]

It could be, but they've already. Now they've released a transcript along with

[B]

all the case files, so transcript's a lot less than.

[A]

But legally, now you've released a transcript. So what's your legal reason for not allowing Rachel's family to hear the 911 call?

[B]

Yeah, I think it's a slippery slope. It could be that there might be something in the background that they think could be used. Again, if you're asking me personally, let them listen to it. I've already. I just said that when we talked about it, maybe not give them the recording so it can be disseminated to other parties, but allow them to come in and listen to it if they want to. And I'm in agreement with you that they should just release it at this point. But I understand why they're not publicly. But I still think that Rachel's family should be able to hear if they wanted. If they want to hear it. Those are essentially the last words that she ever. That she ever spoke. If they want to hear it, they should be able to hear it.

[A]

So Rachel's Family has said that they wished the audio of the 911 call was released along with the. The police file, and they released the body cam footage as well. They said, quote, we wanted to hear our daughter's voice in her last week words that she spoke. So we were disappointed. It was a transcript only, end quote.

[B]

So, yeah, it's stupid. It's stupid. Personally, I'm. I'm trying to get into the minds of the officers involved.

[A]

Do you think there could be something in there or something that they are saying can't be put out there because it's. It's like an evidence or something that they once again want to keep for guilt knowledge? Like, is that why they've only released a transcript? That's what I'm wondering.

[B]

We have the transcript, right. So we know that she didn't say something that was going to be critical to the identification of the suspect or it would be in the transcript. I try to put myself in the mindset of these officers and what could have been heard in the background that may be critical to the case, guilt knowledge, if you will. But I can't think of anything.

[A]

I know. That's what I'm trying to figure, because it seems. It seems just like I can't think

[B]

of anything I could be missing.

[A]

It seems weird. Could they have released the transcript but not released a whole transcript? Or would they have had to have. Would they have had to have said that they hadn't released the whole transcript?

[B]

I don't want this to come off as defending officers, but it does seem like a weird hill to die on.

[A]

It does, that's what I'm saying.

[B]

So there's gotta be.

[A]

There has to be something. Right?

[B]

I agree.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I don't know what it is, but they have to know how bad this looks optically. You have the mother of the victim out there saying, we just want to hear our daughter's last words. And you know, you have fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers in that police department. You think they would say, yeah, let's let them listen to it. And for some reason they're not. And I can't tell you why.

[A]

I can't tell you why either. Besides, it's just incredibly petty. Or there's something there that can't be heard by the general public. And that's kind of. I wanted to see if you were on the same page with me there, and seems like you are.

[B]

Yeah. I still don't see the issue. We know the parents didn't kill her. Right. So you could bring them in and just say it's you and Todd, Kim, Kim, you two. That's all that's coming in, Nobody else. We can't give you the recording, but we'll allow you to listen to it as many times as you want in a controlled environment.

[A]

And it might upset you and it might break your heart. Yeah, it's your choice. This is what you want. This is what you've expressed. You want it over and over again. Okay, here, you're adults.

[B]

We're gonna make you sign some documents. We want us to remain confidential. You know, I'm sure they'd be willing to do that.

[A]

So what was in there that they don't want to be heard?

[B]

It's a very, very good question.

[A]

So. By the end of 2024, more than a year and a half had passed since Rachel was murdered. And around that time, Kim spoke with the media and shared a difficult update following another meeting with investigators. According to Kim, detectives told the family they had essentially exhausted all of the leads they had available to them. As Kim understood it, the case was going to become inactive unless someone came forward with new information. Investigators had followed every lead they had, but each one ultimately ended in a dead end. In addition to sharing that update, Kim and Todd admitted that they were struggling to remain optimistic. As painful as it was, they were beginning to prepare themselves for the possibility that Rachel's murder might never be solved. Kim told reporters, quote, we just have to resolve ourselves to the fact we likely may never know who took Rachel's life. End quote. A few months later, In August of 2024, Gilbert police released transcripts from Rachel's 911 call, along with body camera footage from the officers who responded to this. Seen that Hansen supported the decision to make those materials public because they hoped it would generate renewed interest in Rachel's case. But once again, at the same time, they were frustrated by how heavily redacted the records were. And we talked about this. But one of the biggest disappointments for the family was that the actual audio from the 911 call was not released. And, you know, we've talked about how Kim said she just wanted to hear her daughter's voice. That's what they wanted. Then In October of 2024, investigators released a 350 page report detailing portions of their investigation. But like the materials released before, much of the report had been heavily redacted. Even so, it provided the public with some new information and revealed several leads detectives had spent time investigating. One of those leads involved Joe, Matt's father, who had threatened Rachel prior to her murder. We have a lot to talk about, but let's take a quick break. We'll be right back. This episode episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack and hydration sponsor. IQ Bar Protein Bars. IQ Mix, Hydration mixes and IQ Joe Mushroom coffees are the delicious low sugar brain and body fuel you need to win your day.

[B]

Yeah, you know what I've learned definitely over the years when it, when you get busy, convenience usually wins. An IQ Bar definitely checks that box.

[A]

And that is true. But unfortunately, the most convenient food choices are not the best. They're either loaded with sugar or they leave you hungry again 30 minutes later.

[B]

Yeah, then that. Which is exactly why I've been keeping IQ Bar stuff around all day. Whether it's traveling, recording or just around the day when I'm working out or whatever it is, it's easy to grab and go. I actually have the Ultimate Sampler pack right here. It's half empty because I just ate the lemon blueberry. But you can see it if you're watching on YouTube. We get the ultimate Sampler box too. We're not just talking about it.

[A]

Yeah. Well, first of all, the, the Ultimate Sampler Pack is perfect. It's the perfect place for somebody who is maybe new to IQ Bar and wants to to try different flavors and try different products and see what they like. It's going to give you nine IQ Bars, eight IQ Mix hydration sticks, and four IQ Joe sticks. So you can figure out what you like without committing to one flavor. I mean, we can tell you what we like all day, which we, we love everything. Basically, we can tell you our favorites. The good thing is I love that everything is clean, label certified, so it's free from gluten, dairy, soy GMOs and artificial ingredients. So it's really great. Like everything in it is good for, for you, but on top of that, it tastes good. Right?

[B]

That's the number one thing. If it don't taste good, it don't matter how good it is for you, you're not going to eat it.

[A]

So we highly recommend IQ Bar. We have been saying this for a long time. We love it.

[B]

Personally, Mint chocolate chip's a favorite of mine, but I also know a lot of you guys have been responding to us. Big fans of the Blueberry Pomegranate Hydration mix as well.

[A]

So with over 20,000 5 star reviews and counting, more people than ever are fueling their busy lifestyles with I IQ bars, Brain and Body Boosting bars, hydration mixes, and mushroom coffees. And like we said, their ultimate Sampler pack includes all three. And right now, IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ Bar products, including the ultimate sampler pack, plus free shipping, which is a great deal, I have to say. I use our code. When you go and shop, you ain't

[B]

cheating, you ain't trying.

[A]

Yeah. So to get your 20% off that both Derek and I take advantage of, all you have to do is Text weekly to 64,000. Text weekly to 64,000. That is weekly to 64,000. Message and Data rates may apply. See Terms for details.

[B]

Okay, we're back. And I know we're going to talk about Jomette's father, but before we do, I am going to give law enforcement a little shit here because you and I have talked about this extensively, Stephanie, not only probably on a Crime Weekly episode, but personally. And I do feel like there are people out there. In my case, it's usually lawyers, where they say no or decide to refrain from releasing certain information just because they have the power to do so. It's basically just to establish a level of dominance. Like, hey, this is what my power is. This is what I'm capable of doing. And I'd like to think that that's not what's happening here, but I do feel like you can't solve it. And yet you're still choosing to redact things and not release everything. Release Body cam, but not the recording. And unless there's something that we don't know about, which I'm starting to think, or I do believe that there isn't, because they haven't solved it Right. So there's nothing too critical in there. And yet they're still choosing not to give that information. I do feel like it could be a little bit of pettiness or at least letting everyone know, like, we're still in charge of this investigation. We will be the arbiters of who. Of what information you receive. And if that's even remotely true, I don't like it.

[A]

So it's. To me, it's like, okay, you keep telling the family, we got nothing. We've exhausted every lead. And then you release some stuff, but it's heavily redacted for what? Like, at that point, it's like, why are you being petty? Or who are you protecting?

[B]

And it could be just a simple explanation, but by you redacting it, you're creating that question, who are you protecting? You're creating your own headaches.

[A]

Why are you redacting so much?

[B]

Yeah. If it's personal information about specific people who aren't connected to the case.

[A]

Sure, it doesn't look like it in

[B]

this case, but if it's heavily redacted, why. Why? You're just creating more theories.

[A]

Yeah, more.

[B]

More conspiracy theories as well. As far as what's going on here,

[A]

well, then it's like, well, you don't want to give the audio from the 911 call. You don't want to let them listen to it. We're. We're heavily redacting any files we release. Like.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Are you protecting someone in the police department at this point? That's where people's brains are going to go.

[B]

No doubt. No doubt. And you have nobody to blame but yourself.

[A]

Yeah. So let's talk about Joe Matt's father. Kim told us that on April 22, 2022, there had been a confrontation between Rachel and Joe Matt's father. And during that encounter, he allegedly told Rachel, quote, if I ever see you again, I will kill you, end quote. Which is, you know, pretty serious, pretty extreme. Now, Rachel took the threat so seriously enough that she contacted police. Because of that threat, Jot's father had become a person of interest in the investigation, obviously. However, according to Kim Gilbert, police have never interviewed him regarding Rachel's murder because he has allegedly avoided speaking with investigators. Kim said she was told by police leadership that they cannot force him to cooperate. Okay, so we have here a little issue. Joe Matt was supposed to spend the night with Rachel, meaning she wouldn't be alone. The reason that he's not spending the night with Rachel is because his father is calling him away with some random emergency at midnight. Now we have this alleged threat that Jomat's father made to Rachel that she felt was serious enough to contact the police. And Joe Matt's father has avoided talking to the police about this. This doesn't look great.

[B]

Not great optically. Not what you want to have attached to your name.

[A]

No.

[B]

For a murder case.

[A]

Now, to be clear, Kim told us she has no idea whether Jomat's father had any involvement in Rachel's murder. However, she does find certain aspects of the situation unusual, which are the ones I just laid out. Right. It doesn't look good. The reason Rachel was alone that night was because Joma's father called away the person she was supposed to be with that night for a random emergency at midnight, which. What was the emergency? You know, has Joe Matt ever told Rachel's family what the emergency was that he had to leave for? Like, why is Jomat not making his father Talk to the police. How's Joma's relationship with his father at this point? Now, specifically, Kim thinks it's strange that he called Jomat just a few hours before Rachel was killed and told him he needed to come home. Rachel and Jomat were adults. They had recently been living together on the ranch, and there was nothing unusual about them spending the night together. So from Kim's perspective, it seemed odd that Jomat's father would insist Jot came home so late at night. And I agree. Right from the beginning, when I first heard it, I'm like, that's weird. Like, what kind of emergency is happening that you need him to come home right now?

[B]

Well, there was a few things with this. And I remember when we initially covered this, the horse thing for me, the dash thing, I obviously entertained it. It didn't have a lot of legs to it, in my opinion. But with Jomette's father, we have to remember it's 2022. So they're. Forensically, from a digital perspective, there would be some things that you could do to confirm whether Jomet's father was in that area at that time. However, you could also say that, hypothetically, we talked about the lock that was on the door, and who would know that there was no key available for said lock? Joe Met's father would be one of those people. He's made threats. Is it possible that the reason he got him out of that apartment, Joe Met at that time was because he knew that someone was on their way there. So to save his son, get him out of there, knowing that he would be able to communicate with whoever he hired or enlisted to do this, that that front door would be unlocked. And so that person goes in knowing that the door's not gonna be locked. And then when they get to the secondary door, not knowing if it's locked or not, they just decide to boot it. Cause they weren't expecting it to be closed because they.

[A]

Yeah, because she had just been fostering those puppies. Yeah.

[B]

Right. So that, to me, when I say that out loud, and I felt this way before, much more possible to me than the idea that these ranch owners had anything to do with her death. But I'm not gonna sit here and say that because of one argument and making this comment, although not good, is going to lead to a hired hit. It's a big jump. Well, but people do crazy things.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, why did he even say that to begin with?

[B]

Yeah, it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. But, you know, the. The. The lock with Jomet's father, as far as that being a theory you would want to explore, is a big one. And I can see why law enforcement went down that road, because you have to think about the people who would know what the actual situation was. Not only that they changed the lock and used a lock that they already had, but a lock that they didn't

[A]

have a key for or a lot that had been used at Jomet's father's house.

[B]

That's what I'm saying.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. And so what's the other thing that we can say that. Come on. I mean, who would have a key, potentially?

[A]

Jomet's father.

[B]

Yeah, there you go. There you go.

[A]

Yeah, but like they said. I love your reaction there, but they said, like, the lock was broken, so it could only be locked from the inside.

[B]

This is all knowledge that he would have.

[A]

But this is knowledge he would have. He would know about that lock. In fact, he could have tampered with that lock to make it so that it was broken and could.

[B]

Yeah, you're talking about a pool of people of maybe what, five that would know about the specifics of that lock.

[A]

So I don't like. I don't like Joe Matt's father's involvement at this point right now.

[B]

From the outside looking in, I think we can all agree not looking good for Joe Matt's father. You can see why law enforcement took a. Took an interest.

[A]

Not looking good for Daddy Joe Matt.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And how could they not compel him at this point? Like, you made a death threat against this girl who ended up dead. How can you not be compelled at this point to come in and tell us what you know and give us, like, information about where you were?

[B]

Well, I mean, you could have a lawyer present. I don't know why that wasn't done. You can. You can still have someone come in for an interrogation, and they can have.

[A]

You could call a grand jury and

[B]

you could do that as well, I think, just based on what we know. Not enough. They're not enough there. And there may have been some exculpatory evidence as well.

[A]

I feel like there's enough, man. Joe Met's dad's calling him away. The night of the murder. Joe Met's dad's lock. Joe Met's dad made a death threat. There's enough there. He won't talk to the police. There's enough there. If I'm on a grand jury, I'm like, yeah, let's get Jomette's dad in here and see what the hell this dude has to say, yeah, like, give him a subpoena, man.

[B]

That's fair. I would venture to say that law enforcement was able to conclude with a high degree of certainty that physically, Jomette's father didn't commit the crime. Right.

[A]

Physically.

[B]

If Jomet's not involved, and we don't believe that he is, he would have arrived home and Jomet's father would have been there.

[A]

Jomet's dad probably wanted Joe Met to come home so he could be an alibi to Joe Met's dad being at home.

[B]

Possible. And so that creates a burden for law enforcement where if Jomet's father's cleared, you have to find the missing link, which is the actual shooter.

[A]

Yeah, but you can't do that until you subpoena Joe Met's dad to testify in front of a grand jury and tell us what he knows, because he won't do it willingly.

[B]

Yeah, I. I would. I would venture to say he's not going to say much, so.

[A]

Another lead investigators explored was involving the people subleasing Rachel's apartment. As we discussed earlier, when Rachel moved out of her apartment and onto the ran, she needed someone to take over the lease. According to Kim, Rachel found a woman through Facebook Marketplace and agreed to sublease the apartment to her. That's all I needed to hear. Facebook Marketplace. Guilty. It was them. Some of the most sketchy people in the world inhabit Facebook Marketplace. Okay.

[B]

I love Facebook Marketplace.

[A]

I'm always out, and even when a

[B]

deal is good, I still try to lowball.

[A]

I have so many things I want to sell, and I refuse to do it on Facebook. Marketplace. Marketplace. Which would be easiest because it's just so sketchy. It is in every way, but you love it. You love the seediness of it. You're like, I'm on the black market.

[B]

When I bought my house and I was redoing everything, I had a lot of older fixtures in there that were worth a lot of money, like balusters and stuff and lights, and I put it all in my garage and I sold it and made thousands on that. On that stuff, just because of Facebook Marketplace. Met some really cool people.

[A]

Yeah. Well, yeah.

[B]

Oh, I'm sure I met a couple Crime Weekly fans.

[A]

I'm sure that these people are really interesting, actually. But, no, they were cool.

[B]

We had some good conversations.

[A]

But listen, at the end of the day, like, you're a man, right? So people come to your house. Yeah, I'm a woman. I can't have sketchy people come into my garage.

[B]

I mean, even I But that could be the same said for me too. I mean, I could be taken out just as easily with, you know.

[A]

Yeah, right. Yeah, right. You're like, you stay vigilant, man. I'm over here just. I'm over here looking to the birds in the sky and I'm getting. I'm getting popped.

[B]

Like, you're like, just go in my house and grab whatever you're need.

[A]

Yeah. Like, what else do you want? Do you want. Do. This is my Social Security card. Oops. I left it in that desk I sold you. You probably would. You're right. So no. Yeah. Facebook Marketplace. Sketchy. So Rachel's parents were not comfortable with the arrangement. They had concerns about both the legal issues and the safety risks involving a stranger taking over the apartment. But Rachel was eager to move to the ranch because this is a new job, a new, new opportunity. She needed someone to take over the lease, so she decided to move forward anyway. Unfortunately, Kim and Todd's concerns turned out to be well founded. The woman repeatedly failed to pay rent on time. Kim told us that multiple people were also living in the apartment. Neighbors reported frequent disturbances and police were called to the unit on numerous occasions. There were also allegations that drug activity was taking place there. Facebook Marketplace so by May 2022, the situation had become so problematic that Rachel had little choice and but to move back into the apartment herself. And when she returned on June 1, she immediately noticed something was wrong. According to Kim, the apartment smelled strongly of marijuana. Then something even stranger happened during the early morning hours of June 2. Rachel woke up sometime between 2 and 3am and she discovered a man standing next to her bed. The apartment door had been locked, which told Rachel the man used a key to enter. Rachel screamed and the man immediately ran away. After he left, Rachel went into the kitchen and found something unexpected sitting on the island. A jar of dill pickles. The pickles didn't belong to Rachel and they hadn't been there before. And to this day, no one knows what significance, if any, the jar of pickles had. Now this is terrifying, by the way, so I also have questions. This is June 2nd.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Did Rachel and Jomat not put the new lock and install that until June 3rd? The. The day before the night that she

[B]

ends up being murdered might have been

[A]

because if they used a key, then they would had to have had a key from the old lock because how would they have a key to Joe Matt's dad's lock? Unless that was Jomat's dad with the pickles.

[B]

This. This whole incident, when I heard it pretty self explanatory. The people that were living there before her, it was a revolving door. They probably were allowing people to make copies of keys, coming and going as they please. And more than likely, this guy, who may have been drunk, high, or a combination of the two, walks in there with his key, with his jar of pickles, not even knowing that the previous tenants no longer live there, and stumbles into the bedroom and learns that the people he's expecting to see are not in the bed. And then he runs out because he's spooked, leaving his jar of pickles behind. But that's what it sounds like to me. And I don't want to skate over what you just said in the previous paragraph there. These people, it's alleged that they had some criminal activity going on in there, which when with that drug activity, that alleged drug activity comes a lot of other nefarious individuals, a lot of crime, exchange of money, people owing people money. If they weren't paying Rachel, they probably weren't paying their, their distributors, their dealers, whoever it was. And we don't know how deep it ran. And someone could have been pretty pissed off. And this may have been an ongoing issue the entire time that they were living there. Well, yes, or that's something I, I gravitate toward.

[A]

Or maybe the woman who was living there was making money on the side with gentlemen callers. No doubt this was a repeat customer who'd come over with pickles before. I don't know if the pickles are for eating or for other things.

[B]

Oh, whoa, dude, listen, I'm hungry.

[A]

Okay, let's go eat this. I can't judge what people pay for.

[B]

Okay, but you're right not to make light of it when, when drugs are around. What I have found is all the other criminal activity that you, you experience. Larceny's, robberies, assaults, murders, sex crimes, they all follow it. That's why getting the drug houses out of your community are so important. Because it's not just the drugs. It's everything that comes with.

[A]

It's the depravity that comes along with it. Yeah.

[B]

Yep. And so Rachel, unbeknownst to her, this is what this apartment's being used for. And it was kind of a quick move, right? She's not there and then she is. And a lot of the people that were coming there on a frequent basis were probably not sent an email to let them know that this house was no longer available.

[A]

Hey, we're not there anymore. Yeah, it's like a quick memo to the office.

[B]

You know, hey, guys, just a heads up. Going to have to find a new spot. You're going to learn through the process of elimination. And again, they were probably handing out that key to a lot of people.

[A]

Yeah. And so what we will come to find out is this is what triggers Rachel to change the locks. Right. Because she's like, okay, obviously, like I said, a lot of people were living at the apartment. A lot of people had the key. They, they don't realize that somebody different's living here now. I don't want this to happen again. Now, Rachel never reported the incident to the police. Police, which I think is unfortunate. She said she was startled by what happened, but she didn't seem especially frightened afterward. She believed that the man was looking for the former subletters and didn't necessarily intend to harm her because he ran out when she woke up and got scared. You know, he was like, oh, this is the wrong person. That, that I'm not here to see.

[B]

That's right. And she's more than likely. She's right.

[A]

Yeah, Right.

[B]

Exactly. What was happening. You know, if you're not coming to commit a crime, you're not bringing a jar of pickles, leaving them on the counter, strolling into the bedroom, unless someone's

[A]

trying to scare her. And it's like kind of a campaign.

[B]

That's a weird way to do it.

[A]

Yeah. Why? Why? I think it's very un.

[B]

But then, but then you run out of the apartment when she sees you, and.

[A]

Yeah, but like, what. How long are you standing over the bed that it takes you to realize this girl's not the girl you're there to see?

[B]

I bet you it was quick. I bet you it was quick. I, I, I bet you it was more of a thing where she heard him come in.

[A]

They didn't come in and be like, hey, all the furniture's gone. Doesn't look like the belongings that are here.

[B]

Dark.

[A]

Yeah, I guess dark.

[B]

And she didn't have a lot of the furniture yet. And I would have to guess if these people are the type of people that I'm envisioning, they didn't have a lot of furniture either. Maybe a mattress or something in the bedroom. Nothing too crazy. Yeah, I've been in a lot of these trap houses, a lot of these drug houses. They're not, they're not fully furnished. We'll put it that way.

[A]

They're not fully furnished.

[B]

Let's just say when we were doing search warrants, there wasn't a lot of places to Sit.

[A]

They're not corporate apartments. Right.

[B]

And you actually. You wouldn't want to sit down. Down in any of these places, because I. I agree. And I got stories.

[A]

Yeah. Well, instead of calling the police, Rachel called her fiance, Jomat. Joma came over. The two decided they needed to change the locks immediately, so they installed a lock from Jomat's father's house. There was one problem. They didn't have a key for it. The lock could only be secured from the inside. And like we talked about earlier, when Jomat left the apartment at around midnight on June 3, he asked Rachel to lock. Locked the door, but he never heard her lock it. And then just two hours later, Rachel called 911 and told the dispatcher she'd been shot. Why didn't they have a key? Who had a key? So Joe, Matt's father's like, I got this lock, but no key. Jomat's father does not look good to me.

[B]

I think the thought process, if everything's on the up and up, was, man, people are come. People obviously have this key that are not supposed to have it. We have to. We have to change this lock asap.

[A]

But we'll do something temporary.

[B]

We just do something for. Just a temporary fix. Just to get it in today. Yeah, right now. Let's do it.

[A]

Even though they could have gone to Home Depot or Lowe's and bought a

[B]

complete extra lock for you.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Use this one.

[A]

Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. They could have gone to Home Depot or Lowe's and for a pretty reasonable price, bought a whole new lock and key set. But I wonder if Jomet's father was like, no, don't do that. Don't worry. You're already tight for money. You're trying to get Dash back. I have a solution for you. Was he the one that suggested the lock?

[B]

There's a reason this case hasn't been solved, Stephanie. It's because it's not as clear cut as it may seem as to what happened here. I have my opinion. I think a lot of you guys know what I feel, but, yeah, there are things about this case that are unexplainable, which is why it's compelling. And a lot of people gravitate toward it because it's. It's an interesting case.

[A]

So the released police reports also revealed just how many people investigators spoke with during the course of the investigation. Detectives interviewed dozens of individuals, including a man incarcerated in Yuma and another person who. Who was in custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Re Entry. However, because so much of the report was redacted, it remains unclear why those individuals were questioned or what investigators hoped to learn from them. So what do you make of that? These are people who are in the system, okay, Incarcerated. We're protecting their privacy, but we're also protecting why we want to talk to them. What's up with that?

[B]

How I interpreted that piece of information? Was these people incarcerated?

[A]

Right.

[B]

And this is. We're going in the weeds here, and you may be getting.

[A]

I think you think the people incarcerated connected to the people who lived at the apartment, right? Yes. That she leased the apartment, too, and it's drug. Yes.

[B]

And you don't want to give up your snitch or your confidential informant, because then you're asked. You're asked out at that point.

[A]

Well, you also don't want to reveal that they've talked to you.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Because now they're gonna stop talking to you. Even if it's just not this case. It's other cases, right? Yeah, There's.

[B]

There's an obligation as an investigation investigator. And this is something I give a lot of cops or where they put people's information out there who help it with a particular crime. And now that person still has to live their life amongst their community. And so you gotta be. That is a responsibility that I always took very seriously.

[A]

You mean, like, it would make them a target?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, listen, I've talked about this story in my book. I had a hit put on me. And the only reason I found out about that hit was because someone who was a confidential informant. Informant for me, I took care of them, never gave up their identity. And when they were plotting to kill me in prison, this person was there and got a note to me to let me know. So it's something that I take very seriously. And them redacting these names from these potential prison informants, I am completely on board with.

[A]

But everything they have to say, like the reason that they're being talked to you. I. Yes, I understand redacting their names, but the reason they're being investigated or the reason they're being talked to in regards to the investigation?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, well, that's where we connect the dots of what I. And I think we're at the point where I can say it right. I believe that this was a case of mistaken identity. I know you got a little bit more to go here, but I believe the actual target that night was the previous people living there. And I think there was a lot of criminal activity regarding that apartment. And Those people, and that's why they're going to these individuals in prison who potentially are connected to the same circle of criminals. They're trying to figure out who was the shooter because they got the wrong person. I believe that's what was going on here. And that's the route that I would have really focused on as well. I understand that someone at the apartment or in the immediate area could have seen Rachel or knew her prior to this and said, oh, here she is. But when we talk about this case, you have to use reasonable deduction. And that starts with motive. And when you don't know who the suspect is, you have to focus on the victim and developing a profile on them. And what we know is that there were no signs of sexual assault, no signs of a robbery. So those motives are off the table. So clearly this becomes a deliberate, targeted hit. And yet it was conducted by someone who appears to be an amateur for no particular reason. Because based on the profile that we have of our victim, there doesn't appear to be anybody, including Jomet's father, who would need to go to this lengths to take her out. She didn't have any information. She wasn't creating a threat to anybody. This is an extreme circumstance where it's not completely out of the realm of possibility. But when we weigh out, what's stronger, I think the. The probability of it being a case of mistaken identity is much higher.

[A]

Oh, well, listen, the assistant police chief was asked, why are there extensive redactions? He defended the decision, explaining, quote, the redactions are there because we feel that if the information was released, it could jeopardize a case. Like I said before, people know specifically what happened, end quote. What does that even. People know specifically what happened?

[B]

Yeah, they're saying there's a community of people.

[A]

Yeah, you're saying people know what happened.

[B]

A group of people. And what do you read between that line? They're not leaning towards Jomet. Right. It's Jomet's father. They're leaning towards a criminal entity, or a very low level criminal entity where you have drug dealers, drug users, and all these other nefarious individuals who communicate amongst each other, who realize, oh, man, they tried to kill so and so, and they got the wrong girl. Instead. People are talking on the streets. For sure.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, oh, for sure. Right. Especially the person who did it.

[B]

He's probably like, oh, no doubt.

[A]

If it was a case of mistaken identity, which right at this point, Jomat's dad looking pretty bad to me. I'm not completely convinced but let's take our last break. I'll be right back. Can I tell you what I do whenever I see something advertised for way less than everyone else is advertising it?

[B]

Assume there's a catch.

[A]

Yeah, you know me. I'm not a trusting person.

[B]

Skeptical Stephanie.

[A]

Yeah, well, because usually there is a catch, by the way. Hidden fees, surprise charges, some weird limitation they forgot to mention until you've already signed up and reached the limitation that you didn't know was there.

[B]

Yeah, I think we've all been burned before. And if you say you haven't, you're lying.

[A]

Right? And that's exactly why, when people hear that Mint Mobile starts at just 15 bucks a month, the first question is always, okay, what's the catch? And honestly, after switching and trying it out myself, I can tell you, skeptical Stephanie can tell you there really isn't one. There isn't. And you get fast, reliable coverage on the nation's largest 5G network. You can keep your current phone, you can keep your current number, and you can choose a plan that actually works for your life.

[B]

Yeah. And somehow you still pay less. That's the. That's the crazy part.

[A]

Way less. And that's probably been my favorite part.

[B]

I would hope so.

[A]

I know it's everybody's favorite part. But every month when the bill comes in, I'm not wondering why I'm paying a small fortune to just have a phone. I'm not like, what are these fees? Why. Why is it extra? Why is it more this month than it was last month? It's just crazy.

[B]

Yeah, it's one of those things where you realize how much you were overpaying

[A]

before and how you didn't have to do that.

[B]

Nope.

[A]

And how long you did that, you didn't have to do that. So Mint Mobile basically looked at everything people hate about wireless service and fixed it. No gimmicks, no gotchas, just premium service without the bloated monthly bill. And Derek, tell them how they can check it out for themselves.

[B]

To get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month. Month, go to mintmobile.com crimeweekly that's mintmobile.com crimeweEekly Cut your wireless bill to 15amonth at mintmobile.com crime weekly.

[A]

That's it. There's really no catch. There's 45 payment upfront required, equivalent to 15amonth. New customers on first three month plan only. Speed slower above 40 gigs on an unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees and restrictions apply. Cement Mobile for details. So the reports also showed that investigators pursued a Wide range of investigative avenues. As the case progressed. Search warrants were obtained for social media accounts and cell phones, and numerous items were submitted for forensic testing. But once again, the details surrounding those searches and the evidence submitted for testing were heavily redacted. What little information was available indicated that no matches were found. Now, for Rachel's family, the lack of information has been incredibly difficult. It feels like the police are over here, like we're releasing the hundreds and hundreds of pages of stuff, but most of it's redacted. It's, it's heavily redacted. So years have passed since Rachel was murdered, yet they still know very little about what investigators have actually uncovered. As Kim explained, quote, it's so hard as a grieving family to wait so long with no answers. It's just, it's really hard to go on in everyday life. End quote. Despite those frustrations, Rachel's family has continued pushing for answers. In October of 2024, Silent Witness announced a fifteen thousand dollar reward for information leading to a break in the case. That reward was later increased to 20,000. The Hansens have also partnered with a private investigator in hopes that a fresh set of eyes might uncover new information or generate new leads. Unfortunately, very few updates have been released since then. On June 4, 2026, four years after Rachel was murdered, her family held a press conference to provide an update on the case and once again asked for the public's help. Law enforcement officials were invited to attend, but they declined when questioned about their absence. Police later explained that they wanted the focus of the event to remain entirely on Rachel's family. Investigators did provide a statement to the media emphasizing that Rachel's case remains active and under investigation. However, despite the passage of time, no suspects have been identified publicly, no arrests have been made, and no motive has been revealed. Kim did tell us that investigators have informed the family they do not believe Rachel was specifically targeted. And while they continue waiting for answers, the Hansens have focused much of their energy on Rachel's rescue, which Derek and I talked about this. We are going to make a donation through Criminal Coffee to Rachel's rescue for the Hansen's for Rachel. That's something that we like to do when we are personally connected to these cases and invested and we talk about them and, you know, anybody else is welcome to do it. We will put the link in the description box. But we definitely are on behalf of Criminal coffee.

[B]

And even if you don't, if you're already buying coffee from Criminal coffee indirectly, you're donating as well.

[A]

Yes, exactly. So the Community has already pulled together to buy criminal coffee.

[B]

And you're already done. If you've bought a bag of coffee, you're, you're donating.

[A]

So since its creation in 2023, the organization has helped save and find homes for hundreds of dogs and puppies. And through that work, Kim and Todd feel they are carrying on Rachel's legacy while also helping animals the way Rachel always wanted to. Kim told us there have been countless moments over the years when she felt Rachel's presence through the rescue and the work they do every day. As Kim explained, quote, I know that she is watching over and I feel her presence often, and I know that makes her happy. End quote. So in nothing that the police have released, have we had any indication that the former tenants have been questioned or talked to? Correct?

[B]

There's nothing that I've, that I've, we've covered on these two episodes, but I know that they've been looked into.

[A]

They've been looked into. But as far as we know from what's been released publicly, from what the public can, can see, there's really no forward facing, forward facing line of investigation that we can follow. And it does seem to me based on like, the way the police are handling it, how they're kind of like being very close lipped about it. They're like, hey, we have no more avenues to investigate. But have no fear, this investigation is still very open and active. This is something they do when they just don't want to have to release anything through FOIA requests or they don't want to be compelled to release anything that they don't want to release.

[B]

That's fair. I, I've, I've run up against this numerous times, even on breaking homicide. So I can't disagree with you. Now that I've been on the other

[A]

side of it, my question would be, and this kind of started brewing in my head when we were talking about the fact that these incarcerated individuals had been discussed and talked to and everything was redacted when it was released. And you were like, well, yeah, if they have like inside people, if they have informants, then yeah, they don't want to compromise those people, so they're going to redact things. And then my next thought was kind of like, do the police maybe know more than they're saying? But because an arrest might compromise somebody they have in position that's helpful to them, or it might compromise a deeper sort of drug or trafficking investigation, like an operation, like an undercover operation, Are they not making a move right now because it Seems like based on the avenues they followed, if they did look into the current or the previous people who leased Rachel's apartment, and that led them to this network of drugs and like an underbelly that led them to talk to these incarcerated individuals, it feels like you would probably have enough to know. Like, you're getting social media stuff, you're getting cell phone stuff, you're getting GPS locations. You probably would have enough to know know who was at Rachel's apartment that night. Just through like the grapevine. Yeah, but why are you releasing things that are so redacted and why are you not making any moves? Like, I don't believe that the police have no idea what happened here. I think they know what happened here.

[B]

I agree with you.

[A]

So is, could that be possible? That whoever's involved may be beneficial to the police in another way, and so they are not making moves to put that person under arrest because they need that person for another operation or for another sting or for something that they consider like bigger, you know, like the greater good.

[B]

I can only speak to my experience, and I'm well aware at this point that it could be perceived as me protecting law enforcement. But if you've been watching the show at all, then you know that that's not my thing. You know, I call it how I see it. Balls and strikes. Always from my personal experience, and I've worked everywhere from the local level to the federal level, We've had cases where we've had informants in places for drug operations and there's been a murder or a significant crime, where they've enlisted our help to facilitate an arrest through the information we're able to gather. And in my experience, take it with a grain of salt, there has never been a case where we've done something like that, where a homicide of a 19 year old girl wouldn't take precedent over a drug operation. Now, I don't represent all of law enforcement. And even though I was a supervisor, and I would always be willing to do whatever I could to solve this case, even if it ruined my own operation, there's always gonna be another informant, right? I wouldn't say I'm not releasing this information or I'm gonna protect this person, even though it could help bring justice to this family. But I don't work for every police department. So you saying it, it would be irresponsible and unprofessional for me to say, nope, it's not possible what you're saying, Stephanie. But I can only speak to my anecdotal Experience.

[A]

So what I'm saying is not that it would take precedence. Right. But in their heads, they're going to reason it and ration it as well. Rachel's dead already, right? We're not protecting her or not protecting her.

[B]

They could. I mean, I would never think like that, but, yeah, I guess. I can't speak.

[A]

We can't save her. Okay. However, this person who's involved is deeply embedded in an operation we already have going on. Like, Gilbert, Arizona does have its own drug enforcement unit. We know the area. There's a fentanyl crisis there. There's cartel infiltration. There's a lot of stuff going on.

[B]

A lot of drug activity in Arizona.

[A]

Just in Arizona in general. Right.

[B]

For sure. A lot of cartel operations.

[A]

A lot of cartel operations. So there could be deeper things happening, and they need this person to see through this deeper thing. But they're thinking, hey, once this is over, then we can move on this. Or once they figured out who the person was, they had to talk to the person, and the person was like, yeah, I did it. But, like, I'm not going to keep helping you with this bigger thing that's going to save hundreds of lives. If you. It's kind of like a deal with the devil, you know? Which we know that police departments have done before. They do it in court all the time. Like, we know you suck. You know, kind of like with Harmony Montgomery. Yeah, Kayla, you suck her stepmother. But we think Adam, her father, sucks more. So we'll make a deal with you for less time if you. If you give us him. Right. So that's kind of what I'm thinking, because it doesn't look like the police, based on the investigation, looks like it was pretty thorough.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Looks like they were going down the right path.

[B]

Yeah. They wanted to solve this one. There's no doubt about it. They want to solve it.

[A]

But then something was, like, kind of

[B]

on the note of they wanted to solve this. This is the main reason I don't think Joe Mett's father is responsible. I'm sure they vetted him thoroughly. And like you had mentioned, digital forensics, financials, they went through everything. So either he did a really good job or he's not involved. So let's go back to what you were just referring to.

[A]

I'm not convinced Joe Mott's father's not involved.

[B]

I'm just gonna say that I don't believe he's involved. And it's not only because he was probably vetted thoroughly. It's also what we're talking about right now. What we're talking about right now to me is much more plausible. And so.

[A]

Well, let's follow that vein then.

[B]

What, what I think is it's not a matter of I think they know what happened, I just don't think they know who. And you just kind of hit on where I really am as far as this case. This house, this apartment, although small, could have been used to facilitate bigger money transactions, drug transactions. Could have been a stash house for a much bigger operation.

[A]

Yeah, they were like, hey, this apartment complex doesn't have cameras and somebody's willing to lease us an apartment there. Right.

[B]

A lot more could have been going on than we even know. Could have been cartel connected. And I think that the people living there pissed off the wrong people. And potentially someone was sent up from Mexico or someone from that area, an amateur was sent up to take these people out or to take this person out. And there wasn't a lot of research done, there wasn't a lot of intelligence collected of reconnaissance done beforehand. They were given an address, they went into the apartment, they kicked open the door, shot the person in the bed because they were told that's where they would be and then they ran out of there.

[A]

So possibly the person didn't even know who they were going to kill, that they were, that they had killed the wrong person until went down later. And also what you're saying is there's maybe something going on in Gilbert or in the, you know, location and then they're, they're mad at the person in the apartment, but they are not taking care of it themselves. They call in like a handler or someone they know, does this kind of work from possibly Mexico cartel related. That person comes into town in the dead of night real quick, does what they got to do and gets out.

[B]

It happens all the time. And it could even been a territory thing. Right. It could have been something as simple as that. But the person who actually pulled the trigger is not high up. And one of two things happened. They went back to Mexico and you're never going to find them, or which they do all the time because of this shooting and because of the heat it brought on to their organization. This person was dealt with and you're never going to find them. That simple. You went in there, you up, you shot a 19 year old girl. Now we have the cops everywhere looking

[A]

at this, talking to people who are connected to us in prison. Yeah, you are a liability.

[B]

And you know, in the cartel and these drug organizations, what happens to liabilities they go on a long train ride. If you're familiar with Yellowstone, they take the train.

[A]

Or Breaking Bad.

[B]

Or Breaking Bad. So that's, that's, that's where my gut is on this one. And that's what I think happened here. And I think that's why they haven't solved it yet. But I think if we're ever going to solve it, and I don't know what has been done or what can be done, but you have to reverse engineer this from the point of the people who were living there. And I talked about it in episode one. Right. If you're trying to reverse engineer Rachel and see who would have had an axe to grind and would have went in there and shoot her, you're gonna probably end up at a dead end. But if you do the same process with the people who were there just a few days prior, I think that's, I think that's the golden ticket.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And maybe they've already done it and maybe they have gone as far as they can, but unfortunately they haven't been able to pinpoint that person. Yeah, that's my belief.

[A]

But there's a potential that they know more and they're just not moving because

[B]

no doubt the question is knowing more, is that because they already know who did it and they're protecting this person or because they know more, but they just don't have enough to bring charges?

[A]

Well, I would be very interested to hear what everyone in the comments has to say. What do you think? Do you think it is this kind of thing, like the drug pre leaser kind of combination? Is Joe, Matt's father, suspicious to you? Because he's suspicious to me and I'd like to get him in front of a grand jury and actually get some information out of him. But anyone with information about Rachel's case is encouraged to submit an anonymous tip to silent witness by calling 480-WITNESS. A reward of up to 20,000 is available for information that leads to a resolution in the case. So if you're listening to this, you know something, say something, you can do it anonymously.

[B]

Yeah, absolutely. We're thinking about Kim and Todd and the rest of Rachel's family and friends and everybody affected by this, including jot. Just a tragic situation. And if it's what I think it is, it's even more tragic. Right. Because Rachel wasn't even the person who was supposed to be shot here. But that doesn't mean we don't keep fighting for her. Regardless of the uphill battle we may have. We keep asking questions. We keep telling her story. And we make sure that the people responsible for investigating her case are also held accountable. And that's what we're doing here. So, like Stephanie said, let us know what you think. We appreciate the love and support. We'll see you next week. Until then, everyone stay safe out there. And we'll see you soon.

[A]

Bye.