← Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Breaking: Lynette Hooker Was Dead Before Brian Hooker’s Story Even Began | Missing in Bahamas
00:57:35
Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:01]
Ashley Banfield
When she said, I don't dance now, I make money moves.
- [00:04]
Eric Gamp
That was a mission statement for a whole new generation.
- [00:06]
Sprite Advertisement Voice
Respect. But that's not the Mount Rushmore. Listen. Cash rules everything around me. When that line dropped, it changed the whole hustle. The greatest tracks are never finished. They're just debated forever. Introducing the sprite living tracklist. 50 tracks that shape the culture from six decades of hip hop. Scan the QR code on a Sprite or Sprite Zero Sugar to see the full breakdown. Obey your thirst. Sprite Foreign.
- [00:35]
Ashley Banfield
Hey, everyone. I'm Ashley Banfield and this is Drop Dead Serious. I have another development to tell you about in the Lynette Hooker case, and it's about the timeline. Because Brian Hooker has a timeline that he's. He's insisting is reality, but it looks a lot more like he's lying about that, too. If you watched my last episodes, you will know that we broke the news that Lynette made it back to the boat. We broke the news that. I know Fox News is reporting it, but they took it from us and they didn't credit us. Okay? Lynette Hooker made it back to Soulmate. She did not bounce off the back of the dinghy. That is a lie. That is a Brian Hooker lie. Honestly, we felt it. We knew it. None of his story made sense. But now there's definitive evidence. If you saw my last episodes, there's definitive evidence that Lynette Hooker was dead on Soulmate. That there's evidence of foul play and a fight on Soulmate. So, Brian, what's all this business about her bouncing off the boat and then taking the keys with her in the dry bag?
- [01:43]
Sprite Advertisement Voice
And.
- [01:43]
Ashley Banfield
Oh, no, I had to float all the way to Marsh harbor, four miles that way, because none of that's true. So did you fabricate some kind of a plan to float? And if that's the case, what'd you do with Lynette? Your wife? She was dead on your boat, and it wasn't an accident on a dinghy. How did she die, Brian? And where is she? Because she wasn't on Soulmate. At least no one saw her. Unless you were hiding her on Soulmate. And there's lots and lots of places on a keel boat, friends. I am a keel boat captain. Bad one. Really lousy at it. But in another life, I captained my own keelboat. 34 foot CNC in Australia for six days. And I know that keel boats have so many little cubbies and hideaway lockers, and not all police officers and investigators know about those. I'm just curious. Did Brian put Lynette in one of those lockers while everybody wondered where she was? He lied about so many things. And I'm about to tell you one more thing. He lied about timeline. Did he also lie about where she was and where he was? Because there were lots of opportunities for him to maybe get rid of Lynette's body. Well, after we thought the emergency was over and Lynette was maybe floating out there somewhere. Maybe he killed her. Okay, but then where's the body? Where's the body? Is she floating? Was she anchored down? Was she buried on a beach? Or was she in Soulmate? Maybe in one of those lockers, hiding for a later disposal date? All my concepts. Brian's not charged with anything yet. But I keep saying with the evidence that I'm hearing, that indictment is just minutes away. Maybe weeks, I don't know. But soon. This stuff is deep, dark, ugly, and indicting. These lies he told. And now one more. I can tell you this. There are many people who are working on this case in the Bahamas and in Florida and in Michigan and in California. And I have connected to many of them. And there are other people who are tangentially connected to this case as well. And my sources tell me that Lynette was dead before 8:00pm Lynette was dead before 8:00 clock p.m. which tells us again, Brian, you are full of shit. She didn't bounce out of the dinghy at 7:36, which would have been Brian's timeline. We left the abaco inn at 7:30 and then we went around the corner and the seas got angry, my friend. And oh no, she bounced out and took the keys with her. And I was left adrift on the heavy high seas and we got separated by all a lie. Weather was great. It was calm, was lovely. All you need to do is just check the marine. Or you could just check our video that we have put out on prior episodes of the exact area where he says the seas were so rough and they were calm as glass. And our photographs, we've shown it. Everything he's told is a lie. And now one more lie. She was dead before 8pm That's a fact. My sources are telling me she was dead before 8pm the exact time? Can't tell you yet. Working on it. However, if that's the case and they made it back to Soulmate, what'd he do? Did he do anything? How did Lynette die? Because with evidence of foul play on board, evidence of a fight, and she's dead before eight. Oof. Oh, Brian Hooker. Tick tock. I said it before, I'll say it again. I hope you had a really nice autumn last year because I don't think you're going to see another one. Just me talking. He's not charged with anything yet. I've also got some brand new photos that I want to share with you that were given to me by Dan and Kathy Shepard. And you'll know that Dan Shepard is Lynette's dad. These are really sweet photos of Lynette and Dan and also Lynette, Dan and Carly, his granddaughter, Lynette's daughter. Just really. I mean, it's really special to be able to bring Lynette to life because she's not just a name, she's not just a statistic. Lynette is a wonderful woman, and she had some incredible friends and family and co workers who love her dearly. Said she was just salt of the earth. Brian, not so much. They didn't say the same about him. None of them said the same about him. They said the opposite. Dirtbag, liar, anti establishment, mean, conniving. That's the stuff we get about Brian from everybody we've talked to. I haven't heard one person who said he's a good guy. No, nothing. So I wanted to show you some of these really lovely pictures of Lynette. And my great thanks to Kathy and Dan Shepard for sharing them. So let me tell you a few more things. If you think about the timeline and how that factors into Lynette getting back on board, then there's the whole idea of, why did he plan a float? Why did he plan a float to Marsh Harbor? Right? And that whole nine hours, like, yeah, it don't take five. It doesn't take nine hours. Y', all, everybody, we spoke with marine experts, the Coast Guard search and rescue. I mean, I met the Coast Guard members over there when I was in Bahamas. I mean, they were right there on the dock with me and at the Abaco Inn, and they were trying to piece this all together too. But every expert that we've spoken to says, no, it ain't nine hours. And the captains that we've spoken to, those guys who live there, work there, boat there every day, they said, no, Wouldn't take nine hours for a dinghy. So what was his plan? And why this big story of, oh, I threw the anchor out north of Lubbers and shot off my flare. Why all that? What was Brian Hooker trying to fabricate? Because we know now there was no need to float because they made it back to Soulmate. So all this other stuff is just horseshit. But why? What was he trying to cover up? What was he trying to get us to think? Well, maybe he was thinking of something else, like how to get rid of Lynette. Maybe because she's dead on board. Soulmate. After evidence of foul play and a fight, there's something else that is throwing a monkey wrench into this. Do you remember that photo that we got at Drop Dead Serious exclusive photo that we found of Lynette taking the final picture we think might exist of her? The selfie. There's a photo of Lynette taking a picture on the far left hand side of the pool. Brian's over there on the right hand side of the pool. Witnesses said people who took the picture that he looked like he was brooding, skulking, looking into the ocean, looked unhappy and angry. And there's Lynette, apparently, who was dancing. So we have a still photo, but the witnesses said when they took the picture, she was dancing by herself, enjoying herself, while Brian's over there brooding on the other side of the pool. And one thing that really stood out, other than those details, which are big, was the watch that she was wearing, because you can clearly see this powder pink band on her wrist as she's taking that photo. Some people said, what about a tan line? Nope, she didn't have a tan line like that. That's a. That's an insane tan line, right? That was an apple watch. And her daughter Carly said she had a powder pink apple watch. So we imagined that when an apple watch was seized on board the boat. Oh, my God. That must be her apple watch. She made it back to the boat. But now we are learning there may have been two. May have been two apple watches. And that apple watch on her wrist at the pool may still be with her body. Which tells me Apple watches have so much information. They can tell you when you die. They can tell you when your heart stops. They can tell you when you're agitated. All this stuff is recorded, all of it. My heart rate is being recorded right now as we speak. And if I fall on the floor, I get a message saying, are you okay? We detected a hard fall. Should we call 911 for you? Oh, my God. The amount of information that her apple watch, were it still on her wrist when she got back to Soulmate, could be enormous, and she could still be wearing it. So Carly, her daughter, told us that she often takes her watch off, puts it on the charger because it dies really quickly. The battery dies really quickly. But what if that wasn't what she did? What if she kept that watch on and there's another older powder pink band and apple watch on the boat. I know that I have two exactly like this, same band and everything in my desk drawer. Maybe that's the same. Maybe there is a wealth of data on the apple watch that she had on. If there are in fact two, and that's what we're hearing, there may be in fact two of the exact same watch and that the watch they seized may not be the watch we saw in the picture. God, I hope that's the case. God, I hope everything was recorded every moment. And maybe that's why we now know she was dead by eight. Maybe that's why we know there could be other digital reasons. There could be all sorts of reasons. I know the Alexa, I can't say it too loud, records all sorts of stuff, right? Maybe something happened like that. But wow, what a timeline. And speaking of timeline, you know that photo that we also got exclusively here at Drop Dead Serious of Brian Hooker leaving the Abaco Inn seemingly by himself, he's walking alone and he is walking towards the beach and then the dock where his dinghy was parked. And we know his dinghy was parked there because we got a picture of it. And we all also have witnesses who said, oh boy, that dinghy beside us was really trashy and messy and dirty. And we have all sorts of witnesses who say, yes, that is exactly how they kept their dinghy. And we can see in the picture their dinghy is at the dinghy dock. And then we can see in another picture Brian at exactly seven bells, seven o' clock on the nose, he is walking towards the dinghy dock with his big floppy hat on and his seemingly blue pattern shirt. The witnesses at Abaco Inn told us he was wearing a blue and white patterned shirt. Jim Todd told us when he pulled him off of Marsh Harvey, he's wearing a blue pattern shirt. Other people said it looked like he had a gray tan shirt when he was at Abaco Inn, which makes me wonder if he had two. I used to have an extra shirt in my dry bag whenever I went out in the dinghy, off the sailboat into land, I would have extra stuff because you get splashed all the time in the dinghy, right? Big wave, windy stuff. Whatever happens, you get splashed. Somebody goes, you go over there. Waves, you know, so maybe he had two shirts, I don't know. But that photo at 7 o', clock, we are also learning. It's possible that Brian and Lynette might have just left right after that. So this whole. We left abaco in at 7:30. Doubtful. Doubtful. Maybe a lot earlier. I think Brian maybe was trying to create all sorts of scenarios because he sure spun a big yarn about his wife bouncing off his dinghy, taking the keys with her. And then, oh, no, the dry bag's gone, Lynette's gone, and I have no propulsion because I lost one of my oars. Also, I've been in a dinghy before and if you can touch the bottom with your oar, which in that area you kind of can, you can just pull yourself to shore even with big waves. And if you're a former Marine and he's former. I don't consider somebody with these morals. Once a Marine, always a Marine. This guy's former. He doesn't display any of the Marine qualities that I know of. United States Marine Corps. This guy's a former Marine. And you can't paddle against the waves. I can. I mean, and I'm five six and I'm a girl and I can do it. But you couldn't save your life. It was all. And we knew it. And now we know for sure. Now we have the evidence on board to prove it. Foul play on board. That was exclusive information we brought you two episodes ago. So Fox News, it would be nice if you would credit us when you report our stuff. I always credit Fox Digital all through the Nancy Guthrie every single day. I credited all of their information because they're really good at what they do. It's just that next time it would be nice if they would credit us when we found that stuff exclusively and we did a couple of other things. Still a lot of forensic results to come in. There's been great work done by the FBI lab at Quantico. And before you say, oh, it's FBI, nope, this is all United States Coast Guard. Coast Guard Investigative Service. When she said, I don't dance now, I make money moves, that was a
- [15:31]
Eric Gamp
mission statement for a whole new generation.
- [15:33]
Sprite Advertisement Voice
Respect. But that's not the Mount Rushmore. Listen. Cash rules everything around me. When that line drops dropped, it changed the whole hustle. The greatest tracks are never finished. They're just debated forever. Introducing the Sprite living track list. 50 tracks that shape the culture from six decades of hip hop. Scan the QR code on a Sprite or Sprite Zero Sugar to see the full breakdown. Obey your thirst. Sprite.
- [15:57]
Ashley Banfield
That's the group that's at the helm of this they call themselves cjis. If you have tips, they have an app, cjs. Just app it up and it can be anonymous. But CJIS has been at the helm of this. They've done a really, really good job. And they have enlisted the help of the FB lab at Quantico. Apparently, they have been amazing. And there's more to come, which is good. I also wanted to show you something that I've sort of been noodling for a while. And I wanted to show it to you tonight because it just sits. It sits odd with me. I wanted to show you Lynette Hooker's final Facebook post because now, in light of it all, I just cannot believe that this was the meme that she chose to share. I mean, we all share memes about all sorts of things all the time, but this one was her final meme that she shared. It says, my obituary will read, she loved hard, lived loud, and should not have been left unsupervised. She said fuck more times than anyone could count, never learned her lesson, and managed to turn every questionable decision into a story people still talk about years later. In any other time, that would be hilarious. It's kind of like me. I say an F bomb all the time, but I'm just so devastated that this was her father. Final post about what her obituary would read as a joke. And I wanted to share it with you because I see her as just so fun loving and she had no idea what was coming. This was March 30th. She would be dead in five days. It just, I. It stays with me, that post about what her obituary would read and it was sent in fun. And five days later, she'd be dead and possibly murdered because the Coast Guard has called this a murder investigation. I have a guest on today's episode that I think is so critical to looking at the Lynette Hooker case. And it's because he worked for Sieges for years, the Coast Guard Investigative Service, and he was at the helm of another case at sea where a woman mysteriously drowned when the boat sank and they never found her body. But, boy, did they ever, I want to say, solve the case. It's a weird thing because let me lay it out for you. And you may have seen this on Netflix. It's the case of Nathan Carmen. Does that ring a bell? Nathan Carmen from Rhode Island, 22 years old. Back in 2016, he was rescued from a life raft. And it looked like a miraculous rescue because he had been at sea, he said, for seven days, went out on a Fishing trip with his mom, Linda. And then the boat sank. And he got to the rescue raft and she didn't. And seven days later, he's rescued. But he doesn't look like he's got any of the signs of someone who's been at sea needing rescue for seven days. Like he's not dehydrated, he hasn't lost weight, he's not burned. All that business that, you know, somebody who is in a sinking boat and scrambles for their life and their mom can't make it. And so they knew something was up. And eventually Nathan Carmen was charged. Eight count federal indictment siegeous. They helmed this case. Murder on the high seas. Murder on the high seas. For allegedly killing his mom. But then he was also charged with mail fraud and wire fraud and a whole bunch of related fraud counts. They said this whole murder of his mom was a fraud. To get the money that he was due from his grandfather and inheritance. The money, big money, was supposed to come from his grandfather down to his mother, and then eventually down to him. But with mom out of the way, he gets all the money from granddad. Now, the granddad thing is interesting too, because granddad died mysteriously. Gunshot. That was in 2013. John Chakalos. I might be pronouncing it wrong, but that was a mysterious death as well. And the suspicion was is that Nathan probably did that one too. So they had him arrested and they were getting ready for the federal trial. And wouldn't you know it, Nathan decided to take his own life in jail. That happened in 2023, before he could be tried for mom's death. Now why would he do that? All signs pointed to the fact the feds had this right. All signs pointed to the fact that. That the jig was up, that they had him dead to rights. But my question for the lead agent from CJIS on this case was, without a body, what were all the things you did to get the evidence you needed in order to get that eight count federal indictment? Because something tells me there may be similarities in the Nathan Carmen case, headed by sieges, and the Lynette Hooker case, headed by sieges. And the lead detective on that case is Eric Gamp. He's retired now, but Eric was in law enforcement for 26 years. He did five years in the secret service as well, and then did 21 years with sieges. So he knows a thing or two about murder on the high seas. Because if that's what we're dealing with, with Lynette Hooker, murder on the high seas, I can See a lot of parallels between these two cases. And now I want to know what the parallels are. Maybe in the investigation. It's a bit of guesswork, but it's guesswork coming from the smartest people in the room, and that's Eric Gamp. And one of the key things that Eric Gamp and his team at Sieges did when they rescued Nathan Carmen from this seven day miraculous, you know, I guess float after mom died and the boat sank crisis was the decided to enlist the Coast Guard's search and rescue team, the SAAR team. Right. And they mapped out all the probable areas where Nathan and Linda had gone fishing. Right. And then they developed this whole drift scenario. Because if your boat goes down and you're in a life raft and you're just drifting without propulsion, there are ways to find out if you landed in the place you should have landed. So they mapped out the drift scenario with their computer programming tools based on the wind and the ocean currents. And then it gave them a probable search radius. And we know that that happened in the Lynette Hooker case. It happened early with just ballparking. And it seemed a little off at first. It seemed on and then it seemed off when more data came in. And we know what happened in the Nathan Carman case as well. But there's so much more they did, there's so much more forensics that they were able to get. And I think in the Brian Hooker case, there's a possibility of premeditation because if she's dead on the boat by 8pm you got to have a plan and you got to execute that plan. And it seems like things were executed pretty well if in fact he killed her. I'm not saying he did. He's not charged with killing her, but I think he's going to be based on everything we're seeing. When I talk about prior statements and premeditation, I think about what Lynette herself said to her friend Rachel and said to her mother Darlene about an attack that she alleges happened at the hands of her husband, Brian Hooker. This happened over a year ago. And what Lynette told mom and friend was that Brian had strangled her into unconsciousness, that she had heard her neck crack and had her back thrown up against a part of the sailboat. That was really hard. I think the back area where you'd sit outside. And that the next day when she was packing her stuff to leave, Brian Hooker said to her, and I'll quote, I should have finished the job and thrown you overboard is the Allegation that Lynette made to her friend and to her mother, contemporaneous reporting about this alleged attack, that this happened. She photographed bruises, saying, I just don't want this to happen again. This is a reminder to myself. These bruises are a reminder to myself to not let it happen again. But I should have finished the job and thrown you overboard, she says. Was the statement that was made to her by her husband the day after this alleged attack not, I'm so sorry. I don't know what came over me. Not that even that isn't good enough, but I should have finished the job and thrown you overboard. Those are the kind of statements that make you wonder. She did end up, in his words, overboard. I don't think that's what really happened. Was it premeditated? But I want to talk with Eric Ghemp because, again, smartest guy in the room, and he knows a thing or two about murder on the high seas. And I keep wondering if that's what we're dealing with. So here's my conversation with Eric. Eric, thank you so much for joining me on Drop Dead Serious. It's good to talk to you, because, honestly, you're the smartest guy in the room when it comes to murder on the high seas. You've literally gone through a case with no body with a woman who went overboard or went down with the ship, and you had stories told to you by somebody who was alleged to have lied about everything. I wanted to get your initial reaction to this reporting that we've received on Lynette Hooker, that she died on board. Soulmate. She didn't bounce off the back of the dinghy.
- [25:30]
Eric Gamp
So this is the first time that I'm hearing that, and I think it's. It's pretty interesting and a. An interesting development. You know, I'm sure the investigation is, you know, obviously currently ongoing, but my thought on that is, with all of the conflicting stories that have been presented so far, I don't think I'm terribly surprised by that, by the statement and by that finding.
- [26:04]
Ashley Banfield
Were you ever able to question Nathan, Carmen? Because I'm always curious what someone says before he or she realizes, oh, dear, I'm a suspect.
- [26:16]
Eric Gamp
We never had the opportunity to interview Nathan. We were prepared to interview Nathan the day he was arrested, but at that time, when we identified ourselves and the reason that he was being arrested, he chose not to be interviewed and requested his attorney.
- [26:39]
Ashley Banfield
That's always. I mean, someone's right. We all have a fifth amendment right to. Right to remain silent. I always tell People, you should, you should exercise that right. You know, even if you're innocent, you should exercise that right. It's frustrating for investigators, though, that's for sure. And in the case of Brian Hooker, he gave multiple statements apparently to the Bahamian authorities. From what I understand, the Coast Guard hasn't received those yet. And the Bahamian authorities are in the process of shipping them over. I don't know how they ship them digitally or by, you know, steamer ship, but we're a long ways out from, you know, Lynette's disappearance. But those initial statements to the Bahamian authorities are going to be gold, aren't they?
- [27:22]
Eric Gamp
They are. They are. And I think that, you know, if I'm drawing parallels between the, the Nathan Carmen case and the. This Brian and Lynette Hooker case, the, the initial statements in Nathan's case was, was also extremely valuable because following the, the initial statement, there were several changes and added details along the way as he realized that there was heightened scrutiny on what he had stated and once he became aware that there was an ongoing investigation.
- [28:04]
Ashley Banfield
So he must have spoken to the rescuers, right? Like, if your story is, I'm a victim, help me, rescue me. I've just been through tragedy. It is only natural that you are speaking to your rescuers and then speaking to any other responding authorities. In those particular comments, what did Nathan say or do that raised the spidey senses of the people who may have initially smelled a rat.
- [28:33]
Eric Gamp
So the, the. The largest thing that, that sticks out to me. So when Nathan was rescued, he, he spoke to the crew on the Orient Lucky. That wasn't really in detail about what had transpired and how the boat had sunk. While he was on the. Or Lucky transiting back to Boston, he had contacted his aunt. And that was what I would consider sort of the first statement that he makes to a family member about what had transpired. And in that statement, he told his aunt that, that the boat had sunk at night. And that was the initial statement that we were operating on because it's the first time that we had heard from Nathan during that time other than he also spoke to the District 1 Command center at the time of his recovery. But once he, once he made it back to Boston, he, he ended up being interviewed by a.3 Coast Guard members. And that was called a SAR debrief search and Rescue debrief. And that was. That was ordinarily something that had that. That the Coast Guard conducts and that. That's really a best practices type of interview. What, what can we do better? Because The coast guard, during the eight day time frame that Nathan was missing, searched 64,000 square nautical miles. And that, you know, that number might not mean anything to anybody, but when you overlay that, that's virtually all of New England. When the best in the world for search and rescue doesn't find what they're looking for, that raised a question for me. But when we found out that he mentioned that he had first sunk at night, like I said, when he told his aunt, and then the story changed a few days later that he had sunk midday, that was a big change in story, and that was maybe a couple of days later. So there was an opportunity to what I believe, an opportunity to reflect and begin to realize that there was some scrutiny that was being placed on the validity of a story.
- [31:07]
Ashley Banfield
Well, it's incredible. Obviously, you know, what he said originally was untrue, and what he said next may have been the truth or may have been untrue, but you can't have both. So one of them was an untruth. And in the case of Brian Hooker, we now have a colossal untruth. It's a lie. It's just a flat out lie. You can't possibly have floated off to Marsh harbor with no propulsion because Lynette bounced out of the dinghy with the keys. Right? And we can't possibly have Lynette bouncing out of the dinghy with the keys because Lynette was dead on board. Soulmate. So they made it back to that boat. So an untruth that colossal. Is that the whole ball of wax? Is that like hook, line and sinker? You know, like use any, any expression you want. But is that the kind of thing where a jury says you're the kind of liar who looks like he did kill his wife?
- [32:09]
Eric Gamp
I don't believe that's the. The end all, be all. I think that is just one statement. And certainly you do have to back that up with additional evidence. I think there's certainly enough room to be able to say, you know, maybe I misspoke, or something along those lines. Is it. Is that one statement enough? Not in my mind. And I don't think that a jury would disagree.
- [32:44]
Ashley Banfield
Wow, I'm shocked. I feel like here's a guy who had us all wound up and had rescuers looking for his wife, just like you were, you know, Coast Guard was looking for Linda Carmen and said it would take a higher authority to have anyone stop him looking for his wife. And that higher authority was a flight out of the Bahamas the next day. It was very High authority, lots of altitude, but there's no other reason. Like, I just can't come up with any other defense. You got evidence of foul play on board and that she's dead on board, and yet this entire story that's concocted and put together of this massive float and then enacted, like the whole fake scenario is enacted. I mean, look, I, I've done a lot of cases where somebody says it was an accident and I freaked out, but this is beyond that.
- [33:37]
Eric Gamp
No, I would agree with you that the story alone certainly lends itself to cast doubt on the individual. But I do think that there's a difference. As an investigator, we're doing our very best to follow every single lead that we possibly can, that we think logically needs to be followed. But there's certainly a different threshold once you enter the courtroom room. And, you know, there's. There's, you know, likely a prosecutor in this case that has, has been consulted. Maybe at a minimum, maybe there's something else going on. Maybe there's, you know, some sort of grand jury or some sort of proceeding that's going on. But at a minimum, I'm inclined to think that there's, there's a prosecutor that's been consulted, and just the mere fact that there was a statement that was made and it is in direct, a direct contradiction to logic doesn't get you to the point you need to get to. You know, there's certainly similarities between these cases and, and quite honestly, that's. That's what got my attention initially back in. I think it was early April, if I'm not mistaken, easter nearly, nearly 100 days ago. And when I was looking the. Initially reading about this, this case, I was, I was shocked at the similarities, to be honest with you.
- [35:13]
Ashley Banfield
Yeah, me too. Which is why I wanted to call you. Were there any other secrets and tricks of investigation that you employed in the Carmen case? Other than we heard his statements and they were off kilter? What other magic did you weave? Like, tell me what you did digitally? If. I mean, listen, 2016 was different, but what did you find? What did you do that. That led you to some conclusions?
- [35:40]
Eric Gamp
So I think right up front, there was no magic. This was, this was just built, this case. And the success of this case was built on partnerships with, with our local and federal law enforcement, the, the FBI, and the South Kingstown, Rhode Island Police Department. And it was literally interviews, a tremendous amount of examination, computer examination, computer forensics, reviewing mountains of data.
- [36:18]
Ashley Banfield
So tell me about that, because that's really what I'm getting at, like, what kind of forensics, digital computer data, all of that. What kind of forensics did you zero in on that really gave you the smoking gun?
- [36:33]
Eric Gamp
Well, quite honestly, we never had the smoking gun. Again. This was a case. The Carmen case was built on. Breadcrumbs, is how I've always phrased was just incremental pieces of the puzzle that were slowly coming together. In our case, what we did is we had seized a number of electronics, computers, cell phones, and we began to forensically extract the data from those and review the data. And there was, you know, and that included emails going back as far as we could get the emails on these. Whatever piece of equipment was being examined. Cell phones, the same thing, text messages, photographs, photographs on the. On the computers. And I don't remember exactly how many there were, but there was, I'm gonna say, at least five computers and multiple phones that really provided us some insight. And that insight was, were photographs from previous fishing trips that Linda had stored on her computer and emails that she had sent to Nathan. And it gave us a little bit of insight as to the nature of their relationship. So, you know, while this is going on, we are also, what I would consider rebuilding Nathan's life to the extent that we can.
- [38:21]
Ashley Banfield
We.
- [38:21]
Eric Gamp
We were serving process on. As for financials on different institutions. We were examining his spending history. And one of the most important things we did was create a timeline. And we were trying to determine if there was a pattern of purchases associated with the timeline. But more importantly, it gave us a little bit. A little bit of insight initially as to what his paths of travel were, to see if there were any patterns. But what we noticed, certainly in August of 2016 and September of 2016, noticed some purchases that were just really what I considered out of the ordinary. It was multiple anchors purchased during that period of time. A desalination device for that would have been on the boat to, you know, have fresh water if you're underway for an extended period. A number of. Fishing tackle items, but nothing that would have led you to believe that he was going to be prepared to go offshore tuna fishing. Once we began to review the photos, in particular photos that we had obtained from South Kingstown Police Department following the seizure of Nathan's pickup truck and having it being pounded, we noticed that there was a bucket of eels in the truck, and eels traditionally would have been used as bait. And if these were left behind, what. What are you going to use for bait? So we. I started this list of just things that, you know, may have had a place at some point, but weren't making sense to me in the sequence because Linda, you know, Linda and Nathan had. Had left at night. They were. If they were planning to go offshore, if Nathan was planning to go offshore, there's certainly things that he should have had on the boat that he didn't have on the boat. Ice, food, change of clothes because he was an inexperienced boater. And as the investigation unfolded pretty rapidly in. In that five days or seven days, while. As that investigation unfolded, in that seven days that he was missing, there were just more questions than answers. In particular, we found out at that point that Nathan had been also cut out of Linda's will during that time that he was missing. So it was these. These items became. That we were. These items that we were discovering became cumulative. And there was just. He had an opportunity to speak to us if he wanted to after he was rescued, and his attorney did not permit that. And that was unfortunate because he was rescued in late September of 2016. He met with the SAR debrief team when he returned to Boston. His attorney permitted him to be interviewed by the detective from South Kingstown, Rhode Island Police Department, but not me. And after that, that was. That was the last time we would have had the opportunity to interview him until he was arrested.
- [42:18]
Ashley Banfield
But the SAAR interview and the police interview, that must have been at least a wealth of information for you. Very valuable,
- [42:28]
Eric Gamp
certainly both of them. And. But for different reasons, the. The SAAR interview began to lay out the timeline and what I would consider an official statement of a change in story. Because when he first, Like I said earlier, when he first spoke to his aunt, he said that he had. He and Linda had sunk at night when he met. Spoke. When he spoke to the SAR Debrief team, he said that he sunk midday on the 18th. And that really stood out to me, because if he was. He was clearly not telling the truth to one of the people, and he clearly was not telling the truth either to the Coast Guard or his aunt. We didn't know which one at that time, he wasn't telling the truth to. But we. What we did know is we had a significant deviation from his story, from his initial story.
- [43:38]
Ashley Banfield
If Lynette is never found or Lynette's remains are never found, a lot of people say no body, no case, and that's just not true. You're living proof of that. Was that a huge hindrance to your case that you never found Linda?
- [43:56]
Eric Gamp
Absolutely. Absolutely. It was a huge hindrance to the case that we were unable to find Linda and, or the boat. And. But it, it did not deter us because we realized that at a minimum, the boat is probably in somewhere around 7,000ft of water. And the likelihood of finding the boat was not something that we were hopeful. We just didn't have the resources and the ocean is just so vast that there was just not be any way that we think we could pinpoint, we think we know where Nathan was. Based on his statement he provided In December of 2016, he said he was in an area called Block Canyon out on the continental shelf. And at that point we had a known location, but he was rescued a significant different. Just. He was rescued a significant distance east of the location that he said where the boat sunk. With all the drift analysis that was provided to us by the Coast Guard and the experts, there's no way that he would have drifted west when the drift would have taken him further east towards New Jersey.
- [45:26]
Ashley Banfield
So, I mean, it sounds like the case was being built on conflicting statements, which are impossible to. I mean, when you're in a crisis, you know, if it's middle of the night and, you know, if it's day, if your mom is going down and you're grabbing a lifeboat, you know, if it's bright daylight and you can see her, or if it's, you know, dark of night and you can't. So that's really hard to. To explain away to a jury. Right?
- [45:51]
Eric Gamp
Yeah.
- [45:52]
Ashley Banfield
Oh, it was a couple of hours. I was mistaken. No, no, no, no. It's a whole world of difference, you know?
- [45:57]
Eric Gamp
Yeah. And. And early on, we began to get witnessed it. Early on we began to get witness statements that were telling us, okay, there was a desire to go fish by the windmills southeast of Block Island. And so we started to map how he would have gotten there. And there's only two ways that he could have gotten there. You're going to go down the east side of Block island or you're going to go down the west side of Block Island. One statement that he provided, he said he went down the east side of Block Island. Another statement, he said he went down the west side of Block Island. So. And that's not a. That's not an oversight.
- [46:47]
Ashley Banfield
Small discrepancy.
- [46:49]
Eric Gamp
That's not an oversight.
- [46:50]
Sprite Advertisement Voice
That.
- [46:51]
Ashley Banfield
And also the drift patterns. I mean, this is just good hard science that couples with somebody's inability to keep a story straight. And I keep wondering about Brian Hooker and the things that he's told to the Royal Bahamian police force. They haven't forwarded those statements yet to see this I'm under the understanding that they're in the process of doing so. So I highly encourage them to speed up the process since we are 90 plus days since her disappearance. And those critical statements are going to mean the world to sieges, I'm sure. Especially since they have found so much that is inconsistent, so much of his story that's a lie. I really want to know what he said to the police.
- [47:33]
Eric Gamp
Yeah, those statements are going to be key that the Bahamian police are going to provide. Those are first observations, early observations, and those are going to be key. Why it's taken so long is pretty astounding. It seems like there's. I don't know the reason behind it, but I do know that when those statements get in the hands of Sejus, that's going to be. I don't know that I would call it a game changer, but that's certainly going to be something that fills in the blanks along the way because right now they're operating on some many unanswered questions.
- [48:19]
Ashley Banfield
There's a big difference between 2016 and 2026 when it comes to digital forensics and, you know, Apple watches and cell phones and triangulations, even, you know, Starlink and Internet. And I would imagine that there's even better marine technology. What do you expect CJIS is doing in order to nail down this case against Brian Hooker?
- [48:49]
Eric Gamp
I think there's several different things going on. I think they're still probably attempting to identify people that need to be interviewed, maybe some witnesses that they haven't discovered yet or that haven't been spoken to yet. I think that there's certainly this computer forensics component that is going to really also fill in the timeline. The advance in technology, like you mentioned, is going to be a critical point because whether it be the Apple watches or the Starlink or any, if there's any surveillance cameras on the boat, any electronics from the boat, I imagine that some of the equipment on the boat has some type of redundancy, electronic redundancy on it that you be able to get additional information on. And this is all about filling in a timeline and creating a picture, if you will. And I think that while yes, 2016 is different and the advancement in technology is a world of difference, the process doesn't change. They are in possession of electronics. These electronics hold a massive amount of data. And to extract the data and then review the data takes a really a large amount of time if you're going to do it correctly. It's not because you don't want to overlook something. Something in this case is so critical. You don't want to overlook and you don't want to just assume something. You want to make sure that you're viewing it and making sure that, okay, have I missed anything? You know, so while the case is 100 days old, it's still very much in its infancy, particularly when it comes to reviewing electronics, because there's, you know, every, every piece of electronic just holds a massive amount of data and it's a ripple effect.
- [51:05]
Ashley Banfield
Everything it has can cause brand new warrants and, and that process isn't, isn't quick either. And when it comes to a federal case, I've tried to mention on the podcast multiple times, it's different than state cases. You get to probable cause, usually at the level and you arrest and you hopefully withhold bail if it's a murder. And then you build the case for the next two to three to four to. I've covered one after 10 years. Feds are a little different. You guys front load all of that work before you get to an indictment and arrest, and then you're ready to go to trial within months.
- [51:37]
Eric Gamp
Yeah, and, and the federal cases are, are generally different because of the speedy trial clock, when the cases are front loaded so the government is assured that they are ready to go with a prosecution. The state cases operate a little bit differently. In the end, the goal is to hopefully gain a conviction. But the federal cases do front load the investigation and make sure that the date that the individual is arrested, the government is prepared to go to trial.
- [52:20]
Ashley Banfield
Do you think there's any massive similarity in terms of what CJIS investigators are doing right now to pin down what happened to Lynette and why Brian Hooker may have killed her? Because this is a murder investigation and your investigation what happened to Linda Carmen. Do you think there's something particularly that's very similar in how you guys are attacking these cases?
- [52:46]
Eric Gamp
I do from a foundation standpoint, and I think there are a number of similarities and it's, it might not be a contributing factor from an evidentiary standpoint, but you've got a, you've got a spouse and a close family member whose sudden disappearance at sea in both cases, you know, only truly one witness in each case who was on the boat at the time of the disappearance, or in the Carmen case, the time the boat sunk. The questionable narratives that have been provided and the changing narrative both provided implausible explanations of what took place. And for me, the, in the Carmen case, that was something that really really stood out to me. For Nathan, the implausible explanation started with how the boat sunk, and the boat sunk bow first and suddenly sunk. And when he surfaced, the life raft was already deployed. And late in the investigation, we identified that. That certainly that sequence that he provided was just completely implausible. And I believe Nathan and Brian never anticipated federal law enforcement, more specifically CJIs involvement, and they never anticipated that this case would garner as much attention by a United States federal law enforcement agency. Both. Both of them have family members and friends raising doubts about their disappearance. And I could probably go on and on, but those are just, you know, just a handful of similarities between the two cases. Like I said earlier, from an evidentiary standpoint, those are just foundation components. Those are what I view as foundation components to a case. And, you know, this Brian's story that he was never going to leave the island or it would take, you know, an act of God or higher power.
- [55:06]
Ashley Banfield
Right. He's an atheist, too, by the way. He's an atheist, and he's calling on a higher power.
- [55:11]
Eric Gamp
It would take a higher power for, you know, him to leave the island. And given the opportunity, he knows no sooner given the opportunity and he left the island. And I think that while not truly an evidentiary thing, an evidentiary item, I think it speaks volumes to the individual, and I think it speaks volumes to the case. Where it fits in the case. I don't know where it fits in the case, but it's just one of those things that is not a. Doesn't seem like it's a natural response to the situation.
- [55:49]
Ashley Banfield
You can explain away a couple of behaviors, but you can't continue to explain all of your behaviors and your inconsistencies and your lies and your, you know, fleeing the country and lying to the press about it. Listen, not all heroes wear capes, but I think CJIS is amazing, and I've been super impressed with everything they've been doing. Let's hold out hope that you and I'll meet with different news that there's an arrest and maybe there's a trial afoot.
- [56:18]
Eric Gamp
I hope so, too. That would. That. That would mean it was a successful investigation. I would temper any enthusiasm. I mean, I think that probably great strides have been made, but these cases are built incrementally. And I would. I wish the investigators the best of luck because I think that they are certainly on the right path. But it's just one of these cases that it's going to take time. And unfortunately, family and friends probably don't want to hear that. But that's the reality of it. The agents aren't going to cut any corners. They're not going to take any shortcuts. They are going to make sure that they put together an absolutely solid case to the best of their ability.
- [57:11]
Ashley Banfield
Eric Gaemp, great talking to you. Thank you so much.
- [57:15]
Eric Gamp
Thank you so much, Ashley.
- [57:16]
Ashley Banfield
I appreciate the opportunity and thank you for your service.
- [57:19]
Eric Gamp
Appreciate it.
- [57:21]
Ashley Banfield
My great thanks to Eric Gamp. That's the kind of guy whose mind I want to tap when there is this seemingly parallel case that's happening in the Bahamas. His case happened in Connecticut, but lots of lies told, right? Inconsistencies, science that proved some of those inconsistencies. And I just am, I will be so fascinated when eventually I hope we get to see the case that the Coast Guard Investigative Service is mounting against Brian Hooker because it's a murder investigation. We were the ones who brought that to you first. And we will continue to bring you news as we learn it. I am working tirelessly. My sources in the Bahamas, my sources in America. Here I am up in Canada. This is truly an international affair. But I'll bring you what I can, when I can. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you so much for watching. Thank you for subscribing and thank you also for being a member. New member, Q and A. Ask me anything. Coming soon. Keep your eyes peeled. I'll have that set for you. I'll give you lots of notice. In the meantime, truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.