The Murder of Josette Wright: Everything You Need to Know

Summary

---

The Murder of Josette Wright: Everything You Need to Know

Podcast: Murder Sheet
Hosts: Áine Cain & Kevin Greenlee
Date: June 23, 2026

---

Overview

In this comprehensive episode, journalist Áine Cain and attorney Kevin Greenlee dissect the complex case of Josette Wright—a 12-year-old from Carmel, New York, whose 1994 rape and murder led to a decades-long legal battle, multiple trials, and polarized public narratives. The hosts take a journalistic deep-dive into the evidence, legal proceedings, and a contentious lack of public access to court records due to New York’s rare acquittal-sealing law. They also critically examine how the case is being reinterpreted in current media, raising ethical questions about transparency and the narrative-shaping power of limited access to primary sources.

---

Main Topics & Key Discussion Points

1. Challenges of Reporting on the Josette Wright Case

• Restricted Access to Court Records ([03:30–08:05])

  • Unlike most murder trials—which allow public access to records and transcripts—New York’s Criminal Procedural Law 160.50 automatically seals records in acquittal cases.
  • This law "tramples public interest in transparency," says Áine, and extends to other states like California and New Jersey.
  • Quote:

    "We're in a really bizarre situation... we simply cannot get access... through the normal means."
    — Anya Cain ([04:32])

• Effects on Journalism ([08:05–09:30])

  • Journalists and the public must rely on newspaper accounts or secondhand retellings; there’s no way for independent parties to review the full trial record.
  • Defendants and certain journalists, notably Paul Salteroff (Rolling Stone, Bone Valley podcast), have access to trial materials, potentially biasing public interpretation.
  • Quote:

    "Basically, this is just, 'trust me' journalism, where we have to rely on their interpretation."
    — Kevin Greenlee ([08:05])

• Ethical & Legal Implications ([13:54–15:57])

  • Áine and Kevin argue the law may shield more than just the acquitted—it can hide official misconduct, discourage public oversight, and paradoxically may not actually protect privacy.
  • Áine:

    "The public's interest in the public access here is being completely trampled by this law." ([14:42])

---

2. Timeline of Events

Kevin breaks down the chronology ([20:17–27:22]):

• October 3, 1994: Josette Wright last seen in Carmel, NY.
• May 1995: Andrew Krivak’s van seized (related vehicle in case).
• November 22, 1995: Josette’s remains found, confirming homicide.
• April 24, 1996: Denise Rose gives an eyewitness statement placing herself and the accused at the scene.
• July 1996: Krivak and DiPippo charged; Krivak confesses (details below).
• 1997: Both men convicted.
• 2000s–2010s: Appeals, allegations another man (Howard Gombert) is the true perpetrator.
• 2011–2016: New trials ordered due to potential defense conflicts; evidence debates focus on Gombert’s alleged involvement.
• 2019–2022: Both Krivak and DiPippo are acquitted in new trials, later awarded significant settlement payouts by Putnam County.

Notable Moment:

• Defense investigator tried to bribe Denise Rose to recant; she refused, enhancing her credibility ([25:00], [46:12]).

---

3. Prosecution’s Case and Evidence

Key evidence presented against Anthony DiPippo and Andrew Krivak ([27:24–39:40]):

• Eyewitness Testimony: Denise Rose

  • Places herself, Josette, and both accused in the van; describes sequence of events including location details and assault ([27:59], direct quotation from coverage).
  • Quote:

    "Rose said she pleaded with them to stop. 'Leave her alone. She's just a baby.' Depippo warned her to keep her mouth shut..."
    — Kevin Greenlee quoting Rose's statement ([28:00])

• Krivak’s Confession

  • Detailed, matching Denise’s account; states he and DiPippo assaulted Josette, then removed her from the van ([30:07–33:30]).
  • Quote (Krivak, as read by Greenlee):

    "Josette told me she didn’t want to have sex and kept saying, 'leave me alone.' ...I shoved her panties in her mouth... Krivak describes having sexual intercourse with Wright... when Anthony got off her, Josette was not breathing or moving. She appeared dead..." ([32:30])

• Corroborating Statements

  • Jailmate Scott Chestnut: DiPippo admitted sexual encounter, but denied murder.
  • Correctional officers: DiPippo made equivocal admissions ("I was there. I was high. I don't remember.")

• Physical Evidence

  • Josette’s jewelry found in Krivak’s van.
  • Multiple witnesses (Gary Kempter, Lisa Murphy) positively identify Josette with Krivak and DiPippo the night she disappeared.

• Pattern Evidence

  • Prior similar behavior by DiPippo with another underage girl (not charged, but credible as context).

• Assessment:

  • Both hosts view the prosecution’s original evidence as "overwhelming" ([39:34–39:40]).
  • Quote:

    "That's really, really strong."
    — Kevin Greenlee ([39:35])

---

4. Defense Arguments

Key points ([39:54–44:05]):

• False Confession Allegation
  • Defense claims Krivak’s detailed confession was coerced after polygraph manipulation.
• Witness Recantations
  • Several witnesses who initially supported the prosecution retracted statements, though Denise Rose did not.
• Alternative Sightings
  • Claims Josette was seen alive after her disappearance—these witnesses give inconsistent or unreliable testimony (dates, identification confusion).
• Conspiracy Theories
  • Defense suggested police planted Josette’s jewelry in the van, but offered no supporting evidence.
• Alibi/Evidence of Mechanical Issues
  • Claimed Krivak’s van was inoperable during relevant period.

Host Assessment ([44:05–45:00]):

• Áine and Kevin are generally critical of the defense’s case, labeling it “underwhelming” and insufficiently supported.

---

5. Factors Affecting Conviction and Acquittal Outcomes

Why were there convictions, then acquittals? ([44:13–45:49])

• Erosion of Witness/Evidence Over Time

  • Key witnesses died or recanted; physical memory faded.
  • Juries may be influenced by length of time served or weakened impact when testimony read rather than delivered in person.

• Bribery and Recantation

  • Documented effort to bribe Denise Rose presents a significant integrity issue for the defense side.
  • Quote:

    "Recantations alone would not make me suspicious... but the fact that this bribery effort was on the record... that becomes highly significant."
    — Anya Cain ([46:12])

---

6. Alternative Suspect: Howard Gombert

Why DiPippo and Krivak blame Gombert ([48:12–57:08]):

• Allegations in Current Media

  • New narrative in Bone Valley and Rolling Stone casts Howard Gombert, a convicted sexual predator, as the real killer.

• Jailhouse Informants

  • Jailhouse snitches claim Gombert confessed to Josette’s murder and others—pattern of snitches emerging with stories about Gombert’s supposed admissions, often coinciding with high-profile media or legal moments.
  • Prior case (Mary Ann Measles) attributed to Gombert by a snitch later proved false.

• Eyewitness Debunked

  • Media reports highlight a witness who saw Josette enter a car matching Gombert’s. Crucially, the witness actually said the car and driver were NOT Gombert or his vehicle.
  • Quote:

    "Their star witness says... the car I saw her getting into was not Gombert’s car, and the driver was not Gombert."
    — Kevin Greenlee ([54:42])

• Comparison with Evidence Against Krivak/DiPippo

  • No physical evidence ties Gombert to Josette or crime scene.
  • No direct witnesses place him with Josette on the night she vanished.

• Legal Concerns

  • The hosts are baffled by appellate decisions allowing hearsay/jailhouse snitch testimony (against Gombert) to overturn verdicts otherwise based on strong direct and physical evidence.

---

7. Media Ethics and Critique

On Bone Valley’s (podcast) approach ([59:18–62:04]):

• The hosts are sharply critical of Bone Valley for omitting key facts—especially Denise Rose’s steadfastness post-bribery, which bolsters her credibility.
• Áine emphasizes journalistic responsibility to provide all material facts, not just those that fit a preferred narrative.
• Quote:

  "The purpose of any sort of media about a case should be to inform... not to convince people of your side, but to inform of all sides."
  — Anya Cain ([61:16])

---

Key Takeaways & Notable Quotes

• On transparency:

  "I think it would be very, very helpful if the team behind Bone Valley... were to provide transcripts of the trials to other journalists and put them out there publicly in some manner."
  — Anya Cain ([09:30])

• On the law’s effect:

  "The public's interest... is being completely trampled by this law."
  — Anya Cain ([14:42])

• On jailhouse informants:

  "That certainly is another reason to raise some major, major red flags about the credibility..."
  — Kevin Greenlee ([53:25])

• On the media’s obligation:

  "You should not be letting your opinion color what facts you put out there in the public."
  — Anya Cain ([61:43])

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

| Topic | Timestamp | |--------------------------------------------------------|---------------------| | The challenge of sealed records and law context | 03:30–15:57 | | Timeline of the Josette Wright case | 20:17–27:22 | | Prosecution’s evidence overview | 27:24–39:40 | | Defense arguments and witness recantations | 39:54–44:05 | | Convictions, acquittals, and factors in jury decisions | 44:13–45:49 | | Bribery and its implications | 46:12–47:05 | | Case for and against Howard Gombert | 48:12–57:08 | | Editorial/ethical critique of Bone Valley and reporting | 59:18–62:04 |

---

Conclusion and Call for Information

• The hosts reiterate their commitment to transparency and robust reporting, urging those with information or documents to come forward confidentially ([62:10–62:20]).
• The episode stands as both a detailed primer on the Wright case and a broader meditation on the importance of public access, media ethics, and skepticism in true crime reporting.

---

Transcript

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Support for this podcast comes from progressive America's 1 motorcycle insurer. Did you know? Writers who switch and save with Progressive save nearly $200 per year. That's a whole new pair of riding gloves and more Quote Today Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates national averaged 12 month savings of $197 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between October 2024 and September 2025. Potential savings will vary.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer 2]

You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary Grainger Knows when

[Grainger Advertiser]

you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, Filters ready to clog H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering and 247 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Hi, I'm Kevin. Today we're going to be discussing all of the relevant information that you need to know about the rape and murder of Josette Wright.

[Anya Cain]

Content Warning this episode contains discussion of

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

the rape and murder of a little girl.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So there's a lot to talk about here in the episode and we're going to get right to it in a minute. And where I was going to talk about the actual evidence that was used by the defense, the prosecution, to come to the conclusions they came to. We're going to talk about all of that and we're going to also talk about a significant problem that arises when you try to report on this case.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

My name is Anya Cain.

[Anya Cain]

I'm a journalist and I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney and this is the Murder Sheet.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[Anya Cain]

We're the murder sheet, and this is

[Kevin Greenlee]

the murder of Josette Wright. Everything you need to know.

[Anya Cain]

It's.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Anya. I think it's fair to say that our preferred way to cover a case is to get our hands on all of the relevant court documents and just read through them probably two or three times, just to absorb as much of the information as possible, possible. And I think that's something reporters generally like to do. You don't want to have, just trust me, journalism. You want to actually go as close as you can get to the source to get as accurate of information as possible. I think that's a basic tenet of journalism, and I would say we're probably best known for our work on the Delphi case. You don't have to just trust us on that because all of the court transcripts, all of the pre trial motions, all the appellate stuff, it's all available online. So anybody who is so inclined, if you want to check our work, you can, you can go and look at all that stuff. But what's the situation on this case, Anya?

[Anya Cain]

Well, you know, actually one of the most gratifying moments for me, not one of many, but when we wrote our book, Shadow of the Bridge, the Delphi Murders and the Dark side of the American Heartland, documenting that trial, documenting that case, we talked to a veteran reporter who also covered the case, and they told us, yeah, like everything you got here is stuff that I also got from sources and was, you know, was aware of. And they were like, well done. And I was like, heck, yeah. And, and the, the reason why that's gratifying is like, I, I respect that person as a journalist a lot. And the fact that that person was able to duplicate our work and corroborated and maybe get some different sources was my understanding where they were going to, you know, maybe, maybe some of the same people, but oftentimes different people and still coming up with the same things. I thought that was great because then it means that, like, we're doing our jobs. As Kevin said, usually there is a lot of avenues for journalists who cover a case, especially when we're talking about a murder trial, murder trials, actually, in this case, you, you know, our system typically has pretty substantive public access, so that you can take a number of avenues, you can get sources and talk to people who are there, but you also have the opportunity to get transcripts, you can get legal filings and all of that. Now, that is not the case whatsoever in the case of Josette. And that's basically boils down to one specific law that passed in New York in 1976, and that is New York criminal procedural law 160.50. So what is 160.50? And how does it influence our ability to cover this case or anyone's abilities, for that matter? Almost anybody. I guess we'll get to that later. Well, this law holds that if an individual is acquitted of a crime on all charges, their case and records will be automatically sealed. That also pertains apparently retroactively to any past trials where they were convicted. So if you're convicted and retried and convicted and retried and acquitted, everything is sealed. Much of your appellate record is sealed, and it is against the law for that to be disseminated by the state. So as far as transcripts, in this case, you know, we do our normal thing. We reach out to the county clerk. Okay, can we get this? Answer is no. And we're like, okay, why? Well, there's this law. We reach out to the appellate records people, you know, at the state level. Is there anything attached here, Appendixes or whatnot? Filings? Answer is no. So we're in a really bizarre situation. It's a very bizarre situation. And I will say New York's not a lot alone in this. I understand that California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania all have similar laws. So it's not just New York. But we're in a situation where when we're trying to get a hold of these records, we simply can't on our own. You know, we simply cannot get access to them through the normal means of doing so.

[Kevin Greenlee]

But meanwhile, the defendants in this case do have that material, and they have shared it with the reporter responsible for the current season of Bell Valley. In his Rolling Stone article on the case, this gentleman wrote, these trials yielded thousands of pages of transcripts, countless hours of testimony. It's the most richly documented case I've encountered in 30 years. But we don't get that documentation. Basically, this is just, trust me, journalism where we have to rely on their interpretation of it, the interpretation of someone who has indicated, I think it's fair to say, a strong sympathy for the defense in this particular case. And I'm not accusing anybody of anything here. Maybe their interpretation is 100% accurate. I don't know. Maybe it's completely slanted and unfair. I don't know. But what I do know is if you want to get closer to the truth, you have as many different eyes as possible looking at these things and evaluating it. And if you think, oh, these records show that these guys were railroaded, they were actually innocent. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I think you would want other people to look at those documents. So that would back you up.

[Anya Cain]

I think when you're doing a reported piece, whether that's in print form, as Paul Salter, off the reporter behind this season of bone Valley, Season 5, the Devil's Quarry, and behind the Rolling Stone article that came out in 2021 and preceded this Bone Valley season. I think you want to be very much documenting what you're basing your claims off of, based on the record, and not. Not be me, not be leaving that ambiguous in any sense, because I think it's really important for the public's understanding. And, yeah, I'm not gonna lie. Like, I think on some level, there's certain things that a journalist might have that I don't think that they should necessarily share with the public. One key part of that is if you have a source, and that source is not giving you permission to pass their name around or give contact information, that's. That's one thing that I don't think we should expect journalists to do. I would never expect a journalist like, yeah, tell us your secret sources. You know. No, that's ridiculous. But I do think it's important when we have such a, what I would say, egregious public access issue associated with this case. I think it would be prudent and I think it would be very, very helpful if the team behind Bone Valley and this Rolling Stone article or were to provide transcripts of the trials to other journalists and put them out there publicly in some manner, and if they were to get, you know, whatever permissions they need to do that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I think it's absolutely crucial for credibility and for people to have faith in a piece. I will go on to say that we did. We've had a bit of a back and forth with some of the people responsible for Bone Valley, and we did ask, are there any plans to make these public documents publicly available? And we also asked if they had any response to the concerns raised by Josette's sister that we discussed in our previous episodes, and they did not reply. So the reason I bring all this up is in this episode, we're going to give you a basic timeline of the facts of the events in this case, and we're going to give you an overview, as best we can, of the evidence presented by the state, by the defense, and also the evidence, such as it is, that implicates another man, Howard Gombert, for these crimes. These. What we're Presenting to you largely comes from newspaper articles and from discussions in a couple of legal opinions. Ordinarily, we would not rely so extensively on such sources, but we're explaining to you why we are today. And so if there's any possibility that we have omitted something or didn't get something completely right now, you know why.

[Anya Cain]

Yes, and I will say the newspaper coverage of this case was somewhat robust back in the day. And of course, it's a multi year, multi decade case. So you're seeing some pretty extensive reporting in the beginning at least, and we are reliant upon that. And the. I also want to note, just for scene setting a little bit, this story takes place in Carmel, New York, that is in Putnam county, in the Hudson River Valley. So that is where this is all taking place. And that is why, of course, the New York law applies around acquittals. I want to add, just before we get on to that, I understand on some level the thinking behind such a law. If you have a situation where you are wrongfully accused of something or the state brings an extremely weak case against you, or their case implodes, I think the thinking is, why should those records still be out there? Because it still follows around the acquitted person. Is that really fair? Could they be subject to discrimination or prejudice? If that stuff is out there and they were acquitted, the state didn't prove its case, so why not just seal it? I understand that. I think to me it's a really problematic law, though.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I think it's an absurd law and it's ridiculous. And especially in a case like this where at the very least, Mr. DiPipo seems to be an active participant in this new podcast series in which he wants people to interpret what happened in a certain way. Way. Here's how I think you should interpret what happened. And if you're doing that, if you're trying to create a narrative,

[Anya Cain]

well, I mean, that gets into a journalism issue.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I mean, well, for Mr. Dipo, if you want to protect his rights and not have him be exposed to the details of what's in these transcripts, I think the argument would be that he gives up some of those rights if he's out there trying to advocate for a particular interpretation.

[Anya Cain]

Legally speaking, though, I mean, because I, I agree with you from a journalistic, media ethics perspective, there's some, there's some. This is concerning. I'm concerned, I'm not prepared to make any sort of statements about anyone doing anything wrong at this time because it's early days. But I have some extreme concerns about how this is playing out. But from a legal perspective, I see the vision. But I also look at this as, you know, what if my local district attorney or whatnot, my local prosecutor is doing such a bad job that they're bringing, you know, case after case that's weak and imploding. I, as the member of the public should want to be able to look at that so I can then make a determination on who I'm electing. Like to me, this case doesn't. This law does not simply help the acquitted, and I don't really know how much it would help the acquitted because if a trial is covered at all, it's still public. People know you got accused of something. I think the worst thing it could do is probably protect people in power authorities, whether they be police, law enforcement agencies, or people in the prosecutor's office. We're not doing a great job. I think the public, I think the public's interest in the public access here is being completely trampled by this law.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

This message is sponsored by Greenlight.

[Greenlight / Quince Advertiser]

It's always scary when someone tries to scam your family. We had scammers hack into our relative's email and send all of his email content tax junk. Thank goodness we were all able to fix it and it did not go beyond that. But the problem is huge and growing. Families lost 12.5 billion to fraud last year. With Greenlight Family Shield, you can keep your family from becoming a statistic.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

Greenlight Family Shield is an app that helps keep your whole family safe from scams and fraud, not just one person. Your grandparents, your kids, you. That's because Greenlight knows that this affects everybody in your family when it happens. Greenlight Family Shield protects with financial account monitoring, credit locking and real time alerts when potential fraud is detected. They offer up to a million dollars of identity theft coverage so you can have peace of mind.

[Greenlight / Quince Advertiser]

Unfortunately, as true crime podcasters, we know that fraudsters and scammers are trying to rip you off all the time. Greenlight Family Shield puts the power back in your hands and it takes just minutes to set up.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

We love their identity protection services. We also love that they're monitoring our financial accounts and that they'll lock our credit in an instant if something goes wrong. We use Greenlight and you should too.

[Greenlight / Quince Advertiser]

Scammers are not waiting. Neither should you. Go to greenlight.com msheet right now to get started. That's greenlight.com msheet greenlight.com msheet the temperatures are rising. That doesn't mean your spending has to Shop our wonderful sponsor, Quince.

[Anya Cain]

Quince is our go to brand when it comes to clothing.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

Their pieces look great and feel great. They're clothes that we feel excited to put on again and again.

[Anya Cain]

Plus they go with everything.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

We're talking about premium made wardrobe staples that last that you can wear all the time.

[Greenlight / Quince Advertiser]

Quint's doesn't do markups or middlemen. They partner with top ethical artisans and factories to ensure they're giving you the best. And all of their products are 50 to 80% less expensive than what you'd find at competitors.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

This summer. Shop their breathable European linen shorts and shirts starting only at $34. And Quince does more than just clothes. Check out their ceramic cookware line, their premium bedding and their custom upholstered sofas.

[Greenlight / Quince Advertiser]

I have two pieces coming in the 100% European linen relaxed short sleeve shirt in martini olive. I'm branching out and trying new things. Which means button downs with short sleeves. What a concept. It's casual but put together and perfectly lightweight for the sticky summer months. I also got new pants. The comfort stretch traveler 5 pocket pants. Athletic tapered in dark charcoal. They look professional and put together with a great sharp fit and a nice stretch.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.commsheet for for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.

[Anya Cain]

Now available in Canada too.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

That's quince.commsheet for free shipping and 365 day returns.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer 2]

Quince.commsheet this episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[Anya Cain]

And I think it's, I think it's absolutely appalling.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I agree. And I feel whatever privacy rights an exonerated defendant has, if he goes out there and tries to take part in the public dissemination of a particular interpretation of that story, I'm not so concerned about his privacy rights at that point because he seems to be giving them up by willingly participating in.

[Anya Cain]

And I also think in a situation like that, regardless, it really behooves the journalists or the media figures who are putting together that to be extremely discerning with what they do because at that point there's some pretty severe ethical considerations that I think need to happen and I'm sure we'll get into that eventually. But for now, let's just say there's concerns.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes. So I'm going to go through a timeline and then I'm going to go through the all the evidence that was presented in these trials. As you will hear, there were like five different trials and I'm not going to say, oh, this was presented at this trial, this was this trial. I'm just going to offer as much evidence as I can regardless of what trial it was presented at. But this is a case that started all the way back in October of 1994. October 3rd, 1994 to be exact. That is the date the 12 year old Josette Wright is last seen. The state will ultimately contend that later that night she was raped and murdered by Anthony DePipo and Andrew Krivack and that this happened and Mr. Krivac's van. October 3, 1994. May 1995, Andrew Krivac's van was seized by law enforcement in an unrelated drug arrest. November 22, 1995. Josette's remains are found in the woods prior to that date. Over the 13 months or so that she had been missing, it wasn't clear what had happened to her. Did she just run away willingly? Was she kidnapped? Was she killed, what have you. That's the day where people got the awful confirmation that Josette had been killed and her remains were in an advanced state of decomposition. Three days later, November 25, 1995, Andrew Krivak and Anthony Pipo are arrested on unrelated drug charges. On April 2, 1996, a woman named Denise Rose tells police that she doesn't really have any information about what happened to Josette. A few weeks later, on April 24, 1996, Denise changes her story. She tells police she was in the van and that she witnessed the rape and murder of Josette. She tells a terrible story. I think we're going to discuss more of that a little bit later in the program. And in the, I guess 30 years since she has stuck by that story. July 1, 1996. Mr. Krivak and Mr. Dipo are charged in connection with Josette's disappearance and death. Krivak actually makes a rather detailed confession. I think we're going to read from some of that a little bit later when information about that comes out. Dipipo says, I can't believe that Krivak ratted me out. In July of 1996, some witnesses who initially said, oh yes, we were in the van on this night, they start recanting their stories. But again, Denise Rose never does in early spring of 1997, March and April, Andrew Krivack is put on trial. He's convicted for his role in the rape and murder of Josette. In May and June of 1997, Mr. Dipo is put on trial and he too is convicted for his role in the rape and murder of Josette Wright. In 2000, Mr. Pippo and his team start suggesting that a man named Howard Gombert is a suspect. We're out quite a bit more to say about him as we go on. In April of 2006, a defense investigator named Patricia McGovern actually goes to Denise and tries to bribe her to get her to change her story about what she says happened in the van that night. I believe she offered her about $100,000. If you change your story, he'll get out of prison, there'll be a movie, you'll be rich. Denise does not change her story. She sticks by her story, even though she, like, I think all of us could use $100,000. In 2011, a jailhouse snitch says that this man, Mr. Gombert, confessed to the murder while taking a shower at the prison and also made incriminating statements about another missing girl named Robin Murphy. And the same year, Mr. DiPipo was given a new trial because one of his attorneys had also represented Gombert. And so that may have been a conflict because maybe he didn't represent the Pippo's interests with the same vigor he would have because he also was protecting Gombert, I guess, is the argument. So he's given a second trial. That trial happens in April and May of 2012, and Mr. Dipo is convicted a second time. A few years later, In March of 2016, Mr. Dipo's conviction was overturned. The court has very interesting decision to explain this. They say, yes, the evidence against Mr. Dipo and Mr. Krivak is arguably, arguably overwhelming. But still, they should have been allowed to present the hearsay evidence that was against Mr. Gompert. So he gets a new trial. He's put on trial again. This time he is acquitted. He sues the county, and the county settles with him for $12 million. Putnam. This is Putnam County, New York. The district attorney of Putnam County, Mr. Robert Tendi, was furious by this. He said that decision was, quote, foolish and totally uninformed. I'm 100% opposed to it. I think it's an incredibly foolish, foolish and uninformed and dangerous decision that the legislature has done in 2021. Mr. Santoro, who you recall is the Jailhouse snitch who says that Gombert confessed in a shower. He suddenly decides that he might take that testimony back if he's not paid. I think he wanted a million dollars. This obviously raises some pretty substantial questions about his integrity and his honesty. Krivak also gets awarded a new trial because he wasn't allowed to present any information about Mr. Gombert. He was tried and acquitted. He also sues and he settles for $20 million. That's the basic timeline on it. Does it make sense? Do you have any questions?

[Anya Cain]

I mean, yeah, but why don't we just keep going?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Okay. So as you've heard, there were a total of five different trials for these two men. And three of those trials ended in conviction, two ended in acquittal. So let's have an overview of the evidence that was offered by the state. This is the evidence that the state felt would incriminate them and would convince a jury that these two men committed this terrible crime.

[Greenlight / Quince Advertiser]

Crime.

[Kevin Greenlee]

One piece of evidence, of course. We mentioned Denise Rose. She says, I was in a van with these guys. Josette was a passenger. We stopped at a gas station on Route 52. All four of them kind of hung out in the parking lot with a group of friends for a period of some hours. They then leave the gas station in Crevax van. They kind of then pull over in a place called Fields Lane. They play a game of Spin the Bottle. During this game, Krivac tries to get affectionate with Josette wright and who's 12. She's 12 years old. She resists, according to Ms. Rose. I'll just read from a newspaper article here. Quote, Krivak threw right through the floor, pulling her jeans and underpants off, stuffing the underpants in the girl's mouth. To keep her quiet, Krivak grabbed a piece of rope and tied her hands in front of her. He also removed her shirt and bra and tied the bra around her face and neck. Rose watched his Creevac. Then dipipo raped the girl. Rose said she pleaded with them to stop. Leave her alone. She's just a baby. Dipipo warned her to keep her mouth shut. Wright had been struggling and gasping for air while Krivak raped her, but was silent and motionless after depipo got off her. Rose said Krivak and dipo then carried the unresponsive girl out of the van, returning 15 to 20 minutes later. End quote. So that is a direct quote from a newspaper article that is out there in the public. So I'm not Necessarily endorsing that or saying it's true or untrue. I'm saying this is what the newspaper article said at the time. Does that make sense?

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

Yes.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So we have Ms. Rose saying, we were at that this gas station and then this happened in the van after we left the gas station. Now, in addition to that, a guy named Scott Chestnut, who was incarcerated with dipippo at the time the charges were filed, he testified that Dipo admitted to him that he had had sex with Josette, but said he didn't kill her. It's also worth noting, for whatever it's worth, Mr. Chestnut did not want to testify. He did not want to be a part of these proceedings. He had to be tracked down and basically forced to testify to what he had heard. There was also Mr. Krivak's confession, which I believe we alluded to before. He was told he failed a lie detector test. And after that he said, is rape worse than murder? And the reason he asked that question, he explained, was that yes, he was guilty of raping Josette, but he didn't kill her. It was the Pippo that killed her. I think I'm going to read some excerpts from this confession made by Mr. Krivak. And I warn you, there are some disturbing details in this. And this, again, this comes from the newspapers. I'm going to read this article. In the statement, Krivak describes driving around in his father's brown Ford van on the night of October 3, 1994. He and Pippo met up with 12 year old Gisette Wright at the Fare Stop Deli. They picked up Denise Rose at her home and then they drive to the Citgo gas station. And then the following are excerpts from his direct quotes. And Again, this is Mr. Krivak, quote, we got out of the van at the Citgo gas station. We were all there at the Sitgo, hanging out. We hung out the Sitgo for about two hours. Then we decided to leave. I was driving. Anthony dipipo was in the front seat. Josette Wright, Denise Rose, Adam Wilson and Billy McGregor got into the back of the van. We drove across Route 52 onto Vink Drive and turned right onto Post Office Road. I turned left onto Fair street, drove past Simpson Road, past George Fisher Middle School and turned right onto Fields Lane. It is sometime past 10pm we drove past the small bridge and pulled off into the right side of the road where garbage is dumped. I got out of the van to go to the bathroom and got into the van again. Anthony Dipipo was already in the back of the van with Josette Wright, Adam Wilson, Billy McGregor and Denise Rose. I went into the back of the van with them. We decided to play spin the bottle. Anthony spun the bottle and it pointed to Josette Wright. Anthony Pippo did not want to be bothered with Josette at first, so I went over and tried to fool around with her. Josette told me she didn't want to have sex and kept saying, leave me alone. Leave me the alone. I pursed Josette to the floor of the van and took her pants and panties off. Josette kept screaming and fighting with me. I shoved her utre panties in her mouth and I took her shirt and bra off. Josette kept fighting and swinging at me. I grabbed her hands and tied them with a piece of rope that was in the van. I then took her bra and tied it around her mouth to keep her panties in her mouth to keep her from screaming. Krivak describes having sexual intercourse with Wright at the same time. He says dipipo tells him he also wants to have sex with her. Dipo then rapes her. The statement says when Anthony got off her, Josette was not breathing or moving. She appeared dead. I got out of my van by the side door and went to the back and opened the back door of my van. I grabbed Josette by her legs and Anthony then wrapped Josette up with her shirt and jacket. Anthony then grabbed her by her shoulders. We pulled her out of the van. Anthony grabbed her from me and threw Josette over his shoulder. I told him I was not going into the woods with him. Anthony said, I'm going to get rid of her in court. That's not pleasant reading. I think it goes on a bit. I think that gives you the gist of it. He is telling a detailed story that matches up with the story told by Denise Rose. And it also is somewhat consistent with the statement that DiPipo made to Scott Chestnut. In addition to that, there was a correctional officer named Vincent Farinella. He also heard DePipo say, quote, I can't believe Krivac ratted on me. Another correction officer named Victor Nestor, he heard Deppo say about that night, quote, I was there. I was high. I don't remember, end quote. So we have a number of. We have a couple witnesses who place Depot and Krivak in the van. We have Krivak placing them in the van. We have some of these incriminating statements that dipo made. But there's more. Some of Josette's jewelry discovered in the van. And this is a situation where how could her jewelry have gotten into the van if Josette was not in the van? So the fact that her jewelry was in the van where Krivac and Denise Rose say Josette was raped and killed, that certainly lends some credibility to the idea that she was in fact raped and killed in that van. There's some more here. A man named Gary Kempter, he testified that he saw Josette with Krivak and Dipipo at the gas station on the night of the murder. And he remembered that date because a friend of his got out of prison the next day. Another woman named Lisa Murphy, she also says, I saw Josette with Krivak and Pippo at that gas station on the night of the murder. So we have additional witnesses who say, I saw her. I saw her with the man accused of killing her. I saw her with the man accused of killing her on the night she died. This is pretty strong evidence. And then as I say, you add in the fact that her jewelry was found in the van, you begin to understand why the appeals court said this is arguably just overwhelming evidence of their guilt. One other thing I want to mention, and I'll be reading excerpts from an article that appeared in the Journal News on September 10, 2016. In one of these trials, they presented some evidence of an earlier incident between Mr. Dipo and a 13 year old girl. This is an incident that happened when Mr. Dipo was 17. Quote, the exact nature of the 1993 incident is in dispute and Mr. Dipo was never charged. But the incident in August 1993 involved the then 13 year old girl being naked in the woods with Dipippo. Police investigated, but Dipipo was never charged. The woman was reinterviewed in 2012 before Dipo second trial. She told an investigator that she believed she had minimized the severity of the encounter when it happened and suggested might have been an attempted rape. And court quote, so we have this woman who is roughly the age of Josette Wright. She says that I believe he attempted to rape me about a year or so before Josette was killed. So take that for whatever you feel that is worth. I'll also mention that during a time when Mr. De Pippo was about to face his third trial, he apparently sent this woman a Facebook post that the judge in the case deemed to be a veiled threat. So that is. That's the gist of the prosecution case. I'm curious, Anya, how would you characterize that?

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

Strong.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, that's, that's really, really strong.

[Anya Cain]

Should we get into maybe why the. The jury in the third, rather the last two trials maybe had a reason for not agreeing with that?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, before I do, should I go over what the defense case was?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, let's do that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Okay. So the defense said, yes, Andrew Krivak made this confession, but it's a false confession. He was coerced. He was tricked into it. He was told that he failed the polygraph. And so that is supposedly some sort of coercion, some sort of manipulation. I think I alluded to this when we talked about the timeline. Some of the people who were in the van and gave statements to police later recanted and said, oh, no, we'd been pressured into it. The crucial witness, Denise Rose, she never recanted, but other people did. We also have a few witnesses who say they saw Josette alive after October 3rd, which was the day she went missing. One of these is a woman named Allison Cloakley. She says she saw Josette at a shopping mall. This was a mall where there was an optician. Ms. Clokke went to the mall to see the optician on September 30 and October 7. At different times, she told investigators she wasn't sure if she saw Josette on September 30, which was before she went missing, or October 7, which was after she went missing. At least once she told police it was September 30th. But then when she testified at one of the trials, she said, no, it was October 7th. There was a guy named Dennis Garaglia. He said he saw Josette walking near her house in March of 1995. On cross examination, he said, well, maybe that was Josette's sister that I saw. Another woman named Myrtle Herbst said she saw Josette walking three times after Josette went missing. But in cross examination, she could not identify pictures of Josette, her sister Chloe, or their mother, Susan Wright. And then the final witness that I saw that testified that they saw Josette after October 13th was a teacher named Lorraine McLaughlin. The defense went on to say that, you know, those rings in the van, those were. Those were planted by the police. They didn't really offer any evidence, to be honest, that the police planted it, but that was.

[Anya Cain]

How would they have gotten the rings?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Good question. And then they also claim that they're saying that the murder happened in this van. Well, guess what? The van wasn't even working at the time of the murder. So that is the defense case.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

Right.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I personally find it a bit underwhelming, but I don't want to. What's your assessment?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, it's not, I think. I don't know. The prosecution's case was pretty overwhelming. I think, to me, if there's something where it's like, oh, well, Josette was friends with these people and would take rides, and maybe that's how her jewelry got there, I think I could find that a bit more believable. Or, yeah, we saw her that night, we gave her a ride, we dropped her off, you know, like. Like something to put that there. That's not a conspiracy. Now, that being said, I understand that there was corrupt law enforcement locally at the time, but you're going to need more. To me, that's akin to saying, well, this is a bad guy, so he must have done it. Well, I need more than that. What specifically happened? What were the mechanisms for this planting, you know, and what evidence do we have of that? I need. I need more. I need more than just bad vibes. I mean, that's just my personal opinion.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. You asked why the. The juries in some of these trials convicted and others acquitted? I don't.

[Anya Cain]

I. Oh, I know, I know. Why. Wait, I can tell you.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's hard to say because you can't get into the juror's mind. What's your speculation?

[Anya Cain]

A prosecution's case never gets better over time, or rare. Like I should say, not never, but rarely gets better over time. Witnesses die. Witnesses are, you know, recanting in this case at the same time as there are, you know, bribery efforts going on. I think that cannot be understated. Like, that's extremely concerning to me. But when you have instances, it sounds like, especially in this case, my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, Kevin, my understanding is that, you know, some of the people who are able to identify jewelry, you know, may have died and other witnesses may have died or passed on.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And even if you even. I think Mr. Chestnut was one of the people who died in his testimony. It was rad. Later. It's more compelling. It's more compelling to see the person testify.

[Anya Cain]

I also think that there is a certain element with juries where, oh, well, they've served enough time, you know, and, yeah, well, there is that, but I think there can be just a bit of an attitude with juries when you have a case like this of, like, yeah, well, you know, they did their time, essentially. I mean, I'm not saying that was definitely the case here, but I think that could have played a role. But I do think, you know, memories fading, witnesses dying, witnesses suddenly not remembering things or suddenly recanting. I think all of that is stuff that works against the prosecution over time.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I agree. The sudden recantations of some of these witnesses, coupled with the fact that we know for a fact that a defense investigator tried to bribe Denise Rose to change her story, that. That is very, very concerning to me. It raises a lot of troubling questions.

[Anya Cain]

And I'm going to say this recantations alone would not make me suspicious. I'd be like, well, they're just recanting. But the fact that this bribery effort was on the record and came up in court and was documented in the newspaper. You know, if someone came to me and said, well, all these witnesses recanted and I think maybe bribery happened, I would be like, well, you know, what's your evidence for that? Frankly, that might be kind of conspiratorial thinking. And. But when it's documented to this extent and when there is seemingly penalization of this McGovern person because of this, to me, that becomes highly significant. Yeah, I mean, that. That becomes, like, deeply concerning. And I feel like any rendition of this story would be remiss if it doesn't mention that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

You need to mention that a defense investigator tried to offer a witness a substantial bribe to change their story to make it more favorable for the defense.

[Anya Cain]

You know what? This is like? Okay, this is like. I'll use you as an example, dear listener. Let's say that I make a podcast about a time where you totaled your car. Okay? You had a bad accident. You totaled your car. And I'm making a bunch of comments about, like, yeah, this listener is kind of careless. I don't think they're the best driver. And then it turns out that the circumstances were that you were actively being carjacked and fighting for your life when you crashed the car. If you were listening to me be, like, all smug about you being not such a good driver, you would probably be sitting there like, why aren't you mentioning the fact that I was fighting for my life? It's very important. Now, maybe if I mention that, I can still say, well, why didn't they do this? Or this? I could still nitpick you, but I can't really. Like, that's a pretty important fact that I probably should not leave out.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So with all that said, let's take a few moments and talk about Howard Gobert. This is the guy that Mr. Dipo and Mr. Krievack, or say he's the guy that did it.

[Anya Cain]

They're basically. I mean, through Paul Saltarov, who's doing this podcast, Bone Valley, and who did the Rolling Stone article and who is at the very least using dephipo as a source throughout the podcast. They're basically accusing this person of not just being the killer of Josette, but of being a serial killer.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes, yes. And I want to make it clear, I think one thing that I think everybody can agree with is this guy Gombert, terrible human being.

[Anya Cain]

Well, I mean, from what I feel, I mean, from what I read and from what Bone Valley puts out there, if we're taking that at face value, I mean, a criminal, frequent repeat abuser, sexual abuser, sexual predator targeting young girls. So, yeah, I mean, monstrous behavior.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So with all that said, let's talk about what is the case that Mr. Gombert is guilty of this specific crime, that Mr. Gombert raped and murdered young Josette Wright. There's the jailhouse snitches and notice I used the plural there. We've already talked a little bit about Mr. Santoro who says, oh, I was in the shower and he made some incriminating statements about the murder of Josette. And he also made some incriminating statements about his possible role in the murder of another young girl, Robin Murphy. So we'll talk more about that in a minute. But there's also kind of a dress rehearsal for this where years earlier, another snitch named Stephen Keenan, he says, oh, guess what? Mr. Gombert made incriminating statements to me about his role in the Jose Wright murder and also his role in the murder of Marianne Measles.

[Shopify Advertiser]

When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want. Like all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel right in one spot. And turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today.

[Grainger Advertiser 2]

When you're a maintenance engineer in a beverage manufacturing plant, you keep production lines moving and quality on track because there is no room for slowdowns. With Grainger's vast selection of high quality motors, sensors, belts and hard to find parts, you can get what you need need fast and all in one place so nothing gets in the way of getting the job done. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Rebel.com Advertiser]

So here's how you can save up to 70% on your favorite brands. From rebel.com has everything for your home, family, and life, from strollers to skincare at unbeatable prices. Every day, Rebel drops thousands of new products for up to 70% off. It's a constant stream of endless deals from brands like Uppababy, Nuna, Baby Bjorn, Nespresso, Breville, Wilson, Dyson Caraway, and more. Every listing is one of a kind, and the best things go first. So you have to move fast. Save big on your favorite brands. Shop now for up to [e-mail] and

[Kevin Greenlee]

what is interesting is not long after that, other people were convincingly held responsible for the murder. Mary Ann Measles. So that kind of showed that, oh, what Mr. Keenan is saying there is. It doesn't really have much value. But I think it's interesting that there is a pattern here where these snitches come forward with stories that Mr. Gombert is implicating himself in the murder of Josette Wright and another area, unsolved murder.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

The fact that that basic pattern exists is troubling and makes me question the credibility of these hearsay accounts.

[Anya Cain]

The fact that it keeps happening and is always. Josette's always one of the cases. And again, not for nothing, somebody's going around bribing people. It's interesting.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, we don't know if Mr. Santaro, the jailhouse snitch, was bribed.

[Anya Cain]

He seemed to have said that he wasn't bribed.

[Kevin Greenlee]

He at one point said, yeah, you know, I said that Gombert implicated himself in this murder. But I'm going to take that testimony back. I'm going to recant that unless the defense gives me a million dollars.

[Anya Cain]

He saw. Why give it? Why? You know, I'm gonna stop giving away this for free if people are getting paid.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. So that. That certainly is another reason to raise some major, major red flags about the credibility of Mr. Santoro and his claims about Mr. Gombert spontaneously confessing in the shower.

[Anya Cain]

Odd place to confess, but odd place to. I guess stranger things have happened. But certainly a shower in a prison or a jail or what have you in an incarceral setting is, you know, a place where you're bound to be overheard.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes. So the other big piece of evidence that it's actually Gombert that did this and not somebody else and I is this claim that there is a witness who saw Josette Wright getting into a car. That means the description of a car that Mr. Gombert was using and the driver of the car met the description of Mr. Gombert so here's. That sounds pretty convincing that this supposedly happened.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I mean, that's a big deal.

[Kevin Greenlee]

This supposedly happened on the last day that Josette was seen alive. But here's what they don't tell you. Well, let me. Let me read from this opinion. The witness's name is Albano. Quote, the court later reopened the matter to hear testimony from Albano regarding her observations at that hearing. Albano testified that she had not identified Gombert, who was older than the person she saw as the driver. Rather, she claimed to have told the police officer that the driver was not depicted in the photographs, but that Gombert, if anyone, bore some resemblance to the driver. Albano further testified that a few days before the hearing, she was shown a picture of the red vehicle belonging to Gombert's former girlfriend and was not the vehicle that she had seen on the day in question. So their star witness says, okay, I think I saw Josette get into this car, but the car I saw her getting into was not Gombert's car, and the driver was not Gombert. And this is their star witness whose star witness. The star witness for the Gombert case,

[Anya Cain]

which is presented in Bone Valley. Right?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

So they're. They're.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

Make.

[Anya Cain]

They're. They do not mention that this witness explicitly said that it was not Gombert.

[Kevin Greenlee]

She said it was not Gonbert, and the car was not Gonbert. This is the. This is their best evidence, is this witness.

[Anya Cain]

And what's. What's maddening to me is, again, we've listened to every single episode of Bone Valley season five. So it's not out on. On the public side of things yet. But in the version we listened to, this is described very differently. This is described as essentially, this woman identified a car that looked like Gombert's, which may be true, but I think it's pretty important to also mention that when she was pressed on, okay, is it Gombert? The answer was absolutely not.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And it was the car, Gombert's car. No. So this is. This just makes your mind spin. This is the big evidence, and it just falls apart upon the slightest scrutiny. Now, with all this said, maybe there's other evidence out there that he's guilty. If so, I haven't seen it. It hasn't been presented in the public press. I. And I think if you wanted to be intellectually honest, which is important to be.

[Anya Cain]

I think it's important, although it seems

[Kevin Greenlee]

like some people don't, I think you'd have to Concede that The evidence for Mr. Gombert's guilt is far less than the evidence for the guilt of Depo and Krivak. In Depipo and Crevac, you had multiple witnesses placing them with Josette on the last day Josette is seen alive. You don't have anything like that with Gombert. I think that you have physical evidence that jewelry belonging to Josette was in the Crevac van. You don't have anything like that with Gombert. You have confessions that are not hearsay. And if you're convinced by the jailhouse snitches in Gomber, you know, there's plenty of jailhouse snitches against Apipo and Krivac. It's crazy.

[Anya Cain]

It's really. How on earth did the appellate court make a decision that hearsay, unreliable statements from a jailhouse snitch should be something that you should overturn a jury's verdict based on?

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's difficult for me to understand the rationale behind that decision. I'm used to Indiana law, where if you want to introduce third party evidence that, oh, I didn't do it, this other person did it, there has to be a connection between the person and the crime. You have to provide a nexus.

[Anya Cain]

I'm, like, sympathetic to the overturned verdict where it was like, well, this guy didn't disclose that he was also representing this guy, and that's a problem. Like, I can understand that argument. I'm not a legal expert, so I don't feel like I can say, okay, yeah, they should have done that or they should not have done it. But, like, yeah, I mean, I can understand that. But with. With that, it's just. It seems almost. It just seems like, just bizarre and unfathomable. I don't know.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's odd. It's odd. So, yeah, that's what I wanted to cover. Is there anything else that you wanted to say?

[Anya Cain]

Well, you know, a lot of these points that we've raised in this episode were not covered in the version of Bone Valley that we listened to.

[Greenlight / Quince Advertiser]

Yes.

[Anya Cain]

And I find that troubling. I don't think. I don't think there's. I think there's certain facts or details that are more about texture, color, or, you know, we don't want to go too into the weeds on this, and everyone should feel free to kind of do what they want or what they think is important. But there are certain facts that answer or contextualize some of the questions raised by bone Valley Season 5, such as, you know, I think when you say, well, Denise Rose didn't change her story, isn't that awful of her? And then you find out she was somebody who actually was offered a lot of money to do so and didn't. That ups her credibility, it should up her credibility. I think that's important to mention. I really have less of a problem with anyone stating an opinion on the case. If people feel like Krivak and Dipo are guilty and they feel strongly about that, fine. If they feel like they're innocent and they feel strongly about that, that's fine. People can have different opinions. I myself, at this point, I'm just sort of. I mean, as we're getting into this case, I don't really find it necessary for me to come down on one side or another. I just, I think I want to learn as much as possible. But at the very same time, like you, the purpose of any sort of media about a case should be to inform and not convince people of your side, but to inform of all sides and let people make their own decision. And if you want to say, well, this is my opinion as part of that, I think that's fine, but you should not be letting your opinion color what facts you put out there in the public. I think that's very important. I think you can. Things can go wrong very quickly. We, we've been opinionated about our Delphi coverage, you know, and I don't regret that. I, I mean, this is my opinion, you know, but we would be remiss if we didn't cover things like, like the Odinism theory. I think the Odinism theory is a bunch of bunk, but I think it's important for people to know about it. And maybe people disagree with me. I don't know. They listen to it and they're like, okay, well, actually, maybe there's something there on you. Fine, then you disagree with me, but I'm going to give you that shot, at least to learn more about it. Then maybe you look it up more and you dig into it. Maybe you come to a different conclusion. That's what it's all about. It's not about trying to force people into little funnels that lead them to the outcome that you want them to come to. I don't know what that is,

[Grainger Advertiser]

but

[Anya Cain]

yeah, I mean, thank you for doing a deep dive on this, Kevin. I really appreciate your, your excellent research

[Kevin Greenlee]

as usual, and we will continue to cover it. And if anyone does have several boxes full of transcripts lying around, please feel free to share them.

[Anya Cain]

We protect our sources so if anyone sends us anything, we will protect you. And I will say this, it doesn't even have to be documents. If you have awareness of the goings on in Putnam County, New York, if you knew any of these people, if you knew anything, if you have a background in law enforcement from that area, if you have a background in being an attorney from that area, we would love to hear from you. And we're not going to force you to come on the show. We talk to a lot of people off the record or on background and we work hard to keep those people, their names out of it and then protected. So I would just say we'd love to hear from you. And again, I don't really care what opinions people have on this case at this point. It's more of, it's really just we want to, we want to understand as best we can. All right, thank you all so much for listening.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail]. if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon,

[Anya Cain]

that's available at www.patreon.com/murder sheet.

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

If you want to tip us a

[Anya Cain]

bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with

[Anya Cain]

other listeners about a case we've covered,

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion group on Facebook.

[Anya Cain]

We mostly focus our time on research

[Podcast Host / Sponsor Announcer]

and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email

[Anya Cain]

account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.