Podcast Summary: THREE Season 2: Murder in Vacationland
Episode: Probable Cause | Chapter 8
Release Date: April 24, 2025

Introduction

In Chapter 8: Probable Cause of the second season of THREE, hosted by Amanda Knox, the narrative delves deep into the complexities surrounding the long-unsolved murder of Dana Ireland. This episode navigates the intricate legal and investigative developments that have reshaped perceptions of justice on the island of Hawai‘i, focusing on the pivotal role of Chief Ben Moskowitz of the Hawaii Police Department (HPD).

Background: The Dana Ireland Case

Dana Ireland's brutal murder over 30 years ago left the Hawai‘i community grappling with suspicion and heartbreak. Three men—Ian and Sean Schweitzer, and Frank Pauline Jr.—were wrongfully convicted, a miscarriage of justice that haunted their families and the island. The case was believed to be closed, but emerging evidence and new investigations suggest otherwise.

Investigative Developments

Albert Laurel Jr.: A New Suspect Emerges

The episode centers on the revelation of Albert Laurel Jr. as a new suspect in Dana Ireland's murder. In July 2024, after years of investigative dead-ends, DNA evidence linked Laurel Jr. to the crime scene:

• July 3, 2024: DNA on a discarded fork matched Albert Laurel Jr. [?05:03].
• July 19, 2024: HPD officers obtained a cheek swab from Laurel Jr. [?05:38].
• July 23, 2024: Albert Laurel Jr. was found dead at his home, an apparent suicide [?05:38].
• July 24, 2024: DNA results from the cheek swab confirmed the match [?05:38].

Chief Ben Moskowitz’s Insights

Chief Moskowitz discusses the strategic decisions made during the investigation:

• Probable Cause Concerns: He explains the hesitation to arrest Laurel Jr. without sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, emphasizing the importance of avoiding arrests that lack "probable cause" (?08:51).

  "If we make an arrest without probable cause, anything that follows that arrest... could be excluded, which is absolutely not what we wanted."
  — Ben Moskowitz [?08:51]

• Potential Consequences of Arresting Laurel Jr.: Moskowitz reflects on the hypothetical scenario where arresting Laurel Jr. might have prevented his suicide but could have jeopardized the case's integrity due to insufficient evidence (?12:05).

Legal Proceedings and the Burden of Proof

Reopening the Schweitzer Case

The wrongful convictions of the Schweitzer brothers remain a focal point. Following the new evidence against Laurel Jr., the Schweitzers seek to solidify their innocence:

• July 30, 2024 Hearing: Ian and Sean Schweitzer attend a court session aiming to achieve a “finding of actual innocence” to qualify for state compensation (?26:22).

Challenges in Proving Factual Innocence

Lynn Kawano highlights the systemic obstacles faced by wrongfully convicted individuals in proving their innocence:

• Shifted Burden of Proof: Once convicted, defendants must "prove factual innocence," a daunting task exacerbated by the difficulty of disproving past evidence (?27:24).
• Issues with DNA Evidence: Despite the removal of Laurel Jr.'s DNA from the crime scene, prosecutorial arguments focus on his presence without direct connection, leaving the Schweitzers in a precarious position (?32:32).

"The burden is on the State to prove guilt... but once a conviction has happened, the burden of proof shifts."
— Lynn Kawano [?27:24]

Conflicts and Tensions

Hawaii Innocence Project vs. HPD

The episode exposes growing tensions between the Hawaii Innocence Project and the HPD:

• Lack of Collaboration: Chief Moskowitz criticizes the Innocence Project for undermining the investigation, while Shannon Kagawa of the prosecution team accuses the HPD of obfuscation and dishonesty (?20:31).

  "If the chief was saying he could have called me... then why are the prosecutors telling us that somehow?"
  — Shannon Kagawa [?21:13]

• Public Perception and Media Involvement: The conflicting narratives presented by HPD and the Innocence Project have muddied public understanding, leaving the community divided over the case's true nature.

Technical and Procedural Insights

Understanding Probable Cause

Chief Moskowitz provides an in-depth explanation of "probable cause" and its implications in criminal investigations:

• Definition and Application: Probable cause requires evidence that leads a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed by the suspect (?15:35).

  "The law in Hawaii defines probable cause as evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the suspect committed the crime."
  — Ben Moskowitz [?14:16]

• Balancing Act: The HPD must balance the need for justice with the necessity of maintaining legal standards to ensure convictions stand in court (?08:51).

Current Status and Ongoing Investigations

HPD's Continued Efforts

Despite the controversies, HPD remains committed to solving Dana Ireland's case:

• Cell Phone Evidence: As of July 2024, investigators are analyzing Laurel Jr.'s cell phone for critical information, though answers remain pending (?24:46).

• Proactive Stance: Chief Moskowitz emphasizes the department's dedication to uncovering the truth and achieving closure for the Ireland family and the community (?15:51).

Conclusion: The Quest for True Justice

Chapter 8 of THREE underscores the persistent quest for justice in the Dana Ireland case, highlighting the intricate dance between legal standards, investigative diligence, and the human cost of wrongful convictions. As new evidence surfaces and legal battles continue, the episode leaves listeners contemplating the fragility of justice systems and the profound impacts on those ensnared within them.

Notable Quotes:

"If we make an arrest without probable cause... could be excluded, which is absolutely not what we wanted."
— Ben Moskowitz [?08:51]

"The burden is on the State to prove guilt... but once a conviction has happened, the burden of proof shifts."
— Lynn Kawano [?27:24]

"If we had arrested Mr. Laurel without probable cause, anything we gathered as a result of that process could be excluded."
— Ben Moskowitz [?08:51]

Timestamps Referenced:

• 00:31 - 01:02: Initial non-content segments and advertisements.
• 01:02 - 24:42: Core content including interviews, discussions, and analysis.
• 24:46 - 34:42: Further legal proceedings, hearings, and concluding remarks interspersed with advertisements.

Note: Advertisements, intros, outros, and non-essential segments have been excluded to maintain focus on the episode's substantive content.