We get a lot of what we call just run-of-the-mill murders.
I think that she is obsessed with Sam.
It's very rare that you get a case that is actually planned out and executed.
Sam did not care for this girl.
It's one of the most devious murder cases.
We have to put it out there.
Because I do think she is a psychopath.
I think she had something to do with this.
I really, really think she did it.
I'm Scott Weinberger, investigative journalist and former deputy sheriff.
I'm Anastasia Nicolazzi, former New York City homicide prosecutor and host of Investigation.
Discovery's True Conviction.
And this is Anatomy of Murder.
Welcome to San Antonio, Texas.
The date is January 17th, 2010.
And Sergeant Lisa Miller is at the San Antonio Police Station about to come across a case that's going to reveal disturbing lies and secrets, not only within her community, but also within her own police department.
It was a Sunday morning.
I was the only homicide detective working that day.
Figure that in a city of a million people.
And it was late in the evening, probably after five, and I thought, okay, I survived the day.
The call came in from a patrol officer stating that a body was found in a cemetery.
And I was like, right, you're in a cemetery.
There's a lot of dead bodies.
And she goes, yes, ma'am, but this one is not in a grave.
It's under a tree.
The body was discovered by a man who was just visiting the city and simply taking a walk around.
He walked past the cemetery and he saw the body laying there.
He figured it was like a homeless person who was maybe just sleeping.
But when he came back from his walk, he saw that the body was still in the very same position.
And so he went ahead and walked all the way into the cemetery.
He realized that the man was dead.
When detectives arrived on scene, it was confirmed to be a homicide.
He had no identification on him.
We had no idea who he was.
The victim was a young, slim male, and his body was lying right at the entrance to the cemetery.
Had obvious gunshot wounds to the head.
Now, another detail that Lisa noticed was that the crime scene itself did not look like the place where the murder had occurred.
There was no blood at the crime scene.
There was no shell casings at the crime scene.
And we had received no calls for any gunshots in that area.
So, with the absence of any 911 reports of shots fired, it made Lisa even more convinced that the cemetery was just the dumping site for this body.
Before, when I've had things in cemeteries, it's because there was an altercation that occurred in the cemetery, or you hear about a chase that landed there.
But to actually take someone and put them in a cemetery, I thought that was a bit odd.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
I mean, was the killer trying to show some reverence or some compassion, potentially?
So it was determined by investigators that the victim's body wasn't just thrown or tossed into the cemetery, that actually somebody carried that victim, laid him down and put him on his side.
And I'm also wondering, what does that mean?
Oh, I had a lot of questions.
The first one being how do you brutally murder someone by shooting them in the head six times and then showing some compassion, some level of humanity by gently placing them at a cemetery?
You know, I asked that question repeatedly, like, this makes no sense to me at all.
One thing to note is that the case was not ultimately going to be Lisa's.
You know, in many large homicide divisions around the country, because of the sheer volume of work, cases are rotated amongst teams and homicide detectives.
And in this case, this young man who is now termed a John Doe, who's left in the cemetery.
That case would be marked for Lisa's partner, Sergeant Kimberly Bauer.
I was horseback riding, which I usually am.
Lisa called me on my cell phone and said, You know, hey, get off your horse.
Your murder came in.
When Lisa graduated the police academy, her first field training officer, who we call also an FTO, was Kimberly's husband.
So very early on, Lisa and Kimberly knew about each other and the rest was pretty much history.
She was a sassy, sarcastic person.
Kimberly is very sweet and kind.
She's all the things I'm not.
And so we kind of balance each other out.
They patrolled together.
They worked special victims together.
Then they went on to homicide together.
And when they made Sargent, once again, they did it together.
And you're not going to be shocked to hear that they retired together, too.
Kim and I do our investigations because we think alike.
Lisa and I just know what has to be done.
And so I just say, I'll take this one.
You take that one.
And We both have the same goals.
We reach the same conclusions.
We don't ever fight about who's going to do what.
We just get the job done.
It just comes from working, you know, at that time for over 20 years together.
I know what she's thinking.
She knows what I'm thinking.
A lot of times we slap each other because we both say the same thing at the same time, or we both just start laughing because it's like yeah yeah, yeah.
And all I could think about when I'm listening to the two of them is I almost picture them like this Laverne and Shirley.
You know, just very distinct personalities, yet as close together as one could be.
Even though they'll be working together, dividing the tasks up, Kimberly will be primary on this homicide investigation.
What struck me was that it literally looked from the photographs like they picked him up, like a man was holding a woman in his arms, you know, under one arm under the knees and one arm behind the back, and it looked like they were holding him like that and then just laid him down in the cemetery so he was on his side, not like he was thrown or dragged or dumped, literally just placed down on the ground after holding him in his arms.
So you know, while Kimberly's out there analyzing the crime scene, you can't help but realize that she's also, in a way, starting to try to analyze the mindset of her likely killer.
And I kept thinking, who would do that?
You know, why didn't they chunk him or throw him or. you know, dragging, however it was he got there.
And he also had this weird-looking contraption on his hip that at the beginning we couldn't figure out what it was.
While it's obvious that this young man, this John Doe, was placed there, what that also means to her is there's going to be a second crime scene out there.
Because think about it, if he's placed there, those injuries had to be caused somewhere else.
So Kimberly headed over to the ME's office, where the body had already been transported to, to determine if any forensic evidence could be collected from the body.
Perhaps fingernail scrapings, perhaps projectiles that may be located still within the victim's body.
And what they did find was that there was multiple gunshot wounds.
But there was one thing that really stood out.
We were trying to figure out. why there was a gunshot wound to the chin.
So we got a rod and we placed the rod through the gunshot wound into the chest to see where it was.
And that was the trajectory, you know, which you start at point A and sometimes it goes to point B and C and so forth.
But with one particular gunshot wound.
The thing that stood out was that it was a gunshot wound to this young man's chin and it lined up with a chest wound.
Picture that in your minds.
And what does that say to each of you?
And had to have been on his knees because the trajectory of the bullet was such that the shooter was above him.
This murder was what we call a close quarter contact between the shooter and the victim, while the victim was on his knees.
It was an execution.
They were trying to kill him.
During the autopsy, a critical piece of information was also learned through fingerprints.
And when you think about trying to identify with fingerprints, you know people often say okay well, does the person have a criminal record?
Do they have a job that requires your fingerprint?
Or did they apply for something that needs it?
But also interesting is that there are actually four states that require people or citizens to provide their fingerprints when they're registering for a driver's license.
And this I didn't even know until finding it out for this case.
And those states are Georgia, California, Colorado, and you guessed it, Texas.
Investigators determined the identity of the victim, Samuel Johnson Jr.
Johnson was 26 years old, a young father who worked two jobs one as a middle school safety officer and the second job as a bus driver.
This contraption, it turned out to be a piece of equipment they used as a via bus driver.
Samuel's parents hadn't seen or heard from him for nearly a week, and his vehicle was also missing.
Erica Samuel's fiance, and she said that she was pregnant.
She came in and said that the last she had heard of Sam was on the 13th.
And she said she knew that Sam was headed to Vanessa's house.
And the reason being is Sam said hey, Vanessa said she was going to give me some money and I'm headed over to her house to pick up the money.
And then Sam had to go to work that night after picking up the money.
All right.
So before it gets too confusing, let's just kind of go through who is who up to this point.
And again, we're doing it now because there's even more to come.
You have Samuel, who is our victim, who had been previously termed as the John Doe found in the cemetery.
Then you have his fiancee, Erica, who is expecting a child.
And then you also have Samuel's ex-girlfriend Vanessa, and the two of them shared an 18-month-old son.
In this case, it would be both Erica and Vanessa whom could have been the last persons to see Samuel alive.
But we want to let you know something right now.
They both had alibis for the 13th.
Erica was at church with her choir members, and investigators would later learn that Vanessa was out of town visiting a close friend in Mississippi during most of the time that Samuel was missing.
Now, it was only a matter of hours into this investigation when Kimberly caught her first break.
A few days after the murder of Samuel Johnson Jr, police were able to locate his vehicle, which was abandoned on the street miles away from when the body was found.
Investigators had established through interviews that the last time he was seen alive by family members was getting into that vehicle.
I spoke with CSI about printing the vehicle and getting all kinds of evidence from it.
And what they found was there was blood in the trunk of the vehicle.
So let's just stop right here where there's blood in the trunk.
So what does that say?
You know, the obvious answer is that at some point post-injury, Samuel was inside that trunk.
You know, I think sometimes people say, oh, wait a second.
Was he shot in the trunk?
And while, of course, anything's possible, very unlikely.
Because just think about, remember, the trajectory.
If you are standing above someone, think how high up you would have to be if someone is in a trunk.
When you're able to fire through their trunk, chin into their chest.
So it's most likely he was injured somewhere else, shot and then placed in that trunk on their way to at least some point, dumping him in the cemetery.
Yeah, I think there would be some more evidence Anastasia, in that wheel well, where the tire was, where the blood was found, that if shots were fired into that vehicle there may be some projectiles or some kind of damage within their car, to determine that actually happened in the trunk.
So now you know that, well, if Samuel's in the trunk of his vehicle bleeding, he's probably dead.
Who's driving his vehicle?
Somebody had to drive the vehicle there.
So you know you're looking at one person.
Well, now when that person gets out of the car to dump the car, who picked up that person?
So now we have two crime scenes.
We have The cemetery and we have wherever the vehicle was dumped and the vehicle itself.
There is still a third crime scene out there if Samuel was not shot in the trunk.
Now it's time to brace yourself, because there is about to be a series of twists and turns that you will have never expected.
In this case,
First, Vanessa, Samuel's ex, was the daughter of another police sergeant.
And then an undercover detective who is now retired, was now working as an investigator in the DA's office, told Kimberly a disturbing story about Vanessa.
He came over from the district attorney's office and said, hey, I need to talk to you guys.
He said about a year ago, the IA sergeant came to me and said that her daughter Susan, and her other daughter Vanessa, had been talking about killing Sam for some insurance money.
There was a police sergeant at San Antonio Police Department who had two daughters, Vanessa and Susan.
And now you have a former undercover detective who was telling Kimberly that a year before Samuel was killed, this police sergeant, their mother, was aware that the two daughters were plotting his murder.
And he said several months went by and I never heard anything.
And so I contacted the sergeant and she said no, the girls had abandoned their idea, and nothing ever came of it.
When I heard it, I was like, wait, what?
A police sergeant is taking zero action when they hear not only people, but her own daughters plotting murder.
You know, there's just something definitely head-turning about it.
If this was my case, my first thought would be I have a homicide case that just got so much more complicated.
How much, if anything, did this member of the department know about her daughter's involvement in a possible homicide?
And I would want my supervisors to be apprised of all of this.
Every contact that I've had with this member of the department, because things are about to get pretty interesting.
But I really want to know one important question.
Was when did she know the actual homicide occurred.
Because if her phone wasn't dialing the department's number back when that homicide happened, I'd have a real problem, especially her coming from the Internal Affairs Division.
What about you?
Now, you can't know about a crime and take no action.
So it's, as you said, you know, things are about to get even not just interesting, but messy.
Honestly, anything involving in the slightest your own people.
It's just difficult, you know, because now you've got to inform your boss.
You know, you've got to be careful to find out if the police officer knew anything.
And it's just, it's stressful.
And you know Scott, when I heard it I was also like wait a second.
Could it possibly be this easy?
How much of a coincidence would it be that there are two sisters plotting a crime, a murder, when they even name the person that now, a year later, ends up dead?
In a legal sense, overt act intent.
You know, what does it take to prosecute somebody?
What is the threshold?
You know, this was a conversation that allegedly happened.
People may be thinking, when is it right to make a move legally against these sisters?
Well, it's interesting right, because you can talk about anything and it's not a crime in and of itself.
But there's definite buts, right?
At what point does it become an attempt?
And that is that you said Scott, once you take some actual step in the furtherance of making something happen.
But there's also this crime called conspiracy, which can just be the words, as long as there is some sort of and very – we look at these almost minuscule overt acts –.
And conspiracy.
As prosecutors like we, certainly in New York, we don't like it because there's just, it's very complex and confusing, at least in the world of homicide.
But it's basically an agreement between two or more people that is entered into for the purpose of committing a crime.
And really any overt act you know it could be.
For example, if you're going to commit I don't know a home invasion and you go and talk about it with someone else and someone just goes out and buys gloves.
Well, that might be enough crime. to prosecute for conspiracy at some point.
So if I was working on this case and I obviously see the potential here for this to get interesting and very complicated I'd want to verify the story myself with the undercover.
I'd want to sit down and also determine is there any official record or report that was ever written that documented this conversation a year ago?
Lisa and I weren't gonna speak with Vanessa until we had all the information we needed to find out exactly how it happened.
Just because they said that Vanessa might be or is probably responsible for Samuel's murder doesn't mean that we know how it happened.
And if we don't have pretty much the details of how the murder went down or suspect how it went down, there's no way that we can question her, because then she'll just lie to us and say anything she wants to.
That's the thing.
You have to know what you're talking about when you bring your suspect in.
Otherwise, you can't refute any of the lies that they're telling you.
I think what we're saying here is this requires a really solid strategy, right?
If you interview the mother of Vanessa and Susan who, remember at the time was still a sergeant in the Internal Affairs Unit, you run the risk of laying out your case and not really knowing 100 where her allegiance may lie.
I think that's a great word Scott, that you just used allegiance, because yes, of course she is a police sergeant.
So she has responsibilities duties, things that she is, of course, supposed to do as a member of law enforcement.
But she's also a mother.
And you know, certainly if we walk out of the police world, I've had plenty of mothers do things, you know, in cases of defendants that I've had at times that, hopefully at least, is things that they would never normally do, but to try to protect themselves, their child.
So the decision was made to reach out to Vanessa and Susan's mom first.
I did call her on the phone once and I told her she was in IA and I said look, this is Detective Bauer at the time and she's a sergeant.
And I said, look, I need to interview you about your daughters being suspects in this murder.
The next thing she heard was a dial tone.
She hung up on me.
You know Scott, you and I often joke, and you've come up with this phrase like, oh boy, like when something's going to happen, and that's all I could hear in my head.
I was like, oh boy, this is not going to be easy or straightforward by any means.
It just adds to a new level of complication into this investigation.
You know, the next move for Kimberly was to go directly to her boss which I absolutely would have done and who was a sergeant telling him what had occurred right,
Reporting back to your supervisor, look what happened and what can you do about it?
To which he responded to her, as supervisors do, and you know the Tennessee guy, I could hear you saying this sometimes.
I'll take care of it.
And basically at the very top, a commander ordered the sergeant to go speak to Kimberly at her office.
So she tells me the first thing is that you know I don't want to talk to you because By me talking to you.
She said, and I quote it's a needle in my daughter's arm.
And I said, well, look, you've got to tell me what you do know.
And what she would admit was that Susan had come to her and said that they were planning on killing Sam.
I have two points there.
Number one, this is a trained member of law enforcement who works in internal affairs.
And she knew that she had a conversation 12 months prior with another member of the department.
She knows that person that she spoke with has an obligation a legal and a moral obligation to report that the way the undercover did,
She knew that was going to happen.
So why not get in front of it?
Why not make that call?
Why wait for it to come to her?
I think hearing that I completely agree, because she knows if she gives them that statement, first of all she heard it directly from them.
So that can actually be used in court, right?
Because that's an exception to the hearsay rule.
That is an admission by if they committed the crime to people that are involved.
So she may be the most powerful evidence against her children and whether that is the rest of their lives in prison, maybe even the death penalty.
How could she, as a mother in her mind at that point, she didn't want to be the one to bring that evidence against them.
So she goes to the undercover detective and tells him.
The undercover detective tells her buy a digital recorder and tell Susan to carry it on her and record any conversations.
Claims that she did buy a digital recorder.
And she gives it to Susan.
She just let it go.
Now, she's a policeman.
You don't let it go.
But she says, I didn't ask them.
You know, I just I just let it go.
And she claims that they never said anything again.
So the big question in homicide investigations normally, of course, is the who.
But there is some insight into the why.
In the conversation that the internal affairs sergeant had with the undercover insurance, money was mentioned.
So that was a path that Kimberly would look and investigate down.
I spoke with a man, he handles a database for the insurance agents.
And he told me that Samuel Johnson did have an insurance policy out on him.
Vanessa and Sam took out a life insurance policy on Sam for $750,000.
Listing Vanessa as the beneficiary.
So you may be asking why a 26-year-old needs to have a life insurance policy.
Now I did a bit of research and I found one survey that shows that the medium age of a life insurance policyholder is 43 years old.
So it would obviously appear unreasonable for someone at the age of 26 needing a policy for his life right.
Now again he has a child, so that changes things for a lot of people and there is something to being responsible.
But this is also someone who had to work two jobs to make ends meet and try to provide.
So how much extra money did he have for this pretty hefty insurance policy?
But we also found out something else, too.
He told me that Sam and Vanessa had already received a claim for a house fire that totaled almost 300000 in fire damage.
They had also claimed prior to that, they had claimed insurance money on a vehicle that was torched.
Remember earlier in the podcast we talked about the fact that the last time Samuel was seen leaving his home getting into his car, he was headed to Vanessa's house to pick up 340 from the insurance claim for a fire that happened at her house eight months before the murder.
So the timeline is a vehicle was torched.
They receive insurance money.
Then their house, it also caught fire and they received almost $300,000.
And then Vanessa and Sam get a life insurance policy on Sam for $750,000.
Where Vanessa was a beneficiary and the son was the contingent.
Vanessa was the beneficiary of the two previous fire insurance claims too.
And now it's just alarm bells in every direction.
Like this is a three alarm fire because you know you hear of one fire that someone collects insurance.
Well, that's interesting.
You know, two, well, it's downright fishy.
And three, it's like three strikes, you're out.
And the beneficiary on all three of those policies was Vanessa.
Yeah, I think it is very fair to say it is crystal clear that the leading theory here of this homicide is money.
Now, something to keep in mind while all this is swirling is that, remember, Vanessa had an alibi.
She wasn't anywhere around.
She was actually, remember, in another state, Mississippi.
So while Kimberly and Lisa are investigating it and trying to sort all that out well, another detective is following up on a very different tip that, at least initially, seemed completely unrelated.
The other detective got a call from a woman who said her daughter Adrienne, had information on the murder.
On Wednesday, another detective in our office.
He called me on the phone and said Kim, this isn't mine.
This has to do with your murder that you're working right now.
The daughter didn't live in San Antonio.
She didn't even live in Texas.
She was over 500 miles away in Mississippi.
She says, basically, in a nutshell, that Vanessa... had gone to her daughter's house in Mississippi.
They had been friends for years.
She flew over there and basically had admitted that she knew that Samuel had been murdered back here in Texas.
Kimberly has a three-way call between the mother and the daughter witnesses, and this is what she learns from them.
So Vanessa asked Samuel to drop her off at the airport.
While Vanessa was over there visiting Wednesday night or Thursday night, Vanessa receives a call from Texas and she leaves the room and later goes to discuss it with her and says what is going on.
And Vanessa says that they hurt Samuel.
They were just supposed to beat him up.
So, of course, Adrian standing there in shock as to say, you know, what are you talking about?
What do you mean?
And then all of a sudden she then says these words.
He's also dead.
Well, Vanessa kind of blows it off in a way.
And it gets even stranger from there.
Then on Friday, Vanessa goes out shopping.
And then she comes back and she says to her friend Adrian, the one she's staying with oh look, look at this dress that I just bought.
Doesn't it look really nice on me?
And so Adrian's like, well, I don't, wait, what did you buy this dress for?
And then Vanessa's answer, listen to this.
Well, I bought it for the funeral.
Yeah, and that was huge because she bought a dress for the funeral for two days before Samuel's body was even discovered.
Wow.
I mean, that is another crazy moment in this case.
You know, here we have a witness who's telling you that one of your prime suspects talked about Samuel being dead before he was even reported missing and obviously before his body was found.
She doesn't do anything.
She doesn't go back.
She goes and buys a dress and just very calmly says, hey, how nice does this look on me?
And that it's for the funeral.
This is the very same person who may have been planning to kill him a year earlier, now implicated in the murder of Samuel Johnson.
Also, he's the father of her young child.
It just seemed like very macabre and really strange to me when I heard it.
Looking back at the timeline of events adds even a clearer picture of someone attempting to cover their tracks.
Within hours of returning from her trip to Mississippi, Vanessa was the one who walked into the police station to report Samuel missing, knowing all the while that he was dead.
It is like you know, when you think about like the stories about, like the Black Widow here, it's like all I could think about between the dress and then her behavior, just how calculated it all is.
So, of course, everything right now is pointing to Vanessa.
But again, remember, she was actually in Mississippi when the crime occurred.
So she couldn't at least be the one physically responsible, in that she couldn't have been the person who pulled the trigger.
A few days after Samuel's body was discovered, investigators bring Vanessa in for an interview.
When did you meet Samuel Johnson Jr.?
We met in February, started dating in March.
All right.
And so I take it everything's going?
Everything's going great.
He drops us off at the airport.
This is at his suggestion that I go and visit with a best friend of mine that I haven't seen in forever.
And he was like, go see her.
Go, you know, do the girl thing.
Kimberly's talking to Samuel Johnson's ex-girlfriend, who is the mother, of course, of his child.
So at first, Kimberly's approach is very comforting, even though she knows a lot more.
Kimberly wants Vanessa to be chatty and willing to develop a rapport with her.
And you know what?
It's working.
Do you have anything just to verify that you went to Mississippi, so that we can show that you weren't here?
This might be some receipt.
January 7th.
She brought home the receipts to prove that she was in Mississippi, because she had showed me several of them.
And then, of course, I have video footage as well.
You know.
But when I listen to Vanessa she's kind of prepared for the different things she's going to be asked.
She has it all right at her fingertips.
And I don't know, it didn't pass the first blush test to me.
Of course, then everybody realizes at that point that Vanessa only went over there as a cover-up.
I couldn't be the murderer because I'm in Mississippi.
While watching the interview, you know you think about that moment that Kimberly's going to make that all-important turn right.
But then Vanessa starts to paint a very interesting picture about a relationship.
The relationship between her and Samuel.
What was her name?
Well, we wanted him to get an apartment.
He wanted to get an apartment.
I wanted him to.
But with the intentions of us getting back together, it's just, it got closer and more intimate.
So, Kimberly pushes a little bit, and all of a sudden, Vanessa has a story.
Well, Erica, I always kind of thought she was in the picture.
She's kind of been holding on to him.
She's strange to me.
Too strange.
It's like she wants a relationship with him.
I think that she is obsessed with Sam.
Sam did not care for this girl.
And really, I mean, we have to put it out there.
I think she had something to do with this.
I almost picture Kimberly in her head saying, yep, just keep talking.
Dig yourself deeper.
I really, really think she did it.
And even the way she now switches gears to the new girlfriend and starts to talk about her like oh and, by the way, I really think she's the one involved.
Yeah, I mean the fact that she pointed towards Erica and really gave no real indication of why or information to indicate why she felt that way.
Again, there is nothing pointing to Erica.
So while it's possible, sure.
It just seems like yet another piece of this very calculated, thought out plan before, during and after at least to me for Vanessa.
To her, it was just a feeling.
And I think Kimberly was pretty surprised by that.
You know, here's one of the parts that is just beautiful about working with a partner, in particular, someone that you know very well.
Now, while Kimberly is interviewing Vanessa, at the very same time Lisa is interviewing Vanessa's sister, Susan.
What we did was is we split them up, and I spoke with Vanessa and Lisa spoke with Susan, which was her sister.
I just need to ask you because you understand my partner's talking to Sue, so we just need to verify.
You know that you have the same story.
Lisa also begins her interrogation with Susan with condolences of the loss of a friend of Samuel Johnson Jr, knowing how difficult it was for her sister to lose somebody.
You understand, I hear you're not in any trouble.
She wants to open up this as a very informational dialogue between Lisa and between Susan.
Even though Lisa felt somehow, some way, Susan was likely directly involved with this murder.
I am going to do everything I can to make sure we find out what happened to Sam.
Let's just talk about for a second what's happening here, right?
Because you have Kimberly in one room interviewing Vanessa.
And at the very same time, you have Lisa interviewing Vanessa's sister, Susan.
Remember, these are the two who, at least purportedly, had this conversation about wanting to kill Samuel a year before.
And that is just a great tactic.
And here's why.
You bring them both in and you make sure they both see each other going into separate rooms.
So, while they're talking to their respective detectives, they're thinking about well, I obviously know what I'm saying, but I wonder what the other person is saying.
The interviewees, they can't compare notes.
You know, they can't switch gears knowing what the other one's doing at that point.
They have to kind of guess and hope that they game it out the right way.
Yet the investigators are able to stand up, compare notes and different things.
And it really is a great way to kind of prod information from the person you're sitting across the table from.
And then, as we spoke to them, we would take little breaks and come out and, you know, verify their information to see if they were actually filling us with a line at crap or not.
It is a psychological tactic that is very effective.
They're probably thinking to themselves what is she saying or what is she not saying?
And so susan really lays it out.
I was upstairs, you know.
She says she's upstairs when she hears someone knocking, she goes down at samuel.
So i went downstairs getting the money it was cash, it was cash.
And then she's like oh, you know what?
And I can tell you precisely how much I gave him, because I actually texted my sister Vanessa, to let her know that he got his money.
I can actually be more precise if you want me to look at my phone because I text Vanessa.
Again, showing this corroboration of the story that she is potentially trying to sell.
Lisa was now prepared to turn up the heat on Susan and hatched a fairly brilliant strategy to get Susan to turn on her sister, Vanessa.
At this point, Susan has no idea what Vanessa is actually telling detectives in just the next room.
For all she knows Vanessa's, I don't know, maybe playing it cool, confessing or even pinning it on a completely different person.
When I confronted her... with what Adrian had told us happened, that Vanessa got that phone call.
You know, I love the way that Lisa approached Susan on this, because clearly Susan knows the call actually happened and now she realizes that Lisa is aware that the call actually happened.
I went in and I told Susan that it was actually Vanessa who told us that Vanessa was telling you That Susan and her boyfriend had called Vanessa while she was in Mississippi saying they had killed Sam.
So both Lisa and Kimberly are swinging for the fences here, clearly.
The question is, would it really work?
And now again I have to address something because I know a lot of people think they're like well, wait a second.
But she lied, you know, and she said that it was Vanessa who is saying this, as opposed to the person, the witness Adrian, who actually told detectives.
But, you know, police are allowed to lie.
You may not like the tactic, but it brings out other information that may be admitted.
If I see it as a lie, right, the average person is too.
So you have to call it for what it is.
And they specifically said that Vanessa, you know, gave them this information, which she didn't.
So, again, the information was accurate.
They're just kind of using the who gave it to see if that gets any different response or any sort of admission from Susan, if she thinks that maybe her sister is spilling the beans on something that they know actually happened.
And you know I've always come out on it that you know if someone is telling the truth, they're going to tell the truth, no matter who said what and what is said to them.
I went and checked because Vanessa's talking with Detective Bauer.
And Vanessa's telling Detective Bauer that she received a phone call from while she was at Adrian's house where he told her that he had accidentally killed Sam.
There's various possibilities about what Susan might do next.
She might just shut down, you know, clam up, walk away.
Or maybe she realizes at this point that she's been caught.
What Susan does next?
You'll have to wait until next week.
You know, we realize that these cliffhangers are really difficult, because you're listening intently to the story and you want the answers now.
But this case has so many more twists and turns and digesting it into one episode.
It may not be as effective for you listening as it would be in two episodes.
That's why we made sure to list this as part one.
We're going to leave you with investigators are really working to figure out who pulled the trigger.
And we will let you know that it wasn't Vanessa or Susan.
And that detectives are about to learn a disturbing detail about Samuel that is going to put an entirely different spin on this case.
Anatomy of Murder is an AudioChuck original.
Produced and created by Weinberger Media and Fresetti Media.
Ashley Flowers and Sumit David are executive producers.
So, what do you think, Chuck?
Do you approve?
I approve!
