Paul Holes' Assessment of Keddie (Murder Squad w/ Billy Jens

Regarding the crime scene:

Paul: "You know, there is just so much going on here. And in fact, I had reached out to Plumas County Sheriff's Office all the way back in 2010. I was investigating a suspect, who was a Western Pacific Railroad brakeman who was in Keddie all the time, for the Golden State Killer case. And here i run across a bludgeoning of a family in a cabin where my prime suspect was at during this time frame. And so I thought 'Oh maybe this is related to my series'. And so I reached out to law enforcement at that time, we exchanged a bit of information. So I've always had an interest in this case. And now looking at some crime scene photos, and there are some scene photos that are available online, but what I seen is that a lot of those photos are after processing has occurred. And there's substantial disruption to the crime scene, bodies have been removed, pieces of carpet have been cut, etc. But I do have access to some of scene photos prior to any processing with the bodies in place.

And it's interesting, and the most significant thing, and I'm going to start with Sue. Just because I think there is a lot behaviors that the offender is doing. The most notable thing when law enforcement first walks into this crime scene, Sue is the furthest into the house, in the living room, up against the sofa, and she's covered with a blanket. And this blanket has obviously been placed on her after the fact. And if the offender did this, that is hugely significant. We've seen time and time again, and I've had personal cases, in which offenders have covered their victims like this and it turns out the offender has some type of relationship with that victim. At least in his mind he has a percieved relationship with her, he cares about her. There's something going on. He's showing remorse by covering her. But then when the blanket is taken off, Sue is nude from the waist down. There's a pair of red shorts that are next to her body right up against the sofa as well as her underwear which has been shoved in her mouth. So it appears that the offender has undressed her. And it always makes me cringe when people say there are no signs of sexual assault. Well what are those signs? Well there's obvious signs when you have physiological fluids being deposited or you have trauma to the genital area. But when you have a female adult victim or anybody, where the offender has undressed them, exposing the genitalia, there is a sexual aspect to this crime. And I believe Sue potentially was targeted by the offender or offenders in a sexual assault capacity. And then things may have changed. We know that the two boy victims, John and Dana, came home a little later at night. Is it possible that they walked in on Sue being assaulted by the offender. And now the offender has these two other boys that he has to deal with. Sue, there's significant blood staining on Sue's naked thighs. Thin blood smears, that are consistent with either the offense's hands running across her thighs or her thighs running across this carpeting that has thin blood smears on it.

One of the things that I don't have and I would love to see, is all of the forensic testing done in this case to try to attribute all of the blood stains in this crime scene to the victims. Because I'm sure I can reconstruct the sequence of events as to who was killed first, how that person was killed, what the offender is doing as he's moving through this crime scene. And that would give so much insight in terms of the offenders motive and what the offender is having to deal with and that dynamic situation with multiple victims. "



Regarding Dana & the couch cushion. And how he would be able to reconstruct the scene with the blood patterns:

Paul: "Well, part of any crime scene reconstruction is really looking for those items of evidence that can provide sequence information. So as an example, we have as you brought up this sofa cushion, that's the seat cushion that's from the right side of the sofa, right above where Sue's head is laying. Well that cushion is next to Sue on the floor, and I'm looking at one of the original crime scene photos taken before the bodies were removed. So I'm looking at an original crime scene that has not been touched. That cushion is sitting on top of carpeting that has thin blood stains. And that's part of what I would want to know, that's obviously cushion was placed there after those blood stains had been placed on that carpet. Who's blood is that? Is that Sue's blood? Is that Dana's blood? Is that John's blood? Or is that somebody else's? So that's where DNA testing of all these blood patterns in this scene can help provide a sequence of events. If that is Sue's blood, then that tells me she's bleeding before that cushion was placed down and then Dana's head is being placed on top of it. So that's part of what I need to know. And I don't have all that information. I can discern certain things and make certain assumptions but until that actual DNA testing, comprehensive DNA testing, has been done it's really speculative to do a full blown reconstruction. But there is behaviors I'm seeing without having that DNA testing."



Regarding Rick, Greg, and Justin being left unharmed:

Paul: "Well, yeah, that's where it comes down to these three younger boys and their interviews. What did they say they were doing that night? Or what did they hear? Where did they go? My understanding is two of the young boys slept through the night and didn't hear or see anything. And then the other young boy, Justin, actually possibly poked his head out of the room and may have seen the offenders. So why did the offenders leave those three young boys there? They may not have known those witnesses, potential witnesses were inside the house. And then you can start to extrapolate from there. If that's the case, well how much surveillance did the offenders do on that? Were they concerned about these three young boys? Maybe they were so young that they didn't there was anyway those boys could be witnesses, etc. But it's all just digging into the details to kind of figure out why did they not eliminate those boys as witnesses? Because they sure, the offender or offenders sure didn't have any qualms about killing not only Sue, but the two other boys, Dana & John."



Billy: So knowing what you know from the crime scene, from seeing these photos that we've been able to see that are not on the internet, what type of offender does this type of crime?

Paul: "Phew...obviously, this is an offender that is very callous. To be able to take two young boys lives, and I believe these two boys Dana and John were killed because they were potentially witnesses. And they were killed in a brutal manner. They're being hit in the head with a hammer, John's throat is being cut, there's some stabbing, etc. You know, this is showing a level of callousness, this is a offender that is backed into a corner, is willing to do whatever it takes for self preservation. Sue was killed, he couldn't leave Sue alive, but I do believe that the primary motive in the attack on Sue, there's at least a sexual aspect to what is going on with Sue. Now is that the reason the offender went there in the first place? That's hard to say. But once that offender or offenders are inside that house there is at least an attempt at a sexual assault on Sue prior to the homicides occurring."



Billy: "What do you make of the fact the walls were stabbed?"

Paul: "You know, that's interesting. I've seen where you have, let's say, stab marks in a wall when the violence, you know as the offender and the victim are struggling and the offender is trying to stab the victim and is either missing the victim and is striking the wall or the knife actually penetrates all the way through the victim's body and the tip ends up going into the wall. So I need to take a look at exactly what, where are these stab defects in the wall? Is it associated with any blood? How high are they? Can I correlate that with any of the victims injuries? But if the offender is sitting there and just, let's say, putting tick marks with a knife in the wall. Is that like, in a threatening capacity? Is he, let's say, he's inside the house and Sue's sitting there, and now he's threatening her and he's saying 'you better take me seriously'. Boom, boom, boom and he starts going off on the wall. Or are you dealing with a psychotic offender? You have someone who literally does have a mental issue that is potentially causing him to go, his psychosis is coming out as he's using this weapon in inanimate objects. So , until I see everything, I really can't give a firm answer to that.



Regarding the rumors of a love triangle between Sue, Marty, & Marilyn, the story of Sue counseling Marilyn to leave Marty, and Sue rejecting Bo's advances:

Paul: "Alright, so let me get this straight. We have the Smartts who live near by and Marty is possibly having an affair with Sue Sharp, one of the victims. And then he has a bud, Bo, whose now living with him and ends up developing a crush on Sue. So now, you have two men in the Smartt household who are attracted to Sue."

Billy: "Yes, and you also have this story about Sue telling Marilyn that she should leave Marty. She should get out of town all together."

Paul: "Yeah. You know, so and this is something, so of course you're always taking a look at motive. And we all know, it's pretty common sense when you start getting into love relationships that the emotions are so high that sometimes violence ends up ensuing. So when you have the victim Sue is encouraging Marilyn to leave Marty, you know, that there is something that could give Marty some ammunition. In terms of 'why are you doing that?', especially if he's still wanting to stay with his wife Marilyn. And then of course, Bo being there, he's just rebuffed left and right by Sue, getting his ego crushed. And maybe that's motive for him to go and maybe try a more aggressive, head on type of wooing of Sue and she spurns him and now it evolves into sexual assault when the boys come home. So there's motive left and right between Marty and Bo. No question about it."



Billy: "Now here's the thing, police interviewed Marty & Bo together after the murders. So they're sitting there right next to each other. And they tell law enforcement they are with Marilyn at the local bar which is called Keddie's Backdoor. Marty actually told them he'd recently lost a hammer and he hadn't been able to find it for weeks. Marty was actually friends with the sheriff who was named Doug Thomas. While he didn't question Marty & Bo's accounts of that evening, he did administer them both a polygraph and they each passed. It's odd that he would interview them together. And it's also odd that Marty would give up the information that he recently lost a hammer and we know that a hammer had been determined as one of the murder weapons." (Note: Marty & Bo were not interviewed together. The interviews took place in the Banquet room of the Keddie restaurant, back to back. Marty walked in at the end of Bo's interview, you can read the exchange in the transcripts. Marty was interviewed next. And as Paul questions below, these were not suspect interrogations, rather witness testimonies from people known to be in Keddie that night.)

Paul: "Yeah, I'd be kinda curious as to when in the process Marty and Bo were actually interviewed. Were they just being interviewed during a canvas situation? You know, so they just happened to be together. Or did law enforcement interview them after law enforcement found out about this love triangle between Marilyn, Marty, and Sue. And then Bo having a crush on Sue. At that point, now you're dealing with two men that potentially have motive and you don't want to interview them together. You definitely want to interview them separately. You don't want them to just kind of play off of each other. And I would even, in addition to an interview, have them produce a written statement. Give me a timeline for your entire day leading up to before and after the homicides occurred. And to see how closely their timelines lined up with their verbal statements.



Billy: Yeah and you know, they were administered polygraph tests. they both passed the polygraphs. But we know that there are certain times with the polygraph, it depends on who is administering them, it depends on a lot of factors. This is not automatically clear someone if they quote unquote passed the lie detector test"

Paul: "No, not at all. You know polygraph is a tool. And there's a reason why it's results are not admitted into court. But it is a tool that can be effective. It just , you know you have to take its results with sort of a grain of salt. You as an investigator may take that polygraph result and think ok its the direction I need to go with the investigation. Whether the person was telling the truth or lying. Um, or you may go, 'you know what? I'm not even going to pay attention to the polygraph result.' That's literally how it's used and often times its biggest value is making the person being polygraphed feel uncomfortable, to see how they respond. And maybe they say something that's unrelated to being hooked up to the instrument that ends up becoming very interesting because they're nervous."

Billy: "And a lot of that is what happens in the pre interview and post interview . Its not even necessarily what happens in the polygraph itself."

Paul: "Yeah. Right. And different people respond differently. We know that psychopaths will pass a polygraph everytime even though they are the ones responsible for committing a horrific crime. Again, it is just a tool."



Billy: "So we go back to Marty and Bo. So Marty and Bo have their story, but Marilyn's timeline of events was a little bit different than the men's. The three had been at the Keddie Backdoor. Marilyn said that Marty was complaining to the manager about the music. And they left and they were back home by 11pm. So Marilyn decided to stay in for the night, but the two men actually went back out. It's unclear what time the two men arrived back at the bar. But according to people at the bar, and this is really weird, because this is kind of, and I don't mean this disparagingly because you and me like dive bars. This was kind of a dive bar. They come back in and their outfits are completely different when they come back. Witnesses said that they were actually in three-piece suits and sunglasses. And these are outfits that couldn't and shouldn't be missed." (Note: Marty and Bo did not change outfits that night/prior to returning to the bar. They had the three piece suits and sunglasses on that entire evening.)

Paul: "Yeah, so its middle of the night, they're wearing sunglasses inside a bar. But three piece suits? Why are they choosing to wear those?

Billy: "Yeah. And why'd they change clothes to begin with? You know. In the middle of the night, they're not Cher."

Paul: "Mm hm.

Billy: "Despite their alibis not being concrete the sheriff at the time cleared the two men."



Regarding Justin's dream, hypnosis statements and composite sketches:

Paul: "Well, you know, I've a read a lot of interviews that occurred under hypnosis. Some with children and a fair amount with adults. And there is a reason why law enforcement doesn't use hypnosis anymore. Cause it was found that under that hypnotic state individuals have a tendency to impart details. Maybe from events they experienced unrelated to the crime. Or sometimes are just creating information out of the blue that has nothing to do with the crime. It can be very misleading. Somebody at the age, I'm not sure how old Justin was at this time but he's a young boy. You know, he's at least specifying some details about how this crime could have occurred. He's talking about one man had a pocket knife in his right hand that he used to cut Sue and we know Sue was stabbed. That man also had a hammer and we know that a hammer was used on several of the victims. And then he talks about Tina. And, you know why Tina, she gets up to go see what's happening and Tina is gone. You know, so if he is providing those level of details, he may have actually seen some of this occur. But it's so hard. With a young child, under hypnosis, to put too much weight on it. It's just, you have to go 'ok maybe he saw something, maybe he's accurate, maybe the description with these composites that he provided are close enough to what the offenders look like.' Or it could be completely wrong. And you just have to roll with it as you proceed with your investigation. "

Billy: "The men definitely look similar even though they have different hairstyles. One sort of has that Dutch boy, you know, Curt Cobain hairstyle. One has a much shorter hairstyle . Maybe a little bit like Sonny Bono and he's got a mustache. But both of them are wearing sunglasses. And remember what we had talked about at the bar, those men had come back wearing sunglasses. Just throwing that out there."

Paul: "Yeah. You know and I guess I'd have to hear or read the transcripts of Justin's interview. Does he describe those glasses as sunglasses or did both men happen to have eyeglasses on? Right now though, at least the way the artist drew this sketch, I can't...you can almost make out the eyes , I think the mustache man through the lenses. But if he's describing that these men are wearing sunglasses and this is the middle of the night and you now have Marty and Bo showing up at the bar with sunglasses on. There's a level of credibility I would now be putting on Justin's descriptions. "



Billy: "So the case goes cold. And three years after the murders on April 22, 1984, Ronald Pedrini was collecting recyclables in Feather Falls, Butte County. Which is 60 miles from Keddie. And while he's doing this he makes a gruesome discovery. He finds a skull. Accompanied by a child's blanket, a blue jacket, Levi Jean's, and an empty surgical tape dispenser. He called the police and law enforcement begins to search for the identity of the skull. A short time after the discovery, and with no details released to the press, an anonymous caller actually phoned in a tip. And the tip suggested that the skull and the items belonged to twelve year old Tina Sharp. And it turns out it was a correct tip. So there were no details not released to the press. We know we might have had a little bit of chatter over the police airwaves, people might have talked a little bit. But what do you make of this anonymous call, that is called in three years later, right after the discovery?" (Note: information regarding the discovery of the skull was made public. In fact local newspapers had ran a story discussing the find and asking the public to phone in any tips that may help identify who the remains belonged to.)

Paul: "You know, for me this is huge. You know, first here we have Tina. We don't have all of Tina, we just have her skull. The rest of her body wasn't discovered. And I, we don't have enough information as to whether or not could that be due to animal activity? Was her entire body deposited and only her skull was found? Or do we have a dismemberment that has occurred during the body disposal process? But in addition to her skull, what I'm assuming is her blanket, her jacket, her jeans, and then the surgical tape dispenser. And we know that the victims inside the cabin were bound with medical tape. So this is a plethora of new evidence in this case, three years after the homicides. Is there offender DNA on any of these items? Is the offenders latent prints on the tape dispenser? And I'm assuming they went after all of that.

But the anonymous caller. Why would the offender call in and say 'Hey that's Tina'. That doesn't make sense to me. This is somebody else that seems to have knowledge about this case. Unless they're just putting two and two together and saying 'well there's a skull found and they're saying it's a kid so maybe its this girl that's missing out of Keddie'. But if anonymous caller is providing specific details and is saying 'that is Tina', that anonymous caller becomes very interesting to me."



Regarding the confession of Robert Silveria Jr, the Boxcar Killer:

Paul: "I have not come across this Robert Silveria Jr, the Boxcar Killer. But I have a very, I've come across a very similar offender, Tommy Sells. Another guy that was riding the trains and getting off in towns and actually going into houses and killing kids. I think there's this one girl down in Texas who he cut her throat while she was in her bedroom. And he may have dropped into my jurisdiction in the late 80's. And so I was kind of researching him. I think, you know, as we look at the Keddie killers, this Silveria, the Boxcar Killer, all of his known murders are, I believe, are riders on the trains. And he is not known to go into town and break into houses. But that doesn't mean he couldn't do that. You know, the fact, I think the number one characteristic that catches my attention is that this guy is a killer. He's willing to kill. And is it possible for him to have left the tracks and gone into cabin 28. I'd say that's an absolute possibility. You know, when I dug into the Keddie murders back in 2010 and was looking at the railroads. Those railroad tracks are right there, by where all the cabins are, in particular cabin 28. And so of course that caught my attention when I'm looking at a railroad suspect. Is it possible that he could have gone into cabin 28 and done it. So, I wouldn't eliminate the Boxcar Killer just because his known victims are other riders. I think, he is a known killer in the area, appears to be at the right time, he's got to be considered. "


Regarding discovering Silveria was in jail at the time of the homicides:

Paul: "And that's easy, you know when you have that nice custodial situation and you've got the paperwork to show the guy was truly in custody. That's where it's like you can just scratch that name right off the list. So we now know the Boxcar Killer is not responsible."



Regarding the hammer found in the Keddie pond in 2016:

Billy: "What evidence could still be on the hammer over 30 years later?"

Paul: "You know that, it would be tough that there would be anything. Of course we know that blood is water soluble, if it's been thrown in the pond, it can be, uh it would dissolve right off the hammer. But what's interesting is, is that cells have a tendency, once they dry onto a surface to stick to that surface, even when submerged in water. And there has been success of recovering DNA off of objects that have been submerged. For a period of time. Now, I'm not aware of any examples after 30 years. However, I wouldn't let that stop me. I'd be submitting that hammer to the crime lab and say 'Do anything you can to get me something to show that this is responsible, that this is part of the case'".



Billy: "So there was another break, which was another confession, sort of. An anonymous counselor from the VA in Reno came forward with information about Marty Smartt. The counselor said Marty actually confessed during a session several weeks after the murders. And in this session Marty supposedly said, quote 'I killed the woman and the daughter but I didn't have anything to do with the boys'. The counselor tried to get more details from Marty, specifically about Tina. He said he had incapacitated her and killed her to not leave a witness. He allegedly told the counselor he killed Sue because he blamed her for his marriage with Marilyn ending. Also uncovered was a letter that he had written Marilyn. Marty, cleared by the then sheriff was in Oregon when he wrote the letter. And the letter said in part, quote 'I've paid the price of your life and now that I've bought it with 4 people's lives you tell me we are through. Great. What else do you want'. Paul this is, phew, the odds seem really really stacked that Marty is responsible."


Paul: "Well at least on the surface that's the way it appears. You know he's talking about, at least according to this counselor, 'I killed the woman and the daughter, didn't have anything to do with the boys'. He's not providing enough details in order to be able to corroborate information that somebody in the general public, and particularly him who was a witness if you will, who was contacted by law enforcement in the case. So, that is a little bit of a red flag. It's a little bit too generic for me to put a lot of weight on. Then when he talks about Tina, he says he incapacitated and killed her to not leave a witness. Why is she removed from the cabin? Obviously, you have two teenage boys that are killed within the cabin and they're killed to eliminate them as witnesses. Why wouldn't Tina just have been killed right there? I believe the offender had other motives with Tina and that's why he took Tina with him. Or the offenders did. They're just not trying to eliminate a witness. So that just doesn't add up as much in my mind based on how I'm assessing this case.

But I think this statement that's in his letter is important to discuss. You know 'I've paid the price of your love and now that I've bought it with four people's lives'. I mean it sounds like, oh we have four people killed in the Keddie case, the three in the cabin and then Tina. However, that's a little bit out of context. I actually, through previous resources, have the entire letter. And let me read kind of everything in context, not the whole letter, but just a part of it.

So, Marty writes and this is about halfway through the letter and this is to Marilyn:

'For three years I've heard about your kids. Don't get me wrong, I love them too. Now I'll ask what about mine? Don't you think I love them. Honey, I gave up four of the most precious things in my life for what? For you.' And then he goes on and then after that is when he writes 'I've paid the price of your love and now that I've bought it with four people's lives you tell me' blah, blah, blah.

So, is he talking about people he's killed or is he talking about four kids that he's given up in order to pursue a relationship with Marilyn. I'd have to know more before I can attribute this writing to him making some sort of confession of killing four people to try to preserve his relationship with Marilyn. " (Note: Marty may have had 5 kids, however,  there were some atypical family dynamics going on there. In her interview, Marilyn's Aunt Joan told LE that "most" of Marty's kids had been placed into the foster care system, this may be why he specifically mentions giving up '4 of the most precious things in my life')

Billy: "Now do you think that he might have been stopped, and I get what you're saying, do you think they might have stopped looking at him as soon as, remember he was friends with the sheriff, he passes the polygraph, and then they move on. I think him saying the thing about Tina to this, yes this is hearsay because he apparently told this to a counselor. Him saying that he wanted to get rid of a witness, I think that would be a lie because he doesn't want to say that he sexually assaulted Tina."

Paul: "It's very possible."

Billy: "And then also, 'I didn't have anything to do with the boys ', he might have been the one who killed Sue and Tina but his partner was the one who killed the boys."

Paul: "Yes, and that is an entirely plausible scenario. However, at least with what I am taking a look at, I need to fill in the holes, no pun intended. You know, before I would conclude that. For me, that is a plausible and working theory that needs to be pursued. But I need to answer the question about the letter, more than what I have right now and then I sure would have liked to have seen more details about what he said he did inside that cabin, if he actually said anything. "



Regarding Marilyn's statements (lies?) of Marty burning evidence that night, LE finding a bloody jacket in her basement, the freezer being turned off and evidence not being logged, including the anonymous 911 call regarding Tina's skull.:

Paul: "Ew, I'd want to hear that."



Discussion of the importance of keeping evidence. How once the statue of limitations is up its protocol to destroy evidence to clear up shelf space. Paul explains how Contra Costa County did not destroy the evidence from their rape kits and that allowed Paul to link GSK to his jurisdiction via DNA.

Paul: "That's law enforcement going through their normal process. You know, cases outpass statue of limitations. They go through a destruction process of evidence to you know, free up shelves, in order to take on new evidence. Here in the Keddie case, we're now talking about a homicide case in which you never get rid of evidence. And, they're not even logging the evidence in under the case? And I'm assuming this bloody jacket that Marilyn turned in can't be found. That's the way I'm reading this, right?"

"It appears I'm kind of assessing this case from afar, I would say that this is an agency that is relatively inexperienced in handling cases like this and they have probably, it's not just in this case, but they probably have a universal issue with evidence. On any of their unsolved cases, particularly from this time frame."



Regarding DNA found on tape located near Sue being matched to a living suspect.

Billy: "What kind of DNA could be found on this tape"

Paul: "Well, what we have seen off of tape, and believe it or not tape is a tremendous source of offender DNA. When they apply it as ligatures or gags or anything else. You know, first you have contact DNA. The offenders handling the tape, tearing the tape. Believe it or not, the sticky side of the tape can actually peel off, like the cells off of the person's hands end up sticking to that sticky side. But often people also use their mouths to tear tape off of the roll. So now you have saliva on the tape. You can have their hairs trapped in the sticky side of the tape. So it can be a great source of DNA evidence. But it's not just DNA evidence, you could have the person's parents on the tape. Either the back side of the tape or on the sticky side of the tape. The latent examiners have a way to recover latent prints that have been impressed into the adhesive of the tape. So it's a huge source of information.

Now, I do know whose DNA is on that tape. And again, this is because I've looked into this case before. And I can say with confidence, and I don't think the agency wants the identity of the person revealed to the public. But it's not from the offender unfortunately. And I can say that with 100% confidence. If it's the same item of evidence that I have information on, which based on the description, I believe it is."



Billy: "Gotcha. So, even more odd though, according to the Plumas County Sheriff's Office, they are still looking into six potential living suspects. But to this day no one has been arrested for the murders. However, the case is still very active for law enforcement. Do you know anything about these six potential living suspects?"

Paul: "I do not. Though I would suspect, in fact I'm going through my little mental rolodex as we talk about this in terms of the individuals names that may be associated with this. I can't say who these six individuals are at this point in time. I mean, it is great though that Plumas County Sheriff's Office is pursuing this case. I think that there is a great chance that if a comprehensive forensic testing is done on any items that they have, that there's a chance they could get offender DNA based on what I am seeing at this crime scene."



Billy: "So, here's our weekly assignment. We said the case is still active but with all the mishandling of the case, them not really looking into viable suspects, storing the evidence poorly, not processing any evidence, on and on. The Plumas County Sheriff's Office needs everyone and anyone with information about the case to come forward. Like Paul said, we want them to go through the crime scene, which they are, it seems like Hagwood really wants to get this done. It's been 40 years and there's no justice for Dana Wingate and Sue, Tina and John Sharp. So even the smallest detail could help to finally bring this case to a close. If you have any information please contact us.

And looking out to the Plumas County Sheriff's Office, I don't know when the last time you've talked to them, but if they want some more help Plumas County come to us."


"Keep digging." : )