- 4 hours ago
- #bloodlinedetectives
- #realityinsighthub
#BloodlineDetectives
#RealityInsightHub
🎞 Please subscribe to our official channel to watch the full movie for free, as soon as possible. ❤️Reality Insight Hub❤️
👉 Official Channel: />👉 THANK YOU ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:00October 2003, a maintenance worker in Rancho San Diego makes a bone-chilling discovery.
00:09He was clearing out trash in the area, was trying to organize the dumpster, and noticed a green duffel bag.
00:18I think police were shocked. Something gruesome has happened, but you don't have the whole story there.
00:25The San Diego Sheriff's Department launched a murder investigation.
00:30We had a crime, clearly, but we don't know who the victim is, and without knowing who the victim is, it's unlikely we're going to find out who the killer is.
00:44Investigators are unable to identify either the victim or the killer, so the case sits on the shelf for years.
00:51That is, until they hear of forensic genetic genealogy.
00:55It's something that's been done for decades, and it's been used for adoptees to identify their parents.
01:03It's not new technology, it's just a new use of it.
01:07Criminals who have hidden in the shadows for years find there's no escaping science and their own family DNA.
01:14Welcome to Bloodline Detectives.
01:16Rancho San Diego.
01:46San Diego is a suburban community located in eastern San Diego County, California.
01:52Known for its quiet neighborhoods, rolling hills, and peaceful atmosphere, it's generally considered a safe area to live.
02:00San Diego is a city by the ocean.
02:09It has great weather, great people.
02:12There's a lot of different things that you can do.
02:14We have a lot of diverse microclimates.
02:17You could be at the beach, and then later in the day, you could be in the mountains snowboarding, depending on the time of the year.
02:22The Rancho San Diego is an unincorporated part of the region, located just east of the city of San Diego.
02:33It's an area that has experienced tremendous growth over the last couple of decades.
02:43Very rural, and it butts up right against some areas that are still very rural.
02:48But it has experienced a lot of growth, a lot of single-family homes, but also a lot of very large apartment complexes, which are more affordable.
02:56Quite complex. There was not a lot of criminal activity in that area.
03:08Individuals that lived there would usually call and report suspicious circumstances that happened.
03:13For all appearances, it was a quiet neighborhood.
03:16But that all changed on October 5, 2003, when a horrific discovery is made at the Country Hills Apartment Complex in Rancho.
03:26In October 2003, 911 Center received a call from a maintenance worker who was employed by one of these large, multi-unit apartment complexes.
03:39He was looking at the dumpsters, and he happened to see what looked like a brand-new bag.
03:49Looked new, looked closed, or at least the contents weren't initially visible.
03:56Maybe, you know, I can't believe someone's throwing this away.
03:59So he went and got the bag.
04:02When he looked inside of it, he found a severed pair of legs.
04:08For this maintenance man, who is thinking, hey, that this is just a bag that maybe has got discarded, whatever, from a, you know, person who's moving out, this is an absolute shock to him.
04:19Obviously, you're going to be a little sick to your stomach.
04:26You're going to turn around and really, you know, be in a panic.
04:31The crime scene is secured.
04:33Investigators begin by looking into who may have had access to the bins in the time leading up to the discovery of the severed legs.
04:40This is a public dumpster for the apartment complex, and it was accessible by anybody who could actually access that apartment complex.
04:53So not even individuals living there, but if an individual was able to get inside the complex, he would be able to use this dumpster.
05:01When he made the initial call to 911, he wasn't even sure of the discovery he made.
05:06The San Diego Police Department, they arrived first.
05:12And when they realized that what they were dealing with was definitely a homicide, that's when they had the detectives come in.
05:20Usually we have forensic technicians who are on scene with us.
05:24They take every precautionary measure to not cross-contaminate DNA.
05:28They'll wear gloves, oftentimes body suits, when they're handling DNA.
05:33They specify each evidence item.
05:39I think police were shocked.
05:41Obviously, you see something gruesome has happened, but you don't have the whole story there.
05:48So you're missing huge pieces to the puzzle.
05:51When they're looking for evidence, they are always going to dust for prints.
05:58They're going to go through every item that is in that one specific trash bin and document everything that was in there.
06:10So they know, because if they can find a piece of paper, a discarded cloth, gloves, anything that may have DNA on it that would have been related to this crime.
06:22A lot of attention is placed on the surrounding area and less so on the physical evidence, which we'll be able to take at some point and examine in a more controlled atmosphere.
06:35Normal protocol is that you're going to dial 911 and the police are going to come.
06:41You're not going to get a homicide team until the local patrol arrives on scene first to verify what has been found.
06:49Once they see what has been found, that's when detectives will come in.
06:54They're going to cordon off not just that one dumpster area, but now they're going to start looking the entire apartment community and then each bin area that's there.
07:07So each dumpster area and trash receptacle, they're going to cordon those off and look through those to try and find more body parts.
07:15We rely heavily on the deputy's response.
07:19They need to set a perimeter and forbid anybody from coming into that scene to contaminate that scene for DNA evidence.
07:27It's important to secure the evidence and secure any possible witnesses so they can be interviewed separately to get individual accounts of that scene.
07:36So it starts on the deputy level.
07:37It's important that those deputies also brief detectives when they arrive on scene important and pertinent information so that detectives can move quickly to try to both process that scene and discover new evidence and witnesses that could help in that investigation.
07:54Since the crime scene is outdoors, you've really got to think outside the box because you need to see if there's any fingerprints on the dumpster.
08:03Was there anyone who saw anything suspicious?
08:06So you're also talking with residents.
08:08You're looking for blood spatter.
08:10Anything that can tell you where did this even occur?
08:15Casting that wide net and going through every dumpster on the apartment community site.
08:22Of course, you would hope that they would find something.
08:25But in this case, they didn't.
08:26It doesn't mean that that was a wasted time.
08:29But it means that now for detectives, being able to solve this case gets to be really difficult.
08:38It appeared to be a Caucasian female from the appearance of it.
08:42But they weren't able to locate anything that they could correlate with that bag and set of legs.
08:47When they initially looked at the legs, they could tell that these were freshly cut.
08:53There was barely any decon with them at all.
08:56So they knew that this was placed within a certain time frame.
09:00When they took a closer look, they could tell that it looked almost maybe like a surgeon or a doctor.
09:06It's somebody who knew how to work with tools.
09:09We couldn't be prejudiced in our thinking of who may use this.
09:14Any individual could go out and purchase a military duffel bag.
09:18But on the other hand, too, that because it's a green military duffel bag, it is in the back of detectives' minds.
09:26Could this possibly be an individual that was in the military or would use these types of bags daily?
09:32That really is what made this case very difficult because police immediately are going to look at those missing person reports.
10:01And in this case, there hadn't been one.
10:04No one had reported her missing.
10:07And to even know or to raise the alarm bells that something had gone wrong.
10:12This was huge in the media because this wasn't a normal case, especially for the area.
10:18It's not every day you find legs.
10:21So people were scared.
10:23Was there a serial killer out and about?
10:26What was going on?
10:27People wanted answers.
10:29Investigators have a DNA sample from the woman's legs, but no idea who she is.
10:37They hope that by identifying this Jane Doe, they'll uncover the person responsible for her brutal murder and dismemberment.
10:44October 5th, 2003, a maintenance worker in Rancho San Diego discovers a pair of severed legs in a duffel bag in an apartment complex.
11:07Police arrive on scene and send the body parts for further examination.
11:12They appear to be freshly cut and belong to a female.
11:16Investigators are hoping that the identification of the woman will also lead them to her killer.
11:23The pair of legs are transported to the crime lab to undergo further testing by forensic scientists.
11:28Once everything's collected, the evidence would go to the crime lab and be stored until it's ready for analysis.
11:38In order to test if they're from the same individual, samples would need to be taken from each leg independently.
11:46And then we could perform DNA analysis on the sample from each leg and see if we get the same results.
11:53Our crime lab was able to process actually a toenail from this set of legs.
11:59And that toenail led to a DNA profile to a Caucasian female.
12:06And a profile was developed and actually uploaded to the DNA index in CODIS.
12:13CODIS is a law enforcement database that was developed by the FBI.
12:20There is a national CODIS database.
12:22Each state has their own database and there are local CODIS databases.
12:26And the DNA from crime scenes, whether they're suspect DNA or victim DNA,
12:33and also the DNA from arrested offenders, goes into this database using the SDR profiles.
12:42And in the same way as it works in commercial databases,
12:45those profiles are constantly bouncing around all the other profiles in the system.
12:51And when there are matches, then the crime labs are alerted to the fact that
12:56this profile that matches a DNA profile from a murder scene in California.
13:02And oftentimes cases are solved by that kind of work.
13:06So there was an STR profile of the victim created and uploaded to CODIS
13:10in the hopes that this victim's DNA was already in there.
13:15Perhaps she had been arrested for some other case,
13:18but there were never any matches.
13:22It's a frustrating result for investigators.
13:25The case has stalled yet again.
13:29Now that they have been able to identify that these legs did belong to a female,
13:34it's who, who was she?
13:37Where's the rest of her, do you know?
13:39Why was she left here?
13:41Why were the legs discarded here?
13:44Where's the rest of the body?
13:45The first thing you think is, is this a resident of the complex?
13:50Does something terrible happen to somebody who lived there?
13:54She's found in a dumpster.
13:55Was she killed elsewhere and then placed in the dumpster?
13:59If so, where is the rest of her body?
14:01Are they in other dumpsters, other locations?
14:03They had to check with all the residents to see if anybody was missing in that sense.
14:12Does anyone know of anyone who might have been hanging around that didn't belong?
14:17Did they belong to somebody who did belong?
14:20And nobody had anything to report.
14:22Well, you always try to connect a crime with familiarity with the area.
14:27So that's always in the back of detectives' minds.
14:30Does this individual live here?
14:32Does this suspect know this area?
14:35Why would he choose this specific area to place these legs in?
14:39Usually suspects of crimes that commit homicides are familiar with the areas in which they place
14:45either body parts or dump a body that has been murdered.
14:49That is something that detectives look into very heavily.
14:53So detectives would talk to all the neighbors in the area.
14:57And even tips were developed from neighbors who had saw something suspicious in the prior night.
15:02And that tip was followed up.
15:04However, because the legs were severed and placed in there,
15:08it's unlikely that the crime occurred there.
15:10It's unlikely a homicide occurred right there in that area.
15:14It's more likely that the individual was killed prior to this,
15:19and then her body was dispersed throughout the county.
15:27The dumpster was completely analyzed for other evidence,
15:31and there wasn't anything other than what we already knew from the bag and from the...
15:38Now, there were prints, interestingly enough, but again, like the DNA,
15:42never associated with any known person.
15:46Investigators theorize that this was not a random attack.
15:50For somebody to go through and actually dissect a body,
15:55that is a rare thing in any type of murder case within the United States.
16:00You don't see it very often.
16:02So that leads detectives typically to know that when there is that level of violence,
16:10that there is going to be some connection to the victim.
16:16Detectives are going to listen to tips and witnesses that may possibly come forward
16:22about individuals who have bragged about killing individuals,
16:25or even bragged about killing and dismembering individuals.
16:29And all those leads would have been followed up at that time.
16:34That kind of profiling was done,
16:36but there wasn't any other crime that jumped up as,
16:42oh, this could be part of a series,
16:44or maybe this is a suspect who's kind of developing a calling card
16:49where this is what he does to bodies after he's killed.
16:52There was lots of attention in the local press,
16:55which you would think would then lead,
16:58and this happens with other cases,
17:00lead somebody to let us know that,
17:03oh, that might be this person or that person.
17:07This was a difficult case.
17:09There's no full body.
17:11So when there's been a murder,
17:14typically you can go through and identify the body based on dental records.
17:18But when you don't have the upper torso
17:21and you only have the legs,
17:23it makes trying to solve this case that much harder.
17:28Once the potential witnesses in the area were interviewed,
17:32and unless we discovered they were somehow connected to the crime,
17:35then it really kind of went cold after those first few weeks
17:40because we didn't know who she was.
17:43Investigators run out of leads to pursue.
17:46Locals are uneasy that no arrests have been made,
17:49and the victim remains unknown.
17:52I think the community never forgot it because of the brutality of it.
17:57People wanted answers.
17:59So I think it was always in the back of their mind,
18:03the detectives,
18:04that if progress ever made it to where there's a chance
18:08that maybe they could solve this,
18:10that it was going to be one of the top in their list.
18:13Within a year of the discovery of the legs,
18:20the case had gone pretty cold.
18:22There had been a lack of new clues.
18:26Even though, you know,
18:27you look at the evidence and you re-look at the evidence,
18:30you look at it a third, fourth, fifth time,
18:32at some point you have to set it aside
18:35because other cases are demanding your attention.
18:39And so I would say within the first year,
18:41it had gotten pretty cold.
18:43And over the intervening almost two decades,
18:45little new information came to light.
18:49Every detective that has to sit here and shelve a case
18:54and say this no longer goes from active
18:56and it becomes a cold case,
18:58they take it personal.
19:00It is something that is deeply personal
19:02because these police officers,
19:04these detectives,
19:05are trying to solve the mystery.
19:08And that really becomes something
19:11that they're going to repeat over and over evidence in their head.
19:15Was there something missed?
19:17They will, even while working other cases,
19:19look to try and go,
19:20hey, wait a minute,
19:21we have this in another case.
19:23Is there something I'm missing?
19:24So they're always asking questions.
19:26It's always going to be in the back of their head.
19:28When a case goes cold,
19:30it disappoints the active investigator
19:33because they're the ones who want to solve the case.
19:36But they understand at a point in time
19:38that there are no more active leads that they can pursue.
19:41The case goes cold in our office,
19:43not over a specific timeframe
19:46or specific set of circumstances,
19:48but when the active detective can present
19:51that every active lead has been pursued and gone cold.
19:56And we're unable to identify a suspect at that time.
20:01The case went cold as a Jane Doe unsolved homicide.
20:09Weeks turn into years without a single DNA match
20:12and San Diego's sheriff's investigators
20:15begin to fear the case will remain unsolved forever.
20:19But what they don't yet realize
20:21is that a groundbreaking technique,
20:23one that would later unmask a notorious serial killer,
20:26could also crack this case wide open.
20:29A method that could finally reveal
20:31not only who the woman was,
20:33but who brutally took her life.
20:45In the autumn of 2003,
20:49a maintenance worker
20:51at the Country Hills apartment complex
20:53in Rancho San Diego
20:54makes a terrifying discovery,
20:57one that would stump investigators for years to come.
21:00Progress in the case stalls for more than a decade.
21:04But then another cold case,
21:06one of an infamous serial killer,
21:08is solved using a cutting-edge method.
21:10In 2018, the Golden State Killer
21:14was identified through genetic genealogy methods,
21:18and that was the first I had ever heard of it.
21:20It was a big break in multiple cases
21:22that were occurring throughout California.
21:25And so once that broke,
21:27everyone started to look at that method
21:30and began to use it for investigations.
21:34From the minutes they found the legs
21:37and they were notified,
21:39it is an, oh my goodness,
21:42how are we going to solve this?
21:44We have to find the rest of the body.
21:47And when so many years go by
21:50and you're not finding any new leads,
21:53the biggest break in this case
21:55was the fact that the DNA testing had come out,
21:59and the popularity of it,
22:01and for the San Diego Police Department
22:04to sit there and go,
22:05you know what, let's run our sample
22:08against this database and see.
22:11You know, it's a needle in a haystack moment,
22:14but we're wanting to see,
22:16can we find a match?
22:19In 2020, the San Diego County Sheriff's Cold Case Team
22:22decided to utilize forensic genetic genealogy
22:25on this case.
22:29Through Familial DNA,
22:31family members upload their DNA to these databases.
22:35They will check off saying
22:37that they do want their information
22:39shared with law enforcement,
22:40so we are able to access their DNA database.
22:45Once they do that,
22:46we are able to try to match the DNA profile
22:51to a family member.
22:52We don't know what kind of match we're going to get
22:55or who's uploaded their DNA
22:56and shared that DNA
22:57with the law enforcement databases.
23:00So sometimes we will reach distant cousins
23:04or distant family members
23:06that we then have to reach out,
23:08communicate with,
23:10and try to build family trees
23:11through either their knowledge
23:13or their family members' shared DNA
23:16in these databases.
23:17We waited anxiously for that result.
23:21They uploaded the profile,
23:22the SNP profile,
23:24and then the next day,
23:26we open up our account,
23:29our family tree DNA account,
23:30and we see all the people
23:33that are related to this unknown victim.
23:35We moved the profile also to GEDmatch,
23:39and we got the same results there.
23:41A laundry list of people
23:43who were genetically related to our victim.
23:47So the first thing that we want to do
23:49is we examine,
23:50well, how close genetically,
23:52in terms of centimorgans,
23:53are these people?
23:55When you're doing
23:56investigative genetic genealogy,
23:58kind of the measure of closeness,
24:01of how close a relative is,
24:03is with a centimorgan.
24:05And so the greater the centimorgan match,
24:09the closer of a relative they're going to be.
24:12The first one they have
24:14was 85 centimorgans,
24:16and they realize it belonged to a grandfather.
24:19This was a really interesting mystery
24:22that took us quite some time to figure out.
24:25But it turned out
24:26that our high matches grandfather was adopted,
24:29and it took us a long time to figure that out.
24:32He had one name when he died.
24:34He had another name when he was adopted,
24:37and then he had his original birth name.
24:40And if we could figure out his birth name,
24:42then we could perhaps figure out
24:43the rest of the tree
24:44that'll lead us to our victim.
24:50I was doing some research
24:51about this man and their names,
24:55and I came across
24:56a small article in a 1930 Milwaukee, Wisconsin newspaper.
25:03Somebody named Zolendek
25:04was suing a man named Hubert
25:07because his wife obviously had an affair,
25:11and there was some sort of civil suit.
25:14Very interesting, but very quick four or five lines.
25:18So at this point, I said,
25:20what if there was a child born out of wedlock
25:24to this couple?
25:25That's why Zolendek was suing,
25:27because this woman got pregnant.
25:30So we investigated that theory
25:32and spent quite a bit of time
25:36in developing the Hubert tree,
25:38learned, obviously, the identity
25:40of the man who had been sued,
25:42the Hubert,
25:43learned that he had a whole bunch of children himself,
25:46himself, and then chipped away
25:50at the trees identifying people
25:52and to see if they might have
25:55some sort of blood relationship
25:56to our victim.
25:58And we got to the point
26:00where we had exhausted
26:01eight of the nine children's trees.
26:03We got to the ninth one,
26:05and then with that,
26:09we hit a home run.
26:16We contacted a man named John Carlson
26:21because we thought he was part
26:24of the Hubert tree,
26:26and we wanted to know
26:27if he would be willing
26:28to contribute his DNA
26:30so we could see how close,
26:33how far away,
26:34or maybe not related at all.
26:36Well, in the course
26:37of that initial conversation,
26:38he let us know
26:40that he had not seen his mother
26:42in several decades.
26:45And then he said
26:46he very much would be interested
26:48in helping us,
26:49and we sent him a kit,
26:51and then we waited
26:52for the results
26:53from the company
26:55that developed his kit.
26:57Once he got his profile,
26:59then he moved it over to Jet Match
27:01to see if there was a relationship
27:05between him
27:05and our unknown victim,
27:07and it was at 34, 3500.
27:11A DNA match
27:14of approximately 3,520
27:17points to an immediate
27:18family connection,
27:20almost always a parent and child.
27:24So we knew at this point
27:27that even though
27:28we had just contacted
27:29John Carlson
27:30just to get some information
27:31about the Hubert line,
27:34what we ended up discovering
27:35was his mother.
27:37The man's mother
27:39is a woman called
27:40Laurie Diane Potter.
27:42Investigators now believe
27:43it was her legs
27:45which were discovered
27:45in the duffel bag
27:46in 2003.
27:49When Laurie Potter's son
27:50was identified,
27:51he was an adult
27:53at the time.
27:54When he was notified
27:55of his mother's legs
27:57being discovered
27:57in 2003,
27:59he was in shock.
28:01He had a bad relationship
28:03with his mother.
28:04He didn't speak to her often,
28:06but he communicated
28:08with detectives
28:09that the last time
28:09he tried to get a hold
28:10of his mother
28:11was through her husband
28:13at the time,
28:14Jack Potter,
28:15and Jack had told him
28:17that his mother
28:18didn't want to ever
28:19speak to him again.
28:20And that is the last communication
28:22he had tried
28:23to reach out to his mother.
28:25We're at the point
28:26where we have identified
28:28the mother of John Carlson,
28:30extensive interview
28:31with John,
28:32his ex-wife,
28:33or his wife at the time
28:34that he'd last seen his mother
28:35to fill in as much
28:37of the history
28:38of her life
28:39as we could get.
28:41Laurie had a rough life.
28:42She was married four times,
28:44had two children,
28:46two boys.
28:47The second boy,
28:48the youngest boy,
28:49actually died of cancer.
28:51And that's when they think
28:52her mental status
28:53kind of went off
28:55the deep end a little bit.
28:56She had a really hard time
28:57accepting that.
28:58So that's why,
29:00like, neighbors would say
29:01that she didn't really
29:02come out of the house much.
29:03She was more of,
29:04like, a homebody.
29:07Laurie's mental state
29:09had started to decline.
29:10This is where she pulls away
29:12from interacting with people.
29:14There seems to be
29:15some abuse that went on
29:17then within a couple
29:18of her marriages.
29:19And she's pulled away
29:21even from her one
29:22remaining son.
29:23All of a sudden now,
29:24her focus has really
29:25just begun to,
29:27hey, I just get up
29:28and I stay inside.
29:29She's not interacting
29:30with people.
29:31She's not out with friends.
29:33She is really becoming
29:34a recluse.
29:35So that brings us up
29:36to, you know,
29:372003 when she was killed.
29:40Well, where was she
29:41living in 2003?
29:42That's the biggest thing.
29:44So I did an extensive
29:46review of as much
29:48of her geographical history
29:50as I could.
29:51She was not from San Diego.
29:53She was born and raised
29:55in Fresno,
29:55but only had been
29:57in the San Diego region
29:58the last decade
30:00or so of her life.
30:02So one of the things
30:03that I learned,
30:04and this was incredibly
30:05important,
30:05was that at the time
30:06that she was killed,
30:08she was living
30:09in Temecula, California.
30:11That was point number one.
30:13She was living there
30:13at the time of her murder
30:15as near as we could tell
30:17with her husband,
30:18Jack Potter.
30:19We also discovered
30:20that prior to them
30:22having this house
30:24in Temecula,
30:25they lived in the same
30:27apartment complex
30:29where her legs were found.
30:32Could this be coincidence
30:33that where part of her body
30:35was found was the same complex
30:38that she and her husband
30:40had lived in a decade before?
30:43What are the chances
30:44that this is just
30:44merely coincidence?
30:46We don't believe in coincidences
30:47in law enforcement.
30:49There had to be
30:50some sort of connection
30:51with that.
30:52The one thing
30:53that neighbors
30:53were telling detectives
30:55was the fact that,
30:56you know,
30:57normally you would see
30:58people open their blinds,
30:59their house,
31:00you know,
31:00there would be
31:01some kind of life
31:02coming out of it.
31:03There really wasn't
31:04any life other than
31:05occasionally watching
31:06Jack come and go
31:07from the house.
31:09Lori, on the other hand,
31:10the windows,
31:11the curtains,
31:11everything was closed off
31:13to the outside world.
31:14You really couldn't see
31:15what was going on
31:17in the house.
31:17And so you really
31:19didn't see Lori herself
31:20coming out of this.
31:22She really just kind of
31:23shut everything down
31:25and stayed in.
31:26And that just,
31:27you know,
31:27neighbors chalked it up
31:29again to her mental health,
31:30not thinking that
31:31maybe something was wrong.
31:34We searched
31:34not only Lori's life,
31:36but we became
31:37increasingly interested
31:38in learning more
31:39about her husband,
31:41Jack Potter,
31:42and about his life.
31:43Who he was,
31:45where he worked,
31:45where he lived,
31:46what has he been doing
31:47since his wife's death?
31:50Why is it that he never
31:52filed a missing person report?
31:54Obviously, we know
31:55that her son didn't,
31:56but why didn't he?
31:59Investigators now need
32:00to locate Jack Potter
32:01to see if he had anything
32:03to do with his wife's murder.
32:05The fact that it took
32:09a couple of years
32:10before he even filed
32:12for divorce
32:12against Lori,
32:14just, again,
32:16these are things
32:16that become red flags
32:17for homicide detectives
32:19to look at
32:20and investigate.
32:21Why?
32:21Why didn't he file
32:22this report?
32:23Why did he not
32:24file for divorce
32:26immediately,
32:27you know,
32:27and say,
32:28I'm done?
32:28As we identified
32:31Jack Potter
32:32as a person of interest,
32:34we did a deep dive
32:35investigation
32:36into his background,
32:38his whereabouts,
32:39and his movements
32:40around the time
32:41of 2003 and beyond.
32:43What we learned
32:44was Jack filed
32:46for divorce
32:47from Lori in 2008,
32:49so this is five years
32:50after her pair of legs
32:52are found
32:53in this dumpster.
32:54He cites that
32:55she was physically served
32:57with the divorce paperwork
32:58and there's a signature
33:00of hers
33:01on the divorce paperwork
33:02that she was physically served.
33:05We know this is not
33:06a possibility
33:07because she's deceased
33:08in 2003.
33:11We also learned
33:12that Jack was
33:13making large purchases.
33:15He was purchasing
33:16vehicles and boats
33:18and he was also
33:19taking out credit cards
33:20in Lori's name
33:21in 2004,
33:23a year after
33:23the legs were discovered.
33:26Investigators are steadily
33:28building a case
33:28against Jack Potter.
33:30They now suspect
33:31he murdered
33:32and dismembered his wife
33:33before assuming
33:34her identity
33:35and taking control
33:36of her assets.
33:38But before they can act,
33:40they must uncover
33:40the full extent
33:41of his past.
33:42Rancho San Diego 2021.
34:0018 years after a pair
34:01of severed legs
34:02were found
34:03at the Country Hills
34:04apartment complex,
34:05investigators used
34:06forensic genetic genealogy
34:08to identify the remains
34:10as Lori Diane Potter.
34:13At the time
34:14of her disappearance,
34:15Lori had been living
34:16with her husband, Jack,
34:17who never reported
34:18her missing
34:19and later accessed
34:20her finances.
34:21He started visiting
34:26strip clubs
34:27and he fell in love
34:29with a stripper
34:30who was also named
34:31Lori.
34:32Jack had went through
34:33and sold the house
34:35that he and Lori had had
34:37and then take that money
34:39and he was spending it
34:40on luxury items,
34:42things that wouldn't
34:43have been normal
34:44as part of his
34:45day-to-day expenses.
34:46He rented her
34:50an apartment,
34:51he bought her
34:51a Hummer SUV,
34:53he bought her jet skis
34:55or a jet boat,
34:56he even gave her
34:57a credit card
34:57with a $30,000 lemon.
35:00So he was giving her
35:01all this lavish stuff
35:03trying to keep her happy.
35:06He eventually got
35:08an official divorce
35:09from Lori,
35:11took possession
35:12of the house,
35:12sold the house,
35:13moved into an apartment,
35:15continued to work.
35:15But there were some elements
35:17of his life
35:18that never fit together
35:19which sort of fit
35:20with this pattern
35:21of lying
35:22and obfuscating
35:24the truth.
35:27While Lori was deceased,
35:29he opened up
35:30numerous credit cards
35:32in her name
35:33and that's how he funded
35:34this other lifestyle
35:35for his other Lori.
35:38The court proceedings
35:39were sending things
35:40to the house
35:41because she's not
35:42paying the credit card bills
35:44and so he's telling
35:45the courts
35:46that I'm telling her
35:48about all these court dates
35:49and I'm sorry
35:50if she's not appearing
35:51but it was a lot of fraud,
35:53a lot of fraud.
35:56Detectives uncover
35:57further evidence
35:58that suggests
35:59Jack murdered Lori.
36:02Another factor
36:03that played
36:04into the investigation
36:05was there was
36:06a profile developed
36:08from the green duffel bag,
36:10a profile different
36:12from Lori's.
36:14So we had that profile saved
36:16and that profile
36:17had never been
36:17identified as well.
36:19So we knew
36:20that we wanted
36:21to at least get
36:22Jack's DNA
36:23to test against
36:24that profile.
36:26Through probable cause
36:27warrants,
36:27we're going to make sure
36:28that a judge agrees
36:30that we should
36:31try to take his DNA
36:32and compare it
36:33to that bag.
36:35From detectives on scene,
36:36they described
36:37Jack's demeanor
36:37as calm.
36:39He didn't admit
36:40to his guilt
36:40and he appeared calm
36:42when detectives
36:43questioned him,
36:45searched his residence
36:46and vehicles
36:47and obtained his DNA.
36:49The crime lab
36:50was able to test
36:51his DNA
36:51and it was a match
36:53to the green duffel bag
36:55that was found
36:55with her legs inside.
36:57We had a lot
36:58of circumstantial evidence
36:59but we had some other things
37:01that were found.
37:02They found his fingerprint
37:04on the zipper
37:05of the duffel bag
37:06and that was really
37:08a key evidence.
37:09They were able
37:10to then cross-reference
37:12those prints
37:13with what had already
37:14been in the criminal database
37:16and at that point
37:17they found a match
37:18and that was to Jack Potter.
37:21A defense attorney
37:22may say,
37:22well, yeah,
37:23maybe that was his bag
37:24and that's why
37:24his fingerprints
37:25are on the bag.
37:26We had all the
37:27circumstantial evidence
37:28behind his filings
37:29for divorce years later
37:31from Laurie
37:31and the fraudulent nature
37:33of that,
37:34the quick claim
37:35on the house
37:36so essentially
37:37he got control
37:37of the whole house
37:38with Laurie,
37:39supposedly Laurie's signature
37:41on there.
37:42That turned out
37:42not to be true
37:43and there were
37:44all kinds of pieces
37:46that pointed
37:47to him
37:49as being
37:50the individual
37:51responsible
37:52for Laurie's death.
37:54For circumstantial evidence
37:56to get
37:58a grand jury
38:00to issue
38:01an arrest warrant
38:02and to say
38:03to say that there's
38:04enough evidence
38:05there
38:05that could
38:07make this person
38:08your prime suspect
38:10because normally
38:11in any case
38:13if you don't have
38:14direct evidence
38:15tying the person
38:16there
38:16it's all circumstantial.
38:18Well, that's exactly
38:19what defense attorneys want
38:21is they want
38:21to have a case
38:22that they can challenge
38:23the circumstantial evidence
38:25for a spouse
38:26for Jack
38:27to not file
38:28a missing person's report
38:30but also the fact
38:31that it took
38:32a couple of years
38:33before he even filed
38:35for divorce
38:35against Laurie.
38:37These are things
38:38that become red flags
38:39for homicide detectives
38:41to look at
38:41and investigate
38:42why?
38:43Why didn't he file
38:44this report?
38:45Why did he not
38:46file for divorce
38:47immediately
38:48you know
38:49and say
38:49I'm done?
38:50There were some neighbors
38:52who still lived there
38:53that lived there
38:54when Laurie was alive
38:55and they said
38:56that they did notice
38:57some weird things
38:58she didn't like
38:59to go outside
39:00you know
39:00she wasn't real talkative
39:01to everyone
39:02but she had
39:03a routine
39:04she would open
39:05the blinds
39:06they'd see her
39:07walking around the house
39:08little things like that
39:09that all stopped
39:11there was no more
39:12opening the blinds
39:13the blinds
39:13were always closed
39:15and neighbors
39:16would ask him
39:17you know
39:18where's Laurie
39:19and he would just
39:20tell them that
39:20she ran off
39:21with somebody else
39:22I don't think
39:24that Jack
39:24ever thought
39:25he would get caught
39:26the amount of time
39:28that had went by
39:30you know
39:30he really thought
39:32he had gotten away
39:33he had told people
39:35that he was
39:36you know
39:36a Vietnam vet
39:38he had been a sniper
39:39and that he could kill
39:40he used intimidation
39:42so when people
39:42started asking questions
39:44he knew how to redirect
39:46or shut them down
39:47through a little bit
39:48of intimidation
39:49so it appeared
39:51in his mind
39:52he thought
39:52he was going to
39:53get away with it
39:54it is true
39:55that he was
39:56in the service
39:57during the Vietnam War
39:58but was never
39:59shipped overseas
40:00there was never
40:01any evidence
40:01that he was a
40:02trained sniper
40:02we also believe
40:04that the people
40:04that he told that
40:05to were ones
40:06who also knew
40:07Laurie
40:08and perhaps
40:09he didn't want
40:10them poking
40:12too far
40:13and thought
40:14this would keep
40:14them at bay
40:15and it did
40:15he didn't really
40:19have a life
40:21where the absence
40:23of Laurie
40:23or the absence
40:24of Jack
40:25would send up
40:25any alarm bells
40:26so I think
40:28it was the confluence
40:29of a number
40:30of different things
40:31that ultimately
40:32led to Laurie
40:34kind of disappearing
40:35without anybody
40:37thinking something
40:39was amiss
40:39Detective Dugall
40:42gathered enough
40:44information
40:44that he was able
40:46to make an arrest
40:48of Laurie
40:49Potter's husband
40:51Jack Potter
40:52for her murder
40:53just one month
40:56before his trial
40:57Jack Potter
40:57admitted
40:58that he had killed
41:00his wife Laurie
41:00then 54
41:02by smothering her
41:03in February
41:05of 2025
41:06you finally
41:08get Jack Potter
41:09pleading guilty
41:10to the case
41:11it doesn't even
41:12go to trial
41:13again
41:13he
41:14during this
41:15process
41:15and his arrest
41:17he's had
41:18multiple attorneys
41:19and there
41:20and eventually
41:20he comes up
41:22with
41:22I'm going to
41:23plead guilty
41:23and for him
41:24to plead guilty
41:25he'd get that
41:2615 years
41:27to life in prison
41:28Mr. Potter
41:29admitted to his guilt
41:30through his lawyers
41:31agreed to
41:32plead to
41:33the charges
41:34he didn't come
41:36with specifics
41:37of the crime
41:38but did plead
41:39to his defense attorney
41:41and to us
41:42of the charges
41:43I can't attest
41:45to his mind frame
41:46of why he would
41:47plead guilty
41:47all I can say
41:49is an individual
41:50who pleads guilty
41:51is usually guilty
41:52of his charges
41:52he knows that
41:53the evidence
41:54that's going to be
41:55presented
41:55is going to get
41:56him convicted
41:57in this case
41:59I know he pled
41:59to second degree
42:00murder
42:01it's a lesser charge
42:03for detectives
42:05for the prosecutor
42:07this was
42:08a win
42:09when they said
42:10we have enough
42:11evidence
42:12that we can
42:12convict
42:13and the fact
42:14that his attorney
42:15at the time
42:15had convinced him
42:16you know what
42:17you're better off
42:18to plead guilty
42:19than what you did
42:20he was in his 70s
42:22by the time
42:22that they convicted him
42:24but he got
42:2515 years
42:26to life
42:26so even if
42:28he only got
42:28to 15
42:29he's thinking
42:30okay I can
42:31still maybe
42:31have some kind
42:32of life
42:33justice
42:34that's a hard word
42:36kind of like
42:36the same thing
42:37with closure
42:38that's tricky
42:39because
42:39your loved one
42:41is never going
42:42to walk
42:42in that room
42:43again
42:43so in that
42:45sense no
42:46there's no closure
42:47but I think
42:48the closure
42:49comes to the family
42:50knowing she didn't
42:51abandon them
42:52she didn't say
42:54I don't want
42:54anything to do
42:55with you
42:56and they now know
42:57that she's just
42:58not here anymore
42:59I think the son
43:01was so distraught
43:03from all this
43:04information coming
43:05forward to him
43:06in a short time frame
43:07he was not
43:09associating with
43:10his mother
43:10not speaking to her
43:11he was lied
43:12this whole time
43:13about her whereabouts
43:15and her not
43:15wanting to speak
43:16with him
43:17I can't attest
43:19to his demeanor
43:20but I can say
43:22that he probably
43:23came to a little
43:24bit of peace
43:25knowing that
43:26his mother
43:27didn't not want
43:28anything to do
43:29with him
43:29this was a crime
43:31perpetrated against
43:32her and that's
43:33why she hadn't
43:33reached out
43:34in all these years
43:35and it wasn't
43:35because of her son
43:36I'm grateful
43:38that we're able
43:39to hold Jack
43:41Potter accountable
43:42for the crime
43:43that he committed
43:44and then most likely
43:45he will spend
43:46the rest of his life
43:47in prison
43:48but in the sense
43:50that he was able
43:51to live
43:52almost 20 years
43:54after Laurie's death
43:57enjoying his life
43:58I'm not sure
44:00that's very just
44:01San Diego County
44:04Sheriff's investigators
44:05reflect on all
44:07the hard work
44:07put into solving
44:08this case
44:09and the power
44:10of forensic genetic
44:11genealogy
44:12in bringing
44:12long-awaited resolution
44:14genetic genealogy
44:17is at the forefront
44:18of cold case
44:20investigations today
44:21it has opened up
44:23a whole different way
44:24of looking at
44:25how to solve
44:26a cold case
44:27especially with
44:28Jane and John Doe
44:29individuals
44:30who have never
44:31been identified
44:31victimology plays
44:33an incredible part
44:35in finding out
44:36where that individual
44:37was
44:38who they were
44:39associated with
44:40and who may want
44:41to cause them
44:42harm at that time
44:43so to use
44:44genetic genealogy
44:45to discover
44:46who these victims
44:47are
44:48is a huge relief
44:50to both detectives
44:52and helps the victims
44:54of these families
44:54find some resolution
44:56IgG has been
44:58a game changer
44:59for a lot of cold cases
45:01that haven't been able
45:03to be solved
45:04through the normal methods
45:06including traditional
45:08DNA analysis
45:09and it's been
45:09really helpful
45:12in some of those
45:13older cases
45:14that were closed
45:17and perhaps considered
45:18you know
45:19not able to go back
45:20to in the future
45:21because what are we
45:22going to do
45:22and now we have
45:23this new method
45:24or new application
45:26of a method
45:27that can open up cases
45:29and hopefully solve them
45:31when there is a DNA
45:34collection
45:35at any homicide
45:36any crime scene
45:38it is automatically
45:39checked against
45:40these databases
45:41modern technology
45:44and being able
45:45to use the DNA
45:47and the different
45:48forensic testing
45:50that's going on
45:50you will always get caught
45:52you may hide
45:53in the shadows
45:54for some time
45:56but eventually
45:57they will get you
45:59into the next chapter
46:00and then
46:03there is a
46:04place
46:05where
46:05it threads
46:07to be
46:10what is
46:15where
46:17there is
46:17and
46:17there is
46:18here is
46:19that
46:20you
46:20have
46:21you
46:22can take
46:23away
46:24없
46:27Transcription by CastingWords
Recommended
46:59
|
Up next
46:37
46:37
46:29
46:40
46:38
46:45
46:36
28:56
28:58
29:16
29:01
28:37
46:40
0:40
0:45
46:31
28:47
28:48
28:50
1:25:24
Be the first to comment