If I can get an interview on the record with somebody who's been accused of some horrific crimes,

I've often found that they want to talk.

They want to brag about it in some weird way, some cryptic way.

The folks who are best to make the terminations about what the truth and falsity of what they're saying is are detectives who know the cases best.

I've done a lot of cold case homicides.

When I do track somebody down, get that interview, cold case homicide detectives who know far more than I do.

I don't have their file.

When they hear what that person has to say,

right away they see red flags.

Right away they're going, that's a lie. Oh, that's not what we heard before. O, that's a new detail.

They hear more out of it than I.

I am just reading them as most of the time trying to maneuver their way out of tough questions

without directly admitting to anything.

I've run into accused killers who are anything.

I've run into accused killers who are extremely bold,

and I've run into those that are just flat outliers.

It's not I that determines the falsity of it, but detectives, prosecutors.

They can see small things that trip killers up.

If they would find Crystal's body, I'm positive, they would know exactly who to go to as their top suspect or suspects.

They have suspicions and they have some evidence.

A defense attorney wouldn't take much to say,

maybe she's alive.

...