Hey everybody welcome back to cold case murder mysteries. I'm your host Ryan Kraus joining you once again for part three of the Ryan

Stuka case. We're going to pick up with the text right where we left off in

part two. So in this case, James was closest to Ryan of all of these people and most empathetic, so if something

went down inside that house, the road to getting his agreement on staying silent is to limit

his liability to the greatest extent possible.

The sooner he leaves, the less he knows, and therefore therefore the less he conceals.

So if it happened like this, I believe the perpetrator would first ensure James wouldn't talk

by offering limited liability through leaving the home and not

being responsible for disposal of the body. It would benefit this person and James if James remained ignorant of where Ryan actually

ended up in terms of specific location.

Same thing goes for the couple. In terms of empathy, they would be next in line.

They were Ryan's roommates, but didn't know him from home like James did, so they didn't have quite the same bond. As it might have been done for James, the perpetrator

wouldn't want them to know where the body is either. It not only lessens their potential for liability, but literally allows the perpetrator to lessen his as well.

I think that like Julie James, this James teers on the edge of wondering if his liability is too much to risk talking.

Finally, the perpetrator would be the one to dispose of the body, allowing him the greatest

extent of discretion possible because nobody else knows where it is.

James doesn't know in that circumstance and neither does the couple.

So if their empathy leads them to talk, they can't prove what they're saying.

Even if they went to the cops today and said Ryan O'Deed,

would there be any way to prove such a thing happened in the absence of a body?

And without a body, how would authorities know the extent of James's or the couple's involvement?

The answer is that they wouldn't.

...