Tracy Harkness ////// Part 3 of 4

0:30Welcome to True Crime Garage, wherever you are, whatever you're doing, thanks for listening. I'm your host Nick and with me as always is a man who wants to know, hey Mr. Musk, where's my blue check mark? Here is the captain. Well I would settle for a ride on your rocket but that sounds a little strange, it's good to be seen and good to see you, thanks for listening, thanks for telling me. This week in the garage we are featuring eternal autumn brewed by the great folks at Track 7 Brewing Company. This is a West Coast style i to the P to the A with notes of pineapple, mango and papaya garage grade 5 out of 5 bottle caps. And before we dive back into this week's case, let's send a cheers to our friends.

1:33At Dapper Dog and Whispering Pines, North Carolina and to wonderful Suzanne from Sunderland, Maryland. Thank you both for your contributions. To make a donation to the beer fund, just click on the donate button on the website truecrimegarage.com or if you'd like to help out the show and get something nice for yourself or someone you love, check out our store. Yeah BWW are you in beer run? Thank you so much for listening, thanks so much for telling a friend. Make sure you're following us on social media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, all those things at truecrime garage and that is enough of the business. Alright everybody gather around, grab a chair, grab a beer, let's talk some truecrime. Well, it goes without saying captain, but I'm going to say it any way it's obvious.

2:46The detectives were eager to talk to a one David C. Locke and they did so first on November 8th 1992 and in that conversation in that interview David told police that he knew Tracy since grade school they had gone way back and then they reconnected a couple months earlier prior to her death when he had ran into her at her mother and stepfather's bar the name of the bar is the village pub. He says and tells detectives that he moved in with Tracy for a short period of just a couple of weeks, but they broke up and he moved out of Tracy's apartment two weeks prior to her murder. He said that they broke up because he felt bad that he still had feelings for his ex Janet and you'll remember from our last episode that it was a little more than just an ex-girl

3:46for an ex-boyfriend situation between David and Janet. They had been together for seven years and had two kids together. Tracy, it seems like everybody is in a grants of what went down and how this relationship between Tracy and David fell apart because he tells detectives, look, I broke it off because I felt bad that I still had feelings for my ex Janet. Tracy is telling friends that she was tired of David being in constant contact with his ex and even hanging out at Janet's house all of the time. The former girlfriend is Janet Krego who was aged 23 back in 1992. Yeah, it'd be a uncomfortable situation where you're seeing somebody and they have to go to their ex's house every single day. Well, this is one of those things that's difficult, right? Because Tracy needs to be in constant contact with her ex regarding their child, but it's unacceptable to her to have David be in constant contact with his ex regarding their children.

4:50I can see Tracy's side of this because what we have here is David who doesn't work very often and he's probably at his ex Janet's back in call and we know this to be true because he's going back daily to watch the children and I can see how that would be very unsettling. Yeah, and you're young, you're a little emotionally immature and you don't know what's going on behind closed doors. Exactly. If you are, you're now roaming with someone who is going on the daily back to their ex's house and you don't know what's going on during that time. But again, we have these young adults trying to make their way through this difficult world. We talk about people in their early 20s being young and dumb. I swear, a lot of them still have that soft spot on their head. That's how young and undeveloped we all are at that time. Now let's dive into this relationship between Janet and David.

5:53So we were also young and dumb at one point and we're still probably really stupid. I'm wearing a helmet to protect the soft spot on my head right now. Detectives notes indicate that David and Janet broke up several times over the course of their seven years together and some of those breakups were due to what Janet reports to police as David's violent temper. She says that he had assaulted her on several occasions and that he cheated on her multiple times over the course of that seven years. Janet said that he hit her on occasion and has given her several black eyes and a head injury. Now we need to be super clear about this. This is Janet's statement. This is what she is saying. We don't have confirmation of this in the form of the courts or law enforcement because she openly expressed to detectives that she refused to press charges against David.

6:58But multiple people attested to seeing Janet with black eyes at some point. She says that those black eyes came from David. We can't sit here and 100% say that that is truth. In fact, we can only report what has been reported to police. You decide for yourself. Now Janet says that on the occasions that David would cheat on her, there was at least one occasion where she would go and confronted the other girl or the other woman. Either way, to me, one, the relationships are not worth it, but two, you're putting yourself in a dangerous situation. Right. So we got this weird situation of, you know, Tracy on more than one occasion finds herself in a relationship with a guy who may just be out of a relationship, may still be in a relationship and she doesn't mind going and confronting the other woman. But then we have the reverse of that on this same side where Janet doesn't mind and going

8:02and confronting the person that her boyfriend might be running around with. All these individuals would make great guests on the Jerry Springer show. So the short of it, Captain is Tracy and David start this relationship. David is kicked out of his place that he lives with Janet, goes to stay with Tracy for a period of roughly two or so weeks, eventually Tracy and David and their little relationship as well because we have David who is continually going back to Janet's to watch the children and help out. So it's a messy situation, but it looks like it's in the process of being cleaned up. However, this is just a like two weeks before the murder of Tracy Harkness. The thing here is I'm not going to lie. I was incredibly suspicious of Janet and I can see all the reasons to have a motive here. Right. Maybe there was some kind of interaction, some kind of confrontation between the two that

9:05got at hand. Look, you don't have to, we should point this out. There does not have to be a plan for murder for there to be a murder. The intent doesn't have to be homicide. The intent could be, oh, I went over there to talk things out with her or to discuss the situation with her and we ended up in a knockdown dragout. This unfortunately is the result. And now we need to get justice for our victim here. According to Janet, old Janet, she says that her and Tracy actually, had a couple of talks that were not as heated as one might anticipate. And again, while I was very suspicious of Janet, or maybe Janet, and I don't see a situation where Janet and David do this together unless they completely went off the rails. But Janet tells the cops that she was fine with the situation, that her and David were

10:11over and she's fine with the situation. And while I don't know that that is true, I can only base it, my opinion off of what I see in the notes and how it's described to us. But I really get the feeling, I mean, we've all been there, right? Where you're just kind of done with somebody. I'm looking at them. And I don't know about everybody else out there. I just kind of become numb to whatever they do or sit like I just don't care at some point. I don't really have any feelings or emotion about it. Once I'm able to move on from somebody, I don't know what Janet's situation is other than she's saying, me and him are done. That was the end of it. But my gut feeling tells me that like I believe her, I believe that it's a lot of points to this crime of passion. So it's like, oh, you're trying to take my man. Okay, I'm going to go over here and confront you. Gets out of hand. I murder you. And now I don't want the man. You know, you just did this horrible crime to be with him.

11:12And now you didn't even want to be with him. So I, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Well, and I don't know if this is Janet trying to throw David under the bus. And I am in complete agreeance with you. If the relationship is over, over, then the obvious motive for Janet to be the prime suspect is kind of gone by that point. Now there could be some things beneath the surface that we are unaware of. But the weird reaction that we have here is that when police first go out to find David, it's Janet that they encounter because they know where these two live. And when they first encounter Janet, she's busy. She's in the act of walking groceries in from her car to their home or their apartment. I can't recall if it's a home or apartment. But police are very blunt with Janet. They say, hey, we're here to talk to David and you because Tracy Harkness has been killed.

12:17And Janet's reaction, according to the police, is, oh, David killed, you know, something to the effect of David killed her or David killed her, something like that, where she reacts and puts David right in the driver's seat of being the perpetrator of this homicide. Now, as weird as that sounds, we should point out that if you are phrasing a question or presenting to somebody as we're here to talk to David because this person was murdered. Right. I think the natural reaction from anybody would be they must be talking to him because he's involved or they came and sought him out because he's involved. Right. She's implying what, why they would need to talk to him. But also if it's true that he was physically abusive, then she knows that this douchebag is capable of harming a woman of possibly murdering a woman. Right. And I just go out of my way to say that in fairness to David, not that I see any reason for me to try to be fair to him, but I don't know him. I wasn't there at the situation.

13:18All I can say 100% is you have these accusations of domestic violence. You have evidence that suggests that those accusations are probably correct, but we don't have anything definitive saying this guy was convicted of domestic violence. Right. So in fairness to him, I think we bring it up that way. Now, the thing here though too is it's David that police want to talk to. We got all this information from Janet. Oh, Janet. That is David that they really want to talk to and they do get the opportunity to speak with David on several occasions. But I would see why after talking to Janet, people would be suspicious of her. I mean, I see a lot of reasons to be suspicious of Janet, but also reasons to not be. And a big part of that, my mind keeps going back to the idea that a couple days after the murder, when they go to speak with David and Janet, David is not currently living at Janet's and we have information that states clearly that David was in the process of trying

14:19to get back with Janet and Janet telling police that look, it's over and done. I've moved on. That's somewhat backed up by the fact that he's not currently living there when they go to speak with him. That's a very good point. Let's go through a portion of an interview between the lead detective and David C. Locke. Here's an excerpt from one of those interviews and it's detective Robinette says, what do you think about all of this? Of course, he's meaning the murder. C. Locke's answer is, I don't know why someone would do it. Robinette, you don't have any clue? David responds, she didn't bother anybody. She would never yell at people or antagonize someone to do something like that. That's a bit of a weird statement to me because I can see her putting herself in harm's way a little bit when she's confronting X's or what have you and she's clearly not running around in the best of circles with some of these friends anyway.

15:20But I think what he's trying to say, let's pretend, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, right? Innocent and Pratil proven guilty. He's never been charged with anything in this matter. He may simply be saying, if he's innocent, he may simply be saying, she would never yell at people or antagonize someone to do something like that, something this extreme that they would have that extreme of a reaction to their interaction together. A little more about that interview, the detective asked, what have you heard about Tracy's death? So which David replies, just what I've seen on the news, someone forced their way in or something and she had been hit with a big object. The detective asked, when you were living there with Tracy, how was she about locking up? Did she answer? Oh, she always locked the door. She always made sure. Question, did she have a key made for you? Answer. I had a key, but I gave it back to her. Again, if that's correct, I mean, he's not hiding the fact that he did it one time have

16:21a key. The big question then becomes where the hell is that key? Why wasn't it found in the apartment? And if it wasn't, you know, since they did not find it in the apartment, who has it? And could it be this man and could he have been lying about giving that key back? He don't know. My problem is the keys are never found in her apartment and I don't know where else she would place those keys in the fact that they never turned back up. Makes me lean towards the idea that David just never gave the keys back. But now it's possible that he is not responsible for this murder at all, but he just lied to cops and said or lied to everybody and said, I did give her back these keys because he didn't want to look more suspicious. The interview continues. Question. Would the same key fit the front and the back door answer? I don't know. I never used the front door. Tracy always used the back. Now remember, he didn't live there for a very long period of time. So it's reasonable to believe that he never used the front door, at least never used the

17:26key to gain access to the front door. It would have been great to be a fly on the wall during this interview or interrogation, however you want to view it. And then he is asked if Janet would have gone out to Tracy's apartment to confront her or to say something to her or does he believe that she would have done anything to her? To which he responds, no, Janet's not that type of person. Well, fascinated answer because they just lobbed up. It's a softball. They put the ball on the tee and you could hit all home run because if he was guilty of this, this would be a great way to point the finger at somebody else. Do you think Janet could be responsible for this? Is she capable? Oh, yes, she's capable of pointing the finger somewhere else. There's your scapegoat, right? If you're guilty and she doesn't know anything that what you may be guilty of, that being Janet, there's your softball of, yeah. She was as crazy as they come.

18:27I could totally see a situation where she would go out there and confront Tracy. That shit crazy. But he doesn't take advantage of that either. He's too dumb or he doesn't see the opportunity or he has no reason to have a scapegoat. The weird thing about that answer though, too, though, Captain, is no. Actually, that's not a great answer because we know of at least one occasion prior to this where she did confront someone that he had run around on her with. So it's that whole, I say, take that with a grain of salt because we just can't figure out or make heads or tails of who is responsible for this homicide based off of some of this information. So one thing that we need to really focus in on is let's get back, let's get away from these, these characters here and get more into the timeline because it doesn't matter

19:29if you sit here and look at this thing and say, all right, I could see a motive for one, two, three, four, five of these different characters to have a motive to kill Tracy Harkness. Motive doesn't matter. You could, you could have a whole long line of people that dislike the victim. Well, there's a lot of people in this circle that you can find motives for, but it's like, did they have the opportunity where they even in the area? We have a timeline that is not going to where we have detectives saying that other individuals, if I had to rule someone out, it would be him, not David. It would be Michael because of the alibis because of his timeline. Let's look at the timeline for David C. Lock. So Janet kicks him out roughly on October 1st. And then later we know that Tracy, their relationship ended as well. And so after their relationship ended, which is supposed to be weeks before the murder,

20:34we have David C. Lock, who is staying at his friend's home. This man's name is Randy. And he's sleeping on Randy's couch. And this is going on for approximately two to three weeks leading up to the murder. Now on that Thursday, which is the important date here in our timeline, that Thursday, November 5th, 1992, the day in question. According to the timeline, David arrived at Janet's house. Remember, he's going over there daily to watch the kids take a shower, do some laundry, things like that. He arrives at Janet's house around 11 a.m. like every other day. He says that they had an argument because he wanted to move back in. She says, no, he says during the course of this argument, he had butted the wall. Oh, that's smart. And so when detectives are speaking with him, he has visible cuts and bruises on his head. That's fishy. Now, either he's telling the truth and he had butted the wall during this argument, or these could be marks and cuts that he has on him because he attacked someone.

21:40It's very fishy. Janet backs up this portion of the story that David had butted the wall and says that he did have some scratches on his forehead afterwards. And at least one of the scratches was bleeding. The police, when they interview him, of course, they're taking photos of this injury. These had in facial injuries that he has. Yeah, or this dumbass gets into argument with Janet, runs his head into a wall. And then later that night commits the crime. Both could be true at the same time. Exactly. Both could be true. Or the other thing that we, of course, everybody's going to want to know is when did these injuries actually appear, even with Janet backing up this portion of the story, when did these injuries first appear? Now, it looks like going through all of the reports that Janet is not the only person that reported to police or told police that they had witnessed these scratches or injuries to David prior to the murder prior to Thursday night.

22:47Afterwards, after this fight, after he had butts the wall because that's always, that's always the smartest thing to do in any situation. Just had but the wall. Genius. He says that he left Janet's. This would have been around 3 10 p.m. That Thursday afternoon, he went to work and only stayed until about 6 15 p.m. He says he left early or asked to leave early because he had a headache this presumably from headbutting the wall. I guess the wall won. Police did confirm that he wasn't work for that period of time, for that three hours and five minutes that day based off of speaking with his employer and verifying the time sheets of that day. After that, he says he goes back to Janet's. They talked for a little bit. Then from there, he goes to Stony Frazier's house. Stony Boner. This is a good friend of his. He says that his buddy's house, around 6 30, he went there for the purpose of borrowing

23:47a pool queue. A lot of these individuals that are involved in this mess shot pool regularly. They played in these pool tournaments and in these pool leagues, billiard leagues. Around 6 45, he says he's walking into the village pub where he shot pool. He says for maybe 45 minutes or so. Sometime after 7 p.m. he said that he and some other guys on a pool team walked to friendlies. This is a different bar where they're going to go shoot pool. This was for an actual pool tournament that was scheduled for that evening. It's amazing how much this guy does and how many hobbies he has when he doesn't have a job. Now, there are reports from several people that are at this friendlies bar that David C. Locke was not so friendly while he was there because there's several reports of him being one very drunk and two quite pissed off. Yeah, he was drunk in public. I don't know when the aggravation or where he became obviously angry or pissed off to

24:51the other patrons of the bar. But one thing that did go down and this is reported by several people that were at the bar that night that David C. Locke started yelling at someone on the phone. Apparently, he was trying to play for money. He's trying to play for like a hundred bucks. Because we talked about his sketchy work history, he looked, this guy doesn't have the hundred bucks to put up for his own game. Of course. So he's drunk. He's trying to borrow this money or get somebody to back him in this game. And of course, nobody's willing to back him. And that's when he, it's the reports come from him being angry with people at the bar. Again, it's hard to say how angry was he before this all happened. I think this is just a situation where he's, it's snowballing, right? He was pissed off when he walked in there and he got more angry that things weren't going his way. The thing that's weird though is there are several reports that say that he was on the

25:54phone and he could, he was overheard on the phone. Now, nobody knows who he was talking to, but he's calling the person a bitch multiple times during this phone conversation and yelling at whoever it is he's on the phone with. This guys are pretend tough guy. Now, we do need to point out something here though that this person, whoever he was talking to, it's highly unlikely that it was Tracy that he's talking to because remember, she is at the lingerie party until 10 30 PM. So unless he managed to call her at this party and get her on the phone and then later nobody at the party report that she took a call that she's getting yelled at, definitely seems like something people would remember. He's talking to somebody else in my mind, not Tracy. Yeah, I agree with you. It makes more sense. Exactly. There's no evidence of that and it doesn't make any sense either because she wasn't even home at the time. So again, for him to be talking to Tracy, he would have had to call the party that she's

26:57at. We have no indication he would have known the phone number and we have zero persons at that party saying that Tracy took a phone call at the party or that she got upset because somebody was yelled at her on the phone. There's zero indication that he was talking to Tracy. Is there any evidence of who he's talking to? I have no idea who he was talking to and it doesn't look like police had an idea of who he was talking to. I... All right.

27:57We are back. Cheers everybody and cheers to you, Colonel. Cheers to all the people in the back. Cheers to all the people at Friendly's Bar as we discussed. Maybe not everybody is so friendly at the bar. But the key thing here, Captain, the crucial moment that we really need to discuss in our timeline here is we have David C. Locke who says that he stayed at Friendly's Bar until 10.30 11 or maybe 11.30 PM that night. 10.30 11 maybe 11.30 that night. However, we have multiple people at the bar that say no. He left before that. He left so we have a few different opinions on what time he left or what time he was last seen by these different people at Friendly's Bar. But some people have him leaving the bar as early as nine. Some people have him leaving the bar as late as 10.15.

29:02Nobody in the reports has him leaving any later than 10.15. Not 10.30, not 11.30 like he said. That's a problem because you are one line to law enforcement. But two, you're essentially trying to establish a nullified. If he knows what time the victim was killed, yes, that's correct. So what we have here is his timeline is not matching up with the witnesses, the people at the bar. David C. Locke says, regardless of what time he left the bar, he says that he returned to Janet's that night walking there from Friendly's Bar. Now I don't know the distance between those two locations, but I'm guessing that they're rather close. He's aware that he talked about going leading up to Friendly's Bar. He's on foot anyway. So I'm imagining that all this stuff is pretty close together. Now in Janet's interview, she says that she's not real sure what time David C. Locke

30:04arrived at her place after playing pool that night. She originally says maybe eight or nine p.m. Okay, so that doesn't really match up with what he's saying and that doesn't match up with what people at the bar saying. Very frustrating and be very frustrating for law enforcement. She does say that she, she later says that she is uncertain. To be clear, she's uncertain of what time he showed up. That when, when asked of what time to give that she needed to provide a time, that's her gut reaction, maybe eight or nine o'clock, but does go on to say that she's not certain what time he arrives. Other than she says, I know that the kids were still up when he got there and I was busy cleaning the house when he arrives. Now Janet says that she believes that David was at her home from nine to 1230. So after midnight that night, we do have another person who is there as well.

31:04And it's a little confusing to me if this person 100% backed up the times that are provided, but this person's name is listed and because I cannot confirm if they gave a statement that they witnessed David C. Locke there in present and accounted for from nine to 1230, I'm not going to give out their name. Here's the problem though, even if they did give that statement, which I've not seen, let's say they did give a statement backing up and confirming the nine to 1230 PM. How much weight do you give that statement provided that you have multiple people? I'm not talking about one or two or three people. I'm talking about a minimum of six people that were at the bar and none of them have him leaving in time to be there at nine PM at Janet's house at nine PM. Right. And even his own words, I stayed till 1030 11 1130.

32:05And that doesn't go with what other people witnessed at the bar. So his whole timeline is all jacked up. And that's not good when you find yourself on a short list of persons of interest and a homicide investigation. Where is he claiming that he went after? Right. Because he's we know that he's not allowed to stay at Janet's. So my guess is he probably goes back there. I do believe that he went back there at some point because we have a another person that the man that he was staying with, his friend Randy says that he picked up David C. Locke from Janet's home around midnight or received a call around midnight to go and pick him up. It seems like none of their stories. He says he then picked them up and then he along with Randy and two other persons. They went to Meyer. Well, that's a great time to get produce. I believe this was the Meyer located on Bryce Road at the time. And they went there just to pick up a few things.

33:06So where David purchase gum and cigarettes. Now police would later find a receipt for this purchase. And Randy is saying that he returned David to Janet's home around one 15 after going to the Meyer. Now Randy would then go and drop off the other two people that were with them. And then he circled back picked up David from Janet's and then they returned to Randy's house where they both fell asleep watching TV. Yeah, something doesn't feel right about that story. But no, all those people though, if their time frame is just off by a little bit, it still puts him on the east side of Columbus, which is a good 30 minutes or so away from the murder scene. That's correct. Now, the only things that I'm saying happen for certain here is that I believe that

34:07at some point after shooting pool, I believe that David did go to Janet's house. Now was that at was that at closer to 10 o'clock? Like, you know, or none of it adds up. Depending on who you talk to, you check it with the next person in line and the times don't add up. Well, telling time is hard. Janet's times don't match David's times. David's times don't match Janet's times. David's times don't match the people at the bar's times. It's all very wonky and then you could say that maybe some of Randy's times match up with with Janet's times. But really what I feel like we have here, and I feel very confident saying this. It looks to me like we might have a two hour window of where this person is unaccounted for. And then not only that, you throw in some weird things too. You can already see reasons not to believe everything that everybody is saying when all

35:08these times don't match up, right? Right. So let's throw this weird thing in there that we have the statement that David brought a pool queue with him to go to Meyer. It's how you check your projects. I don't know. Now mind you, if the reports are correct and he is drunk like they said he was, maybe he just wasn't thinking to just grabbed it and went out the door. Maybe he thought there's a chance we might go shoot pool. Right. I don't know, but but let's if he if he's going to Meyer and that's the only reason for him to be picked up in the first place, why take the pool queue? Why does he need to go back to Janet's briefly while these other two are dropped off? It almost feels like to me like we have some missing time from this individual's timeline. And then we have other people around him that are trying their best to fill in the blanks to fill in those gaps. They just don't know where the gaps are or what they should be filling it in with. Yeah, because there's a part of you, if your friend was being questioned for a murder

36:11where maybe your your gut is telling you, my friend wouldn't murder somebody. Maybe he gets violent every now and then maybe he does some stupid stuff, but he's not going to murder somebody. You try to fudge your story a little bit to help out your body. I will say this captain is the best person in the world. Janet and David and a lot of these individuals here that we're talking about and we're questioning their movements, we're questioning their statements. At least early on in the investigation, all of them appear to be attempting to cooperate with the investigation and cooperate with police. And I say this in the sense of there, there were searches that were going on of these people's homes and their vehicles. And everything I saw captain says that these were consensual searches that the police didn't have to work too hard to get permission to go in and search the place. So that's one in the favor of all of these individuals. Now up those searches, one of them in particular of interest was a consensual search of Janet's

37:16home and her car. This takes place on November on November 12. The search of her vehicle revealed a format which lit up for traces of blood. A call hammer was found under the driver's seat, which had according to Dr. Norton's measurements given in the autopsy, the report states that or at least some believe that the call hammer that was found in her vehicle that the measurements are similar that they align with those of the measurements given by the good doctor. So these items are seized of course. And then that's when Janet is brought back in for a follow up interview. Well, look, I hate to bring this up all the time. I know you can't use them in a quarter of law, but this would be a great time to get a barometer of if people are telling the truth because we have people telling stories that line up if I was law enforcement, I'm pulling out the old lie detector so I can get a sense

38:21of who's telling me the truth or just to start scaring people into telling me the correct story. Here's a couple of things and this is where the story gets even more confusing. So the first thing that the police want to know and you can tell they've kind of really honed in on David at this point, even though we find this incriminating possible evidence that in Janet's vehicle. So one of the first questions they want to know is, Hey, do you ever let this guy drive your vehicle? Janet says no. No, she did not ever let David drive her vehicle and goes on to say he has his own vehicle, he can use his own vehicle. And then to further along that story, she says that they actually had an argument because on that Thursday night, she at some point prior to Thursday gives David $30 so that he could go and get tags for his car. He spent the 30 bucks on something else, doesn't get the tags for his vehicle and ask Janet

39:28if he could borrow her tags from her car, because he's a dumbass. She grants him permission. Of course, they're in an argument because, Hey, what'd you do with the money I gave? Because he's a dumbass. Now she's mad. She wants her tags back right fully. So she says that David gave them back to her on Friday. So detectives of course have a lot of questions about him, a lot of questions about his car, a lot of questions about her car. But the questions that I think are the most important from the interview, Sergeant Deskins asked Janet, was there any work done on your car last Thursday, Janet last Thursday? No, Sergeant Deskins, was any work done on your car last Friday? Janet, no, Deskins follows up. Okay, Saturday and the answer from Janet is no. I want everybody to remember that because on the 13th, Jerry Johnson, a very good friend of David C. Locks and Janet's tells police that he was replacing the brakes in Janet's

40:34car on the day of the murder and he cut his hand in blood. He did not know had, sorry, he did not know he had blood inside of Janet's vehicle. He said that he just noticed it, he just noticed the cut when he was finished with the work and he washed up bullshit. And then police are now asking this Jerry guy and Janet, hey, was your vehicle operational on Thursday night? So which Jerry is telling police know that vehicle is not operational because it had no brakes. I was fixing the brakes. It was parked overnight at someone else's home and we, his name is on record saying that this Jerry guy was going to do the work first thing in the morning. Another young, but this is loser. Janet takes off the tags, gives them to David for him to use and then he gives the tags back on Friday afternoon and now the vehicle is working again. We can base that off of the situation of she's walking in groceries when she's notified

41:35on Friday that, I'm sorry, when she is notified on that Friday or Saturday that Tracy Harkness was killed. Right. So this is, this is where none of this portion of the case makes any sense. You can see what appears to be, oh, there's never been any work done on my car. Wait, we found blood in your car. Oh, test the blood though. Now all of a sudden, there's been work that was done and it was the mechanic guy helping me out that probably bled inside of my car and he's presenting that information to the police. And then you have the weird situation of the trading back and forth of the plate of the tags or plates off of Janet's vehicle all during the time and question here. And then you have David C. Locks timeline not lining up with that of the people at the bar or Janet's or Randy's. It's again, I think what we have here is I think we have a situation of someone, someone's

42:37are covering for somebody else trying to fill in those blanks and those gaps. They just don't know a what do the police know that we don't know? We don't know what gaps to fill in what lies to create and none of these lies that are creating are covering anybody else's tracks along the way. Right. But you think, like I said, if you have this mat that's filled of blood, you test the blood. If it's if it's Tracy's blood, then when or when are chicken dinner? Well, that's what's even more weird. They run tests on the blood. It comes back. It's not human blood. So why this is what I don't understand why is this guy lying for them? Right. Either somebody's lying here because either work yes was done and you chose to lie about it or work wasn't done and he chose to help you out and lie about it. But why create the lie at all if you're not trying to cover up Tracy's blood?

43:42Right. And then you have this weapon that is a possible murder weapon. A tool that is possibly a murder weapon. But then again, there's no blood or evidence that connects that tool to Tracy's darkness. Or to the murder. Yeah, but we also have evidence or it seems that we have some kind of evidence that somebody tried to clean something up. There was some paper towels or some towels. And is it possible to get into this altercation? This murder goes down the person then decides to wipe their arm down because they got blood on their arm. Oh, I got to make sure they clean off the blood. And then I got to clean up this mess on this weapon and now I got to leave. But to me, I don't know if this evidence found in her car points to Janet more than it.

44:43I feel it almost points more to Janet than it does to David. Well, you would think so because she's saying one, it's her car and two that she never let him use her vehicle. I think the better question is did he have access to it? Not did you let him use it, but does he have access? Does he know how to, you know, if she fell asleep, could he take the vehicle? The thing here though, let's, let's pretend for a minute that we know and we don't know this, but let's pretend for a minute that we know that she was only killed by one person. But only that one person may know the details of the time that they went to her apartment, the time that they left her apartment, how long they were at Tracy's apartment, where they went, where they came from and where they went afterwards. Let's pretend that only one person knows that why in the situation would a bunch of people

45:43be lying to the police and coming up with these stories that don't, that conflict with one another, these stories conflict with one another. To me, that's because that's because they don't know the details. If I'm your friend and you ask me to lie for you or if for some reason I believe, hey, I would be helping out the captain here. I don't know what happened. He's probably innocent of everything. He's a good guy, but don't do that. Turn on me. But oh, I should probably, you know, I might have to fib a little bit or exaggerate a little bit. What I keep going back to is that clearly somebody's lying to police because the stories can't be flicked. All these stories cannot be true. It's physically impossible. Hold on, hold on one second, though, because I think sometimes it goes back to your theory. You say lazy or stupid, right? But sometimes it's, it's liar or stupid.

46:45And there's sometimes, look, there could be a good possibility that law enforcement is asking these people a few days later. And these people don't have much of a life. They run here and there and everywhere. We went to this bar. We did this and they don't know exactly what time it was or what time somebody left. And so it is possible that some people are giving misinformation, but they don't even know it's misinformation. It's just the best they could do. It was the best answer that they could give law enforcement. I don't think that holds any water at all. And I do want to clear something up because I think you got my credos wrong here. So lazy or stupid, I put that on police and on detectives. When I see a problem with investigation, I say it's either lazy or stupid. And some situations when it comes to the flip side of that coin suspects and people that

47:47may have been involved in a crime, it's one of these situations. If not all of them is just another great example of either stupid or liar. And I think what what I'm getting at here though, the reason why I don't think that we can give them the benefit of the doubt saying, look, they're just, they're just dumb. They just don't know, they don't know what really happened that day. They're confused about what happened that day. Here's pretty clear cut liar or stupid to me. You're asked three times if you had any work done on your vehicle, right? Every single time you say no, did you have any work done on your vehicle on Thursday? No, Friday? No, Saturday? No. And then we found blood in your car and now all of a sudden it's followed up with this Jerry person coming out of the coming out of the woodwork saying that, hey, I was fixing

48:47the brakes on her car. Both of those things didn't happen. Two people didn't get so confused in this world that we live in that one of them saying now that I worked on the vehicle and the other ones said originally no, there was no work done on my vehicle. Right. So again, I don't know who is being covered up for what I do know is this. David C. Lock's timeline is a problem and it's only a problem for David C. Lock. But it's also a problem because he has violent tendencies and he had no place to stay. And so there's motive for him to go back to ex-girlfriend's house to go, hey, can I stay here? Again, like you said, doesn't have to be premeditated. But then he goes to stay and he goes, hey, let me stay here. No, no, we're done. We're through.

49:48I got to work in the morning. You need to go. And now he's not getting in his way. Then just what happened earlier that day? Things weren't going his way. And this dumbass decides to fight a wall with his head. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that he tries to, hey, I'll sleep on the couch. No, it's not happening. Well, why can't you help me? Nobody else is staying on the couch. Just let me stay on the couch. Oh, now I'm not going to fight the wall. I'm going to fight you. That's a very real possibility. The other thing that's tricky here too, Captain, is remember, we talked about where you can kind of start your belief of when do we have the time of death. What time did that occur? And we would probably say that your earliest window there would be probably 1040 P out.

50:51Because everyone's saying that Tracy left the party at 1030 ish. We know that it takes 10 minutes approximately to get from the party to Tracy's apartment. Now we have people at friendly saying that David left his early is 930. We have him saying on the flip side that I left at 1030 11 or 1130. Only the killer knows what time that they need to cover their butt for. If he left at the earlier part of that, where did he go if he is the killer? Where did he go for that time period? Because it's only a 15 minute drive from friendly to Tracy's apartment. Now keep in mind, we do have people that have him at the bar as late as 1015, which that aligns a little bit more with what I believe the police suspicions were of David's timeline in comparison to Tracy's time. Right. That's a very good point. So we should point out though that of all these people that are interviewed, while there

51:52were rumors that some people may have known or heard who killed Tracy, I couldn't find anybody that's on this short list of persons of interest. What we are calling persons of interest that was openly accusing somebody else on that list of having committed this murder. In fact, everyone's saying quite the opposite in regard to other persons on this list, when asked by police, they're saying no, he or she would not have done this. They're not that type of person. They would never attack somebody or intentionally kill someone. The weird thing though, to circle back to that, we found this in your car and your car wasn't worked on. Now it was worked on. The thing here though, Captain, is why is that lie created? Just because they didn't find anything incriminating in your vehicle, still does not explain the way why a lie was created.

53:09Thanks for listening and joining us for part three, one more part to go, one more part to wrap this up. Colonel, do we have any recommended reading for the listeners? How about some recommended viewing? Go and check us out on YouTube and subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's True Crime Garage TV. We have close to 500 videos on there for your viewing pleasure. Yeah, our goal is in the next month to have all of our episodes available on YouTube, because we understand that some people prefer to listen on YouTube. And what a great day to binge True Crime Garage episode four should be available by the time you're done with this one. So happy, turkey day and happy binge day. And be good, be kind and don't let it.