The Twisted Tale of Austin's Unsolved Yogurt Shop Murders
Sep 12, 2023Season 1Episode 52
Ever thought how a simple fire could morph into a crime scene so sinister that it would perplex even seasoned investigators? That's the haunting narrative we explore in this captivating episode, as we journey back into the chilling case of the 1991 Austin yogurt shop murders. Join us, alongside our guest Megan, as we delve into the intricacies of a case that saw four young girls brutally killed and left in a scene so shrouded by fire and water damage that the evidence was almost obliterated. We also draw parallels to the infamous McDonald's murders, adding an intriguing layer to this already complex mystery.
Yet, the enigma doesn't end there. In the latter part of our discourse, we shift our focus to the confessions extracted from two suspects - Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott. Poring over the harrowing transcripts from the intense interrogation sessions, Megan aids us in identifying the questionable tactics employed by law enforcement and the problematic use of these confessions during the trial proceedings. Strap in, as we traverse the murky intersection of crime, law enforcement strategies, and the relentless pursuit of justice.
Ever thought how a simple fire could morph into a crime scene so sinister that it would perplex even seasoned investigators? That's the haunting narrative we explore in this captivating episode, as we journey back into the chilling case of the 1991 Austin yogurt shop murders. Join us, alongside our guest Megan, as we delve into the intricacies of a case that saw four young girls brutally killed and left in a scene so shrouded by fire and water damage that the evidence was almost obliterated. We also draw parallels to the infamous McDonald's murders, adding an intriguing layer to this already complex mystery.
Yet, the enigma doesn't end there. In the latter part of our discourse, we shift our focus to the confessions extracted from two suspects - Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott. Poring over the harrowing transcripts from the intense interrogation sessions, Megan aids us in identifying the questionable tactics employed by law enforcement and the problematic use of these confessions during the trial proceedings. Strap in, as we traverse the murky intersection of crime, law enforcement strategies, and the relentless pursuit of justice.
Hey everybody, alexa here and welcome to Murder in the Mountains. So Megan is our co-host this week. She actually was also our co-host last week, but we had some technical difficulties. Her entire part of the recording I don't even know how to explain it did not pick up, so it was like me talking to myself, except for random snippets where you would hear her. So then I had to basically record it myself, which is fine. I was planning on doing that at some point anyway, but technology kind of forced us to do it early and I forgot to hit record on my podcast recorder as a backup, which I told her I was going to do until like 15 minutes in. I was like dang it, I didn't hit record. Had I, I would have had a backup, but I didn't. So here we are, hi, megan.
Speaker 2:
Hey, I was going to ask you, did you press record this time on the backup?
Speaker 1:
I did.
Speaker 2:
Yes, that is good. I have a conspiracy theory that you just wanted me out. I'm going to start that in the Facebook chat. Did mine not record, or did Alexa want me out?
Speaker 1:
It literally like separately records me and whoever I'm co-hosting with and I sent Megan a screenshot. I said notice how it's just yours, that's not recording. And I tried to listen to it and it would be like me talking and then responding to Megan, but you don't hear Megan at all. So I descended like a crazy person.
Speaker 2:
I think you should play parts of, just as a bonus episode, you talking to yourself, because that would be interesting.
Speaker 1:
I don't think anybody would want to hear that, but maybe you. But you know. So we'll jump into this week's case, which actually was suggested by my mom. So, hi, mom, she told me she walks a documentary on it and I was like this actually I feel like I've heard it and I think I had, but did not really remember any of the details in it. So you may have heard it. We will see you ready to jump in. Shout out to the Lexus mom, that's right. So this week's case takes place in Austin, Texas, in 1991. And December 6, 1991, an Austin police officer named Troy Gay was out on patrol at 1147 at night. He saw flames coming from a yogurt shop called I can't believe it's yogurt and called it in Side note. What else would it be? First time I read that it's like I can't believe it's not butter. But what would it be besides yogurt? I don't ice cream, I don't know.
Speaker 2:
Maybe it's actually. Yeah, that doesn't make sense, because frozen yogurt is, like, meant to be ice cream, so it should have been. I can't believe it's not ice cream, but we won't criticize their name.
Speaker 1:
We won't dwell on that fact. So firefighters initially went to the wrong address, but arrived at the correct location six minutes later. Once the 50 firefighters on scene extinguished the blaze, it was discovered to be a lot more than just a fire.
Speaker 1:
In the back room they found the bodies of four young girls 17 year old Eliza Thomas and 17 year old Jennifer Harbison, who were employees at the yogurt shop, and they also found Jennifer's 15 year old sister, sarah and her 13 year old friend, amy Ayers. Sarah and Amy had been hanging out at the mall near their yogurt shop and went to meet Jennifer for a ride home. The yogurt shop was completely engulfed in flames and the firefighters put out the fire without knowing it was a murder scene, of course. I mean, how would they have known? So, as a result, the crime scene was a wreck. There were puddles of water from the hose. Evidence was destroyed by both the fire and the water used to put out the blaze.
Speaker 1:
The pressure of the hoses move things all over the shop, potentially including the bodies, so it made it all the more difficult to tell exactly what occurred.
Speaker 1:
The bodies had been so completely burned that investigators initially could not determine race or sex of the victims. All four victims had been naked, with their hands behind their backs, and shot in the back of the head execution style with a.22 caliber bullet. All of the girls, except for Jennifer, had their hands tied behind their backs with an article of their clothing, but Jennifer's hands were behind her back, but not tied with anything. Eliza, jennifer and Sarah had been somewhat stacked on top of each other, while Amy was found nearby with an ice cream scoop between her legs. Like having been sexually assaulted, amy was shot in the head with the same as the other girls, but the bullet missed her brain, so she was shot again in the head and the bullet exited between her cheek and jaw, and that was the fatal shot for her. Detectives determined that the front door of the shop had been locked, indicating that the girls were in the process of closing the store down when the crime occurred.
Speaker 2:
This reminds me of the McDonald's murders. Do you remember that case?
Speaker 1:
Or the Burger Chef murders, say you're talking about. Or what's the McDonald's?
Speaker 2:
It was employees found dead in a McDonald's. I can't remember the location I mean there wasn't a fire at that one but it was very similar. So I'm interested to see how this one turns out, because that ended up being like. I think they thought it was like adults but it ended up being like teenagers that worked there and it was just a really crazy case. You should do that one. If you have not. I think it's called the McDonald's murders. I'll look, but this is wild.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, I don't think I have heard of that one actually. So it was standard practice to lock the door 10 minutes prior to closing, even if customers were inside, to prevent additional guests from entering, and then an employee would just unlock the door to let the guests out when they were done Wigs. I've worked in restaurants and I have never been allowed to lock people inside, but it was also a different time.
Speaker 2:
Oh yeah, you are supposed to lock people inside, and I think that's the little tidbit that reminds me of the other one, because they were also closing. It was locked, but the person came in through the employee. You know that back door, that employees go in and out, yeah, Funny.
Speaker 1:
you say that because police theorize the back door had been locked, Breaking it.
Speaker 2:
Like you just bail I don't know phone or whatever, but like you just like bail that lap and your people. They were locked. I heard it.
Speaker 1:
I know, okay, lost my spoke. Okay, police theorize the back door had been left cracked open. This door was typically closed and locked at all times during the night shift. This led investigators to believe the suspects planned either a robbery or the entire crime ahead of time and propped to the back door open during business hours without anybody noticing. Customers that night told police that there were two people in the yogurt shop when they had left close to closing time, but they couldn't really give a description, aside from saying that they were teenage boys. I know what you're thinking. How could you not give a description when there were that many people in there? Or, you know, like not that many people in there, but how many times have you been in a place and not paid any attention to the other people in there?
Speaker 2:
I would never be able to give a description of anybody. I would be the worst witness in the world because I can never remember hair color or anything. My sister always makes fun of me, but it's just creeping me out. I can't wait. Not can't wait. But until you look at the other case, it's so similar and I haven't heard of this one. So I'm like this is so weird, how close this is to that other case so far, minus the fire.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, so, like you said, like why would you try to remember details? You know like it's not like you know anything's going to happen. They're just other customers and the same restaurant as you. You know what I mean.
Speaker 2:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
So, even though the crime scene was a mess, police collected 4 22 caliber bullets and one 380 caliber. So the fact that there were two different kinds of bullets found led police to believe that there were at least two killers involved. But if you listen to our case on the Malika murders, you know that that's not always the case, because that was one person just with two guns. So, as we discussed, police had very little to go on due to evidence being destroyed in the fire and the fire being put out. They questioned a lot of local golf kids because you know it was the 90s and say Tannock Panic was huge. They questioned 50 teens, had more than 2000 tips and had 50 false confessions for the crime. 50 false confessions, 50 people who claimed that they murdered four girls but that the evidence proved otherwise.
Speaker 2:
I'm confused. Do you think it's because they were young and scared? And maybe it's because the suspects were teens, that they were just being pressured? It's alarming on multiple ends to me that there were I've never heard of that many false people do it all the time but I wonder if it was high pressure and young so they just kept saying yes, that's really strange.
Speaker 1:
It wasn't even all teenagers that gave the false confessions. Like a serial killer gave a false confession when he was about to be executed, like hoping for a stay of execution, which didn't happen. He was still executed. But yeah, it wasn't just teens, because I mean, the only thing they have teens like to go off of, for the teens is, you know, witnesses who couldn't even really give a description of them.
Speaker 2:
Well, that's weird. Maybe false confessions are more common than I thought.
Speaker 1:
So, with all of these false leads, police turned to the public and a billboard was put up on I-35 that read who Killed these Girls? Money was raised for a reward and $125,000 was listed for any information leading to an arrest. Eight days after the murders, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was found at the North Cross Mall, which is the same mall that's next to the Yoverchop, that Amy and Sarah were at the night that they were killed and Maurice had a.22 caliber gun and 16 bullets in his pocket. Police knew their suspect was a teenage boy, per the witnesses at the Yoverchop, and that a.22 caliber was used in the murders, so they brought him in for questioning. When detectives began interviewing Maurice, he denied any involvement in the crime at all.
Speaker 1:
They then brought in Detective Hector Palanco, an Austin PD's notorious interrogator. Why was he notorious? Because he seemed to always get a confession. One sex confession was that of Christopher Akoa and Robert Danziger for the 1988 murder of Nancy DePriest, and they were sent to prison only to Burley. They were sent to prison and only released in 2000 after DNA evidence exonerated them. So getting a confession all the time isn't necessarily a good thing when the evidence does not back up said confession.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, even the way that was said, he always gets a confession. I was literally thinking it's not always a good thing.
Speaker 1:
So once Detective Palanco began interviewing Maurice Pierce, he changed his story and said that his friend, 15-year-old Forrest Welborn, had used the gun to kill the four girls. For that he wasn't involved himself. He said that he was with his friends, 17-year-old Michael Scott and 17-year-old Robert Springsteen that weekend and they had actually stolen an SUV and driven it to San Antonio. Based on that, police brought in Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott in for questioning. After asking the boys about each other and other teams that hung out around the mall at the yogurt shop, police moved on to other suspects. The case went cold for eight years until a new detective was put on the case to give it fresh eyes. Detective Paul Johnson took a look at the case and the interrogation of Maurice Pierce. They tested the gun that he was found carrying at the mall and it wasn't a match to any of the evidence found at the scene. But who cares? They decided to interrogate him again. Maurice Pierce still claimed to not be involved at all. So they moved back to Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott.
Speaker 1:
After five hours of interrogation and being told that they had his DNA at the scene, which was not true, springsteen confessed to killing Amy Ayers. He said that he was just telling them what they wanted to hear and that DNA would clear him. Since he knows that he didn't do it, he then volunteered to do a lie detector test, which he passed. So in his mind he told them what they wanted to hear. So they'd get off his back and once they tested the DNA, and since he passed the polygraph, he'd be cleared. So while he was being interrogated, police were also interrogating Michael Scott for twenty hours. He eventually confessed too, and despite having no evidence besides the confessions, robert Springsteen and Michael Scott were both arrested. Keep in mind this is eight years after the murders and even though a lot of evidence was destroyed by the fire. Police had four unidentified fingerprints from the cash register and unidentified hairs found on the girl's bodies, none of which belonged to Maurice, robert or Michael.
Speaker 2:
I have a feeling these are not the guys.
Speaker 1:
So you know who else was not so sure that it was the guys or the customers that saw the two people before closing, so they brought them in and none of them could identify Maurice, robert or Michael as the boys that they saw that night. But the case still went to court where the boys were tried separately and they judged to allow the confessions of both boys in each other's trial. So here's a little bit of the transcript from Michael Scott's interrogation and you can tell me what you think. Ok. Michael said I don't remember going inside. The detective said Michael, michael. Michael said are you telling me I went inside? Detective said I know you went inside, let's finish this today. You went inside there with Maurice and Robert and you know what you did. You've been doing great up until now. These things are coming back, but you know you went inside there with them.
Speaker 1:
Michael said I don't remember going inside. The detective said come on, michael, you went inside. You said earlier we ran back out to the car, meaning you, maurice and Robert. You said we. Well, we did, michael. You went with them inside that store. Michael said OK.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, telling them what to say. And you know we've heard this and several different cases where they're telling them what to say. And I get you can be a little tricky in interrogations, but it's just when they have high pressure cases like this and they want to put somebody behind bars. But I don't know why you, this is such a horrific and it sounded like brutal case, like put the right person behind bars. But yeah, he was definitely just telling them. And it's always a lot more like satisfying, even for the victims' families, if you hear an interrogation and the person's actually giving more information than the cops and then you're like, oh wow, this person knows a lot, they really did this.
Speaker 1:
But when the cops are like reading it, it's like so when asked what the girls were tied up with, here's what Michael said A t-shirt, and I want to say electrical cord. Detective said no, think harder. A t-shirt and something else Michael said. And the detective said I'm not going to tell you because you know, I want to hear it from you. Michael said I'm trying to remember guys. And the detective said something else. It was a t-shirt and something else. You helped Rob tie them up and Michael said I think I guess I did. The detective said yeah, you did. What were the girls wearing by the time they were tied up? What were they wearing? Michael? That's a gimme, that's an easy one. Michael said not a whole lot. The detective said not a whole lot. Michael said use their own clothes to tie them up. Detective said use their own clothes to tie them up, you and Rob. By the time you were done. What were they wearing? Say it. Michael said nothing.
Speaker 1:
So then, when asked if Maurice Pierce and Robert Springsteen made him do anything to the girls, he said they didn't make me shoot them, did they? And the detective said well, did they Tell us? I want to hear it. Did they? Did either Maurice or Robert make you shoot those two girls, or both of them? Say it, michael. Is that what happened? Michael said I think so. He said you think so. Michael said I think so. Come on, like it's not good, like you said I know they're able to use like sneaky, tricky techniques that even some are like questionable, you know, like being able to lie to them, whatever. This is not a technique. This is clearly feeding them and whatever. Tell me it doesn't sound like the West Memphis 30 case, almost exactly.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, it does. And the thing, like I said, when you get kind of like excited, but like excited that you got a criminal, is when they lie about like well, we found your DNA and you know they didn't find their DNA. And then the person says, well, all crap, now that they have my DNA, I'll just confess. And they give an un, what, what's the word? Coached, yeah, coached. Response where they just start to feed you all these details and you're like holy crap, he gave us more than we thought.
Speaker 2:
But when they're like no, what you're making them guess what happened? Like nope, nope, nope, that's wrong, keep going. Oh, they're on clothes. Like yes, what were they wearing? A little bit of nothing. No, no, no, no, no, oh, nothing at all. Like then it's just like oh, okay, now I'm not even comfortable, like as the family, as a person if my that was my family, I would want to know for sure. I wouldn't feel good knowing that they just got any old body in jail. I would want the person who did that to my family to be the person in prison.
Speaker 1:
And the biggest thing for me was like they didn't make me shoot them, did they? Well, I don't know, did they? I want you to say it like what?
Speaker 2:
Yeah it just that's like the most. Yeah, I mean it very Memphis 3 and then that other one that you told me watch that I still barely what making a murderer.
Speaker 1:
This is very Brendan D'Asi as well.
Speaker 2:
Yep.
Speaker 1:
All right. So Robert Springsteen said that as soon as the confession of Michael Scott was played for the jury, you could just see and feel a shift in the courtroom. Like that was it. Their mind was made up and In 2001 he was sentenced to death. In 2002, michael Scott was sentenced to life in prison and and in 2003 charges against Maurice Pierce were dropped for lack of evidence and he was released from jail.
Speaker 2:
Wait, can you go over those one more time? One was sentenced to death, one Was since sentence to life and the other one literally just got off.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, so Maurice Pierce, the one who said that he wasn't involved at all but then mentioned his friends, he was the one who they didn't have any evidence against because he never confessed. He still said he had nothing to do with it. Springsteen and Scott were the ones who falsely confessed, if that's what you think they did. You know like after all the interrogations, and Springsteen was like well, they have my DNA and I pass a lie detector, I'm gonna get off. I just told them what they wanted to hear. So they get off my back and I can leave this freaking long interrogation. And Michael Scott is the one who's interrogation I just read to you. So he was the one who got life in prison.
Speaker 2:
It just sucks because, yeah, I'm hoping number one that he doesn't die and that this case is solved, or I'm gonna be very upset with you because I'm pretty sure these are not the people who did it in 2006, the Attorneys for both Springsteen and Scott filed appeals stating that their clients 6th Amendment rights were violated by not being able to cross-examine their accuser.
Speaker 1:
So because both men accused the other in their confessions but neither of the men testified in the others trial, their lawyers weren't able to question them on the stand. The Supreme Court agreed and overturned their convictions, and the prosecution decided that they were going to retry the case. In April of 2008, previously undiscovered DNA evidence found from a vaginal swab from Amy Iyer's Was tested and proved to not be from any of the four boys now men, essentially in. In 2009, the men were finally released from prison and all charges were dropped after the prosecutor decided there wasn't enough evidence to try them. However, it was still believed that these men were to blame and that there was just an unidentified fifth man that worked with them.
Speaker 2:
That's interesting. That's not what I would think, but it just is unfortunate because this is Westman, it because there's three of them to kind of the way it's all going, but, yeah, their lives get ruined and your name is tainted because there's some people that are like it's just once you're associated with that your name is tainted, and Then all this time has been wasted on just the wrong people and years later, it's just always frustrating when they just get so honed in and they want to force the, the criminal I'm trying to think of words, but it's, it's, it's light and then they waste all the time not looking for the person who actually did it.
Speaker 1:
So Travis County DA Rosemary Lindberg said, while I remain confident that Spring Seen and Scott are responsible for these murders, going to trial and risking a result that could forever prohibit future trials of these men is a risk I will not take. So let's just review the evidence. There were fingerprints on the cash register. None of them belong to the employees or the boys charged. There was DNA found. None of it matches the boys charged. There are witnesses who saw two men acting strangely and made them feel uncomfortable, and neither witness could identify Spring Seen or Scott as the people they saw. It's clearly tunnel vision and, like you said, they just want to close the case and move on, not caring if justice is served, and I feel like this mostly happens in high profile cases where there is pressure to find an answer and close the case. Otherwise they look bad, and I'm not necessarily saying that that's what happened here, but it's looking a little suspect.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, and I even understand why they interviewed the first kid the first time and then after that it should have just been ruled out. Dang it, let's keep looking.
Speaker 1:
Especially after testing the bullets from his gun and knowing even before you know what I mean, that they didn't match, and you still just decided to go that route again. Finally, two years after the charges were draw, investigators said they're open to all possibilities but still believe that the boys were involved. The defense attorneys for Spring Seen and Smith both believe the boys are innocent and that the evidence shows that it was more than likely two adult men who were physically imposing. Not for scrawny and, in their words, not particularly bright teenage boys would have been able to commit a quadruple homicide without the source next door hearing anything but gunshots or, as they described as, popping sounds. That would take someone who was able to exert control and keep the girls in line. So, unless you believe that Maurice Pierce, robert Spring Seen, michael Scott and Forest Wellborn were to blame for the murders, the case remains open and unsolved.
Speaker 2:
I told you not to do this. I specifically told you I thought to do this. I'm shocked that they don't have something now with pulling the DNA from her. I felt that when you said the DNA didn't match, I was like, OK, great, the future. Like they couldn't match it then. But now there's DNA. She's about to tell me who actually did, Because when did this happen? What?
Speaker 1:
year In 1991,. I'm sorry, but it's important to share stories like this too. So if somebody's listening and they're like, oh, I have a tip, Can crack the case wide open here at Murder in the Mountains.
Speaker 2:
It is important, but I can't believe there's not a little bit more than that now. A lot of the ones Because how old is that? Math, math, real quick 32 years. I'm very upset A lot of, yeah, 1991,. A lot of those have been solved by DNA now.
Speaker 1:
So I thought when you mentioned that Well, only if they have the person's DNA in the system to run it against.
Speaker 2:
You're telling me that freaking weirdo. Whoever did that type of crime has never done anything else to get their DNA in the system.
Speaker 1:
I mean, yeah, maybe we have heard of it happening before. She's just looking at me blankly.
Speaker 2:
I'm very frustrated, OK, speechless. I am speechless because it's not fair. I mean, I know that's not fair, but four freaking girls and in a freaking public space and we just steal 32 years later. Don't know.
Speaker 1:
All right. Well, if you don't have any other comments, I will post photos on Instagram and that includes diagrams and everything of the positioning of the girls' bodies and the Yogurt Shop and stuff, so you can see it for yourself. It's very interesting. So let us know your thoughts on Instagram or the Facebook discussion group. Let's not post in the Facebook discussion group or chat. What somebody did the other day. I opened it and was like no go. And Megan texts me. I was like, oh my gosh, alexa, were you hacked? I was like, well, was it me? It was somebody else that posted, but I didn't want to click on it because I didn't know if I was going to get a virus or something. But it was removed, it was taken off. Crisis averted. Let's keep it murder related. That would be good. Let's keep it PG-13. And follow us on Instagram at Murder in the Mountains. If you haven't already, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts or rating on Spotify and come back next week for another episode of Murder in the Mountains, see ya.