Tony: 0:03

For the last 26 years, Rachael Geiser has worked in the shadows of America's most notorious trials. As a criminal defense investigator, she stood beside defense teams in cases that shook the country Damian Eccles in the West Memphis Three, Jesse Dotson in the Lester Street case and many more that never made the headlines but changed lives forever. Let's pull back the curtain and hear what really happened. Welcome to the Geiser Files. All right, hello, and welcome to episode two of the Geiser Files. How are you doing, Rachael?

Rachael: 0:39

I'm doing fine, thanks. Who's that clapping for us in the beginning of the episode?

Tony: 0:43

Those are all of your many fans.

Rachael: 0:46

I have fans, I don't have fans. I think I mostly have haters.

Tony: 0:51

That's alright. Haters can clap for you too.

Rachael: 0:54

Okay, I'll take it.

Tony: 0:56

What do you want to talk about today?

Rachael: 0:59

Well, I think obviously we're going to talk a little bit about the introduction, as you teased last week, of my work on Damian Echols and the West Memphis 3 case. But first I think we need to clear up a little bit from the first episode about what I actually do now.

Tony: 1:16

Okay, what do you actually do now?

Rachael: 1:17

Well, I am a I'm still a licensed private investigator under my company of Geiser Investigative Services, but I don't actively use or work that often under my license. I have been asked to do some things privately and I'm allowed to do that if it doesn't conflict with my real full-time job now, which is an investigator for the major cases team at the Shelby County Public Defender's Office. My official title actually is Special Assistant to Capital Sentencing and I was hired to do that in 2017. At the time, we had capital cases. We have zero capital cases now, so we actually had to change the name to the Major Cases Team, and our team handles all of the first-degree murder cases that come in and are appointed to the Public Defender's Office in General Sessions Court.

Tony: 2:19

How is the first-degree murder business in Memphis, in Shelby County?

Rachael: 2:23

It is very, very busy, Lots of cases often.

Tony: 2:27

Congratulations? I guess no.

Rachael: 2:29

No, no, but I'm glad. I mean I really enjoy working for the Public Defender's Office because I get to work the cases from the very beginning. A client is charged, we're appointed, and then I get to work. Client is charged, we're appointed, and then I get to work as a private investigator. When I was appointed to work on cases, I typically would not get appointed until the client was indicted, so sometimes that would be six months later. Lots of things have been lost by then, and so, working for the Public Defender's Office, I definitely feel more like an investigator, because I'm working the case from the very beginning and I love it.

Tony: 3:08

That's interesting? Yeah, because, like a surveillance video from, like, gas stations or whatever, gets overwritten or lost. If it was taken, witnesses get lost or murdered or incarcerated.

Rachael: 3:22

Yeah, or they just you know. Their memories fade over time about what you know. Their memories fade over time about what you know might have happened.

Tony: 3:28

It's just harder.

Rachael: 3:28

Yeah, now I will say that sometimes, even when you're dealing with witnesses right after a crime happens, they might be reticent to talk to you. So letting some time pass sometimes is not necessarily a bad thing. So if I do try to reach out to a witness very early on, I will almost always then go back. I'll wait until we get the discovery from the state body cam, see what they said originally and then go back and revisit them.

Tony: 4:00

Okay, so that's what you're doing now. Yes, what were you doing in May of 1993?

Rachael: 4:08

In May of 1993, I was finishing up my junior year of college at Rhodes College.

Tony: 4:13

Okay, I'm sorry, yeah, may 2005. I should have said May of 2005? You know what Forget May.

Rachael: 4:20

So he keeps saying May. Forget all of May I know, I know, I think what you're getting at is when was I first introduced to the West Memphis Three case.

Tony: 4:29

That's what I? Yes, that's what I said.

Rachael: 4:31

Correct, Correct. So, as we mentioned previously, from May of 1999 through February of 2008, I worked for the Inquisitor Inc. Ron Lacks' private investigation firm and Ron, as we know, worked on Damien's case as Damien's investigator in 1993 and 1994.

Tony: 4:58

Inquisitor was the original investigation team. On behalf of Damien.

Rachael: 5:01

On behalf of Damien. Yes, and so Ron is. You can see him in the Paradise Lost movies. He did a lot of things on the pre-trial part of that case and subsequently in post-conviction. I'm not sure if it was, I don't think it was in a formal capacity, but he was asked to do things even after, as many of us are. You know, there are times I'm asked to do, you know, interviews and post-conviction, which I'm usually very happy to do anything to help the client. So Ron did that.

Rachael: 5:36

And so when I was hired in May of 1999 at Inquisitor, I still knew very little about the West Memphis 3 case. I mean, I knew Ron worked on it. If we were, if he and I were in West Memphis, he would almost always mention a location like this is where that happened. You know things, things like that, but I did not know the case. I had not watched the documentaries at that time. I believe Paradise Lost and Two might have been out and Blood of Innocence had been written. Devil's Knot, I think, was published in around 2002. But I did not keep up with the case. I remember seeing Mara Leverett come into our office and look through all of the Inquisitor files, come into our office and look through all of the Inquisitor files. You know Ron had one conference room and a whole. You know bookshelves were full of the West Memphis Three materials.

Tony: 6:32

Mara Levitt was the author of Devil's Knot.

Rachael: 6:34

Yes, and she would come in look at the materials and then her book was published. But I really, you know, I was working my cases and was not actively at all involved in what was happening on the West Memphis 3 for Damien Until November of 2005. I had been on maternity leave, as you know. We had a child in October of 2005, our second child I remember that.

Rachael: 7:02

Do you do? Yeah, okay, and I took six weeks maternity leave that's all I got and came back to work and the I think it was the day I came back from maternity leave. In my mind it was the day very it was very close to right. When I came back from maternity leave I was in my office. Uh, at that time our offices were on South Front Street. My office was downstairs, ron's office is upstairs and Ron kept coming up and down the stairs and he seemed very giddy, very happy. There were people coming in that day and we it was possible that we would actually be hired more formally to do post-conviction investigation on behalf of Damien. He told me that and he was getting ready for the meeting which was going to be upstairs in our conference room, upstairs, and the people came in, went upstairs I don't even know if I saw them come in At some point.

Rachael: 8:00

Ron came downstairs, grabbed me out of my office and said I want you to come upstairs and meet these people and so he took me upstairs and I believe it was Lori. Was there? Lori Davis, Damien's wife, Dennis, I believe, was there. Dennis Reardon and Don Horgan might have been there. Dennis and Don were Damien's attorneys at the time, brilliant attorneys and Ron said you know, this is Rachael, my investigator. I want you to meet her. And then he took me back downstairs. It took me into the small conference room. We had an inquisitor where the West Memphis Three materials had been, and said Rachael, I want you. We're getting hired back on the case. Formally. Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson are going to be paying for this investigation. It's going to be, you know, something that we can actually really do in a meaningful way.

Tony: 8:52

Yes, Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings fame.

Rachael: 8:57

Yes.

Tony: 8:58

Okay, that's cool.

Rachael: 9:00

Yeah, no, I mean, obviously that was very cool and you know just that they are involved in this. I think Lori had told me later that and I think she's told this story on other interviews she's done that she had woken up one morning and noticed there was a deposit into the PayPal account for the defense and I think, like she did with all deposits, in an email saying thank you. You know she didn't know who it was, I don't think. And then Fran it was Fran and Fran had emailed her back and they started corresponding about the case and at some point Fran had said she wanted to do this. You know, for the longest time there was a defense fund and Henry Rollins was a big supporter. I think. I think you have a Henry Rollins story. I do have a.

Tony: 9:54

Henry Rollins story.

Rachael: 9:55

I'll share it later Later okay, and obviously Pearl Jam was a big supporter.

Tony: 10:01

I've got a Pearl Jam story too, but I'll share that later.

Rachael: 10:03

Johnny Zepp. I mean we've seen all these people you know talk about the West Memphis Three. And then Fran wanted to get involved. Fran and Peter and they it was my understanding. What I was told is that they wanted to fund the investigation, help fund the investigation, and they wanted Ron to do it. They had seen, I guess, the documentaries or read the book and just really felt like Ron would be the best person. And I know I don't disagree with that whatsoever. I think that the original investigator on a case, if it was investigated, we know, know the case, you know, and it's really good to have our input. It might not be good to be to always have us be the lead. I will say that there are times that I think it's great to have other investigators look at it, because you do need other people's input. I mean you, you might have your own tunnel vision, so but it is really, it's a good resource to have that old, the older investigator involved in some way, because they have that background with the case.

Tony: 11:08

Yeah, not everything is in the files right. There's a lot of tribal knowledge, we call that.

Rachael: 11:13

Yeah, well, you know, and then Ron had interviewed all the people as well, so he had relationships.

Rachael: 11:18

He had relationships. If you were to go and ask him, you know, can you tell me about Gnarly and Hollingsworth? Or, you know, lg or whoever I mean he could tell you about the Hollingsworths, right? I mean, he lived it, he saw it, he was there and so that is. You know, there's a huge advantage to having that. So they wanted Ron back on the case. But Ron took me into the conference room and said you know, I've had this case for years now. It definitely needs fresh eyes and I want you to be involved in this and help me with this.

Rachael: 11:52

So I did, and the first thing I did was obviously review all the materials. So this would have been November of 2005 2005 and it was a great bit of material. As you can imagine, this case is huge. I mean, back then it was huge. I mean everyone sees what's even published online. There's the catlion site, which has a lot of the discovery material. I wouldn't even say that probably has everything. I have no idea anymore what's in the discovery material. I left Inquisitor in 2008. And all those files, I imagine, are still there. So I don't have access to the original discovery anymore. So I go to Calhoun quite a bit when I want to see something, but I would not say that everything is there. So I went through all the materials. Well, first he told me I needed to. He wanted me to read Blood of Innocence, he wanted me to read Devil's Knot and he wanted me to watch the documentaries. So I did that and then went through the discovery material.

Rachael: 12:55

By January of 2006, I had put together a list of tasks on the case and then began working it. So when? So the task list? I want to talk a little bit about that. So when I started, an inquisitor, ron was doing something called discovery reviews. So at that time this would have been when I started. It was, you know, 1999. He would get all this paper back then, really just mostly paper discovery all these police reports, witness statements, but it was all paper. So he would literally bait, stamp all of it and then kind of go through it and do a discovery review which I thought honestly was not that and then kind of go through it and do a discovery review which I thought honestly was not that and then put this document together and then go into the field and work it. I thought that that was not really a good working document, right. So I changed, because you're really just taking out with you a document that is a review a regurgitation of another document, right.

Rachael: 14:01

So I started changing that into a task list. So I would go through the discovery material and put together, I would review it, and I still, to this day, do it this way. I review all the material, paper material first, and then it type nothing. I just read through it and then go back. So at this point I've got in my mind an idea of what the issues are with the case and so I'll put together a list, I'll do a summary of what the fact, what the state says, the facts are first specific actionable items right and then a list of people to interview where they might be, a summary of what they've said and then a whole section on things I immediately notice we don't have.

Rachael: 14:46

So if it's a shooting case, there should be a ballistics report of how many casings were found Were they all similar casings? And if we don't have the ballistics report, well, are the casings being tested? So it's like we don't have this, we don't have this. So I put that all in one document and that is my working document for the case, so that when I go into the field to try to talk to people or to even talk to the attorneys later about the case and meetings, I have that and I can refer to it and be knowledgeable about what I'm talking about and work it. So I did that on Damien's case, right, and that was in January of 2006. And I remember actually not long after I did that initial task list, I went to a conference in San Antonio, texas.

Tony: 15:42

You traveled a lot back then I did.

Rachael: 15:45

I did when I worked for Inquisitor. I traveled quite a bit. I went to a conference and I ran into one of Jason's attorneys, jason Baldwin, and he was at the conference and I was approaching him. Let him know who I am. I'd heard about him, I had not met him yet and wanted to talk to him a little bit about the task list, and he was not at all complimentary about my task list.

Rachael: 16:10

Um he, was um, um, I think he made I don't remember what the actual comment was but basically he essentially said that it was not thinking out of the box enough. Right, and I walked away from that meeting feeling obviously deflated and embarrassed. But also what I learned, and he was 100% right. Was he.

Rachael: 16:39

This case was not. So when you typically work a post-conviction case, you will approach it from looking at the trial and what was done at the trial and trying to attack each of those things. Is there a way to attack or show what happened at the trials wasn't correct or the witnesses were faulty, or you know, whatever happened at trial is your main focus. But this case was not your typical post-conviction case. I mean, this case was way beyond that and I needed to start thinking outside the box, and that is something that I mean it took. I learned that lesson from talking to him that I needed to do that more and that it was okay to do that more.

Tony: 17:20

So what does that mean for a criminal defense investigation to think outside the box?

Rachael: 17:25

To consider all options right. Don't just think about you know. Well, let's say, take, for instance, at Damien's case at trial, you know there were certain people testified. You had the Hollingsworths, so you had people testified, you had the Hollingsworth's you had, so you had these whole sections of the Hollingsworth investigation. The softball girls um, obviously, jesse, miss Kelly's confession wasn't supposed to be considered, although we know that there were. There was consideration of it in jury deliberations that alone should have been enough right, you had the alibis right.

Rachael: 17:58

So there's all these sections of investigation that you go into, but also you have what else was happening. Who, obviously, who else could have done it? Bojangles well, yeah, I mean, he was an obvious, I think he was definitely in the original task list.

Rachael: 18:16

So, but no, I really just needed to think outside the box and be bigger in my thinking period. So I kind of take that lesson. I've taken that lesson with me since that day in all of the things that I do. So I thank you. You know, mr Phillips Warren, for criticizing my original task list. Yeah, he's still one of the main attorneys for Jason.

Tony: 18:43

Oh nice.

Rachael: 18:44

So thanks.

Tony: 18:46

So you made a task list, I did yes, and now you're thinking outside the box what comes next?

Rachael: 18:52

Well, you know, you have this task list and then we have meetings about the task list too. I mean, I had his input, but then also I had the attorneys I was working for input and fran and peter fran was very, very involved to. I mean, I feel like that is minimizing fran, the movie producer statement yes, fran walsh interesting.

Tony: 19:10

So is fran any good at leading a criminal defense investigation? Oh my god, she's, brilliant really it was amazing talk about someone who's constantly thinking outside the box.

Rachael: 19:20

She was.

Tony: 19:20

Tell me about that.

Rachael: 19:22

Well, she was intimately involved in what we were doing, and so every and she's in New Zealand at this time. She's in New Zealand, so a different time zone, obviously. So I would come in to my office almost daily and have emails from Fran about what about this, what about this? You know, and just it was amazing really to have that kind of, and they were good emails.

Rachael: 19:47

Yeah, up to that point really, the only collaboration that I was having with people ever on any of my investigations would be with Ron and the attorneys I was working with locally or on whatever other cases I was working on in the office at Inquisitor. At that time it was Glory and she was our mitigation specialist, and Glory Shuttles also worked on Damien's case pre-trial and there might have been one other. Kelly might have been one other. Kelly might have been working. You remember Kelly? I remember her name.

Rachael: 20:19

Yeah, she might have been working there then as well. Yeah, so really there wasn't really anyone else to collaborate with and just to have someone as brilliant as Fran was, and then Lori as well, you know, was this very team approach it was a good team. Yes, and that was refreshing and awesome.

Tony: 20:44

Yeah, yeah, good teams are amazing.

Rachael: 20:47

Yes, because I've been on some not-so-good teams over the years too, so it is good. I mean, I've actually had the privilege of working with some really awesome people. You know when I so when I left this is off West Memphis three case, but when I left, ron, that didn't end well initially.

Tony: 21:10

We'll talk about that later.

Rachael: 21:11

Yeah, yeah and I don't really want to go into it that much, but I there were, it was was. It's a small world.

Tony: 21:22

private investigation in memphis in particular, and how many people do this work?

Rachael: 21:26

well, at that time it was really, you know, ron, and there's a man named clark chapman who I great friends with. Love, clark, um, I think yeah, he was definitely doing it. Back then there was maybe one other that was doing criminal defense work you know, there are investigators. That do you know other subrogation and surveillance, things like that.

Rachael: 21:47

Right, no, doing criminal defense. It's a very small world. So when I left, you know, I had no idea if anyone was going to want to use me, you know. So I mean, who is is everyone? Is anyone going to be brave enough really to say, because everyone loved Ron, you know, I didn't know anyone who didn't like Ron. So, you know, is anyone going to try to want to use me as an investigator? And they were.

Tony: 22:15

Spoiler alert they did, they did.

Rachael: 22:17

Right, yes, they did, which I was grateful for.

Tony: 22:21

Let's talk about how useful I was to you in those very early days.

Rachael: 22:27

Oh God.

Tony: 22:29

I mean, we had two kids Sometimes.

Rachael: 22:30

I actually this is a really really good conversation to have, uh-oh, no, I mean, there is no way I would have been able to do any of this, tony, without you. I mean, we were young, we had two young kids and I traveled quite a bit. There's no way I wouldn't have been able to have this job with children.

Tony: 22:52

I was pretty much a single father.

Rachael: 22:55

No, I remember I would, uh remember I would go out of town, sometimes working, and I would come back and the house would be like completely rearranged, like you would move furniture and try to make it nicer, and I really appreciated that. I probably didn't tell you that.

Tony: 23:09

You were a pretty bad wife to me. I was, you were, but you're much better now. I'm so sorry you weren't thinking outside the box.

Rachael: 23:17

I was thinking too much outside. I was too my brain hurt.

Tony: 23:20

You know I'm kidding. You're a wonderful wife and mother. You always have been.

Rachael: 23:22

Yeah, but it was. It was. I remember I would go out of town on trips for work and I would buy the boys little matchbox cars and so they had all these matchbox cars and from all the different little towns I was in and uh, I remember I did that. I wonder if they remember that. We have to ask. I doubt it. Yeah, and where are those matchbox cars? Oh, we threw, those you probably threw those out when we moved.

Tony: 23:47

Yes, yeah, Do you remember Legos oh?

Rachael: 23:52

Legos Stepping on the Legos. One day you got so mad One day I stepped on my last Lego.

Tony: 23:59

You did and I'm like not anymore, sir.

Rachael: 24:03

Right, but yeah, no, back to your original question. You were amazing. You were my equal partner in this. You were going through your own stuff. I mean you were in school, I mean you left the day I gave birth to Jacob. I was kind of a late bloomer. You had a final exam or some kind of exam. It wouldn't have been final. It was October midterm probably, and you left to go take this exam while I'm in labor and your mom was so mad.

Tony: 24:30

You weren't in labor.

Rachael: 24:31

I was in labor. I was in the hospital.

Tony: 24:33

You were in the hospital, but you weren't like you know. No, because well?

Rachael: 24:39

you got back just in time. You got back just in time.

Tony: 24:42

Right, like I planned it.

Rachael: 24:43

Your mom was so mad, but you took that exam. What did you get on that exam?

Tony: 24:46

I aced it.

Rachael: 24:47

You did a good job. Yeah, yeah, well worth it.

Tony: 24:50

Thank you. You didn't miss his birth, so that's good. I pretty much saved the day.

Rachael: 24:57

You definitely saved the day. So that was my introduction into the West Memphis 3 case.

Tony: 25:05

Okay, that's a hell of an introduction, and then that was the beginning of the rest of your life, basically.

Rachael: 25:13

Yeah, I mean it's definitely been the most high profile case I will probably ever work. Yeah, I do want to talk about there is a certain time period in my career, my life, like 2010 to 2012. That a lot of things are going on between Damien's case, jesse's case had the Ricky Bell case. You know I've had in my career I have three clients who have received the death penalty of cases that I worked and.

Rachael: 25:49

I alone worked Right, and that would be Jesse Dotson, ricky Bell and Michael Rimmer Jesse Dotson, ricky Bell and Michael Rimmer and Jesse's case is on federal habeas petition right now, so I'll talk about what I can and he went to death row in 2010. And then Ricky Bell in Tipton County. He was sentenced to death in 2012. And then Michael Rumer I think it was like 2014.

Tony: 26:23

Okay, yeah, we got a lot to talk about. 26 years worth of cases, countless murder cases.

Rachael: 26:28

Well, I mean, that is just a really strange time period for me, Right. So around Damien's release, you know there is new DNA testing being done, there's new technology that's happening and some of this is happening right now, as we speak. Right now, the ligatures in particular that tied up the Stevie, michael and Chris have been sent off to Bodie and they are using this new technology, dna technology, to test those. I'm really hopeful that this new DNA technology is going to.

Tony: 27:20

Identify somebody.

Rachael: 27:21

Give us who it is. Mm-hmm. Because I've said from the I mean I knew, looking at this case and as I know with most of my cases, like science is the answer here right, interesting Science is going to be the answer. It is Witnesses are unreliable. Right, Interesting Science is going to be the answer. It is Witnesses are unreliable. I can't say that enough. Can we actually? Can we talk about that a little bit in the next episode?

Tony: 27:47

Sure, unreliable witnesses.

Rachael: 27:49

Witnesses' unreliability is actually, I think, a bigger point to be made. A podcast on empty nesting, right. I think we kind of work that in a little bit and solving crimes.

Tony: 28:00

I know that I'm hungry and I'm going to go make something to eat for dinner.

Rachael: 28:03

All right, well, this has been fun it has been good. All right.

Tony: 28:07

See you next time. Love you, Maynett.

Rachael: 28:09

Bye, love you, maynett.