The Murder of Aubrey Nuckolls | Part 1 of 4 | 10/25/2022
The Murder of Aubrey Nuckolls | Part 2 of 4 | 11/1/2022
The Murder of Aubrey Nuckolls | Part 3 of 4 | 11/8/2022
The Murder of Aubrey Nuckolls | Part 4 of 4 | 11/15/2022
In this 4th and final episode, you will here a great amount of detail. So much that we caution the listener and remind everyone that we should always focus on the victim and their surviving family and remember that graphic descriptions are only given on this podcast to set the context for challenges in investigations.
For example, in cases where a body has decomposed, how are fingerprints taken? And if the condition is so poor that DNA sampling (over 20 years ago) cannot be made from the victim, are there alternatives?
We move through the autopsy findings, more evidence, prosecution and even an appeal.
And in the end, Paul Williams and Billy Richmond sum up most murders as attributable to greed, and the killer using a permanent solution to a temporary problem, destroying lives around them.
As always, thank you for listening and remembering Mr. Aubrey Nuckolls.
Transcript
Billy Richmond: But what we did have was, when we executed that search warrant, we found ammunition in the suspect’s area that I think later that the expert was able to say, “It is the same type of ammunition.” And so again, circumstantial, but it’s just another dot connected in this big puzzle.
Wendy Lyons: Warning: The podcast you’re about to listen to may contain graphic descriptions of violent assaults, murder, and adult language. Listener discretion is advised.
Wendy Lyons: Welcome to The Murder Police Podcast, The Murder of Aubrey Nuckolls, part four of four.
Wendy Lyons: Did you have the keys?
Billy Richmond: I think the keys were in it, if I remember right. The keys were in the car.
Paul Williams: The battery was dead, the vin number was covered and it had no tags on it, but I don’t know if the keys were in it or not.
Billy Richmond: There was a key somewhere in the vehicle, I think that we found, and that’s when they popped the trunk and cut it right back.
Paul Williams: Yeah, popped the trunk. And all you saw was just a big bed of lime. You didn’t see any body or anything else, but there were little holes coming out of the lime and out of those holes were maggots climbing out. And, of course, when they get exposed to light and sun, they go hide. So they were running right back down the holes. So we knew that… And this tells you that he was exposed enough, long enough in an environment where flies found him and laid eggs on him before he was packaged and put in the trunk.
Billy Richmond: So once we contacted the medical examiner, given the circumstances and the condition of what we were pretty sure were human remains, the medical examiner said that they wanted the vehicle brought intact with the body with all the lime and the contents to the lab in Frankfurt. So we called for a flatbed truck and they brought tarps, we laid tarps out, they pulled the car up onto the tarps and basically Christmas wrapped.
Paul Williams: Packaged it. But we didn’t package the car.
Billy Richmond: This car, yeah. And it was transported to Frankfurt, and we got to Frankfurt. Paul, myself and another detective, were basically giving the task of getting the body out of the trunk.
Paul Williams: That night, they got it hauled over to the lab, and they have a big bay area where they pulled it in and we knew the next morning it was going to be go time. So we show up and we all three-
Billy Richmond: We were told to wear old clothes. Our oldest clothes.
Paul Williams: Told to wear old clothes. And then we put on the white Tyvek suits, and then we put on the gloves, then we tape them off, and then you put on a mask and you learn quite quickly from Dr. Craig that the best thing you can do with that mask is take a little of this Vicks VapoRub and rub it over the nose.
Billy Richmond: And mint oil.
Paul Williams: And it was mint odor. So we would take that and rub it on our masks, and it barely worked. When we opened that trunk and started moving him out, we were heaving. When you got the lime cleared off and got the box out, then of course all the decomp just flowed like fluid out across the bumper and on the floor. When we finally got that all out and opened up and the body had decomposed to the point where skin was sloughing, hair was sloughing, which is characteristic.
Billy Richmond: Well, we put him on a cart down in this receiving area, if you will. And it took quite a while to get him out. I mean, like I say, this is a 240, 250-pound man-
Paul Williams: And we’re collected [inaudible 00:04:07].
Billy Richmond: … in the trunk of a car. You have to imagine he’s released a bunch of fluids. He’s swollen. Then you got the lime, and we really had to work at it to get him out. So we got him out, put him on a cart, put him on the elevator, took him upstairs. And if I’m not mistaken, they put about three different carts together because he had been rolled in the tarp several times, and then that heavy bailing wire put around him. So they first removed the wire and start rolling him, and we had to roll him and roll him. And finally we get him out. Clearly it’s a large person, because I think-
Paul Williams: Large male.
Billy Richmond: … at that point, he really didn’t have any identifiable features. So he was clothed. I think the clothing was consistent with-
Paul Williams: And wearing the same clothes that his wife last saw him in.
Billy Richmond: Yeah, what he was saw in. So we were pretty certain that this was our guy. So when they did the autopsy, the body was in a very decomposed, advanced decomposed condition. When they started looking at identifiable features, they wanted to… The quickest way is fingerprints. So I think by then we knew that we had, who we suspected who it was, we had his fingerprints on file to compare to. So from the AFIS section of KSP, which is the fingerprint people that are the best in the business, they had a tech there that was going to actually try and take ink-rolled prints.
Paul Williams: Yeah, they were going to take… They were going to try to rehydrate the fingers.
Billy Richmond: Right. But because of the condition they couldn’t.
Paul Williams: Our affirmative identification of him came from DNA. We ended up having to get, I think it was a daughter from a previous relationship we tracked down. And with her DNA, we were able to match that to the DNA that we found at the murder scene at the house. And his DNA due to the decomp was so far ahead that… And I think the DNA was much more limited in ’98 than it is now, so they didn’t have… I think it was all PCR back then.
Billy Richmond: Yeah, I think we were fortunate in that respect too, because ultimately we had the DNA stuff going, but we also had the fingerprint things. And I don’t think they completely identified all the digits, but if I recall on the fingerprints, they were pretty clear and definitive that a couple of the digits were definitely him.
Wendy Lyons: So you’ve cleared the fingerprints and you know that this is your missing victim. At what point do you go back to the suspect to get his rendition of who this is? Or does he ever tell you?
Billy Richmond: No, he never acknowledges or admits anything.
Paul Williams: No.
Billy Richmond: I don’t know that we actually had the chance to go back and talk with him-
Paul Williams: Yeah. He wouldn’t talk to us.
Billy Richmond: … because he requested his attorney and his attorney wasn’t talking with us either. So this turned into when it was going to actually go before the courts, it was somewhat of a circumstantial evidence type case. Fortunately we had some very, very strong circumstantial evidence in addition to some really, really good witness testimony that backed up a lot of other things. So I think, and I have to say it, this case was one that, to me, I don’t know that any of them are fun. Maybe that’s the wrong word. But it was a very interesting case. And one thing I always liked working with Paul was he was very detail oriented. And I think we had a lot of fine details that we brought to the table with this case. And when it came to prosecution of it, when you look at the totality of all the circumstances, there is no doubt that this is our victim, this is our suspect, this is how he met his end. This is what transpired and where he ended up and so forth. There’s a few things that we never really were able to answer.
Paul Williams: Which you have with every case.
Billy Richmond: With the autopsy, it was a lengthy autopsy. They were very methodical and trying to make sure that we found any and all evidence that was available to us. Like I said before, the condition of the body was very poor. There’s always a chance that evidence will wash away, certain trace evidence and things like that. As the autopsy progressed, once they started examining the body for actual features of an injury, so to speak, it became very clear that he had what appeared to be two bullet wounds in his head. So as they looked a little bit further, the brain, once the skull cap was removed, the brain was in pretty poor shape. It was obviously very decomposed, but they were able to, I know, find at least the remains of one bullet that were still in the skull. And that was collected as evidence as well.
Paul Williams: One bullet had penetrated the skull and not exited. The other one had hit the skull and actually skimmed along the outside of the skull between the skull and the skin and exited. So only one of them was lethal. Apparently, the way it was explained to me by the lab was he was in such a state of decomposition that the acidity of the body was working on the spent round. This particular round was a 22 caliber bullet, which was not copper jacketed, just lead. And the lead and the acidity and the decomposition had worked to obscure the rifling enough to where the lab technician at the state lab said, “I can’t definitively ballistically define that this bullet came from this gun.”
We later found the 22 that we believe was used. It wasn’t in the suspect’s residence, it was in the landlord’s area. There was a common hallway with a dresser in there. And when they found out he had been arrested for a homicide, they searched their area, which we didn’t have access to because the search warrant didn’t cover it. They found that gun and called us immediately and said, “We don’t know how I got here. It wasn’t in this case. It’s a hallway that’s open to both residences.” The gun had been cleaned. Matter of fact, it was so oily that I was amazed. It was like it had been almost dipped in a bowl of oil and dried off and put up.
Billy Richmond: But what we did have was, when we executed that search warrant, we found ammunition in the suspect’s area that I think later that the expert was able to say, “It is the same type of ammunition.” And so again, circumstantial, but it’s just another dot connected in this big puzzle.
David Lyons: Because I remember the mention of the 22 rounds, and I was curious if they came back like that.
Paul Williams: He never spoke with us. We went to trial. I cannot recall. I believe he got the death penalty, but-
Billy Richmond: I think initially he did.
Paul Williams: Yeah. And then, of course, there was an appeal and there was a flip on the appeal, and they had a retrial. And the retrial resulted, I think, in life without parole.
David Lyons: How long between arrest and how long did it take you to get to trial?
Paul Williams: Oh, I don’t think we ever got to trial less than a year on any of our cases. More like two.
David Lyons: Because the only reason I mention that, we’ve done some other cases where it seems like lately that the length from arrest to trial has just gotten longer. Paul, I’ll tell you what. You had mentioned before that you actually sat in on the appeals process itself, which is kind of rare. Do you want to tell us what that’s like with the AG’s office?
Paul Williams: Usually in our state, any witness that’s going to testify is excluded from the court until their testimony and then usually thereafter, unless they’re excused. In this case, so the only testimony you ever really hear when you’re testifying is that which you tell yourself. And this particular case, there was an appeal, I believe he got the death penalty initially. It was flipped on appeal and there was a retrial scheduled. The retrials are handled by the attorney general’s office and they assign a prosecutor. I was contacted by them. We sat down, had a conference, went through the case file, talked about all the information that we thought was pertinent. And I was a little surprised because when it came time for the trial, I was seated at the prosecution’s table beside the prosecutor. And apparently that is an acceptable situation there, because they need the investigator’s advice on things they may not be familiar with. So it was interesting to actually sit and go through a whole trial as opposed to just-
Billy Richmond: Yeah. Normally you’re sequestered, like we were talking about earlier.
Paul Williams: … getting in and being sequestered here and only your testimony, and then not knowing what happens till the closing.
David Lyons: And especially at an appeal hearing or trial, right? I mean, because we’re nowhere near those. That’s the AG’s office usually, or somebody representing it. That’s why I wanted to touch on what a unique opportunity that was.
Paul Williams: It was interesting. I really enjoyed being able, because that prosecutor was not as familiar with the case, to sit down beside her and, “Oh, wait a second, that’s not true.” Or, “Look at this witness’ statement.” I enjoyed it, because you could kind of direct what you thought the important things were. The attorneys, of course, make their mind up as to what they think is more important. But that kind of input on the prosecution I found interesting and enlightening.
David Lyons: So this suspect that’s in prison for this, what do we know about him? Did he have family? What?
Paul Williams: He is Hispanic, originally, I believe, from Mexico, been a legal resident for a long time. He was married to an American citizen. I believe he had children, I don’t know if it was three or four. They were divorced. I met her during the trial. A very cordial, very nice lady. She was there solely for the purpose, I think, of being able to explain to her children the circumstances that put their father in prison. So she was kind of walking the tight rope of, I know he’s your father, but this is what he’s done. I felt very sorry for her. She was a very nice lady. Now she had realized he was problems and moved on in her life, and they were divorced. Yeah, she was a nice lady trying to find some kind of answer for her children.
David Lyons: I think that’s one thing we see is on the suspect’s families is there’s a lot of pain on that side. Would y’all agree that-
Billy Richmond: Oh, they’re victims as well.
David Lyons: Yeah, exactly.
Billy Richmond: Absolutely they’re victims.
David Lyons: Yeah. And we see it in all… You learn to understand why they’re defensive. I mean, we would defend family members and everything. But I think what I saw more often than not is that once that initial shock was over, is you felt very sorry for them as the trial went on.
Billy Richmond: True.
David Lyons: Is that you would watch that family go through something because they’re about to probably lose somebody themselves. Not maybe in the same way.
Paul Williams: Yeah.
Billy Richmond: Yeah. The ramifications of what these people do, we saw it over and over and it always occurred to me and somebody made this statement, it wasn’t something I’d come up with, but it really stuck with me. A lot of times the action of these people are a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
David Lyons: Isn’t that true?
Billy Richmond: And in this, I think it’s very true. Whether this was over the actual money, whether this was over a few pounds of marijuana or what have you, none of that would’ve been life ending for either of them, regardless of the outcome of what their disagreement was. The actions of this suspect or defendant, they were very finalizing-
David Lyons: Very much so-
Billy Richmond: … in everything.
David Lyons: Yeah, that’s a good way to look at it.
Billy Richmond: Like we just said, this created multiple victims. The victim wasn’t only the decedent, it was that ex-wife trying to explain to the kids. It was the victims’ estranged wife, the friend that the victim had. And I should say, actually several friends that were, I think, genuinely concerned for the wellbeing and the whereabouts of this man during the investigation. So this was a very finalizing action that this man took that changed the course of many, many lives. And ultimately it probably affected him more so than anybody else.
David Lyons: Very true. There’s really no winners in this. I’ve seen so many family members on what we would say is the other side of that aisle that I’ve seen so many of them break down and cry for any number of reasons from watching a loved one finally realize that their loved one did this, and then maybe the fact that the loved one lied to them too. And I’ve seen all of it before too.
Billy Richmond: Yes, very much so.
David Lyons: Fantastic job, guys.
Paul Williams: She was not surprised when it all came out. You could tell that she was aware that the man had his faults and that she was aware of it. That’s primarily why she’d moved away from him and sought better for her children. But yeah, she was not surprised, but I thought a sad comment for those children to remember their dad by.
David Lyons: Absolutely.
Paul Williams: The thing about homicides that always surprise me, if Ruben Salinas had decided, oh, I killed him and I can’t make any money off of it, if he had simply driven that car up on campus somewhere and walked away from it, we would’ve never been able to link that car definitively to him. But his desire to try to do two things to turn that into profit, one is the ransom, and two is the trying to get ahold of the marijuana and turn it into some money. If he had just taken the body, put it in the trunk, driven up on campus, found a parking lot, parked it and walked away, we may have known it was him, but we would’ve never been able to make the case. The key to making that case was being able to link him to the car, deposited with the body in the trunk. It just amazes me that these people’s greed and foolishness is almost inevitably their downfall. Thank God for it.
Billy Richmond: And again, this is a case that’s 24 years old. Technology has changed. For the listeners out there who have an interest in this kind of thing and the world we live in is the details. You’ve heard several details of what we were able to derive from witness statements and different things and little small pieces that added into bigger things. Today’s day and time, we’ve got video cameras everywhere. We’ve got cellphones everywhere. And that’s on top of what people like the folks that work at the KSP lab can do through DNA, through the fingerprint evidence. This digital era, it’s amazing what you can shove into a computer and get a result from. So it’s just, I guess what I’m saying is as you’re out and about, you never can tell when a crime is going to occur or has occurred right around you. Pay attention to those details. If you want to be a part of the solution, make that call. Right now in our city, we’re really suffering with a lot of instances.
Paul Williams: We are just the guys who go lay hands on and take them downtown. The people that solve all the cases, it doesn’t happen without information from the public.
David Lyons: I was going to say, what I was listening to Billy and nodding about is that all these fantastic advances, and they are, stuff that us three didn’t have, we would probably maybe say we’d die for that. But you know what’s ironic is that there’s been all these advances and advanced DNA, touch DNA. We used to think that was something that George Jetson would talk about that, all these neat things. Cellphones, that’s almost like DNA itself, right? And if you look across the country, the solving rate is going down. And I think that despite the technology, it comes back to what Billy said is a community. Our first police chief, I used to say, I’ve heard him, he was quoted as saying, “You can only give a community the policing had asked for.” And at some point, people are going to just have to go ahead and come forward with information.
Paul Williams: If they want solutions-
David Lyons: That’s it.
Paul Williams: … it’s going to take them… I retired in 2010. At the time I retired, the homicide unit was running a clearance rate of 88%. At the time the national average was 66. We had a phenomenal ability with that unit and the people in it to strike up rapport and communicate in the community. That is for all the DNA, all the technology you have, it still comes down to communicating with people and getting them to communicate with you. And the DNA helps, but that communication and that cooperation is what seals the deal and gets them out of society.
So I don’t know what the answer is, but until we start communicating better with our police and the community and the community communicating better with the police, I don’t know that there’s going to be a solution that we like. Now that 88% I used to think was, it was above the national average and fairly phenomenal for our area. Now, I talked to this couple guys last week and we’re down around 40%. And the main reason is that the police have been ostracized and they don’t communicate. And it’s the community where these crimes occur that we need that communication from.
David Lyons: Absolutely.
Billy Richmond: And I think all these little cliche sayings, one that I always thought was very true is if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
David Lyons: Perfectly said.
Wendy Lyons: Well, gentlemen, thank you all so much for coming to discuss this 1998 murder of Mr. Aubrey Nuckolls. As usual, our thoughts are with the families. It’s never an easy thing for these families to go through this. So we do want, as we always do, to memorialize the victims. And again, thank you all for coming to talk with us and share this very interesting murder with us.
Billy Richmond: Well, thank you very much.
Paul Williams: Well, you’re very welcome.
David Lyons: Would you guys be interested in doing more cases?
Paul Williams: I would, and I’ll tell you, I think Billy’s case, Susan Staffel’s, I mean you’re talking about a serial offender that just because two victims didn’t die is the only reason you’re not a serial murderer. That is a very good cast to work on.
David Lyons: I think we just bound ourselves with the listeners that we’re going to do Susan Staffel. So thanks again, guys, and again, what a great time we had working together. Nothing ever matched that. Nothing. So take care.
The Murder Police Podcast is hosted by Wendy and David Lyons and was created to honor the lives of crime victims so their names are never forgotten. It is produced, recorded, and edited by David Lyons. The Murder Police Podcast can be found on your favorite Apple or Android podcast platform as well as at murderpolicepodcast.com, where you’ll find show notes, transcripts, information about our presenters, and a link to the official Murder Police Podcast merchant store where you can purchase a huge variety of Murder Police Podcast swag. We are also on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, which is closed caption for those that are hearing impaired. Just search for the Murder Police Podcast and you will find us.
If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe for more and give us five stars and a written review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you download your podcasts. Make sure you set your player to automatically download new episodes so you get the new ones as soon as they drop. And please tell your friends. Lock it down, Judy.