Aug 22, 2026 · 42 min · 13 segments
This is a rewind episode - designed to bring new attention to the back catalogue of the podcast. But it's also something else. The audio you'll be hearing is actually a chapter of my audiobook for my…
Nicole EngelbrechtHostThe construction foreman is called over by the operator, his brow creasing in confusion at what he's uncovered.
Towing pieces of broken swimming pool lining away, the foreman tries to get a better look.
His eyes adjust, and he snatches his hand away as though the bones in the ground might come to life at any moment.
When I covered the Meadowbrook Doe case on the podcast, it was my first Doe.
If you consume any American true crime content, you'll regularly hear about unidentified bodies.
I guess this has to do with how limited our use of DNA identification has been in the past, and to some extent, how limited it remains.
Jane and John Does in the US are regularly identified decades after their remains are found through the efforts of private organizations partnering with law enforcement, primarily using genetic genealogy.
The terms Jane and John Doe have been used to describe unidentified people since at least the early 1900s.
They were first used in the British legal system when landlords wanted to take illegal occupants of their land to court.
They didn't always know their names, so Jane and John Doe started appearing in legal proceedings.
The practice was abolished fairly quickly, but the term stuck as a way to describe people whose names are not known.
In the true crime world, Jane and John Does are usually unidentified deceased people.
To avoid confusion, a descriptor is usually added relating to the place the body was found or an article of clothing that sets them apart from other Does.
It took me a little while to come to terms with the concept of covering the murder of a victim whose identity I didn't know, but this case made me think of every missing persons case I covered differently Those missing people could very well be a Jane or John Doe somewhere.
So while I usually prefer to cover someone's story from as early as possible in their life to the point when they become the victim of violent crime or an unexplained disappearance, in this case, I had to do the opposite.
I had to start at the endpoint with the acknowledgment of the victim's eventual fate and try to work my way backwards.
I did so in the hope that if I worked hard enough and had some luck at some future time, we might be able to tell the beginning of this victim's story and give her back her name.
The construction foreman is called over by the operator, his brow creasing in confusion at what he's uncovered.
Towing pieces of broken swimming pool lining away, the foreman tries to get a better look.
His eyes adjust, and he snatches his hand away as though the bones in the ground might come to life at any moment.
When I covered the Meadowbrook Doe case on the podcast, it was my first Doe.
If you consume any American true crime content, you'll regularly hear about unidentified bodies.
I guess this has to do with how limited our use of DNA identification has been in the past, and to some extent, how limited it remains.
Jane and John Does in the US are regularly identified decades after their remains are found through the efforts of private organizations partnering with law enforcement, primarily using genetic genealogy.
The terms Jane and John Doe have been used to describe unidentified people since at least the early 1900s.
They were first used in the British legal system when landlords wanted to take illegal occupants of their land to court.
They didn't always know their names, so Jane and John Doe started appearing in legal proceedings.
The practice was abolished fairly quickly, but the term stuck as a way to describe people whose names are not known.
In the true crime world, Jane and John Does are usually unidentified deceased people.
To avoid confusion, a descriptor is usually added relating to the place the body was found or an article of clothing that sets them apart from other Does.
It took me a little while to come to terms with the concept of covering the murder of a victim whose identity I didn't know, but this case made me think of every missing persons case I covered differently Those missing people could very well be a Jane or John Doe somewhere.
So while I usually prefer to cover someone's story from as early as possible in their life to the point when they become the victim of violent crime or an unexplained disappearance, in this case, I had to do the opposite.
I had to start at the endpoint with the acknowledgment of the victim's eventual fate and try to work my way backwards.
I did so in the hope that if I worked hard enough and had some luck at some future time, we might be able to tell the beginning of this victim's story and give her back her name.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
