Murder In The Black

Between 1979 and 1981, Black children, teenagers and young adults disappeared across Atlanta. As fear spread, grieving families organized searches, challenged city leaders and demanded that the cases be treated as a coordinated emergency.
In this special episode, Steph examines the victims, the community’s fight for answers and the controversial case against Wayne Williams.
Williams was convicted of murdering two adult men, Jimmy Ray Payne and Nathaniel Cater. He was never tried for the children’s murders, yet authorities attributed more than twenty additional deaths to him and closed those cases.
We examine the Jackson Parkway bridge encounter, fiber and dog-hair evidence, disputed witnesses, Williams’s changing explanations, racial and political pressure, possible Klan involvement, and the differences among the victims that continue to raise questions.
Was Wayne Williams responsible for every murder attributed to him, only some of them, or was one conviction used to provide Atlanta with an ending it desperately needed?
Content warning: This episode discusses the murders of children and young adults, racial violence and disputed allegations.
Remember the victims as individuals—not simply as evidence for or against Wayne Williams.

On the morning after Thanksgiving in 2014, firefighters responded to a blaze inside a Fort Worth apartment. There, they discovered 31-year-old Ashlea Harris bound and murdered.
Ashlea was a hardworking store manager who had recently helped police identify two former employees suspected of robbing the American Eagle store where she worked. Months later, those same former employees—Carter Cervantez and Clarence “David” Mallory—were accused of entering Ashlea’s home and carrying out a brutal act of revenge.
But what were they looking for inside her apartment—and why did they believe Ashlea had it?
In this episode of Murder in the Black, Steph examines the events leading to Ashlea’s murder, the evidence connecting Cervantez and Mallory to the crime, and the investigation that uncovered what they came back for.
Follow Murder in the Black:
Instagram: @murderintheblack
Facebook: Murder in the Black Podcast
Steph’s Instagram: @stepher_
Email: murderintheblackpodcast36@gmail.com
Follow the podcast wherever you listen, leave a five-star review, and share this episode with someone who loves true crime. You can also become a paid subscriber and start your three-day free trial for access to weekly bonus episodes.

On December 6, 1975, Wesley Diggs returned to his home in Teaneck, New Jersey, and discovered his wife, Jean, and their four children—Audrey, Allison, Wesley Jr., and five-year-old Roger—shot to death.
There was no obvious forced entry. Nothing appeared to have been stolen. Neighbors reportedly heard nothing, despite more than twenty shots being fired.
In this episode, Steph examines the crime scene, Wesley’s business connections, the Harlem leads, three potential suspects, an informant’s account, and the controversial theory that Jean may have killed the children. We also consider whether race affected the investigation and why, after fifty years, no one has been held responsible.
Someone entered—or was allowed into—the Diggs home that night. The question is: who, and why?
Content warning: This episode discusses the murder of children, family homicide, gun violence, and descriptions of a crime scene.
Follow Murder in the Black, leave a five-star review, and share the episode. Paid subscribers receive additional cases and exclusive episodes, with a three-day free trial available. Follow the podcast on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook.

On December 3, 2003, federal prosecutor Jonathan Luna left his Baltimore office shortly before midnight—but he never made it home. Hours later, his car was discovered beside a rural Pennsylvania creek, with Jonathan lying facedown beneath it. He had suffered 36 stab wounds and cuts before ultimately drowning.
The local coroner ruled Jonathan’s death a homicide. However, federal investigators reportedly considered a dramatically different possibility: that Jonathan inflicted the wounds himself while attempting to stage an attack or disappearance.
In this episode, Steph traces Jonathan’s unexplained interstate drive, the blood found throughout his vehicle, the professional pressures surrounding him, and the competing theories that have divided investigators for more than two decades. The recently unsealed autopsy confirms important details about his injuries—but does it bring us any closer to understanding what really happened?
Also, before you go, check your feed for Steph’s special video interview with MD discussing the outcome of the Karmelo Anthony evidentiary hearing.
Case discussed: Jonathan Luna
Content warning: This episode discusses suicide, drowning, and sharp-force injuries.
Follow Murder in the Black, leave a five-star review, and share the episode. For exclusive content, join the paid subscription on Spotify or Apple Podcasts and begin with a three-day free trial.

Steph sits down with MD to break down the Karmelo Anthony evidentiary hearing and what Judge Chitty was actually being asked to decide.
This was not a new determination of guilt or innocence. Anthony’s appellate team was requesting a new trial based on alleged errors and constitutional violations connected to the original proceedings.
Steph and MD discuss the alleged “gentleman’s agreement,” whether the defense relied on it when making critical trial decisions, and why the defense needed to prove that this reliance affected the outcome. They also examine the due-process arguments, Anthony’s right to present a complete defense, and the Waller test involving the right to a public trial.
MD explains why appellate relief is difficult to obtain and why the public-trial claim may be the defense’s strongest argument. The episode closes with Steph and MD discussing why the trial can still raise serious fairness concerns—particularly regarding venue, jury selection, and public access.

Timestamps
00:31 – Steph introduces MD
02:22 – What Judge Chitty had to decide
04:17 – The alleged gentleman’s agreement
08:10 – Proving breach and prejudice
09:10 – How the agreement may have shaped trial strategy
17:54 – The constitutional arguments
18:49 – Due process and fundamental fairness
21:26 – The Waller test and public-trial issue
28:28 – Why damaging information may be inadmissible
33:14 – How appellate courts evaluate errors
35:11 – The defense’s strongest appellate argument
37:05 – Why MD believes the trial was unfair
39:00 – Closing thoughts and listener feedback