Speaker 1: You are now listening to True Murder, The most shocking
Speaker 1: killers in true crime history and the authors that have
Speaker 1: written about them. Gaesy Bundy Dahmer The Nightstalker VTK Every
Speaker 1: week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and
Speaker 1: infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your
Speaker 1: host journalist and author Dan Zufanski.
Speaker 2: Good Evening. Acclaim journalist, podcaster, and true crime historian Kate
Speaker 2: Winkler Dawson tells the true story of the scandalous murder
Speaker 2: investigation that became the inspiration for both Nathaniel Hawthorne's The
Speaker 2: Scarlet Letter and the first true crime book published in America.
Speaker 2: On a cold winter day in eighteen thirty two, Sarah
Speaker 2: Maria Cornell was found dead in a quiet farmyard in
Speaker 2: a small New England town. When her troubled passed and
Speaker 2: a secret correspondence with charismatic Methodist minister Reverend Ephraim Avery
Speaker 2: was uncovered, more questions emerged, was Sarah's death a suicide
Speaker 2: or something much darker? Determined to uncover the real story,
Speaker 2: Victorian writer Catherine Read Arnold Williams threw herself into the investigation.
Speaker 2: As the trial was unfolding and wrote what many claimed
Speaker 2: to be the first American true crime narrative, Fall River.
Speaker 2: The murder divided the country and inspired Nathaniel Hawthorne's The
Speaker 2: Scarlet Letter. But the Reverend was not convicted, and questions
Speaker 2: linger to this day about what really led to Sarah
Speaker 2: Cornell's death until now. In The Sinner's All Bow, acclaimed
Speaker 2: true time historian Kate Winkler, Dawson travels back in time
Speaker 2: to nineteenth century small town America, emboldened to finish the
Speaker 2: work William started nearly two centuries before, using modern investigative
Speaker 2: advancements including forensic n analysis and criminal profiling, which was
Speaker 2: invented fifty five years later with Jack the Ripper, Dawson
Speaker 2: fills in the gaps of William's research to find the
Speaker 2: truth and bring justice to an unsettling mystery that speaks
Speaker 2: to our past as well as our present, anchored by
Speaker 2: three women who subverted the script they were given. The
Speaker 2: book that we're featuring this evening is The Sinner's All Bow.
Speaker 2: Two authors, One Murder and the Real Hester Prynne, with
Speaker 2: my special guest, crime historian, journalist, podcaster, and author Kate
Speaker 2: Winn Claire Dawson. Welcome, back to the program, and thank
Speaker 2: you very much for this interview. Kate Winkler Dawson, thanks
Speaker 2: for having me, Thank you so much, and congratulations on
Speaker 2: the Sinners.
Speaker 3: All Bow, Thank you. I love all my books, but
Speaker 3: this is probably my favorite. Really is.
Speaker 2: Now very very interestingly the situation that you are in
Speaker 2: in terms of having a co author for this book.
Speaker 2: So tell us about this unique situation and circumstances surrounding
Speaker 2: that decision to make her your co author. Tell us
Speaker 2: about Katherine Reid Arnold Williams.
Speaker 3: Well, Catherine is brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I think a poet
Speaker 3: who was a single mom and was raising her daughter
Speaker 3: on her own and made a massive amount of money
Speaker 3: from being a very well known poet, and then when
Speaker 3: she heard about the story, she decided that she wanted
Speaker 3: to write a book. And so I used her book
Speaker 3: really as a source at first, and then I thought
Speaker 3: she had so much information. I really want to make
Speaker 3: her a co author. And then I really felt like
Speaker 3: I needed to go back and kind of examine some
Speaker 3: things because I've never worked with a co author before,
Speaker 3: and I wanted to double check her reporting, which was accurate,
Speaker 3: but her motivation was something that I questioned, And so,
Speaker 3: you know, as I was working with her material and
Speaker 3: learning more about her as a person, I started thinking
Speaker 3: about journalism and ethics and why we're motivated to write,
Speaker 3: and how powerful storytelling is and how you can, you know,
Speaker 3: you can really frame a narrative from whatever point of
Speaker 3: view you want ruin somebody's life, you know, And so
Speaker 3: I really was fascinated by it. I think the most
Speaker 3: interesting thing about Catherine Arnold Williams is that she died
Speaker 3: about one hundred and fifty years ago. So I'm working
Speaker 3: with a co author who has a long since past,
Speaker 3: and I have a lot of access She didn't, and
Speaker 3: she had a lot of access I didn't.
Speaker 2: You talked about that motivation for her writing this book,
Speaker 2: and so you also go into her history and her
Speaker 2: background that would shape her to have this certain motivation
Speaker 2: for writing this book. So tell us some of the
Speaker 2: things about her life that seem to have shaped her
Speaker 2: and her motivation and her perspective.
Speaker 3: So Catherine was very religious. She jokes that she was
Speaker 3: raised sort of as a nun. Her mother died when
Speaker 3: she was very young. Her father was out to see
Speaker 3: all the time. He was like a sea captain, and
Speaker 3: so she was raised by some aunts who I can
Speaker 3: only describe as one of the phrases I hate the most,
Speaker 3: which are Spinster's aunts, who were very religious in an
Speaker 3: instilled I think a set of ethics in her that
Speaker 3: and morals and love of the Bible that carried her through.
Speaker 3: What it also ended up doing is creating a lot
Speaker 3: of acrimony for her between Catherine and any religion that
Speaker 3: was not you know, mainstream Protestant Episcopalian. I mean, she
Speaker 3: really was distrustful of the Baptists and some of the
Speaker 3: religions that were coming up, but she particularly had a
Speaker 3: disdain for the Methodists, which I always say, hold on
Speaker 3: to your hats, but the Methodists were wild in the
Speaker 3: eighteen hundreds. I mean they were not the grape jews
Speaker 3: drinking Methodists of today, and so she really looked at
Speaker 3: the Methodists and their tent revivals and their handsome ministers
Speaker 3: with a lot of disrespect and sort of like resentment
Speaker 3: in a way. So that background of rooted in writing
Speaker 3: and religion, and sort of the reverence for the traditional
Speaker 3: minister who was very solemn and formally educated. I think
Speaker 3: all of those things really came into play with this book.
Speaker 3: Because the book is centered on a young woman who
Speaker 3: met a minister at a Methodist church and ended up dead,
Speaker 3: and that's the basic part of the story and what
Speaker 3: happens to her. And I think that Catherine went into
Speaker 3: investigating the death of Sarah Maria Cornell already very clear
Speaker 3: that she was murdered, and I wasn't so sure.
Speaker 2: Let's go back a little bit. You talked, you just
Speaker 2: touched on the Methodist and Methodism, but you talk about
Speaker 2: Congregationalists and versus the Methodist which was considered a new
Speaker 2: Protestant movement and mistrusted by people like Catherine and many
Speaker 2: other people. So tell us a little bit more about
Speaker 2: what the congregational Congregationalists, pardon me, what their philosophy was,
Speaker 2: and what their criticism was of the Methodist church.
Speaker 3: Boy, I mean, you just couldn't get any more different.
Speaker 3: I think. So the Congregationalists that part of, like I said,
Speaker 3: the main stream Protestant church are the factory owners, the
Speaker 3: business owners. This is sort of like not puritan necessarily,
Speaker 3: but this is this is very much along those lines
Speaker 3: where you're very quiet, you're very solemn in church, you
Speaker 3: sit in pews, you have I mean, I would not
Speaker 3: say boring, but probably pretty boring. Ministers who are ministering
Speaker 3: to people, you know, in a very formal setting. It
Speaker 3: is not at all exciting. It is certainly not evangelical
Speaker 3: and passionate. It is reverence towards the Bible traditions community
Speaker 3: protecting women if whatever you agree with that definition. Their
Speaker 3: definition of protecting women was, you know, making sure that they,
Speaker 3: you know, stayed away from men essentially or at least,
Speaker 3: you know, the kind of men that their families didn't
Speaker 3: approve of. And then you have the Methodists who had
Speaker 3: only been in America for fifty years. John Wesley had
Speaker 3: come fifty years earlier. And these are the like the
Speaker 3: circuit riders if you're familiar with those at all. These
Speaker 3: are the people who, along with the Baptists and some
Speaker 3: other religions, would like go to the western frontier and
Speaker 3: minister to people there and you know, really try to
Speaker 3: convert draw people on. You have these tent revivals that
Speaker 3: are wild, lots of alcohol. I mean, I don't think
Speaker 3: they were all like that. I don't think that was
Speaker 3: John Wesley's vision, but they were wild. And you have
Speaker 3: these young ministers like the man at the center of
Speaker 3: our story. At for Avery, you have these young, good
Speaker 3: looking ministers who have not been formally taught how to
Speaker 3: preach the word. There are like women flailing around, making
Speaker 3: moaning noises, speaking in tongues. The ministers are passionate and attractive,
Speaker 3: and you know they actually there was a phrase I read.
Speaker 3: One academic wrote, there was a phrase literally called tent babies,
Speaker 3: babies who were born because of these tent revivals. And
Speaker 3: so this is very different, like I said, than the
Speaker 3: Methodists we are familiar with now. So when Catherine went
Speaker 3: to one of these tent revivals years earlier, she thought
Speaker 3: the serenic, the setting was very serene and beautiful. She
Speaker 3: was optimistic. And then when she saw all of this,
Speaker 3: which she felt like women who were very clearly being
Speaker 3: not attacked, but just sort of like there were vulnerable
Speaker 3: women who clearly couldn't protect themselves and bad things were happening,
Speaker 3: she was incredibly critical. So when this case comes up
Speaker 3: years later, after she had experienced this lascivious debauchery at
Speaker 3: a tent revival from Methodists, when this case comes up
Speaker 3: where you have a woman who's a victim, potentially a
Speaker 3: victim of a Methodist minister it just flipped every switch
Speaker 3: for her. I mean, it's like when you talk about triggers,
Speaker 3: that's a trigger for Katherine Williams.
Speaker 2: What was it about Catherine Williams's life that was controversial
Speaker 2: at that time and talk about she identified with Sarah
Speaker 2: in terms of the sense of independence that women were
Speaker 2: now yearning for and now had gained, and that's via
Speaker 2: the work that was available at factories. Tell us more
Speaker 2: about this.
Speaker 3: I'm a little surprised that Catherine was so supportive of
Speaker 3: women working in factories. It was dangerous. These are young
Speaker 3: women who were they could have been domestic workers, you
Speaker 3: know in big cities like New York at the time,
Speaker 3: or most of them came from more rural areas and
Speaker 3: they were given the opportunity to earn money, not much,
Speaker 3: but earn money and independence by working at these factories
Speaker 3: that were springing up in eighteen thirties. Jacksonian America. So
Speaker 3: you have places like Fall River, Massachusetts of Lizzie Borden fame,
Speaker 3: who you know, kind of at the beginning, they're the
Speaker 3: nexus of where a lot of these factories came from.
Speaker 3: There on the water on Biscayne Bay. I mean, there's
Speaker 3: just various you know city, Well, it's hold on, let
Speaker 3: me go back. It's you know, some of these factories
Speaker 3: are like they're on Mount Hope Bay, you know, they're
Speaker 3: all up and down the East Coast, and so these
Speaker 3: women are given the opportunities to work i mean twelve
Speaker 3: to fourteen hour days or more. It's dangerous, they can
Speaker 3: get hurt. There's a large machinery. They're weaving and looming
Speaker 3: and literally working in factories that have really hard equipment
Speaker 3: to deal with. And then they go home to a
Speaker 3: boarding house, usually headed up by a matron who takes
Speaker 3: them to church and there's a bell that rings for dinner.
Speaker 3: It's a very regulated life. So it's interesting to say
Speaker 3: independence because a lot of these women were independent, but
Speaker 3: you know, still not they were still told what to do.
Speaker 3: There was still a patriarchal society and play in all
Speaker 3: of these towns. But Sarah Maria Cornell, who hailed from
Speaker 3: the very famous Cornell family as in Cornell University. You know,
Speaker 3: Sarah Maria Cornell came from the or side of that
Speaker 3: family and she wanted more independence and she got it.
Speaker 3: She was very talented. She moved from factory to factory,
Speaker 3: but it definitely made a lot of people nervous in
Speaker 3: the society for women to be given that much free reign.
Speaker 3: Catherine Williams, as you had mentioned, was a little controversial.
Speaker 3: You would not think this was the case. But she
Speaker 3: had been married for one or two years to a
Speaker 3: man name Horatio Williams, whose ancestor was Roger Williams, who
Speaker 3: was a very famous, you know, person who came and
Speaker 3: founded Rhode Island. I believe they got married, and she
Speaker 3: was vague in her memoirs that I read, in the
Speaker 3: letters that I read about what was wrong, But it
Speaker 3: sounded like he got Horatio got involved with some bad
Speaker 3: people and made some bad decisions. He had promised her
Speaker 3: that they would move west, and then he kind of
Speaker 3: isolated her in upstate New York. So she divorced him.
Speaker 3: So this would have been something like eighteen late eighteen twenties.
Speaker 3: They had a little girl named Amy, and boy to
Speaker 3: get a divorce, you know, as I say in my book,
Speaker 3: to get a divorce in the early eighteen hundreds, he
Speaker 3: must have been bad. He must have been a bad
Speaker 3: husband something, because that was like an act of God
Speaker 3: to get a divorce instigated by a woman. And so,
Speaker 3: you know, she was raising Amy without really any resources,
Speaker 3: her aunts who raised her. When one died, she left
Speaker 3: her some money, but I mean that money was going
Speaker 3: to run out. I think she put it all in
Speaker 3: a house in Providence, Rhode Island. And so she was
Speaker 3: raising very successfully this little girl on her own by herself,
Speaker 3: simply through writing books of poetry. And she wrote a
Speaker 3: couple of biographies that were successful. So she is a
Speaker 3: successful writer when she takes on this story.
Speaker 2: Now you talk about the agenda for Catherine to write
Speaker 2: this book, and again, this is not something that she
Speaker 2: had in tended to do with her writing career at all,
Speaker 2: but she found herself with this story. Tell us about
Speaker 2: her agenda for this book, and then tell us about
Speaker 2: your agenda.
Speaker 3: Her agenda is mysterious. So she when she heard about
Speaker 3: this case, she was given full access to everything you
Speaker 3: could think of. I mean they she was introduced to
Speaker 3: Sarah Maria Cornell's family, who gave her letters between Sarah
Speaker 3: and the would be killer, between Sarah and the family.
Speaker 3: She was given access that nobody else had been given
Speaker 3: access to. So when I really started reading about this stuff,
Speaker 3: I thought, why did this happen? I mean, who was
Speaker 3: giving her all this access. She went in towards some
Speaker 3: of the factories, she met with a prosecutor. She I mean,
Speaker 3: she really had this incredible access. And so, you know,
Speaker 3: the more that we get into the book, the more
Speaker 3: I think. I was thinking to myself, Okay, she is
Speaker 3: a passionate advocate for women. And I spend the majority
Speaker 3: of my time, as I think you do, too, Dan,
Speaker 3: talking about men killing women. I mean, that is just
Speaker 3: the reality time, right, And so I think thinking about that,
Speaker 3: I was thinking, Okay, well, is she an advocate, an
Speaker 3: advocate for women, for female victims. Is she trying to
Speaker 3: get them give them a voice? And I think that's true.
Speaker 3: I also think that there were people motivated to hire
Speaker 3: her to write a book that was just going to
Speaker 3: gut the Methodist Church and everything the Methodist Church stood for.
Speaker 3: So as I had said, I really this book in
Speaker 3: particular really made me think about journalism and the biases
Speaker 3: that come with it. I mean, I went to a
Speaker 3: graduate school where I was told you have to stay
Speaker 3: I'm biased, no matter what I mean. That is just it.
Speaker 3: You are bipartisan, That is it. That is the way
Speaker 3: journalism is. I agree with that to a certain extent,
Speaker 3: but we're human beings. We all have things you know
Speaker 3: about us that that are going to influence us, and
Speaker 3: I think Catherine was heavily influenced. I think her reporting
Speaker 3: was excellent. But there's two parts to writing a book
Speaker 3: like this. There's the reporting research part, and there's the Okay,
Speaker 3: now you've got there's the you have all of this information,
Speaker 3: how do I craft a narrative? And I think that
Speaker 3: the way that she crafted a narrative is what I
Speaker 3: was struggling with the most, because her narrative from the
Speaker 3: beginning framed the Methodist Church as essentially evil and framed
Speaker 3: the suspect as guilty before he even went on trial,
Speaker 3: so that.
Speaker 2: Jesus as an opportunity to stop to hear these messages.
Speaker 2: Now you talk about this narrative that she's crafting, it
Speaker 2: seems that she's trying to counter what she sees as
Speaker 2: an inherent and prejudice already beset Sarah Cornell.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You know, one of the things about Sarah that
Speaker 3: Catherine I think tried to really kind of mold is
Speaker 3: her public image, because Sarah really was dismantled during these trials.
Speaker 3: I mean, her character was questioned, and Sarah did some stuff,
Speaker 3: I mean simple theft. There were some things that did happen.
Speaker 3: They were irrefutable. From my point of view, it's a
Speaker 3: young woman who did something stupid. I don't think it's
Speaker 3: you know, something ingrained in her to be a criminal.
Speaker 3: It ended up ruining her reputation. I mean, stealing address,
Speaker 3: you know, ten years earlier, follows you in this time period,
Speaker 3: from town to town, she gets a reputation. People see
Speaker 3: her with a man, they say, well, she's a thief.
Speaker 3: She's sleeping with him too. I mean, a bad person
Speaker 3: is a bad person, and that's it. And so I
Speaker 3: think that's the kind of thing that continues on forever
Speaker 3: for her. And when you read Catherine's account of Sarah's life,
Speaker 3: it truly is painted like everything that happened to her
Speaker 3: was preventable, that she did nothing wrong, that she was
Speaker 3: already cursed from the beginning because her father abandoned the family,
Speaker 3: and that was the truth. He did abandon the family
Speaker 3: and caused so much strife, and so you know, you
Speaker 3: see these echoes her Catherine made a bad decision marrying
Speaker 3: Horatio Williams, very bad decision, even though she got a
Speaker 3: daughter out of it. Sarah Maria Cornell. Her mother made
Speaker 3: a bad decision by marrying Sarah's father. It ruined that
Speaker 3: part of the family. And then you have Sarah making
Speaker 3: another bad decision, maybe trusting somebody too much. These are
Speaker 3: all involving bad men who are manipulating good women, and
Speaker 3: that is the theme that she sticks with with the story.
Speaker 3: I think, you know, I mean, it's it's I think
Speaker 3: she sees so many parallels between these various lives that
Speaker 3: you know, she gets caught in that narrow when she's writing,
Speaker 3: and it was really up to me to decide what
Speaker 3: was happening with that.
Speaker 2: Let's go back to the basic facts of the case,
Speaker 2: just so we can understand how she came to be
Speaker 2: in a position in fall River at the Deurfy Farm
Speaker 2: in December eighteen thirty two.
Speaker 3: Here are the basic facts of the case. Sarah Maria
Speaker 3: Cornell was staying at a boarding house in near fall River, Massachusetts,
Speaker 3: and she finds herself a few months pregnant. She is
Speaker 3: demanding money from the father of the baby. We don't
Speaker 3: know who the father is. They exchange letters, thank goodness,
Speaker 3: so we have that proof, and he never signs his name.
Speaker 3: She never addresses him by name. So there is an
Speaker 3: exchange of letters going back and forth where she essentially says,
Speaker 3: am I need money. I'm keeping this baby. I'm going
Speaker 3: to put the baby in it like a daycare while
Speaker 3: I work in the factory. I will make it work.
Speaker 3: But this is your responsibility. The letter writer says, meet
Speaker 3: me at the place that you and I have discussed,
Speaker 3: which turns out to be a farm in what was
Speaker 3: then Timperton, Rhode Island, what is now Fall River, Massachusetts.
Speaker 3: It's now a beautiful park in Fall River called Kennedy Park,
Speaker 3: and it's just actually a few blocks down from the
Speaker 3: Lizzie Borden house. So he says, meet me the night
Speaker 3: of December nineteenth. It's very very cold, and again, you know,
Speaker 3: I had to hire a handwriting analyst to figure out
Speaker 3: who wrote these letters, to prove or disprove who wrote
Speaker 3: these letters to her. But that's what draws her to
Speaker 3: the farm. That night. It is very very cold, and
Speaker 3: it's around eight o'clock. People who live near the farm
Speaker 3: here screams, and some were saying moans, some were saying screams.
Speaker 3: They're kind of going off. A couple of people are
Speaker 3: going off of their clocks on the wall for the time,
Speaker 3: and then a couple of people are going off the
Speaker 3: gongs of the dinner bell from one of the factories,
Speaker 3: summoning the girls home. So it's a little confusing because
Speaker 3: the time is off for some of these things. The border,
Speaker 3: the woman who runs Sarah's boarding house, reports that she
Speaker 3: never came back. She had told the woman and her daughter,
Speaker 3: I'm leaving. I'm not going to be out for very long.
Speaker 3: I'm She was very excited because she thought she was
Speaker 3: going to get some money. So the next day, John
Speaker 3: Durfy with the Durfy name is incredibly well known in
Speaker 3: Fall River, Massachusetts. Still and John Durfy is driving a
Speaker 3: team of horses back home and on a cart and
Speaker 3: he sees something in the distance on his property and
Speaker 3: he gets out and he walks over to a bunch
Speaker 3: of hay bales, huge hay bales, and there is a
Speaker 3: what's called a haystack pole which you would put a
Speaker 3: bail on hook it so that because this is when time,
Speaker 3: you know, it would not the snow and the rain
Speaker 3: wouldn't rot the hay on the bottom. So there is
Speaker 3: a woman, you know, in a long cloak and a bonnet,
Speaker 3: and she is hanging by her neck from a haystack pole,
Speaker 3: and clearly she is dead. It is a freezing cold
Speaker 3: night below freezing and he calls for help. And that's
Speaker 3: how we end up with this case. And the question
Speaker 3: is was she murdered or was this an act of
Speaker 3: self harm? Did she take her own life? If she
Speaker 3: were murdered, who did it? What happened? And I think
Speaker 3: it is confusing to a lot of people. One of
Speaker 3: the things that's so interesting about this case and about
Speaker 3: Catherine's reporting, is that various assertions people made. So the
Speaker 3: noto made at the top of the haystack that connects
Speaker 3: the rope to the haystack pole was a square knot
Speaker 3: typical is the only not I can do, square knot,
Speaker 3: And then the one around her neck is a clove
Speaker 3: hitch not, which is unique. And so there was sort
Speaker 3: of a case closed attitude from Catherine and a lot
Speaker 3: of the people there that there's no way that this
Speaker 3: was suicide because she would not be able to have
Speaker 3: hanged herself with a clove hitch, because you would have
Speaker 3: to pull it from both hands and have a certain
Speaker 3: amount of strength. I talked to a forensic non expert
Speaker 3: who said that's not true. She could have done it
Speaker 3: herself absolutely. So you know, it is looking at this
Speaker 3: case through a modern lens of what we know now
Speaker 3: versus what they thought they knew. Then. I learned a
Speaker 3: whole lot about eighteen hundreds forensics, which was interesting. I
Speaker 3: thought I knew it all, but I really didn't until
Speaker 3: I got into this case.
Speaker 2: What are some of the clues that these investigators find
Speaker 2: at that time? But more importantly, at the very beginning,
Speaker 2: the men that were assembled at the Derfy farm, they
Speaker 2: seem to have a conclusion immediately that it's a suicide,
Speaker 2: don't they.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I think that's partially the times. I think that,
Speaker 3: you know, there is not an assumption that this a woman,
Speaker 3: a person would be murdered. I think they just automatically thought,
Speaker 3: particularly a hanging, who would hang somebody? Why bother doing
Speaker 3: that as a form of murder?
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: Obviously the idea is that she was strangled from behind,
Speaker 3: and then her body was hung from this haystack pole.
Speaker 3: So I think that the very first assumption was suicide.
Speaker 3: Her doctor shows up, who lives nearby. He sees all
Speaker 3: of the women in town rushing toward the scene, and
Speaker 3: he says okay, doctor Thomas Wilburn. He says, okay, well
Speaker 3: I better go, and he goes and he sees it's
Speaker 3: his patient. He says, she's pregnant. He says that it
Speaker 3: was from a Methodist minister. He says, I think this
Speaker 3: is suicide. What else would it be. I mean, he said,
Speaker 3: I think she was humiliated, and he just said, this is, sadly,
Speaker 3: you know, suicide. It wasn't until one of the most
Speaker 3: fascinating things. I think. It was not until the women
Speaker 3: in the town were dressing her for a funeral, the matrons,
Speaker 3: and this was very common in the eighteen hundreds and
Speaker 3: seventeen hundreds, where the women in town would be in
Speaker 3: charge of stripping the victim, stripping the dead person, cleaning
Speaker 3: them up, washing them, you know, putting makeup, whatever they
Speaker 3: would need to do to prepare for burial. This was
Speaker 3: a task for the women in town, for the really
Speaker 3: upstanding women in town, right. So these matrons start to
Speaker 3: do that with her, and they see bruises and cuts,
Speaker 3: clear signs of a struggle that the men who gathered,
Speaker 3: as you mentioned, never saw, because they never bothered to
Speaker 3: take her clothes off because that would be improper. So
Speaker 3: it's these women who I end one chapter when one
Speaker 3: woman says to another, what do you think happened? And
Speaker 3: the other one replies, rash violence. They were the ones
Speaker 3: that triggered all of this. They saw the violence and
Speaker 3: they recognized it.
Speaker 2: You talk about the very quick funeral and burial. But
Speaker 2: then a person like John Durfey comes forward after this
Speaker 2: and has some startling information, doesn't he.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I love the heroes in this story. I mean
Speaker 3: I always start with the women. I look for female heroes,
Speaker 3: especially in stories of like I said, men of men
Speaker 3: killing women. But John Durfey was a big player in this.
Speaker 3: The owner of the farm, the one who found her,
Speaker 3: his brother reported, is a man named Williams durfy He
Speaker 3: reported to him, they both looked at the clove knot,
Speaker 3: the clove hitch knot. John Durfey thought it was suicide.
Speaker 3: At first. The matron, the women said. The matron said,
Speaker 3: please go to her boarding house, a woman named missus Hathaway.
Speaker 3: Go to missus Hathaway's house and retrieve clothes, anything, and
Speaker 3: you know that we can dress and also will you
Speaker 3: find contacts so that we can tell her family that
Speaker 3: she's died. And that we're gonna have a funeral the
Speaker 3: next day. So he goes to missus Hathaway's house and
Speaker 3: he retrieves a lot of stuff, including a trunk, and
Speaker 3: turns it all over to Matrons. The Matrons find the
Speaker 3: key in her pocket. In Sarah's pocket, they unlock the trunk.
Speaker 3: They start digging around. They find clothes, and inside a
Speaker 3: hat box they find a little note and it says
Speaker 3: something to the effect of, if I have gone missing,
Speaker 3: ask Ephraim Avery Reverend efhrom Avery right now. It sounds
Speaker 3: like Catherine believes that this was actually more innocent than
Speaker 3: we would think, but it does sound very ominous. It
Speaker 3: is a note that has echoed throughout the history of
Speaker 3: mystery novels, which is, if I'm missing, tell my husband.
Speaker 3: You know my husband did it? Like if I end
Speaker 3: up dead, this is what happened to me. So he
Speaker 3: discovers this clue. Well, the Matrons turns this clue over
Speaker 3: to him. He gets nervous and he starts doing his
Speaker 3: own investigation. He finds broken combs, he talks to some witnesses.
Speaker 3: There's a strange man that he saw that other people saw,
Speaker 3: who was very tall. So he starts investigating and then
Speaker 3: a couple of other people get on board with this,
Speaker 3: and that's when the investigation takes off.
Speaker 2: Let's Jesus as an opportunity to stop to hear these messages.
Speaker 2: Now you say that they launched this investigation. Tell us
Speaker 2: how that proceeds and what information do they discover in
Speaker 2: that investigation.
Speaker 3: Well, they start interviewing witnesses and they talk to Thomas Wilbert,
Speaker 3: who is the doctor, her personal doctor. This is where
Speaker 3: Catherine Williams and I disagreed. You know, I looked at
Speaker 3: the trial transcripts, which, by the way, I don't know
Speaker 3: if any of your listeners have read trial transcripts from
Speaker 3: the eighteen hundreds, but essentially there are like nine different
Speaker 3: versions because there are a lot of different court reporters
Speaker 3: who go and then they're able to sell those transcripts,
Speaker 3: and so there's like the prosecutor's version, there's the defenses version,
Speaker 3: there's a newspaper version. I mean, there's all these different versions.
Speaker 3: And so I'm not only double checking Catherine, but I'm
Speaker 3: double checking against each other all of these different court records.
Speaker 3: So doctor Wilbur had said that he had met with
Speaker 3: Sarah three or four times, and Catherine conflated many of
Speaker 3: these interviews in many of these meetings that he had
Speaker 3: with her into one or two as a way to
Speaker 3: sort of add the drama, I think to what was
Speaker 3: being discovered at these meetings, which was that she was pregnant,
Speaker 3: which was that the Methodist minister in question had tried
Speaker 3: to get her to take something called tansy oil, oil
Speaker 3: of tansy, which was a way to cause a termination
Speaker 3: of pregnancy. But also, you know, it could kill you
Speaker 3: pretty easily still can so I think that, you know,
Speaker 3: when we have these investigators starting to talk to people,
Speaker 3: the Methodist minister the Methodist church is very nervous and
Speaker 3: efilm Avery is informed that she is She has sort
Speaker 3: of post mortem accused him of, you know, being the
Speaker 3: father of her child. He says, I've never even talked
Speaker 3: to this woman hardly at all, and so everything spills
Speaker 3: out when you start talking to witnesses that you know,
Speaker 3: Sarah Maria Cornell worked for from Avery for a while.
Speaker 3: His wife abooted her out. He denies that that even happened.
Speaker 3: You know, Catherine starts investigating alongside other investigators and finds
Speaker 3: out that you know that Ephraim Avery was not a
Speaker 3: very nice person, and he would kind of persecute other
Speaker 3: people in the churches, various churches he went to. That
Speaker 3: he essentially talked Sarah Maria Cornell into confessing on paper
Speaker 3: to all of these sins that it doesn't sound like
Speaker 3: she did, and he did it as a way to
Speaker 3: blackmail her. So, you know, there is so much that
Speaker 3: happens throughout the investigation. The issue is is there's not
Speaker 3: a lot of physical evidence. You know, there's this this
Speaker 3: series of letters that I mentioned to you by an
Speaker 3: anonymous writer drawing her to John Durfy's farm that night.
Speaker 3: There are witnesses who see a man that nobody can
Speaker 3: definitively identify. There is f orm Avery's what I would
Speaker 3: just call a crappy alibi, which is he went on
Speaker 3: I described as a walk about. He just wandered. He
Speaker 3: went to Aquittic Park and walked around, and I mean
Speaker 3: just just sort of like nonsense where he really can't
Speaker 3: be a pin down during the time of the murder.
Speaker 3: And you know, then you've got like a broken comb.
Speaker 3: You've got a lot of interpretation that I think is
Speaker 3: just flat out wrong. Physical interpretation from investigators about whether
Speaker 3: or not she could have taken her own life, how
Speaker 3: much violence was there. There's no markings on the ground.
Speaker 3: What does that mean? I mean just stuff where I
Speaker 3: mean Catherine said, you know, there was a there was
Speaker 3: her personal handkerchief was on the Sarah's handkerchief was on
Speaker 3: the ground, and it was wet and it was definitely saliva.
Speaker 3: But then the doctor said it was tears. And you know,
Speaker 3: I talked to my co host Paul Holles, who's a
Speaker 3: forensic investigator, and he said it was probably missed. I mean,
Speaker 3: none of that is nefarious. So there's just a lot
Speaker 3: of I think there's a lot of things that they
Speaker 3: interpreted back then that I think needed another look today
Speaker 3: just to come to the right conclusion.
Speaker 2: In terms of motivation, though there is a there is
Speaker 2: evidence or at least witnesses to talk, especially her sister,
Speaker 2: about a camp meeting two months before regarding avery and
Speaker 2: the accusation by Sarah that there was a rape.
Speaker 3: Right Yeah, and that I sort of hinted at before
Speaker 3: because he had essentially manipulated Sarah into confessing to sleeping
Speaker 3: with a bunch of men because she had to have
Speaker 3: this certificate that said I have I am of good
Speaker 3: character to get a new job. He had said, you've
Speaker 3: got to leave Lowell, Massachusetts. I don't want you here.
Speaker 3: My wife doesn't like you. But she needed a certificate
Speaker 3: of good standing, and so he said, I will write
Speaker 3: you one, but you have to tell me everything you've
Speaker 3: ever done. And then he just sort of convinced her
Speaker 3: to add more and more things. This convinced him when
Speaker 3: he had this letter that at this particular camp meeting
Speaker 3: you're referring to in Thompson, Connecticut, that he could draw
Speaker 3: her out to he could kind of get her out
Speaker 3: to the woods alone. And he said, I have this letter,
Speaker 3: I'm going to destroy it. And he gets her out
Speaker 3: there and sexually assaults her, and that's how she ends
Speaker 3: up pregnant. Now when he is accused of murder, there
Speaker 3: is a lot about how old the fetus is. They
Speaker 3: did a I talked to a pathologist who said they
Speaker 3: actually did a remarkable job figuring out how old the
Speaker 3: fetus was based on the length and the length of
Speaker 3: the baby and the weight, and they were pretty spot on.
Speaker 3: And what it proved was that she was not pregnant
Speaker 3: before she got to this camp meeting, that she was
Speaker 3: pregnant after the camp meeting, and that because because those
Speaker 3: things are true, he is likely the father. So you know,
Speaker 3: there was a lot about that, with she being Sarah,
Speaker 3: being very clearly traumatized about what happened, but wanting to
Speaker 3: be unfortunately having to be practical and saying the doctor,
Speaker 3: her doctor said, you must force him to give you
Speaker 3: child support. You have to do that. She moved to
Speaker 3: be closer in Rhode Island, to be closer to him
Speaker 3: in the same state, so that she could legally force
Speaker 3: him to pay, and then she ended up dead.
Speaker 2: It's a very eerie when you read the advice by
Speaker 2: I believe it's doctor Wilbur to certainly go and confront
Speaker 2: this person and even threaten him him for exposure if
Speaker 2: he weren't to offer support. I thought, what a deadly advice.
Speaker 3: Well he did, I will say, to defend doctor Wilbert,
Speaker 3: he did say, don't go by yourself, but she did,
Speaker 3: and he I mean, I think you're right. I think,
Speaker 3: And also I would add her sister and brother in
Speaker 3: law said the same thing, you know, they said, you've
Speaker 3: got to get an attorney. They went to Rawson Grendel Rawson,
Speaker 3: her brother in law, who was also a reverend. He
Speaker 3: was a minister with the Methodist Church. He introduced her
Speaker 3: to an attorney, and the attorney. The attorney was the
Speaker 3: one who said, you need to go move to the
Speaker 3: state that he's in so you can force this. I
Speaker 3: will say this, Dan like. One of the things the
Speaker 3: inconsistencies that bothered me was that when you read an
Speaker 3: interview with doctor Wilbert that Catherine conducted, he does not
Speaker 3: talk necessarily about her interest in having the pregnancy terminated,
Speaker 3: but in the trial transcripts he clearly says she was
Speaker 3: interested in determining the pregnancy at first. Now for Catherine's
Speaker 3: narrative to work that this is that she is the
Speaker 3: perfect victim and he is a perfect monster. She had
Speaker 3: to really omit that, because that wouldn't have been acceptable
Speaker 3: in the eighteen hundreds to have this young woman say
Speaker 3: I'm going to do this. Now she changed her mind,
Speaker 3: particularly after he tried to get her to take a
Speaker 3: deadly dose of oil of tansy so that the baby
Speaker 3: would the pregnancy would be terminated. But that was another
Speaker 3: example to me where I just thought, Okay, you know, now,
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty five, I think it would be totally
Speaker 3: reasonable for her to have gone there. In her mind,
Speaker 3: maybe I should, this is too hard, it's the eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 3: But for Catherine it was not acceptable. She had to
Speaker 3: omit that fact or downplay it to a point where
Speaker 3: it was like, well this she wasn't serious. She was serious.
Speaker 3: She just changed her.
Speaker 2: Mind that Jesus has an opportunity to stop to hear
Speaker 2: these messages. You talked about that that was a contentious
Speaker 2: part of this upcoming trial. Let's get to this trial.
Speaker 2: The coverage and the defense strategy in prosecutor and pardon
Speaker 2: me and defending against the charges for avery from.
Speaker 3: Avery, well, these the defense strategy was disgusting. I mean,
Speaker 3: it was actually what a lot of academics have called
Speaker 3: the first instance of victim shaming in a criminal trial.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: And I'll start by saying this and why I think
Speaker 3: this story is important. I spoke to for the book
Speaker 3: a woman who is an attorney who represents sexual harassment victims,
Speaker 3: particularly at work. She's like really specialized as in employment
Speaker 3: and so so she's done many trials, and so when
Speaker 3: she reads briefs, when she reads evidence, some of this
Speaker 3: stuff now these days doesn't get in. But she I
Speaker 3: sent her the defense's arguments. Sarah was a thief, Sarah
Speaker 3: was a slut. Sarah, you know, lied about this out
Speaker 3: of revenge because he wouldn't give her a certificate of
Speaker 3: good standing. She killed herself. She took her own life
Speaker 3: to frame him. That's what a miserable woman this was,
Speaker 3: even though there's no proof of any of this. And
Speaker 3: the attorney looked at this and she said, this is
Speaker 3: what I read every day. She said, it's in different language,
Speaker 3: this is more flowery, nineteenth century language, but she said
Speaker 3: the essence is the same. You blame the victim. You
Speaker 3: turn it all on the victim. If Sarah Maria Cornell
Speaker 3: had social media in eighteen thirty two, they would have
Speaker 3: gotten into her social media and dragged it out. And
Speaker 3: I spoke to a defense attorney in criminal law firm,
Speaker 3: and he was a defense attorney, and he said, yeah,
Speaker 3: we did that all the time. That's your job is
Speaker 3: to figure out those holes in the victim's stories, the inconsistency.
Speaker 3: She can't be trusted. And that's exactly what they did.
Speaker 3: The prosecutor said, this guy is a liar, he's sleazy.
Speaker 3: There is no way, based on the physical evidence that
Speaker 3: anyone can say this is anything but murder, because remember
Speaker 3: the clove hitch. You can't tie a clove hitch on
Speaker 3: your own. Somebody else has to do it, which I
Speaker 3: know is not true. So, you know, there was a
Speaker 3: lot of from the prosecutor's point of view, there was
Speaker 3: a lot of physical evidence. There were witnesses, There were
Speaker 3: people who saw e from Avery. Was an unusual looking man.
Speaker 3: He was very tall, he was very thin, he had
Speaker 3: a pointing nose. He liked to wear very large kind
Speaker 3: of like top hats and big jackets. And there were
Speaker 3: people who spotted somebody who looked just like him, but
Speaker 3: no one who actually knew him. So the prosecutor had evidence,
Speaker 3: but I would put quotes around the evidence where it's
Speaker 3: it's really not enough to say definitively that he was there,
Speaker 3: whereas the defense said, is his alibi squishy?
Speaker 2: Eh?
Speaker 3: Yes, you know, he had a great marriage, he's never
Speaker 3: been in trouble before. He's a respected, you know minister
Speaker 3: in the Methodist church. There's no proof, and she's a slut,
Speaker 3: And that's really what it came down to. It's like,
Speaker 3: there's no proof she was a bad person. She took
Speaker 3: her own life because she was miserable, and that is that,
Speaker 3: and he's not the father by the way of the baby.
Speaker 2: You said, it did become a battle of the forensic
Speaker 2: experts at trial as well.
Speaker 3: Though, Yeah, absolutely, I think you have a lot of argument.
Speaker 3: I mean, we see this. I saw this with American Sherlock.
Speaker 3: I think I was with you for American Sherlock too. Yes,
Speaker 3: you know where you have people dueling experts. And I
Speaker 3: spoke to that same defense attorney my friend, and I said,
Speaker 3: you know, when you're hiring an expert, are you looking
Speaker 3: for the top tier person, the person with the most
Speaker 3: expertise as the MOA's letters after their name. And he said, no,
Speaker 3: I don't care if they have a minimum amount of expertise.
Speaker 3: He said, I want the best talker. I want the
Speaker 3: person who is the most convincing of a jury. So
Speaker 3: they had, you know, various experts on, various doctors on
Speaker 3: who talked about the length of the fetus she must
Speaker 3: have been pregnant before you know that, talked about the
Speaker 3: clove hitch, not where it was like. So the prosecutor said, okay,
Speaker 3: even if she could have tied the clove hitch, it's
Speaker 3: a specialized not where would she have learned it, and
Speaker 3: the defense, to their credit, called up people who worked
Speaker 3: with her at the factory and said, we all knew
Speaker 3: how to do a clove hitch, not that was part
Speaker 3: of weaving. But my biggest problem, I think with one
Speaker 3: of the defenses part of this is, you know, I said,
Speaker 3: I look for heroes in these stories, and I look
Speaker 3: for women who are heroes for me. The villain is
Speaker 3: also women in this story because much like what happened
Speaker 3: in The Scarlet Letter, which you know, Hester Prinne is
Speaker 3: the prototype of Sarah Maria Cornell. I mean that Nathaniel
Speaker 3: Hawthorne used Sarah Maria Cornell as inspiration for Hester Print,
Speaker 3: one of the most famous you know, characters who has
Speaker 3: been victimized over and over again. And I think, you know,
Speaker 3: you have these women, much like with Hester prinn in
Speaker 3: The Scarlet Letter, you have these women in Sarah Maria
Speaker 3: Cornell's case who are just crucifying her. It's awful, who
Speaker 3: are making up stories that were disproven about her promiscuity,
Speaker 3: who are making up stories about her suicidal tendencies. I
Speaker 3: think one of dan the problems with this book is
Speaker 3: it's really hard for me to figure out who to
Speaker 3: believe because I think Catherine is manipulating some things. I
Speaker 3: certainly think the defense is manipulating some things. It's really
Speaker 3: hard to know, much like in any criminal case, who
Speaker 3: is actually telling me the truth?
Speaker 2: You have you demonstrate, you say, one of the most
Speaker 2: disturbing parts of the trial, aside from the barrage of
Speaker 2: victim blaming and shaming that you mentioned, came when Sarah Worthing,
Speaker 2: a co worker, took the stand and claimed she had designs,
Speaker 2: that Sarah had designs on her own brother in law,
Speaker 2: the Reverend Grendall Rawson.
Speaker 3: Yeah, or Rawson. It's awful. Yeah, I'm sure that that
Speaker 3: was well. I know that that was devastating. You know,
Speaker 3: Sarah had a very close relationship with her brother in law,
Speaker 3: who was I mentioned, a reverend with the Methodist Church,
Speaker 3: and she was very close with her sister Lucretia, who
Speaker 3: was her older sister. But I think that there are
Speaker 3: enough inconsistencies that I don't actually know if anything happened
Speaker 3: between Grendall Rawson and Sarah. I suspect not, because she
Speaker 3: stayed with them for months and months and months and
Speaker 3: didn't seem to have any acrimony. I think that if
Speaker 3: they're you know, Sarah mentions a lot about gaps in
Speaker 3: their communication, and I don't interpret the gaps when you
Speaker 3: hear Lucretia talked to my co author about this. I
Speaker 3: don't interpret the gaps to be because Sarah was sleeping
Speaker 3: with her husband. I think the gaps were I think
Speaker 3: there was a difficulty about Sarah actually actually had stolen
Speaker 3: merchandise years earlier, and it had been a real stain
Speaker 3: on the family's name, and so I think that there
Speaker 3: is that sort of tension between the families. But when
Speaker 3: you know, there's a witness who gets on the stand
Speaker 3: and says that, I mean, god, it was awful. It was.
Speaker 3: She was saying that Grendel actually had preferred Sarah over
Speaker 3: Lucretia and just ended up marrying Lucretia instead, and that Sarah,
Speaker 3: you know, had carried on an affair with her brother
Speaker 3: in law, and you know, then Grendel has to get
Speaker 3: back on the stand at some point, and so does
Speaker 3: Lucretia and defend themselves to a certain extent. I don't
Speaker 3: know if anybody believed it, but that was the strategy
Speaker 3: digging up particularly women that was so disconcerting for me.
Speaker 3: These women who were so willing to throw her under
Speaker 3: the bus because her church told him to. I mean,
Speaker 3: I just could. I was it was. I was in
Speaker 3: disbelief with a lot of this testimony.
Speaker 2: Yes, you showcase or the book ends up being showcased
Speaker 2: for Richard Randolph's aggressive lawyering. To say the least, you
Speaker 2: talk about that the jury was out for only seventeen
Speaker 2: hours and came back with a not guilty verdict.
Speaker 3: Yes, I think that. You know, after all the digging
Speaker 3: around that I did, and I hired experts and handwriting
Speaker 3: experts and everything that I kind of uncovered, I came
Speaker 3: to some conclusions. One is that Catherine's motives were not
Speaker 3: benevolent necessarily. I think she really believed that Sarah Maria
Speaker 3: Cornell was a true victim. But I think that she
Speaker 3: sort of massaged the facts and manipulated the facts to
Speaker 3: frame her as as I had said before, like a
Speaker 3: martyr almost, And so you know, that made me distrust
Speaker 3: Catherine a little bit. I think Afram Avery was a
Speaker 3: complete sleeves bag. I think he was a total jerk.
Speaker 3: I think it's probably pretty clear that he murdered her.
Speaker 3: And you know, I don't usually mind spoiling books. I
Speaker 3: would say, you know that the handwriting expert that I
Speaker 3: hired said it's definitive. I think that he was the
Speaker 3: anonymous letter writer that drew her out to John Durfy's farm.
Speaker 3: So if you put all of these things together, he's guilty.
Speaker 3: Is he legally guilty? No. I think the jury made
Speaker 3: the right decision. And it kind of comes down to
Speaker 3: things I have said to my students for years and
Speaker 3: years and years. It does not matter what you think.
Speaker 3: It matters what you can prove, and that's it. And
Speaker 3: they could not prove that he did it. I think
Speaker 3: everybody thinks he did. I think he did. Certainly Catherine
Speaker 3: thought he did. But legally he was not going to
Speaker 3: be convicted. Now we would have CCTV and credit card receipts,
Speaker 3: and I mean, I think it would be a pretty
Speaker 3: different story. DNA, you know, all kinds of stuff like
Speaker 3: you know, forensic botany, there's all kinds of things that
Speaker 3: they could have used. But you know, back then that
Speaker 3: was the right decision. I mean, it was a frustrating
Speaker 3: decision by the jury.
Speaker 2: But tell us just briefly about Catherine William's legacy with
Speaker 2: this book. Pall River an authentic narrative before we talk
Speaker 2: about The Sinner's All about.
Speaker 3: You know, I think her legacy is has been lost
Speaker 3: and I'm hoping to resurrect it. She was posthumously inducted
Speaker 3: into the Rhode Island kind of writers Hall of Fame,
Speaker 3: which was amazing, and I think that as a guide
Speaker 3: moving forward, she her ability to fuse facts with narrative
Speaker 3: was pretty amazing. Again, you know, I was skeptical that
Speaker 3: I had to read through a lot of things, and
Speaker 3: I found some stuff that I didn't particularly like, but
Speaker 3: there was no doubt that she did a good job
Speaker 3: writing this narrative. So for me, her legacy is both
Speaker 3: negative and positive. I think the negative part of it
Speaker 3: is always looking for somebody's motivation. I tell my students that,
Speaker 3: you know, I listen to and consume a lot of
Speaker 3: true crime, and I think we're at an inflection point
Speaker 3: with this genre where you have a fiercely, fiercely passionate
Speaker 3: group of people who listens to true crime and who
Speaker 3: reads about true crime. Right they're advocates, mostly they're women,
Speaker 3: many of them are survivors. And then you have I
Speaker 3: can't even tell you how many yahoos out there with
Speaker 3: two hundred bucks, who can spew crap about victims, who
Speaker 3: can knock on doors and harass families, and who glorify criminals.
Speaker 3: And so Catherine didn't do any of that. What she
Speaker 3: did do was make me look more closely at everything
Speaker 3: I consume regarding to crime. Why are you doing this story?
Speaker 3: Why did you call it that? You know? How much
Speaker 3: are you talking about the killer of versus the victims?
Speaker 3: Are you like fangirling or fanboying over Israel Keys because
Speaker 3: you think he's a brilliant killer. So it was a
Speaker 3: stark reminder about thinking about why do we think this
Speaker 3: person is doing this? Because true crime is not sports,
Speaker 3: true crime is not sci fi. This is very very real.
Speaker 3: These are real people in pain.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I want to thank you very much for coming
Speaker 2: on and talking about your incredible The Sinners all bout
Speaker 2: two authors, One Murder and the Real Hester Prynn Kate
Speaker 2: Winkler Dohnson. Can you tell us about your podcast and
Speaker 2: if you have a website and do you do any
Speaker 2: social media?
Speaker 3: Sure you can go to Katewinkler Dawson dot com and
Speaker 3: get a little bit more information about my books social media.
Speaker 3: I'm definitely on it. Not on X but I'm definitely
Speaker 3: on Instagram, Facebook, and I have three shows. One has
Speaker 3: been kind of archived tenfold more Wicked I have twelve seasons,
Speaker 3: but we're done making that show. I have a show
Speaker 3: called Wicked Words, which is similar to yours, where I
Speaker 3: interview authors. And then probably the most well known show
Speaker 3: is Buried Bones with forensic investigator Paul Holes. He's the
Speaker 3: guy who helps solve this Golden State killer case and
Speaker 3: Buried Bones we look at old cases. I tell him
Speaker 3: the story and he tells me what they did wrong,
Speaker 3: what they did right, and sometimes he says, maybe we
Speaker 3: can solve this right now.
Speaker 2: Sounds great. Thank you so much, Kate Winkler Dawson for
Speaker 2: coming on and talking about the Sinners all Bow. Thank
Speaker 2: you so much. You have a great evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you to you.
Speaker 3: Thanks Dan, thank you