Speaker 1: Welcome to this week's episode of The Path Went Chili,
Speaker 1: and today it's going to be just myself and Jewels
Speaker 1: because two days before we recorded this, Ashley finally gave
Speaker 1: birth to a beautiful baby boy named Teddy. So a
Speaker 1: big congratulations to Ashley. And as you can understand, she's
Speaker 1: probably going to be off for a little while. We
Speaker 1: don't know yet how many episodes, but for the foreseeable future,
Speaker 1: it's just going to be myself and Jewels, and I
Speaker 1: hope actually has a wonderful time with our new baby boy.
Speaker 2: We're so excited for her. The pictures are just gorgeous.
Speaker 2: He's just the perfect little baby, and everything seems to
Speaker 2: be going just so well for Ashley, so please send
Speaker 2: her your thoughts and your prayers, and she's so happy
Speaker 2: to have all of you supporting her.
Speaker 1: Definitely. We've gone through her progress of her pregnancy the
Speaker 1: past several months. We even announced when she was pregnant,
Speaker 1: so I'm sure a lot of our viewers were waiting
Speaker 1: to hear this news. So we're going to follow our
Speaker 1: usual formula when Ashley's not around, where I share the
Speaker 1: details about a case I know well to Jules and
Speaker 1: she'll give off the reaction, and I'm presuming she probably
Speaker 1: hasn't heard of this one. But it's a unique case
Speaker 1: involving an attempted murder where the victim suffered so much
Speaker 1: brain damage that she could not remember the attack. And
Speaker 1: even though her husband would be charged and convicted of
Speaker 1: the crime, there's a lot of doubt about whether he
Speaker 1: actually did it, and of course the victim herself can't
Speaker 1: confirm or deny if it was her husband. So have
Speaker 1: you heard of the attempted murder of Nancy Drake?
Speaker 2: No, I've never heard of it before.
Speaker 1: It's a very obscure case. I once covered it on
Speaker 1: a Patreon bonus episode of The Trail Went Cold several
Speaker 1: years ago. And what's unique about it is that it's
Speaker 1: one of the most rare UNSAWD mystery segments that you're
Speaker 1: ever going to find. In nineteen ninety two, the show
Speaker 1: decided to launch a spinoff series called Final Appeal from
Speaker 1: the Files of Unsolved Mysteries, where they would cover a
Speaker 1: lot of cases where people had been convicted of a crime,
Speaker 1: but there was some doubt about whether or not they
Speaker 1: actually did it, and one of their last episodes was
Speaker 1: going to cover the Thomas Drake case. It was going
Speaker 1: to air in October of nineteen ninety two, but of
Speaker 1: course this was the presidential election, and for some reason,
Speaker 1: the episode got preempted and could not air that night.
Speaker 1: I think they were showing a presidential debate or something,
Speaker 1: and the series got canceled the following week. So the
Speaker 1: Thomas Drake episode never did actually air, and it pretty
Speaker 1: much sat in a vault for nearly seventeen years until
Speaker 1: I think two thousand and nine, when Spike TV decided
Speaker 1: to do like a reboot of Unsaw Mysteries where they
Speaker 1: would repackage like a lot of their old segments with
Speaker 1: new graphics, new music, and because Robert Stack was now
Speaker 1: deceased at this point, they had Dennis Farina film these
Speaker 1: all new hosts segments, and they decided to dig out
Speaker 1: this whole segment about the Nancy Drake attempted murder and
Speaker 1: aert on the Spike TV reboot, even though it not
Speaker 1: been seen in seventeen years. So that's how I got
Speaker 1: familiar with it. And it's kind of a rare thing
Speaker 1: where you can watch the Spike TV reboot version on YouTube,
Speaker 1: but the original Robert Stack hosted episode is still an
Speaker 1: a vault somewhere and it's never seen the light of day.
Speaker 2: That's so bizarre to think that it just sat there
Speaker 2: just collecting dust, I guess, so to speak. And then
Speaker 2: it gets a second life when Spike TV does the reboot.
Speaker 2: I remember that reboot and Dennis Farina right wasn't Was
Speaker 2: he on like NYPD Blue or something like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was kind of a character actor. He was
Speaker 1: a former Chicago cop who did a lot of movies.
Speaker 1: He was in and I think Midnight Run Get Shorty Manhunter,
Speaker 1: good actor, seem like a nice guy, but as a host,
Speaker 1: he was no Robert Stack unfortunately.
Speaker 2: Wow, those are big shoes to fill exactly.
Speaker 1: I could probably go on a rand about how terrible
Speaker 1: that reboot was, but we'd be here all night, so
Speaker 1: I'm not going to do that. But as a side note,
Speaker 1: I don't know if Thomas Drake is innocent and was
Speaker 1: wrongly convicted or not, but just imagine being in his
Speaker 1: position where you finally think your story is going to
Speaker 1: air on national TV and you're going to get all
Speaker 1: this new exposure and possibly get released from prison, and
Speaker 1: then it doesn't air and they keep it in a
Speaker 1: vault for the next seventeen years, so that it doesn't
Speaker 1: really help you too much.
Speaker 2: That's wildly disappointing. He must have been like just completely
Speaker 2: filled with hope to think that there is going to
Speaker 2: be this national audience for the case, and if there's
Speaker 2: somebody else who could be responsible, then maybe they're going
Speaker 2: to get some tips, maybe they'll even get evidence that
Speaker 2: could clear him. And then to find out that like, oh,
Speaker 2: it was preempted for a presidential debate, now it's canceled,
Speaker 2: so no, no one's ever going to see this. So
Speaker 2: it gets this like second life when Spike TV picks
Speaker 2: it up. So he must have been Florid.
Speaker 1: I think he was, Yeah, I mean he'd been in
Speaker 1: prison a long time at that point. But of course
Speaker 1: if he was guilty all along, then I guess this
Speaker 1: was a good karma for him that his hope got
Speaker 1: to put into a vault somewhere. But another interesting piece
Speaker 1: of trivia is that this case takes place in a
Speaker 1: small town called winter Haven, Florida. And as you probably know,
Speaker 1: my pet case is probably the Tommy Ziegler case, which
Speaker 1: took place in a town called winter Garden, Florida, which
Speaker 1: is only about forty five to fifty miles away from
Speaker 1: winter Haven. So you could say that I have a
Speaker 1: particular fascination for cases involving a band named Thomas going
Speaker 1: to prison for attacking his wife which take place in
Speaker 1: towns in Florida with the word winter in the title.
Speaker 1: That's strangely specific.
Speaker 2: It's very specific and so paradoxical that Florida would have
Speaker 2: multiple towns with winter at the beginning.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, kind of weird and the weird climate
Speaker 1: that they just seem to love having the word winter
Speaker 1: and all their town names. But you're going to see
Speaker 1: some parallels with the Tommy Zigler case because, as you
Speaker 1: probably remember, that was one where you had to rely
Speaker 1: heavily on the timeline and eyewitnesses who contradicted each other,
Speaker 1: and you're going to get that in this case as well.
Speaker 1: So that's another similarity.
Speaker 2: Well, that has to be the most prominent feature in
Speaker 2: the Tommy Ziegler case. I remember when we covered that
Speaker 2: on The Bath Went ChIL And Oh my god, Like
Speaker 2: what a tangled mess of evidence that is. It is
Speaker 2: just all these different perspectives, all these different kind of timelines.
Speaker 2: It's just at the end you're left shaking your head,
Speaker 2: going what happened, but I would agree with you in
Speaker 2: that I think that Tommy Ziegler was not guilty, and
Speaker 2: I'm really interested to see in this case if our
Speaker 2: opinions fall on the same side.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm anxious to hear your opinion after I've shared
Speaker 1: all the facts. But rest assured this one is nowhere
Speaker 1: near as complicated as Tommy Ziegler because that one was
Speaker 1: four parts, and I think we can do this one
Speaker 1: in two. Okay, So the victim is forty seven year
Speaker 1: old Nancy Drake who is living with her forty five
Speaker 1: year old husband, Thomas Drake. They've been married for nearly
Speaker 1: nine years. I know that Thomas had at least one
Speaker 1: previous marriage and a daughter, though I think they divorced
Speaker 1: when she was just a baby, so he didn't really
Speaker 1: have much of a part of her life. Thomas works
Speaker 1: as a truck driver's helper and is often on the road.
Speaker 1: So Nancy would completely devote herself to a local church
Speaker 1: called the First Church of the Nazarene, and she was
Speaker 1: very devoted to it because essentially became their secretary and
Speaker 1: would put in sixty hour work weeks which would keep
Speaker 1: her occupied while Thomas was away. And she also sang
Speaker 1: in the choir, and Thomas would help out from time
Speaker 1: to time because he was in charge of the church's
Speaker 1: sound system and would tape record the choir's performances. But
Speaker 1: on July the eighth, nineteen eighty three, in winter Haven, Florida,
Speaker 1: Nancy was working a very busy day because she was
Speaker 1: selling tickets to an upcoming concert at the church. At
Speaker 1: at around twelve forty pm that day, a local parishioner
Speaker 1: named Shirley Whitehead stopped by the church to purchase some tickets,
Speaker 1: and that was when she was horrified to discover Nancy
Speaker 1: lying on the floor in her office in a pool
Speaker 1: of blood. And it would turn out that she had
Speaker 1: suffered a serious head injury because someone had bludgeoned her
Speaker 1: with a claw toothed hammer, which split open her skull
Speaker 1: and left some serious head wounds.
Speaker 2: Yikes, Whenever somebody uses a hammer as a weapon, there's
Speaker 2: just something so barbaric about that. To swing a hammer
Speaker 2: multiple times, especially the claw end, to make contact, it's
Speaker 2: just to think of the level of anger that would
Speaker 2: have underscored that type of attack. It's just unfathomable.
Speaker 1: Exactly, and the hammer did belong to the church. It
Speaker 1: was found inside the room and had been wiped clean
Speaker 1: of fingerprints. And that's always going to be a source
Speaker 1: of debate because you would think that if this was
Speaker 1: a premeditated murder, someone would have brought their own weapon
Speaker 1: with them. But it almost seemed like this was a
Speaker 1: crime of opportunity where someone just had to grab the
Speaker 1: first weapon that they found at the scene and hit
Speaker 1: her with it, which could indicate that the crime was
Speaker 1: completely unplanned and may have been a crime of passion.
Speaker 2: And even if it was planned in that sense, it
Speaker 2: would have been planned likely by somebody who would have
Speaker 2: been really familiar with the church and at the church
Speaker 2: at that time. So if you planned it days in advance,
Speaker 2: you'd likely bring your own weapon. But if you planned
Speaker 2: it while you were there, say you had a disagreement
Speaker 2: with her, and you left the room and you went
Speaker 2: somewhere else to find a weapon, Yeah, I could see
Speaker 2: that that, like somebody would go looking for a weapon,
Speaker 2: find a weapon in the church, and then come back
Speaker 2: and do it. But I would think that it would
Speaker 2: have to have been decided that you were going to
Speaker 2: kill her like that day while you're there, And so
Speaker 2: that makes it seem odd that, like, if it was
Speaker 2: her husband, wouldn't you have brought a weapon?
Speaker 1: Well, you can look at it both ways, because Thomas
Speaker 1: did spend a lot of time in the church because
Speaker 1: he did construction for them. Sometimes he helped out with
Speaker 1: their sound system. So theoretically, if he planned this, he
Speaker 1: could have known that there would have been a hammer
Speaker 1: un scene. And we're also going to talk about another
Speaker 1: potential suspect who was a regular parishioner at the church,
Speaker 1: and it's also possible he could have been aware that
Speaker 1: the hammer was there as well.
Speaker 2: So you're going to tell me about the husband's alibi right.
Speaker 1: Yes, later on, Okay, So when they found the hammer,
Speaker 1: it had been white clean of fingerprints, and they also
Speaker 1: found out that the safe inside the church's equipment room
Speaker 1: was open and had been cleaned out of approximately three
Speaker 1: eight hundred dollars worth of cash and checks, which suggested
Speaker 1: that robbery may have been the motive for the crime.
Speaker 1: So Nancy was taken to the hospital, had to undergo
Speaker 1: surgery multiple times, and was left in a coma, and
Speaker 1: doctors initially did not expect her to survive, and they
Speaker 1: thought that if she did, she would be left in
Speaker 1: a permanent vegetative state because of all the brain damage.
Speaker 1: But after being in a coma for ten days, Nancy
Speaker 1: finally and miraculously, even though it had impaired her ability
Speaker 1: to speak, she was able to start talking again and
Speaker 1: functioning as a normal human being. So she did pull through.
Speaker 1: The doctors pretty much thought it was a miracle considering
Speaker 1: the severity of her injuries. But of course the side
Speaker 1: effect is that when she was finally questioned about the crime,
Speaker 1: she claimed to have no memory of what happened and
Speaker 1: no idea who attacked her because the brain damage had
Speaker 1: ruined her memories.
Speaker 2: Are you familiar with the Chris Porco case, Yes, I am. Yes,
Speaker 2: it's giving me those vibes like with his mom not
Speaker 2: remembering anything, or if she did remember anything, she didn't
Speaker 2: disclose it. And she was very much on the side
Speaker 2: of her son, even though he was convicted.
Speaker 1: Exactly and I remember she still supported him even though
Speaker 1: the evidence against him was overwhelming. And you might recall
Speaker 1: that many years ago we did a series on the
Speaker 1: murder of Dreen Picard, who was a bludgeoned to death
Speaker 1: in a laundry room with a lead pipe, and another
Speaker 1: victim named Susan affair. Tae was also bludgeoned in the
Speaker 1: same way and remain in a coma, but she did
Speaker 1: survive and wake up. But same thing happened. She said
Speaker 1: she had no memory of the attack and to went
Speaker 1: after her, and that would cause a lot of concern
Speaker 1: because a suspect would later go to prison for the attack,
Speaker 1: but a lot of people thought he was innocent, and
Speaker 1: his conviction was eventually overturned, and the surviving victim still
Speaker 1: cannot confirm or deny if this was the right man.
Speaker 2: It's such a catch twenty two because the trauma of
Speaker 2: it all to experience something like that, part of it
Speaker 2: would be a gift not to remember, but the other part,
Speaker 2: it's like you've got this blank slate where this memory
Speaker 2: should be, and you want to be able to understand
Speaker 2: who did this to you and the why, And until
Speaker 2: you put that piece of the puzzle there, then you're
Speaker 2: not going to be able to understand it all. And
Speaker 2: so I can understand that it's one of those things
Speaker 2: that just goes in a loop in their minds. Any
Speaker 2: of the victims you just mentioned, right, because how do
Speaker 2: you deal with not being able to who did this
Speaker 2: to you? And just knowing that there's somebody out there
Speaker 2: that did this, and like, what if they come back
Speaker 2: and finish the job.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that's what happened when Susan Laferte was interviewed
Speaker 1: on Unsolved Mysteries, because this was six years after she
Speaker 1: was attacked, and she said, I'm sorry, I still have
Speaker 1: no memory of the crime. I still don't know who
Speaker 1: did this. And it's the same thing with Nancy Drake.
Speaker 1: She was interviewed on Unsaved Mysteries nearly ten years after
Speaker 1: the crime, and she claimed that she still could not
Speaker 1: remember who actually attacked her. So you're asking about the
Speaker 1: alibi for her husband, Thomas, so he could actually be
Speaker 1: placed in the church. Shortly before Nancy was found, Nancy
Speaker 1: was planning to go home for lunch that day, but
Speaker 1: she phoned Thomas at home saying that she was incredibly
Speaker 1: busy with the ticket sales, so she asked Thomas to
Speaker 1: bring her lunch to the church, and there was an
Speaker 1: associate pastor there at the time who was able to
Speaker 1: confirm that they overheard this phone call and that Nancy
Speaker 1: did ask Thomas to come there. Thomas claimed that he
Speaker 1: arrived at around twelve fifteen pm. And left at around
Speaker 1: twelve thirty, and he claimed that when he arrived at
Speaker 1: the church, he saw a white haired man sitting in
Speaker 1: a green station wagon which was parked outside, and his
Speaker 1: story was backed up by another parishioner named Althea Toth,
Speaker 1: who stopped by the church right before Thomas arrived and
Speaker 1: claimed that she also saw this white haired man. So
Speaker 1: they formed a composite sketch for this man and circulated
Speaker 1: throughout the newspapers and asked him to come forward, but
Speaker 1: he never did and no one was able to identify him.
Speaker 1: And you could say that if Thomas was guilty, then
Speaker 1: he could have fabricated this white haired man as an
Speaker 1: alternate suspect. But we do have another independent eyewitness who
Speaker 1: confirmed that she saw him, so regardless of whether or
Speaker 1: not he did it, this white haired man probably did exist.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you've got to wonder why he's loitering in
Speaker 2: the parking lot. You got Althea saying that she saw
Speaker 2: him as well, So I don't think that he's fabricated.
Speaker 2: And I feel like if Thomas was coming to bring
Speaker 2: her lunch, maybe there would be evidence of lunch. But
Speaker 2: I also think that if you were planning on killing
Speaker 2: your wife at the church when she called you, you
Speaker 2: would think that, like maybe somebody else around would have
Speaker 2: overheard your conversation, so it would seem like not a
Speaker 2: very well planned attack since he didn't bring a weapon,
Speaker 2: and like, you don't know who overheard that conversation. You
Speaker 2: just called your wife said you were coming, and that
Speaker 2: people are actually going to see you there. So it
Speaker 2: just doesn't feel very covert. Either. He's not a very
Speaker 2: smart person the way that he planned to do this
Speaker 2: or he didn't do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that's what's very weird to me is that
Speaker 1: if Thomas was guilty, the only thing that would make
Speaker 1: sense is this if this was completely unplanned, because, like
Speaker 1: I just said, Nancy's original plan was to go home
Speaker 1: for lunch. Like she did not decide until the last minute, Thomas,
Speaker 1: can you bring my lunch there? So, as far as
Speaker 1: we know, Thomas had no plans to visit at the
Speaker 1: church that night. And it's not the safest place to
Speaker 1: kill your wife or attempt to kill your wife, because
Speaker 1: anyone else could walk in there at any moment. So
Speaker 1: it makes me think that if he did do this,
Speaker 1: it would have been completely unplanned and they just suddenly
Speaker 1: decided to kill her in a fit of rage. But
Speaker 1: the problem with that scenario is that there was a
Speaker 1: morning disc jockey from a local radio station who called
Speaker 1: Nancy up to discuss the upcoming concert that was taking
Speaker 1: place there, and they had a nine minute interview, and
Speaker 1: this disc jockey, Pat Morgan, actually recorded it and confirmed
Speaker 1: that he spoke to Nancy and Thomas sometime between like
Speaker 1: twelve fifteen and twelve thirty, and they played this recording
Speaker 1: to the police, and according to Morgan, he didn't think
Speaker 1: there was anything unusual about the conversation at all to
Speaker 1: suggest that Nancy and Thomas have been fighting or anything.
Speaker 1: So did they just do this interview and then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, Thomas decided to grab a hammer and
Speaker 1: then attack his wife immediately thereafter.
Speaker 2: And like, you can't make me believe that this guy
Speaker 2: who's just casually bringing his wife lunch, having this chill
Speaker 2: interview is then going to take a hammer and kill
Speaker 2: his wife and then decide to clean out the safe.
Speaker 2: I feel like if he decided, if he all he
Speaker 2: saw was read and he decided to kill his wife,
Speaker 2: would he really stick around to clean out a safe.
Speaker 1: That's the thing, like they're going to talk about how
Speaker 1: Thomas was suffering from financial problems at the time, so
Speaker 1: they tried to push forward the idea that maybe robbery
Speaker 1: was the motive for the crime, or maybe he took
Speaker 1: it to make it look like she was robbed by
Speaker 1: someone else, like it was just an act of misdirection.
Speaker 1: But that's the thing about this case is we have
Speaker 1: a very limited a window of time for the crime
Speaker 1: to have happened, because Thomas claimed that he left at
Speaker 1: twelve thirty and the parishioner who discovered Nancy's body claimed
Speaker 1: that she stopped by at twelve forty. So regardless of
Speaker 1: whether Thomas or an outside party did this, it would
Speaker 1: have had to have taken place within a window of
Speaker 1: only ten minutes.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just have a hard time believing that if
Speaker 2: somebody had a financial motive to do something that it's
Speaker 2: like killing my wife for a few thousand dollars, that
Speaker 2: it's probably in the church safe is the best way
Speaker 2: to go about getting money to solve whatever financial problems
Speaker 2: that you have. It feels like a bit of a stretch.
Speaker 1: It does. Yeah, and I still don't know if Thomas
Speaker 1: knew the combination to the safe. I mean, Nancy, for
Speaker 1: all we know, was maybe the only one who would
Speaker 1: have been able to open it. So if you wanted
Speaker 1: to steal it, how could he be so certain that
Speaker 1: Nancy would even open the safe in his presence?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think he could have known. It just
Speaker 2: feels like an active desperation by somebody who's very desperate.
Speaker 2: You're coming in, you're grabbing a weapon of opportunity, and
Speaker 2: you're brutally attacking this woman, and it seems like the
Speaker 2: primary objective is robbery.
Speaker 1: So they did eventually find someone who seemed like a
Speaker 1: potential suspect. He was a regular parishioner at the church,
Speaker 1: named Raymond Starr, because they found his fingerprints on the
Speaker 1: glass window on Nancy's office doors. Ordinarily, that might not
Speaker 1: seem unusual because he was a regular at the church,
Speaker 1: so he could have very well left his print at
Speaker 1: a previous time. But the issue here is that the
Speaker 1: window had apparently been washed that morning, so Edny Prince
Speaker 1: that would have been on there on a previous occasion
Speaker 1: should have been gone. Raymond Starr was forty years old.
Speaker 1: He still lived with his mother and sister, and when
Speaker 1: he was questioned, investigators noticed that he appeared to have
Speaker 1: scratches on his face, hands, and the back of his neck,
Speaker 1: and he did really come up with a logical solution
Speaker 1: for them. He just said that they were the result
Speaker 1: of razor blades from shaving and because he had scratched himself.
Speaker 1: Even though he was told his fingerprint was there, Star
Speaker 1: denied being in the church on the day of the crime.
Speaker 1: He provided an alibi, claiming that he left his home
Speaker 1: at twelve ten to run some errands with his mother
Speaker 1: and sister, and then they returned at twelve fifty, which
Speaker 1: would have been about ten minutes or so after Nancy
Speaker 1: was attacked. But when Star's sister was questioned, she that
Speaker 1: she had run errands with him at all, claiming that
Speaker 1: she last saw her brother at home sometime between noon
Speaker 1: and twelve ten, but did not see him again until
Speaker 1: after one o'clock, which, if accurate, completely discredited his alibi.
Speaker 1: So right in the outset, even though there isn't any
Speaker 1: direct evidence that Star did this, you do have a
Speaker 1: fingerprint belonging to him on the window of the office door,
Speaker 1: and he has a shaky alibi.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think the first rule of making up
Speaker 2: an alibi is you're going to have to check with
Speaker 2: the people who are supposed to alibi you out and
Speaker 2: make sure that they agree. And clearly he didn't do that,
Speaker 2: and it makes him look so guilty because why are
Speaker 2: you lying? And I'm sorry, razor blades were scratching your face.
Speaker 2: That's what accounts for these scratch marks, which conveniently are
Speaker 2: there after you brutally attacked a woman, and it seems
Speaker 2: likely that while swinging a hammer she could have clawed
Speaker 2: his face and his finger prints on the window. That's
Speaker 2: also really sketchy, given that it was just cleaned, knowing
Speaker 2: what we know happens in the aftermath, I mean, how
Speaker 2: many people would have put their fingers on that window
Speaker 2: in the time since it was cleaned. Does he have
Speaker 2: white hair?
Speaker 1: He doesn't as far as I know. So we do
Speaker 1: have two alternate suspects. We have the white haired man
Speaker 1: and Raymond Star. I mean, we have witnesses who could
Speaker 1: place the white haired man near the church, but no
Speaker 1: witnesses who saw Star at the church. So there really
Speaker 1: isn't enough evidence to make an arrest. I know that
Speaker 1: when Unsolved Mysteries covered this case, they referred to him
Speaker 1: as a former mental patient, but I do think that
Speaker 1: was blown out of proportion because I did some further
Speaker 1: research and it turned out that Star Yes had spent
Speaker 1: six months in a mental institution when he was nineteen
Speaker 1: years old, but that was twenty one years before this crime,
Speaker 1: and he checked in because he had a nervous breakdown,
Speaker 1: and he really, as far as I can tell, did
Speaker 1: not have any known history of violence. So just because
Speaker 1: he spent time in a mental health facility does not
Speaker 1: necessarily mean that he's going to attack someone with a clawhammer.
Speaker 2: Just a well adjusted guy that lives with his mom.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's true. He was forty years old in living
Speaker 1: with his mother, so I don't think he was particularly
Speaker 1: well adjusted. But they never did prove that he was violent,
Speaker 1: so I guess that's why the cops were reluctant to
Speaker 1: move in on him. So you might be wondering, with
Speaker 1: all these alternate suspects, why they started looking at Thomas.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I actually I'm really curious and why they started
Speaker 2: looking at Thomas.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, let's start by talking about the weak evidence
Speaker 1: against him. It doesn't look like they were looking at
Speaker 1: him at first, But three weeks after the attack, there
Speaker 1: was a police officer named Nancy Hutzel, who was guarding
Speaker 1: Nancy's room, and she overheard an argument between Nancy and
Speaker 1: Thomas where Nancy said she wanted to go home, but
Speaker 1: Thomas said that she couldn't do that without the doctor's permission,
Speaker 1: and this caused Nancy to become angry and accuse Thomas
Speaker 1: of not caring about her. Before she said the line quote,
Speaker 1: how would you like it if I hit you on
Speaker 1: your habit? And during this time period, because Nancy still
Speaker 1: had these brain injuries, she was still learning how to
Speaker 1: speak again and would sometimes use the wrong words, so
Speaker 1: they speculated that she meant to say, how would you
Speaker 1: like it if I hit you on your head? But
Speaker 1: instead she used the word habit because she was still
Speaker 1: disoriented and confused. But Sergeant Hutsell thought that, I guess
Speaker 1: it all depends on the tone, because if she said
Speaker 1: how would I like it if I hit you on
Speaker 1: your habit, then it doesn't mean anything. But if she said,
Speaker 1: how would you like it if I hit you on
Speaker 1: your habit meaning head, Sergeant's Hustle took that as a
Speaker 1: sign saying that she was accusing Thomas of hitting her
Speaker 1: on her head beforehand, and that she said she was
Speaker 1: going to do the same thing as him, So she
Speaker 1: somehow took this as a sign that she was accusing
Speaker 1: her husband of attacking her, and once she shared this
Speaker 1: information with her supervisor, they decided to put Thomas under
Speaker 1: twenty four hour surveillance and investigate him as a potential suspect.
Speaker 3: Again, this feelsiest stretch.
Speaker 2: I think if I heard an argument like that, this
Speaker 2: is somebody who's clearly had traumatic brain injuries. She's not
Speaker 2: speaking in the way that she typically would, probably not
Speaker 2: able to form sentences and thoughts in that way, and
Speaker 2: is probably having to do a great deal of rehabilitation work.
Speaker 2: And so I think it's all about, like you said,
Speaker 2: tone and context and also perspective. I think if I
Speaker 2: heard that, I think she could potentially mean, how would
Speaker 2: you like it to have this happen to you? Something
Speaker 2: like this happened to you, just pointing out what had
Speaker 2: happened to her, not saying that he then is responsible
Speaker 2: for what happened to her. I think it's just the
Speaker 2: way that she's speaking. It could be interpreted in several
Speaker 2: different ways, and to jump to she's accusing him of that,
Speaker 2: I feel like, don't you think she would have told
Speaker 2: law enforcement at some point if she was miraculously then
Speaker 2: able to remember the events of that night, that she
Speaker 2: would just be around this man and not raise an alarm.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it just seems like a weird contradiction where it
Speaker 1: sounds like she's directly accusing Thomas, but she never says
Speaker 1: that to the police. She still tells them I have
Speaker 1: no memory of the attack, which is just very bizarre
Speaker 1: to be that she would not be more fearful that
Speaker 1: a guy who attacked her is with her in a
Speaker 1: hospital room. So it does sound like very very weak evidence,
Speaker 1: a weak hunch to start looking at Thomas as a
Speaker 1: potential suspect, But they're going to discover some bad things
Speaker 1: about it momentarily. Wait till you hear this part. So
Speaker 1: it actually turned out that once they put him under surveillance,
Speaker 1: they learned that Thomas had spent the past year carrying
Speaker 1: on a secret affair with a woman from Fort Lauderdale
Speaker 1: named Carol Lapatta, who had a six year old son
Speaker 1: of her own from a previous marriage that had ended
Speaker 1: in divorce, and Thomas, because he was on the road
Speaker 1: a lot, had met Carol during one of his trucking runs.
Speaker 1: He actually like well. Nancy was recovering in the hospital.
Speaker 1: He actually phoned up Carroll to say that he was
Speaker 1: traumatized because of what happened to his wife and that
Speaker 1: he needed to see Carol and she would travel to
Speaker 1: winter Haven to spend the night in a motel with him,
Speaker 1: which looked obviously pretty bad to the police, and in
Speaker 1: Carol's defense, he did know that Thomas had been married
Speaker 1: and that she had been the victim of a violent attack,
Speaker 1: but Thomas had told her that their divorce had already
Speaker 1: gone through in Nay of nineteen eighty three, which was
Speaker 1: two months earlier, but that obviously wasn't not true because
Speaker 1: Nancy was completely unaware that her husband was seeing another woman.
Speaker 2: Being a philanderer does not mean that he's guilty. It's
Speaker 2: not a good look. Like Thomas is not a good look.
Speaker 2: The fact that you're calling up your mistress. It's very
Speaker 2: Scott Peterson vibes, and no one's going to look at
Speaker 2: that evidence and be like, oh, this really looks favorable
Speaker 2: for him. It makes him look like this. She's got
Speaker 2: this blatant disregard for his wife at this time when
Speaker 2: it feels like you could be by her side, But instead,
Speaker 2: you're going to carry on this emotional and physical relationship
Speaker 2: with this other woman. And I can see how investigators
Speaker 2: would look at him sideways, because you see a deceptive
Speaker 2: nature with regards to that part of their relationship and
Speaker 2: how much she wanted to disclose. And then you find
Speaker 2: out about a secret affair, and then you wonder, well,
Speaker 2: what else is he lying about?
Speaker 1: Exactly like, you're absolutely right that being a philanderer does
Speaker 1: not necessarily mean that you're a murderer or that you're
Speaker 1: planning to kill your wife. And if it was just that,
Speaker 1: I would cut him some slack. But the next part
Speaker 1: looks really really bad on him because only two weeks
Speaker 1: after Nancy was attacked, while she was still recovering in
Speaker 1: the hospital, Thomas decided to bring Carol and her six
Speaker 1: year old son from Fort Lauderdale to winter Haven and
Speaker 1: had them move in to his house with them. And
Speaker 1: when Carol noticed that some of Nancy's clothing just happened
Speaker 1: to be in the closet, he actually said to her, Oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: she had already moved out. We were already divorced, but
Speaker 1: she just hasn't collected all of her clothing. And I'm
Speaker 1: thinking to myself. Nancy is still in the hospital. What
Speaker 1: is your plan when she gets out and she finds
Speaker 1: out that there's another woman living inside your home?
Speaker 2: Thomas, No, you're coming up like a Jewel kaler right now.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 2: Actually, yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean even if Thomas was guilty, Like what was
Speaker 1: he thinking, Like, do you not are you not self
Speaker 1: aware enough to know that everyone is going to look
Speaker 1: at you very suspiciously when you move your mistress into
Speaker 1: your home while your wife is recovering from a brain
Speaker 1: injury in the hospital, Like, it's still unclear what his
Speaker 1: plan was, Like, was he planning to tell Nancy she
Speaker 1: had to move while she has a traumatic brain injury
Speaker 1: once she was released from the hospital.
Speaker 2: I don't think he under Like the lack of self
Speaker 2: awareness is perplexing. He doesn't get that this, the optics
Speaker 2: of this is rancid. You can't be bringing in a
Speaker 2: woman and her child into the home and lying about
Speaker 2: the state of your marriage to Nancy while she's recovering
Speaker 2: from being brutally attacked. It makes you look guilty Thomas Exactly.
Speaker 1: Yes, And even if he's not guilty, he really has
Speaker 1: very very poor judgment because, like we talked about, people
Speaker 1: like Scott Peterson, they're having like affairs on the side,
Speaker 1: but they're not bringing in their mistresses. Is to move
Speaker 1: into their house while their wife is missing.
Speaker 2: No, they just ended the life of his wife and
Speaker 2: so he could eventually transition to having the mistress there
Speaker 2: full time. So Scott Peterson has his own thing going,
Speaker 2: but like I wonder if he's responsible. Was his objective
Speaker 2: to end her life? And it's like, oh, this is
Speaker 2: really disappointing because she lived, and now I can't do
Speaker 2: this guilt free. And now I've got a kind of
Speaker 2: finangle my way around this situation with a living wife
Speaker 2: who's recovering in the hospital and this mistress who I
Speaker 2: was planning to be with if that was the case.
Speaker 1: Exactly Like up until that point, I wasn't seeing much
Speaker 1: in the way of evidence or a motive for Thomas
Speaker 1: to do this. But now it's appearing that this was
Speaker 1: his original plan, that he wanted to kill his wife.
Speaker 1: He was going to move his mistress and her son
Speaker 1: into his house. But because she wound up surviving and
Speaker 1: is still in the hospital, that's still that threw a
Speaker 1: monkey wrench it into everything. But he's still not altering
Speaker 1: his original plan.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this just seems like a really horrible plan. And
Speaker 2: I remember saying earlier this is either somebody who's just
Speaker 2: not that smart because of the way that the crime
Speaker 2: was committed and people being able to put him there physically,
Speaker 2: and knowing that the most likely suspect is typically somebody
Speaker 2: close to the victim, and they're going to look at
Speaker 2: the husband. It wouldn't have been a smart plan. And
Speaker 2: then to carry on with your mistress like this, it's
Speaker 2: like you're just tempting fate with investigators. You're just asking
Speaker 2: them to investigate.
Speaker 1: You, exactly like they never even thought about investigating him
Speaker 1: until they saw this. And of course, once they find
Speaker 1: out that he's cheating on his wife and moving in
Speaker 1: his mississ new HER's home, they completely forgot about the
Speaker 1: white haired man. They completely forgot about Raymond Starr, even
Speaker 1: though there's a fingerprint placing him at the scene, and
Speaker 1: now they're putting all their focus on Thomas. And in
Speaker 1: Carol's defense, when she found out that he was lying
Speaker 1: about this, she instantly broke it off from him. She's
Speaker 1: pretty much like Amber Fry in the Scott Peterson case,
Speaker 1: where once she learns what kind of man she's hooked
Speaker 1: up with. She wants nothing to do with him.
Speaker 2: I really felt bad for Amber during the initial coverage,
Speaker 2: like I remember being a kid, and like everyone was
Speaker 2: coming down so hard on her. It was like the
Speaker 2: same era as like people coming down hard on Monica Lewinski,
Speaker 2: very much like blame the woman rather than put the
Speaker 2: blame where it should be, squarely on the shoulders of
Speaker 2: the man who is married. And I now I think
Speaker 2: that Amber Fry's being treated in a completely different way,
Speaker 2: and people are like celebrating like her bravery and coming
Speaker 2: forward and doing what she did. And I think she
Speaker 2: was very brave, and it's great that the mistress in
Speaker 2: this situation once she was made very aware and like, yuck,
Speaker 2: can you imagine finding out through the person you've decided
Speaker 2: to bring your child around has just completely lied about
Speaker 2: this situation is actually married, their wife has been attacked,
Speaker 2: and instead of being by her side, he's carrying on
Speaker 2: with you, Like I wouldn't be able to deal with that.
Speaker 1: So definitely not. And yeah, history is really treated Amberfry
Speaker 1: quite well over the years and put her in a
Speaker 1: very favorable light. And thankfully for Carol, this was ninety
Speaker 1: eighty three This was before social media and the internet,
Speaker 1: and even though it pretty much only got coverage in Florida,
Speaker 1: didn't it wasn't like a worldwide story or anything. So
Speaker 1: she came out of this pretty unscathed, though I'm sure
Speaker 1: she kind of lost her faith in men a bit.
Speaker 1: And if that wasn't enough, investigators started looking into Thomas's
Speaker 1: financials and discovered that he was suffering from some problems,
Speaker 1: as he had recently been laid off from his job
Speaker 1: as a trucking trucker's assistant and did not have a
Speaker 1: lot of money and was unemployed at that time. And
Speaker 1: sure enough, investigators would soon discover that only two months
Speaker 1: before Nancy was attacked, Thomas had taken out hey ten
Speaker 1: thousand dollars life insurance policy on her. The life insurance
Speaker 1: agent confirmed that both Thomas and Nancy were in the
Speaker 1: room when this happened and it was a mutual decision,
Speaker 1: but when they asked Thomas about it for the first time,
Speaker 1: he lied and never mentioned the life insurance policy, and
Speaker 1: this was pretty much when they decided this is our guy.
Speaker 1: So he was finally arrested and charged with attempted first
Speaker 1: degree murder. They also decided to charge him with armed
Speaker 1: robbery due to the fact that they believed that Thomas
Speaker 1: stole the cash and the checks which were missing from
Speaker 1: the church safe, and that Thomas had stolen them after
Speaker 1: he attacked Nancy. But that was a bit more problematic
Speaker 1: because they never did recover of the checks or the money.
Speaker 1: They did turn up one hundred dollars in cash inside
Speaker 1: the residence, but Thomas claimed that this was money that
Speaker 1: the church had donated to him to help raise money
Speaker 1: for Nancy's recovery. But they were never able to conclusively
Speaker 1: prove that Thomas stole anything, but they still wanted to
Speaker 1: throw the book at him, So that's why he was
Speaker 1: hit with attempted first degree murder and armed robbery.
Speaker 2: I mean, it wasn't like he stole a large amount
Speaker 2: of money, but I mean at the time, three thousand
Speaker 2: dollars could have been substantial, Like wouldn't we have seen
Speaker 2: him pay down some bills?
Speaker 1: Yeah, as far as I know, he never did that.
Speaker 1: So and they never found any evidence that he was
Speaker 1: stealing the money, so they never were able to conclusively
Speaker 1: prove that he stole anything. So following his arrest, Thomas
Speaker 1: was interrogated by the police without an attorney president, and
Speaker 1: he did mention that, yes, at the time, my marriage
Speaker 1: to Nancy was on the rocks because she had been
Speaker 1: devoting so much of her time to the church and
Speaker 1: we were considering a separation, and that's why I was
Speaker 1: carrying on this secret affair with Carol. I was going
Speaker 1: to have her moved in if the marriage to Nancy
Speaker 1: ultimately didn't work out. And he also, like I said,
Speaker 1: he denied knowing about Nancy's ten thousand dollars life insurance policy,
Speaker 1: but he also said that he had another job offer
Speaker 1: lined up after being laid off from his job as
Speaker 1: a trucker's helper, so he didn't really have to worry
Speaker 1: about anything financial because he was soon going to have
Speaker 1: some new income coming in. And during his interrogation, he
Speaker 1: was asked about his affair and Thomas said the line quote,
Speaker 1: I already hurt Nancy. I don't want to have to
Speaker 1: hurt Carol too, and police took this as a sign
Speaker 1: as an admission that he'd attacked Nancy, but Thomas always
Speaker 1: maintained that when he used the word hurt, he meant
Speaker 1: he had hurt Nancy emotionally by cheating on her. Thomas
Speaker 1: also told the police that he had dreams of Nancy
Speaker 1: calling out to him and saying, quote, no, Tom No
Speaker 1: when asked if he had attacked her, and when police
Speaker 1: asked if Thomas attacked her, he replied, quote, I don't know,
Speaker 1: I could have done it, not like that, which police
Speaker 1: used as incriminating statements, him using the word hurt and
Speaker 1: saying that I couldn't have done it not like that,
Speaker 1: and they would use these statements as evidence against him
Speaker 1: at the trial, as well as the statement from Sergeant
Speaker 1: Hutsle that she had overheard Nancy say, how would you
Speaker 1: like it if I hit you on your habit? But
Speaker 1: when you look at it, even though Thomas looks like
Speaker 1: a jerk, like cheating on his wife and having his
Speaker 1: mistress move into the house, there really isn't much in
Speaker 1: the way of actual evidence that he did this. All
Speaker 1: you have are these allegedly incriminating statements that Nancy and
Speaker 1: Thomas supposedly made, which they maintain were misconstrued. So you're
Speaker 1: looking at this and you're like, well, there really isn't
Speaker 1: a lot of evidence to actually take him the trial here.
Speaker 2: I mean, the statements do sound a little bit incriminating,
Speaker 2: but again, it's open to interpretation, and it doesn't feel
Speaker 2: like there is a lot of evidence. The guy's clearly adsure,
Speaker 2: and I don't know if his philandering ways and his
Speaker 2: inability to clearly empathize or to just be self aware
Speaker 2: and to understand how he's going to be perceived are
Speaker 2: the same thing as him being guilty. I just feel
Speaker 2: like we would see some evidence of him trying to
Speaker 2: pay off things with that money. I think there's a
Speaker 2: possibility that he's responsible. But seeing Star with the actual
Speaker 2: physical evidence on his face of the scratches, did not
Speaker 2: you know, making up an alibi and then having his
Speaker 2: fingerprints on that window, Why are you denying being there?
Speaker 2: Why are you trying to construct an alibi? So I
Speaker 2: just think that, Yeah, Thomas looks like a great suspect initially,
Speaker 2: it's just a pretty weak case against him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, That's what's so complicated about this is even with
Speaker 1: like Scott Peterson, even though the case against him was circumstantial,
Speaker 1: it was a lot of circumstantial evidence, so it was
Speaker 1: reasonable to conclude that he murdered his wife an unborn son.
Speaker 1: But I'm just not seeing it here. And what further
Speaker 1: complicated the whole situation is that when Nancy made a
Speaker 1: full recovery and was finally released from the hospital, she
Speaker 1: still stood by Thomas like even at though she found
Speaker 1: out that he was cheating on her and tried to
Speaker 1: move his mistress into her house, she said, well, I
Speaker 1: don't like that, but I know my husband, and I
Speaker 1: do not believe he's capable of violently attacking me. That's
Speaker 1: not the man I know. And even though she said
Speaker 1: she still did not have any memory of the attack
Speaker 1: and could not say for certain if it was if
Speaker 1: it was Thomas who hit her with the hammer, she
Speaker 1: still stood by him and would visit him in the
Speaker 1: county jail after she left the hospital, and still stood
Speaker 1: by his side when he went on trial.
Speaker 2: It's so hard in those situations because how difficult would
Speaker 2: it be to grasp on to somebody that you loved
Speaker 2: and trusted could do that to you. That realization would
Speaker 2: be really hard to stomach and to accept and to
Speaker 2: kind of integrate into your way of thinking. So I
Speaker 2: could understand if somebody would be in denial about the
Speaker 2: person that they were with and their ability to carry
Speaker 2: out a violent attack against them because everything that they
Speaker 2: believed to be true prior to that, it just it
Speaker 2: completely evaporates that isn't the person that you thought that
Speaker 2: they were, and you were completely deceived. And that's a
Speaker 2: lot for somebody to accept. So I think that sure,
Speaker 2: it speaks to the fact that he could be innocent,
Speaker 2: But I also think that it could be like Christopher
Speaker 2: Porko's mom, where it speaks to even against overwhelming evidence
Speaker 2: against her son, she refused to accept that he could
Speaker 2: do that to her. It was just too much for her.
Speaker 1: It's true, it is possible that Nancy is in complete
Speaker 1: denial and that even though she knows that her husband
Speaker 1: is not as nice a guy as she thought, she
Speaker 1: still thought he was incapable of murder. But I'm sure
Speaker 1: that's good for optics when you go to trial and
Speaker 1: the person that you're accused of attempting to murder is
Speaker 1: actually like still by your side. So I'm sure that
Speaker 1: sort of thing is going to look good for a jury.
Speaker 1: But prior to the trial, Thomas's defense attorney approached him
Speaker 1: and said that the prosecution wanted to make a deal
Speaker 1: and because there wasn't a whole lot of evidence against him,
Speaker 1: the case was rather weak. The prosecution said that they
Speaker 1: would allow Thomas to plead guilty to the lesser charge
Speaker 1: of grand theft in exchange for dropping the attempted murder
Speaker 1: and aggravated robbery charges, which meant he would only spend
Speaker 1: a couple of years in jail in prison at the most.
Speaker 1: But Thomas turned down the deal and maintained that he
Speaker 1: was completely innocent and was not going to plead guilty
Speaker 1: and serve time in prison for a crime he did
Speaker 1: not commit. And at the same time, this does look
Speaker 1: like in favorable for Thomas that he's turning down a
Speaker 1: very weak sentence to potentially spend the rest of his
Speaker 1: life in prison. But it also doesn't make the state
Speaker 1: look good either. When you're thinking, well, we think you're
Speaker 1: an attempted murderer, but we're going to let you plead
Speaker 1: guilty to a much lesser charge like grand theft. It's
Speaker 1: like you attack someone with a hammer and you're going
Speaker 1: to prosecute him for allegedly stealing like a couple thousand
Speaker 1: dollars even though you can't conclusively prove it. I always
Speaker 1: get alarm bells in cases like this when the prosecution
Speaker 1: before a trial offers these very sweet plea deals, because
Speaker 1: it pretty much shows that they don't have a lot
Speaker 1: of confidence in their own case and that they're not
Speaker 1: entirely sure that they're going to get a conviction at trial.
Speaker 2: Shows how much they want to win and how weak
Speaker 2: their actual case is, because you wouldn't be pleading out
Speaker 2: to a grand theft on an attempted murder case where
Speaker 2: somebody used a claw hammer on their wife. Potentially, you
Speaker 2: just wouldn't do that unless you had nothing to really
Speaker 2: string it together. And by the sounds of all the
Speaker 2: evidence you've told me, they've got a pretty flimsy case.
Speaker 1: They do, yeah, and it's almost like, yes, if he
Speaker 1: takes the plea deal, it still counts as a win
Speaker 1: for the prosecution. But it doesn't look good that you're
Speaker 1: letting a guy who attacked his wife with a hammer
Speaker 1: walk out of prison after only a few years on
Speaker 1: a lesser charge. So that made alarm bells go off
Speaker 1: on my head and makes me think that maybe when
Speaker 1: they saw that he had a mistress who moved into
Speaker 1: his house they learned about the life insurance policy, that
Speaker 1: maybe they just got over zealous and said, this is
Speaker 1: our guy, we have to charge him. And it was
Speaker 1: only after the fact when they realize we really don't
Speaker 1: have all that much evidence and we may not actually
Speaker 1: win this case. So I think this would be a
Speaker 1: good time to bring an end to Part one. But
Speaker 1: join us again next week as we continue our series
Speaker 1: on the attempted murder of Nancy Drake.
Speaker 3: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 3: about the Trail Like Cold Patreon.
Speaker 1: Yes, the Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
Speaker 1: years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
Speaker 1: early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
Speaker 1: and sign thank you cards to anyone who signed up
Speaker 1: with us on Patreon. If you join our five dollars
Speaker 1: tier tier two, we also offer monthly bonus episodes in
Speaker 1: which I talk about cases which are not featured on
Speaker 1: The Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon,
Speaker 1: and if you join our highest tier tier three, the
Speaker 1: ten dollars tier. One of the features we offer is
Speaker 1: a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsawved Mysteries,
Speaker 1: where you can download an audio file and then boot
Speaker 1: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
Speaker 1: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
Speaker 1: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
Speaker 1: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
Speaker 1: first episode that I did a commentary track over was
Speaker 1: the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
Speaker 1: download a commentary track in which I make more smart
Speaker 1: ass remarks about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join
Speaker 1: Tier three.
Speaker 4: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 4: about the Jewels and Nashty Patreon, so there's early ad
Speaker 4: free episodes of The Path Went Chilly, Wet, Pathwent Chili minis,
Speaker 4: which are always over an hour, so they're not very mini,
Speaker 4: but they're just too short to turn into a series,
Speaker 4: and we're really enjoying doing those, so we hope you'll
Speaker 4: check out those patreons.
Speaker 3: We'll link them in the show notes.
Speaker 1: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
Speaker 1: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 1: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly
Speaker 1: appreciate it. You can email us at The Pathwentchili at
Speaker 1: gmail dot com. You can reach us on Twitter at
Speaker 1: the Pathwin. So until next time, be sure to bundle
Speaker 1: up because cold trails and Chili pass call for warm clothing.
Speaker 3: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers comedy,