Speaker 1: They were identical twins, raised the same and living nearly
Speaker 1: identical lives, but how they differ from other twins is
Speaker 1: that both of them would become killers. The first murder
Speaker 1: came in nineteen seventy one, and then nearly twenty years
Speaker 1: later another series of murders would leave four victims dead
Speaker 1: and investigators without answers. Between the two of them, there
Speaker 1: would be five victims total who lost their lives. But
Speaker 1: the fact that they didn't operate and kill together left
Speaker 1: behind a very interesting question about how they both became murderers,
Speaker 1: and the age old topic of nature versus nurture suddenly
Speaker 1: found itself at the center of the story with a
Speaker 1: whole new perspective. This is the story of the Spahalski Brothers,
Speaker 1: a k a. The Killer Twins.
Speaker 2: My name's Ben, I'm Nicole, and you're listening to Wicked Ingram.
Speaker 1: A true crime podcasting. The following material in more maturial
Speaker 1: audience listener discretion. Okay, so last week I said I
Speaker 1: was in a bit of a funk. I'm doing a
Speaker 1: lot better, I want to say that, but there's still
Speaker 1: a clear separation between Nicole's energy levels and mine. Oh
Speaker 1: my god, you need to tone it down.
Speaker 2: I know, we probably this is where we would have
Speaker 2: benefited from recording this because I was just unhinged. You
Speaker 2: what you mean camera Yeah yeah, yeah, oh yes, with
Speaker 2: a video.
Speaker 1: You were unhinged for the last ten minutes for sure.
Speaker 1: For the record. When I say tone it down, I
Speaker 1: mean live your life. But I just I'm not there
Speaker 1: with you.
Speaker 2: I know we're at very different levels lately, very different,
Speaker 2: which is actually usually opposite typically because usually yeah, it's
Speaker 2: very much so reversed. But yeah, I don't know I'm
Speaker 2: doing I'm doing good over here.
Speaker 1: I guess you guys should have seen her hit the
Speaker 1: record on on her soundboard. She like did a like
Speaker 1: raise her arm up above her shoulder and like did
Speaker 1: a bunch of circles like she was winding up, and
Speaker 1: then came raining down on the record button. It was
Speaker 1: it was something to see.
Speaker 2: It was a lot. It was a lot, I'll admit
Speaker 2: it was a lot, but it felt really like natural.
Speaker 2: It just felt like I had to get it out
Speaker 2: fair enough.
Speaker 1: I mean, if it's natural, do it, just like if
Speaker 1: it feels natural to sign up over on Patreon. So
Speaker 1: a big shout out to our patrons who signed up
Speaker 1: this week Jennifer Sarus, Natalie Smith, David g Hattie, Dustman,
Speaker 1: Elaine l Beverly Boher Elle, and Brand Dizzle. They all
Speaker 1: signed up over on Patreon, and it just felt natural
Speaker 1: for them too to look at that exclusive content behind
Speaker 1: the scenes.
Speaker 2: You're welcome. I just set you up, so damn good there.
Speaker 1: No, I'm just good at taking a setup and figuring
Speaker 1: it out from there. It's all on me, not you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's all you.
Speaker 1: It's all me.
Speaker 2: It's all you. I'm just here, You're just here. I'm
Speaker 2: just here, as I was being completely not spend just
Speaker 2: like sat there staring at me so pretty much. Maybe
Speaker 2: I need a better audience for my shenanigans. Yeah, whatever
Speaker 2: that was.
Speaker 1: I do have to say, though, before we get any further,
Speaker 1: this is another two parter. We're having back to back
Speaker 1: two parters. My bad. I'm sorry. That's totally on me.
Speaker 1: I found this case and I'm like, oh, I got
Speaker 1: to do this story. So I started researching, and by
Speaker 1: the time I was like deep into the research and
Speaker 1: it was too late to switch cases, I realized it
Speaker 1: was going to be a two parter. So I did
Speaker 1: not plan back to back two parters.
Speaker 2: It all happens, and we hadn't had one for quite
Speaker 2: some time. That's true. I think you're okay.
Speaker 1: I think you think so.
Speaker 2: I do.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I appreciate that. I'll try not to do
Speaker 1: two partters here for in the next few episodes, but
Speaker 1: we got to get through this one, and ding dang,
Speaker 1: it is a story and a half. I gotta say that.
Speaker 2: Well, I just also have to say, some people really
Speaker 2: like two parters. That's that's true, and there isn't a
Speaker 2: crazy wait in between, so we can do it.
Speaker 1: That's true. I mean, when we first started this podcast,
Speaker 1: we were only releasing one episode a week, and you
Speaker 1: had it to wait. You had to wait a whole
Speaker 1: week for the second part. So the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: two episodes a week, it's it's a lot better for that.
Speaker 2: Regard now totally. But yeah, this does sound like a.
Speaker 1: Doozy, it does. Are you ready for it?
Speaker 2: I am okay.
Speaker 1: Well, let's dive right into the story, shall we. There
Speaker 1: is something inherently strange about growing up alongside someone who
Speaker 1: has lived the exact same life as you, not in
Speaker 1: the general sense of siblings sharing a household, but in
Speaker 1: the much rare case of twins, two people who arrive
Speaker 1: in the world at the same moment, raised under the
Speaker 1: same roof and shape by the same parents, the same routines,
Speaker 1: and the same expectations within the same environment. From the outside,
Speaker 1: it can seem almost like a controlled experiment. If two
Speaker 1: people are given nearly identical starting points, how different can
Speaker 1: their lives really become? No, of course it's not an
Speaker 1: experiment their children, we understand that, But for most families
Speaker 1: the answer is simple. Even identical twins grow into their
Speaker 1: own person. They develop different interests, different personalities, different ways
Speaker 1: of seeing the world, different tastes. They might look the same,
Speaker 1: but over time their similarities begin to fade beneath everything
Speaker 1: that makes them individuals. One might settle into something stable
Speaker 1: and predictable, while the other drifts into a completely different direction.
Speaker 1: There is usually a point where their paths begin to
Speaker 1: split clearly enough that no one would confuse their lives
Speaker 1: ever again. But on the other hand, sometimes that separation
Speaker 1: never really happens. Now, when people look back on stories
Speaker 1: like this, they often search for a clear explanation, something
Speaker 1: in the upbringing, sometimes in the environment, sometimes in the
Speaker 1: psychology that makes sense of everything that happened, But the
Speaker 1: truth is rarely that clean. More often, what you find
Speaker 1: is a collection of ordinary details taken on their own,
Speaker 1: They don't seem like they should lead anywhere significant. It
Speaker 1: is only when those details are placed in order, when
Speaker 1: the full timeline is laid out, that the weight of
Speaker 1: it all starts to become clear. And even then, though
Speaker 1: it doesn't always answer the question people keep coming back to,
Speaker 1: how can two people begin in the same place and
Speaker 1: end up leaving behind something so difficult to explain? Now,
Speaker 1: this is a story that unfolds in two different pieces.
Speaker 1: At first, it looks like one life going off course
Speaker 1: path that leads into violence, into prison, into futures that
Speaker 1: seem contained within consequences of one single act. But as
Speaker 1: time goes on, another story begins to take shape right
Speaker 1: alongside the other one. Robert and Stephen Spahalski were born
Speaker 1: on December twelfth, nineteen fifty four, in Elmira, New York,
Speaker 1: a small city in the southern part of the state
Speaker 1: that at the time offered a fairly ordinary kind of upbringing.
Speaker 1: Elmira was not a place that people typically associated with
Speaker 1: extreme violence or high profile crimes. It was the kind
Speaker 1: of community where families stayed rooted, where their lives and
Speaker 1: routines were rather predictable, and where most followed a linear
Speaker 1: path forward from school to work to family. It was
Speaker 1: in many ways the American dream kind of life, you know,
Speaker 1: the happy family life. Now. Right from the beginning, Robert
Speaker 1: and Stephen shared everything. See. They were in fact identical twins,
Speaker 1: the only children of Bernard and Anita Spihalski, and their
Speaker 1: early lives unfolded side by side in a way that
Speaker 1: few people ever experienced. They grew up in West Elmira,
Speaker 1: attending Elmira Free Academy, moving through the same classrooms and neighborhoods,
Speaker 1: and having the same social circles. People who knew them
Speaker 1: during those years often saw them as a pair two
Speaker 1: boys who were closely connected, not just by appearance, though,
Speaker 1: but by the way they moved through the world together.
Speaker 1: They were both athletic, both involved in gymnastics, and Robert
Speaker 1: in particular also spent time competing in track. They were social, outgoing,
Speaker 1: and didn't stand apart from other teenagers in any dramatic
Speaker 1: way outside of being twins. If anything, they just blended in.
Speaker 1: There was nothing in those early years that clearly pointed
Speaker 1: towards but their lives would eventually become no obvious signs
Speaker 1: that would have stood out to teachers, neighbors, or even
Speaker 1: people close to them as something deeply concerning teenagers. They
Speaker 1: were energetic, restless, and at times unpredictable, but nothing hinting
Speaker 1: towards you know this darkness. It was honestly just regular
Speaker 1: behaviors that adults often expect young people to grow out
Speaker 1: of as they move into adulthood. But there were changes
Speaker 1: happening beneath that surface. When the twins were around twelve
Speaker 1: years old, their parents divorced, and from that point forward
Speaker 1: they were raised primarily by their mother. It is difficult
Speaker 1: to measure exactly how much that shift affected the two,
Speaker 1: but it marked a very clear turning point in the
Speaker 1: structure of their home life. The stability that had been
Speaker 1: there in the early years was now altered, and like
Speaker 1: in many family situations, that change carried some very quiet consequences.
Speaker 1: The routines they once had became a lot less consistent,
Speaker 1: boundaries were less defined, and the sense of order began
Speaker 1: to loosen. As they moved into their teenage years, the
Speaker 1: lack of structure started to show. Now that shift wasn't
Speaker 1: some that was immediate or dramatic enough to draw any
Speaker 1: sort of concern, But it was steady things regarding the
Speaker 1: kinds of decisions that they were making, the environments they
Speaker 1: were moving through, and the way that they responded to authorities.
Speaker 1: It all pointed to a direction that at the time
Speaker 1: may not have seemed extraordinary, but in hindsight it clearly
Speaker 1: marked the beginning of something much deeper now. Robert in particular,
Speaker 1: began attracting attention from law enforcement in July of nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy one, at just sixteen years old, he was arrested
Speaker 1: for driving a stolen vehicle. This was, of course, no
Speaker 1: minor incident by any means, certainly not something that could
Speaker 1: be brushed off as a misunderstanding. For example, the theft
Speaker 1: itself required, you know, intent, taking something that didn't belong
Speaker 1: to him, then using it and getting caught in the process.
Speaker 1: It was an offense that placed him firmly on the
Speaker 1: radar of local authorities, even if the consequences at that
Speaker 1: stage were still relatively limited, being the fact that he
Speaker 1: was a juvenile.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, but I wasn't expecting that crime to be
Speaker 2: so intense. I was thinking it would have been something
Speaker 2: a little bit more minor, you know, but right boom.
Speaker 1: Bang, right into the theft of a vehicle.
Speaker 2: That's a big deal.
Speaker 1: It is, It definitely is. It's not something that should
Speaker 1: be downplayed. I mean, it's certainly not murder or anything,
Speaker 1: but it's definitely more than stealing a chocolate bar or
Speaker 1: a couple.
Speaker 2: Dollars from someone you know exactly.
Speaker 1: Now, what made this more concerning was how quickly it
Speaker 1: was followed by something else.
Speaker 2: Though.
Speaker 1: That's the thing here, because only weeks after that arrest,
Speaker 1: Robert was charged once again, this time for setting fire
Speaker 1: to part of his high school. Oh now, this arson
Speaker 1: introduced a different kind of behavior into the mix, something
Speaker 1: more destructive, far less impulsive than taking a car for
Speaker 1: a drive, but still escalating. It showed that there was
Speaker 1: a willingness to cause damage without a concern for the
Speaker 1: broader consequences, a mindset that was beginning to move beyond
Speaker 1: simple teen rebellion. He was suddenly no longer concerned for infrastructure,
Speaker 1: for jobs, for people's safety, that sort of thing. And
Speaker 1: by October of that year, he had pleaded guilty to
Speaker 1: the earlier charge and was sentenced to serve time in
Speaker 1: jail on weekends. The fact that he was a juvenile, right.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, yeah, I mean that's super minor, but it
Speaker 2: could have a big impact.
Speaker 1: I see. Yeah, So this sentence was meant mostly to
Speaker 1: be like a corrective behavior rather than being like, you know,
Speaker 1: you're just going straight to jail, and it's being purely punitive.
Speaker 1: That way, it allowed him to still remain in school,
Speaker 1: have an education, and be home during the week while
Speaker 1: still experiencing consequences of his actions and being behind bars
Speaker 1: on the weekend when typically kids his age are out
Speaker 1: with freedom.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that's what I was going to say, was
Speaker 2: that would be when he has a bit more free
Speaker 2: time to get in trouble exactly.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of a rehabilitation, serve some time, and
Speaker 1: still don't miss a beat.
Speaker 2: In your life, which I don't hate.
Speaker 1: I don't hate it either, to be fair, I don't,
Speaker 1: but maybe I don't. I think that's there should be
Speaker 1: a little bit more to it than just oh, go
Speaker 1: home for the week. You know, maybe you should have
Speaker 1: counselors following you through school or something like that, or
Speaker 1: maybe you're still getting your schooling while behind bars. You know,
Speaker 1: there's a classroom and a juvenile facility something like that, yeah,
Speaker 1: because there's still a lot of freedom that comes with that,
Speaker 1: and it gives a sense of are you really serving
Speaker 1: the full consequence for your actions? You know, almost kind
Speaker 1: of like, well, I set fire to this and I
Speaker 1: stole a freaking car, and now I only have to
Speaker 1: serve two out of seven days in jail for a
Speaker 1: little while. What kind of consequences are those really?
Speaker 2: I mean, it's something, but yeah, you can still get
Speaker 2: in a lot of trouble during the week. But I
Speaker 2: don't know. But he is in an age that he
Speaker 2: can definitely be reformed, right, So it's difficult. I'm kind
Speaker 2: of in the middle of it.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a point I want to make here, but
Speaker 1: I do have it written in this next few sentences
Speaker 1: in paragraphs, so I'm just going to continue here. Okay. So,
Speaker 1: for many teenagers, the kind of intervention often serves as
Speaker 1: a massive turning point, you know, a moment where the
Speaker 1: reality of the legal system becomes tangible enough to shift
Speaker 1: the behavior moving forward. However, in that moment, it didn't
Speaker 1: seem to have the intended effect on him. Instead of
Speaker 1: acting as a warning, the experience appeared to reinforce something
Speaker 1: else entirely the idea that he could engage in criminal behavior,
Speaker 1: face consequences, and still return to mostly his normal life
Speaker 1: without lasting consequences. So that fact, did it really do
Speaker 1: serve its purpose the jail time he's out still doing
Speaker 1: his regular thing. Yeah, just slightly reduced.
Speaker 2: I think for some kids it could probably really work,
Speaker 2: but for some it really wouldn't. And it's kind of
Speaker 2: a catch to one to where you find out later
Speaker 2: whatever dinner work.
Speaker 1: I think you're right on that. Actually, it's a good
Speaker 1: point now. Stephen during this time was also known to police,
Speaker 1: though his interactions definitely were not in the same degree
Speaker 1: as his brother Roberts were. However, on the night of
Speaker 1: November twenty third, nineteen seventy one, a man by the
Speaker 1: name of Ronald Ripley was going about what should have
Speaker 1: been a routine evening. He was forty eight years old
Speaker 1: and managed a local business in Elmira Heights called the
Speaker 1: Salad Master Kitchen. Witnesses would later place him inside the
Speaker 1: store around eleven thirty pm, moving through the closing process,
Speaker 1: you know, finishing up all the tasks of the day
Speaker 1: before heading home. For someone in this position, it was
Speaker 1: likely a very familiar routine. You know, locking up, checking
Speaker 1: everything one last time, turning off lights, preparing for another
Speaker 1: ordinary shift close and at that same point, shortly after that,
Speaker 1: he was seen again. A witness reported seeing Ripley driving
Speaker 1: at approximately eleven forty five, his car moving through the
Speaker 1: area without anyone or anything appearing at a place. There
Speaker 1: was no identification of distress in the situation, no sign
Speaker 1: that anything was wrong. It looked like the end of
Speaker 1: a normal day. But some time after that moment, something
Speaker 1: had changed, because in the following day, November twenty fourth,
Speaker 1: concern began to build when Ripley did not return home. Now,
Speaker 1: because Ripley was nowhere to be found the next morning,
Speaker 1: it was enough to prompt someone close to him, his
Speaker 1: mother in law, to go looking for him, and when
Speaker 1: she arrived at the store, she didn't find anything at first,
Speaker 1: but when she made her way to the basement, that's
Speaker 1: when she made a horrific discovery. The scene there was
Speaker 1: violent in a way that left little room for any
Speaker 1: sort of interpretation. Ronald Ripley had been killed. Investigators were
Speaker 1: soon called to the scene and quickly determined that the
Speaker 1: attack had happened inside the building, in a space that
Speaker 1: Ripley would have felt comfortable with a place where he
Speaker 1: had control of his surroundings, and that detail alone suggested
Speaker 1: something very important that whoever was responsible had either been
Speaker 1: allowed inside or had entered without raising any sort of suspicion.
Speaker 1: Investigators believed that Ripley had been approached from behind, but
Speaker 1: there were no signs of a struggle, so this likely
Speaker 1: indicated that he didn't see this coming, and from there
Speaker 1: he was struck on the head with a hammer, a
Speaker 1: forceful impact that would have immediately either disoriented him or
Speaker 1: at the very least rendered him unable to defend himself.
Speaker 1: But however, the attack didn't end there. After the initial blow,
Speaker 1: the assailants switched and used a knife. Ripley was then
Speaker 1: stabbed over and over repeatedly, and the sheer number of
Speaker 1: wounds made it clear that this was not a momentary
Speaker 1: act of panic. It was sustained and carried out with
Speaker 1: a level of intensity that went beyond what would have
Speaker 1: been necessary to incapacitate someone. The violence continued, and it
Speaker 1: was clear that this attack was about ensuring he would
Speaker 1: not survive, and so Ripley died right there in the
Speaker 1: basement of his own workplace, right where he was found.
Speaker 2: I just hate that, Like when someone is in an
Speaker 2: area that they're comfortable in and you know they're not
Speaker 2: really checking behind them and they're just doing their day
Speaker 2: to day and something like this terrible happen. Something this
Speaker 2: terrible happens. I don't know. It makes you just question
Speaker 2: life a little bit.
Speaker 1: Well, that's supposed to be when you're the most safe,
Speaker 1: right bail your surroundings, a place where you oh, nor
Speaker 1: you operate. And yeah, it can make things feel so
Speaker 1: dark because.
Speaker 2: He's probably was doing what he's done thousands of times. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and then but this night it just and.
Speaker 1: Then all it took was for some fucked up individual
Speaker 1: to enter that space and he's no longer safe now.
Speaker 1: There were there were no clear signs of fourth century
Speaker 1: I want to make that clear. There was no obvious
Speaker 1: indication that there was a robbery that had gone wrong
Speaker 1: or anything, no immediate suspect who could be tied directly
Speaker 1: to the scene through any physical evidence either. Early theories
Speaker 1: explored the possibility that Ripley had encountered someone early that night,
Speaker 1: perhaps offering a ride or coming into contact with someone
Speaker 1: outside the store, but the evidence inside it suggested otherwise
Speaker 1: this had been a controlled environment, and whoever was responsible
Speaker 1: had been close enough to strike from behind without alerting him,
Speaker 1: and that implied a level of familiarity, or at least
Speaker 1: a calculated approach that allowed them to move without being noticed. Now,
Speaker 1: as investigators began working through potential leads, they turned their
Speaker 1: attention towards individuals already known to local law enforcement. Elmira
Speaker 1: was not a large city, and police were familiar with
Speaker 1: those who had a history of criminal activity, particularly younger
Speaker 1: offenders who had recently come into contact with the system,
Speaker 1: and one of the names that surface during that process
Speaker 1: was one of the brothers, Stephen Spahalski. Now, he was
Speaker 1: known to police, but not in a way that immediately
Speaker 1: placed him at the center of a crime like this.
Speaker 1: He was brought in for questioning like others were, and
Speaker 1: initially denied any involvement. At that stage, there was nothing
Speaker 1: concrete that forced investigators to press harder. There was no
Speaker 1: physical evidence that even tied him to the scene. There
Speaker 1: was no witnesses that placed him in the building at
Speaker 1: the time of the attack. There was nothing. But as
Speaker 1: the investigation continued, something shifted, and during a subsequent round
Speaker 1: of questioning, Stephen changed his account and he admitted that
Speaker 1: he was the one responsible for the attack, telling investigators
Speaker 1: that he had killed Ronald Ripley.
Speaker 2: Damn and he's still a teenager at this point, sixteen.
Speaker 2: Did he freaking work there or something new? Did he
Speaker 2: know this guy?
Speaker 1: Not that I'm really aware of.
Speaker 2: Holy Hannah, Okay, that is, I don't know. For someone
Speaker 2: that didn't really get into trouble much, I guess, well
Speaker 2: a little bit, and is that young and then does
Speaker 2: a crime like this. It's kind of just I'm freaking hinged.
Speaker 1: Now. I do have to be clear, I don't know
Speaker 1: if he knew him or not. There definitely has to
Speaker 1: be some level of connection, whether it's a short term
Speaker 1: they met that night or what, because being in that
Speaker 1: store with him shows that they knew each other to
Speaker 1: some degree, right, Yes, And according to Stephen, the encounter
Speaker 1: that happened inside it escalated after Ripley actually made an
Speaker 1: unwonted sexual advance towards him. Now, whether true or not,
Speaker 1: that account also has some level of familiarity because they
Speaker 1: are inside the store together at least having a conversation
Speaker 1: when this alleged sexual advance occurred. Huh, okay, so they
Speaker 1: must have known each other to some degree the extent,
Speaker 1: I have no clue. Now, he framed this violence as
Speaker 1: a reaction something that had been triggered in that moment
Speaker 1: with that sexual advance, But even within his own version
Speaker 1: of events, the nature of the attack raised a lot
Speaker 1: of difficult questions. The level of force that was used,
Speaker 1: for example, went far beyond what would be expected in
Speaker 1: a brief confrontation. You know, maybe you're offended by the advance. Sure,
Speaker 1: maybe you might hit and punch someone quickly. You're not
Speaker 1: going to all of a sudden go to that.
Speaker 2: Level of murder unless you're almost mentally unstable in a way.
Speaker 1: For sure, or extremely homophobic or whatever. Right, but you've
Speaker 1: got to have something deep in you to start that
Speaker 1: and ignite that to begin with. Also, the initial strike
Speaker 1: with the hammer was delivered from behind, suggesting that whatever
Speaker 1: had happened, Ripley had not been in a position to
Speaker 1: defend himself when the attack began. So that would mean
Speaker 1: if there was an advance, the advance had occurred the
Speaker 1: situation was de escalated. Ripley then turned his back. Then
Speaker 1: he was attacked after.
Speaker 2: The fact, Yeah, he had kind of moved on and
Speaker 2: thought everything was.
Speaker 1: Okay, exactly so the repeated stabbing that followed also extended
Speaker 1: the violence well beyond a single impulsive reaction. So these
Speaker 1: details did not disappear simply because there was an explanation
Speaker 1: attached to them, and they remained part of the reality
Speaker 1: of what had taken place. But still, even if the
Speaker 1: details didn't quite match the story, they had their man.
Speaker 1: Now at that time of the killings, Stephen was just
Speaker 1: sixteen years old. That alone shaped the legal strategy that followed.
Speaker 1: Rather than pushing the case through a full trial on
Speaker 1: a murder charge, which would have carried the possibility of
Speaker 1: far more severe sense than what he got, the defense
Speaker 1: moved towards a plea agreement and ultimately Stephen pled guilty
Speaker 1: to an extremely lenient charge of manslaughter, and instead of
Speaker 1: facing you know, life in prison, he was given only
Speaker 1: up to eight years behind bars.
Speaker 2: Oooh okay, that is not enough time for taking someone's
Speaker 2: life like that.
Speaker 1: Abcinitly not now. It was a resolution that brought the
Speaker 1: case to a close, at least in illegal sense. Stephen
Speaker 1: was sent to prison, and what stood out in the
Speaker 1: years behind bars that followed was interesting because the way
Speaker 1: Stephen spoke about what he had done. Yeah, you'll like this,
Speaker 1: and I'm being sarcastic. Clearly, there was little indication of
Speaker 1: remorse regarding any of his actions. When he addressed the killings,
Speaker 1: he continued to frame it as something that had a
Speaker 1: reason behind it, something like something he could justify. Rather
Speaker 1: than distancing himself from the violence. It seemed like he
Speaker 1: was just accepting it as something that made sense, something that,
Speaker 1: you know what, just happened.
Speaker 2: Hmmm, Okay, yeah, I really don't like that, know meither, and.
Speaker 1: That perspective of his didn't soften or quiet over time either.
Speaker 1: After his conviction, Steven Spahalski's life did not diverge from
Speaker 1: his criminal behavior. Instead, it became the beginning of a
Speaker 1: longer and more entrenched cycle, and it would keep bringing
Speaker 1: him back to the criminal justice system again and again.
Speaker 1: He was eventually released from prison, there was an opportunity,
Speaker 1: at least in theory, for him to rebuild some kind
Speaker 1: of stable life outside of it, but that opportunity never
Speaker 1: seemed to take hold in any lasting way. Within a
Speaker 1: relatively short time, he found himself right back into trouble again.
Speaker 1: The offenses vary between things like robberies, parole violations, and
Speaker 1: a bunch of other small stuff, but a pattern kept hold.
Speaker 1: Each time he was released, it followed by another incident
Speaker 1: that led to his return behind bars. The periods of
Speaker 1: freedom between incarceration just grew shorter, while the time spent
Speaker 1: inside became more familiar, and prison became a defining feature
Speaker 1: of his life. But what made this pattern more unsettling
Speaker 1: was not just the repetition of his arrests, but the
Speaker 1: way he continued to frame the violence that had first
Speaker 1: put him in prison in the very beginning. When he
Speaker 1: spoke about killing Ronald Ripley. Over the years, he didn't
Speaker 1: describe it as a mistake or anything he wished he
Speaker 1: could undo. He maintained that there was a reason behind it,
Speaker 1: and he justified his actions every single time.
Speaker 2: I wonder if he's doing that because the sentencing was
Speaker 2: so lenient. Do you think?
Speaker 1: I don't know, But there is that sense in this
Speaker 1: story between both brothers of actions and the lenient consequences,
Speaker 1: And it seems like those lenient consequences build up and
Speaker 1: give them that sense of I don't know, entitlement, of
Speaker 1: sense of power, sense of untouchability, all these sort of
Speaker 1: things like well, I'll just get away with it, it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter I can brag. I can do what I want,
Speaker 1: because hey, I don't really serve much time anyways.
Speaker 2: But it's pretty fucked up to take someone's life and
Speaker 2: brag and to think that that was okay or justified
Speaker 2: or to have no remorse whatsoever.
Speaker 1: But that's exactly what he did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So what was he doing for those eight years
Speaker 2: when he was serving that time? Just counting down the
Speaker 2: time and tell freedom and he's here because he has to.
Speaker 1: Be basically and just talking about it like it was
Speaker 1: something that had to happen in the meantime.
Speaker 2: Damn. Yeah, that's that's pretty gross.
Speaker 1: It is. Now, as time went on, Stephen's presence in
Speaker 1: the public eye began to diminish, his case faded into
Speaker 1: the background, and if the story had ended there, it
Speaker 1: would have followed a pattern that was mal disturbing, was
Speaker 1: not entirely uncommon, a violent crime committed at a young age,
Speaker 1: with a confession and a conviction. But that was only
Speaker 1: part of what had begun within that family, because while
Speaker 1: Stephen's life continued along that path, moving between prisons and
Speaker 1: brief periods of release, his brother was still living outside
Speaker 1: of it all, and for a long time, no one
Speaker 1: realized that his story was beginning to take a very
Speaker 1: dark shape as well, because it didn't look that way
Speaker 1: at first. Now, Robert had shared the same beginnings as Stephen,
Speaker 1: the same house, the same upbringing the same early drift
Speaker 1: into trouble during his teenage years. He had already accumulated
Speaker 1: his own criminal record by that time, and his arrests
Speaker 1: for theft and arson had suggested a similar disregard for
Speaker 1: boundaries and consequences, But there was no step into murder.
Speaker 1: For a while, it appeared that though the two brothers
Speaker 1: were moving along parallel tracks, each testing its own limits
Speaker 1: and similar ways. But as the years passed, their lives
Speaker 1: began to separate in a very specific way. Stephen's world
Speaker 1: became increasingly contained behind bars, while Robert, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: remained outside of that structure. He was spending time in
Speaker 1: and out of jail for various offenses, mind you, but
Speaker 1: he was never becoming anchored in the system in quite
Speaker 1: the same way that his brother was. In nineteen seventy three,
Speaker 1: Robert was convicted of breaking into a music store and
Speaker 1: stealing thousands of dollars in cash and equipment. When he
Speaker 1: was caught, he was sentenced to several years in prison,
Speaker 1: but like many of his later sentences, he didn't serve
Speaker 1: the full term, and when he was released, the pattern
Speaker 1: resumed almost immediately. By nineteen seventy six, he had returned
Speaker 1: to custody, this time for breaking into a high school.
Speaker 1: Another conviction followed, another sentence, and another stretch behind bars.
Speaker 1: Now there were moments during this period where his life
Speaker 1: intersected with his brothers. At one point, both Robert and
Speaker 1: Stephen were even held in the same correctional facility. Despite
Speaker 1: the years that had passed and the different directions of
Speaker 1: their lives, they found themselves in the same environment once again.
Speaker 2: Okay, just a second, I just have to say something here.
Speaker 2: Why the hell is he getting released early when he's
Speaker 2: already been in and out. I feel like, if you're
Speaker 2: in there repeatedly, there should just be no way that
Speaker 2: you can get out early.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, that's the justice system even today.
Speaker 2: It is. But I just think that's wrong. If you
Speaker 2: say this is your second or third or fourth whatever,
Speaker 2: like you need to, it's no that you then serve
Speaker 2: your whole term, like there's no chance for good behavior
Speaker 2: to get out early or anything.
Speaker 1: I agree, but there's also more than just good behavior there.
Speaker 1: I mean today we're dealing with facilities that have way
Speaker 1: too high capacity of prisoners in them. Yeah, they should
Speaker 1: only have like one hundred and twenty, and they got
Speaker 1: like one hundred and fifty, or they got more coming
Speaker 1: in than they can handle, and they need to move
Speaker 1: people out so they can fit these higher risk individuals
Speaker 1: who are coming in.
Speaker 2: Gosh, which is just if you sidn't think about that,
Speaker 2: that's even more messed up. Really, it really is. Okay,
Speaker 2: this guy only broke into a music store and stole
Speaker 2: thousands of dollars, but this guy murdered someone. Okay, so
Speaker 2: we have to release this person so this other person
Speaker 2: can be in jail.
Speaker 1: Lesser of two evils. I don't mind whether an individual's
Speaker 1: rehabilitated or not. Guess what, well, we got to push
Speaker 1: them out so we can.
Speaker 2: Make room yike swhich is just terrifying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, now back on track a bit though, So the
Speaker 1: two brothers are put back into prison together. It was
Speaker 1: like a converted that it wasn't particularly significant, but it
Speaker 1: really did reflect how closely their paths continued to align
Speaker 1: even as the circumstances around them shifted. Now, one incident
Speaker 1: from that time actually stands out in a way that
Speaker 1: illustrated how those two connections between the two twins could blur.
Speaker 1: In nineteen seventy eight, there was an attempt to escape
Speaker 1: from the facility. The plan involved hiding inside a compartment
Speaker 1: of a vehicle that was being worked on by inmates,
Speaker 1: using it as a way to bypass security and leave
Speaker 1: the grounds without any sort of detection. It was a
Speaker 1: very calculated approach, one that required coordination and timing. However,
Speaker 1: before it could be carried out, it was exposed someone
Speaker 1: had informed the authorities, and the attempt was stopped before
Speaker 1: it could go any further. Now, what made the situation
Speaker 1: even more unusual was what happened afterwards. Because Robert and
Speaker 1: Stephen were identical twins, and because neither of them admitted
Speaker 1: to being responsible for the attempt, authorities were unable to
Speaker 1: determine which one for certain was actually trying to escape.
Speaker 2: Well, that's bizarre.
Speaker 1: So rather than isolating them, as you know, trying to
Speaker 1: find the primary individual, they were both punished and both
Speaker 1: placed in solitary confinement, each serving time. Well, if we
Speaker 1: don't know which one of you it was, you both
Speaker 1: get it sort of thing.
Speaker 2: Which is fair enough. But gosh, that's so, I'm sure
Speaker 2: that's such a unique situation.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, after his release in nineteen seventy nine, Robert
Speaker 1: found work as a mechanic helper in Rochester. It was
Speaker 1: a structured and legitimate work situation, and it was removed
Speaker 1: from the pattern of criminal activity he had defined much
Speaker 1: of his early adulthood. For a time, it suggested the
Speaker 1: possibility that his life might begin to shift in a
Speaker 1: more conventional direction, but that possibility it didn't hold. By
Speaker 1: July of nineteen eighty one, he was involved in another
Speaker 1: major theft, this time targeting a coin collection value at
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of dollars. At the end of his arrest,
Speaker 1: although he was sentenced to several years in prison, he
Speaker 1: served only a short portion of that time before being
Speaker 1: released once again, and the cycle continued through the early
Speaker 1: and mid nineteen eighties. Robert moved in and out of custody,
Speaker 1: accumulating charges and sentences. When he was released again in
Speaker 1: February of nineteen eighty nine, it was simply another return
Speaker 1: to the same freedom. Following a period of confinement, he
Speaker 1: settled in Rochester, a city larger and more complex than
Speaker 1: the environment he'd grown up in the neighborhoods he moved
Speaker 1: and went through were not uniform. Some were quieter, some
Speaker 1: were more stable, but others had a constant flow of
Speaker 1: activity that made it easier to blend in without any
Speaker 1: sort of attention being drawn. It was in those spaces
Speaker 1: that Robert seemed to find his footing, places where anonymity
Speaker 1: was possible, where people came and went without much scrutiny,
Speaker 1: and where interactions were often brief and transactional. He also
Speaker 1: became heavily involved in drug use, particularly crack cocaine, which
Speaker 1: at the time was spreading rapidly through many urban areas. Now,
Speaker 1: the addiction became central to the way he lived, influencing
Speaker 1: his decisions, his relationships, and the way he navigated each
Speaker 1: and every day. Now, supporting a habit like that requires money,
Speaker 1: and without a stable or consistent source of income, Robert
Speaker 1: turned to whatever means were available to him. That included
Speaker 1: petty crime, small scale drug dealings, and working as a
Speaker 1: sex worker. The people he met and encountered in those
Speaker 1: spaces often moved through similar cycles too. Within that context,
Speaker 1: his behavior didn't necessarily stand out. In fact, it became
Speaker 1: part of the background a pattern that was just not
Speaker 1: uncommon in the areas he frequented. Unlike his brother, whose
Speaker 1: life had been defined early on by a single violent
Speaker 1: act that changed everything, Robert had not yet crossed that line,
Speaker 1: that same threshold that Stephen had, but that would change.
Speaker 1: By the final weeks of nineteen ninety, Robert's life had
Speaker 1: settled into survival in the moment. Rochester, in particular, the
Speaker 1: neighborhoods surrounding the Lake Avenue area where he spent much
Speaker 1: of his time provided the kind of environment where that
Speaker 1: lifestyle could continue without drawing much attention, and it was
Speaker 1: within that environment that Robert met Moraine Armstrong. She was
Speaker 1: twenty four years old, and like many others in the area,
Speaker 1: her life was not extensively documented beyond the circumstances that
Speaker 1: connected her to part of the city. What is known, though,
Speaker 1: is that she was working as a sex worker, navigating
Speaker 1: the same conditions that Robert was moving through. At some
Speaker 1: point in the final days of December nineteen ninety, their
Speaker 1: interactions turned into something other than typical. The exact sequence
Speaker 1: of events inside Moraine's apartment cannot be reconstructed with complete certainty,
Speaker 1: but the outcome is clear. There was an argument, likely
Speaker 1: over money, drugs, or possibly both, but something had shifted
Speaker 1: the tone of the encounter from transactional to confrontational, and
Speaker 1: at some point Robert turned violent. He used what was
Speaker 1: immediately available to him in the apartment, taking an electrical
Speaker 1: cord from an iron and wrapping it around Moraine's neck,
Speaker 1: and he pulled tight, draining every ounce of oxygen from
Speaker 1: her body. Ultimately, on December thirty first, nineteen thirty, Moraine
Speaker 1: Armstrong was found dead in her home on Lake Avenue.
Speaker 1: When investigators arrived, the scene was treated immediately as a homicide.
Speaker 1: The cause of death strangulation was very clear, and the
Speaker 1: use of the electrical chord stood out too. It indicated
Speaker 1: that the person responsible had not come prepared with a
Speaker 1: weapon but instead used what was present. That suggested spontaneity,
Speaker 1: or at least lack of premeditation in the traditional sense.
Speaker 1: But there was another detail that noted that was noted
Speaker 1: on the scene too. When Moraine's bought bo he was
Speaker 1: discovered she was wearing only one sock. It was odd
Speaker 1: and they didn't really know what to make of it.
Speaker 1: So for now they just recorded it like everything else,
Speaker 1: and they began working through standard process. They canvassed the area,
Speaker 1: spoke with neighbors, and attempted to identify anyone who had
Speaker 1: seen or interacted with Moraine in the days leading up
Speaker 1: to her death. In a neighborhood where people moved in
Speaker 1: and out very frequently, gathering consistent information was extremely difficult,
Speaker 1: to say the least, not everyone was willing to speak,
Speaker 1: and even when they were, the details were often incomplete.
Speaker 1: It was during this process that Robert Spahalsky inserted himself
Speaker 1: right into the investigation. While officers were outside the apartment
Speaker 1: building speaking with residents and potential witnesses, Robert approached them.
Speaker 1: He asked what had happened to what was going on?
Speaker 1: It was a natural enough question given the circumstances. I mean,
Speaker 1: police presence tends to draw attention, but it also placed
Speaker 1: him directly in contact with investigators at a very early state.
Speaker 1: When they explained that a woman had been killed and
Speaker 1: gave Moraine's name, they asked him if he knew her.
Speaker 1: He told him they didn't. He said he never met her,
Speaker 1: He had never seen her and had no connection to
Speaker 1: her whatsoever. Now the officers weren't exactly suspicious, Remember he
Speaker 1: had approached them and people in the same building don't
Speaker 1: necessarily know each other. It was entirely plausible that he
Speaker 1: was simply just another residence who had no involvement, and
Speaker 1: at that moment there was nothing to contradict what he said,
Speaker 1: No physical evidence tying him directly to the scene or
Speaker 1: the act, no one placing him inside the apartment at
Speaker 1: the time of the killing, no immediate reason to press further,
Speaker 1: and without that, the conversation ended and Robert walked away.
Speaker 1: For investigators, though the case remained open, but without any
Speaker 1: sort of direction. They had a victim, a clear cause
Speaker 1: of death, and an understanding that the environment in which
Speaker 1: the crime had taken place, and all that sort of stuff,
Speaker 1: but no suspect they could build a case against. For Robert,
Speaker 1: the situation meant something else. Entirely. He had just committed
Speaker 1: a murder, and for the first time, just like his
Speaker 1: twin brother had, he had spoken directly to the police
Speaker 1: during the investigation, even and nothing had come back to him.
Speaker 1: He had crossed the line, one that could not be undone,
Speaker 1: and so far as he could see, no one had noticed,
Speaker 1: which meant no consequences. Once again, now roughly seven months
Speaker 1: after the death of Moraine Armstrong. Robert was still living
Speaker 1: in Rochester, moving between apartments, maintaining unstable relationships, and continuing
Speaker 1: his dependence on crack cocaine, which dictated much of his
Speaker 1: day to day existence. The neighborhoods in which he spent
Speaker 1: his time were the same place, the same people were
Speaker 1: all drifting around, and the connections were often very temporary.
Speaker 1: It was during this period that he became involved with
Speaker 1: a woman named Adrian Berger. Now, Adrian was thirty five
Speaker 1: years old. Unlike Moraine, she was not simply a brief
Speaker 1: encounter where they kind of knew each other and there
Speaker 1: was only transactional interactions. This relationship between her and Robert
Speaker 1: had some level of continuity. They spent time together and
Speaker 1: he was known to be in and out of her
Speaker 1: apartment regularly. Now that familiarity would later become a central
Speaker 1: part of how he explained his presence there. But it
Speaker 1: was some point in July of nineteen ninety one when
Speaker 1: Adrian was killed inside her apartment on Emerson Street. The
Speaker 1: circumstances surrounding her death were not immediately clear in a
Speaker 1: way that Moraines had been. There was no prompt discovery
Speaker 1: of her body or anything Instead, what drew attention to
Speaker 1: the apartment was that neighbors began to notice a smell.
Speaker 1: At first, it may have been a faint enough odor
Speaker 1: to dismiss something that could be explained away or overlooked simply,
Speaker 1: but as the days passed and the summer heat intensified,
Speaker 1: the odor became stronger, more persistent, and impossible to shake off.
Speaker 1: Eventually it reached a point where someone had contacted police
Speaker 1: to report it, prompting officers to respond and investigate the source.
Speaker 1: When they arrived, the condition of the apartment made it
Speaker 1: clear that something was wrong. Before they even entered, flies
Speaker 1: had gathered around the window, which was a very common
Speaker 1: indicator in situations where decomposition has begun, and once officers
Speaker 1: gained access to the apartment, they found Adrian's body in
Speaker 1: an advanced state of decay. The heat inside the space
Speaker 1: had accelerated the process, breaking down much of the physical
Speaker 1: evidence that might have otherwise provided clarity about what had happened.
Speaker 1: That was the main problem investigators were facing Because of
Speaker 1: the condition of the body, determining the exact cause of
Speaker 1: death was not immediately possible. There were no clear signs
Speaker 1: that could be definitively identified as the source of the
Speaker 1: fatal injury, and without that the case lacked a crucial
Speaker 1: piece of information. It was difficult to establish not only
Speaker 1: how she dies, but also whether the death was the
Speaker 1: result of natural causes, an accident, or even murder. Despite that, though,
Speaker 1: investigators began working through the case as they would with
Speaker 1: any suspicious death. Investigators did their due diligence and canvassed
Speaker 1: the building and surrounding area, speaking with neighbors and anyone
Speaker 1: who might have had contact with Adrian in the days
Speaker 1: leading up to her death, and it didn't take long
Speaker 1: for Robert's name to surface. He'd been seen at the apartment.
Speaker 1: People recognized him as someone who had spent a decent
Speaker 1: amount of time with her and was someone who had
Speaker 1: been inside her place on multiple occasions. At least one witness,
Speaker 1: in fact, was able to place him there with enough
Speaker 1: certainty that a warrant for further investigation was gathered. So police,
Speaker 1: with that warrant brought Robert in for questioning, and they
Speaker 1: already had a starting point. His connection with Adrian was
Speaker 1: not a dispute, and when confronted with that, he didn't
Speaker 1: attempt to deny it either. Instead, he leaned right into it.
Speaker 1: He explained that he and Adrian had a relationship, and
Speaker 1: he told investigators that he'd been in her apartment frequently,
Speaker 1: so his presence was normal, and that there was nothing
Speaker 1: unusual about finding things like his fingerprints inside.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: As for when he had last seen her, he claimed
Speaker 1: it had been several days prior to the discovery of
Speaker 1: her body, and that she'd been alive and well at
Speaker 1: the time, but without a confirmed cause of death, there
Speaker 1: was little direction to challenge any sort of version of
Speaker 1: events that he explained. There was no forensic evidence tying
Speaker 1: him to the scene outside of the obvious of being
Speaker 1: in the apartment, and no clear indication that the death
Speaker 1: had even been the result of violence, so he was released.
Speaker 2: That's crazy that there was so much decomposition there that
Speaker 2: they can tell Hey, yeah, it's really gross, but it's
Speaker 2: also really sad that she was just like that for
Speaker 2: so long before being discovered.
Speaker 1: I know now. The thing is, though, for Robert, like
Speaker 1: this again reinforced that same sort of thing that had
Speaker 1: begun Like with earlier situations, and in the death of
Speaker 1: Moraine as well, he'd been connected to He'd been connected
Speaker 1: to someone who died, he'd been connected to a death.
Speaker 1: He'd been questioned by police, and again he just walked
Speaker 1: away without being charged. So you have that same repetition
Speaker 1: of committing a crime with either minimal or no consequences.
Speaker 1: And since killing two people now there have been no
Speaker 1: consequences in murder.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which is just wild. And if it's something I
Speaker 2: guess you want to do, I can only imagine what
Speaker 2: it does for your ego or your confidence or whatever.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Really it's twisted, yucky to say.
Speaker 1: Now, there was a very clear pattern that was forming,
Speaker 1: and with each instance, the distance between what had been
Speaker 1: done in any of those consequences just seemed to widen.
Speaker 1: And then, on the night of October second, nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 1: a police officer on patrol in Rochester observed a vehicle
Speaker 1: moving in a way that seemed like something was off.
Speaker 1: The car had drifted slightly within its lane and then
Speaker 1: corrected itself, and then it did it again, just enough
Speaker 1: to catch the officer's attention and justify a closer inspection. Now,
Speaker 1: situations like this or routine, you know, drivers who might
Speaker 1: be under the influence, or might be distracted, or people
Speaker 1: simply having a moment of inattentiveness while all, this is
Speaker 1: very common. It's enough to have a stop that's not
Speaker 1: going to carry much weight. Possibly something illegal, yes, and
Speaker 1: definitely needing to be checked, but it's not something of
Speaker 1: high profile by any means. So the officer activated his
Speaker 1: lights and pulled the vehicle over. It was as simple
Speaker 1: as that, another stop. When the officer approached the driver's
Speaker 1: side window, the man behind the wheel appeared very calm
Speaker 1: and cooperative. There was no visible panic, no attempt to flee,
Speaker 1: no signs of intoxication that would immediately escalate the situation.
Speaker 1: When asked for his name, he provided it without hesitation.
Speaker 1: The man identified himself as Charles Grand. He went on
Speaker 1: to explain that he owned a landscaping business and apologized
Speaker 1: for his driving, often offering a casual explanation that didn't
Speaker 1: seem out of place. And based on what he observed,
Speaker 1: the officer made a decision that there wasn't going to
Speaker 1: be anything concerning that night. He gave the man a warning,
Speaker 1: told him to watch his driving, and he simply let
Speaker 1: him go. The man smiled, drove away, and the encounter
Speaker 1: ended there. It was filed away mentally, alongside countless other
Speaker 1: stops the officer had done in his mind that ended
Speaker 1: much the same way, But by the following day, though,
Speaker 1: that brief interaction took an entirely different meaning. On October fourth,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety one, police were called to a residence in Webster,
Speaker 1: a town located just outside of Rochester. Inside the home,
Speaker 1: in a bedroom, they discovered the body of a man
Speaker 1: laying face down. The victim was soon identified as Charles Grand,
Speaker 1: the same name that had been given during the traffic stop.
Speaker 1: The timeline, however, created an immediate and serious problem. Based
Speaker 1: on the condition of the body and the circumstances at
Speaker 1: the scene, investigators determined that Charles Grand had been dead
Speaker 1: for more than twenty four hours at that point, which
Speaker 1: meant that at the time of the traffic stop, when
Speaker 1: the officer had been speaking with a man who identified
Speaker 1: himself as Charles Grand, the real Charles Grand was already dead.
Speaker 2: Oh it wasn't him, Okay, Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the man behind the wheel was not who he
Speaker 1: claimed to be, and he had stolen a dead man's identity.
Speaker 2: Damn. I don't know why I didn't see that coming
Speaker 2: at all.
Speaker 1: But okay, and that's where we're going to stop part
Speaker 1: one today.
Speaker 2: Of course, it is, of course it is huh okay,
Speaker 2: but this is freaking wild.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is.
Speaker 2: This story just following these two brothers. It's just I
Speaker 2: don't even know how to feel about it because it
Speaker 2: doesn't seem well, it's very rare, right, oh well, it's
Speaker 2: just so terrifying that these two twins are ending up
Speaker 2: like this terrible.
Speaker 1: Doing the same thing. Now, there is also a lot
Speaker 1: of discussions online and in psychology and stuff about connections
Speaker 1: between twins, and I'm sure we'll talk about some of
Speaker 1: that and at the end of part two and everything,
Speaker 1: but it's very fascinating to see the timeline between these two.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, it differs. One committed a murder very
Speaker 1: early and then was back into like the petty crime
Speaker 1: and one was petty crime at first and then starting
Speaker 1: into the bigger like murders and stuff. But they're essentially
Speaker 1: living the same committing the same sort of shit, and
Speaker 1: it's it blows my mind that you have these two individuals,
Speaker 1: same upbringing, same sort of kind of DNA. They're not
Speaker 1: the same person, you know, but I'm getting at but
Speaker 1: they're just doing the same thing. They're committing this.
Speaker 2: Both a menace to freaking society.
Speaker 1: And that's the light way of putting it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we have no idea this Charles is the
Speaker 2: next victim here, right, Charles Grimt, And we honestly are
Speaker 2: leaving it where we have no idea who necessarily killed him?
Speaker 2: Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Correct? We'll talk about that in the next episode.
Speaker 2: Okay, you really said.
Speaker 1: That's where we're ending double.
Speaker 2: Checks, like did I miss which brother killed this man?
Speaker 1: And technically, technically we don't even know if one of
Speaker 1: these brothers killed him yet. All we know is that
Speaker 1: he's found dead and someone was using his identity. I
Speaker 1: haven't said anything in regards to these brothers connections to
Speaker 1: it yet.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, we better stop here because you're gonna just
Speaker 2: dig yourself in a hope.
Speaker 1: I might also, I don't know if anyone's heard yet
Speaker 1: in the recording of this episode, our rooster outside is
Speaker 1: going a little bit nuts today. So he's crowing away
Speaker 1: right now. Yeah, so we should probably go give him
Speaker 1: some treats or something, make him.
Speaker 2: A little haspill treats after this performance.
Speaker 1: Not really, but he's definitely crawling and Cohen for some reason, well,
Speaker 1: maybe calm him down. Maybe we'll go give him some
Speaker 1: pets or something. He needs something, he needs something. Anyways,
Speaker 1: thank you for being here. We appreciate you, looking forward
Speaker 1: to doing part two with you. If you want to
Speaker 1: give us a review or anything of the like, all
Speaker 1: of our links and descriptions are well. It's in the
Speaker 1: description of this podcast. We're an independent podcast, so your
Speaker 1: reviews go a long way in helping others find our show.
Speaker 1: Seeing the positive reviews, you're leaving and thinking, hey, I
Speaker 1: want to support that show too. So thank you for
Speaker 1: what you have done for us and what you're continuing
Speaker 1: to do because we get to do this because of that.
Speaker 2: And until part two, stay wicked a bo