Speaker 1: Welcome back to part two of our series on the
Speaker 1: attempted murder of Nancy Drake. Let's jump right in. So
Speaker 1: one of the other pieces of evidence at trial is
Speaker 1: that they got testimony from the church's associate pastor, who's
Speaker 1: Joseph Boston, who claimed that after Nancy was taken away
Speaker 1: in an ambulance, he called Thomas at home at around
Speaker 1: one ten to inform him that Nancy had been attacked,
Speaker 1: and from his perspective, he said that Thomas sounded like
Speaker 1: he was out of breath on the phone when he
Speaker 1: spoke to him, which, if he was guilty, would make
Speaker 1: sense because he would have been at the church like
Speaker 1: maybe a half hour earlier and committed this brutal crime
Speaker 1: and then had to run home in order to answer
Speaker 1: the phone call. But still is pretty weak, because how
Speaker 1: can you be one hundred percent certain when you're not
Speaker 1: actually looking at someone that they sound so out of
Speaker 1: breath on the phone that that means that they must
Speaker 1: have just come off of committing an attempted murder.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you could run to the phone, because
Speaker 2: back in those days, you're gonna have a corded phone
Speaker 2: probably on the wall, and you might have to run
Speaker 2: to get it. Like I remember when I was a
Speaker 2: little kid having to run to get the phone. It
Speaker 2: wasn't like nowadays where our phones are, you know, completely
Speaker 2: attached to us exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I mean it almost feels like he's running
Speaker 1: home to like fabricate an alibi, saying that, oh, if
Speaker 1: they phone me about Nancy's thing, I have to answer
Speaker 1: it so that I can prove that I was home
Speaker 1: when she was being attacked. But it just seems like
Speaker 1: if he's out of breath, how do you know he
Speaker 1: wasn't working out or doing exercise or something exerting like that.
Speaker 1: Unless it's like, unless you don't see him sweating or
Speaker 1: you see blood on him or something, that doesn't really
Speaker 1: prove that he committed the crime. Additional testimony was provided
Speaker 1: by one of the other parishioners who was at the
Speaker 1: church that morning, Althea Toth. She claimed that after she
Speaker 1: spoke to Thomas a short time after Nancy was taken
Speaker 1: to the hospital and said that completely out of the blue,
Speaker 1: Thomas said that there's a possibility that my fingerprints might
Speaker 1: be on the hammer because earlier that morning, when I
Speaker 1: visited the church to bring Nancy some lunch, she had
Speaker 1: asked me to hang up some pictures inside the office,
Speaker 1: and that's when I used the hammer, but I ultimately
Speaker 1: did not use it because I couldnt find any nails. Obviously,
Speaker 1: this didn't matter because there were no fingerprints found in
Speaker 1: the hammer at all. But the pastor at the church,
Speaker 1: Charles Kirby, he expressed some skepticism about Thomas's story, as
Speaker 1: he said that it was a rule that Nancy could
Speaker 1: not hang up any pictures unless she asked for the
Speaker 1: pastor's permission to do so, so it really didn't make
Speaker 1: much sense that she would be asking Thomas to hang
Speaker 1: up these pictures on her behalf. So it almost appeared
Speaker 1: that Thomas was paranoid that his fingerprints were going to
Speaker 1: be found on the hammer, so he preemptively came up
Speaker 1: with this story about the pictures in order to come
Speaker 1: up with a potential explanation for it.
Speaker 2: I don't like that. It feels like he maybe did
Speaker 2: wipe it down, but he was, just, like you said,
Speaker 2: paranoid and decided like, oh, against my better judgment, I'm
Speaker 2: going to bring up this hammer because it's top of mind,
Speaker 2: and I'm worried that maybe when I wiped it down,
Speaker 2: I didn't get all my fingerprints off of it. But
Speaker 2: I guess, to play devil's advocate, you could say that
Speaker 2: if he was the one that wiped it down, if
Speaker 2: he did commit this crime, then he would know that
Speaker 2: there's no fingerprints on it, So why would he be
Speaker 2: bringing this up? So I guess there's multiple ways of
Speaker 2: looking at it.
Speaker 1: It's true you can interpret it in different ways. The
Speaker 1: thing that concerned alfvia Top is that she said that
Speaker 1: Thomas brought it up completely out of the blue, like
Speaker 1: there wasn't any like segue to it at all. It's
Speaker 1: almost like it popped into his mind at that moment, saying, oh,
Speaker 1: my fingerprints might be on there. I should share this story.
Speaker 1: But in Thomas's defense, he had used the hammer the
Speaker 1: previous day because he did work in the church's equipment room,
Speaker 1: because of course, he would sometimes go in there and
Speaker 1: record the concerts, And he claimed that after he did
Speaker 1: that work, he left the hammer on top of the safe.
Speaker 1: So theoretically, if it was an outside party and who
Speaker 1: came into the church that day, they could have noticed
Speaker 1: the hammer on top of the safe and then decided
Speaker 1: to use it as a weapon to bludge in Nancy it.
Speaker 2: Seems as though multiple parishioners' fingerprints could have been on
Speaker 2: that hammer, depending on how many people do work throughout
Speaker 2: the church, and churches are often places where there can
Speaker 2: be several people, Like whether they have a handyman there
Speaker 2: all the time, I have no idea, but oftentimes they'll
Speaker 2: just get parishioners to help with stuff like that because
Speaker 2: it's very much a community where everybody's pitching in. So
Speaker 2: it seems likely that you're not just going to have
Speaker 2: the killer's prints on the hammer exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So it is possible this is all a red
Speaker 1: herring that it really doesn't matter at just because they
Speaker 1: wiped off all the fingerprints, but also the fact that
Speaker 1: this hammer was around in the church a lot also
Speaker 1: shows that. Say, if another person like Raymond Starr spent
Speaker 1: a lot of time there, he may have noticed the
Speaker 1: hammer and knew it was there, and that could have
Speaker 1: been why they decided to go in there and use
Speaker 1: it as a weapon.
Speaker 2: And I don't like how he just brought up the
Speaker 2: hammer like that is really odd. But again, if you
Speaker 2: had been hanging things throughout the church and you thought
Speaker 2: your fingerprints are going to be on there, legitimately you
Speaker 2: could be really paranoid that everybody's going to point at you.
Speaker 2: So this case just has so many different ways to
Speaker 2: interpret all of the evidence that it's like mind boggling.
Speaker 1: It is, Yeah, because technically, if Thomas is innocent, he
Speaker 1: wouldn't have known that the perpetrator wiped away the fingerprints.
Speaker 1: So he's just thinking of that my prince could be
Speaker 1: on there, so I should explain beforehand and provide them
Speaker 1: with a logical explanation.
Speaker 2: Exactly. It reminds me of Darley Routier with that knife,
Speaker 2: Like my prince could be on the knife.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, exactly. Yeah. So she's obviously I think she's
Speaker 1: guilty personally, but I can see her like mentioning that
Speaker 1: just as a way to explain her prince possibly being found.
Speaker 2: I agree with you, Like first I thought there might
Speaker 2: be a possibility that she was innocent, But the more
Speaker 2: time it's gone on, and the more that I've heard
Speaker 2: and read about that case, I to believe that she's guilty.
Speaker 1: So now let's talk about the timeline, which causes some
Speaker 1: additional confusion here. As you recall, Nancy called Thomas and
Speaker 1: asked her to bring the lunch to the church, and
Speaker 1: this story was verified by the associate pastor, so we
Speaker 1: have more than Thomas's word on this. And Thomas claimed
Speaker 1: that he arrived at twelve fifteen and left at around
Speaker 1: twelve thirty. But the problem is that this seems to
Speaker 1: be contradicted by the other witness, Alfia top That's a
Speaker 1: tongue twister, if there was one.
Speaker 2: That is a tongue twister.
Speaker 1: Yeah. She claimed that she stopped by the church from
Speaker 1: twelve to twenty five to twelve thirty in order to
Speaker 1: purchase a concert ticket and said that Thomas was not
Speaker 1: there at that time, even though oh Thomas said that
Speaker 1: when he left that he had seen althea talk leaving,
Speaker 1: So this would imply that Thomas did not arrive until
Speaker 1: after twelve thirty, after Toth was gone. But the problem
Speaker 1: is that the witness, Shirley Whitehead, said that she found
Speaker 1: Nancy's body at twelve forty, which means that if Thomas
Speaker 1: did this, he would have had to commit this crime
Speaker 1: in a window of only ten minutes and then fled
Speaker 1: the scene and been completely gone before Whitehead arrived. But
Speaker 1: the complication for this is you might recall the radio
Speaker 1: DJ Pat Morgan, who claimed that he called the church
Speaker 1: sometime between twelve fifteen and twelve thirty and had a
Speaker 1: nine minute conversation with Nancy and Thomas, which he recorded,
Speaker 1: so this conversation could be verified. So technically, if if
Speaker 1: Althea Toth is telling the truth and Thomas arrived at
Speaker 1: twelve thirty, that means that Morgan would have had to
Speaker 1: make the phone call immediately and recorded this nine minute conversation,
Speaker 1: and Thomas would have only had one minute to commit
Speaker 1: the crime and flee before Shirley White had arrived at
Speaker 1: twelve forty and discovered Nancy's body. So that makes me
Speaker 1: think that toss account that she is mistaken about the time,
Speaker 1: and that Thomas's count of arriving between twelve fifteen and
Speaker 1: twelve thirty has to be accurate because Pat Morgan backs
Speaker 1: it up and he has a tape recording to back
Speaker 1: it up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd agree. I'm going to go with what Pat
Speaker 2: Morgan is saying Althea TOAs I'm sure that she absolutely
Speaker 2: believes that she's correct, But we know how often eyewitnesses
Speaker 2: are mistaken. But we've got actual evidence here that they
Speaker 2: were there at that time, or that he was there
Speaker 2: at that time. Because of the tape recordings, so I
Speaker 2: don't really think that's disputable exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So, regardless of how you look at it, it
Speaker 1: seems very likely that the crime had to have taken
Speaker 1: place between twelve thirty and twelve forty. And that's the
Speaker 1: thing is that that doesn't give Thomas a lot of
Speaker 1: time to commit the crime. But on the other hand,
Speaker 1: that really doesn't give an out side party a lot
Speaker 1: of time to commit the crime either, because if Thomas
Speaker 1: is telling the truth and left at twelve thirty, that
Speaker 1: means that someone else had to arrive there attack Nancy
Speaker 1: with the hammer, and she also would have had to
Speaker 1: open the safe, either under duress or maybe she was
Speaker 1: doing it willingly to get change or something. And then
Speaker 1: they also stole all the checks and cash inside and
Speaker 1: fled the scene before Shirley Whitehead arrived. But on the
Speaker 1: other hand, if you believe that the unidentified white haired
Speaker 1: man sitting outside the church in the car was responsible,
Speaker 1: then he already would have been there by the time
Speaker 1: Thomas left, so he would have not had to travel
Speaker 1: far to attack Nancy and then drive away from the scene.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes sense too.
Speaker 1: And also Raymond Starr that we have no other witnesses
Speaker 1: placing him there during that window of time. But of
Speaker 1: course he has a shaky alibi and no one can
Speaker 1: verify his whereabouts between twelve thirty and twelve forty because
Speaker 1: he claimed he was with his mother and sister, but
Speaker 1: then his sister said, no, I did not see Raymond
Speaker 1: at all during this time period.
Speaker 2: And like You've got to wonder, is he just somebody
Speaker 2: who just like constructed an alibi because he was nervous
Speaker 2: about being questioned, and so he just wanted to not
Speaker 2: place himself there because he knows what Like, he knows
Speaker 2: what happened, and he doesn't want to be blamed, so
Speaker 2: he just comes up with a lie and just fabricates this.
Speaker 2: I mean, I have no idea. This case is really
Speaker 2: confounding because I want to say that like, oh, it's
Speaker 2: usually the husband, but the evidence against Thomas here is
Speaker 2: pretty weak, and the evidence against everybody is pretty weak.
Speaker 2: I don't like those scratches on the face of star.
Speaker 2: I feel like there could have been more questions asked
Speaker 2: by the police and the investigators to his mother and sister,
Speaker 2: Like does he often cut himself on his face when
Speaker 2: he shaves? Is this a typical occurrence type of a situation.
Speaker 2: But who knows if they ask those questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it sounds like they questioned him once
Speaker 1: and then once they found out about Thomas, they put
Speaker 1: all their focus on him. Because You're right, because he
Speaker 1: was a forty year old man living with his mother
Speaker 1: who had once spent time in a mental institution, so
Speaker 1: he could have some disorders which caused him to scratch himself.
Speaker 1: And because Nancy has no memory of the attack, she
Speaker 1: is unable to say if she scratched her attacker. But
Speaker 1: I'm not entirely sure if they checked under her fingernails
Speaker 1: to find any skin or blood to indicate that she
Speaker 1: had put up a fight and scratched anyone. So we
Speaker 1: have no idea if those scratches were even significant. So,
Speaker 1: even though the case against Thomas was pretty weak, I
Speaker 1: have a feeling that the jury probably looked at him
Speaker 1: very unfavorably because of the whole thing with the mistress.
Speaker 1: Because they only had to deliberate for five hours before
Speaker 1: they found him guilty of attempted first degree murder and
Speaker 1: aggravated robbery, so before sensings took place, Nancy, in spite
Speaker 1: of the guilty verdict, she was still standing by her husband,
Speaker 1: so she wrote a letter to the trial judge and
Speaker 1: said that she still did not believe he attacked her,
Speaker 1: so she asked the judge to show him mercy during sentencing,
Speaker 1: but he completely ignored this because because he wound up
Speaker 1: giving Thomas consecutive sentences of life imprisonment plus thirty years,
Speaker 1: so he looked like he was going to prison and
Speaker 1: he was not going to get out.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's just not a very likable guy, so
Speaker 2: I can see why the jury looked at him and
Speaker 2: was like, Oh, what kind of insensitive man is going
Speaker 2: to move his mistress and their child into the home
Speaker 2: while their wife is recovering. It has to be a
Speaker 2: guilty person, and I think that it's pretty easy to
Speaker 2: jump to that conclusion. But being a philandering ahole who
Speaker 2: has just no regard for his wife and no empathy
Speaker 2: to what she's going through doesn't necessarily mean that he's guilty.
Speaker 2: It means that he's Maybe you could argue he's not
Speaker 2: a good person, but I think that there just isn't
Speaker 2: enough evidence to convict him. Whether or not he's innocent,
Speaker 2: I don't know, but given what they actually had, I
Speaker 2: am so surprised that a jury convicted him because it
Speaker 2: just is such a weak case.
Speaker 1: I agree it is surprising that they only deliberated for
Speaker 1: five hours. You would think that with such a weak,
Speaker 1: circumstantial case, they would have to debate about it for
Speaker 1: a much longer amount of time. But I think they
Speaker 1: probably just all disliked Thomas as a person and automatically
Speaker 1: believed he must be guilty. And I think Nancy was thinking,
Speaker 1: because it was such an unusual situation for a guilty
Speaker 1: person to have their victim advocate for them at trial,
Speaker 1: that she thought that sending this letter to the judge
Speaker 1: would get Thomas aliader sentence. But it's said the opposite happened,
Speaker 1: and he completely threw the book at him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would think that potentially it would help. But
Speaker 2: if the judge believes that Nancy is just completely out
Speaker 2: of left field, like none of this information that she's
Speaker 2: saying is factually accurate, and she's just kind of grasping
Speaker 2: itst draws of like trying to hold on to whatever
Speaker 2: her old life was with him as the husband and
Speaker 2: her as the wife, and try to go back to that.
Speaker 2: I don't think that the judge is believing what she's saying,
Speaker 2: not that she's lying, but just that she doesn't remember accurately,
Speaker 2: and so they've made up their mind just like the jury,
Speaker 2: and clearly throwing the book at Thomas was what they.
Speaker 1: Were going to do exactly. I mean, maybe the judge
Speaker 1: felt that, well, if I let Thomas go or I
Speaker 1: give him a lighte sentence, then he's going to move
Speaker 1: back into Nancy and Harmer again. So I'm doing this
Speaker 1: for her own good. But this is when the story
Speaker 1: gets even crazier because in January of nineteen eighty four,
Speaker 1: only a few weeks after the guilty verdict, Nancy suddenly
Speaker 1: contacts Thomas's defense attorney and reveals that, oh my god,
Speaker 1: the memories of my attack have suddenly returned, and I
Speaker 1: can now say with one hundred percent certainty that the
Speaker 1: man who attacked me was not Thomas, but was actually
Speaker 1: a slender, white haired man with thick glasses. So the
Speaker 1: story she provided is that this man had shown up
Speaker 1: to the church to purchase tickets for the concert and
Speaker 1: tried to pay with a one hundred dollars bill, but
Speaker 1: since she did not have enough change on or, this
Speaker 1: man convinced Nancy to go get some from the safe,
Speaker 1: so when she bent down and opened it, he proceeded
Speaker 1: to attack her with a hammer. So they had an
Speaker 1: evidentiary hearing where Nancy testified under oath and shared this
Speaker 1: story and said that her attack or was not her husband.
Speaker 1: And even though I think the judge was skeptical, he said, well,
Speaker 1: upon hearing this new evidence, I have no choice but
Speaker 1: to overturn Thomas's conviction and award him a new trial.
Speaker 2: And I think that's fair. I mean, it's impossible for
Speaker 2: any of us to know where Nancy was coming from,
Speaker 2: if she was truly just trying to save Thomas with
Speaker 2: a hail Mary, or if she actually got her memory
Speaker 2: back and she really did recount the things that had
Speaker 2: happened to her and that it was this white haired
Speaker 2: man that was potentially hanging out in the parking lot
Speaker 2: that Althea and Thomas had both seen. Or maybe she
Speaker 2: was just given that information and she somehow integrated that
Speaker 2: into her memories and it somehow became her truth. I
Speaker 2: don't know, it's just so different, dificult to know it is.
Speaker 1: I mean, some people were skeptical of Nancy's story because
Speaker 1: she was still standing behind her husband and she knew
Speaker 1: that during the early stages of the investigation, Thomas had
Speaker 1: mentioned a white haired man and he was being looked
Speaker 1: at as the first potential suspect. Even if she wasn't
Speaker 1: entirely sure this was the attacker, she may have decided
Speaker 1: to fabricate a story and say I will provide a
Speaker 1: description of a man who matches the description of this
Speaker 1: guy seen outside the church to hopefully increase the believability
Speaker 1: and make people believe this is what really happened.
Speaker 2: It's very the fugitive one armed man coded it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I never thought about that, but yeah, it reminds
Speaker 1: me of the one armed man. So once again Thomas
Speaker 1: was offered a plead deal from the state where he
Speaker 1: could plead guilty to lesser charges only have to do
Speaker 1: a few years in prison, but once again he rejected it,
Speaker 1: saying that I will not go to prison for something
Speaker 1: I didn't do. So we're going to trial again and
Speaker 1: I'm going to be found not guilty and get my
Speaker 1: name cleared. So the prosecution to destroy the credibility of
Speaker 1: Nancy's story, as they got a neurosurgeon who examined her
Speaker 1: to testify that this sort of thing is very uncommon,
Speaker 1: Like I've worked with other people who have suffered serious
Speaker 1: brain injuries, and I have never seen a case where
Speaker 1: one of them suddenly regains their memories of the attack
Speaker 1: they suffered. So there was some suspicion that Nancy may
Speaker 1: have fabricated this story to help her husband, and one
Speaker 1: psychiatrists who examined her wrote a report in which they stated, quote,
Speaker 1: I do believe that missus Drake is susceptible to undue
Speaker 1: influence by her husband, and I believe that her love
Speaker 1: for Thomas approaches the neurotic or obsessional level end quote.
Speaker 2: And that was kind of the vibe that I was
Speaker 2: getting based on all the information that she had about
Speaker 2: him and what he'd done with the mistress and the child,
Speaker 2: moving them in and still choosing to support him. I'm
Speaker 2: not going to judge her because she's been through such
Speaker 2: a trauma, and I can't imagine what that would be like.
Speaker 2: Your whole world comes crop down. And I don't know
Speaker 2: what her friend group was like, if she had a
Speaker 2: lot of other connections outside of the church, or she
Speaker 2: had a lot of support, what her family relationships were like,
Speaker 2: or if Thomas was like the main source of support
Speaker 2: and that person that she really felt like, even though
Speaker 2: he wasn't a good husband in a lot of respects,
Speaker 2: it might have felt like he was all that she
Speaker 2: had and she wanted to cling onto that. So it's
Speaker 2: it's really difficult.
Speaker 1: It is, yeah, I mean, you don't want to like
Speaker 1: accuse like a victim of such a horrible crime of
Speaker 1: intentionally lying, But it could be a thing where she
Speaker 1: felt that Thomas was her only support system, so she
Speaker 1: had to stick by him no matter what, even if
Speaker 1: she wasn't completely sure that he was innocent. But there
Speaker 1: was another whole poke in her story because the church's
Speaker 1: pastor and associate pastor would testify that they had visited
Speaker 1: the church on the morning of the attack, only a
Speaker 1: few hours before Nancy was hey with the hammer and
Speaker 1: asked her how the concert tickets sales were going, and
Speaker 1: she said she had collected about six hundred dollars and
Speaker 1: proceeded to open her death drawer, which showed that she
Speaker 1: had a bunch of cash and checks in there, and
Speaker 1: this seemed to contradict her claims because she said that
Speaker 1: the reason she had to open the safe is because
Speaker 1: she didn't have enough change for a one hundred dollars
Speaker 1: bill from the white haired man, So why would she
Speaker 1: need to do that if she had six hundred dollars
Speaker 1: inside the death drawer. But in fairness, it's possible that
Speaker 1: she could have put that money in the safe at
Speaker 1: a later time after the pastor's left, and so she
Speaker 1: didn't have any change by the time the white haired
Speaker 1: man arrived.
Speaker 2: And it's also possible too that she's not intentionally fabricating
Speaker 2: the story, that maybe Thomas has just given her information
Speaker 2: over and over again, and like the way that she's
Speaker 2: integrating that information, she's kind of like conflating that with
Speaker 2: what actually happened, or maybe what little memory she might
Speaker 2: have had about that day, and it somehow becomes her
Speaker 2: reality because he's drilling it into her. If she's susceptible
Speaker 2: to his, you know, undue influence and is romantically obsessed
Speaker 2: with him in the way that the psychiatrist is describing,
Speaker 2: I think it's possible that she can almost be brainwashed
Speaker 2: into believing that this is what she remembers. If Thomas
Speaker 2: does have that Svengali like hold over her.
Speaker 1: I mean that is possible because we do know that
Speaker 1: she was frequently visiting him in the County Jail while
Speaker 1: he was awaiting in trial. So, for all we know,
Speaker 1: maybe he was saying, I'm not sure if this is
Speaker 1: exactly what happened, but it might be helpful if you
Speaker 1: tell the jury that you were attacked by a white
Speaker 1: haired man, and this is the explanation you're going to
Speaker 1: give when you ask why you open the safe and stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, we can't prove that, but I could totally
Speaker 1: believe that Thomas was influencing in what Nancy should say
Speaker 1: in order to get him out of prison.
Speaker 2: It just feels so convenient if he wasn't influencing her.
Speaker 1: So of course, if Nancy had gotten on the stand
Speaker 1: and testified, I'm sure this would have made a lot
Speaker 1: of influence on the would have had a lot of
Speaker 1: influence on the jury because the actual victim of the
Speaker 1: crime is saying that the man on trial is innocent
Speaker 1: and not actually attack. But lo and behold. They finally
Speaker 1: got to the day where Nancy was supposed to take
Speaker 1: the stand and testify, but at the last moment, she
Speaker 1: approached Thomas's defense attorney and said that her memory had
Speaker 1: failed and completely gone away. And her excuse was is
Speaker 1: that the previous day her doctor had changed her medication,
Speaker 1: so now she was at the point where she could
Speaker 1: no longer tell the difference between what she actually remembered
Speaker 1: and what she had been told, So she was no
Speaker 1: longer sure that this story about the white haired man
Speaker 1: was what actually happened, and as a result, the defense
Speaker 1: was forced to rest without calling Nancy as a witness,
Speaker 1: and she never did testify in front of the jury.
Speaker 2: That makes it look like she's starting to potentially believe
Speaker 2: that maybe he did manipulate her into thinking that this
Speaker 2: is what happened, and she can't tell truth from fiction.
Speaker 2: But it's not a good look for Thomas that she's
Speaker 2: stepping back and saying, I can't tell what I actually
Speaker 2: remember anymore, because it seems less likely that you're going
Speaker 2: to have this crystal clear picture of exactly what happened
Speaker 2: after even when they're saying that this isn't the typical
Speaker 2: path to healing in the traumatic brain injury. When somebody's
Speaker 2: got amnesia and they can't remember a very specific event,
Speaker 2: they don't typically get back a full recollection the way
Speaker 2: that Nancy did, according to those experts, So to then
Speaker 2: take it back, it feels like we're you just doing
Speaker 2: this to help your husband. And now at this point
Speaker 2: you're going, maybe I don't want to for a variety
Speaker 2: of reasons. I'm not sure, but it just doesn't look
Speaker 2: good for Thomas.
Speaker 1: It doesn't know, and I'm not an expert on brain injuries,
Speaker 1: but I do know neurosurgeons will say that it's extremely
Speaker 1: unlikely that someone could lose their memories, regain them again
Speaker 1: for a couple months, and then have them completely go
Speaker 1: away again. This doesn't sound like typical behavior from someone
Speaker 1: who has suffered a brain injury to have their memories
Speaker 1: just keep disappearing and reappearing and disappearing again.
Speaker 2: No, that's not the way that it goes if you're
Speaker 2: recovering your memory, unless you have another brain injury, concussion,
Speaker 2: something that could account for the loss of memory. And
Speaker 2: of course there are lots of different medications that can
Speaker 2: cause memory loss. But it seems like this is a
Speaker 2: rather specific memory. You're saying, I don't remember what I
Speaker 2: don't remember. It just seems like you remember, but you
Speaker 2: just don't want to talk about it for some reason,
Speaker 2: or it's a fabricated memory exactly.
Speaker 1: And I think she is genuine when she said that
Speaker 1: she did not remember who attacked her, But I don't
Speaker 1: really believe her too much when she came up with
Speaker 1: the story about the white haired man. And of course
Speaker 1: this whole thing would put the defense in a major
Speaker 1: bind because at the outset they had two potential alternate suspects,
Speaker 1: the white haired man and Raymond Star. And Raymond Star
Speaker 1: seems more promising because his fingerprint is found at the scene,
Speaker 1: and he had the scratches on his face, and he
Speaker 1: had a shaky alibi. But the problem is is that
Speaker 1: now that Nancy mentioned being attacked by a white haired man,
Speaker 1: that became the crux of their entire case, Like, we
Speaker 1: can't put all our focus on Raymond Stars alternate suspect
Speaker 1: now that our so called witness has named this other person.
Speaker 1: So as a result, they really could present Star as
Speaker 1: an alternate suspect at the trial because they were putting
Speaker 1: all their focus on the white haired man. But now
Speaker 1: that Nancy was no longer testifying, it feeling like, well,
Speaker 1: we don't have a lot to work with here because
Speaker 1: other than the sightings of this guy outside sitting in
Speaker 1: the car, we don't have any evidence that this white
Speaker 1: haired man ever actually entered the church and attack Nancy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that kind of puts them in a unique position
Speaker 2: where they just don't have a lot of options because
Speaker 2: they were throwing everything at Nancy. She was going to
Speaker 2: be their star witness, and she was going to get
Speaker 2: up there and say like, no, it was this white
Speaker 2: haired man. And then when you've got a great suspect,
Speaker 2: an alternate suspect in Star, like to raise him, that
Speaker 2: will be easy reasonable doubt, I think, because the evidence
Speaker 2: against him is nearly equal to that against Thomas. So
Speaker 2: if you bring up Star and you talk about his
Speaker 2: alibi that he fabricated, and then you talk about the
Speaker 2: scratches on his face, you talk about his fingerprints on
Speaker 2: the glass and him denying being there, I think you
Speaker 2: could have a pretty compelling alternate there, and I think
Speaker 2: you could easily sway a jury. But then when you're
Speaker 2: in the position where your white haired man has essentially
Speaker 2: been taken away, well, you don't have anything, so your
Speaker 2: defense is just going to be garbage exactly.
Speaker 1: So, when Nancy did not take the stand to testify,
Speaker 1: that did a major blow to the defense's case. But
Speaker 1: to be fair, the prosecution did not add any additional evidence,
Speaker 1: so their case was still pretty weak as well. And
Speaker 1: at the very least, when this case went to the jury,
Speaker 1: they deliberated a lot longer. Instead of five hours, they
Speaker 1: deliberated for two days. Well, once again they found tom
Speaker 1: As guilty, though they lowered the charges a little bit
Speaker 1: because instead of first degree attempted murder, they decided to
Speaker 1: convict him on the charge of second degree attempted murder
Speaker 1: as well as aggravated robbery. But in spite of this difference,
Speaker 1: the judge still decided to throw the book to Thomas again,
Speaker 1: I think, for wasting their time for another trial. So
Speaker 1: he once again got consecutive sentences of life imprisonment plus
Speaker 1: thirty years. So following Thomas's incarceration, it seemed like Nancy's
Speaker 1: attitude towards him seemed to change, because even though she
Speaker 1: had stood by him throughout the entire trial, now that
Speaker 1: he was behind bars, she finally decided to file from
Speaker 1: divorce from Thomas. At the end of nineteen eighty four,
Speaker 1: she tried to resume her life because she wanted to
Speaker 1: return to work at the First Church of the Nazarene
Speaker 1: because that had been her big passion. She used to
Speaker 1: work sixty hours a week there, but because of her
Speaker 1: brain injury. She was very overwhelmed by the stress of
Speaker 1: the situation and had trouble functioning, so she went there
Speaker 1: for one shift and only lasted two hours before she
Speaker 1: decided to go home, and it was eventually determined that
Speaker 1: the severe nature of her injuries left her unable to
Speaker 1: hold down a job, so she would require daily nursing care.
Speaker 2: Poor Nancy to think that this one thing that you
Speaker 2: were so passionate about that she absolutely loved. She probably
Speaker 2: loved all the people at the church and really felt
Speaker 2: like she was making a difference in helping people to
Speaker 2: have that be the place that your life was nearly ended,
Speaker 2: and then to go back and to relive that trauma
Speaker 2: and to realize that, like, this isn't a safe space
Speaker 2: for me anymore. I can't come here without feeling triggered
Speaker 2: and just knowing that the life that she had prior
Speaker 2: is never going to be the same. And that's evidenced
Speaker 2: by the fact that you said that she needed care
Speaker 2: all of the time, and so her independence and her
Speaker 2: ability to be able to just do things day to
Speaker 2: day would have been changed.
Speaker 1: Drastically exactly like, even though she's aur vived this attack,
Speaker 1: even though it was pretty much a miracle since they
Speaker 1: figured she was either going to die or be in
Speaker 1: a permittive be in a permittive vegetative state. She had
Speaker 1: a really hard time holding down a functional life because
Speaker 1: the brain trauma was so severe. But the good news
Speaker 1: is that she moved back to original home state of Indiana,
Speaker 1: and she did get remarried, so it sounds like she
Speaker 1: was able to find some happiness after all this.
Speaker 2: Oh that's at least a bright spot in a very
Speaker 2: dark story.
Speaker 1: And as far as I know, her second husband did
Speaker 1: not move his mistress into their house, so it sounds
Speaker 1: like he was an improvement over Thomas.
Speaker 2: Anything is an improvement over Thomas exactly.
Speaker 1: So, like I said, this was supposed to be featured
Speaker 1: on the Unsaw Mysteries spinoff show Final Appeal from the
Speaker 1: Files of Unsaw Mysteries in October of nineteen ninety two,
Speaker 1: but the episode wound up being preempted and the segment
Speaker 1: wound up sitting in a vault for seventeen years and
Speaker 1: did not see the light of day until it was
Speaker 1: featured on the Unsaw Mysteries reboot in two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: and the interviewed Nancy during the segment and she still
Speaker 1: continued to maintain that she had no memory of the
Speaker 1: attack and couldn't say for certain whether Thomas was the
Speaker 1: one who killed her, but it was the one who
Speaker 1: attacked her. But she did a complete one to eighty
Speaker 1: on standing behind her husband, and she made this statement
Speaker 1: which did rub people the wrong way. She said, quote,
Speaker 1: I don't know whether he's guilty or not. I don't
Speaker 1: rightfully give a darn either. He deserves to be where
Speaker 1: he is, not for trying to kill because I honestly
Speaker 1: don't know whether he did it or not, but just
Speaker 1: for everything he had done previously end quote. And well,
Speaker 1: you gotta understand why Nancy would be so outraged. Some
Speaker 1: people thought that rubbed them the wrong way because it's like, well, Thomas,
Speaker 1: you don't go to prison for adultery. Thomas may be
Speaker 1: a jerk, but you can't say he deserves to be
Speaker 1: in prison for the rest of your life just for
Speaker 1: cheating on you when you don't know for certain if
Speaker 1: he's actually guilty of attempted murderer.
Speaker 2: I could see how it could rub people the wrong way.
Speaker 2: And it's maybe not in like the best taste, but
Speaker 2: Nancy's been through a lot and She's had a lot
Speaker 2: of brain trauma, and so I can only imagine what
Speaker 2: she's gone through. I don't want to be judgmental about
Speaker 2: the things that she chooses to put out there, even
Speaker 2: if it maybe isn't word of the best. And I
Speaker 2: do agree that adultery isn't a reason that somebody should
Speaker 2: end up in prison. I think she was put through
Speaker 2: a lot with that attack, and then put through a
Speaker 2: lot in the aftermath in finding out all that about Thomas.
Speaker 2: So I'm going to hold back and not judge her
Speaker 2: for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can definitely see it that way. I think
Speaker 1: she just had like eight years worth of retrospective because
Speaker 1: at the beginning, she's totally standing by her husband, thinking
Speaker 1: that I know he did a bad thing, but I
Speaker 1: think we can still work this out, and I don't
Speaker 1: want him to go to prison. But maybe now that
Speaker 1: she had moved on with her life and had married
Speaker 1: a good man who treated her well, she's now thinking, man,
Speaker 1: this guy that I used to be married to is
Speaker 1: a major douchebag. So now that I'm going to be
Speaker 1: a national TV I'm going to take the opportunity to
Speaker 1: sound off on him. So I mentioned earlier that Thomas
Speaker 1: had a daughter from a previous marriage before he met Nancy.
Speaker 1: I think the divorce, well, she was just a baby,
Speaker 1: so they didn't really have much of a relationship. But
Speaker 1: I went to the Unsaw Mysteries message board at the
Speaker 1: sitcoms online for him. They have a lengthy thread about
Speaker 1: this case and it contained a number of posts there
Speaker 1: from a poster under the username Iowa Angel, who claimed
Speaker 1: she was Thomas's daughter and that once she became an adult,
Speaker 1: she finally decided to reconnect with them and visit him
Speaker 1: in prison, and that he never stopped maintaining his innocence
Speaker 1: and saying that he did not harm Nancy. And she
Speaker 1: also claimed that she spoke to Nancy, and this was
Speaker 1: Nancy's statement, quote, I don't know if your father tried
Speaker 1: to kill me or not. The man I married could
Speaker 1: never have done that to me, But the man that
Speaker 1: was cheating on me, who knows. I don't know that
Speaker 1: man end quote.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And I'm sure that like Lacy Peterson, never thought that
Speaker 2: Scott Peterson would do what he did to her. And
Speaker 2: so it's just so complex. I'm about sixty percent and
Speaker 2: that Thomas is probably where he should be, and that
Speaker 2: he's guilty, but the other forty percent kind of remains.
Speaker 2: It might even be fifty to fifty. It's just I'm
Speaker 2: not one hundred percent sure. The other suspects are tantalizing
Speaker 2: the white haired man. There's really nothing there except for
Speaker 2: that he was in the parking lot and like Althea
Speaker 2: saw him, Thomas saw him. But Star having the scratches
Speaker 2: on his face, fabricating that, Alibi having the fingerprints, it's
Speaker 2: enough that creates reasonable doubt for me that if I
Speaker 2: was on the jury, I probably if given the information
Speaker 2: about Star, I probably wouldn't convict. But given that this
Speaker 2: case was so weak, it's interesting to see how Nancy's
Speaker 2: perspective has shifted over time. But I think that's what
Speaker 2: time does, right, It does give us that perspective. And
Speaker 2: although immediately in the aftermath of what happened, she might
Speaker 2: have been grasping for any support, for any sense of normalcy,
Speaker 2: and then as more time went on and she gained
Speaker 2: more independence and just more understanding, and there was more
Speaker 2: growth happening, and probably just seeing her husband in a
Speaker 2: different light, she started to feel a different kind of
Speaker 2: a way. And I think even over the course of
Speaker 2: our relationship. Over many years, we can start to feel
Speaker 2: a different way. But the context of him being charged
Speaker 2: with the attempted murder and then being in prison and
Speaker 2: the affair and all of that, I think that she
Speaker 2: could build up a healthy resentment.
Speaker 1: I think so. Yeah, Like, even if she isn't certain
Speaker 1: that he attacked her, I'm sure she realized this guy
Speaker 1: is not a good guy. He did some bad things
Speaker 1: to me, he mistreated me. But now I'm kind of
Speaker 1: at peace now and have moved on with my life.
Speaker 1: I found out that Nancy passed away in twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: at the age of eighty two. This case really faded
Speaker 1: from the spotlight. It seemed like after it was filmed
Speaker 1: for Unsolved Mysteries, it really didn't get any other publicity.
Speaker 1: I know that Thomas filed a number of appeals and
Speaker 1: was unsuccessful, and he could not get his conviction overturned,
Speaker 1: and I was curious to find out if he was
Speaker 1: still alive after all these years. But I went to
Speaker 1: the inmate locator for the state of Florida, and Thomas
Speaker 1: is still listed. He is still incarcerated today at the
Speaker 1: age of eighty six, so he is never getting out
Speaker 1: of prison and if you think he's guilty, then karma
Speaker 1: ultimately got him at the end because he's been incarcerated
Speaker 1: for forty years now. But of course, if Thomas was innocent,
Speaker 1: and even though he might be a douchebag in real life,
Speaker 1: nobody deserves to serve forty years in prison for a
Speaker 1: crime they did not commit.
Speaker 2: Definitely not if he's innocent, he deserves to be free.
Speaker 2: I mean, just being a somebody that is a cheater
Speaker 2: and is deceptive in general doesn't mean that he's guilty.
Speaker 2: But uugh, this case is super frustrating. I can see
Speaker 2: why you woul draw them parallels with the Tommy's Egler case.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the Tommy's Egler case is a lot more
Speaker 1: messy than this, but it still has the same problems
Speaker 1: with like you have to focus on specific timelines, you
Speaker 1: have witnesses who contradict each other, and there's still a
Speaker 1: lot of reasonable doubt. I mean, you mentioned feeling about
Speaker 1: sixty forty that Thomas is guilty. When I recorded this
Speaker 1: episode for The Trail with Cold several years ago, I
Speaker 1: pretty much held the fifty to fifty belief. I think
Speaker 1: this is the ultimate example of a fifty to fifty
Speaker 1: case where my gut tells me that Thomas did it,
Speaker 1: but I can't rule out the alternate suspect, and I
Speaker 1: certainly believe there's reasonable doubt and if that, if I
Speaker 1: had been on the jury, I would not have been
Speaker 1: able to convict him, because even though the whole thing
Speaker 1: about the life insurance policy and the affair and moving
Speaker 1: his mistress into his home looks pretty bad, that's not
Speaker 1: really conclusive evidence of murder. And there really isn't. They
Speaker 1: never found the stolen money on Thomas. There really wasn't
Speaker 1: any physical evidence looking him to the scenes. So I
Speaker 1: could say that my gut tells me that Thomas is guilty,
Speaker 1: but he never should have been convicted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I feel the exact same way. My gut's telling
Speaker 2: me he's guilty. I'm taking this course on statement analysis
Speaker 2: right now, just because I'm super interested in it. I
Speaker 2: had years ago on riddle me that Mark McLish he's
Speaker 2: an expert in like one of the grandfathers in statement analysis,
Speaker 2: and he trained the Marshall Service for like tons of
Speaker 2: years and trains a lot of different law enforcement agencies.
Speaker 2: And him and I were talking and he's like, well,
Speaker 2: I'll give you the course for free. So just in
Speaker 2: those short little statements, it just sounded like a deflecting
Speaker 2: admission when he said, I mean I would have to
Speaker 2: like look at the full statements to really break it down.
Speaker 2: But it made me really think, okay, like he could
Speaker 2: be guilty talking about just the way that you'd worded
Speaker 2: things and the way that you'd said things. And I
Speaker 2: of course didn't get a chance to really look at them,
Speaker 2: but that made me, It put me over the edge
Speaker 2: of that extra ten percent that I was then sixty forty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that makes sense to me, But I'd be curious
Speaker 1: to hear your thoughts if you think Thomas is guilty,
Speaker 1: whether it was premeditated murder or it was an unplanned
Speaker 1: crime of passion. I mean, I could see the case
Speaker 1: for premeditated murder because he may have been wanting to
Speaker 1: get rid of Nancy and move his mistress and her
Speaker 1: son into her house, and he figured that if I
Speaker 1: do this in a public place at the church, if
Speaker 1: I've removed money from the safe, I can make it
Speaker 1: look like it was a robbery and that she was
Speaker 1: killed by a random attacker. But my main issue with
Speaker 1: that is that it does not appear like Thomas originally
Speaker 1: had any plans to visit the church that day, because,
Speaker 1: as you recall, she was planning to come home for lunch.
Speaker 1: But then she called Thomas at home and said, I'm
Speaker 1: too busy, can you bring me my lunch? And it
Speaker 1: just seems weird that he would just show up there
Speaker 1: and then suddenly decide I'm going to hit her with
Speaker 1: a hammer, even though she's selling concert tickets and people
Speaker 1: are coming in and out and there's a huge risk
Speaker 1: that someone might see me. And also the fact that
Speaker 1: he engaged in a recorded interview with the disc jockey,
Speaker 1: and it just seems weird that he would just suddenly,
Speaker 1: just a very short time later, just decide to pick
Speaker 1: up this hammer and attack his wife. So it does
Speaker 1: make me wonder did he plan this, or did maybe
Speaker 1: they get into an argument or something and he just
Speaker 1: lost his temper, found the first convenient weapon and then
Speaker 1: attacked Nancy with it.
Speaker 2: How would they have even had time to have gotten
Speaker 2: into an argument after that call with the radio dj.
Speaker 2: It just seems like there wasn't a lot of time
Speaker 2: available there for them to even have a conversation before
Speaker 2: she was murdered. I mean, I think it's possible that
Speaker 2: he could have had the idea, this premeditation that he
Speaker 2: wanted to murder her, and then this was just a
Speaker 2: good opportunity. And so it wasn't like he was planning
Speaker 2: on doing it that day. Maybe he was just kind
Speaker 2: of brainstorming it and then this opportunity presented itself and
Speaker 2: he decided to do it, knowing he'd done this phone
Speaker 2: call with her and that there was no red flags
Speaker 2: for him and that if, like you said, if the
Speaker 2: safe was cleaned out, they would just assume robbery. So
Speaker 2: it was like premeditated but opportunistic in that exact day,
Speaker 2: Do you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, yeah, Like maybe he was planning to do
Speaker 1: it eventually, and then once he arrives, he realizes we're
Speaker 1: alone here, I have a hammer, and it could be
Speaker 1: a thing where like he wasn't even planning the robbery
Speaker 1: at first, like maybe Nancy opened the safe to get
Speaker 1: some change or something, and he's thinking, Hey, if I
Speaker 1: hit her now and I take the money, I can
Speaker 1: make this look like a robbery. So it could have
Speaker 1: been an opportunistic thing where he didn't plan on doing
Speaker 1: it that day but said this is the perfect time
Speaker 1: for me to get away with it, and he was
Speaker 1: just lucky to do it and take the money and
Speaker 1: then get out of there before anyone else showed up.
Speaker 1: But the problem for him was that Nancy survived. So yeah,
Speaker 1: it is the ultimate example of like a fifty to
Speaker 1: fifty case. And I still hold the belief that even
Speaker 1: though I kind of leaned towards Thomas being guilty, he
Speaker 1: should not have been convicted because of reasonable doubt. I
Speaker 1: think the thing that really makes me lean towards him
Speaker 1: is the fact that it was such a limited timeframe
Speaker 1: that it had to happen between twelve thirty and twelve forty,
Speaker 1: and we know Thomas was there. He would have been
Speaker 1: able to do that and escape without anyone seeing him,
Speaker 1: Whereas the odds of a completely random person going in
Speaker 1: there after Thomas left and hitting her and stealing all
Speaker 1: the money within ten minutes and escaping before they were
Speaker 1: seen just seemed very slim, and by the law of averages,
Speaker 1: I think it's more probable that Thomas did it.
Speaker 2: He's either the most unlucky guy in the entire universe
Speaker 2: based on that timeline, or he's guilty. And I leaned
Speaker 2: towards the ladder I think so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But yeah, if this one is a very interesting
Speaker 1: case that I'm sure is going to be debated until
Speaker 1: the end of time, even after tom this has passed away.
Speaker 1: So any final thoughts on this case.
Speaker 2: No, this was a really interesting one because in the beginning,
Speaker 2: the way you were presenting the evidence or lack thereof,
Speaker 2: I was like, well, this doesn't seem like it could
Speaker 2: have been the husband, because like, how stupid would you
Speaker 2: have to be to go in and murder your wife
Speaker 2: in a place you were literally just seen, people know
Speaker 2: you were there, and you use a hammer that's at
Speaker 2: the scene. It just didn't line up for me. But
Speaker 2: then the more that we talked it through, it was like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I think he's guilty.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We always say, like, who would be so stupid
Speaker 1: to do something like this? But this guy was stupid
Speaker 1: enough to move his mistress into his home while his
Speaker 1: wife was recovering in the hospital. So maybe his mistakes
Speaker 1: are the fact that he's just not that bright. So
Speaker 1: that brings an end to our series about the tempted
Speaker 1: murder of Nancy Drake. Thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: We don't know when Ashley, we'll be back yet, so
Speaker 1: you may be hearing just Jewels and myself on the
Speaker 1: next few episodes, but if so, we'll just follow the
Speaker 1: same mula me sharing the details about a case and
Speaker 1: then getting Jewels reaction from it. So once again, thanks
Speaker 1: for joining us, and we'll see you again next week.
Speaker 3: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 3: about the Trail Went 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 signs 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 Unsolved 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 Jeweles and Nashy patreons. So there's early ad
Speaker 4: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Speaker 4: Pathwent Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so
Speaker 4: they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
Speaker 4: turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those,
Speaker 4: so we hope you'll 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 d rate and review is greatly appreciated.
Speaker 1: You can email us at The Pathwentchili at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: You can reach us on Twitter at the Pathwin. So
Speaker 1: until next time, be sure to bundle up because Cold
Speaker 1: Trail ells and Chili past call for warm clothing.
Speaker 3: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold callers, comedy,