Speaker 1: Welcome back to part of our series about the Austin
Speaker 1: Yogurt shot murders and the recent resolution of the case.
Speaker 1: So I, given that this was the early nineteen nineties
Speaker 1: in Texas, I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn
Speaker 1: that we also have a touch of Satanic panic, because
Speaker 1: this is pretty much a kitchen sink case when it
Speaker 1: comes to finding colorful suspects. But the police started receiving
Speaker 1: tips about a group of local residents who were nicknamed
Speaker 1: the People in Black, who supposedly had an interest in
Speaker 1: the occult and vanism and would perform activities like dancing
Speaker 1: on tombstones, and of course there were rumors in the
Speaker 1: area that they were all part of a Satanic cult.
Speaker 1: The leader of the group was a woman called Claire LeVay,
Speaker 1: which is probably not a real name. I think she
Speaker 1: changed it as a homage to the Church of Satan
Speaker 1: founder Aunt Don Leavey. Yeah exactly. But what's hilarious is
Speaker 1: that forty eight hours this was when they started covering
Speaker 1: the Austin yogurt shop murders. You know, you know Aaron Moriarty, right, Oh, yes.
Speaker 2: I know who Aaron Moriarty is.
Speaker 1: Yes, this is pretty much one of her pet cases
Speaker 1: because she was assigned to cover it back in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety two and then would keep covering the case for
Speaker 1: like the next thirty years. She came very passionate about it.
Speaker 1: But what's hilarious is one of her first assignments is
Speaker 1: when forty eight hours the camera crew was given permission
Speaker 1: when they performed a raid of Claire LaVey's house in
Speaker 1: order to bring her in for questioning and see if
Speaker 1: she had any knowledge of the yogurt shop murders. And
Speaker 1: when the police broke and burst down the door and
Speaker 1: came in with the camera crew, turned out that Claire
Speaker 1: LaVey was naked inside and pleasuring herself with a vibrator
Speaker 1: just when the police arrived, which is a very hilarious
Speaker 1: story in a very sad case. But they found like
Speaker 1: a skull inside, but it turned out it was made
Speaker 1: of wax, and she had some bones in there, but
Speaker 1: they belonged to animals like rats and squirrels. And of
Speaker 1: course when John Jones looked into her, he realized, no,
Speaker 1: she's got nothing to do with this. This is just
Speaker 1: like a false le at, a red herring, and they
Speaker 1: dropped it. But thankfully they had some good sense this time,
Speaker 1: because we've seen so many of the satanic panic lead
Speaker 1: to innocent people being railroaded. But in this case, Claire
Speaker 1: LaVey was just embarrassed rather than falsely in prison.
Speaker 2: I mean, get it, Claire Leavey don't want to yuck
Speaker 2: her yum. I mean, I can understand that she would
Speaker 2: have been embarrassed because you don't expect law enforcement to
Speaker 2: come bursting in. Well, one is in the act of
Speaker 2: pleasuring themselves. But you're right, that is a really hilarious
Speaker 2: spot in a very very dark case. And you can't
Speaker 2: have a nineteen nineties case it's unsolved without having like
Speaker 2: some kind of smattering of satanic panic, just like sprinkled
Speaker 2: in for good measure.
Speaker 1: It feels like pretty much. Yeah. And for the record,
Speaker 1: that footage of her with the vibrator did not make
Speaker 1: the forty eight Hours episode that they didn't want that
Speaker 1: going on a network TV. So there would be one
Speaker 1: more very interesting false lead, and this time it involved
Speaker 1: a gang of Mexican bikers from a gang called Nierrada's Punks.
Speaker 1: It was because an Hispanic looking man with long hair
Speaker 1: in a car had been seen parked outside the yogurt
Speaker 1: shop on the night of the murders, and the eventually
Speaker 1: I thought they had identified them as a trio of
Speaker 1: bikers named Alberto Jimenez, Cortes, Portfrio Villa Severrada and Ricardo Hernandez.
Speaker 1: And these were dangerous guys because three weeks before the
Speaker 1: yogurt shop murders they had actually abducted a young women
Speaker 1: from a nightclub in Austin and proceeded to gang Raper
Speaker 1: before letting her go. So they put out an a
Speaker 1: restaurant for these guys. They wondered if they might have
Speaker 1: been responsible for the yogurt shp crime, but they had
Speaker 1: escaped over the border into Mexico. But in October of
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety two, nearly a year later, they finally captured
Speaker 1: two of them, Cortes and Seretta, for other crimes such
Speaker 1: as drug trafficking and gun smuggling, and as we were
Speaker 1: being held in custody by the Mexican authorities, they both
Speaker 1: supposedly confessed to being responsible for the yogurt shop murders.
Speaker 1: But thankfully John Jones was still on the case and
Speaker 1: once he read the confession, he instantly became skeptical because
Speaker 1: there were a lot of incorrect details, because one of
Speaker 1: them even said that the girls were cut up and mutilated.
Speaker 1: So Jones decided to perform his own interview with these
Speaker 1: guys where they recanted these confessions and claimed that they
Speaker 1: had only done it because they had been tortured by
Speaker 1: the Mexican authorities, because obviously down there there's more human
Speaker 1: rights violations, and it seemed like the Mexican authorities wanted
Speaker 1: to take credit for solving this very infamous American crime,
Speaker 1: so they tortured these two by into making a false confession.
Speaker 1: And they weren't bad guys. They did go to prison
Speaker 1: for the gang rape, so they deserve to be locked up,
Speaker 1: but they were ultimately ruled out as being responsible for
Speaker 1: the yogurt shop murders. But it just kind of demonstrated
Speaker 1: what a big farce this case was becoming because we
Speaker 1: were finding all these colorful suspects, many of them were confessing,
Speaker 1: yet there was no evidence to implicate any of them.
Speaker 2: And like, Okay, the year's nineteen ninety one. We've got
Speaker 2: like really rudimentary internet. It's pretty basic, and I've just
Speaker 2: got to wonder what type of news media was reaching
Speaker 2: Mexico about the Austin yogurt shop murders. It wouldn't be
Speaker 2: like it is today. There wasn't social media, So like,
Speaker 2: what was going through these two Mexican or Mexican police
Speaker 2: officers who are questioning these bikers and they're like, hey, bro,
Speaker 2: let's just get these guys to confess so that we
Speaker 2: can take credit for solving the Austin yogurt shop murders.
Speaker 1: What I mean, I guess it'd be because it's near
Speaker 1: the Mexican border to Austin that maybe word has spread
Speaker 1: about it down there and they had heard of it.
Speaker 1: But I think they just saw it as an opportunity
Speaker 1: because maybe they saw in the police band that they
Speaker 1: were wanted for questioning and the yogurt shot murders, and
Speaker 1: once they realized that they had them in custody for
Speaker 1: other crimes, they said, oh, this will be a big
Speaker 1: coup for us if we can solve this case and
Speaker 1: make the Americans look bad. But of course they didn't
Speaker 1: do it, and all they got were false confessions. But
Speaker 1: it just showed how much time was wasted in the
Speaker 1: early years pursuing all these leads that ultimately went nowhere.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just like everybody who is faced with a suspect,
Speaker 2: no matter how credible they are or how credible the
Speaker 2: details that they give are, they're just so hungry for
Speaker 2: a result that they want to solve the case. And
Speaker 2: I'm sure that the motivations are many that some people
Speaker 2: who want to solve it, they truly have their eye
Speaker 2: on justice and they want to solve it because they
Speaker 2: want to give the families that resolution and to be
Speaker 2: able to give the community that resolution. And then there's
Speaker 2: other people where it's more of an ego project, right,
Speaker 2: and it's like, Okay, well, if I do this, it's
Speaker 2: going to make me look so good. And then Mexico
Speaker 2: doing that and be like, let's torture these guys and
Speaker 2: get this result. I'm not laughing at the torture, It
Speaker 2: just it seems absolutely absurd to me that they would
Speaker 2: then try their hand at this where these guys clearly
Speaker 2: didn't do it. Yeah, they're bad guys and they did
Speaker 2: deserve to be locked up, but not for the Austin
Speaker 2: yogurt chop.
Speaker 1: Murders exactly, because, as we're going to talk about, the
Speaker 1: real killer was getting away with it. And when we
Speaker 1: get to the end and I reveal who the real
Speaker 1: killer was, it's going to horrify you how many other
Speaker 1: crimes he was getting away with while they were looking
Speaker 1: at the wrong suspects in this case. So, unfortunately, the
Speaker 1: case would remain solid for the next several years. Like
Speaker 1: I said, John Jones was transferred off the case and
Speaker 1: everything went cold. But in August of nineteen ninety nine,
Speaker 1: the Austin pe decided to form a new task force
Speaker 1: to relaunch the investigation and would it be led by
Speaker 1: a homicide detective named Paul Johnson and assisted by some
Speaker 1: other detectives named Ron Laura, John Hardisty and Robert Merrill,
Speaker 1: who pretty much decided, we're going to solve this at
Speaker 1: any costs. So while looking back through the files, they
Speaker 1: found out about this whole lead involving Maurice Pearce and
Speaker 1: how he had implicated three accomplices, Robert Springsteen, Michael Scott
Speaker 1: and Forrest Wellborn, and they hadn't been looked at in years,
Speaker 1: and even though there was no evidence against them other
Speaker 1: than like a half ass confession from Maurice, they decide, well,
Speaker 1: they're in the mid twenties now and they're now living
Speaker 1: with jobs and they have families of their own. Some
Speaker 1: of them even have children, why not bring them back
Speaker 1: in and question them again? And like I mentioned back
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety one, they were all like kind of
Speaker 1: juvenile delinquents. They were high school dropouts who spent a
Speaker 1: lot of the time partying, didn't seem to have much
Speaker 1: focus in life. Some of them had some misdemeanor crimes.
Speaker 1: Maurice had been arrested once for drunk driving, Mike had
Speaker 1: been arrested once for possession of weed. Forrest had once
Speaker 1: been arrested for driving with a suspended license. Once again,
Speaker 1: none of these guys had any documented history of violence
Speaker 1: to suggest they were capable of a crime this heinous,
Speaker 1: and they were all teenagers at the time. We had
Speaker 1: two seventeen year olds, one sixteen year old and won
Speaker 1: fifteen year old. And the crime really looked like it
Speaker 1: was committed by an offender who had a lot of
Speaker 1: prior experience of that and may not have been their
Speaker 1: first murder. But regardless, they still wanted to question them again.
Speaker 1: So the next first person who was brought in was
Speaker 1: Michael Scott, and the first thing he said in his
Speaker 1: interrogation room was I got a sorry, guys, but I
Speaker 1: had memory issues. I may have trouble for getting stuff
Speaker 1: that took place nearly eight years earlier. And I think
Speaker 1: they took advantage of that because as they started interrogating
Speaker 1: him for several hours, they started planting the seat in
Speaker 1: the head that he may have committed the murder and
Speaker 1: completely blacked out and forgotten about it. So at one point,
Speaker 1: ten hours into his interrogation, Michael was given a cell
Speaker 1: phone in order to call his wife and he actually
Speaker 1: said to her, quote, I know more about this case
Speaker 1: than I thought I knew.
Speaker 2: Oh my god. That just gives me such a shudder
Speaker 2: to think that, like, poor Michael Scott, who's clearly got
Speaker 2: memory issues, and he's telling the police this and they
Speaker 2: seem to be weaponizing it against him. And I don't
Speaker 2: know how much of this is done in a calculated
Speaker 2: manner and that they actually believe that he's guilty, or
Speaker 2: if they're just like, this guy looks like he could
Speaker 2: be good for it. Let's just take advantage of this.
Speaker 2: It just seems like such low hanging fruit. When you
Speaker 2: take somebody who's got any type of mild cognitive impairment
Speaker 2: or somebody who is easily influenced, you can plant the
Speaker 2: seeds and make them believe that they did just about anything,
Speaker 2: which is why one of the techniques that is allowed
Speaker 2: in the US, I don't know if we allow it
Speaker 2: in Canada. That I hate is when police lie to
Speaker 2: suspects and they say, we have your DNA here, And
Speaker 2: I think that like when you say to somebody who
Speaker 2: has or suffers from any kind of cognitive issues or
Speaker 2: memory issues, or they're very easily influenced, that if you
Speaker 2: say that, then there's a strong likelihood that you're going
Speaker 2: to get a percentage of those people who are going
Speaker 2: to go, oh, my DNA was there, I must have
Speaker 2: been there, I must be guilty. And then it's just
Speaker 2: a really dangerous trajectory for the rest of the interrogation
Speaker 2: because you can very easily plant the seeds and make
Speaker 2: somebody believe that they themselves committed this crime, which seems
Speaker 2: like that's what happened here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like they did let Michael go go back home
Speaker 1: to his wife, but then they brought him in again
Speaker 1: the following day and continue to go at him for
Speaker 1: several more hours, and then finally, after being interrogated for
Speaker 1: a total of eighteen hours over the course of two days,
Speaker 1: he finally admitted that he participated the murders and then
Speaker 1: signed a fourteen page confession. But you talked about how
Speaker 1: they can lie to suspects to plant the seeds in
Speaker 1: their heads that they might have done it, and we
Speaker 1: have an example of it here because Michael claimed that
Speaker 1: his alibi around the time of the yogurt Chop murders.
Speaker 1: This is another colorful detail is that he and Robert
Speaker 1: Springsteen were attending a midnight screening of the Rocky Horror
Speaker 1: Picture Show, which is taking place at the local mall,
Speaker 1: and they at one point during the interrogation, what if
Speaker 1: I told you that we checked and the Rocky Horror
Speaker 1: Picture Show wasn't playing at the theater that night, And
Speaker 1: of course that wasn't true. They didn't go back and
Speaker 1: check records for a movie that took place eight years ago.
Speaker 1: They just said it randomly in the interview, and of
Speaker 1: course Michael started doubting himself. Oh so maybe I wasn't
Speaker 1: actually there. Maybe I could have been in the yogret
Speaker 1: shop committing these murders. And that's what eventually paved the
Speaker 1: way for him to confessing.
Speaker 2: And so often in these cases you see a situation
Speaker 2: where somebody will say I have memory impairment issues. They
Speaker 2: may take advantage of that by pushing really hard, not
Speaker 2: giving him a break. If he doesn't have access to
Speaker 2: a lawyer and he doesn't know to ask for when
Speaker 2: there's a problem, and if he doesn't have any food,
Speaker 2: he doesn't have any beverages, maybe he's not allowed to
Speaker 2: go to the bathroom. We don't know the whole scenario
Speaker 2: played out there or is there a video of it.
Speaker 1: There is some video tape interrogation, but he did get
Speaker 1: some breaks and stuff. But you're correct he did not
Speaker 1: have a lawyer there when he was doing this because
Speaker 1: he probably figured, well, I had nothing to do with this.
Speaker 1: Here we are years later. I'm just going to answer
Speaker 1: questions and make things easier for them, little knowing that
Speaker 1: they're trying to like extract a false confession from them.
Speaker 2: Well, in the nineties, that was kind of the idea, right, like,
Speaker 2: if you didn't commit the crime, if you are innocent,
Speaker 2: then you've got nothing to hide. Why would you need
Speaker 2: a lawyer? I think it's only upon examination of all
Speaker 2: of these wrongful conviction cases that we've seen, you absolutely
Speaker 2: need a lawyer, whether you're guilty or whether you're innocent.
Speaker 2: The police aren't looking out for your best interests. You
Speaker 2: need to preserve your interest and the only way that
Speaker 2: you can do that is hiring a legal professional to
Speaker 2: have them help facilitate that conversation.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, exactly. And he never would have even considered that.
Speaker 1: I mean, all these four suspects, they're not considered to
Speaker 1: be disabled or anything. But when they were in high school,
Speaker 1: they had to take special education courses, so they weren't
Speaker 1: exactly very smart people. And obviously they're more kind of
Speaker 1: more simple minded, Like they can function on their own,
Speaker 1: they can live lives, have families, and have careers, but
Speaker 1: they're just not going to think to themselves that if
Speaker 1: the police are bringing me into question, to me, they're
Speaker 1: going to make me confess to something I didn't do.
Speaker 1: Since he implicated Robert Springsteen, he was brought in for
Speaker 1: questioning next. At this point, he had moved out of
Speaker 1: Texas and was living in West Virginia, so detectives Ron
Speaker 1: Laura and Robert Merrill went over there to question him.
Speaker 1: And when they brought Robert in, he had worked multiple
Speaker 1: shifts at his two jobs, so he had gotten virtually
Speaker 1: no sleep. And I think it had been up for like
Speaker 1: twenty hours at that point, so they only had to
Speaker 1: interrogate him for about four hours before he just got
Speaker 1: so exhausted that he told them what he wanted to
Speaker 1: hear and finally confess that he was involved in the
Speaker 1: murder as well. And I know that there was one
Speaker 1: point where he just got so frustrated when they tried
Speaker 1: to press him saying that you sexually assaulted this thirteen
Speaker 1: year old girl, Amy Errs, and he finally snapped and said, Okay,
Speaker 1: I did it. I put my dick in my pussy
Speaker 1: and I raped her. And of course he just said
Speaker 1: that out of frustration. He obviously didn't mean it. But
Speaker 1: they played the videotape of that at his trial, so
Speaker 1: you can only imagine what a terrible impression that set
Speaker 1: for the jury.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I can't imagine that the jury would have listened
Speaker 2: to that and had any great thoughts about him. It's
Speaker 2: just so graphic, Yeah, exactly. And I think once they
Speaker 2: saw that, it didn't even matter what other evidence was
Speaker 2: against him, they pretty much probably decided this guy is guilty,
Speaker 2: because no one who was innocent would say something like that.
Speaker 2: So in the end, Mike and Rob gave these two
Speaker 2: different statements that had some contradictory details, but the police
Speaker 2: eventually kind of combined them together into what they believed
Speaker 2: was a scenario about what they believe happened. What both
Speaker 2: men said is that the mastermind of the crime was
Speaker 2: Maurice Pierce, and that was a robbery gone wrong, that
Speaker 2: the group had been casing the yogurt shop since the
Speaker 2: afternoon and after evening hit Maurice entered first and purchased
Speaker 2: a yogurt in order to keep Jennifer and Eliza distracted,
Speaker 2: while Michael and Roberts knucking through the back area and
Speaker 2: unlocked the rear door, and they proceeded to use a
Speaker 2: folded pack of cigarettes to prop the door open, which
Speaker 2: would allow them to exit the shop during closing time.
Speaker 2: They implicated Forrest well Born, but said he did not
Speaker 2: directly participate in the crime, that he just sat in
Speaker 2: the group's getaway car in order to function his a lockout,
Speaker 2: and that Maurice, Mike, and rob did the robbery themselves
Speaker 2: after eleven PM after closing, but were completely thrown off
Speaker 2: by the fact that Sarah and Amy were in the back,
Speaker 2: so they weren't expecting four girls to be there instead
Speaker 2: of two and their story was that after the register
Speaker 2: was opened, Maurice was angry because there wasn't as much
Speaker 2: hash in there as he was expecting, so he accused
Speaker 2: the girls of lying and demanded to know where the
Speaker 2: rest of the money was, even though they maintained there
Speaker 2: was no more money. They then forced the girls to undress,
Speaker 2: tied them up a gunpoint, and when Eliza and Jennifer
Speaker 2: continued to maintain that there was no additional money, Maurice
Speaker 2: shot them both in the back of the head, and
Speaker 2: then he ordered Robert to rape Amy, which he did,
Speaker 2: and he also ordered Michael to rape Sarah, but he
Speaker 2: says he couldn't go through with it because he was
Speaker 2: unable to achieve an erection, and then he told Michael
Speaker 2: to shoot the other two girls in the head or
Speaker 2: he would be mit next. So Mike complied, and of course,
Speaker 2: after Mike shot Amy twice in the head with a
Speaker 2: twenty two caliber gun, he pulled out a three eighty
Speaker 2: pistol to fire the kill shot. So they claimed that
Speaker 2: after that they set the girls on fire and used
Speaker 2: lighter fluid in order to get it started, but claimed
Speaker 2: that when they fled the shop, they discovered that forest
Speaker 2: well Born was no longer in the getaway car, so
Speaker 2: they climbed into the vehicle, drove after him and came
Speaker 2: across Forrest walking down the street, and then picked him up.
Speaker 2: And then they went to a bridge and toss the
Speaker 2: three eighty pistol into Lake Austin, which is one of
Speaker 2: the first strange details of the crime because they used
Speaker 2: two murder weapons. Yet why would they throw one of
Speaker 2: them into the lake and then hold on to the
Speaker 2: other one. I can see how like a jury, if
Speaker 2: they were going to listen to this, that they would think, Wow,
Speaker 2: this is highly specific. These guys have a lot of details.
Speaker 2: How would they have these details unless they themselves committed
Speaker 2: the murders. Because I don't think that most juries in
Speaker 2: the nineteen nineties, especially ninety one, are going to look
Speaker 2: at it and think, oh, maybe the police fed them
Speaker 2: these details. Maybe this is BS. I would think that
Speaker 2: there was much more of a trust for law enforcement
Speaker 2: and the methods by which they would extract confessions. They
Speaker 2: would think these people are on trial, there's a reason
Speaker 2: for it. They're likely guilty. And if they're confessing and
Speaker 2: they're saying these things. If you go back to the
Speaker 2: nineteen nineties and what people's knowledge of false confessions was
Speaker 2: and the idea around law enforcement and extracting false confessions.
Speaker 2: I would think it would be much more centered around
Speaker 2: you're going to trust the police, these guys have too
Speaker 2: many details, they're probably guilty, or why would the prosecutor
Speaker 2: bring charges?
Speaker 1: And that's pretty much the mentality, because they would be
Speaker 1: charged without any other evidence besides these confessions. And sure enough,
Speaker 1: after Robert and Michael confessed, they charged both of them,
Speaker 1: as well as Maurice Pierce and Forrest Wellborn for the
Speaker 1: Roles and the yogurt chop murders. But there was a
Speaker 1: big problem because even though Maurice and Forrest were extensively interrogated,
Speaker 1: they maintained their innocence from the outset and never did confess.
Speaker 1: And of course, shortly thereafter, Robert and Michael both recanted
Speaker 1: their confessions, saying that they were under such pressure and
Speaker 1: were being manipulated that they finally told the police what
Speaker 1: they wanted to hear. So essentially, you're trying to put
Speaker 1: four guys on trial for the same crime on the
Speaker 1: basis of nothing more than two confessions that were only
Speaker 1: made by half of them. So the big problem here
Speaker 1: was forres wellb Born is figuring out how to charge
Speaker 1: him because in both the confessions they say that he
Speaker 1: did not directly participate in the murder. They just said
Speaker 1: that he was in the getaway car, he tried to
Speaker 1: run away. And with these confessions they couldn't even prove
Speaker 1: that Forrest knew that any murders were going to take place,
Speaker 1: So what exactly could they put him on trial with.
Speaker 1: There was really no evidence that had he even done anything wrong.
Speaker 1: So at one point he was approached by prosecutors and
Speaker 1: was given an offer to testify against his three co
Speaker 1: defendants in exchange for immunity. And this isn't a reduced
Speaker 1: sentence for a quadruple murder. This is immunity, which meant
Speaker 1: no jail time whatsoever. And he pretty much said, no,
Speaker 1: I was not involved in this, I didn't do it.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to testify, even though it meant he
Speaker 1: could have walked right then and there.
Speaker 2: Wow, Forrest, that's impressive because he looked at the picture
Speaker 2: holistically and it wasn't just hey, I want I'm out
Speaker 2: here for my own self preservation. He wasn't going to
Speaker 2: throw the other guys under the bus. Because he knew
Speaker 2: the entire story was bs and he wasn't involved, and
Speaker 2: so it's very likely that they weren't involved, and then
Speaker 2: none of this was true. But he very easily could
Speaker 2: have just been like, screw you guys. You implicated me.
Speaker 2: I never confess I'm in this position because of you.
Speaker 2: I'm going to testify against you and ensure that I
Speaker 2: never go to prison because of this. But he didn't
Speaker 2: do that, So that's pretty admirable.
Speaker 1: Pretty much. Yeah, and he wasn't even accused of being
Speaker 1: the murder. They just said he waited in the getaway car,
Speaker 1: but he wouldn't even admit to that. He just said
Speaker 1: I wasn't there, And he had a really low IQ.
Speaker 1: And even though people like that are generally coerced into
Speaker 1: making false confessions, he did the exact opposite. Where he
Speaker 1: seemed like a guy who was incapable of lying. He
Speaker 1: just seemed very earnest and genuine. And I mentioned earlier
Speaker 1: that forty eight Hours did a lot of coverage in
Speaker 1: this case over the years, and that Aaron Moriarty was
Speaker 1: the primary reporter, and she said her big turning point
Speaker 1: in the case is when she went to interview Forrest
Speaker 1: Welborn in jail, and she'd heard these guys a confess,
Speaker 1: so of course going in under the assumption that they're
Speaker 1: probably guilty. But she said, when I interviewed Forrest Welborn,
Speaker 1: he was so earnest and so direct and so genuine
Speaker 1: that I thought he was credible and that he was
Speaker 1: absolutely telling the truth when he said he didn't do this.
Speaker 1: And they couldn't even get an indictment on him, like
Speaker 1: they were able to get murder indictments for Robert, Michael
Speaker 1: and Maurice, But because Forrest, they said, had just waited
Speaker 1: in the car, they tried in front of two grand
Speaker 1: juries and they couldn't get any indictments on him for
Speaker 1: any crime. So they finally had no choice but to
Speaker 1: release him. So he never did go on trial.
Speaker 2: Well, the involvement, even the other guys implicated him, was minimal,
Speaker 2: I mean, if he was the getaway driver. But correct
Speaker 2: me if I'm wrong. In certain states, if a murder
Speaker 2: is committed and somebody is the getaway driver, any person
Speaker 2: who's involved in the commission of that crime in any
Speaker 2: capacity can be charged with murder. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: I think it depends on state to state, Like I
Speaker 1: have seen cases. Yeah, yeah, I know. There's one a
Speaker 1: famous case in Florida where a guy just lent his
Speaker 1: car to someone who went to commit a murder, and
Speaker 1: he got charged with a felony murder even though he
Speaker 1: wasn't even there, So that can't happen. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: they could have charged Forrest with something even if it
Speaker 1: was not direct murder, but they just felt that the
Speaker 1: evidence was so weak because, unlike his alleged co conspirators,
Speaker 1: he never confessed, so what evidence was there to place
Speaker 1: him near the scene.
Speaker 2: Did you ever watch that documentary? It's really old. It
Speaker 2: was Werner Hertzogs into the Abyss.
Speaker 1: Yes they did, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: One of the guys on that I can't remember his name,
Speaker 2: it was so long ago that I watched it. But
Speaker 2: he was a getaway driver, I believe, and they had
Speaker 2: held up two of his cohorts or whatever it held
Speaker 2: that convenience store or something, and the clerk was killed
Speaker 2: during the commission of that robbery. And he was convicted
Speaker 2: of the murder as well because he was involved with
Speaker 2: that crime, even though he didn't kill anybody. And so yeah,
Speaker 2: he was on death row. And that's what I thought
Speaker 2: when I thought of Forrest was, they could have likely
Speaker 2: charged him with something. But if you can't get an indictment,
Speaker 2: if a grand jury doesn't want to indict, then why
Speaker 2: are you going to bother Because if you don't think
Speaker 2: that you can get a conviction, the prosecutors probably aren't
Speaker 2: going to bring it to trial. The other guys are
Speaker 2: more of a slam dunk because they actually.
Speaker 1: Confessed yes, and the way it works is that you
Speaker 1: can't use their confessions against another defendant on trial unless
Speaker 1: they testify, which Robert and Michael were not going to do.
Speaker 1: But it was kind of sad because even though Forrest
Speaker 1: was a free man again, everyone was just assuming that
Speaker 1: he was involved in a murder. At that point, he
Speaker 1: had started up an auto repair shop, but it wound
Speaker 1: up going out of business because of that publicity. He
Speaker 1: had a hard time finding employment after that, and he
Speaker 1: pretty much faded into obscurity. Like he has led a
Speaker 1: very private life the last twenty five years since he
Speaker 1: was released. He has not done any interviews since that
Speaker 1: forty eight Hours interview with Aaron Moriarty. He did not
Speaker 1: participate in the documentary, so he pretty much just decided
Speaker 1: to get out of the public spotlight. I hear he's
Speaker 1: doing well today, But he's just someone who thought just
Speaker 1: as one accusation completely ruined my life, so he tried
Speaker 1: to distance himself from it as much as possible, even
Speaker 1: though he never even did any they wrong. He didn't
Speaker 1: even confess.
Speaker 2: My heart goes out to Forest because I feel like
Speaker 2: they really tried to railroad him, and unfortunately, his friends
Speaker 2: were easily influenced and implicated him. Luckily they implicated him
Speaker 2: in a capacity. It wasn't like directly involved in the murder.
Speaker 2: But even though no charges robotic gainst him and that
Speaker 2: he didn't spend his life behind bars, the fact that
Speaker 2: it continued to reverberate outwards and it affected him in
Speaker 2: I'm sure a myriad of ways, right. I'm sure it
Speaker 2: affected his personal relationships. We know that it affected his
Speaker 2: income and his ability to get a job and to
Speaker 2: be successful in business, and then, like you said, he
Speaker 2: just faded into obscurity. So I really hope that everything
Speaker 2: went well for Forest, because I think that he's such
Speaker 2: a victim in this story and he truly did deserve
Speaker 2: what happened to him.
Speaker 1: Oh definitely, yeah, And we'll talk more about this later.
Speaker 1: But now that this case has been resolved. I'm really
Speaker 1: curious to see if any of these defendants are going
Speaker 1: to try to get a wrongful conviction lawsuit filed and
Speaker 1: finally get damages after all these years for being falsely
Speaker 1: accused of this crime. So before the trials even started,
Speaker 1: morehole started opening up and the cases against these guys.
Speaker 1: Because they tried showing the photographs of Mike, Maurice and
Speaker 1: Robert to some of the other customers who had gone
Speaker 1: into the yogurt shop that night, and none of them
Speaker 1: picked them out. And the two most important witnesses were
Speaker 1: Tim Striker and Margaret Sheen, but when they were shown photographs,
Speaker 1: they were unable to identify any of these suspects as
Speaker 1: the two men they had seen sitting at the table
Speaker 1: right before closing. And when you think about it, the
Speaker 1: confession kind of contradicted the story provided by Striker and
Speaker 1: she And because they said that they saw these two
Speaker 1: guys sitting in the store shortly before closing. Yet in
Speaker 1: the confession, Mike and said that we got in through
Speaker 1: the back door after the store was already closed. So
Speaker 1: you have these two promising suspects, these two unidentified men
Speaker 1: sitting at the table yet it seems pretty certain that
Speaker 1: this was not Michael, this was not Robert, this was
Speaker 1: not Maurice and lo and behold. When the trials started,
Speaker 1: Tim Striker and Margaret Sheen were never called upon to
Speaker 1: testify or tell the jury about their account because the
Speaker 1: prosecution pretty much feared this has gone to contradict the confessions,
Speaker 1: so we don't want to put these two on the stand.
Speaker 2: Well, that makes total sense, But you got to wonder
Speaker 2: did the defense have the information about Striker and Chienne.
Speaker 1: Ah, they did, yes, Like, guys, we're going to find
Speaker 1: out Oh, oh no, wait, maybe that he didn't. No,
Speaker 1: I don't think they knew about it. The prosecution did
Speaker 1: have the information, but the defense didn't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, That's what I was wondering. Is this like a
Speaker 2: Brady violation where you're going to hold something like that
Speaker 2: back because it certainly isn't going to benefit you as
Speaker 2: like being the prosecutor in that situation. So it's like,
Speaker 2: m were not going to put them on this down
Speaker 2: because it's not going to support our narrative. And why
Speaker 2: would we release the information to the defense because that's
Speaker 2: only going to help their.
Speaker 1: Case pretty much. And I've got another Brady violation to
Speaker 1: share with you. You might recall that when they confiscated the
Speaker 1: twenty two caliber pistol from Maurice back in nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 1: they did ballistic tests and compared it with the bullets
Speaker 1: from the murderers, but the results were inconclusive. So after
Speaker 1: they were arrested in May of two thousand, they decided
Speaker 1: to have the Bureau of Alcohol to back when firearms
Speaker 1: perform more advanced ballistics testing, and they ultimately issued report
Speaker 1: which showed that the results conclusively determined that Maurice's gun
Speaker 1: did not match the bullets and was not the murder weapon,
Speaker 1: which is all well and good, but it turned out
Speaker 1: that over a year later, in January of nineteen ninety nine,
Speaker 1: nearly nine months before the suspects were arrested, the Austin
Speaker 1: Pede had already performed their own ballistics tests on the gun,
Speaker 1: and once again the results showed that it did not
Speaker 1: match the bullets and was not the murder weapon. Yet
Speaker 1: they still decided to bring in Michael, Robert and Maurice
Speaker 1: for interrogation and hand the indictments down. And it turned
Speaker 1: out that this information about the ballistics tests from January
Speaker 1: of nineteen ninety nine were not presented to the grand jury,
Speaker 1: which might have influenced their decision not to hand down
Speaker 1: the indictments. And when the question the lead detected Paul Johnson,
Speaker 1: he said, Oh, it was an unintentional oversight. I simply
Speaker 1: forgot the original ballistics tests.
Speaker 2: Sure, Paul, Sure. I think we see Brady violations so
Speaker 2: often because I think prosecutors will do it more often
Speaker 2: than we hear about because half the time we wouldn't
Speaker 2: find out about it because they don't know about it.
Speaker 2: So unless they discover the information on the defense side,
Speaker 2: then they're not going to know that there's a Brady violation.
Speaker 2: So I think most of the time it goes unnoticed,
Speaker 2: or they'll release it within like a huge data dump
Speaker 2: of like a ton of different documents and hope that
Speaker 2: it's hidden and then that way the defense has to
Speaker 2: go through thousands of pages and they'll bury it somewhere
Speaker 2: in there, but just to hold that information back because
Speaker 2: it doesn't serve their narrative. Like, I'm not surprised, but
Speaker 2: it's one of those things that you'd think there should
Speaker 2: be more of a penalty for prosecutors when they do that,
Speaker 2: but they seem to get a just a slap on
Speaker 2: the wrist pretty much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like to this day, no one has ever gotten
Speaker 1: any blowback for some of the unethical things that were
Speaker 1: done in this case. They pretty much got away with it,
Speaker 1: and they use the oh I forgot defense. It seems
Speaker 1: quite a lot. And here's another sneaky tactic. When Robert
Speaker 1: and Michael were put on trial, an intentional choice was
Speaker 1: made to only charge them with the murder of Amy Airs,
Speaker 1: which meant that if they were acquitted, that means they
Speaker 1: could charge them with the murders of the other three
Speaker 1: girls if need be. It's kind of like the Darley
Speaker 1: Routier case where they only charged her with the murder
Speaker 1: of one of her sons in case she was acquitted,
Speaker 1: because then they could put her on trial for the
Speaker 1: murder of her second son. And while I believe Darley
Speaker 1: Routier is guilty, I still think that's a very sneaky
Speaker 1: tactic which seems to happen a lot in Texas, and
Speaker 1: that certainly holds true here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I used to think that there was a possibility
Speaker 2: that Darley was innocent. I talked to Maggie Freeling about
Speaker 2: that case, and she believed in Darley's innocence. But the
Speaker 2: more that I've read on it and the more looked
Speaker 2: into it, my gut has told me that like she
Speaker 2: did it. There's just not enough evidence to support this
Speaker 2: intruder theory and the motivation is so unclear. But yeah,
Speaker 2: it totally made sense in that case. If you're looking
Speaker 2: at somebody who potentially murdered their children, you want to
Speaker 2: hedge your bets and you want to make sure that
Speaker 2: if you believe that this woman is guilty, or in
Speaker 2: this case, if you believe that these guys are guilty
Speaker 2: of killing these four girls, then you want to make
Speaker 2: sure that they're going to pay. And so to lump
Speaker 2: them all together into one that would be a really
Speaker 2: risky move. That's a gamble. And so I can understand
Speaker 2: their strategy.
Speaker 1: There, Yeah, because I guess they did have a lot
Speaker 1: of confidence in their cases and we're thinking, well, all
Speaker 1: we have is a confession here, but if we get
Speaker 1: it wrong this time, we have three more chance is
Speaker 1: to put them in prison.
Speaker 2: This way, you're going to get four bites at the apple,
Speaker 2: not one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. So. Robert Springsteen's trial began in May of
Speaker 1: two thousand and one, and he was informed that he
Speaker 1: would face the death penalty if he was found guilty,
Speaker 1: but he was offered a plea deal in which the
Speaker 1: death penalty would be taken off the table if he
Speaker 1: would testify against his co conspirators and he could receive
Speaker 1: a sense of no more than fourteen years in prison.
Speaker 1: But of course rob said, no, I'm not taking it
Speaker 1: because I didn't do it, so I'm going to take
Speaker 1: my chances at trial. So it was an awkward thing
Speaker 1: because Mike also turned down the same deal. He refused
Speaker 1: to testify against Robert at the trial, but they were
Speaker 1: able to read excerpts from Michael's confession which implicated Roberts,
Speaker 1: and it was kind of a thing where the only
Speaker 1: real evidence they have is snippets of a co conspirator's
Speaker 1: confession that they could read to the jury, but the
Speaker 1: co conspirator himself is not testifying. And there was more
Speaker 1: controversy because, as I mentioned earlier, when the original arson investigator,
Speaker 1: Melvin Stall, looked at the scene, he pretty much said
Speaker 1: that he thought that the metal shelves had been set
Speaker 1: on fire in the back room, and that they'd set
Speaker 1: fire to the combustible materials such as the cyrofoam cups.
Speaker 1: But the problem is that when Robert and Michael testified,
Speaker 1: they said that they had used an accelerant like lighter
Speaker 1: fluid to start the fire, which was a big contradiction.
Speaker 1: So they state got another arson investigator named Marshall Lyttleton,
Speaker 1: who once worked with the ATF as an explosives and
Speaker 1: fire investigator, and he expressed his belief that the fire
Speaker 1: had originated from the center of the room and that
Speaker 1: the defendants had used some accelerants and placed some flammable
Speaker 1: items on top of the victim's bodies and that's how
Speaker 1: they started the fire. So of course the defense wanted
Speaker 1: to bring in the original arson investigator, Melvin Stall, provide
Speaker 1: his theory of events, saying that, oh, well, if they
Speaker 1: started the fire on the shelf with the combustible materials,
Speaker 1: that totally contradicts the confession. But when Melvin Stall took
Speaker 1: the witness Dan, he said, yeah, I looked up Marshall
Speaker 1: Littleton's report and I'm now convinced that they used an accelerant,
Speaker 1: So I changed my mind from my original ruling, which
Speaker 1: was a major blow for the defense.
Speaker 2: Oh well, that's really convenient, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, they did try to point towards another suspect
Speaker 1: you may have heard of, Kenneth McDuff, who was a
Speaker 1: notorious serial killer who operated in Texas. It turned out
Speaker 1: that on December twenty ninth, nineteen ninety one, just over
Speaker 1: three weeks after the Yogret Shop murders took place, another
Speaker 1: horrible crime took place in Austin when a twenty eight
Speaker 1: year old woman named Colleen Reid was violently abducted from
Speaker 1: a car wash not too far from the yogre shop
Speaker 1: and she wound up being raped, tortured, and murdered, and
Speaker 1: the perpetrators were identified as Kenneth McDuff and an accomplice
Speaker 1: named al but Hank Whorley. So Kenneth McDuff. By this
Speaker 1: point he had already served time in prison, but got
Speaker 1: released in nineteen eighty nine because of overcrowding, even though
Speaker 1: he had committed three murders and he was a free
Speaker 1: man in nineteen ninety one when the Yogret Shop murders
Speaker 1: took place, and he was even though he lived in
Speaker 1: Waco at the time. He would reportedly make trips to
Speaker 1: Austin to score drugs. So the defense starts looking at
Speaker 1: the possibility what if Kenneth McDuff and albahnk Warley were
Speaker 1: the two men who were seen sitting at the table
Speaker 1: before closing, But they didn't really match the descriptions because
Speaker 1: they were described as being clean shaven men in their twenties,
Speaker 1: whereas Kenneth McDuff was forty five and albahank Warley had
Speaker 1: a long, bushy beard, so it was probably not them.
Speaker 1: During Robert's trial, the Austin TV station KVUE News reported
Speaker 1: that some anonymous sources had claimed that Kenneth McDuff had
Speaker 1: confessed to the yogret shop murders on the day he
Speaker 1: was executed in nineteen ninety eight, so they started looking
Speaker 1: into that, but unfortunately they cannot find any corroborating evidence.
Speaker 1: And apparently McDuff before he was executed, was asked about
Speaker 1: yoga chop murders and actually said, no, I did not
Speaker 1: do that crime, and I would have been proud of
Speaker 1: it if I had done it, so which is a
Speaker 1: very classy thing to say. So they didn't find enough
Speaker 1: evidence that McDuff was the real killer, so they couldn't
Speaker 1: introduce this evidence at trial. But for many years after that,
Speaker 1: some people started wondering, could Kenneth McDuff have been the
Speaker 1: real killer because this sort of crime faced his mo
Speaker 1: because he had at least nine confirmed victims that we
Speaker 1: know of, so killing four more would have been right
Speaker 1: up his alley.
Speaker 2: But it sounds like, just based on what he said,
Speaker 2: that there's an amount of humorous involved in that he's
Speaker 2: going out and maybe he would have liked to have
Speaker 2: taken credit for it if he did indeed do it,
Speaker 2: because he thought it to be impressive on some level,
Speaker 2: because you know, when it comes to killers, they seem
Speaker 2: to admire the work of each other. I mean, you
Speaker 2: can look at it two ways. He could have denied
Speaker 2: it if he was responsible, because he just wants to
Speaker 2: f with everybody and while he goes and not give
Speaker 2: them any breadcrumbs. Or he would own it and say yeah,
Speaker 2: I did it. I don't know. I can see why
Speaker 2: he was a really good suspect because obviously he had
Speaker 2: that many confirmed kills. It isn't a far reach to
Speaker 2: believe that he could be responsible.
Speaker 1: Yes, and spoiler alert, we're going to reveal that a
Speaker 1: serial killer was responsible for this crime, but it wasn't
Speaker 1: Kenneth McDuff. But when I covered this on the trail
Speaker 1: when cold two years ago, I thought that McDuff was
Speaker 1: a fairly intriguing alternate suspect. So Rob's trial lasted three
Speaker 1: weeks and when the case went to the jury, they
Speaker 1: deliberated for thirteen hours and they found him guilty of
Speaker 1: the murder of any Airs and he would be senced
Speaker 1: to death by a lethal injection. So Michael Scott's trial
Speaker 1: would begin over one year later in August of two
Speaker 1: thousand and two. And while I can understand separating the
Speaker 1: defendants and giving them separate trials, you just know that
Speaker 1: there's going to be a lot of bias there because
Speaker 1: no matter what the jury says, there's a good chance
Speaker 1: they probably heard that another defendant has already been convicted
Speaker 1: a co con spirit or of this same crime, and
Speaker 1: I think there's going to be a lot of bias.
Speaker 1: Once again, Robert refused to testify as a witness at
Speaker 1: Michael's trial, so other really had was being able to
Speaker 1: read some excerpts from Robert's confession without him actually going
Speaker 1: on the witness stand to corroborate any of it. But
Speaker 1: it still turned out to be enough to sway the jury.
Speaker 1: They deliberated for two days and found him guilty of
Speaker 1: Amy's murder. But since they cannot reach a unanimous verdict
Speaker 1: that they're sensing, he did not receive the death penalty
Speaker 1: and wound up receiving a sense of life imprisonment with
Speaker 1: no possibility of parole for thirty five years. But here's
Speaker 1: two separate trials to defendants where the only thing you
Speaker 1: had of them was their own confession and alleged co
Speaker 1: conspirators confession, and they were both found guilty, and.
Speaker 2: They'd both recanted their confessions by that point, correct, they did, Yes,
Speaker 2: So all you have is these initial confessions. But you also,
Speaker 2: I don't know if the defense knew this had confessions
Speaker 2: from what forty eight other people? Yeah, so, I mean
Speaker 2: how meaningful is that really when you don't have any
Speaker 2: physical or real circumstantial evidence to back this up other
Speaker 2: than the fact that they can.
Speaker 1: But as we talked about, these are juries in the
Speaker 1: early two thousands when there's not as much public knowledge
Speaker 1: above Faull's confessions. So they probably thought that was enough.
Speaker 1: They figured there's no way they would have done it,
Speaker 1: done these confessions unless they were guilty, and that influenced
Speaker 1: their verdict, but the state would face a bigger problem
Speaker 1: when Maurice Pierce was supposed to go on trial because
Speaker 1: he never did confess, so there really wasn't anything against
Speaker 1: him besides the confessions from Robert and Michael. And they
Speaker 1: have a rule that if you're implicated by a co conspirator,
Speaker 1: you can't use their confessions unless they take the witness
Speaker 1: stand to testify, and they refuse to do that. And
Speaker 1: it makes me think of the West Memphis three case
Speaker 1: where they had to do a separate trial for Jesse
Speaker 1: miss Kelly, who confessed, but when Jason Baldwin and Demon
Speaker 1: Eccles went on trial separately, Jesse refused to testify against them,
Speaker 1: so they were unable to use his confession as evidence
Speaker 1: against them at their trial. And this was a big
Speaker 1: problem with Maurice because the there was literally no other
Speaker 1: evidence besides the other confessions and they could not use them.
Speaker 1: So they ultimately decided to drop the murder charges against
Speaker 1: him before they went on trial, but they still said,
Speaker 1: we still believe he's guilty, but we just can't take
Speaker 1: him to trial with the evidence we have, so we
Speaker 1: have to let them go. And you can imagine what
Speaker 1: a bittersweet feeling that was for the victims' families because
Speaker 1: you've got two guys in prison right now, but the
Speaker 1: guy who has been accused of being the mastermind, they're saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: we can't take him to trial and we just have
Speaker 1: to let him go. So you've technically got a half
Speaker 1: solved mystery where two of the perpetrators are in prison
Speaker 1: and two of them are free.
Speaker 2: But literally, like when it comes down to cases, it's
Speaker 2: who can tell the best story, right, And for Maurice,
Speaker 2: what type of story would the prosecutor tell? You? Literally
Speaker 2: have zero evidence. He never confessed. You can't use those
Speaker 2: confessions because the other guys aren't going to testify at
Speaker 2: his trial. So you've got no physical evidence, no other
Speaker 2: circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 1: What would you present, Yeah, there's really nothing like he
Speaker 1: held out. He did not make his own confession, and
Speaker 1: there's no physical evidence against them. There's nothing placing him
Speaker 1: at the scene, and all they have are the confessions
Speaker 1: from his alleged co conspirators who refused to take the
Speaker 1: witness stand, so you can understand why they did this.
Speaker 1: But all you're thinking is maybe you should have thought
Speaker 1: about that before charging him in the first place, because
Speaker 1: he just had to spend four years sitting in a
Speaker 1: jail cell. And now you're letting him go, and you're
Speaker 1: just putting the victim's family through a ringer because now
Speaker 1: they believe that the alleged mastermind is going to walk
Speaker 1: free again.
Speaker 2: Well, they were probably just hoping that they could eventually
Speaker 2: get the guys to take the stand and to testify
Speaker 2: against him. That didn't happen. But it's unfortunate that he
Speaker 2: had to spend four years behind bars. But I'm sure
Speaker 2: that the prosecutor and the investigators weren't sad about that.
Speaker 2: They were like, at least that's some kind of justice,
Speaker 2: because they truly believe it seems that he was involved.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so they kind of justified it to themselves. And
Speaker 1: they did say that the door was open to charge
Speaker 1: him again if we could find new evidence, but of
Speaker 1: course they never did. That. Brings an end to part
Speaker 1: two of our series about the Austin yogurt chot murders.
Speaker 1: Join us again next week for part three.
Speaker 2: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 2: 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
Speaker 1: Patreon and if you join our highest tier tier three,
Speaker 1: the ten dollars tier. One of the features we offer
Speaker 1: is a audio commentary track over classic episodes of UNSAWD 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 3: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 3: about the jeweles Nashty patreons, So there's early ad free
Speaker 3: episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our Pathwent
Speaker 3: Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so they're
Speaker 3: not very mini, but they're just too short to turn
Speaker 3: into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those, so
Speaker 3: we hope you'll check out those patreons. We'll link them
Speaker 3: in the show notes.
Speaker 1: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
Speaker 1: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 1: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly
Speaker 1: appreciate it. You can email us at The Pathwentchili at
Speaker 1: gmail dot com. You can reach us on Twitter at
Speaker 1: the Pathwin. So until next time, be sure to bundle
Speaker 1: up because cold trails and chilly pass call for warm clothing.
Speaker 2: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy