Speaker 1: Welcome back to the path, went Chiley for part two
Speaker 1: of our series about the disappearance of Evelyn Hartley. Robin,
Speaker 1: do you want to catch everyone up? And when we
Speaker 1: talked about in our previous episode.
Speaker 2: Well, this case takes place all the way back in
Speaker 2: October of nineteen fifty three in the town of Lacrosse, Wisconsin.
Speaker 2: Evelyn Harley was a fifteen year old girl who'd been
Speaker 2: asked to babysit for a family friend or an infant
Speaker 2: daughter while they went to a football game. Evelyn was
Speaker 2: going to spend the night alone and was supposed to
Speaker 2: call her parents to check in every now and then,
Speaker 2: but she didn't call, and when they tried calling the residence,
Speaker 2: there was no answer. So her father went over there
Speaker 2: and he looked in through the front window. No one
Speaker 2: answered the door, and he noticed that Evelyn's shoe and
Speaker 2: her glasses were broken on the floor, so he immediately
Speaker 2: became concerned. We entered through the basement window, which was
Speaker 2: now open, and it seemed apparent that a violent struggle
Speaker 2: had taken place and that Evelyn was the victim of
Speaker 2: an abduction, as they even found blood outside the house
Speaker 2: and a couple of witnesses would later come forward claiming
Speaker 2: that they saw Evelyn appeared to be dragged across the
Speaker 2: lawn by two unidentified men who took her away in
Speaker 2: a car, and he did a search of the area.
Speaker 2: They found some bloody clothing which appeared like it might
Speaker 2: have belonged to Evelyn, also some bloody denim jacket, and
Speaker 2: some bloody tennis shoes which may have belonged to one
Speaker 2: or both of her abductors. They looked into some suspects,
Speaker 2: including notorious murderer Ed Dean, who was originally born in
Speaker 2: Wisconsin and lived several miles away on his own farm.
Speaker 2: They didn't really have any leads, but on the fiftieth
Speaker 2: anniversary of Evelyn's dis appearance, a witness would come forward,
Speaker 2: who with a tape recording that he had made all
Speaker 2: the way back at a tavern in nineteen sixty eight,
Speaker 2: where two men allegedly bragged about having been involved in
Speaker 2: abducting Evelyn. They said that three people were involved in total,
Speaker 2: and that her remains were buried on a farm belonging
Speaker 2: to one of the perpetrators. But unfortunately, most of these
Speaker 2: suspects were already dead by this point, and the one
Speaker 2: surviving suspect was in a nursing home and had dementia
Speaker 2: and couldn't be questioned before he died a few years later.
Speaker 2: But they've never found any evidence to corroborate this story,
Speaker 2: and thus far, after seventy years, Evelyn is technically still
Speaker 2: a missing person.
Speaker 1: It's quite fascinating to look back and see how the
Speaker 1: original investigation into Evelyn's disappearance was handled, as there are
Speaker 1: so many things which took place that you would never
Speaker 1: see today. This is the only case I've ever seen
Speaker 1: where vehicles in the community were inspected and had a
Speaker 1: sticker attached to them which read my car is okay.
Speaker 1: And you can imagine what the reaction would be in
Speaker 1: this day and age if law enforcement announced that they
Speaker 1: were going to visit all the schools in the community
Speaker 1: and give polygraph tests to all the male students, parents
Speaker 1: would probably blow a gasket. Of course, back then, people
Speaker 1: were not aware of just how unreliable polygraph tests are,
Speaker 1: and these days you'll often hear attorneys advise people not
Speaker 1: to take them at all, even if they're completely innocent.
Speaker 1: It was just a much different time back then. As
Speaker 1: Evelyn's father, Richard Hartley, immediately volunteered to take a polygraph
Speaker 1: just so he could officially be cleared as a suspect,
Speaker 1: though no one really believed he was responsible. Even though
Speaker 1: the school board eventually put a stop to the polygraphs,
Speaker 1: it sounds like the three hundred people who took them
Speaker 1: were very cooperative and none of them objected.
Speaker 3: What's really interesting, and we talked about this on the
Speaker 3: first episode, is that the police really did go to
Speaker 3: these in some ways extreme measures to gather evidence and
Speaker 3: to try to look for perpetrators who could have apprehended Evelyn.
Speaker 3: And it was really smart to start with the schools.
Speaker 3: Evelyn's a teenage girl. Someone likely knew she was at
Speaker 3: that house, That's what it feels like, and or it
Speaker 3: was a crime of opportunity. So the idea of we're
Speaker 3: going to go to these schools and we're going to
Speaker 3: polygraph these young men and see if any of them
Speaker 3: might be a suspect, there's a genius idea. Yes, polygraphs
Speaker 3: are not reliable. They usually say they're like fifteen to
Speaker 3: twenty percent error rates, which is way too high when
Speaker 3: you talk about someone's criminal innocence or guilt. I'm so
Speaker 3: impressed that back in the fifties. They're searching vehicles from
Speaker 3: the community and putting stickers on it to say car
Speaker 3: has already been cleared.
Speaker 2: They're going to the schools.
Speaker 3: They're even doing things like turning up and looking through
Speaker 3: recently Dug Graves to see if maybe Evelyn was dumped there.
Speaker 3: And so it is very impressive that back in the
Speaker 3: nineteen fifties do you have a police force so dedicated
Speaker 3: to looking for her and it's insane that she was
Speaker 3: never found.
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely wasn't a lack of effort. And I'm sure
Speaker 2: if a lot of these practices took place today, you'd
Speaker 2: have people complaining about having their civil rights violated. But
Speaker 2: back then they just said, sure, we'll do whatever we
Speaker 2: can to help you find this missing girl, and they
Speaker 2: cooperated in every way. But this was what makes me
Speaker 2: think that whoever her abductor was was someone who did
Speaker 2: not live in Lacrosse or the immediate area and probably
Speaker 2: were never investigated at the time.
Speaker 1: Do you know if Lacrosse has a lot of lakes
Speaker 1: or wooded area.
Speaker 2: I think so, Yeah, Like it's surrounded by a lot
Speaker 2: of remote stuff, so there would have been ample places
Speaker 2: to dispose of her body. I think they even talked
Speaker 2: about on the episode that she was allegedly buried somewhere
Speaker 2: near a Mississippi River floodplain, so it would have been
Speaker 2: easy for her remains to be lost forever. So on
Speaker 2: the surface, this might seem like a fairly straightforward case.
Speaker 2: We know Evelyn was abducted and likely murdered, but the
Speaker 2: one thing we don't know is who the perpetrator was. However,
Speaker 2: there are still a number of baffling unanswered questions about
Speaker 2: how these events might have unfolded. Since Evelyn was abducted
Speaker 2: well babysitting at another family's house, this opened up debate
Speaker 2: about whether she was specifically targeted or she was simply
Speaker 2: in the wrong place at the wrong time. You've heard
Speaker 2: me talk extensively about the nineteen eighty four disappearance and
Speaker 2: murder of twelve year old Janelle Matthews, who was abducted
Speaker 2: from her home in a fashion that was quite similar
Speaker 2: to Evelyn's case. Even though a suspect named Steve Panky
Speaker 2: has been charged and convicted of Janelle's murder, he had
Speaker 2: no known connection to the victim, and since he has
Speaker 2: never admitted any culpability, we still don't know if he
Speaker 2: specifically targeted Janelle, or if she was selected at random.
Speaker 2: We still have these same unanswered questions in Evelyn's disappearance,
Speaker 2: though the key difference is that she was babysitting at
Speaker 2: another family's house, and I'd be very curious to know
Speaker 2: how many people knew she was going to be there.
Speaker 2: Evelyn had never babysat for the ras Musen family before,
Speaker 2: and only took the job because the regular babysitter, Janis Cowley,
Speaker 2: was attending the homecoming game that night. Since the game
Speaker 2: was such a big deal in lacrosse and Digo Rasmusen
Speaker 2: was a professor at the college, someone who knew the
Speaker 2: family's routine might have assumed Bigo would attend the game
Speaker 2: and hire his regular babysitter to watch his infant daughter
Speaker 2: that night, but the abductor didn't realize that Evelyn would
Speaker 2: be there instead. Well, no one has ever turned up
Speaker 2: any evidence to suggest that Janis Cowley was the intended target.
Speaker 2: It would be one thing if this had been a
Speaker 2: last minute arrangement, but Evelyn had agreed to babysit at
Speaker 2: the rass Musseen residence days in advance.
Speaker 3: Here's what's interesting is there's also the possibility that she
Speaker 3: was in touch with friends or individuals who were asking
Speaker 3: her to go out for homecoming, and it's possible that
Speaker 3: that's one of the reasons that she didn't want a
Speaker 3: babysit that night. Remember, she had expressed some reluctance to
Speaker 3: her mom, like I don't really want to go to
Speaker 3: and mom says, no, ma'am, you made a commitment. You're
Speaker 3: going to follow through with that because the family has
Speaker 3: plans and you gave them your word. If she had
Speaker 3: told people, oh, I can't go, I have to go
Speaker 3: babysit for the Rasmussen family, then it's possible that it
Speaker 3: is somebody that she knew.
Speaker 2: I'm assuming that they would have.
Speaker 3: Started with those friends though when they were starting to
Speaker 3: do those three hundred polygraph tests.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like, I'm sure they looked extensively into everyone from
Speaker 2: Evelyn's personal life, like a lot of her male friends,
Speaker 2: and tried to figure out who knew she would be
Speaker 2: at the house babysitting that night. I mean, I think
Speaker 2: you're correct that because she had wanted to go to
Speaker 2: the homecoming game instead, she probably told people, oh, I
Speaker 2: got a babysit tonight, even though I don't really want to,
Speaker 2: but who knows, Like maybe your friends told other people
Speaker 2: and then were just spread until the wrong person learned that, Oh,
Speaker 2: Evelyn's going to be alone tonight at this house and
Speaker 2: be completely vulnerable. Now's my opportunity to come ubductor.
Speaker 1: Throughout the investigation, no one uncovered anybody from Evelyn's background
Speaker 1: who seemed like a potential suspect with a motive to
Speaker 1: murder her. The one aspect of this case which does
Speaker 1: seem pretty clear is the approximate time period when Evelyn
Speaker 1: was abducted. She had instructions to put baby Janie to
Speaker 1: bed at seven pm and cover her with a blanket
Speaker 1: at seven pin fifteen, but since the child was found uncovered,
Speaker 1: Evelyn was presumably taken before she could do this. Given
Speaker 1: the neighbors were called hearing screams during this fifteen minute window,
Speaker 1: you can definitely pinpoint it as the time that Evelyn
Speaker 1: was being attacked. Now, even if Evelyn herself was not
Speaker 1: specifically targeted. One aspect of this case which is still
Speaker 1: up for debate is whether the person who took her
Speaker 1: was an opportunistic predator or if they were attempting a
Speaker 1: burglary and did not know that anyone was in the house.
Speaker 1: As hard as it may be to fathom now, there
Speaker 1: were no curtains on the living room window of the
Speaker 1: Ris muse in Residence. This is just another symptom of
Speaker 1: it being a much different time period, as people felt
Speaker 1: safe living in this particular section of town. Someone cruising
Speaker 1: through the neighborhood could have caught a glimpse of the
Speaker 1: rasmusin residence, seen a teenage girl sitting in the living
Speaker 1: room alone through the front window, and decided to take
Speaker 1: the opportunity to grab her. Primarks were found on at
Speaker 1: least one other window, so it looked like the perpetrator
Speaker 1: made a couple of failed attempts to enter the house
Speaker 1: before they managed to get inside through the basement. But
Speaker 1: what if the perpetrator was a burglar. Yes, it appears
Speaker 1: that nothing was stolen from the house, but it's possible
Speaker 1: that burglar was forced to flee the scene without taking
Speaker 1: everything once they realized that Evelyn was there. If she
Speaker 1: had seen his face or something, he might have felt
Speaker 1: he needed to abduct her. Like we mentioned earlier, given
Speaker 1: that Vigo Resmusim was a professor at Lacrosse State College,
Speaker 1: someone could have knowed he'd be attending the homecoming game
Speaker 1: that night with his family. They might have been under
Speaker 1: the mistaken impression that the house would be unoccupied and
Speaker 1: unaware that there was a baby's that are looking after
Speaker 1: their infant child. Of course, the problem with that theory
Speaker 1: is that anyone who went through the neighborhood on Hostlar
Speaker 1: Drive that night would have been able to see that
Speaker 1: someone was inside the house through the front window, since
Speaker 1: the living room lights were on. But on the other hand,
Speaker 1: the tracking dogs did follow Evelyn sent through the backyard
Speaker 1: to Cooley Drive, where it's believed that her abductor placed
Speaker 1: her inside a vehicle and drove away. That particular spot
Speaker 1: is located northeast of the resmuse In residence. If the
Speaker 1: perpetrator parked their vehicle on Cooley Drive and approached the
Speaker 1: house from the back, they might not have even seen
Speaker 1: the living room window and noticed the lights were on
Speaker 1: and that someone was home.
Speaker 3: That is a really good point of it being just
Speaker 3: a random burglar, where maybe they see the family drive
Speaker 3: away from the home and they believe, listen, this is
Speaker 3: homecoming night. This whole area is obsessed with the game,
Speaker 3: and a lot of people are not going to be
Speaker 3: at their home in the evening, which is actually when
Speaker 3: most people are home. So this me in particular, provides
Speaker 3: a great time for a burglar to go around. And
Speaker 3: you do see all of those prime marks where it
Speaker 3: looks like a screwdriver or something to us in multiple
Speaker 3: locations to try to get in. And finally, this bizarre
Speaker 3: basement area is where the person accesses the home and
Speaker 3: leaves that way, and so it definitely could lead credence
Speaker 3: to the fact that this was a robber. And when
Speaker 3: they get into the home, they realize, oh my god,
Speaker 3: there's an infant who can't recognize me, and this teenage
Speaker 3: girl who's now terrified and has been looking at me.
Speaker 3: I have to take her with me. So definitely a possibility.
Speaker 3: Those prime marks everywhere make it much more prone that
Speaker 3: it's a burglar than perhaps that's just opportunistic prowler who
Speaker 3: sees her right that someone seems to have come prepared
Speaker 3: with at least an instrument to try to break in.
Speaker 1: I wish we knew where these windows were located, because
Speaker 1: if these windows were located where say you could see
Speaker 1: light coming from the front window, or that you would
Speaker 1: somehow know that there was somebody home, or if these
Speaker 1: windows were at the back of the home and there
Speaker 1: was no view to be able to see that there
Speaker 1: was clearly somebody who was there.
Speaker 2: Well, it seems pretty clear how the abductor got inside
Speaker 2: the house. What's not so clear is how they got
Speaker 2: Evelyn out. Since Evelyn's school books were scattered throughout the
Speaker 2: living room and her broken glasses and one of her
Speaker 2: shoes were on the floor, a struggle definitely took place there,
Speaker 2: and since Evelyn's other shoe was found in the basement,
Speaker 2: it's reasonable to assume that the perpetrator took her down
Speaker 2: there and dragged her out through the window, as this
Speaker 2: is supported by the amount of blood which was found
Speaker 2: in the backyard and the neighboring homes. However, it does
Speaker 2: seem like it would be difficult to exit through a
Speaker 2: basement window with a kidnapped girl in tow. We know
Speaker 2: that the front door and all the other entrances to
Speaker 2: the house were locked, since the only way Richard Hartley
Speaker 2: could get inside when he arrived was through the open
Speaker 2: basement window. Some newspaper accounts have stated that the front
Speaker 2: door of the rasp Museen residence was a self locking door,
Speaker 2: which likely means you wouldn't have to use a key
Speaker 2: and that would lock automatically whenever you stepped outside and
Speaker 2: closed it. And that's the case, then theoretically the abductor
Speaker 2: could have taken Evelyn out the front door and locked
Speaker 2: it behind them without using a key. But looking at
Speaker 2: the evidence, it would make sense for the perpetrator to
Speaker 2: take Evelyn out through the basement window, as taking her
Speaker 2: out through the front door might attract too much attention.
Speaker 2: If the dog scent trail was accurate and the getaway
Speaker 2: car was parked on Cooley Drive northeast from the ras
Speaker 2: Musen residence, then would be quicker to escape out the
Speaker 2: back and cut through the backyard past the neighbor's houses
Speaker 2: towards the street. If they took Evelyn out the front door,
Speaker 2: they'd have to travel north on Hostler Drive and turn
Speaker 2: right on COOLi Drive to walk towards the car, which
Speaker 2: is along a route and runs a bigger risk of
Speaker 2: them being spotted by the neighbors. While there was a
Speaker 2: lot of blood found in the backyard and on the
Speaker 2: surrounding houses, no blood was found inside the rass Musen residence,
Speaker 2: so it appears that Evelyn may have been violently attacked
Speaker 2: after she went outside. One thing I've seen proposed is
Speaker 2: that the screen to the basement window, which was found
Speaker 2: resting up against the house, might have been used as
Speaker 2: a weapon to strike Evelyn if she put up a
Speaker 2: struggle and tried to run away. This probably would have
Speaker 2: occurred at the spot next to the house where the
Speaker 2: pool of blood was found. Since the second pool of
Speaker 2: blood was next to a neighbor's garage, Evelyn likely fell
Speaker 2: down or was forced down there while she was being
Speaker 2: dragged towards Cooley Drive.
Speaker 3: I think that's exactly what what occurred, right, is that
Speaker 3: the idea she's you know, maybe not resisting them on
Speaker 3: her way out of the house, and then as soon
Speaker 3: as she gets out there's an attack because she maybe says,
Speaker 3: I'm going to try to flee. This is my last moment.
Speaker 3: You know, you don't go get in the car, you run,
Speaker 3: You try to maybe fight him off. Maybe you try
Speaker 3: to scream because you're outside now the neighbors could hear you.
Speaker 3: And yet if he had a weapon, even the screwdriver
Speaker 3: or something, and stabbed her, hit her in the head
Speaker 3: something to that extent, you would start to see not
Speaker 3: only that blood evidence, but also the behavior that was
Speaker 3: described by one witness, where it looked like a young
Speaker 3: lady who was incapacitated or incoherent trying to get to
Speaker 3: a car a street away. So to me, that's the
Speaker 3: most likely scenario. I don't think necessarily she was harmed
Speaker 3: inside the house other than a scuffle to get control
Speaker 3: of her, which is what resulted in her shoes coming
Speaker 3: off and the broken glasses. But I think that injury
Speaker 3: with a weapon or even a physical assault that resulted
Speaker 3: in those pools of blood, that's where the crime change from.
Speaker 3: It can no longer just be an abduction, but now
Speaker 3: we actually have to take her and maybe do something
Speaker 3: with her body.
Speaker 1: I have a question for you, So, first part, you
Speaker 1: both believe that the motivation for the abduction of Evelyn
Speaker 1: was a sexually based motivation. And then secondly, if that
Speaker 1: is true, then how likely would it be that somebody
Speaker 1: would use a sharp force type of implement or weapon
Speaker 1: to hurt Evelyn if they wanted to preserve the body
Speaker 1: for whatever they wanted to do, like they likely then
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to kill her, So it seems odd that
Speaker 1: they would violently attack her with something that would cause
Speaker 1: her to like pools of blood. So is this somebody
Speaker 1: that's just very strong and is dragging her along after
Speaker 1: the fact too, or is this two people like witnessed
Speaker 1: Haffer or mister X had said.
Speaker 2: It definitely makes sense if it's two people. For me,
Speaker 2: and I still wonder if like one person was standing
Speaker 2: as a lookout by the basement window while someone else
Speaker 2: went inside and abducted Evelyn and the other person helped
Speaker 2: drag her outside. I mean, it does seem like it
Speaker 2: is sexually motivated that if they wanted to, they could
Speaker 2: have just sexually assaulted her at the house and killed
Speaker 2: her there. But they probably figured, well, there's a eye
Speaker 2: open window there, we can be seen, there's no privacy here,
Speaker 2: and we want to get rid of her body, so
Speaker 2: they decided that we're going to have to take her
Speaker 2: elsewhere in order to assault her by it. Like, you're right,
Speaker 2: I don't think they would want to damage her too
Speaker 2: much if they wanted to do that. So I'm thinking
Speaker 2: that if they did something to her that caused her
Speaker 2: to bleed, it might have been like a defensive thing
Speaker 2: where Evelyn put up a fight and they did that
Speaker 2: to restrain her.
Speaker 1: Of course, It's been theorized that at least two perpetrators
Speaker 1: may have been responsible for Evelyn's abduction, and there seems
Speaker 1: to be evidence both for and against this theory. On
Speaker 1: one hand, there was only one set of male footprints
Speaker 1: found both inside and outside the house. But on the
Speaker 1: other hand, there's the eyewitness count that I just mentioned
Speaker 1: from Ed Hoffer, who claimed that he saw two men
Speaker 1: and a girl staggering down Coolly Drive that night, around
Speaker 1: the approximate time period Evelyn is believed to have been abducted.
Speaker 1: Haffer was also nearly hit by a speeding car which
Speaker 1: likely contained these same three people, which seems to indicate
Speaker 1: that they were trying to leave the area in a hurry. Well,
Speaker 1: Hoffer didn't get a good enough look at the girl
Speaker 1: to positively identify her as Evelyn. The timing and the
Speaker 1: circumstances of the whole thing lends credence to the idea
Speaker 1: that the unknowingly saw Evelyn while she was in the
Speaker 1: process of being abducted by two perpetrators. Well, there doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to be any physical evidence placing more than one
Speaker 1: intruder at the Rasmusen home. It's possible that only one
Speaker 1: of them actually went inside well. The other one remained
Speaker 1: outside in the backyard as a lookout. This might explain
Speaker 1: how Evelyn was forcibly removed from the house through the
Speaker 1: basement window, as the second abductor may have been waiting
Speaker 1: there to help his partner drag her outside. It sounds
Speaker 1: like the dirty footprints found in the living room were
Speaker 1: the results of the intruders stepping in the outside flower beds.
Speaker 1: But if his accomplice never stepped in the dirt, that
Speaker 1: would explain why he never left any footprints behind.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, I think that when you look at this idea
Speaker 3: that she was fortunately taken out, it does help with
Speaker 3: the idea of being able to get her moved and
Speaker 3: moved without anyone noticing her, being able to incapacitate her
Speaker 3: to a point where you wouldn't necessarily hear her scream.
Speaker 3: Someone could have been covering in her mouth while the
Speaker 3: other one's moving her. You know, there's just a lot
Speaker 3: of different moving parts where if that witness actually saw
Speaker 3: her being taken a pretty far distance for an abduction,
Speaker 3: then it would be very hard to keep her quiet
Speaker 3: that long. If she was walking, she wasn't incapacitated at a
Speaker 3: point where she couldn't scream. So having two people there,
Speaker 3: and especially that report where there's a man in the
Speaker 3: front seat and a man in the backseat with this girl,
Speaker 3: it indicates that two people would have allowed for just
Speaker 3: an easier apprehension. Now, what makes it crazy, though, is
Speaker 3: that oftentimes, when there are two people who are involved
Speaker 3: in a crime, for both of them to take that
Speaker 3: to their grave is pretty wild.
Speaker 2: Well, as we're going to discuss further, it's possible that
Speaker 2: one of them bragged about it in a bar to
Speaker 2: a guy with a tape recorders, so that may not
Speaker 2: be true that eventually one of them did talk anyway.
Speaker 2: The other major clues in this case were the blood
Speaker 2: stained undergarments in Brazil are found outside of town, which
Speaker 2: were believed to belong to Evelyn, along with a pair
Speaker 2: of pants, a denim jacket, and a pair of tennis
Speaker 2: shoes that were all staying with blood. It was never
Speaker 2: conclusively established if the pants were connected to the case,
Speaker 2: but it seems very likely that the shoes and jacket
Speaker 2: were worn by the perpetrator since they matched the physical
Speaker 2: evidence found at the abduction scene. At the time, he
Speaker 2: was believed that the jacket was too small to be
Speaker 2: worn by someone who wore size eleven shoes. But this
Speaker 2: discrepancy could be explained away if two perpetrators were involved
Speaker 2: in the crime, as one of them could have been
Speaker 2: wearing the jacket while the other wore the shoes. It's
Speaker 2: actually quite fascinating to go back and read about the
Speaker 2: forensic testing and analysis which were performed on these items
Speaker 2: of clothing in nineteen fifty three, as we were still
Speaker 2: many decades away from DNA profiling. Instead, they had to
Speaker 2: look at the physical evidence and make educated guesses, such
Speaker 2: as the perpetrator being a steeple jack or dryving a
Speaker 2: Weezer motorcycle. But I don't know if any of these
Speaker 2: hunches were correct since they never turned up any promising leads.
Speaker 2: They also seem to think that a hair found in
Speaker 2: one of the shoes belonged to an African American male,
Speaker 2: but I'm not sure if they were able to conclusively
Speaker 2: prove that. If this crime had taken place today and
Speaker 2: investigators found bloody clothing which belonged to both the victim
Speaker 2: and the perpetrator, they might have been able to solve
Speaker 2: the case relatively quickly. It's frustrating to hear that the
Speaker 2: jacket and shoes were apparently lost by police over the years,
Speaker 2: because if DNA testing was performed on the evidence, perhaps
Speaker 2: they might have turned up something.
Speaker 3: What's really hard is that some of the evidence too
Speaker 3: went missing right where you have these the bloody clothing,
Speaker 3: and you even had someone come forward and see a
Speaker 3: news story and say, hey, listen, we recognize those pieces.
Speaker 3: I might know who they belonged to, and then they
Speaker 3: weren't able to find them. It's really really frustrating, like
Speaker 3: you said, because advancements weren't there in the fifty they
Speaker 3: were starting to be there in the eighties when this
Speaker 3: case was being geared back up and there was more
Speaker 3: media attention on the anniversary for it.
Speaker 2: And then about.
Speaker 3: Fifty years later you start to get even more attention
Speaker 3: back on it, where the science has caught up, but
Speaker 3: the evidence just isn't there to run it against. So
Speaker 3: it's like that race where time is on your side
Speaker 3: in some ways, but then you find out all that
Speaker 3: hard work that the investigators did, somehow that evidence got misplaced.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think that if this crime happened today, I
Speaker 2: don't think that the perpetrator would toss clothing with their
Speaker 2: blood on its out into remote area. They would probably
Speaker 2: think if someone tests this, they're going to lead it
Speaker 2: back to me, so they would probably go to all
Speaker 2: extent to bury it or get rid of it so
Speaker 2: that it was never found.
Speaker 1: So now let's look at possible suspects. A lot of
Speaker 1: them have popped up on the radar these past several decades,
Speaker 1: but most of them have been ruled out, and there
Speaker 1: really isn't strong evidence pointing to anyone in particular. Let's
Speaker 1: start with that Geen, as he's one of the most
Speaker 1: notorious murderers of all time and the one suspect who
Speaker 1: is most associated with this case. But quite frankly, I
Speaker 1: think his significance here is way overstated, as he was
Speaker 1: cleared as the suspect almost immediately. Yes, it seems that
Speaker 1: they came to that conclusion because Gean passed two LAE
Speaker 1: detector tests, and these tests obviously do not have the
Speaker 1: same way today as they did in nineteen fifty seven. However,
Speaker 1: other than the fact that Gean was originally born in Lacrosse,
Speaker 1: what connection does he have to Evelyn's case at all?
Speaker 1: I know that many accounts state that Gean was visiting
Speaker 1: relatives in Lacrosse at the time Evelyn went missing, but
Speaker 1: I have my doubts that this is accurate. Like we
Speaker 1: mentioned in Part one, a lot of the original newspaper
Speaker 1: accounts state that when Geen was questioned, he claimed that
Speaker 1: he had not been to Lacrosse since he was seven
Speaker 1: years old. Well, Gean did still have relatives living in
Speaker 1: Lacrosse in nineteen fifty three. I haven't seen any confirmation
Speaker 1: that he went to visit them at that time, but
Speaker 1: even if he did, Evelyn's abduction just does not fit
Speaker 1: 's at all. His two known murder victims, Mary Hogan
Speaker 1: and Bernice Warden, were women in their fifties who lived
Speaker 1: in the Plainfield area, and he was personally acquainted with them.
Speaker 1: It's believed that Geane killed them because they reminded him
Speaker 1: of his deceased mother, whom he had an obsession with.
Speaker 1: Performing a home invasion in another town over one hundred
Speaker 1: miles away in order to abduct a random teenage girl
Speaker 1: does not sound like something that Gean would do. And
Speaker 1: if the sighting from ed Hoffer was accurate and two
Speaker 1: men abducted Evelyn, it seems really out of character for
Speaker 1: a known loner like Gean to be working with an accomplice.
Speaker 1: It was also established that none of the human remains
Speaker 1: found on Gean's farm belonged to Evelyn. Yes, theoretically he
Speaker 1: could have disposed of her body somewhere between Lacrosse and Plainfield,
Speaker 1: But think about it. Would a guy who performs grave
Speaker 1: robbing and decorates his house with human remains really go
Speaker 1: to the trouble of disposing of a victim's body. Since
Speaker 1: Gean was arrested only four years after Evelyn went missing,
Speaker 1: I can see how it would be tempting to think
Speaker 1: there's a connection, But I really don't think that he
Speaker 1: was responsible.
Speaker 3: I don't think that he was responsible either. Really, what
Speaker 3: we know about Geen is that he loved to honor
Speaker 3: his victims in his sick way. He wanted parts of
Speaker 3: their body, He wanted to make things out of them.
Speaker 3: He even went to the extent of not only he
Speaker 3: only killed two people they were aware of, but he
Speaker 3: would dig up human remains. He was so desperate for
Speaker 3: the materials to make bowls and lampshades and whatever else
Speaker 3: he made. Right, it was all on display at his home.
Speaker 3: Why would he then apprehend someone who does not fit
Speaker 3: his victimology? And then not keep her body for his
Speaker 3: sick purposes. It seems like the whole goal of his
Speaker 3: was to keep his victims with him or to find
Speaker 3: a connection with deceased individuals. So it doesn't fit the
Speaker 3: description of what happened to Evelyn here and there was
Speaker 3: no sign of her at his home.
Speaker 1: That ed Gean is an inter sexually based crimes and
Speaker 1: we know that he's like a goal directed killer. He
Speaker 1: doesn't kill for the murder itself. He kills for the
Speaker 1: product that that murder provides, whereas whatever happened to Evelyn
Speaker 1: likely was not for the product it provides after she's deceased.
Speaker 2: And on a side note, this is just an amusing coincidence,
Speaker 2: but on the day we're recording this, it was just
Speaker 2: announced that the Netflix series Monster is going to devote
Speaker 2: season three to the ed Geen story, and he's going
Speaker 2: to be played by Charlie Hunham from Sons of Anarchy,
Speaker 2: who seems like an unlikely casting choice to say the least.
Speaker 1: I love him and I always hear that he's a
Speaker 1: really nice guy.
Speaker 2: He is, yeah, from what I heard, so I can't
Speaker 2: picture him as ed Gean, but I'm anxious to see
Speaker 2: this no.
Speaker 3: I'm trying. Yeah, I'm trying to picture him as ed Gean,
Speaker 3: but I'm in I'll watch it.
Speaker 2: Another potential suspect who popped up on the radar many
Speaker 2: years after the fact was a local farmer who was
Speaker 2: implicated when two anonymous witnesses came forward after the airing
Speaker 2: of the Evelyn Hartley Story documentary in nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 2: As you recall, this farmer often liked to wear a
Speaker 2: blue denim jacket and tennis shoes and drove a dark
Speaker 2: colored Chevrolet. But after he went into the Lacrosse on
Speaker 2: the evening of October twenty fourth, nineteen fifty three, the
Speaker 2: witnesses never saw him wearing those items or driving that
Speaker 2: car again. But of course, the obvious question is why
Speaker 2: did it take them so long to come forward. Well,
Speaker 2: they claimed that they did go to the Lacrosse County
Speaker 2: District Attorney's office with his information in nineteen seventy three,
Speaker 2: but the authorities were not interested in pursuing it. The
Speaker 2: way the farmer allegedly said he was going into town
Speaker 2: to quote unquote find a woman lends credence to the
Speaker 2: idea that he may have been an opportunistic predator who
Speaker 2: happened to pass by the window of the Rasmusen residence
Speaker 2: and noticed that Evelyn was home alone. The part of
Speaker 2: this story which doesn't match up is him driving a Chevrolet,
Speaker 2: as the vehicle ed Hoffer saw in the neighborhood that
Speaker 2: night with the two men, and the girl was described
Speaker 2: as a buick. Anyway, after these witnesses came forward, Steve
Speaker 2: Botham filmed the follow up news segment containing this new information,
Speaker 2: and it's available for viewing on YouTube alongside the Evelyn
Speaker 2: Hartley Story documentary. But this is the only source I
Speaker 2: could find out there which mentions the lead involving the farmer.
Speaker 2: Given that the alleged suspect had been dead for ten
Speaker 2: years by that point, I can only assume this lead
Speaker 2: never went anywhere.
Speaker 3: Well, we did talk about the idea that this could
Speaker 3: have been an opportunistic predator or offender, and so if
Speaker 3: you go by what this man says, the farmer says,
Speaker 3: I'm off to find a woman, then he would fit
Speaker 3: that description of an opportunistic predator. Again, though he would
Speaker 3: have had to have been present in that area and
Speaker 3: seen that it was just this teenage girl and assumed
Speaker 3: that nobody else was there, which to me, the only
Speaker 3: way you would know that in the evening is that
Speaker 3: you saw the adults in that scenario leave the home
Speaker 3: and had towards the homecoming game. Do we know what
Speaker 3: time did they leave the house?
Speaker 2: Shortly before seven? Because I think that's when Evelyn last
Speaker 2: spoke to her parents on the phone, and I think
Speaker 2: they left a short time before that.
Speaker 3: Okay, So then that does that does allow for someone
Speaker 3: to be sitting there and watch the parents leave and
Speaker 3: then see this young teenage girl there, because otherwise, when
Speaker 3: the lights are on and you know it's it's the evening,
Speaker 3: you would assume that even if you saw a teenage
Speaker 3: girl walk by the window, that her parents would probably
Speaker 3: be home as well. But it is possible that someone
Speaker 3: was simply looking for a woman to attack and he
Speaker 3: found the right home where there was a young teenage
Speaker 3: girl babysitting. It is interesting that the car doesn't match
Speaker 3: up to the vehicle that mister X or mister Hoffer
Speaker 3: saw that night that there were two men getting into
Speaker 3: a green buick with a girl who seems to be incapacitated,
Speaker 3: which would match a young lady who had just been attacked.
Speaker 3: But yeah, this one's one of those. It's very elusive,
Speaker 3: it's a very creepy comment made. But to what extent
Speaker 3: does that translate to a missing person and now possible murder.
Speaker 1: Don't you both feel like there would be some other
Speaker 1: information out there about this farmer being a creep like
Speaker 1: one doesn't typically just commit one crime in their lifetime
Speaker 1: and they start by getting their feet wet by abducting
Speaker 1: and murdering a young girl. They would typically start somewhere else,
Speaker 1: whether it be like being a peeping tom and like
Speaker 1: slowly escalate over time, And most killers don't just kill
Speaker 1: one time and then that's it. So I feel like
Speaker 1: I wish we knew more about this individual and if
Speaker 1: he had been known as being like this local creep,
Speaker 1: if he harassed any women, Do we know any of
Speaker 1: that information, Robin.
Speaker 2: We don't, unfortunately, because they don't release any information about them.
Speaker 2: All we know is from what these two witnesses said
Speaker 2: when they came forward. But this was decades after the fact.
Speaker 2: But the police did such a thorough job that I'd
Speaker 2: like to think that if there were any farm area
Speaker 2: who had a history of creepy behavior and acting lecturist
Speaker 2: towards women or young girls that he would have been
Speaker 2: investigated at the time, but I see no indication that
Speaker 2: this person had been on the radar as a suspect before.
Speaker 1: So that brings us to our most intriguing lead, which
Speaker 1: is the tape recording of an alleged confession to Evelyn's murder,
Speaker 1: which surfaced in two thousand and three. It featured a
Speaker 1: conversation in which a man named Clyde t Wee Peterson
Speaker 1: claimed that he teamed up with an accomplice named Jack Golfier, Yeah,
Speaker 1: named Jack Golfair and a mutual friend of theirs to
Speaker 1: abduct Evelyn and took her to a mutual friend's farm,
Speaker 1: where Golfair proceeded to murder her and bury her body. Now,
Speaker 1: since the recording was made in nineteen sixty eight, and
Speaker 1: it's another example of a witness and not coming forward
Speaker 1: with key information about an unsolved cold case for decades,
Speaker 1: I can understand the skepticism. It's very strange how the
Speaker 1: tavern owner Mel Williams just forgot about the recording and
Speaker 1: put it away somewhere, even though it practically contained a
Speaker 1: confession to the murder of a teenage girl. I mean,
Speaker 1: he had the whole thing on tape, so it's not
Speaker 1: like Williams would have to worry about the police not
Speaker 1: believing his story. But since Peterson and the other man
Speaker 1: involved in the conversation, Whitey Barclay, sounded like they were
Speaker 1: rough characters, perhaps Williams feared that there would be repercussions
Speaker 1: if he went to the authorities. Regardless, things might have
Speaker 1: turned out much differently in this case if they'd been
Speaker 1: able to question Peterson while he was still alive. I
Speaker 1: know the criminals often get caught because they can't keep
Speaker 1: their mouth shut and brag about their crimes, but if
Speaker 1: Peterson was telling the truth, it's crazy that he would
Speaker 1: confess to such a heinous crime when he knew that
Speaker 1: he was being recorded. Hell Williams claimed that Peterson told
Speaker 1: him to stop the tape, yet he could not remember
Speaker 1: what happened next. Why wouldn't Peterson have forced him to
Speaker 1: hand over the tape. Whitey Barclay, the man who initiated
Speaker 1: this conversation, was described as being a quote big mouth,
Speaker 1: though it didn't sound like he was implicated as having
Speaker 1: participated in Evelyn's abduction. I guess the wild card in
Speaker 1: this whole situation is the mutual friend of Peterson and
Speaker 1: Jack Golfair, as he's never been publicly named, and it
Speaker 1: was his farm where Evelyn was allegedly taken, taken to
Speaker 1: and murdered. If there were three people involved in Evelyn's abduction,
Speaker 1: then this complicates things since ed Hoffer only witnessed two
Speaker 1: men dragging the girl down the street and driving away
Speaker 1: from the scene that night. And there's also the fact
Speaker 1: that Golfair was the alleged mastermind behind the whole thing,
Speaker 1: and he apparently knew who Evelyn was and that she
Speaker 1: would be babysitting at the resmuse and residence that night.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: The tavern where this recording took place was in the
Speaker 1: village of Lafarge, which is an hour away from Lacrosse,
Speaker 1: though it's worth mentioning that the perpetrator supposedly took Evelyn
Speaker 1: to their friend's farm at a location which has never
Speaker 1: been disclosed, so for all we know, it could have
Speaker 1: been near Lacrosse.
Speaker 3: What makes me feel like there could be some credence
Speaker 3: to this is that it's been you know, time has passed.
Speaker 3: He doesn't think that he's going to get caught because
Speaker 3: he's gotten away with it. He's probably drinking. But there's
Speaker 3: a lot of details here that unless it's recalling a
Speaker 3: media account or some kind of conversation they've had, he
Speaker 3: knew a lot of information, he said, tell him aout
Speaker 3: the Hartley girl right, knew her name, knew that she
Speaker 3: was babysitting, knew all of these little details about her
Speaker 3: and the scenario that evening. So if it's not accurate,
Speaker 3: remember this is the nineteen fifties, this is now the
Speaker 3: sixties when he's telling the story.
Speaker 2: Would he know all.
Speaker 3: That information just based on media coverage and newspaper articles
Speaker 3: from a crime years earlier.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's certainly possible. I mean, I don't know
Speaker 2: if it was still getting headlines in nineteen sixty eight,
Speaker 2: that even if they were writing like fifteenth anniversary articles
Speaker 2: and getting the case back in the spotlight again. But
Speaker 2: investigators have never said that. He said in this recording
Speaker 2: that they had held back from the public and was
Speaker 2: not public knowledge. So he didn't really say anything to
Speaker 2: indicate that he had any more knowledge of what happened
Speaker 2: than everyone else did. But let's talk more about Jack Golfair.
Speaker 2: We mentioned in part one that the Matoon Journal Gazette
Speaker 2: published the original article about this story and said that
Speaker 2: his last name was Golfair with a P, but I
Speaker 2: think that's a mistake. There's a website out there called
Speaker 2: crime Blogger nineteen eighty three dot blogspot dot com which
Speaker 2: published an extensive article about this case, and they managed
Speaker 2: to dig up a couple of old newspaper articles about
Speaker 2: someone named Jack Golfair whose last name was spelled with
Speaker 2: a T, and since they referred to golfare as being
Speaker 2: from LeFarge, I'm pretty sure this is the same person
Speaker 2: who was mentioned during the recording. These articles reported that
Speaker 2: on October the twenty fifth, nineteen fifty one, Golffair and
Speaker 2: another man named Marian Driscoll were fined one hundred dollars each,
Speaker 2: given suspended jail sentences of eleven to twelve months, and
Speaker 2: placed on two years probabtion for quote unquote contributing to
Speaker 2: the delinquency of a girl under sixteen. There aren't many
Speaker 2: details about this incident, except that Golfaer and Driscoll took
Speaker 2: the girl to a tavern before they brought it back
Speaker 2: to Golfaer's home and led her into an upstairs bedroom.
Speaker 2: They actually appealed their conviction all the way to the
Speaker 2: Wisconsin Supreme Court, but the request for a new trial
Speaker 2: was denied, and you can actually find the decision online
Speaker 2: under State versus Driscoll, Wisconsin, nineteen fifty three. Well, this
Speaker 2: obviously paints Golfare as the type of guy who liked
Speaker 2: to prey on teenage girls, so it does sound like
Speaker 2: he could have been capable of abducting a fifteen year
Speaker 2: old like Evelyn Hartley. In online discussions about this case,
Speaker 2: I've seen a few people theorize that perhaps Marian Driscoll
Speaker 2: was the mutual friend who owned the farm where Evelyn
Speaker 2: was murdered. You can find an article containing Jack Golfaer's
Speaker 2: obituary online, as he shot himself at the age of
Speaker 2: thirty nine on Christmas Day in nineteen sixty seven. I
Speaker 2: find the timing to be interesting since the recorded conversation
Speaker 2: in the tavern allegedly took place sometime in nineteen sixty eight,
Speaker 2: So perhaps Peterson and Barclay felt they could talk more
Speaker 2: freely about Evelyn's murder now that golf There was dead.
Speaker 2: And you could also infer that Golfaer's guilt over what
Speaker 2: he did to Evelyn compelled him to take his own life.
Speaker 2: While the police were going to check into this whole story.
Speaker 2: It doesn't look like they found any evidence to support it,
Speaker 2: and I have no idea if they had any real
Speaker 2: plans to exhume the bodies of Peterson or golf There
Speaker 2: or anyone else in order to compare their DNA against
Speaker 2: the physical evidence. But we don't even know if there
Speaker 2: is any available physical evidence, as the denim jacket and
Speaker 2: tennis shoes can no longer be found when a search
Speaker 2: was performed for them decades after the fact. Without any
Speaker 2: evidence containing DNA, it will be much more difficult to
Speaker 2: conclusively link anyone to the crime, especially since all the
Speaker 2: alleged perpetrators are deceased, and if Evelyn was buried in
Speaker 2: a Mississippi River floodplain and washed away, then it will
Speaker 2: probably be impossible to record for any remains after all
Speaker 2: this time.
Speaker 3: That's what's so sad here. There's really no one even
Speaker 3: to question anymore. You had at one point the police
Speaker 3: had one of these three gentlemen still alive, but he
Speaker 3: was ninety seven or something to that extent and had dementia,
Speaker 3: so he would have been no help in trying to
Speaker 3: recall what had happened. Is very interesting that Jack actually
Speaker 3: completed suicide. And obviously, if you're carrying the guilt of
Speaker 3: murdering somebody, it's possible that could have contributed to that.
Speaker 3: But if you were going to kill someone and help
Speaker 3: your friends dispose of a body, I'm not sure that
Speaker 3: you would carry a whole lot of guilt. Just kind
Speaker 3: of depends on the kind of human being that you are.
Speaker 3: But here, I still there's part of me who thinks
Speaker 3: these are people who worked as a team, they thought
Speaker 3: they were bigger and better than the police, and that
Speaker 3: there is a potential that there could be a link
Speaker 3: back to Evelyn's case. I just I find it hard
Speaker 3: to believe you're going to sit in a bar and
Speaker 3: brag about it, even though we see criminals all the
Speaker 3: time take credit for things they didn't do. I wish,
Speaker 3: I wish, I wish they would exhume the bodies and
Speaker 3: compare it to DNA or physical evidence. But are we
Speaker 3: even sure that there is evidence remaining that would have
Speaker 3: any of the perpetrator's DNA on it.
Speaker 2: I'm entirely sure about that. I mean, we mentioned how
Speaker 2: the jacket and the shoes are gone, and they might
Speaker 2: still have the blood samples found at the scene, but
Speaker 2: that blood probably belongs to Evelyn, so I'm not sure
Speaker 2: if you're going to find any of the DNA belonging
Speaker 2: to the perpetrator on it. And that's the problem is
Speaker 2: that this was nineteen fifty three, so I'm sure no
Speaker 2: one was envisioning that we would need to hold onto
Speaker 2: this evidence for decades and then do this new form
Speaker 2: of testing in order to potentially identify the killer.
Speaker 3: No, I think that you would assume that you know,
Speaker 3: this is what we have, But you know what the
Speaker 3: shame is is that it's the shoes and the jacket
Speaker 3: and things like that that would have the potential to
Speaker 3: have both her blood and their DNA evidence on it,
Speaker 3: and we just simply don't have it.
Speaker 2: I do find it interesting that this alleged confession took
Speaker 2: place only like a couple months after golf There suicide,
Speaker 2: So maybe if they were responsible, Peterson had this mentality
Speaker 2: while we're going to brag about it, and if anyone
Speaker 2: from law enforcement starts questioning me or starting an investigation,
Speaker 2: we'll just blame it on the dead guy and say
Speaker 2: that we were just joking when we said we were involved.
Speaker 1: As it is, right now, there are far too many
Speaker 1: unanswered questions for me to believe with any certainty the
Speaker 1: jack golf There and his two accomplices were the perpetrators.
Speaker 1: Since LeFarge was an hour from Lacrosse, it's still unclear
Speaker 1: how golf There would have known that Evelyn was babysitting
Speaker 1: at the Rasmusen home that night. All that being said,
Speaker 1: if you search hard enough online, you'll find a couple
Speaker 1: of comments from people who claim to have a personal
Speaker 1: connection to Lacrosse and have shared uncooperated rumors that Evelyn
Speaker 1: met golf There because students would sneak away to LeFarge
Speaker 1: to drink and party, and this was how we might
Speaker 1: have learned about Evelyn's babysitting. Of course, everything that we've
Speaker 1: read about Evelyn makes her sound like a model teenager
Speaker 1: who wouldn't sneak away to another town to party. But
Speaker 1: perhaps she had a wild side that her family didn't
Speaker 1: know about. I can't speak to the veracity of these
Speaker 1: rumors that Evelyn personally knew Golfair, But even so, if
Speaker 1: Golfair and his accomplices took Evelyn all the way to
Speaker 1: LeFarge should murder her and bury her body, why would
Speaker 1: they return to an area only a couple miles outside
Speaker 1: Lacrosse to dispose of her bloody undergarments along with the
Speaker 1: bloody tennis shoes and denim jacket. Why not bury the
Speaker 1: evidence with Evelyn or dispose of it in an area
Speaker 1: closer to Lfarge where there isn't a large scale search
Speaker 1: operation going on. Remember, the undergarments were discovered on October
Speaker 1: twenty seventh, but the area had been searched the day
Speaker 1: before and the undergarments were not there. So this would
Speaker 1: imply that Golfair or one of his accomplices made a
Speaker 1: special trip to Lacrosse a few days after the crime
Speaker 1: in order to dump them there. Granted, this may have
Speaker 1: been a deliberate attempt at misdirection in order to keep
Speaker 1: the investigation away from LeFarge, but it's still fairly risky
Speaker 1: with the way the crime was carried out. Some people
Speaker 1: have always suggested that the perpetrator or perpetrators were locals
Speaker 1: who had knowledge of the area rather than other towners
Speaker 1: like golf Are and Peterson.
Speaker 3: That's true. When I think about these people who are
Speaker 3: disposing of evidence, you could be on the right tractors
Speaker 3: where you say, well, if you threw it out the
Speaker 3: window towards lacrosse and things like that. Maybe it is,
Speaker 3: you know, putting the scent off for the police, but
Speaker 3: to me, it almost seems like someone who's scared and panicking.
Speaker 3: They didn't bury the evidence with the body, and now
Speaker 3: that the police are going to these extreme measures and
Speaker 3: they're really hunting for this young girl for evidence for
Speaker 3: perpetrators on a scale that I'm guarantee you that city
Speaker 3: had never seen. It almost seems like someone who's panicked.
Speaker 3: And after a search is conducted and they hear on
Speaker 3: the newspaper or something that a search is being conducted,
Speaker 3: they go and they try to discarded this evidence like
Speaker 3: a very panicked almost offender, someone who is kind of cool,
Speaker 3: calm and collected. I don't see them throwing things out
Speaker 3: the window, like you said, burn them, put them where
Speaker 3: the body was discarded something like that, but not thrown
Speaker 3: out the window. To me, that seems very kind of
Speaker 3: chaotic and scared.
Speaker 2: It's almost like perhaps they forgot they even had this evidence,
Speaker 2: that it was three days after the fact, and they realized, oh,
Speaker 2: we still have Evelyn's bloody clothes inside my car, I
Speaker 2: should get rid of them. And then they just toss
Speaker 2: them out the first place that they passed by, and
Speaker 2: don't think about the significance of like going taking extra
Speaker 2: steps in order to completely destroy it. If there was
Speaker 2: definitive proof that Evelyn had ties to Lfarge and a
Speaker 2: cross paths with Golf there before she went missing, then
Speaker 2: that would greatly increase my belief that the confession was
Speaker 2: legitimate and Golf there murdered her. But otherwise I can't
Speaker 2: say with absolute certainty that he was responsible overall. It
Speaker 2: would have to if the killer was someone who never
Speaker 2: showed up on the radar and completely escaped detection. Whoever
Speaker 2: it was, chances are they're long dead by now and
Speaker 2: will never face justice for this crime. Regardless, this will
Speaker 2: always remain one of the most frightening unsolved missing person's
Speaker 2: cases of all time. You'll always hear people share stories
Speaker 2: about how they once lived in a peaceful community where
Speaker 2: you didn't even have to lock your doors, but then
Speaker 2: an horrific event like this changed everything. Like I mentioned
Speaker 2: in our intro to part one, this is a situation
Speaker 2: straight out of a horror movie, except that it involved
Speaker 2: a real life monster rather than a supernatural one. Anyway,
Speaker 2: if someone can still come forward with a tape recorded
Speaker 2: confession after fifty years, then I guess we can never
Speaker 2: completely write off the possibility of finding out what happened here.
Speaker 2: So if by chance you happen to have any information
Speaker 2: about the unsolved disappearance of Evelyn Hartley, please contact the
Speaker 2: appropriate authorities. Jules Ashley any final thoughts on this case.
Speaker 3: This is as heartbreaking as you get. You have a
Speaker 3: young girl who it's homecoming weakened, everyone's going to the game,
Speaker 3: and she gets an opportunity to babysit, an opportunity that
Speaker 3: she really isn't that excited about because I guarantee you
Speaker 3: she wanted to go to the game too, or wanted
Speaker 3: to be with her friends that night. And Mom says, go,
Speaker 3: you need to go because you made an obligation. You
Speaker 3: gave them your word, and they're leaving. They need you
Speaker 3: to watch their little girl. And it's not just a
Speaker 3: few minutes later that Mom gets this gut feeling that
Speaker 3: something's wrong, that she needs to reach out to Evelyn.
Speaker 3: And by the time that they realize, Evelyn hasn't called
Speaker 3: when she said she would, and Dad goes over to
Speaker 3: the house. He peeks in the window and he sees
Speaker 3: her school books scattered everywhere, her glasses are broken, her
Speaker 3: shoe is sitting there, a single shoe. And it's not
Speaker 3: until later you realize there's blood evidence outside the home
Speaker 3: and a possibility that she was abducted and taken by
Speaker 3: one or two perpetrators away from that area, and her
Speaker 3: body's never found. So you have two families that are
Speaker 3: destroyed by this case, the family of the little girl
Speaker 3: she was babysitting and Evelyn's family, And then you have
Speaker 3: a whole community who then has to sit back and
Speaker 3: say it's not even safe for our little girls to
Speaker 3: go out and babysit, which is one of the most
Speaker 3: coming of age things that we all do, right, going
Speaker 3: to care for a family friend's child. Evelyn likely lost
Speaker 3: her life doing just that in a home where she
Speaker 3: should have been safe. So it might have been, you
Speaker 3: know what, seventy years ago, but to me, when you
Speaker 3: think about this, it's horrifying to this day to think
Speaker 3: that you could be in your home or a family
Speaker 3: friend's home and lose your life. And even worse for
Speaker 3: Evelyn's family, they didn't know where she was. They never
Speaker 3: got the resolution of where she is, where her body
Speaker 3: might be, what happened to her long term, and her
Speaker 3: family died without knowing those answers. So it's just incredibly tragic.
Speaker 3: It's one of those where it's almost been too long.
Speaker 3: The evidence isn't there anymore to necessarily provide a resolution.
Speaker 3: It would take someone who is still alive. That's another
Speaker 3: problem in this case that knows information. But my goodness,
Speaker 3: just a normal coming of age evening I went to
Speaker 3: babysit somebody's child and she didn't come home. So sad.
Speaker 1: The story hit me in the gut because it just
Speaker 1: reminded me of being a teenage babysitter and looking out
Speaker 1: that dark window because I'd watched all the Halloween movies
Speaker 1: and being terrified, just knowing that, like what lies out
Speaker 1: there you don't know. It gave me the hebe gbs
Speaker 1: at that age, and to think that Evelyn didn't want
Speaker 1: to babysit, And I wonder like, did she not want
Speaker 1: a babysit because she wanted to go to the game,
Speaker 1: or because it was a big deal with homecoming game,
Speaker 1: or was it just that she had some kind of
Speaker 1: premonition in the way that her mom had. The premonition
Speaker 1: was just call Evelyn at this point, and her dad
Speaker 1: was like, no, no, it's okay. We're gonna hear from
Speaker 1: her at eight thirty. So it just really makes me
Speaker 1: wonder like what she was thinking at that time, and
Speaker 1: if she didn't want a babysit because she had a
Speaker 1: strange feeling, or if it was anything along those lines.
Speaker 1: My heart really breaks for the family, not only for
Speaker 1: Evelyn's family, but for the Rasmusin family as well, because
Speaker 1: we see how it affected their daughters, because Jana said
Speaker 1: that when they moved, they put bars on the windows,
Speaker 1: and rightfully so. I can't imagine the trauma that would
Speaker 1: be inflicted knowing that your babysit or that you hired
Speaker 1: was taken out of your home and likely something terrible
Speaker 1: was done to her because she's never seen again. It
Speaker 1: would inform the way that you would then parents your
Speaker 1: own children, and it probably did to the entire community,
Speaker 1: because I'm sure this reverberated outwards in a big way,
Speaker 1: and insofar as who is the most like likely suspect,
Speaker 1: I think that there's really not a lot to go
Speaker 1: on here. I don't think there's anything that we can
Speaker 1: cling to enough, or that I personally can cling to enough.
Speaker 2: To go.
Speaker 1: Aha. Those look like the likely perpetrators. I think, why
Speaker 1: would Peterson be admitting to or confessing to a crime
Speaker 1: if he wasn't part of it. But like Asha just mentioned,
Speaker 1: criminals confess to crimes that they didn't commit all the time.
Speaker 1: Maybe he thought that this was bragging rights in some
Speaker 1: kind of sick way, or he was responsible and him
Speaker 1: and golf Heer and the other unnamed person. Maybe the
Speaker 1: farmer who was mentioned earlier took her to the farm
Speaker 1: or this undisclosed location. Maybe it went down that way.
Speaker 1: But maybe it's just some guys bragging about something and
Speaker 1: trying to take credit. I'm really undecided on that. But
Speaker 1: like Ash just mentioned, it's really sad that we don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of the evidence here and most of
Speaker 1: the people who are likely involved are deceased.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I remember hearing about this case many years ago,
Speaker 2: and it was one of the more frightening missing person's
Speaker 2: cases I've ever seen, because in a lot of these cases,
Speaker 2: they just vanished into thin air and you don't know
Speaker 2: what happened to them. But here we have ample evidence
Speaker 2: that Evelyn was the victim of a home invasion and
Speaker 2: a violent abduction and put up a major struggle before
Speaker 2: she was taken away from that house. And it's a
Speaker 2: scenario you see in horror movies and spooky stories all
Speaker 2: the time, the babysitter who's alone with a child and
Speaker 2: is in a very vulnerable situation, and pretty much a
Speaker 2: real life horror story actually happened here. When I first
Speaker 2: became familiar with this case, most of the sources I
Speaker 2: found mentioned the whole ed Green connection, so I was thinking, hm,
Speaker 2: maybe this is an unconfirmed victim of him. But the
Speaker 2: more I researched it, the more I realized that the
Speaker 2: Green connection was very thin, and it's extremely unlikely that
Speaker 2: he was responsible, and it's nothing more than a red
Speaker 2: herring because he happened to live one hundred miles away,
Speaker 2: was born in the same town that Evelyn went missing from,
Speaker 2: and was arrested only four years later. But now I
Speaker 2: definitely think that there were at least two people involved.
Speaker 2: I don't know if they were complete strangers or anyone
Speaker 2: from Evelyn's personal life. I don't know if they were
Speaker 2: specifically targeting her or if they just selected her at
Speaker 2: random because they noticed, perhaps that she was home alone
Speaker 2: through the front window which didn't have any curtains and
Speaker 2: just decided to take advantage of the opportunity. I really
Speaker 2: can't say if Jack goll There and Tywee Peterson are responsible,
Speaker 2: if Peterson's confession is just a brag, and if these
Speaker 2: two men had any involvement in the crime, because as
Speaker 2: far as anyone can tell, no connection could be found
Speaker 2: between Evelyn or any of these men, So if they
Speaker 2: weren't responsible, it was a completely random crime. But it
Speaker 2: just seems major overkill, incredibly brazen that someone would attempt
Speaker 2: to abduct a girl in an otherwise safe suburban neighborhood.
Speaker 2: But as we've seen in other cases, like the Janell
Speaker 2: Matthews case, that sort of thing does happen, and we
Speaker 2: have had a resolution in Janell Matthews case. So maybe
Speaker 2: one of these days they will find Evelyn's remains. I
Speaker 2: know that her kill or killers are likely to cease
Speaker 2: by now, but I would like to see it remains
Speaker 2: recovered and given a proper burial and learn conclusive answers
Speaker 2: of what actually happened here.
Speaker 4: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 4: about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
Speaker 2: Yes, the Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three years, now,
Speaker 2: and we offer these standard bonus features like early ad
Speaker 2: free episodes, and I also send out stickers and sign
Speaker 2: thank you cards to anyone who signs up with us
Speaker 2: on Patreon if you join our five dollars tier Tier two.
Speaker 2: We also offer monthly bonus episodes in which I talk
Speaker 2: about cases which are not featured on the Trail went
Speaker 2: Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon, and if
Speaker 2: you join our highest tier tier free the ten dollar tier.
Speaker 2: One of the features we offer is a audio commentary
Speaker 2: track over classic episodes of UNSAWD Mysteries, where you can
Speaker 2: download an audio file and then boot up the original
Speaker 2: Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or YouTube and play
Speaker 2: it with my audio commentary playing in the background, where
Speaker 2: I just provide trivia and factoids about the cases featured
Speaker 2: in this episode. And incidentally, the very first episode that
Speaker 2: I did a commentary track over was the episode featuring
Speaker 2: this case. So if you want to download a commentary
Speaker 2: track in which I make more smart ass remarks about
Speaker 2: Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join Tier three.
Speaker 4: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 4: about the Jewels and Nashty 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. We'll link
Speaker 4: them in the show notes.
Speaker 2: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
Speaker 2: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 2: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly appreciated.
Speaker 2: You can email us at The Pathwent Chili at gmail
Speaker 2: dot com. You can reach us on Twitter at the Pathwin.
Speaker 2: So until next time, be sure to bundle up because
Speaker 2: cold trails and Chili pass call for warm clothing.
Speaker 4: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Colors Comedy