Speaker 1: Welcome to a very special edition of The Pathwent Chile.
Speaker 1: I'm Robin and I'm with my co host Jules and Ashley,
Speaker 1: and we're going to be doing something a little different
Speaker 1: from the norm. Many years before I became a true
Speaker 1: crime podcaster, I used to write freelance articles for a
Speaker 1: website called listpers dot com about cold cases and unsolved
Speaker 1: mysteries and true crime. Back in April of twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: I wrote an article titled ten Mysterious Cases Involving Unidentified People,
Speaker 1: where I talked about a bunch of John and Jane
Speaker 1: Does who at the time were unidentified. Well, as you
Speaker 1: probably know, in the past several years, we've seen a
Speaker 1: rise of genetic genealogy where a lot of these victims
Speaker 1: have finally got their identities back. And for a long
Speaker 1: time they had actually identified nine out of the ten
Speaker 1: victims from my original list, and there was only one
Speaker 1: hold out. But just very recently they finally identified the
Speaker 1: tenth entry on the list. So officially all ten of
Speaker 1: the victims on this list have officially been identified and
Speaker 1: got their names back. So Jules and I came up
Speaker 1: with the idea that we should do a series of
Speaker 1: episodes about this where I go over the list each
Speaker 1: case one by one, I share all the details about it,
Speaker 1: and then I'll reveal the details about how they eventually
Speaker 1: came to be identified. So I'll be reading the writeup
Speaker 1: of each case and then Jewles and Ashley will give
Speaker 1: your thoughts, and then I will share the details of
Speaker 1: how they were identified, and then they will do the
Speaker 1: same thing again. Do you have any thoughts you want
Speaker 1: to give before we start?
Speaker 2: I want to say it's great to have Ashley back
Speaker 2: because we have missed her these last few series of episodes.
Speaker 2: So why don't you tell the listeners what you've been
Speaker 2: up to.
Speaker 3: Ash Oh Man, life, guys, just life. I'm you, guys know.
Speaker 3: I'm a mom to a one year old now and
Speaker 3: started a new job as an elementary school teacher this year,
Speaker 3: and so I got all the wonderful crud that comes
Speaker 3: with that. Every illness my students have I have had
Speaker 3: as well. Sorry if I sound horse right now, but
Speaker 3: also I've had the pleasure of getting to dive back
Speaker 3: into a little bit of my creative side and work
Speaker 3: with some high school students and elementary school students around
Speaker 3: the state of Arkansas on creative writing projects. And helping
Speaker 3: little ones fall back in love with reading.
Speaker 2: I love that, Okay, So Ashley, before we recorded, she
Speaker 2: told me some of the exercises that she did with
Speaker 2: her students, prompting them with things like, you know, it's
Speaker 2: a rainy, cold night and it's so dark, and there's
Speaker 2: a knock at the door, and now write for ten minutes.
Speaker 2: How fun does that sound? Robin?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, definitely, That's something I would have loved to
Speaker 1: have done when I was in school. I know when
Speaker 1: I took creative writing in high school and Universe they
Speaker 1: would sometimes do that where they would give you a
Speaker 1: scenario and just says, whatever thoughts you have on paper
Speaker 1: and see where it leads.
Speaker 3: And what was cool is that I told him me,
Speaker 3: you know that there's a knock at the door and
Speaker 3: the person on the other side changes your life forever.
Speaker 3: Who is it? And some people used real life narratives.
Speaker 3: One little girl had lost her dad and said like,
Speaker 3: what if it was my dad on the other side
Speaker 3: of the door. There was another person who made it
Speaker 3: really creative and fun, sci fi esque. There's people that
Speaker 3: made it horror humorous, and so to see how these
Speaker 3: kids each took the same prompt and came up with
Speaker 3: their own genre to pull from. It was so moving
Speaker 3: and inspiring.
Speaker 1: I love it.
Speaker 3: I'm a big nerd when it comes to seeing young
Speaker 3: people be creative and stretch their brains.
Speaker 2: I love that you are shaping the future minds of America.
Speaker 3: Good luck.
Speaker 1: And I wonder if my elementary school and high school
Speaker 1: writing teachers wouldever envision that I'd be writing articles about
Speaker 1: unidentified deceiteds all those years later.
Speaker 3: I'm the opposite. I wonder if all my criminology friends
Speaker 3: would envision me teaching elementary school.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. So now we're going to start with the
Speaker 1: first entry on the list, a deceited named little miss Panasafki,
Speaker 1: and for many years this was the loan holdout until
Speaker 1: she was finally identified a few weeks before we recorded
Speaker 1: this episode, and a couple of years ago, the three
Speaker 1: of us actually recorded a bonus Patreon Minisota about this case.
Speaker 1: So I'm anxious to see if you still remember it
Speaker 1: and are looking forward to hearing your thoughts. So I'll
Speaker 1: start going down the list now, number ten, little miss Panasafki.
Speaker 1: And here is the original write up that I did
Speaker 1: for list fers on February the nineteenth nineteen seventy one
Speaker 1: in Sumter County, Florida, the decomposed body of a young
Speaker 1: woman was discovered beneath the bridge in Lake Panasafki. She
Speaker 1: was believed to be in her early twenties and had
Speaker 1: been strangled to death with a man's belt, which was
Speaker 1: still wrapped around her throat. She had no identification, and
Speaker 1: since no one ever came forward to claim her body,
Speaker 1: she was nicknamed little Miss Panasafki and laid to rest
Speaker 1: in the area. Years later, her body was zoomed in
Speaker 1: an attempt to identify her. One of the most curious
Speaker 1: discoveries they made was that a form of surgery called
Speaker 1: the Watson Jones technique had been performed on her ankle.
Speaker 1: She had extensive dental work, and a recent study of
Speaker 1: the lead isotopes in her teeth has led to the
Speaker 1: theory that she may have been a residence of Labriy
Speaker 1: on a fishing port near Athens, Greece. It is also
Speaker 1: believed that she had given birth to a child that
Speaker 1: one point. In spite of these very distinct clues, her
Speaker 1: real identity has yet to be uncovered.
Speaker 3: These are the cold cases that really interest me because
Speaker 3: you look at the details, and just from that small synopsis,
Speaker 3: there's so many things. As an investigator, you think, let's.
Speaker 1: Follow that lead.
Speaker 3: Let's look for Haya, Where does that surgery get performed,
Speaker 3: Where could that dental work have been performed? If she
Speaker 3: has a baby, is there someone who's searching for a
Speaker 3: missing mom, those kinds of things. There's a lot of
Speaker 3: details here. That belt around her neck, so we know
Speaker 3: it's a homicide and not a potential accident or suicide.
Speaker 3: And so in these cases where there is a host
Speaker 3: of evidence, and then to know that this was in
Speaker 3: the seventies and it wasn't even she wasn't even identified
Speaker 3: until a couple of weeks ago, it really blows my
Speaker 3: mind because we've had decades to look back at some
Speaker 3: very grounded evidence to one just say, who is little
Speaker 3: miss Panasovski. So I'm very interested to hear more. I
Speaker 3: briefly remember doing this Patreon, but I would love to
Speaker 3: hear more about what happened to this young lady and
Speaker 3: what her remains were eventually identified.
Speaker 2: As I remember when we covered this case, and there's
Speaker 2: something so heartbreaking about a young woman being discarded like trash,
Speaker 2: and just the fact that the belt was still around
Speaker 2: her throat. That resonated with me for some reason, I'm
Speaker 2: not sure why, And I'm really glad that this final
Speaker 2: holdout was finally solved and she was given back her identity.
Speaker 2: How did you feel when you heard that the last
Speaker 2: of the holdouts was finally salt dropping.
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 1: I was just a static because I've been waiting for
Speaker 1: them to identify her for a long long time. And
Speaker 1: what was interesting is that one of the reasons I
Speaker 1: felt there was a hold up and identification is because
Speaker 1: of this theory that she was originally from Greece, because
Speaker 1: Europe does not have the same laws for genetic genealogy,
Speaker 1: and for a while, they theorized that she might have
Speaker 1: been an exchange student who was sent over to the
Speaker 1: United States to work and probably had no living relatives there,
Speaker 1: which meant that even if you entered her DNA into
Speaker 1: a genealogy system in North America, it might not match
Speaker 1: any relatives in Europe. But surprisingly the isotope tests analysis
Speaker 1: that they performed which made them think that she was
Speaker 1: from Greece, it turns out it was completely wrong, because
Speaker 1: it was announced that she had been originally born in
Speaker 1: Maine and was an American citizen. They finally made the
Speaker 1: announcement on October twenty ninth, twenty twenty five, the Sumter
Speaker 1: County Sheriff's Office announced that little miss Panasofki had been
Speaker 1: identified as Marine Minor Rowan, who went by the nickname Cookie,
Speaker 1: which is how they referred to her and I like
Speaker 1: I said. She was originally born in Maine and had
Speaker 1: been living in Florida at the time of her disappearance
Speaker 1: with her husband, Charles Emery Rowan, who went by the
Speaker 1: name Henry, as well as her two children, so they
Speaker 1: were at least right at that part that she had
Speaker 1: given birth to a child at one point. But it
Speaker 1: turned out that because of the embalming fluid they had
Speaker 1: used in her body, that it probably affected the isotope
Speaker 1: testing and that's why it had this wrong false positive,
Speaker 1: making everyone believe that she was from this fishing village
Speaker 1: in Greece. And it turned out that they didn't actually
Speaker 1: have a full DNA profile for because she had been
Speaker 1: buried for so many years the evidence had deteriorated, so
Speaker 1: they actually identified her old school with fingerprints. It turned
Speaker 1: out that she had actually been arrested at one point.
Speaker 1: I think for shoplifting, but because she was originally discovered
Speaker 1: in the nineteen seventies when technology wasn't all that great,
Speaker 1: they weren't able to make a match. But in recent
Speaker 1: years they had done this updated nash Old fingerprint database
Speaker 1: with all these digital copies of old fingerprints from arrest
Speaker 1: records which had been entered into the system, and they
Speaker 1: wound up trying little miss Panasofki's prints entered them into
Speaker 1: the system, and it wound up being matched to Marine
Speaker 1: Cookie Rowan, who had been arrested shortly before her murder,
Speaker 1: and that's how they were able to finally identify her.
Speaker 3: Now, when she went missing, and did the husband and
Speaker 3: or the children through out time did they report her
Speaker 3: as a missing person?
Speaker 1: It does not look like it. And they've announced that
Speaker 1: her husband, Emory, that apparently the marriage was not in
Speaker 1: a good place at that time. They were separated and
Speaker 1: Emory died in twenty fifteen, and they named him as
Speaker 1: a person of interest because when you see the way
Speaker 1: she was strangled, it almost looks like it was personal.
Speaker 1: And it's tempting to believe that if he killed her,
Speaker 1: that he deliberately made a choice not to report her missing,
Speaker 1: but At the moment, they don't have enough evidence to
Speaker 1: formally declare him as a suspect. It's still an act
Speaker 1: of Homa side investigation. And I haven't heard anything from
Speaker 1: the two children yet. I think they've been staying out
Speaker 1: there the spotlight thus far, so I have no idea
Speaker 1: how they reacted when their mother went missing. I have
Speaker 1: to wonder perhaps if maybe Emory just told them that
Speaker 1: she ran away or something like that, and they had
Speaker 1: no idea that she was dead until very recently.
Speaker 2: It's giving Jewel Kayler vibes if Jewel Kayler and Dottie
Speaker 2: Kaylor had a couple of kids.
Speaker 1: Yes, And it's also you might remember, Jules that a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago, we did an episode on the
Speaker 1: murder of Ruth Marie Terry, who was also known as
Speaker 1: the Lady of the Dunes. She was an unidentified murder
Speaker 1: victim who was found in Massachusetts in nineteen seventy four,
Speaker 1: and in recent years they identified her. And of course
Speaker 1: she was in a bad marriage and her estranged husband
Speaker 1: pretty much never reported or missing, and even though he
Speaker 1: died several years ago and will never be charged by
Speaker 1: the they did a new investigation and pretty much concluded that, yeah,
Speaker 1: all the evidence points towards her husband having been the killers,
Speaker 1: so we're closing the investigation and are confident that he
Speaker 1: was the one who was responsible. So I have to
Speaker 1: wonder if upon further investigation, they're going to do the
Speaker 1: same thing with Emery Rowan, and that even though he's deceased,
Speaker 1: they're going to say, yeah, we're pretty confident that he
Speaker 1: murdered Cookie and we can close the investigation.
Speaker 3: Well, unless she had a history of actually abandoning her
Speaker 3: children and leaving, even if you were a strange from
Speaker 3: your spouse, anyone with a sound heart and mind would say,
Speaker 3: I want my children to have their mother in their life.
Speaker 3: And so if she went missing, even if as a
Speaker 3: as a spouse or ex spouse, you weren't interested in
Speaker 3: knowing where she was for your children's sake, you would
Speaker 3: think you'd still file a missing person's report, And you'd
Speaker 3: think he would want assistance where he got help with
Speaker 3: his kids. So there's a woman who I maybe don't like,
Speaker 3: but she helps me raise my children. To not report
Speaker 3: her sends off huge red flags. Almost screams like I
Speaker 3: wanted her gone so that I don't have to fight
Speaker 3: for my kids. I don't have to share my kids,
Speaker 3: I don't have to give her money. And so that's
Speaker 3: a very very very strong probability that he had something
Speaker 3: to do with it because he didn't report it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would make sense to me. I mean, innocent
Speaker 1: until proven guilty. But like you said, even if he
Speaker 1: didn't really care for his wife anymore, I'm sure he
Speaker 1: should still want his children to find out what happened
Speaker 1: to their mother. So and of course, back in the seventies,
Speaker 1: if there was no direct evidence of foul play, it
Speaker 1: was sometimes really hard to file a missing person's report,
Speaker 1: And because her family lived in Maine at the time
Speaker 1: and she was murdered in Florida, I'm sure there were
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of jurisdictional issues that prevented them from
Speaker 1: reporting or missing as well.
Speaker 2: It makes me wonder what her life was like in Florida,
Speaker 2: because you'd think that if you go missing, there's going
Speaker 2: to be people who are going to go where are they?
Speaker 2: And the fact that he was able to get away
Speaker 2: with Cookie being gone and not filing a missing perfins
Speaker 2: report that did she not have any friends? That we're
Speaker 2: asking questions?
Speaker 1: I have no idea that haven't released that information yet,
Speaker 1: but I do wonder the same thing. I don't know
Speaker 1: how long she'd been living in Florida at the time,
Speaker 1: if there was anyone else who wondered what happened to her,
Speaker 1: But it could be that maybe she didn't have anyone
Speaker 1: else in her life in Florida besides her husband and
Speaker 1: her children, and if they don't do anything, then you
Speaker 1: can understand why she would slip completely under the radar.
Speaker 2: We could maybe infer, if he is indeed guilty allegedly,
Speaker 2: that if you were going to murder your wife via strangulation,
Speaker 2: he could have been abusive prior to that. Those who
Speaker 2: strangle typically there is a history of abuse, so there
Speaker 2: could have been some type of isolation. And if cookie
Speaker 2: didn't have any connections, there was nobody close by who
Speaker 2: would notice that she was missing. That would make it
Speaker 2: really easy in the nineteen seventies to cover up a
Speaker 2: crime like that.
Speaker 1: Oh definitely, And that's exactly what happened in the Ruth
Speaker 1: Marie Terry case, where the husband murdered his wife while
Speaker 1: they were on vacation in a state that they didn't
Speaker 1: have any connections to, and then he just pretty much
Speaker 1: moved back home and went on living his life and
Speaker 1: his Her family was powerless to do anything about it.
Speaker 1: They could not report her missing because they didn't know
Speaker 1: where she went missing from. It was just a lot
Speaker 1: easier to get away with murder back in the seventies, unfortunately.
Speaker 1: So one more thing I wanted to mention is that
Speaker 1: I became familiar with this case when it was featured
Speaker 1: on Unsolved Mysteries back in the early nineteen nineties. And
Speaker 1: I have to give it a lot of credit to
Speaker 1: the Sumter County sheriff at that time, his name was
Speaker 1: Jamie Adams, because she had pretty much been forgotten about
Speaker 1: after her body was found. She was buried in a
Speaker 1: pauper's grave. But then when Jamie Adams was elected Sumter
Speaker 1: County Sheriff, he was looking through the old files read
Speaker 1: about little miss Panasofki and he actually said during his
Speaker 1: Unsold Mysteries interview, as a daddy and a granddaddy myself,
Speaker 1: I couldn't stand the idea of this young woman having
Speaker 1: a granddaddy or daddy who didn't know where she was.
Speaker 1: So he took the initiative to exhume her after twenty years,
Speaker 1: and that's where they got the DNA, the fingerprints, all
Speaker 1: the forensic evidence, and paved the way for her being identified.
Speaker 1: And sadly, Jamie Adams passed away in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: so he didn't live long enough to finally see Cookie
Speaker 1: get her name back, but he gets all the credit
Speaker 1: in the world because otherwise, if he had not taken
Speaker 1: the initiative to exhume her, she probably would have been
Speaker 1: completely forgotten history. So our next case on this list
Speaker 1: is one that Jules and I actually covered on a
Speaker 1: Patreon miniso just a couple months ago, and that's this
Speaker 1: Sumter County mystery couple. So I'm going to read the
Speaker 1: write up right now. It's another Sumter County, this one
Speaker 1: in South Carolina instead of Florida. But on August the ninth,
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy six, the bodies of a young man and woman,
Speaker 1: both believed to be between eighteen and twenty two years old,
Speaker 1: were found on a secluded dirt road. They had both
Speaker 1: been shot to death, and a local resident claimed they
Speaker 1: heard the sounds of gunshots and a vehicle speeding off
Speaker 1: shortly before the victims were found. Neither the male nor
Speaker 1: the female had any identification or money on them. Even
Speaker 1: though they had no money. The victims both wore fairly
Speaker 1: expensive looking jewelry and had extensive dental work. Months later,
Speaker 1: a witness came forward who believed he had crossed paths
Speaker 1: with the couple at a campground. He said the male
Speaker 1: claimed that his name was Jock and he was traveling
Speaker 1: through the US because he had been disowned by his father,
Speaker 1: who was a prominent doctor in Canada. Not much is
Speaker 1: known about the female, but the authorities have speculated that
Speaker 1: the couple may have actually been brother and sister. In
Speaker 1: spite of these leads, no one has ever come forward
Speaker 1: to claim the victim's bodies, and the identity of their
Speaker 1: killer is also unknown.
Speaker 2: This case really haunted me, and I think it was
Speaker 2: because obviously, when there's two individuals, to think that neither
Speaker 2: of them had their identities back, that two people could
Speaker 2: go missing and that their remains would be there, but
Speaker 2: their families wouldn't know what happened to them. And I
Speaker 2: think because there was that whole story was like there
Speaker 2: was a question of whether he was fabricating the story,
Speaker 2: whether it was the whether the person remembered correctly, if
Speaker 2: it was the same people that they saw. But two
Speaker 2: things that I remember stuck out to me, and that
Speaker 2: was the expense of dental work. As we all know,
Speaker 2: dental work doesn't come cheap, so that would speak to
Speaker 2: people that were cared for when they were younger. And
Speaker 2: since they were fairly young, then wasn't like they were
Speaker 2: outside sleeping rough or at least if they were, it
Speaker 2: wasn't for a long period of time. And then another
Speaker 2: thing was the motivation for the crime. So we know
Speaker 2: that they didn't have any money found on them, but
Speaker 2: the fact that they were wearing rather expensive looking jewelry
Speaker 2: I thought was really interesting. So it made me think
Speaker 2: was there another motive? Was rape the motive? Was there
Speaker 2: something else? Because are you in such a hurry that
Speaker 2: you're just going to take the money? If you're on
Speaker 2: a secluded dirt road, I would think that that would
Speaker 2: provide you with enough cover in order to be able
Speaker 2: to take the money out of the wallets and then
Speaker 2: also take the jewelry.
Speaker 3: I agree one thousand percent. When you look at this
Speaker 3: when there's two people, so two families possibly or one
Speaker 3: if they're brother and sister, but two families potentially are
Speaker 3: missing one of their loved ones, and like you said,
Speaker 3: they're young eighteen to twenty two. So let's say an
Speaker 3: estrangement had occurred, it wouldn't have been a very long
Speaker 3: estrangement because they are still dressing very nicely, They're still weary,
Speaker 3: nice jewelry. You can tell that these are people that
Speaker 3: are not quote throwaways or runaways that you would see
Speaker 3: in other traditional cases where identity is really hard to
Speaker 3: discover because they don't have things like don't work, they
Speaker 3: don't have records of medical care. But these individuals did.
Speaker 3: You could tell that someone had taken care of them
Speaker 3: and that they were getting help and living a seemingly
Speaker 3: normal life, and then all of a sudden you find
Speaker 3: their deceased bodies, like jewels said, with jewelry still on them.
Speaker 3: I have to go with what she was saying where
Speaker 3: it looks like something else motivated this. Maybe there was
Speaker 3: a ploy to say give me all your money, and
Speaker 3: so the kids are emptying their pockets and give cash.
Speaker 3: But then that really wasn't the intent, and so whatever
Speaker 3: crime was really the purpose happens after that fact. But
Speaker 3: it wouldn't take you more than two minutes to slip
Speaker 3: rings and bracelets off of somebody or a watch off
Speaker 3: of the man and they just left that. So it's
Speaker 3: a very very intriguing case. Are there two families that
Speaker 3: failed to identify and report that they're looking for these
Speaker 3: two young people.
Speaker 1: Well, they did do DNA testing to confirm they were
Speaker 1: not brother and sister because there was no genetic match.
Speaker 1: And for the longest time I was really intrigued by
Speaker 1: the idea that he may have originally been from Canada
Speaker 1: and that his name was Jacques. We just talked about
Speaker 1: the dental work, and there was kind of a stereotypical
Speaker 1: theory that maybe he was a former hockey player who
Speaker 1: had lost his teeth playing in Canada and that's why
Speaker 1: he got the dental work done. But they finally did
Speaker 1: identify them. On January of twenty twenty one, they held
Speaker 1: a press conference and announced that the victims were twenty
Speaker 1: nine year old James Paul Fruned and twenty four year
Speaker 1: old Pamela May Buckley, who were not from Canada. And
Speaker 1: what's also weird is that once the families found out
Speaker 1: about the identification, they both claimed I didn't even know
Speaker 1: the other, Like James's family did not know Pamela. Pamela's
Speaker 1: family did not know James, and so They still a
Speaker 1: big mystery about how these two originally met because they
Speaker 1: were from completely different states. So James Froun was born
Speaker 1: in Fitsburg, Massachusetts and lived most of his life in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: So I still don't know the lead about the guy
Speaker 1: who claimed his name was Jock. I'm presuming maybe the
Speaker 1: campground owner was mistaken and talked to a completely different person,
Speaker 1: or perhaps James was lying about his background. But it
Speaker 1: turned out that James in nineteen sixty five had gotten
Speaker 1: married to a woman named Sherry Lean Albright, and the
Speaker 1: couple had one child together before they filed for divorce.
Speaker 1: And it sounds like james family pretty much last heard
Speaker 1: from him in December of nineteen seventy five, as you
Speaker 1: get the impression he might have been traveling the country
Speaker 1: and just stopped contacting his family because as far as
Speaker 1: anyone can tell, he did not have any ties to
Speaker 1: South Carolina. And as for Pamela Buckley, she was born
Speaker 1: in Redwood County, Minnesota, and spent most of her life
Speaker 1: living in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and in the early nineteen
Speaker 1: seventies she had actually been part of a folk band
Speaker 1: called Sun Lending, which toured around the West coast in
Speaker 1: the Midwest, and she got married to a man named
Speaker 1: Gary Clifford Canal in nineteen seventy two, and they eventually
Speaker 1: separated and divorced. And much like James, it sounds like
Speaker 1: Pamela's family last heard from her in late nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: five before she broke off all of contact, and they
Speaker 1: just assumed that maybe they were off somewhere living their
Speaker 1: own life, because back in the seventies it was really
Speaker 1: hard to file a missing person's report because of jurisdictional
Speaker 1: reasons if you didn't know where they were at that time,
Speaker 1: if they didn't have a fixed address, Because it just
Speaker 1: sounds like they were traveling the country living kind of
Speaker 1: a nomadic lifestyle before they wound up murdered. And it
Speaker 1: seems like James and Pamela at some point Cross Pass
Speaker 1: Baby came a couple and then started traveling together before
Speaker 1: they were murdered together in Sumter County, South Carolina.
Speaker 3: So when you first talked about this case, and I wouldn't,
Speaker 3: I looked up a couple of details. It seems that
Speaker 3: there was some evidence found early on that they did
Speaker 3: actually did not process or pay attention to properly like
Speaker 3: a belt buckle. Do you remember this? In the case,
Speaker 3: there was a belt buckle with his initials.
Speaker 1: Not about buckle but actually a ring and it had
Speaker 1: the initials JPF, which they assumed was for Jacques, but
Speaker 1: now it's for James Paul Frune, so obviously it belonged
Speaker 1: to him.
Speaker 3: This case is really interesting because if you look at
Speaker 3: the initial investigation, it seems like a few pieces of
Speaker 3: key evidence were not really paid close attention to. So,
Speaker 3: for example, there was an item found that had initials
Speaker 3: carved into it that would indicate, I believe it what was.
Speaker 1: A JB JPF, which was his initials James Paul fruned
Speaker 1: Yes JPF.
Speaker 3: So it wasn't until years later that someone red looked
Speaker 3: at the evidence and said, this is a lead that
Speaker 3: we need to pursue. But initially that was not even
Speaker 3: you know, recognize. However, their sketches were distributed widely. There
Speaker 3: were several people that perhaps mistakenly were describing that they
Speaker 3: had interactions with this couple, and so there was a
Speaker 3: lot of attention around these two deceased individuals and down
Speaker 3: the road, Henry Lee Lucas was actually some when they
Speaker 3: started to suspect could he have been involved, because even
Speaker 3: though he falsely confessed to so many crimes, he had
Speaker 3: been linked to a couple other murders in Somethner County
Speaker 3: around that same time, and so there's been almost a
Speaker 3: lure around what happened to these two, saying is it
Speaker 3: even possible they're linked to a serial killer?
Speaker 1: And will were talking about trying to identify them. This
Speaker 1: had one of the most morbid things I've ever seen,
Speaker 1: where the local sheriff's office actually put the bodies together
Speaker 1: inside some airtight compartments with glass on them and put
Speaker 1: them in a church and actually sent out an advertisement
Speaker 1: if you have any missing family members who match their description,
Speaker 1: you are welcome to come to this church and view
Speaker 1: their bodies to see if it's them. And they actually
Speaker 1: left them there for about a year before they finally realized, okay,
Speaker 1: they're starting to decompose, now we should finally bury them.
Speaker 1: But hundreds of people like came to look at their
Speaker 1: bodies and they still couldn't be identified. So I can
Speaker 1: only assume that James and Pamela's families never heard about
Speaker 1: this because they lived in totally different states. But I
Speaker 1: can't imagine something like that happening now.
Speaker 2: I mean in churches in Europe they have the bodies
Speaker 2: of saints in a lot of the churches, So I
Speaker 2: guess it's not outside the realm of trying to help.
Speaker 2: I mean I think that like their hearts were in
Speaker 2: the right place. You'd never see anybody doing that today
Speaker 2: where you take the bodies out and they're on display,
Speaker 2: because today you would have too many like Lukilus who
Speaker 2: are like big true crime fanatics, and they would come
Speaker 2: and see the bodies and it would be barry macabre
Speaker 2: and it wouldn't have the right type of vibe or
Speaker 2: energy around it. But at the time, it sounds like
Speaker 2: they were using like really creative measures in order to
Speaker 2: try to give these two decendents their identities back. And unfortunately,
Speaker 2: like you said, word wouldn't have gone to their families
Speaker 2: because they live so far away.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, this was the pre internet world of
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy six, where you couldn't just share their photos
Speaker 1: and their composite sketches around. So I guess they thought
Speaker 1: this was the best solution, and at least they tried,
Speaker 1: like they didn't just like try to bury these people
Speaker 1: and cast them off immediately. They made an effort to
Speaker 1: try to get them identified, and of course we have
Speaker 1: the ring with JPF with the initials, and when the
Speaker 1: witness thought that they interacted with the man and thought
Speaker 1: that their name was Jacques, it's reasonable to assume that
Speaker 1: maybe the J stood for Jacques, But of course now
Speaker 1: we know it stood for James. But it just goes
Speaker 1: to show how much more frustrating it was to identify
Speaker 1: these people during the nineteen seventies when technology was a
Speaker 1: lot more primitive. So this is technically still a half
Speaker 1: solved mystery because their murderer has never been identified. And
Speaker 1: in December of nineteen seventy six they actually had a
Speaker 1: pretty promising lead when a truck driver named Lonnie George
Speaker 1: Henry was pulled over for a DUI and they found
Speaker 1: to three point fifty seven caliber revolver in his possession
Speaker 1: with serial numbers scratched off, which looked suspicious, and when
Speaker 1: it was sent for ballistics testing, it seemed to show
Speaker 1: that it was the same murder weapon used to shoot
Speaker 1: James and Pamela, and Henry kept changing his story about
Speaker 1: where he got the gun. He claimed he bought it
Speaker 1: from a truck driver and that the serial numbers were
Speaker 1: already scratched off, but investigators looked at the serial number
Speaker 1: and discovered that Henry's brother had actually given it to
Speaker 1: him for a Christmas gift years earlier, and he swore
Speaker 1: that the serial numbers were still there and that Henry
Speaker 1: must have scratched them off at a later time when
Speaker 1: he was given a polygraph test, and even though there
Speaker 1: were some questions where the reading showed that he was
Speaker 1: being untruthful, when they flat out asked him if he
Speaker 1: killed the couple, Henry said no, and the polygraph seemed
Speaker 1: to indicate that he was telling the truth about that.
Speaker 1: The main reason they were unable to charge him is
Speaker 1: that he seemed to have a fairly strong alibi because
Speaker 1: he was visiting his wife in a hospital in the
Speaker 1: town of money Row, North Carolina, on the date when
Speaker 1: the couple were believed to have been murdered, and that
Speaker 1: was and the hospital was about one hundred miles away,
Speaker 1: so they just never had enough evidence to link him
Speaker 1: to the crime scene in spite of him having this
Speaker 1: gun with the serial number scratched off, and he passed
Speaker 1: away in nineteen eighty two, so obviously the murder investigation
Speaker 1: is still open, so if Lonnie George Henry was guilty
Speaker 1: of this crime, they will never be able to charge him,
Speaker 1: but it'll be interesting to see if they can find
Speaker 1: any new evidence that clears or links him definitively to
Speaker 1: these murders. So we do know that ballistic testing is
Speaker 1: not one hundred percent reliable, So I am going to
Speaker 1: give Henry the benefit of the doubt and maybe think
Speaker 1: that maybe they screwed up on their original testing and
Speaker 1: that the gun he possessed was not the murder weapon,
Speaker 1: because I have seen other cases where the ballistic tests
Speaker 1: turned out to be faulty and wound up implicating an
Speaker 1: innocent person. So who knows that could have been a
Speaker 1: complete red herring. What are your thoughts? Do you think
Speaker 1: that Lonnie George Henry seems like a good suspect.
Speaker 2: I think that like it's possible, but I also think
Speaker 2: that it's it's not like ironclad enough for me to
Speaker 2: be like, he's absolutely the guy. But I think it's
Speaker 2: it's a possibility, but I'm not convinced that he is
Speaker 2: the guy.
Speaker 1: I mean, the scenario would make sense because he was
Speaker 1: a truck driver, that maybe James and Pamela were hitch
Speaker 1: hiking and got picked up. But it makes you wonder though,
Speaker 1: like what was the motive whoever did this? Because Pamela
Speaker 1: was not sexually assaulted and nothing was taken from them,
Speaker 1: So what compelled someone to shoot this couple together on
Speaker 1: that lonely dirt road at that particular time.
Speaker 2: But we also don't know certain things too, Like it
Speaker 2: could have been him, it could have been somebody else.
Speaker 2: It would make sense it would be a truck driver
Speaker 2: because they were likely hitchhiking. But when they say that
Speaker 2: she wasn't sexually assaulted, did they check if he was
Speaker 2: sexually assaulted? And what if somebody couldn't finish right, they
Speaker 2: weren't able to perform, and so maybe they were angry
Speaker 2: about that and ended up murdering them. I think that
Speaker 2: there's a lot of different scenarios where it could have
Speaker 2: still been sexually motivated. We just didn't see the evidence
Speaker 2: of rape.
Speaker 1: That is true, Like they were found with their clothes on,
Speaker 1: But I guess it's possible that maybe someone was planning
Speaker 1: to assault them but then just couldn't perform or something,
Speaker 1: and then could have like put their clothes back on.
Speaker 1: Even if they took them off after they were killed,
Speaker 1: just to cover up the motive for the crime. But
Speaker 1: until they actually identified the killer, we'll probably never know
Speaker 1: for certain.
Speaker 3: Or their intent was to sexually assault or do something
Speaker 3: else to them and got into a fight where they
Speaker 3: killed one of them and went, oh my god, it's
Speaker 3: went totally different. So they killed both and run. You know,
Speaker 3: it could be that as well.
Speaker 1: Okay, so now we're going to move on to our
Speaker 1: next one about a decedent known as Beth Doe. And
Speaker 1: this is a really horrible story. So one of the
Speaker 1: most brutal homicides of all time took place in Carbon County, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: on December the twentieth, nineteen seventy six. Three suitcases were
Speaker 1: found under bridge along the Lehigh River, and they each
Speaker 1: contained the remains of an unidentified woman who was believed
Speaker 1: to be between sixteen and twenty two years old. She
Speaker 1: had been strangled, shot in the neck, and dismembered. One
Speaker 1: of the suitcases contained her arms and legs, and her eyes, nose,
Speaker 1: and breasts had also been removed. It's estimated that the
Speaker 1: killer made a failed attempt to toss the suitcases into
Speaker 1: the river, causing two of them to break open on impact.
Speaker 1: As if the crime wasn't vicious enough, the woman was
Speaker 1: also pregnant, as a full term female fetus was also
Speaker 1: found amongst the remains. A potentially significant clue was some
Speaker 1: letters and numbers written in ink on the victim's left hand,
Speaker 1: possibly a license plate number, but authorities were never able
Speaker 1: to figure out their meeting. Over thirty five years later,
Speaker 1: the victim is buried in a grave under the name
Speaker 1: Beth Doe, but no one has ever been able to
Speaker 1: determine her identity or find out who killed her in
Speaker 1: such a cruel fashion.
Speaker 3: Like you said, this is one of the most horrific
Speaker 3: cases to hear about because of the nature in which
Speaker 3: her body was disposed of, and to think that there
Speaker 3: was a full grown child that was about to be
Speaker 3: born found with her. It makes it seem very very personal,
Speaker 3: because let's say you would kill this individual and you
Speaker 3: wanted to dismember them and get rid of them. I
Speaker 3: could see that being somebody who may not know about
Speaker 3: who she is, but they want to just get rid
Speaker 3: of the body and try to not have their selves identified.
Speaker 3: But when they start removing pieces of her, like her
Speaker 3: you said, her breast, her eyes things like that. It
Speaker 3: seems so brutal that they just want to destroy what
Speaker 3: she looks like, disfigure her, take intimate pieces away from
Speaker 3: her body, and wasn't motivated because of this child that
Speaker 3: was about to be born. That they didn't want this child,
Speaker 3: that it was perhaps the result of an affair or
Speaker 3: something else, right, they don't want the responsibility of this child.
Speaker 3: It seems so heartless and so purposeful that there was
Speaker 3: an intent behind it, and the person who killed her
Speaker 3: knew her very well.
Speaker 2: There's something about about this that reminds me of Lazy
Speaker 2: Peterson and her baby Connor. It really hate me in
Speaker 2: the gut. And it also makes me wonder about the
Speaker 2: language used because it says the full term fetus was found.
Speaker 2: Does that mean that she gave birth after death or
Speaker 2: that it was removed Because they don't say a baby,
Speaker 2: They say a fetus, and I find that confusing. And
Speaker 2: they also don't give as insofar as I know, or
Speaker 2: the information that's provided, the baby in name, which makes
Speaker 2: me think that somehow they believe the baby wasn't yet born.
Speaker 2: I'm like a little confused by this. Robin. Can you
Speaker 2: shed any light?
Speaker 1: Uh, let me just look at it here, well, Robin
Speaker 1: looks it up.
Speaker 3: Though Lacey's case, Connor was not born either, correct, he was.
Speaker 2: He was found separate from her body though, That's what
Speaker 2: I'm saying like.
Speaker 3: That, Yeah, yeah, but he had already received his name
Speaker 3: from his baby shower and things like, you know, like
Speaker 3: there was such a celebrated child and it's so sad
Speaker 3: that you have even if it was unborn. Right, this
Speaker 3: is somebody was excited that that baby was being born
Speaker 3: into this world. And it's just like it's a full,
Speaker 3: full grown fetus. It loses the power that someone chose
Speaker 3: to kill a mother and her child.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the language of fetus versus baby, especially at that
Speaker 2: point exactly.
Speaker 1: Well, all the sources say that it was a fetus,
Speaker 1: but it was confirmed that it was a nine month
Speaker 1: old fetus, so one that was very close to being born,
Speaker 1: or possibly was born before the murder took place. We
Speaker 1: still don't know the truth behind that. But they separated
Speaker 1: them into the suitcases. How there were three of them
Speaker 1: all together, and one of the cases contained the victim's
Speaker 1: head and two halves of her torso and the fetus.
Speaker 1: So they did put the fetus together inside her body
Speaker 1: parts and of course, the moment you see that, you're
Speaker 1: automatically thinking domestic homicide, that to this victim was killed
Speaker 1: by someone who knew her and possibly did not want
Speaker 1: this child.
Speaker 2: I think maybe the different friends with the language too,
Speaker 2: is that this was nineteen seventy six, and what was
Speaker 2: the murder of Lacy Peterson was that like late nineties.
Speaker 1: Actually two thousand and two, two.
Speaker 2: Thousand and two, okay, so like that's a huge number
Speaker 2: of years, and so I think that maybe in the
Speaker 2: seventies people weren't naming their babies before they were born
Speaker 2: to the level of prevalence that it was in the
Speaker 2: two thousand I mean, Ashley, maybe you can speak to that.
Speaker 3: Yes, And women's and children's rights have changed. So there
Speaker 3: was a point where, you know, as women gained rights,
Speaker 3: children were still viewed as a property of the family.
Speaker 3: And now family law and things like that have grown
Speaker 3: so much more that these things aren't quo just behind
Speaker 3: closed doors or just a family issue. Children are society's
Speaker 3: responsibility and women have you know, the more rights and
Speaker 3: more recognition, and so I think that has also changed
Speaker 3: the way that there's more attention paid to children and
Speaker 3: unbortant children now is that that's you know, children have
Speaker 3: become a larger global responsibility and not just well, that's
Speaker 3: your responsibil.
Speaker 1: And obviously the big issue with this one is that
Speaker 1: they didn't know her identity. So possibly she had named
Speaker 1: her child, but they just couldn't tell at that time
Speaker 1: because they didn't know who she was. And even though
Speaker 1: they've since identified her, I think it sounds like she
Speaker 1: was so isolated from people that even if she had
Speaker 1: named the child, she probably never told anyone. So unfortunately,
Speaker 1: this fetus has still never been given a name. So
Speaker 1: the identification of the victim took place in March of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one. They identified Beth as an Evelon Cologne,
Speaker 1: And what makes it even sadder is that she was
Speaker 1: only fifteen years old at the time she was murdered,
Speaker 1: and she was originally hailed from Jersey City, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: and surprise, surprise, it turned out that the prime suspect
Speaker 1: was her former partner, a man named Luis Sierra, who
Speaker 1: was nineteen years old at the time, and he actually
Speaker 1: got arrested a very short time after Evelyn was identified.
Speaker 1: It was made possible, of course, by forensic genealogy, as
Speaker 1: her DNA was entered into a genealogical database and was
Speaker 1: eventually matched to her biological nephew. So the story goes
Speaker 1: that Evelyn became pregnant with Louise's child in nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 1: but sometime after they moved into an apartment together, they
Speaker 1: both just seemed to vanish without explanation from Jersey City,
Speaker 1: and in January of nineteen seventy seven, a couple weeks
Speaker 1: after the remains were found, Evelyn's family received an anonymous
Speaker 1: letter informing them that Evelyn and Louise had moved to
Speaker 1: Connecticut together, and oddly, they said that she had recently
Speaker 1: given birth to a baby boy that they named Louis Junior,
Speaker 1: even though the fetus was for a female. And of course,
Speaker 1: Louis eventually admitted that he was the one who wrote
Speaker 1: the letter as a form of diversion or something like that,
Speaker 1: And it's kind of weird that he came up with
Speaker 1: this fantasy where he says that they gave birth to
Speaker 1: a baby boy. So it might be a thing where
Speaker 1: he was angry that she was having a girl didn't
Speaker 1: want a daughter, and that could have been a motivation
Speaker 1: for the homicide. But here's the real frustrating part of
Speaker 1: this is Louise has continually denied invoton Evelyn's murder. He
Speaker 1: was locked away for a couple of years awaiting trial,
Speaker 1: but investigators found evidence which showed that Evelyn's murder took
Speaker 1: place in Jersey City, New Jersey, rather than Pennsylvania where
Speaker 1: she was found. So Luis's defense asked for the charges
Speaker 1: to be dismissed due to jurisdictional issues, and the court
Speaker 1: agreed to do so in March of twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: and Luis is currently out on bail and new charges
Speaker 1: have still not been filed. He's a free man walking
Speaker 1: around somewhere because it's up to now New Jersey rather
Speaker 1: than Pennsylvania to try this case. And until they get
Speaker 1: their act together and finally filed charges, Luise is still
Speaker 1: going to be walking around and this case will still
Speaker 1: remain officially unsolved. So I don't know what the holdup
Speaker 1: is because it's been nearly two years since they made
Speaker 1: this decision and they have not filed charges again.
Speaker 3: That is so frustrating. Well, let me start by saying
Speaker 3: this baby cologne should be honored as well, so there
Speaker 3: is a name for that child. Baby Cologne was found
Speaker 3: with its mother right in her little mom right there together.
Speaker 3: And so that's one thing we can put a name
Speaker 3: to that baby. But second of all, when you think
Speaker 3: about this, he was nineteen and she was fourteen when
Speaker 3: he got her pregnant.
Speaker 1: What year was this nineteen seventy six?
Speaker 3: Okay, so were there statutory rape laws at the time.
Speaker 3: Was that a large enough age gap back in the seventies.
Speaker 2: Depends on the state, right.
Speaker 1: Yes, So I don't know what they would have been.
Speaker 1: They were living in New Jersey at that time. I mean,
Speaker 1: she was fifteen when she was murdered, but she may
Speaker 1: have been fourteen when she became pregnant, and he might
Speaker 1: have been eighteen. And I'm just going to look this
Speaker 1: up out of curiosity. This rape laws in New Jersey
Speaker 1: age of content, age of consent is sixteen. Now, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure what it was back in nineteen seventy six.
Speaker 3: Well, to me, I wonder, like I would love to
Speaker 3: know more about did the family know about this baby?
Speaker 3: Was it a baby being celebrated because the fact that
Speaker 3: they get this letter that has a baby boy's been born?
Speaker 3: When did they even know she was pregnant? Two? Were
Speaker 3: they in contact with her at all about her pregnancy,
Speaker 3: because she would have been talking to her family about
Speaker 3: being pregnant. Now, maybe gender wasn't revealed, But it's interesting
Speaker 3: because why would he even include that detail in the
Speaker 3: letter if they didn't know about the pregnancy, And if
Speaker 3: they did know about the pregnancy and just didn't know
Speaker 3: the gender, because sometimes families don't find out and especially
Speaker 3: in the seventies, right, that wasn't as common. But if
Speaker 3: you gave it the you said a boy was born,
Speaker 3: that would throw detectives off. Well, it can't be her
Speaker 3: because there was a little girl found with her, So
Speaker 3: I could see both ways. But I could also see
Speaker 3: if they didn't know about the pregnancy, just leave it out.
Speaker 3: Why would he want to even mention the baby.
Speaker 2: He might have just wanted to add a little to
Speaker 2: the story. And maybe in his like twisted mind or fantasy,
Speaker 2: there would have been an alternate scenario where this boy
Speaker 2: would have been born and it would have bore his
Speaker 2: name as well, and it would have been a junior,
Speaker 2: and so he's kind of played out that scenario in
Speaker 2: his mind. So I doubt they knew the gender of
Speaker 2: the baby in nineteen seventy six, So I think He
Speaker 2: probably just had thought about this, decided to add it
Speaker 2: into the letter, thought it was really specific and it
Speaker 2: would be something that she would include. But it seems
Speaker 2: pretty likely that, like you said, nineteen seventy six, they
Speaker 2: wouldn't have known. And I also looked up the age
Speaker 2: of consent in seventy six in Jersey and it was
Speaker 2: also sixteen, so it would have been statutory rape.
Speaker 1: See.
Speaker 3: So I wondered too, did that cover for some of it?
Speaker 3: Did they say, you know? Was he saying I got
Speaker 3: our pregnant, so I can't even just say I'm dating her,
Speaker 3: you know, and that we're not intimate or things like that,
Speaker 3: or that I'm just her friend, Like, Nope, I got
Speaker 3: our pregnant. So was that a fear too that he
Speaker 3: was going to get in trouble?
Speaker 1: Yeah? We really don't have too many details about what
Speaker 1: Evelyn's family did or did not know. I haven't heard
Speaker 1: much about them speaking to the media, and for all
Speaker 1: we know, maybe her parents have since passed away. But
Speaker 1: that might have been his reason for coming up for
Speaker 1: thinking that if things go wrong, I could be charged
Speaker 1: with statutory rape. I don't want to raise this child,
Speaker 1: so I'm just going to murder them and then her
Speaker 1: body out to a different state, which is a strategy
Speaker 1: that technically worked, because that's the only reason that he's
Speaker 1: still not in jail right now is because of the
Speaker 1: jurisdictional issues. And I did look them up on Find
Speaker 1: a Grave and they now list the baby child as
Speaker 1: Emily Grace Cologne, So it looks like Balbo, that was
Speaker 1: going to be your name, Emily, so that's how they're
Speaker 1: referring to her now. But unfortunately she just never got
Speaker 1: a chance. And of course that it doesn't seem like
Speaker 1: a lot of mystery here about who was responsible for
Speaker 1: this crime and why it took place, but it is
Speaker 1: just kind of a tragedy now that even though like
Speaker 1: Evelyn and Emily have got their names back and we
Speaker 1: know who likely killed them, we still have not seen
Speaker 1: full justice. So since we've talked a lot about the
Speaker 1: cases we've already discussed, we're going to be making this
Speaker 1: a three part series, So we've covered entries ten through
Speaker 1: eight on this episode, and next week we're going to
Speaker 1: cover our next couple entries. So join us for part
Speaker 1: two of our three part series about ten no longer
Speaker 1: mysterious cases involving identified people.
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 Patreon,
Speaker 1: and if you join our highest tier tier three, the
Speaker 1: ten dollar tier. One of the features we offer is
Speaker 1: a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsalved Mysteries,
Speaker 1: where you can download an audio file and then boot
Speaker 1: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
Speaker 1: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
Speaker 1: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
Speaker 1: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
Speaker 1: first episode that I did a commentary track over was
Speaker 1: the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
Speaker 1: download a commentary track in which I make more smart
Speaker 1: ass remarks about Jewel, Kaylor then be sure to join
Speaker 1: Tier three.
Speaker 4: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 4: about the jewels and Nashty patreons. So there's early ad
Speaker 4: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Speaker 4: Pathwent Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so
Speaker 4: they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
Speaker 4: turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those,
Speaker 4: so we hope you'll check out those patreons.
Speaker 2: We'll link them in the show notes.
Speaker 1: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
Speaker 1: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 1: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly
Speaker 1: appreciate it. You can email us at The Pathwent Chili
Speaker 1: at gmail dot com. You can reach us on Twitter
Speaker 1: at the Pathwin. So until next time, be sure to
Speaker 1: bundle up because cold trails and Chili pass call for
Speaker 1: warm clothing.
Speaker 2: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy