Speaker 1: Welcome back to part two of our coverage about the
Speaker 1: disappearance and unexplained death of Bobby Bisop. But of course
Speaker 1: there is no statute of limitations on murder, so it
Speaker 1: just seems weird that he's willing to confess all this
Speaker 1: horrible stuff, but then is getting very defensive when talking
Speaker 1: about Bobby and saying I didn't do anything to him.
Speaker 1: So you're wondering, hm, is he paranoid that he's going
Speaker 1: to be prosecuted for murder or something like that, and
Speaker 1: that's why he's making up this story completely at a
Speaker 1: left field.
Speaker 2: You see this with to parallel this with celebrities all
Speaker 2: the time, where they give partial disclosure, like say when
Speaker 2: they're talking about plastic surgery procedures, they'll say, like one
Speaker 2: of the truthful plastic plastic surgery procedures they've had done,
Speaker 2: but leave out four other ones. In disclosing something that
Speaker 2: is truthful, they think, Okay, well this is part of
Speaker 2: the truth. So in being transparent about this, it will
Speaker 2: get people off my back and they'll believe what I'm
Speaker 2: saying is genuine. And I think that's a little bit
Speaker 2: of what we're seeing here. It's like, see, I'm truthful.
Speaker 2: I'm an honest person. I'm telling you these horrible things
Speaker 2: that I've done. Why else would I do that except
Speaker 2: for that I'm now transparent and I feel contrite about this.
Speaker 2: But in actuality, it's like I think he's giving that
Speaker 2: information because sure, on some level he might feel bad,
Speaker 2: But I also think that it is a type of
Speaker 2: deflection where it's like, look over here, and I'll confess this,
Speaker 2: but like it's a bridge too far when we talk
Speaker 2: about murder, because he could truly be held accountable for that,
Speaker 2: and if he really felt that bad and was really contrite,
Speaker 2: I would think that he would be fine with whatever
Speaker 2: punishment came his way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it just is pretty ironic because I think he
Speaker 1: was probably under the mistaken impression that maybe there was
Speaker 1: a new investigation into Bobby's death, but Kevin vonn wasn't
Speaker 1: there for that. He was just looking into child sex
Speaker 1: abuse allegations, and he just pretty much mentioned Bobby as
Speaker 1: like a throwaway line because he knew that Hugh would
Speaker 1: have been present to find his remains. I'm willing to
Speaker 1: think that if Hughitt had not said those very suspicious words,
Speaker 1: then nobody would have looked any further into Bobby's death,
Speaker 1: and nobody would have attempted a new investigation, but because
Speaker 1: he revealed too much information and looked like he was
Speaker 1: over confiscating this case when in a completely different direction. So,
Speaker 1: of course, after hearing those weird remarks, Kevin Bond decided
Speaker 1: to take a fresh look at Bobby's case. But most
Speaker 1: of the original documentation was gone, including the police files
Speaker 1: and the autopsy report, so all that he could find
Speaker 1: was a single report which had been written by the
Speaker 1: Rocky Mountain National Park Superintendent about the discovery of Bobby's remains.
Speaker 1: But still Bond noticed a very weird discrepancy in the
Speaker 1: report because even though he would had claimed that he
Speaker 1: found bobby scapula and a scrap of clothing on July
Speaker 1: the third, nineteen fifty one, and then brought it back
Speaker 1: to the camp's director, Reverend Richard Heaster, according to this
Speaker 1: report from the Rocky Mountain National Park Superintendent, a Reverend
Speaker 1: Heaster did not actually report these findings until Monday, July third,
Speaker 1: three days after the fact, and that's when they started
Speaker 1: the search efforts. And they're thinking, okay, like, why would
Speaker 1: you wait three whole days to talk about to report
Speaker 1: the discovery of a bone or clothing, especially if you
Speaker 1: believe that it's connected to a child who went missing
Speaker 1: from your camp one year earlier. So this makes alarm
Speaker 1: bells GoF on my head, saying, are they fabricating a
Speaker 1: cover story here? Like are they maybe thinking we're going
Speaker 1: to sprinkle some remains in this area for the searchers
Speaker 1: to find, and then when they find them, they'll just
Speaker 1: fay say that Bobby's dad closed the investigation and no
Speaker 1: one will be suspicious of us. But of course nobody
Speaker 1: found this suspicious back in nineteen fifty nine because everyone's thinking, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a priest who runs a summer camp for kids.
Speaker 1: There's no way he would do anything nefarious. But of
Speaker 1: course all these years have passed and they know about
Speaker 1: cover ups by the Catholic Church. So Kevin Bond is
Speaker 1: now looking at this report with a major suspicion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is super suspicious, Like why would you hold
Speaker 2: back that information? I guess there's multiple options. Somebody might
Speaker 2: have had possession of the remains and thought, okay, we
Speaker 2: better plant some remains because we want investigators to think
Speaker 2: that they've been recovered. Then everybody stops looking and then
Speaker 2: we're left to do what we're gonna do and not
Speaker 2: have like law enforcement and the family constantly looking for Bobby,
Speaker 2: or they did genuinely come upon the remains because somebody
Speaker 2: was like, Okay, well this is where they are. I
Speaker 2: honestly feel as though they were closing ranks during those
Speaker 2: few days though, because there had to even talks about
Speaker 2: how are we going to play this, how are we
Speaker 2: going to put this out there, how will this be perceived,
Speaker 2: and what kind of pr can we do to get
Speaker 2: behind this because at the time people weren't looking and
Speaker 2: assuming that something bad would have happened to him. But
Speaker 2: when you're the ones who are doing bad things, I
Speaker 2: think it's pretty easy to assume that all eyes are
Speaker 2: going to be looking at you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, pretty much. And I think that if this case
Speaker 1: had happened today and a boy had gone missing under
Speaker 1: similar circumstances, people would look at these details with a
Speaker 1: lot more suspicion. By nineteen fifty nine was just a
Speaker 1: more innocent time. And if this wasn't a strategy, it
Speaker 1: technically did work because no one found anything weird about
Speaker 1: their discovery of Bobby's remains for over sixty years, So
Speaker 1: you can understand why they might have been compelled to
Speaker 1: do this, so obviously, Kevin Vaughn wanted to interview Reverend
Speaker 1: Richard Heister, but he had passed away sometime during the
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties. But he was able to track down his nephew,
Speaker 1: who was also named Richard, and he had been eleven
Speaker 1: years old at the time and also attending Camp Saint
Speaker 1: Malo at the time Bobby went missing. And to make
Speaker 1: things even more weird, Richard recalled an incident which took
Speaker 1: place on the day Bobby went missing, where he was
Speaker 1: in a gathering hall with a group of other campers
Speaker 1: when a boy suddenly pushed Richard out of the way
Speaker 1: and ran past him, and Richard said that he recalled
Speaker 1: the boy seemed very upset and was saying a bunch
Speaker 1: of unintelligible stuff before he headed outside. And because we
Speaker 1: know that Bobby was hearing impaired and had difficulties speaking,
Speaker 1: Richard believed that the boy might have been him and
Speaker 1: that this took place right before he went missing. And
Speaker 1: of course, since over sixty years had passed, it's possible
Speaker 1: he wasn't remembering things correctly. But Vaughn was able to
Speaker 1: track down a man named Roger Contour, who had been
Speaker 1: a subdistrict ranger at Rocky Mountain National Park at the
Speaker 1: time and was involved in the recovery of Bobby's remains,
Speaker 1: and he said that he had been told by other
Speaker 1: people from the camp that Bobby seemed extremely upset about
Speaker 1: something right before he went missing. And this is the
Speaker 1: first time anyone ever heard this story, because, like I
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier, the official story back in nineteen fifty eight
Speaker 1: is that Bobby had been fishing by the creek. Everything
Speaker 1: looked completely normal, and he was asked to come back
Speaker 1: to the mess hall for suffer before he suddenly disappeared.
Speaker 1: But now we're getting another different story about the circumstances
Speaker 1: of how he went missing.
Speaker 2: And so this opens up the possibility that something could
Speaker 2: have happened to Bobby, and Bobby trying to get away
Speaker 2: from his abuser, or whatever happened, he ran into the woods,
Speaker 2: got lost, maybe tripped and fell, hit his head and
Speaker 2: succumbed to the elements. We have that option, or we
Speaker 2: have the option that somebody could have chased after him
Speaker 2: and did something to him and ended his life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is true. Even if Bobby was abused that day,
Speaker 1: that doesn't necessarily mean he was murdered, as your other
Speaker 1: scenario could also be true, where he was so upset
Speaker 1: that he decided to run away into the woods and
Speaker 1: got lost and then died of exposure, but there would
Speaker 1: still be accountability from the camp and the council who
Speaker 1: were responsible for it. So that's why they wanted to
Speaker 1: start digging deeper into this. And I know some people
Speaker 1: could question Richard Heaster's story because he was only eleven
Speaker 1: years old at the time, in sixty years had passed.
Speaker 1: But one thing I find refreshing about Richard is his
Speaker 1: openness and honesty because he knows this does not paint
Speaker 1: his uncle in a very promising light, because obviously, if
Speaker 1: Bobby was being abused at the camp and his uncle
Speaker 1: helped cover it up, then that looks really bad for him.
Speaker 1: But Richard has said that even though I admired my uncle,
Speaker 1: that this is not the type of man I remembered
Speaker 1: that if he was involved in something bad, then I
Speaker 1: only want the truth to come out. So that's why
Speaker 1: I find his account of Bobby seeing very upset and
Speaker 1: running away to be credible, that it's something he may
Speaker 1: have remembered vividly all these years, but now that all
Speaker 1: this new information about sexual abuse cover up has come out,
Speaker 1: he's now looking at this incident in a totally different light.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't see him having a vested interest in
Speaker 2: putting forth like some false narrative that could make his
Speaker 2: uncle look bad in some way. I think if you're
Speaker 2: confronting the idea that your uncle could have been involved
Speaker 2: in the sexual abuse of children, then when you go
Speaker 2: when you put a story out like that and you
Speaker 2: say this is what I perceived happened, this boy could
Speaker 2: have been Bobby, you know that it could be further
Speaker 2: damaging the reputation. So I would think that his motivation
Speaker 2: being that. I'm sure there was pressure from family members,
Speaker 2: because typically there is in these type of situations. People
Speaker 2: don't want their names sullied, and so to speak out
Speaker 2: like that is a really courageous thing to do. And
Speaker 2: I don't think that he would be getting any reward
Speaker 2: for speaking out, you know what I mean, Like his
Speaker 2: family isn't going to be like, good for you, you're
Speaker 2: looking for the truth. I mean maybe, but I think
Speaker 2: there's a strong likelihood that he could feel pressure to
Speaker 2: just say.
Speaker 1: Nothing exactly, Like I can't say this for certain, but
Speaker 1: I'd say there's probably a good chance that there's some
Speaker 1: other people in Richard's family who are not happy that
Speaker 1: he's sharing this story because his uncle was a very
Speaker 1: respected man who had a reputation while he was alive,
Speaker 1: and now all this stuff is coming out decades after
Speaker 1: the fat which paints him in a very negative light.
Speaker 1: So it is very courageous that Richard is saying this
Speaker 1: knowing that he could potentially alienate some of the other
Speaker 1: people in his family who he cares about. But even so,
Speaker 1: like the more Kevin Vaughan looked into this, the more
Speaker 1: it seemed odd that Bobby would have died of exposure
Speaker 1: on that mountain side where his remains were found, because
Speaker 1: when he looked closer into it, he realized that from
Speaker 1: that mountain, Bobby would have had a clear view of
Speaker 1: Cant Saint Malo in the distance, so if he had
Speaker 1: gotten lost, he probably would have been able to find
Speaker 1: his way back because the mountain was also near Cabin Creek,
Speaker 1: where Bobby had supposedly been fishing before he disappeared, so
Speaker 1: he easily could have just followed the creek back to
Speaker 1: the camp. So that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't
Speaker 1: dive of exposure, like maybe he didn't get lost, but
Speaker 1: he was so scared of the counselors that he was
Speaker 1: hiding from in the mountain, and then that's when he
Speaker 1: succumbed to the elements and died. But because of these discrepancies,
Speaker 1: the National Parks Are his investigative services branch announced that
Speaker 1: they were going to open up a new investigation into
Speaker 1: Bobby's case over sixty years after the fact. So they
Speaker 1: created a profile page to the cold case section on
Speaker 1: their website, and while they didn't have enough evidence to
Speaker 1: label his death a homicide, they did label his case
Speaker 1: as a suspicious deaths which is pretty remarkable because how
Speaker 1: many other cases where people died. Are they going to
Speaker 1: reopen a new investigation sixty years after the fact.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's pretty wild, and based on everything that we know,
Speaker 2: it's so hard to be able to tell exactly what
Speaker 2: happened here. I think it's clear that some kind of
Speaker 2: cover up happened, But what isn't clear is if Bobby died,
Speaker 2: because there's so many things that could happen in that
Speaker 2: short period of time. Like you said, if he was
Speaker 2: afraid of the counselors, if something had happened and he
Speaker 2: was abused and he thought, well, I'm just going to
Speaker 2: stick it out out here, and he got too cold
Speaker 2: at night, he got dehydrated. You know, we can't go
Speaker 2: a long time without water or food. Well food, we
Speaker 2: can go a long time without, but not water. So
Speaker 2: he could have become dehydrated and confused. He could have
Speaker 2: fallen and like I said earlier, hit his head. He
Speaker 2: could have injured his leg like we saw with Chris
Speaker 2: Kramer's and Leanne Frum right, looks like the most likely
Speaker 2: scenario there was, not that they were murdered, was that
Speaker 2: one of them I can't remember which one was injured,
Speaker 2: and that they both stayed together and both ended up
Speaker 2: succumbing to the elements.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's very well. What could have happened to
Speaker 1: Bobby that even if he knew his way back to
Speaker 1: the camp, like, he could have still succumbed to the
Speaker 1: elements just because he didn't want to go back. I remember,
Speaker 1: we don't necessarily know that he died of that mountside,
Speaker 1: because we've been sharing theories that maybe the remains were
Speaker 1: planted that location, so he could have died somewhere else.
Speaker 1: But one thing I wanted to mention is that the
Speaker 1: official story of Bobby going missing while he was fishing
Speaker 1: at the creek that was provided by another councilor named
Speaker 1: Terry Cowan. He has never been accused of any wrongdoing
Speaker 1: or sexual abuse, so I don't know if he's lying
Speaker 1: or fabricating the story about Bobby disappearing. But still, when
Speaker 1: you hear like the account of Bobby looking upset and
Speaker 1: the whole story from Hewitt about Bobby going to the
Speaker 1: snack bar and getting upset that he couldn't get candy,
Speaker 1: it makes you wonder if that whole story about Bobby
Speaker 1: fishing by the creek actually happened. And I mentioned earlier
Speaker 1: that his fishing pole and his carton of worms were
Speaker 1: found in the woods like half a mile away, But
Speaker 1: it now makes me wonder would Bobby have really taken
Speaker 1: these items and then just drop them, or were these
Speaker 1: items planted in order to make it look like Bobby
Speaker 1: ran off into the forest and got lost.
Speaker 2: Some kind of lazy subterfuge like, oh, yes, he's gonna
Speaker 2: run away and think to take his worms with him.
Speaker 2: If you were truly scared, or you were running away
Speaker 2: and you're running away from that water source, Why would
Speaker 2: you bring your fishing pole, Like, it's pretty cumbersome to
Speaker 2: run with a fishing rod or fishing pole and to
Speaker 2: carry a carton of worms. It just seems a little
Speaker 2: bit ridiculous. So, yeah, maybe it's possible that earlier that
Speaker 2: day he was fishing, and so there's some partial truth there.
Speaker 2: Maybe he was told to change the time in which
Speaker 2: he saw Bobby. Maybe he saw him at like eleven o'clock,
Speaker 2: and then it's like, okay, well, let's just say that
Speaker 2: it was a little bit later, and then somebody else
Speaker 2: planted those there. But there's any number of scenarios that
Speaker 2: could have happened. Like you said, somebody could have abducted him,
Speaker 2: taken him elsewhere, and then when Hewitt finds the remains,
Speaker 2: it's like, this is the agreed upon location that they've
Speaker 2: been planted. And there's even the possibility that he genuinely
Speaker 2: could have just found him for the first time, even
Speaker 2: though I don't think that's very likely. There's just so
Speaker 2: many things that are in play here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's the issue is because nobody investigated this
Speaker 1: until decades after the fact, So most of the people
Speaker 1: who would have first hand knowledge have since passed away,
Speaker 1: Like I'd really like to reinterview Terry Cowan to hear
Speaker 1: him tell that account of Bobby being fishing at the creek,
Speaker 1: But I don't think he's still alive. And one of
Speaker 1: the few counselors that lived long enough to tell his
Speaker 1: account is Neil Hewitt, and obviously you can't trust him.
Speaker 2: No, and callen. It would be really interesting to hear
Speaker 2: from him now if he were still alive, because him
Speaker 2: being one of the ones that was not accused of
Speaker 2: sexually abusing the children. So if he was innocent of
Speaker 2: all that and went through his entire career being like
Speaker 2: an upstanding individual, then I would be really curious in
Speaker 2: his twilight years how he would feel about all this
Speaker 2: and if he would potentially disclose some more information and
Speaker 2: at least let us know if his account was true
Speaker 2: or not.
Speaker 1: It's true, Like if he was a seminary student, he
Speaker 1: was probably thinking that while everything I'm doing is the
Speaker 1: word of God here. So if my superior is, like
Speaker 1: the camp director, tell me to do something and feed
Speaker 1: a false story, then I'll do it because that's what
Speaker 1: my position. I'm a seminary student, I'm with the church,
Speaker 1: so I have to follow what they say. But of course,
Speaker 1: years in retrospect, hearing that other counselors have been sexually
Speaker 1: abusing children there, I could see him wanting to open
Speaker 1: up if he didn't do anything wrong on his own,
Speaker 1: Maybe he's looking at everything in a different light and
Speaker 1: now thinks that a lot of the stuff he witnessed
Speaker 1: back then is a lot more suspicious in retrospect. Yeah.
Speaker 2: We talked earlier about the power dynamic between a child
Speaker 2: attending the camp and a seminary student, and we've got
Speaker 2: a similar power dynamic between a seminary student and those
Speaker 2: who are a priest or the camp director, where you
Speaker 2: got an older and more established person who has that
Speaker 2: quote unquote like direct line to God. So I would
Speaker 2: think that it would be very easy to look at
Speaker 2: one of these seminary students and they would be malleable,
Speaker 2: They would be very impressionable, and more likely than not
Speaker 2: to go along with what you're saying as literal gospel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think there's a good chance that is
Speaker 1: what happened. So in December of twenty twenty, the Colorado
Speaker 1: Attorney General's Office released a special Masters Supplemental Report containing
Speaker 1: additional child sexual abuse allegations which it surfaced against Catholic
Speaker 1: priests from Colorado because they have released the original report
Speaker 1: a year and a half earlier, but now more people
Speaker 1: had come forward, so the numbers had now increased to
Speaker 1: fifty two priests being accused of molesting at least two
Speaker 1: hundred and twelve children. And one of the new priests
Speaker 1: who got accused was a guy named Gerald Roppola. A
Speaker 1: man had come forward and said that Roppola had sexually
Speaker 1: abused him, only he was a teenager in nineteen sixty seven.
Speaker 1: Much like these other priests, he had been a Ropola
Speaker 1: had been transferred around a lot and was actually removed
Speaker 1: from the ministry in nineteen seventy in order to participate
Speaker 1: in professional counseling, and he was on one year leave
Speaker 1: of absence before he died of cancer in March of
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy one. But what's particularly interesting is that it
Speaker 1: turned out that Ropola had also been a seminary student
Speaker 1: at Camp Saint Malo during the summer of nineteen fifty eight, So,
Speaker 1: along with Neil Hewitt and Harold Robert White, this was
Speaker 1: no less than three different priests who had been accused
Speaker 1: of sexually abusing children who are counselors at the camp
Speaker 1: at that time. So there's just a number of predators
Speaker 1: there all there simultaneously who could have potentially demise Bobby.
Speaker 2: That is terrifying. This camp was like a repository for
Speaker 2: child predators. Is that where they sent the pedophiles? And
Speaker 2: to think that they're all seminary students at this point,
Speaker 2: they're not even priests. So it's that chicken or the
Speaker 2: egg question, right. Is it that they decided to go
Speaker 2: onto this path because they knew that they would have
Speaker 2: access to children, or is it because this path was
Speaker 2: very limiting for them sexually so they then turned to
Speaker 2: predating on children. It's really convoluted and confusing, and they've
Speaker 2: done studies on this where the priesthood within the Catholic
Speaker 2: Church where you can't marry, that those who wouldn't necessarily
Speaker 2: be pedophiles would engage in pedophilic behavior. So I don't
Speaker 2: know what the stats are exactly and what they would
Speaker 2: be for seminary students, but I'm wondering if it's like
Speaker 2: the Boy Scouts where we saw such a huge number
Speaker 2: of young boys who were accused by their Boy Scout
Speaker 2: leaders and You've got to think the same with the
Speaker 2: seminary students. Are you going into this because you know
Speaker 2: there's guaranteed access to kids?
Speaker 1: That's what I'm wondering as well, because, like we mentioned,
Speaker 1: this was not common knowledge in the nineteen fifties that
Speaker 1: if you were a priest who abuse children that the
Speaker 1: church will help cover it up for you. These are
Speaker 1: just seminary students who are really low on the toting
Speaker 1: pol So how could they know that if they did
Speaker 1: this to these children of this camp, they'd managed to
Speaker 1: get away with it. But it makes me wonder if
Speaker 1: word had spread saying that if you are attracted to
Speaker 1: children and you want to abuse them and get away
Speaker 1: with it, then this is the camp to go because
Speaker 1: they will cover up for you.
Speaker 2: And like, You've got to wonder what would have been
Speaker 2: the type of network that pedophiles would have used to communicate,
Speaker 2: because we know that pre Internet, there's ways that pedophiles
Speaker 2: would communicate and share material, and I guess decide on
Speaker 2: places or populations that would be more vulnerable in that
Speaker 2: they would be easy you're to victimize. But you've got
Speaker 2: to wonder in nineteen fifty eight, how would one who
Speaker 2: has that type of a predilection gain information on what
Speaker 2: would be a good place for them to predate on children.
Speaker 2: I don't know how you would get that information back then.
Speaker 1: I don't either, but you might recall that earlier I
Speaker 1: mentioned that the camp's original founder, father Gerald Bassetti, had
Speaker 1: also been accused of sexually abusing children. And this camp
Speaker 1: had been around for two decades, so I have to
Speaker 1: think that word must have spread and that maybe these
Speaker 1: pedophiles like received information knowing that if you want to
Speaker 1: go to a place where you can abuse children freely,
Speaker 1: this camp would be the ideal place.
Speaker 2: I would be really interested to know if any of
Speaker 2: these camp counselors attended this camp when they themselves were children.
Speaker 1: That's a good point, like maybe they underwent it and
Speaker 1: then realized that they wanted to inflict it upon other
Speaker 1: victims when they were put into a position of power. So,
Speaker 1: after these new allegations came out about Gerald, repol nine
Speaker 1: News in Denver aired a new twenty minute documentary titled
Speaker 1: Mystery of Mount Meeker, which revealed all the new details
Speaker 1: about this sexual abuse scandal and also the new details
Speaker 1: that have been dug up in Bobby Bisop's case and
Speaker 1: in May of twenty twenty one, that's when the most
Speaker 1: shocking announcement was made in this case, when the media
Speaker 1: revealed that a Denver based doctor named Tom McCloskey had
Speaker 1: come forward after watching the documentary and presented the authorities
Speaker 1: with a human skull that belonged to a child. And
Speaker 1: the issue with this is that even though Tom McCloskey
Speaker 1: has allowed the media to share the details of his story,
Speaker 1: he has never agreed to be formally interviewed. So there
Speaker 1: are a lot of questions I have of the circumstances
Speaker 1: of how this takes place, but unfortunately he has not
Speaker 1: been around to answer them. But the story that has
Speaker 1: been reported is that Tom's father, Joseph McCloskey, had also
Speaker 1: worked as a doctor, and when Joseph passed away in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty, his son took possession of this skull, and
Speaker 1: while Tom said he could not remember too many details,
Speaker 1: he said that his father had told him that the
Speaker 1: skull may have belonged to a boy who had disappeared
Speaker 1: from a camp and for years. Tom said that he
Speaker 1: tried to identify the skull by checking through old news
Speaker 1: articles about the disappearances of young boys, but had no
Speaker 1: luck finding a match, so he just decided to spend
Speaker 1: the next four decades keeping the skull inside a paper
Speaker 1: sack in his basement. But then when he watched the
Speaker 1: documentary Mystery amount Meeker and learned about the disappearance of
Speaker 1: Bobby Bisop, he started to wonder if maybe the skull
Speaker 1: belonged to Bobby, And that's when he decided to come forward.
Speaker 1: And I know you're gonna have the obvious question here,
Speaker 1: why did he keep the skull for four decades without
Speaker 1: saying anything? But unfortunately, since Tom has never been interviewed,
Speaker 1: we don't know the answers to those questions.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's all very weird, but I would think
Speaker 2: that it would be really complex for him because if
Speaker 2: it was his father that could have been responsible for
Speaker 2: what happened to this child, then I would think that
Speaker 2: he might have conflicting emotions on turning that skull over
Speaker 2: because in doing so, he could implicate his father in
Speaker 2: the murder of that child. Why did he have it?
Speaker 2: And so I'm sure that he wrestled internally with his
Speaker 2: feelings of I should turn this over, I should keep this,
Speaker 2: do I protect my dad's legacy? It looks on the surface,
Speaker 2: very very odd. But I think that there is his
Speaker 2: relationship to his father and their family named to consider,
Speaker 2: and I guess at the very least we can be
Speaker 2: thankful for the fact that he came forward at the
Speaker 2: end and turned over the skull and gave some information,
Speaker 2: But without a formal interview, there's so many questions left unanswered.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and one explanation I've seen push forward is because
Speaker 1: his father was a doctor that at the time he
Speaker 1: may have felt that wasn't unusual because as more of
Speaker 1: it as it sounds, doctors sometimes did bring human remains
Speaker 1: home for experimentation. So I'm sure he didn't think that
Speaker 1: his father was a serial killer or anything. Back in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty when he passed away, he probably thought, well, maybe
Speaker 1: he got this skull from his work or something like that,
Speaker 1: and it belonged to a deceased child whose family had
Speaker 1: allowed him to take the remains for medical research or something.
Speaker 1: You might recall an episode we did several months ago
Speaker 1: about the disappearances of a couple named Glenn and Bessie
Speaker 1: Hyde who went missing in the Grand Canyon on a
Speaker 1: rafting trip in nineteen twenty eight, And you also might
Speaker 1: recall a weird detail about this case where they stopped
Speaker 1: to see a local photographer named Emery Colb, and then
Speaker 1: like nearly fifty years later, cole fasts away and then
Speaker 1: his grandson found some human remains but a gunshot wound
Speaker 1: in his boat house and people are thinking, oh my god,
Speaker 1: Emory Colb is a murderer. Maybe he killed Glenn Hyde
Speaker 1: and the remains belonged to him. But then the full
Speaker 1: story came out that the remains belonged to an unidentified
Speaker 1: John Doe who had shot himself in the Grand Canyon
Speaker 1: sometime during the nineteen thirties, and that Emory Colb had
Speaker 1: been on the corner's jury. And because this young man
Speaker 1: was never identified and no one came forward to claim
Speaker 1: his remains, Coleb decided to take the remains home put
Speaker 1: them in his boat house on the off chance that
Speaker 1: this man's family would come forward to claim them. But
Speaker 1: he just kind of forgot about them for four decades,
Speaker 1: and then people discover the remains after he died in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy six, and his grandson is given a complete shock,
Speaker 1: But it turned out he had the remains for completely
Speaker 1: harmless reasons. So maybe a similar thing happened with Joseph McCloskey,
Speaker 1: or maybe that's what Tom thought.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's completely possible, and who knows. It doesn't mean
Speaker 2: just because he had possession of the skull that he
Speaker 2: was involved in what happened, because say one of these
Speaker 2: seminary students or one of the priests, they had the
Speaker 2: skull and they thought, okay, this is the part of
Speaker 2: Bobby that could be identified. What if we give the
Speaker 2: skull to a doctor friend and we say, yeah, this
Speaker 2: boy had disappeared. They found the remains, but like, here's
Speaker 2: the skull, or the remains haven't been found. I don't
Speaker 2: know how you would word that and how it wouldn't
Speaker 2: come off as super sucks and that the doctor wouldn't
Speaker 2: then go to the Maybe it was hard to procure
Speaker 2: a child's skull, so it was like they'll take it,
Speaker 2: even though it seems to be tinged with like some
Speaker 2: major nefarious activity. I don't know any scenario where you
Speaker 2: would accept that.
Speaker 1: I mean, to be fair, there was anything nefarious associated
Speaker 1: with Bobby's case back in nineteen fifty nine. They just
Speaker 1: assumed that he died of exposure. But even so, like
Speaker 1: I'm sure Bobby's family would want his skull back if
Speaker 1: it belonged to him, rather than someone keeping it. And
Speaker 1: the main reason that Tom thought it was connected to
Speaker 1: Bobby is because his father had been a prominent member
Speaker 1: of the Catholic Church and was very close friends with
Speaker 1: the camp's former director, Reverend Heaster. And even though law
Speaker 1: enforcement hasn't commented on this officially, Reverend Heaster's nephew, Richard,
Speaker 1: has claimed that federal authorities told him that they believed
Speaker 1: that his uncle had been in possession of the skull
Speaker 1: and for whatever reason, decided to give it to Joseph McCloskey,
Speaker 1: and then when Joseph passed away, he passed it along
Speaker 1: to his son. That only brings up the question why
Speaker 1: would Reverend he Easter have this skull in his possession
Speaker 1: in the first place.
Speaker 2: Well, I would think that you would either be complicit
Speaker 2: in the murder or complicit in a cover up, whether
Speaker 2: or not he died at the hands of somebody at
Speaker 2: that camp or he passed away, for I needs to
Speaker 2: come to the elements, which is possible as well. And
Speaker 2: then they found him and were like, oh, we better
Speaker 2: cover this up. And at the time, dental records were
Speaker 2: the only way that you were going to be identifying
Speaker 2: a Bobby. They might not have thought so far ahead
Speaker 2: as the hearing aid, but maybe again they did. But
Speaker 2: then the question is, Okay, so they wanted Bobby to
Speaker 2: be discovered, They wanted his remains to be known, so
Speaker 2: that's why they if they did sprinkle the remains there,
Speaker 2: they put his hearing aid there. But then the question
Speaker 2: is why not his skull? Then if you're just trying
Speaker 2: to get the heat off, why keep the skull? Was
Speaker 2: this some kind of serial killer like moment toe type
Speaker 2: thing where it's like, well, I'm going to keep a souvenir.
Speaker 1: Well. Some people had speculated initially that maybe there were
Speaker 1: signs of trauma to the skull to prove foul play,
Speaker 1: but even though law enforcement has not confirmed this, I
Speaker 1: do not believe this is the case, because, believe it
Speaker 1: or not, Bobby still has some surviving relatives, and they
Speaker 1: actually gave the authorities permission to put a photograph of
Speaker 1: this skull and publish it in the media, so you
Speaker 1: can't see it online. And from the naked eye, it
Speaker 1: doesn't look like there are any signs of any gunshot
Speaker 1: wounds or trauma or blunt force trauma. So if that's
Speaker 1: what I'm thinking, if Bobby truly did go into the
Speaker 1: elements and die of exposure, why would they hold onto
Speaker 1: the skull. But another theory that has been pushed forward
Speaker 1: is that even if Reverend Heaster was not personally complicit
Speaker 1: in Bobby's death, he may have felt some sort of
Speaker 1: subconscious guilt where if Heaster wasn't abusing children, he was
Speaker 1: still covering up for the counselors who did. So, he
Speaker 1: decided to keep the skull as a memento, and then,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, years later, decided to give it to
Speaker 1: Joseph McCloskey because if he was one of his more friends.
Speaker 1: But if he told any secrets to Joseph, Joseph obviously
Speaker 1: did not pass them on to his son, because Tom
Speaker 1: has not shed any light on why his father had
Speaker 1: this skull, but there are any number of scenarios about
Speaker 1: why they would he would have had the skull in
Speaker 1: this possession, And unfortunately, because most of the people with
Speaker 1: the direct knowledge are now deceased, we can only speculate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he's since we know that he was accused
Speaker 2: of sexual abuse, and typically when it comes to institutional
Speaker 2: sexual abuse, the fish rots from the head, and so
Speaker 2: you have somebody that is predating on children, and then
Speaker 2: you have other people who are underneath him that think, okay,
Speaker 2: this is acceptable behavior. So I could see a scenario
Speaker 2: like you said, where he might not have been directly
Speaker 2: responsible for Bobby's death, but he felt responsible because he
Speaker 2: created the culture that allowed that to happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I should clarify that at the time this information
Speaker 1: came out, Reverend Heaster himself had not been accused of
Speaker 1: any sexual abuse. It was just a lot of the
Speaker 1: counselors who were working under him. But in May of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, another victim named Michael Stinho came forward
Speaker 1: and has filed a lawsuit against the Denver Catholic Church
Speaker 1: alleging that when he was an altar boy at Notrum
Speaker 1: Church in Denver during the nineteen sixties, he was personally
Speaker 1: abused by Reverend Heaster. So this is the first allegation
Speaker 1: against Heaster that has come out. He hasn't been accused
Speaker 1: of abusing anyone at Camp Saint Malo yet because this
Speaker 1: took place years after the fact. But once you learn this,
Speaker 1: you could realize that even though he might have some
Speaker 1: subconscious guilt about his counselors doing it. It's also possible
Speaker 1: that he was doing it himself and that, for reasons unknown,
Speaker 1: he decided to hold on to Bobby's skull.
Speaker 2: And it just makes me think like nobody else had
Speaker 2: come forward to accuse him of sexual abuse. It just
Speaker 2: makes me wonder how many victims there are that are
Speaker 2: out there, or how many survivors that are out there
Speaker 2: that just don't share their stories. It's sort of like
Speaker 2: when we look at serial killers and we're studying serial killers,
Speaker 2: but we're only studying the ones that get caught, so
Speaker 2: we're missing out on so much information. And I think
Speaker 2: the same goes for these victims of religious sexual abuse,
Speaker 2: because it's very difficult to come forward and we're only
Speaker 2: literally getting the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah. Because Michael Stano, the guy who has filed
Speaker 1: his lawsuit, he claimed that he had blocked this abuse
Speaker 1: completely out of his memory for decades and it just
Speaker 1: suddenly came back in twenty twenty two. All these repress memories.
Speaker 1: I think he had had been having like a confrontation
Speaker 1: with his family where he was very heated in stress,
Speaker 1: and then all these repressed memories came back and He
Speaker 1: says it was not only Reverend Heaster, but at least
Speaker 1: two other priests as well who sexually abused him during
Speaker 1: his childhood. That I think he had just completely blocked
Speaker 1: out for a long time, which is why he did
Speaker 1: not file his lawsuit until twenty twenty four. But makes
Speaker 1: me wonder if there are other like survivors just like
Speaker 1: him who have been abused and have just completely blocked
Speaker 1: it out and it may not even come back until
Speaker 1: sometime many years after the fact.
Speaker 2: Well, the mind is a really remarkable thing, and it
Speaker 2: will do a lot of things to protect us, and
Speaker 2: blocking out really traumatic events can be one of those things.
Speaker 2: But it can be really dangerous because we don't know
Speaker 2: when that's going to pop back up. And I hope
Speaker 2: that he was able to process that and integrate what
Speaker 2: happened and talk to somebody who specializes in sexual abuse,
Speaker 2: a therapist that really could help him, because to have
Speaker 2: that realization so many years after the fact, to be
Speaker 2: a full grown adult with a family, and to then
Speaker 2: be re traumatized all over again, and to not just
Speaker 2: have one sexual abuser, but to have several, that.
Speaker 1: Is a lot exactly, And the fact that this has
Speaker 1: gone into the courtroom, and that the media has found
Speaker 1: his story to be credible enough to report on. It
Speaker 1: makes everyone believe that this actually happened, that this isn't
Speaker 1: just false memories or a hoax. And I must have
Speaker 1: a lot to do with the fact that so many
Speaker 1: other people who worked under Reverend Heaster have been accused
Speaker 1: of the stuff that everyone just pretty much figures if
Speaker 1: there's smoke, there's fires, So all these survivors have to
Speaker 1: be telling the truth. So, as you might recall, in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, when this whole story about the skull
Speaker 1: came out, the true crime community went nuts, like this
Speaker 1: was posted everywhere on social media, just because it was
Speaker 1: such an unusual story, and I covered it on the
Speaker 1: trail went cold a couple years later in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: But when all this stuff was coming to light, there
Speaker 1: was a great quote made by A. Rich Ormond, the
Speaker 1: senior deputy district attorney from Colorado's eighteenth Judicial District, who
Speaker 1: said quote, it's appalling, it's astounding, and to me, it
Speaker 1: shows a guilty mind. I don't think you do something
Speaker 1: like this to a family without a guilty mind. It
Speaker 1: staggers the imagination that a religious organization like the Catholic
Speaker 1: Church or a portion of the Catholic Church would act
Speaker 1: in such a fashion. You just don't hide that unless
Speaker 1: you have something to hide. End quote.
Speaker 2: I think that is a really good quote, and it
Speaker 2: kind of hits all those points pretty much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like the it's one thing to cover up the
Speaker 1: abuse of children, but when there's a potential that a
Speaker 1: child was murdered and that one of the responsible parties
Speaker 1: was holding on to his skull for decades, that totally
Speaker 1: elevates this case to a totally different level. So it
Speaker 1: should be clarified that it has not yet been one
Speaker 1: hundred percent confirmed that this skull does belong to Bobby.
Speaker 1: Back in twenty twenty one, it was announced that plans
Speaker 1: were being made to exhume Bobby's remains for the purposes
Speaker 1: of DNA testing in order to confirm that the skull
Speaker 1: did belong to him. But I haven't heard anything since then,
Speaker 1: And I do know that Bobby does have surviving relatives,
Speaker 1: so I don't know if any attempts have been made
Speaker 1: to extract their DNA in order to make a comparison.
Speaker 1: And it might be a thing where sometimes this family
Speaker 1: members of these deceased victims had issues with exuming their
Speaker 1: bodies decades after the facts, so maybe they just have
Speaker 1: not gotten formal permission from the family. But at the
Speaker 1: time of this recording, it has not been officially confirmed
Speaker 1: if this skull does belong to Bobby. But if it
Speaker 1: belongs to an entirely different a boy, then that only
Speaker 1: opens up a whole bunch of other unanswered questions.
Speaker 2: No kidding. I thought that they must have got a
Speaker 2: positive dental records match because they seem to be speaking
Speaker 2: with some authority that this was indeed Bobby. But to
Speaker 2: hear that it hasn't been confirmed, it seems odd to
Speaker 2: me because there is surviving family and they agreed to
Speaker 2: have pictures of his skull put on the internet, and
Speaker 2: that would lead me to believe that they want this
Speaker 2: to be solved. So there's a strong likelihood that they
Speaker 2: would volunteer their DNA to be tested. At least somebody
Speaker 2: would against the DNA and the skull if they're able
Speaker 2: to extract any of the material from the teeth. So
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's an issue with their having
Speaker 2: difficulty extracting DNA from the skull, or if they are
Speaker 2: having issues with exhuming the body, which seems unnecessary when
Speaker 2: you have surviving family members.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what's going on. It's possible
Speaker 1: they may have already done this stuff but are just
Speaker 1: keeping quiet about it because they don't want to release
Speaker 1: too much to the public and possibly impede the investigation.
Speaker 1: DNA testing can be weird because sometimes they can make
Speaker 1: the identification within days, but then for some reason, in
Speaker 1: other cases it takes years. Another example of that is
Speaker 1: the Brand and Loss in case where they found his
Speaker 1: remains in like twenty twenty two, but I don't think
Speaker 1: they announced that the DNA had identified him until last year,
Speaker 1: even though everyone was pretty convinced it was him. So
Speaker 1: sometimes there are just big delays in doing a positive
Speaker 1: identification with DNA. And because law enforcement has been pretty
Speaker 1: tight lipped about this case since twenty twenty one, I
Speaker 1: have no idea if anything's going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: So the only new development that has taken place was
Speaker 1: this past September in twenty twenty five, when Neil Hewitt
Speaker 1: finally passed away at the age of eighty nine. I
Speaker 1: think he had been in hospice care at that point,
Speaker 1: and obviously he had not said anything new to shed
Speaker 1: any light on Bobby's death, and I'm not sure if
Speaker 1: his mind was in any mental state to offer information.
Speaker 1: And it is a bittersweet feeling because obviously this guy
Speaker 1: was a monster who got away with so many horrible
Speaker 1: crimes when Lee was alive. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: he may have been one of the last surviving people
Speaker 1: who knew the truth about what happened to Bobby or
Speaker 1: offered some insight on what happened to him. But he
Speaker 1: may have taken those secrets to his grave, So that's
Speaker 1: one last person who may could shed some light on
Speaker 1: what happened to Bobby, who is no longer with us.
Speaker 2: I've gotten nothing to basis on except for the fact
Speaker 2: that Hewitt found the remains and that he'd been accused
Speaker 2: by other children of sexually abusing them. But my gut
Speaker 2: is just telling me that this man had something to
Speaker 2: do with it.
Speaker 1: I do agree, like if he had not said those
Speaker 1: incriminating remarks about how he didn't do anything to Bobby
Speaker 1: except give him candy, I don't think anyone that would
Speaker 1: have paid it a second thought if he had just
Speaker 1: simply said, oh, I remember he disappeared but I don't
Speaker 1: have any information to offer. I think this story would
Speaker 1: have died. They just would have assumed that Bobby died
Speaker 1: of exposure. And even though this whole child sexual abuse
Speaker 1: allegation scandal still would have been going on, I don't
Speaker 1: think they would have covered Bobby's story in the media.
Speaker 1: And then I don't think Tom mcclousey would have come
Speaker 1: forward with the skull. But once that happened, that opened
Speaker 1: up a major plan of worms, which made people wonder
Speaker 1: what happened here, like what happened to Bobby. It's like
Speaker 1: this could be like a potentially horrific truth that is
Speaker 1: now coming out over sixty years after the fact, but
Speaker 1: as it is right now, there are just so many
Speaker 1: more unanswered questions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think Hewitt's denial of doing anything to Bobby
Speaker 2: when he wasn't accused was like the nail in the
Speaker 2: coffin for me, because just from that perspective of statement analysis,
Speaker 2: when you're not accused of something but you jump right
Speaker 2: into a denial of it, it's like in your mind
Speaker 2: you're already prepping for what you're going to be asked,
Speaker 2: and you assume that somebody's going to accuse you, So
Speaker 2: why would you assume that somebody's going to accuse you
Speaker 2: when that certainly wasn't the culture surrounding what was happening
Speaker 2: at the time. Even though they were up to many
Speaker 2: evil acts, they weren't accused of it, and they seemed
Speaker 2: to be able to cover it up till they couldn't.
Speaker 2: Right until all the accusations come out, until the cover
Speaker 2: up idea, the idea of bearing it is no longer viable.
Speaker 2: So jumping right into this weird story about not selling
Speaker 2: Bobby a candy bar and him running off and how
Speaker 2: you didn't do anything to him except not sell him candy,
Speaker 2: he was just so suss and Hewitt finding the remains,
Speaker 2: it just feels like, as far as suspects go, anybody
Speaker 2: is up for grabs. But I think there's a strong
Speaker 2: likelihood that Hewitt was intimately involved in what happened to Bobby.
Speaker 1: And I'm also thinking we've brought up the possibility that
Speaker 1: Bobby wasn't murdered, that he was abused and then ran
Speaker 1: off and died of exposure because he was hiding from
Speaker 1: his abusers. But if that were the case, you still
Speaker 1: wouldn't be able to prosecute anyone as long as they
Speaker 1: didn't have any direct involvement in his death, because the
Speaker 1: statute of limitations would have expired. But if it was
Speaker 1: an intentional murder and Hewitt deliberately killed him and disposed
Speaker 1: of his remains, he still could have been prosecuted, even
Speaker 1: though he was in his eighties at the time. So
Speaker 1: his weird change of tone where he goes to openly
Speaker 1: admitting his sexual abuse but then gets so flustered and
Speaker 1: starts denying things when it comes to Bobby still makes
Speaker 1: me think that he was paranoid that he could still
Speaker 1: be prosecuted for something and had a need to cover
Speaker 1: it up. So yeah, this is a real rabbit hole,
Speaker 1: and hopefully one of these days we will at least,
Speaker 1: even if we don't find the full truth about what
Speaker 1: happened to Bobby, I hope they at least do a
Speaker 1: DNA test and confirm that the skull belongs to him.
Speaker 1: And there are just so many like Because most of
Speaker 1: the people involved in this have since passed away, we
Speaker 1: may never learn like the full story, but at least
Speaker 1: it ensures that Bobby isn't forgotten and that he can
Speaker 1: be remembered as a victim. If he really was one
Speaker 1: because the idea that he was this hearing impaired boy
Speaker 1: who was having a great time at this camp that
Speaker 1: he seemed to really enjoy, but could have been groomed
Speaker 1: and abused by someone who knew that because of his disadvantages,
Speaker 1: he'd be an ideal target who couldn't share what happened
Speaker 1: to him. That is pretty nauseating, and so it is
Speaker 1: pretty sad that whoever did this to them will probably
Speaker 1: never see justice in this light. But at least Bobby
Speaker 1: will be remembered as a victim, and maybe his story
Speaker 1: will maybe we'll inspire other people who have been abused
Speaker 1: by priests to come forward after many years as children,
Speaker 1: now that they are adults, and that's why it's so
Speaker 1: important for these stories to come out.
Speaker 2: I wholeheartedly agree with that. I think these cases where
Speaker 2: there's a strong likelihood because all of the people who
Speaker 2: are the best suspects here are deceased, that there's a
Speaker 2: strong likelihood that there might not be justice in the
Speaker 2: traditional sense. But if we look at how Bobby's story
Speaker 2: can benefit other people, it's exactly what you said. It's
Speaker 2: emboldening other people to come forward and to say, like
Speaker 2: I'm not going to live with this anymore. I'm going
Speaker 2: to tell my story and to give survivors their power back.
Speaker 2: And I think in sharing these stories it does empower
Speaker 2: people and say that like, I am not what happened
Speaker 2: to me. I am who I am, and this thing
Speaker 2: was done to me, but it doesn't need to define
Speaker 2: me anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think that's probably what happened with Michael
Speaker 1: Stano when he had these repressed memories for so long,
Speaker 1: because once these memories came back, he may have read
Speaker 1: Richard Heaster's name and found out that he was connected
Speaker 1: to this potentially unsolved homicide of Bobby Bissop, and that's
Speaker 1: what compelled him to file the lawsuit. And if this
Speaker 1: is the case, then that shows that Bobby's story has
Speaker 1: done some good for some people. So any further thoughts
Speaker 1: on the death of Bobby Bisop.
Speaker 2: This is a really heartbreaking case, and like we've mentioned throughout,
Speaker 2: there's even another layer to that, given that Bobby was
Speaker 2: hearing impaired and he was dealing with these challenges in
Speaker 2: everyday life, and to think that somebody, likely hew It,
Speaker 2: could have targeted him based on the fact that Bobby
Speaker 2: might not have been able to communicate what happened in
Speaker 2: the way that somebody was using traditional spoken language could
Speaker 2: But even then, children don't typically have the capacity to
Speaker 2: be able to communicate that, especially at that time. They
Speaker 2: weren't given language around sexual abuse the way that I'm
Speaker 2: a millennial and I grew up with like, you know,
Speaker 2: stranger danger, and if somebody touches you in your you know,
Speaker 2: underwear area, then you tell your parents, and you're taught
Speaker 2: all of these things. But I don't think that children
Speaker 2: in the nineteen fifties were taught that there was an
Speaker 2: assumption that, like you were safe with adults, particularly those
Speaker 2: who would be members of the clergy or seminary students,
Speaker 2: that should be where you are safest. So the parents
Speaker 2: trusted this camp. They trusted the counselors, and they trusted
Speaker 2: the priests who ran it, and this is what happened.
Speaker 2: And that is so.
Speaker 1: Heartbreaking to think, exactly, like knowing that there were at
Speaker 1: least three counselors working there who have been accused of
Speaker 1: sexual abuse, and now it's coming out that the camp
Speaker 1: director had possibly even abusing children as well. It's just
Speaker 1: pretty nausey and you think about it. But hopefully Bobby
Speaker 1: does get justice, maybe not in this life, but in
Speaker 1: the next. So that about brings any to our series
Speaker 1: on the disappearance and death of Bobby Biszop. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us, and happy New Year everyone,
Speaker 1: since we're recording this on the first day of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six, so we'll see you next time for our
Speaker 1: next series of episodes from The Path Went Chile.
Speaker 2: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 2: about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
Speaker 1: Yes, The Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
Speaker 1: years now and we offer these standard bonus features like
Speaker 1: early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
Speaker 1: and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
Speaker 1: with us on Patreon if you join our five dollars
Speaker 1: tier Tier two. We also offer monthly bonus episodes in
Speaker 1: which I talk about cases which are not featured on
Speaker 1: The Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to
Speaker 1: Patreon and if you join our highest tier tier free
Speaker 1: the ten dollars tier. One of the features we offer
Speaker 1: is a audio commentary track over classic episodes of UNSAWD Mysteries,
Speaker 1: where you can download an audio file and then boot
Speaker 1: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon or YouTube
Speaker 1: and play it with my audio commentary playing in the background,
Speaker 1: where I just provide trivia and factoids about the cases
Speaker 1: featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very first episode
Speaker 1: that I did a commentary track over was the episode
Speaker 1: featuring this case. So if you want to download a
Speaker 1: commentary track in which I make more smart ass remarks
Speaker 1: about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join Tier three.
Speaker 3: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 3: about the Jeweles and Nashty patreons. So there's early ad
Speaker 3: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Speaker 3: Pathwent Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so
Speaker 3: they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
Speaker 3: turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those.
Speaker 2: So we hope you'll check out those patreons. We'll link
Speaker 2: them in the show notes.
Speaker 1: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
Speaker 1: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 1: with a friend or d rate and review is greatly appreciated.
Speaker 1: You can email us at The Pathwentchili at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: You can reach us on Twitter at the Pathwin. So
Speaker 1: until next time, be sure to bundle up, because cold
Speaker 1: trails and chili ask call for warm clothing.
Speaker 2: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy