Speaker 1: Today, we have two cold cases that may be short
Speaker 1: on details, but both leave us with plenty of questions.
Speaker 1: In the first case, during a routine patrol, a sheriff's
Speaker 1: deputy this is a woman camp between Highway ninety six
Speaker 1: and the Klamath River. He stopped just to verify everything
Speaker 1: was okay, and the woman confirmed she was fine. The
Speaker 1: following day she would be gone, and there hasn't been
Speaker 1: any information since. In the second, a drive around the
Speaker 1: lake seemed innocent enough, but many people believe this drive
Speaker 1: ended in murder, but without any evidence, this case, too
Speaker 1: remains open. I'm Danielle, I'm Megan, and this is off
Speaker 1: the trails.
Speaker 2: Did you mean to say Klamath River?
Speaker 3: Probably?
Speaker 1: I was also just about to say the half the
Speaker 1: things I said are not the things I wrote.
Speaker 3: Oh okay, so we're off to a good start. Friends,
Speaker 3: all right.
Speaker 1: The only business is if you guys like the show
Speaker 1: or I guess even if you don't, we'd love for
Speaker 1: you to leave us a rating or a review.
Speaker 2: Wherever you get your podcasts, Yeah, please do, especially on
Speaker 2: Spotify where we can respond to them. Is always nice.
Speaker 2: But if you listen on Apple, of course, do it there.
Speaker 2: If you don't mind. Apple can be brutal those reviews,
Speaker 2: and there's nothing we can All we can do is
Speaker 2: just helplessly look at them with everyone. We can't even engage.
Speaker 1: All right, So, like I mentioned, both of these stories
Speaker 1: are kind of scant on details, which is a bummer.
Speaker 1: But I think that these cases are still worth sharing
Speaker 1: because they are still open cases, and just because all
Speaker 1: of the information is not available or public, or there
Speaker 1: may just not be the information, we still like to
Speaker 1: share this. On February twenty eighth, twenty fourteen, twenty seven
Speaker 1: year old Grace Sabo was the woman at the campsite.
Speaker 1: She was along the skihan Bar River access and that
Speaker 1: is a free Forest Service camp area along the river
Speaker 1: and that's along Highway six ninety six in Siskiyou County, California.
Speaker 1: The area includes a good size like wooded area, has picnics,
Speaker 1: and several unmarked campsites.
Speaker 3: So very basic.
Speaker 1: From what I read, this would make a good pit
Speaker 1: stop location.
Speaker 4: What are you smiling at because he just said it
Speaker 4: has picnics. It has picnics, okay, offers picnics. I imagine
Speaker 4: it's tables.
Speaker 2: But I like the idea of a campground just saying,
Speaker 2: come one, come all, to our picnics.
Speaker 1: I would be more apt to go to a campground
Speaker 1: that has pre made picnics, to be honest, but yes,
Speaker 1: you're right, picnic tables. This is more of a pit
Speaker 1: stop destination than a destination itself, because there's no potable water,
Speaker 1: there's no showers, there's no trash cans, so pretty basic.
Speaker 1: I did see that there are porta potties seasonally, so
Speaker 1: kind of just a side of the road pull off.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people stay here because it
Speaker 1: has good access to the river and it's a good
Speaker 1: launch point for people who are rafting or kayaking things
Speaker 1: of that nature. So it's really just hey, we're getting
Speaker 1: out on the river tomorrow, let's get out early.
Speaker 3: You'll stay here the night and move on.
Speaker 1: When the sheriff's deputy first encountered Grace, she was at
Speaker 1: a campsite alone, but she indicated she didn't need any help,
Speaker 1: that thing was wrong, And what I don't know is
Speaker 1: what prompted the deputy to check in with her originally.
Speaker 1: Since this is a known camping area, it's not like
Speaker 1: she was camped out somewhere like a rest stop or
Speaker 1: just this side of the highway. This is somewhere where
Speaker 1: people frequently camp it. I don't know if because of
Speaker 1: the time of the year typically people are not camping there.
Speaker 1: Obviously we're in almost March, very end of February, so
Speaker 1: this time of year, average temps are like forty four degrees,
Speaker 1: so not ideal camping whether for most people at least
Speaker 1: as cold it is. Some sources indicate that after they
Speaker 1: had that interaction, the deputy planned to go back and
Speaker 1: check on her on Saturday, which would have been the
Speaker 1: following day.
Speaker 3: There were sources.
Speaker 1: That mentioned an abandoned vehicle which belonged to Grace. None
Speaker 1: of the sources said if the car was in a
Speaker 1: weird spot which caught the deputy's eye, or if it
Speaker 1: was just park next to wherever she was set up.
Speaker 1: There weren't a lot of details on what made this
Speaker 1: vehicle abandoned since its owner and driver were nearby. To me,
Speaker 1: that's not abandoned, that's just parked. Yeah, I feel like
Speaker 1: there had to be more to that setup, but it
Speaker 1: was not available information.
Speaker 3: The following day, which was March.
Speaker 1: First, just after eight point thirty in the morning, that
Speaker 1: same deputy drove by and noticed Grace's car was still there,
Speaker 1: but this time he didn't see her around. According to
Speaker 1: a Facebook post from the Sheriff's Department, the deputy conducted
Speaker 1: a welfare check but could not locate Missabo. A search
Speaker 1: of the immediate area led to the deputy to believe
Speaker 1: that Missabo was endangered or injured. Whatever the deputy saw
Speaker 1: that felt that he felt indicated Grace was injured or
Speaker 1: in danger was not specified in this post or any
Speaker 1: subsequent articles or posts that I could find at all interesting.
Speaker 2: I wonder why they wouldn't share, even just like a
Speaker 2: vague detail about it.
Speaker 1: Right there were sources that said there were fresh footprints
Speaker 1: seen heading down to the river, but none returning, But
Speaker 1: that sounded like a separate discovery than whatever this officer
Speaker 1: originally saw that gave him concern. A more extensive search
Speaker 1: got underway pretty quickly. Search crews combed miles of river
Speaker 1: bank and the surrounding land. Boats equipped with underwater cameras
Speaker 1: were deployed on the river, and California Highway Patrol did
Speaker 1: several flyovers. Ground teams and patrol vehicles were stationed at
Speaker 1: different river access points down river. Unfortunately, within the first
Speaker 1: couple of days of the search. There was some I
Speaker 1: was gonna say, like negative weather, but negative in the
Speaker 1: respect of trying to be outside searching.
Speaker 2: But rain is not a negative situation overall. Negative weather
Speaker 2: just not conducive to search efforts.
Speaker 1: Right because I actually love cloudy, rainy days, so that's
Speaker 1: a positive for me, but not if I were attempting
Speaker 1: to locate someone.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so all that.
Speaker 1: Rain just made the river choppy and the conditions grounded helicopters.
Speaker 1: Grazel was originally from Oakland, California, but she had been
Speaker 1: living in Portland, Oregon for at least the previous several years.
Speaker 1: She had a house there, she had a roommate, she
Speaker 1: owned her own cleaning business, so she was very well
Speaker 1: established in Portland. But what she was doing camped out
Speaker 1: along the river is a question we don't know the
Speaker 1: answer to.
Speaker 2: Investigated family or friends who spoke on any of this.
Speaker 1: So I thought it was odd that there wasn't a
Speaker 1: lot of statements, or really any statements from her family
Speaker 1: or friends. There was one article that in the Google
Speaker 1: preview was like, oh, her parents and boyfriend. So I
Speaker 1: went to check that article and the link was actually broken,
Speaker 1: like it did not work. So that was the only
Speaker 1: reference to any family or friends that I found in
Speaker 1: any article I looked at. There's not really a lot
Speaker 1: of coverage of this case, so I feel like I
Speaker 1: looked at pretty much every article that is available on
Speaker 1: the internet and attempted to view some that were no
Speaker 1: longer available. But from that article, it sounds like her
Speaker 1: parents did come down to present for search, and it
Speaker 1: sounds like she did have a boyfriend, but.
Speaker 3: There was no.
Speaker 1: Information on why they thought that she was in the area.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because especially if she owned that business. I don't
Speaker 2: know if it was just just her and it was
Speaker 2: her business, or if she had employees, but if there
Speaker 2: was anyone who could speak to her recent behavior leading
Speaker 2: up to this camping trip, like if it seemed like
Speaker 2: she was in a weird headspace or if everything seemed normal,
Speaker 2: Is this something that she would do that she had
Speaker 2: done previously where she just liked to disconnect for a
Speaker 2: little bit, go to a quieter campground. You know, some
Speaker 2: people want those more private kind of camping experiences as
Speaker 2: opposed to going to a more well known or populated campground,
Speaker 2: even if it has better amenities there.
Speaker 1: Right, I just found it interesting, you know, because there
Speaker 1: are plenty of cases we've covered, and plenty of people
Speaker 1: we know in person who live alone and they aren't
Speaker 1: detailing their every day move They're not giving itinerary of
Speaker 1: what they're doing for the weekend or the day. And
Speaker 1: that's fine, but typically if you live with someone, whether
Speaker 1: it's a roommate or a friend or family, I think
Speaker 1: most people are saying to some extent, even if not
Speaker 1: giving a lot of detail, like Hey, I'm doing XYZ
Speaker 1: this weekend, I'll be back on Monday or Sunday or
Speaker 1: whatever it.
Speaker 2: May be, especially like if you have a boyfriend. I mean,
Speaker 2: everyone's relationship dynamics are different, but I think if you're
Speaker 2: dating someone, you typically kind of give at least a
Speaker 2: surface level idea of what your plans are for the weekend,
Speaker 2: but we don't know like how serious or casual they were,
Speaker 2: or Yeah, it's so hard when you don't know her
Speaker 2: relationship with the people around her.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 1: And the other thing is it was said she was
Speaker 1: camped out, but there was no reference to having a campfire,
Speaker 1: a setup, or a tent or any true equipment for
Speaker 1: intended camping. So I also wonder if that's partly why
Speaker 1: this sheriff's officer was concerned because maybe she was you know,
Speaker 1: they say camped out, but not in the I'm intending
Speaker 1: to camp here. It's more I'm situated here.
Speaker 3: Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Yeah, the phrasing, And because it's at a campground, you're like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: obviously she's intending to camp there. But there was no
Speaker 1: reference to anything pertaining to camping, and everything just referenced
Speaker 1: her vehicle. So I'm wondering if maybe it wasn't a
Speaker 1: true camping setup, and that's what caused this officer to
Speaker 1: check it in the first place and then kind of
Speaker 1: want to follow up with her, just make sure things
Speaker 1: were okay, because I wondered, was there's something wrong with
Speaker 1: her vehicle? Had her car broken down and she was
Speaker 1: just kind of hanging out here until she could either
Speaker 1: get it towed or figure out what she was going
Speaker 1: to do. But there was no reference to the vehicle
Speaker 1: being disabled or anything wrong with it, so we don't
Speaker 1: know for sure. Yeah, investigators said there was no evidence
Speaker 1: to suggest that Grace had been abducted or that she
Speaker 1: had been the victim of foul play, So I'm assuming
Speaker 1: that leaves either she went into the water intentionally or
Speaker 1: there was an accident. There wasn't any statements that I
Speaker 1: saw that indicated that they felt strongly that this was
Speaker 1: an accident or that this was intentional, just that there
Speaker 1: was no evidence that there was a third party involved.
Speaker 3: Which in situations where there is no.
Speaker 1: Evidence saying there was no evidence that there was spouel play,
Speaker 1: doesn't they rule out a whole lot to me, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's no evidence tells you we have no direction to
Speaker 1: look in. It's just most scenarios are still on the table.
Speaker 1: For this next case, we're staying in Sisko County, California,
Speaker 1: But going back to two thousand and two, and I
Speaker 1: think we've covered several cases or incidents that have taken
Speaker 1: place in this particular county in California, and.
Speaker 3: We will probably cover more cases in this area.
Speaker 1: I think partly because the county sheriffs have a really
Speaker 1: detailed cold case website. You know, typically states, a lot
Speaker 1: of states I've seen have their own cold case website
Speaker 1: or listing or portion of their state police departments website.
Speaker 1: But this one is at the county level, and it's
Speaker 1: pretty extensive, so compared to other Like, I don't want
Speaker 1: to say one stop shop. But sites that have these
Speaker 1: cases compiled, this one is pretty good.
Speaker 2: That's helpful when they're able to have all of that
Speaker 2: information consolidated, But it's also something that they see a
Speaker 2: lot more than perhaps other places throughout the country, right.
Speaker 1: Because I think I want to say, there's thirty six
Speaker 1: cold cases listed on that site.
Speaker 3: That's just a number I'm pulling out of my head.
Speaker 1: But from other states sites I've looked at, some states
Speaker 1: have that many alone. Obviously, the population and visitors to
Speaker 1: this county is much higher than a lot of other places.
Speaker 1: So oh, it's worth compiling everything and having it together.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Angela fulmer or Angie to everyone who knew and loved her.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and two, she was thirty four years
Speaker 1: old and a mother of five. So in December fifteenth,
Speaker 1: she was out for a drive after a party with
Speaker 1: a man named Thomas. Some sources called him a friend,
Speaker 1: other sources called him her ex boyfriend. Others referred to
Speaker 1: him as a current boyfriend. Immediately, I have suspicions about
Speaker 1: this relationship that nobody seems to classify or everyone classifies it,
Speaker 1: but it's all very different, yep, And it may have
Speaker 1: been one of those relationships that were complicated.
Speaker 3: Maybe they were.
Speaker 1: On and off, maybe they had dated and then they
Speaker 1: stayed friends. I don't know, but just where every source
Speaker 1: referred to them as some other connection, I'm like, this
Speaker 1: is already kind of messy.
Speaker 2: I think we most of us, if not all of us,
Speaker 2: can say that we've been in one of those situations
Speaker 2: though with someone at some point in our lives, where
Speaker 2: the dynamic is a bit ambiguous. So the perception of
Speaker 2: your relationship to them is it varies person to person
Speaker 2: or depending on how you know. Your best friend knows
Speaker 2: more than your co workers, so they would describe this
Speaker 2: person a little differently.
Speaker 3: Oh for sure.
Speaker 1: But I also think in those situations, I think most
Speaker 1: of us probably look back and say, huh, I should
Speaker 1: have cut ties with that person.
Speaker 3: Way long ago.
Speaker 1: I don't think when it's these messy situations that in
Speaker 1: ten years you look back, you're like, Wow, I'm so
Speaker 1: glad we stuck it out through that weird period and
Speaker 1: now we're married and happy and we're going to be
Speaker 1: together forever. Usually that's not what happens in those hard
Speaker 1: to define relationships. But hey, if you had a it's complicated.
Speaker 1: Facebook status with your partner and you are now happy
Speaker 1: and married and let us live in your best life.
Speaker 3: Yes, please do.
Speaker 2: The fact that Facebook even had the option to like,
Speaker 2: the boldness of just telling the world that your relationship
Speaker 2: status is complicated is wild, Like, that's something that can
Speaker 2: just be your private It really can be information. But
Speaker 2: to just be like, you know what, guys, hello world,
Speaker 2: even and I are complicated right now?
Speaker 1: Okay, That's what I always find hilarious. Not only can
Speaker 1: you just say like, hey, my relationship is complicated, just
Speaker 1: putting it out there that your situation is unique or
Speaker 1: nuanced or uncommon, but then to have the ability to
Speaker 1: be like, oh, yeah, no, I'm tagging this other person.
Speaker 1: We are committing to this complicated, unconventional situation that people
Speaker 1: are gonna.
Speaker 2: Be like, Okay, but why I was gonna say, I
Speaker 2: think now nowadays, uh, it is just a situationship. But
Speaker 2: if you think that I am broadcasting that to the world, No,
Speaker 2: absolutely not.
Speaker 1: I feel like, even like putting that digital connection, I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe before you do that, I think you
Speaker 1: need to maybe have a conversation with the other person
Speaker 1: and be like, hey, can we like define some things
Speaker 1: in this relationship.
Speaker 2: Before you start on Facebook. We're complicated.
Speaker 1: Yeah, my grandma needs to know if this is a
Speaker 1: complicated situation.
Speaker 2: It's so crazy.
Speaker 1: But you know what, in the in the world we
Speaker 1: live in, this is one of the less crazy things
Speaker 1: out there, that's true. So all right, back on track.
Speaker 1: I'm like, what is happening here now? In a local like,
Speaker 1: where are my words today? They're not in attendance. In
Speaker 1: a local news source, her family said that Angie and
Speaker 1: her current boyfriend had gotten into an argument and that's
Speaker 1: when she went for a drive with Thomas. So I
Speaker 1: think this definitely qualifies as an it's complicated situation. So
Speaker 1: I'm going to take what her family has over some
Speaker 1: of these other publications. So it sounds like they did
Speaker 1: not indicate whether Thomas was just a friend or if
Speaker 1: they had dated previously. But it sounds like she was
Speaker 1: in a current relationship with someone else and then after
Speaker 1: an argument with that person, she went.
Speaker 3: For a drive with Thomas.
Speaker 2: Maybe if she was on Facebook, she'd tagged them both
Speaker 2: in the complicated relationship status.
Speaker 1: I think I don't know if Facebook allows it, but
Speaker 1: I feel like they really should. If you're putting out
Speaker 1: it's complicated, they should also be able to tag multiple people, like,
Speaker 1: why are we excluding polyamorous people who want to commit
Speaker 1: on Facebook without committing to one person. Maybe they're dating
Speaker 1: three or four people and they would like their Facebook.
Speaker 3: Community to know that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe I want everyone to know of who all
Speaker 2: the parties are in my love triangle.
Speaker 1: I mean, as an Internet stalker, Yeah, I would love
Speaker 1: for you to tag the multiple people that you're seeing
Speaker 1: so I can go see what they're about. But you know,
Speaker 1: so Facebook meta h consider it. According to Thomas, they
Speaker 1: had been drinking and partying most of the weekend. So again,
Speaker 1: and it's really not clear. Were they all at this
Speaker 1: party and she had an argument with the boyfriend there
Speaker 1: and she left the Thomas where they at a party
Speaker 1: and they got into an argument over the phone.
Speaker 3: I don't know. Again, this is another case it's kind.
Speaker 1: Of short on details, but then it kind of makes
Speaker 1: you spiral into some of these detail related questions. So
Speaker 1: they've been partying us the weekend and after this argument
Speaker 1: she had this other guy, they opted to go for
Speaker 1: a drive.
Speaker 3: Around the lake.
Speaker 1: Personally, when I read that, I was like, M, I
Speaker 1: think after you've been drinking all weekend, just staying home
Speaker 1: and rehydrating would be a better idea, but nobody asked
Speaker 1: for my opinion. Lake Siska Yu is a reservoir in
Speaker 1: the Shasta Trinity National Forest. This is just a few
Speaker 1: miles from the town of Mount Shasta, so the mountain
Speaker 1: itself is the backdrop to this lake. Photos are beautiful,
Speaker 1: spooky town. Yes, the lake in the summer is very busy.
Speaker 1: People are camping, people are out on the water, But
Speaker 1: this is December, so it's an entirely different scene.
Speaker 3: There's probably very few people.
Speaker 1: Snow and fog and white out conditions are not uncommon
Speaker 1: this time of year here, and you get the right
Speaker 1: snow or the right fog and you can't see beyond
Speaker 1: the first couple of trees along the side of the
Speaker 1: road or on the trail. At some point, Angie and
Speaker 1: Thomas got into an argument, apparently over mud in his truck.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm, that's kind of how I felt, too, Like did.
Speaker 3: You bring a bucket of mud in the vehicle?
Speaker 1: Or is this just like, Hey, I got into your
Speaker 1: truck and it's wet outside, but I guess that's here
Speaker 1: in Nord there. So due to this argument, she got
Speaker 1: out of the car and then she supposedly walked off
Speaker 1: towards the trees heading south down the road, and this
Speaker 1: was the last time she was reported seeing. Tama said
Speaker 1: that he was then cleaning out his car. I don't
Speaker 1: know if this was the mud in question, or if
Speaker 1: he's doing some other cleaning. I don't know, but he
Speaker 1: said he heard a car door slam a short time
Speaker 1: after she had gotten out of the car, and he
Speaker 1: said he figured that she must have just caught a
Speaker 1: ride with someone else, so he ended up leaving too.
Speaker 2: M he knows she got a ride with someone else,
Speaker 2: or he thinks she did.
Speaker 3: He heard a car door slam.
Speaker 2: Okay, so he just assumed she's good.
Speaker 1: I feel like that's a stretch. Would you just hear
Speaker 1: a car door slam? Somebody could have pulled over and
Speaker 1: been car sick.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's it's weird because he obviously didn't see it.
Speaker 2: He heard a car door so he doesn't even know
Speaker 2: if it had anything to do with her. And honestly,
Speaker 2: this was two thousand and two. You said, we can
Speaker 2: assume that she didn't call someone and have a friend
Speaker 2: or an uber come pick her up, you know, so
Speaker 2: it's not like, Okay, she must have called and or
Speaker 2: texted someone she's good. Two thousand and two is not
Speaker 2: those times. So if there was a car door and
Speaker 2: it did have to do with her, that may have
Speaker 2: been a it's still a stranger exactly, some sort of
Speaker 2: opportunistic situation that may not have been in her favor.
Speaker 1: Right, because even if she had a phone and texted somebody, hey,
Speaker 1: come get me, the time frame that he puts out
Speaker 1: there wouldn't make sense for someone to have, of right
Speaker 1: already been there to pick her up. It's not like
Speaker 1: it sounds like it was a short time after she
Speaker 1: got out of the vehicle. My guess is the way
Speaker 1: he presented it was she got out of the car,
Speaker 1: walked off, angry, he got out, was doing whatever cleaning
Speaker 1: in his.
Speaker 3: Car, and perhaps he was.
Speaker 1: Kind of expecting her to cool off after a couple
Speaker 1: of minutes and come back. And that's potentially also why
Speaker 1: he was still hanging around waiting, which makes sense because
Speaker 1: if you go anywhere with somebody, to me, the expectation
Speaker 1: is you are returning to your point of origin with them.
Speaker 1: So if that's the expectation that he wants to put
Speaker 1: out there, then it was a very short amount of
Speaker 1: time between her walking off and when he heard this
Speaker 1: car door posed, car door slam. I think a vehicle
Speaker 1: door shutting is a pretty recognizable sound, but I think
Speaker 1: it could also be anything else.
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 1: Eight hours after he had seen her, he did report
Speaker 1: her messing.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Search teams went out, thinking, all right, she is probably
Speaker 1: still out there, probably around the lake, just maybe wandering
Speaker 1: around a bit, just along the side of the road,
Speaker 1: not really knowing what direction it had in, or maybe
Speaker 1: she's it's in the middle of the night. It's probably
Speaker 1: pretty cold. So they did get out there pretty quickly,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately whiteout conditions came in and that hampered search
Speaker 1: efforts and unfortunately buried any evidence that might have been
Speaker 1: out there. I think we already agree that thing about
Speaker 1: her disappearance points to this being intentional on her part.
Speaker 1: She was parenting five girls. I think their ages were
Speaker 1: between seventeen and five, so maybe it was intentional.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, that sounds like hell.
Speaker 1: I know, but she had already bought and wrapped Christmas presents,
Speaker 1: and there was no bank activity after December fifteenth, So.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: If you have five kids and you've already bought Christmas presents,
Speaker 1: there's probably no money in your bank anyway, no activity
Speaker 1: be had. But in all seriousness, there was nothing that
Speaker 1: indicated that this was intentional or pre planned by Angie.
Speaker 1: Not long before her disappearance, she had told her mother
Speaker 1: that if anything happened to her, so please take care
Speaker 1: of her kids. I agree that timing is eerie, but
Speaker 1: I don't think it applies that she felt that she
Speaker 1: was in danger or that she was planning to disappear.
Speaker 1: I think if you are a single parent to any
Speaker 1: number of children, let alone five, you probably would think,
Speaker 1: at least time to time, even if you're not an
Speaker 1: anxiety riddled person, about what would happen if something happened
Speaker 1: to me. I would think that it would come across
Speaker 1: your mind that you would want reassurance that somebody would step.
Speaker 3: In without question and take over for you.
Speaker 1: So that comment I don't find suspicious, but I do
Speaker 1: find everything else about Thomas's story suspicious. In two thousand
Speaker 1: and three, a man walking his dog found human bone
Speaker 1: fragments in that national forest, not too far from where
Speaker 1: Angie was last seen. And when that was found, investigators
Speaker 1: were pretty confident that it was Angie, but they were wrong.
Speaker 1: Testing came back that what this man had found was
Speaker 1: actually cremated remains that had been scattered, So we're.
Speaker 2: Not very well cremated if.
Speaker 1: Well, because I'm the person I am, I know that
Speaker 1: there typically are larger fragments in cremated remains.
Speaker 3: It's not all dusty.
Speaker 1: It's not like beach it's not like beach sand as
Speaker 1: I think you kind of visualize that kind of texture
Speaker 1: or just very fine dusty, uh substance.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I would just think they'd have to be intact
Speaker 2: enough for them to stand out as skeletal remains, because
Speaker 2: if you just see like a random little bone, you
Speaker 2: don't jump to like this is human, Like you're like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is a little woodland creature and this is a
Speaker 2: normal setting for that. So it had to have raised
Speaker 2: his suspicions enough to be like this is odd, right.
Speaker 1: And from my Internet based knowledge, most crematoriums they do
Speaker 1: grind down or smash down any larger pieces. So the
Speaker 1: intention is you're not getting large chunks of remains within
Speaker 1: those ashes. But maybe there was something that was a
Speaker 1: little bit on the bigger side. My thought is because
Speaker 1: like to your point, like even if you see like
Speaker 1: a small fragment of something, you're not assuming it's human.
Speaker 1: But I'm wondering if scattering was maybe not the right phrasing,
Speaker 1: like did somebody just go out to the woods and
Speaker 1: dump the urn? As opposed to I don't know scatter.
Speaker 1: I feel like you're dispersing it, but I'm wondering if
Speaker 1: it was not dispersed, and it's kind of just like
Speaker 1: a dump situation, and that would obviously catch somebody's eye.
Speaker 1: I think if you saw a pile of ashes, yes,
Speaker 1: that would certainly raise a flag. Yeah, so that's my
Speaker 1: guess as to what tipped this person off, but again
Speaker 1: we don't know for sure. Both the sheriff Department, Sheriff's Department,
Speaker 1: and her family believe that Angie is dead and she
Speaker 1: was lightly killed the day she disappeared. Everyone is also
Speaker 1: on the same page that at the very least Thomas
Speaker 1: knows more than he has shared. He's certainly a person
Speaker 1: of interest on investigator's radar, but there just wasn't any
Speaker 1: evidence that they could classify him as a suspect. And
Speaker 1: there is still an active Facebook page maintained I believe
Speaker 1: by her sister looking for answers.
Speaker 3: I think the general.
Speaker 1: Agreement among any commenters on that page is that Thomas
Speaker 1: perpetrated some kind of crime and not only does he
Speaker 1: know more, but he is likely responsible for and She's death.
Speaker 5: So there has been no arrests, that he was obviously
Speaker 5: questioned extensively, but there just was not enough information for
Speaker 5: them to.
Speaker 1: Legally classify him as a suspect, which is which is
Speaker 1: why I did not include his last name. Like, if
Speaker 1: you want to get his last name, you can very
Speaker 1: easily get it. But in this situation where police have
Speaker 1: not been able to.
Speaker 3: Be more definitive about his connection.
Speaker 1: To this case, I don't know. I just I felt weird.
Speaker 1: Not that I'm trying to I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: I definitely think he's involved, So.
Speaker 2: I don't think but I get it though, Like, all right,
Speaker 2: you have his first name. If you're that curious, google
Speaker 2: the case and you can find out exactly who he is.
Speaker 2: But I think it's tricky because as much as it
Speaker 2: seems like he definitely had something to do with whatever happened,
Speaker 2: there has not been enough evidence to fully support his
Speaker 2: involvement or any foul play, and so it's unfair two
Speaker 2: point fingers in that sense exactly.
Speaker 1: Although decades have passed and their cases may now be cold.
Speaker 1: Grace and Angie have not the forgotten. The families of
Speaker 1: both these women deserve closure, and in at least Angie's case,
Speaker 1: her loved ones believe that someone needs to be held accountable. So,
Speaker 1: after all this time, I don't know if we will
Speaker 1: see resolution to either of these cases, but I do
Speaker 1: hope for the legacy of these women and their families.
Speaker 1: I hope something is found and there's some type of closure.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I didn't want to like derail too much until
Speaker 1: we got to the end. But does anybody else have
Speaker 1: a strange fear of being wrongly accused.
Speaker 3: Of a crime? Or is that just me?
Speaker 2: I mean it's I've had, like, you know, hypothetical scenarios
Speaker 2: run through my head at random times, excuse me, And
Speaker 2: one of them is like, what if I just like
Speaker 2: got arrested for something that I had nothing to do
Speaker 2: with and then like it's my word against whatever evidence
Speaker 2: or I mean, I don't know what evidence they would
Speaker 2: have because I didn't I wasn't involved, but they did
Speaker 2: arrest me for some reason, So like what do they
Speaker 2: have on me? And how do I get myself out
Speaker 2: of this? And then I'm like do I just like,
Speaker 2: then you're going through like the courts, the police interviews, jail,
Speaker 2: and you're like, I, this wasn't me.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: I don't know why I was thinking about that scenario,
Speaker 1: like over the weekend. I think probably I was listening
Speaker 1: to an episode of like forty eight Hours, But I
Speaker 1: don't know. I just sometimes I just think about that,
Speaker 1: especially like when you texted me. Was it Monday or Tuesday?
Speaker 1: Maybe Tuesday? You texted me like, hey, just checking in.
Speaker 1: I haven't heard from you in a couple of days,
Speaker 1: which is unusual. But also then I was like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, this is what happens when someone's accused of
Speaker 1: something and investigators You're like, okay, well, can anyone vouch
Speaker 1: for your whereabouts the last forty eight hours? And I
Speaker 1: thought to myself, no, you you barely talk to anybody
Speaker 1: all weekend. Nobody knows where you were. Nobody can confirm
Speaker 1: what you were doing this weekend. You were just home
Speaker 1: in your card hanging out.
Speaker 2: You're like, but there's no one there who can like
Speaker 2: corroborate that, right, right. So I mean, I will say
Speaker 2: last month, it was not a situation that I would
Speaker 2: have thought i'd find myself in but I had been
Speaker 2: Oh my goodness, I had been talking to someone and
Speaker 2: then I hadn't heard from them for a couple of days,
Speaker 2: and I was like, oh, this is odd, Like what
Speaker 2: is going on?
Speaker 1: You were like, you were like, hey, I was trying
Speaker 1: to reach this person, so I can mark our status
Speaker 1: as it's complicated, and I couldn't get a hold of.
Speaker 2: Them, which is making it feel much more complicated, you know.
Speaker 2: So I hadn't heard from them, and I'm like, this
Speaker 2: is like, this is weird. So I was on a
Speaker 2: trip at the time, and so I texted my girlfriend Stephanie,
Speaker 2: and I said, hey, like, I don't know, this just
Speaker 2: like feels weird. And she's say, ah, yeah, he's in jail.
Speaker 2: It's like, oh, I guess that explains it. Mm hmmm.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So so you never really know, So check in on
Speaker 2: your people because it could just be a couple of days,
Speaker 2: but who knows what they've been up to. You know,
Speaker 2: they could be gardening, they could be getting arrested. Yes,
Speaker 2: just do a little welfare check on him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just check in on people.
Speaker 2: Because now if you get arrested for something that happened
Speaker 2: over the weekend. I can't say that you didn't do it,
Speaker 2: that's true. I can't vouch for you as much as
Speaker 2: I want to.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh, now we just like start taking screenshots of each
Speaker 1: other's locations, just randomly, just be like, oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: If anyone asks me next week where d'anielle was at
Speaker 1: seven pm on Thursday, screenshot, I know where she was.
Speaker 2: You just have a whole file and you bring it
Speaker 2: to the police station. They're like, ma'am, we can just
Speaker 2: look this up with the phone company. And it's like, okay, well,
Speaker 2: I'm saving you that step. You could here's thousands of screenshots.
Speaker 3: And they're like, ma'am, are you a stoker?
Speaker 1: And the answer you would probably say like no, she
Speaker 1: probably has one hundreds of screenshots off by location too.
Speaker 3: That's what friends do for each other, That's.
Speaker 2: What we do. And they're like okay, uh yeah, so
Speaker 2: just yeah, has anyone else thought that they were going
Speaker 2: to be yeah, just accused of a crime.
Speaker 1: And then I think what prompts me to think about
Speaker 1: this is when you have long hair, as you know,
Speaker 1: I'm sure, uh, it tends to get everywhere.
Speaker 2: Oh it's so annoying.
Speaker 1: So I'm like, what if somehow somebody gets strands of
Speaker 1: my hair and it gets deposited at a crime scene.
Speaker 3: Do the police have my DNA? No, but I don't know.
Speaker 3: In these made up scenarios, those details don't matter.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I guess like they'd have, they'd have to
Speaker 2: match it to you and they can't. Right, But there
Speaker 2: you go.
Speaker 3: You can go commit crimes then, so let us.
Speaker 1: Know if you have irrational, uh, ridiculous scenarios that you
Speaker 1: work through, leave us a radio.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Sorry, that just like made me think. So this is
Speaker 2: this is like one of those like controversial topics of
Speaker 2: like what the government has on everyone and what they
Speaker 2: don't have. We've all seen true crime documentaries. We've all
Speaker 2: watched stuff or red stuff or listen to stuff, and
Speaker 2: they're like, and we as the intended audience, know who
Speaker 2: the perpetrator is, but investigators can't link them to the
Speaker 2: crime because they're like, well, if he was in the system,
Speaker 2: we could, but he's not in the system, so we can't.
Speaker 2: And so the question being should everyone just be in
Speaker 2: the system. But then that becomes a very much like
Speaker 2: I don't want to be in anyone's system. I don't
Speaker 2: even want to be in the DMV system, let alone
Speaker 2: the government having my DNA. But in those cases, you're
Speaker 2: just like, this, would they'd be able to solve this
Speaker 2: if they just had that. And because he's never been
Speaker 2: in the system before, he's never gotten in trouble before
Speaker 2: and never been booked before, he is just run and
Speaker 2: loose or she, and then they can't ever link that
Speaker 2: person to the crime, and it's just it's unsolved, even
Speaker 2: though everyone can kind of assume like sometimes who's involved,
Speaker 2: sometimes they can't. But if they were able to identify
Speaker 2: this person, they would be able to close that loop.
Speaker 1: I think like a good example of that is there's
Speaker 1: like a string of crimes committed, they're not linked necessarily
Speaker 1: in any way, and then twenty years later, someone gets
Speaker 1: arrested for something they're info is entering into the system
Speaker 1: and they're like, wow, you were connected to thirteen assaults.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, and then it just comes full circle and
Speaker 2: they're able to actually get some closure for some of
Speaker 2: these cold cases. So moral of the story, everyone out there,
Speaker 2: go get yourself arrested, and we'll all be able to
Speaker 2: clear our names from any previous charge crimes. Yeah, we
Speaker 2: can't help you with what you got arrested before. But
Speaker 2: at least you'll be in the system.
Speaker 1: At least that will show that I didn't do it,
Speaker 1: so you know, yeah, yeah, clear your names.
Speaker 3: M yeah, I clear my name. I'm worried about me
Speaker 3: getting wrongly accused.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll be happy if I never if the government
Speaker 2: never has to have my DNA for anything.
Speaker 3: I think that is a valid goal to have.
Speaker 2: I almost just said they do have my fingertips. They
Speaker 2: don't have my fingertips. They do have my fingerprints, though,
Speaker 2: they do have my fingerprints, but do they have yours?
Speaker 3: No, they do not.
Speaker 2: Ooh, so what were you doing this past weekend? Miss Valid?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: And I think when you're wearing gardening gloves you don't
Speaker 1: leave fingerprints, so don't worry about it.
Speaker 2: You're Wow, you're double safe.
Speaker 5: I know.
Speaker 1: So all right, Well, hope everybody uh enjoyed this rambling.
Speaker 1: At the end, they're like, we rather be at the end.
Speaker 2: We have some people who are like the blah blah
Speaker 2: blah at the beginning of the episode. We're like, okay,
Speaker 2: that's a bit much, but uh it was one time,
Speaker 2: and now that it's at the end of the episode,
Speaker 2: guess what you don't have to listen to the blah
Speaker 2: blah blah. If you don't want to, you heard your story,
Speaker 2: you can cut us off. It's fine, we won't be offended.
Speaker 3: Boom, there we go.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, everybody stay safe from imagined and real scenarios,
Speaker 1: and we'll be back next week