Speaker 1: You're listening to the Mind over Murder podcast.
Speaker 2: My name is Bill Thomas. I'm a writer, consulting, producer,
and now podcaster. I am now trying to use my
experience as the brother of a murder victim to help
other victims of violent crime. I'm working on a book
on the unsolved Colonial Parkway murders, and I'm the co
administrator of the Colonial Parkway Murders Facebook group together with
Kristin Dilly.
Speaker 3: My name is Kristin Dilly. I'm a writer, a researcher,
a teacher, and a victim's advocate, as well as the
social media manager and co administrator for the Colonial Parkway
Murders Facebook page with my partner in crime, Bill Thomas.
Speaker 4: Welcome to Mind of a Murder. I'm Kristin Dilly and.
Speaker 2: I'm Bill Thomas.
Speaker 4: As I was getting ready to figure out what I
was going to put for this intro, I had Drew
Carey in my head going to welcome to whose line
is it anyway? Where everything's made up and the points
don't matter. So I very nearly said it.
Speaker 2: When does Drew Carey say that.
Speaker 4: That's in front of whose line is it anyway? Which
is probably one of the best TV series of the
nineties and two thousands.
Speaker 2: I don't think I'm familiar.
Speaker 4: Oh my gosh, how are you not. It is the
funniest show going. I loved it, Okay, It's a wonderful
little improv show. And so they have four different actors
and are rotating round of guests like Robin Williams, for example,
who would come in and they have a set of
skits that you do, and they would call the actors
up on stage and they would tell them, Okay, here's
your skit, go to it, act it out, and they
would act it out in front of a live studio audience.
It was hysterical. It is possibly one of the finest
pieces of television that I can remember, and I am
absolutely desolate that they don't do reruns of it anymore.
Speaker 2: Oh wait, no, I'm not. I can be able to
find this now that You've got me all curious.
Speaker 4: Honestly, I'm not sure. He's probably on some streaming service somewhere.
I have DVDs of it because I'm old school and
have a massive DVD collection. But it's hysterical. There is
very few things that are guaranteed to make me laugh that.
Speaker 2: Is one of them, and the show again, whose.
Speaker 4: Line is it anyway, It's actually based off of a
British series of the same name, although the American series
is funnier.
Speaker 2: And it sounds like the kind of actors and comedians
that would appear on the show are people that are
strong on improv, like Robins and other people like that.
Speaker 1: Mm hm.
Speaker 4: So you'd have Wayne Brady who could break into spontaneous
song no matter what you do, no matter what you
ask him to do, Colin Machray, Ryan Styles, and then
they would get major guest stars in there, and sometimes
they bring in like a random random celebrities, so like
David Hasselhoff starred one day as a guest star, so
did Robin Williams day, Jerry Springer one day, Like it
is the very nineties and two thousand.
Speaker 2: I will seek that you should.
Speaker 4: It's hysterical, but that is the standard intro, and so
that's what was in my head when I started with
my own intro today.
Speaker 2: I did think you were awfully chipper this fine summer morning.
Speaker 4: Yes, I am offly chipper. It is a fine summer morning.
I know you're having terrible, horrible flooding up there, but
we're other than being caught in the heat bubble. I
think that's what they're calling it, the heat bubble. Pretty
good down here, nice and sunny, very pretty.
Speaker 2: And you're finally on vacation.
Speaker 4: To be fair, I've been on vacation for four weeks now,
but yes, vacation.
Speaker 2: But whose family.
Speaker 4: My family is here. My family has come to visit.
Speaker 2: So yeah, no, I don't know if having family visit
counts as vacation or not.
Speaker 4: It doesn't technically, but I would like to give a
shout out to my dad, whose eightieth birthday is coming
up in two days, and so we're having a big
family reunion for my dad's eightieth birthday.
Speaker 2: So happy birthday, Dad.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yep, eighty. The old man is still kicking, doing great.
Speaker 2: And still working, if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 4: Yes, he has a produce business and he provides produce
to most of the restaurants in town. So he's constantly
running around doing things, hauling vegetables. He's very active, and
so I am hoping, knocking on wood, that we're going
to have him for I don't know, maybe ten twenty
more years. He actually called me the other day and said,
I've decided I'm going to live till ninety.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, that's a good goal, all right, good goal.
My dad also lived to be ninety, so as long.
Speaker 4: Mom's already said she's going to live to be one.
Speaker 2: Hundred, so good for them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they're going to manage it.
Speaker 2: I think I'm assuming your dad eats lots of vegetables too,
Yes he does. Okay, there you go, stay active, stay healthy,
and eat lots of vegetables. Absolutely, onto more serious topics.
Speaker 4: This is longer intro than normal, but I think people
like us enough that they'll forgive a little bit of
banter every once in a while, I hope. So we
did want to jump in and do some final thoughts
on Burden of Proof. We hope you've been enjoying our
coverage so far of that, and we were really pleased
to be able to have investigator Wendy Reid, filmmaker Cynthia Hill,
and Steven Pando's brother Jennifer Pandos on the show. So
we hope you've enjoyed our coverage of that. But we
wanted to take a couple of minutes and do a
final wrap up here and give our thoughts on the
whole entire series as we know it. You would ask
me on the phone yesterday, Bill, where are you in
who you think actually did this? And I'm waffle in
a hardcore I really am. I guess I'm just not
sure at the end of the day, after four episodes
and talking with so many guests, I'm not sure where
I stand on this. And I think it's because you
had mentioned and you had iterated it so much more
gracefully than I have. If you want to make an
argument that the parents are involved, there's enough reasonable doubt
for the boyfriend that you're going to have a hard
time making a conviction stick, and likewise for the boyfriend.
So I guess I'm really not sure where I'm at.
There is enough reasonable out for both, but I know
you have a strong conviction one way or the other,
and so what side do you come down on?
Speaker 2: Before I go there, let me just say that I
think some of this thinking was influenced by our conversation
with Wendy Reid. And remember we, in addition to saying
what people say on the airs, conversation before and afterwards
usually yes, and sometimes in preparation for interviewing a guest.
Forgive me I'm not trying to hide anything that Wendy
had said, But Wendy had said something about the fact
that wearing her investigator hat, that this would be a
tough case to get a conviction. Because, forgive me, I'm paraphrasing,
I'm not saying Wendy said this exactly. But my takeaway
was it's almost like the two let's call them groups
of leading suspects almost cancel each other out. And Wendy
Reid is a former investigator who was thinking, can I
prove this with the help of the commonwealth prosecutor and
a legal team, can I prove this beyond a reasonable
doubt in a court of law? And even the origin
of the name here burden of Proof is the name
of this HBO Max series. I come down after watching
the four episodes carefully and reading dozens of articles about
this case and about this series, as well as talking
to Wendy, Cynthia Hill, Stephen Pandos, and others. I'm in
the camp that I believe that her former boyfriend Tony
Tobler and his wife Corey could be involved in the
disappearance and likely homicide of Jennifer Pandos. As we discussed
on the podcast. I find the behavior of the Pandos' parents,
Ron and Margie incredibly frustrating and potentially incriminating because their
behavior was just so profoundly bizarre from my point of view,
and I think I may be uniquely qualified to make
this state. I understand that people under what is probably
the most stressful and excruciatingly painful experience of their lives,
losing a child, adult or minor, may do and say
things that don't seem to make sense to those of
us that who haven't lived yet. But I thought the
Pandos's comments and behavior and just truly strange things that
they did made them look guilty even to this day.
Yet I can't help but think that the person or
persons who had the greatest motivation to make Jennifer disappear
were Tony Tobler and his wife Corey. Let's not forget.
I don't think it gets quite enough time in the documentary,
and there's only four episodes. There had been a pregnancy
the year before, and a fifteen year old girl pregnant
with her sixteen year old boyfriend's baby. Back then and
even now is very different, dificult situation to find yourself
in and I cannot help but think that the distancing
language that Tony used in the interview segment, his body language,
his wife Corey's body language, their attempt to minimize the relationship, yes,
between Tony and Jennifer, which seems to be more than
offset by these very intimate, passionate notes back and forth
between the two teenagers when they were a couple. Clearly,
Cory and Jennifer were romantic rivals for this young man.
I'm not buying the way that Tony in particular seems
to minimize the relationship. Oh, it was only a couple
of months, and no, I believe that's not factually correct.
I believe there is significant overlap between his having a
relationship with up to an including sexual contact because we
have a pregnancy in the middle of all of this.
So I'm not making any of this up. I believe
his attempts to slough that off are way less than convincing.
And I think that I could easily see Corey giving
Tony an ultimatum, which is either she goes or I go,
and I could see him desperately making a decision that
he had to kill her. In his sixteen year old mine,
that was a logical conclusion to Corey's potential threats, and
I could even see her being involved in a cover
up of Jennifer Pando's murder.
Speaker 4: And that's I think that's really where we get to.
The crux of the matter here for me, is that
there is so much suspicious behavior on both sides, and
definitely the fact that he minimized his relationship with jen
when clearly it is not the case that it was, Oh,
we just dated for a little bit. NOAHM, I dude,
it's more than that. That is what I guess rings
the most bells for me. But I also can't get
past to the fact that you have who is very
clearly emotionally abusive, probably physically abusive as well, and he
made all those damning statements up to and including hypothetically
I killed her and pushed her down and she hit
her head or whatever. Who says that with relation to
their daughter. I don't understand that. For me, that was
if we're looking at big red flags here. On Tony's side,
you've got the minimizing of the relationship pretending it's less
than it was. And on mom and Dad's side, you've
got Run's bizarre comments up to and including I will
get a plane, I'll take you to her body right now. Again,
who says that, I think.
Speaker 2: That that incredibly damning to say that. Now he did
recan't He did back off, and he obviously didn't take
them to the place where his daughter, Jennifer's body could
be found. But I did find that profoundly disturbing.
Speaker 4: Now you've got when you take Charlie may And to account,
who really only showed up in the last episode, I
don't know how much credence you can give Charlie this
idea of dissolving a body in acid. I was talking
to a friend last night who had watched the documentary
series and he'd gotten done, and he messaged me and he
was like, that took a bit of a turn, did it?
And he said, look, you can dissolve a body in
acid in a bathtub and breaking bad, but I don't
think you can do it in real life. And then,
because I'm a writer, because I'm a podcaster, I did
what I normally do when I need a question answered
about this, And I'm hoping that the FBI, when they
look at my search history one day, will understand that
as a writer and a podcaster. This is stuff that
I look up, but I looked up can you dissolve
a body in acid?
Speaker 2: Yeah? That is a little unusual, but I will confess
that my search history probably contains a lot of similar
activity which I have not personally been involved in.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I'm hoping that the FBI or whoever it is
that one day theoretically will look at our search history.
I hope they can. There should be a filter that says,
I'm a writer, not a serial killer. I'm a researcher,
not a serial killer. I'm not looking to dissolve bodies
and acid. I just want to know if you can.
And actually, interestingly enough for anybody who wants to know,
can you. There is a great article that I found
in it's just a little online periodical. It's an online
periodical called Chemistry World, and I found an opinion article
from June twenty seventeen of Chemistry World called the acid
bath Test, and it does discuss, Hey, there have been
killers over the years that have used acid to destroy bodies,
but did it work? And all of them were hot
because of paper trails, because the police were able to
track down like this person went to home depot and
got a whole ton of muratic acid and a big
fifty gallon drum. But they also just said there's always
no matter how much acid you pour in on a body.
I'm going to try it to go into too many
gruesome details here. Yeah, no matter how much acid you
pour on a body, there's still going to be stuff leftover.
There was a guy who managed to dissolve most of
a body, but there was still teeth, bones, and fat leftover,
and that required disposal as well. So the idea that like,
you just stuff somebody in a fifty gallon drum, pour
a bunch of acid over it, and it's good. According
to this article, that's not how it works.
Speaker 2: My understanding as well. Although you're the one that's been
researching chemistry world.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like I said, I'm hoping the FBI understands my search.
Speaker 2: History again without getting too graphic. A body consists of
hard stuff and soft stuff. Yep. My older brother Richard,
as a doctor, would be groaning right about now. But
the hard stuff obviously doesn't go away. So teeth and
bones and those hard parts are found decades later. If
they're still together, or if there's enough of them, it
could only take a tooth. Our friends in the forensic
world at Athram and other top labs around the country
are solving cases with as little as a bone fragment
or a tooth and then extracting DNA from inside those
hard parts. So even if you were able to dissolve
much of the soft tissue that makes up a person's
body and dispose of that, you still have all these
other elements of what make up the human body. Yeah,
and you still have a disposal issue with those hard parts.
As gruesome as it sounds, you'd still have to dispose of,
let's say, the fifty five gallon drums and the acid
and the components of the human body that were left behind.
The Breaking Bad series ran from two thousand and eight
to twenty thirteen, and I've.
Speaker 4: Never watched it, So if you've watched it, you're going
to have to kill Meana, Did you believe that?
Speaker 2: I have never watched it either. It's always been on
my list of programs I'd like to watch. But remember Pamela,
my wonderful and long suffering partner, doesn't want to watch
just true crime, so she usually looks for things that
are uplifting. She'd probably like to watch Breakfast at Tiffany's
one more time before she'd want to watch something about
dissolving missing loved one's bodies an acid. Charlie may have
dreamed out the acid idea years later, but when I
spoke to Wendy Reid, she said that Charlie May's story
about this potential disposal of Jennifer Pandos's body probably pre
dates Breaking Bad by a number of years now. The
idea of dissolving human remains in acid has been around
for many years, and it has been done. As you
pointed out, if Charlie May, who does not strike me
as the most reliable witness ever, is making up this story,
Wendy Reid made the point when I asked her about it,
is his story consistent over the years she believes that
it is. That doesn't mean that it's not made up.
At least he's come up with the story and he's
sticking to it.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I don't know at the end of the day,
which of these two scenarios I believe more. I would
say that they are both probable, and I'm just honestly
not I don't have enough swaying me in one direction
or the other to be able to come down on
one side or the other. So, even though I don't
like to firmly straddle the fence on cases like this,
that's honestly where I find myself right now, which I'm
sure is a little annoying from your standpoint too, But
I'm just I'm honestly not sure. I guess where I
come down more than anything else, for this would I
take out of this more than anything else is just
Stephen's story and how hard this has been for him,
and how maddening it must be not to have these
answers for so long, and that's, of course a theme
that we're both familiar with. I guess if I had
to focus on any one thing that I got out
of Burden of Proof, it would be Stephen's story. With
Jen's I don't want to say it's fallen into the background,
because it hasn't. And I want justice for Jennifer and
answers for her. When I think of anything from Burden
of Proof, I think of Stephen, and I think of
what he said in our last episode, which is in
the absence of justice from my sister. I just want peace.
Speaker 2: One thing in our discussion here, we're focusing on two
principal groups that we think could be responsible for Jennifer's disappearance.
I want to make it clear that it could be
a third party. It could very easily be someone who
may be mentioned in the documentary or maybe hasn't been
mentioned at all. I do think the fact that King's
Mill is a secured residential facility, and as Stephen pointed
out on the podcast, even one of the two gates
was closed at eleven PM or midnight, leaving only one
or at most two ways to legitimately gain entrance to
the Kingsmill property. I think that it becomes challenging to
narrow down to other potential suspects if you can't figure
out how they got onto the property at the same
time how they got off the property. Now it's possible
that Jennifer's remains could be somewhere within the Kingsmill property,
and there's a lot of question as to whether the
property was properly searched. Although certainly cadaver dogs were used,
they did hit on the area under the condo she
lived with her parents, and that's not ever adequately explained.
People that we've spoken to don't seem to have an
explanation for it. Either. Now, dogs will hit on places.
We've been involved in cadaver dog searches before for a
variety of reasons, and they are there to smell decay,
and they are supposed to only hit on a place
where a human being, that is, a body has been placed.
But there could be a lot of different aspects to that,
which could include by the way, Jennifer being murdered or
body being placed under the condo and then moved at
a later point, which could be hours or days or longer.
It is interesting that the dogs did hit on the
crawl space area under the condo and yet no remains
wherever found there. There's discussion some of this isn't completely
satisfactory from my point of view as to whether the
mill pond was properly searched. And I don't even know
if that's a body of water that you can drain
or if divers would have to be, nor how deep
it is. And then of course the James River is
not far away as well.
Speaker 4: Am I correct, that's right, there is a marina on property.
Speaker 2: I do agree with you, Kristen that my strongest takeaway
of the series is the focus on Stephen and his
personal journey. And it was very interesting when Cynthia Hill said,
when they began creating this documentary, what's that now seven
years ago? It was never their goal for this series
to be a who'd done it? As she put it,
it was to focus on Stephen Pandos and his family,
their loss, and their journey through this process. I don't
think anyone anticipated they were going to be working on
this documentary for seven years or that Stephen personally, together
with his family, went through so much in terms of
his pursuit for justice for his sister and answers for
himself and the rest of his family. And obviously, at
this point the series has to end on a question
mark because we don't have any answers in the Jennifer
Pandos disappearance.
Speaker 4: We would encourage anyone who thinks that they have information
about the disappearance of Jennifer Pandos to reach out to
the James City County Police Department. Any tip that you have,
anything that you think maybe worthwhile, is definitely something that
is worth calling and about. So please do make sure
if you are local and you have any information related
to the disappearance of Jennifer Panda that you reach out
to the James City County Detectives.
Speaker 2: You're listening to mindover Murder. We'll be right back after
this word from our sponsors. We're back here at mindover Murder, all.
Speaker 4: Right, moving on to our next area of discussion here,
very interested to hear that the leading suspect in the
nineteen eighty two thailanol poisonings was found dead in his
home over this past weekend. James Lewis, seventy six years old,
was found dead in his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Sunday.
They do not suspect foul play of any variety natural
causes as far as they're aware. I'm going to quote
from The Independent here. The sole suspect and the tailannyl
poisoning murders that claimed seven lives and led to changes
in how OTC prescription drugs are manufactured and sold has died.
For anyone who's unfamiliar with the tailoanol case, let me
just give you a real quick hit of background information here.
The tailenyal murders took place in October of nineteen eighty two.
Bottles of tailanol around the Chicago, Illinois area were laced
with potassium cyanide that ultimately led to seven deaths, including
very tragically three deaths in the same family. The victims
of the Taylanal murders are Mary Kellerman age twelve, Mary McFarland,
age thirty one, Mary Lynn Reiner age twenty seven, Paula
Prince age thirty five, Adam Janis twenty seven, his brother
Stanley Janis twenty five, and Stanley's wife, Teresa Janis, age
twenty and all three of them died within a couple
of hours of each other. Police long suspected that the
motive for the Tailanhol poisonings was revenge, which I think
is very interesting. Lead suspect James Lewis had a a
five year old daughter named Tony. She died in nineteen
seventy four after sutures made by the Johnson Company, which
does make tailanl Those sutures were used to fix her
congenital heart defect. Those sutures did tear and they led
to her death. So a long running theory and the
reason for the Tilenhol poisonings was ostensibly revenge against Johnson
and Johnson James Lewis was never actually convicted for any
of the murders in the Tilanol case. What he was
convicted for ultimately was attempting to extort manufacturer Johnson and Johnson.
He sent a letter claiming responsibility for the deaths, and
he demanded one million dollars of Johnson and Johnson to
stop the killing. For that crime, he was imprisoned and
ultimately released in nineteen ninety five, after which point he
moved to Massachusetts and lived a quiet life.
Speaker 2: Now I'm going to push back on something that the
Independent said, which is that James Lewis was the soul
suspect in the Tailanhall poisoning murders. Lewis was never convicted
of actually being involved in the product hampering, all of
which are in the Chicago land areas in Chicago and
suburban areas surrounding Chicago. Lewis lived in the Boston area.
I have been fascinated by this case since it happened,
and I am far from an expert, but I have
talked to a number of people about this case and
done a fair amount of research over the years. The
FBI and the Illinois State Police and local law enforcement
in Chicago, together with other law enforcement agencies, were never
able to prove that James Lewis was involved in this
product tampering. There is still a strong possibility that Lewis
took advantage of the situation. I don't doubt that James
Lewis had an agenda and that he wanted to strike
out against the Johnson and Johnson company, who was you said,
manufactured and distributed tailanol. But many experts feel that there's
a possibility that he just stepped in when he saw
that Johnson and Johnson was scrambling to recall every bottle
of tailanol on product shelves, grocery stores, pharmacies, you name it,
in an effort to recall all that product to make
sure that this product tampering and these ensuing deaths weren't
happening on a wider scale. But they weren't. It was
only in the Chicago area. They were never able to
figure out how James Lewis was able to conduct this
product tampering, which would have involved opening these toalenol bottles,
taking out the capsules, inserting cyanide in place of the acetamenefin,
which is the active ingredient in chilanol, and then buttoning
them back up and then placing them on pharmacy and
grocery store shelves. It has always struck me that they
were never able to prove that. Now they were able
to prove that Lewis wrote the letter and that he
was attempting to extort the money, which is what he
was convicted for. Here it is, it's all these years later,
forty years, they still can't prove that he actually was
directly involved in the product hampering. So did he have
an accomplice in the Chicago area or how did this work?
Now we've talked to some experts who think that he
is an extortionist, but he may not be a murderer.
Speaker 4: Very interesting. This is a case that we have toyed
around with covering on Mind over Murdered. If you, all,
our beloved listening audience, are interested in having us cover
the tail and all murders, please dor weigh in on
our social media page and let us know we are
happy to do some additional coverage on this fun little
piece of trivia for anybody orn after the nineteen eighty
If you have ever hated the tamper resistant childproof seal
and the foil that is on top of the tailen
all bottles and advill bottles and every other type of
bottle that is a direct result of the tail and
all killings. The FDA introduced anti tampering features on over
the counter drugs, such as that foil seal. I vaguely
remember back in the day when it used to be
a screw bottle and then a little bit of cotton
on the inside that you would have to pull out, correct,
But I don't remember. I actually remember a time before
the foil seal. The taileant All Bill was also passed
by Congress in nineteen eighty three, and that did make
tampering with packaging a federal offense, and that is a
direct result of the tail in all case.
Speaker 2: Johnson and Johnson, by the way, was I think correctly
lauded for the most successful product we call ever every
division of Johnson and Johnson. That's a very large company.
They manufacture all kinds of drugs and consumer goods. Every
single employee available to Johnson and Johnson was sent out
into the field and over the course of a couple
of days they collected every single bottle of Thailand and
Hall on every single shelf in the United States. It
was actually a pretty amazing undertaking. What I find fascinating
is that they never found any tampered product beyond that
small circle of pharmacies and grocery stores convenience stores in
the Chicago area.
Speaker 4: Very interesting.
Speaker 2: One of the things that's interested us is that we
were approached several years ago by a legitimate guy, a
well informed individual who has an alternate theory on the
Tailanhaw murders. As Kristin asked, is this the kind of
thing you'd like to see us explore? We'd only be
interested in talking about this case or any other if
we could bring some fresh perspective or new information. We
certainly don't mind talking about the case. It's a fascinating case.
It happened so long ago now over forty years, that
many people don't even remember the case or weren't even
alive who might be true crime fans. It was one
of those situations where the entire country was almost completely
paralyzed by this because it was so frightening that you'd
go to the pharmacy, pick something up for a headache,
bring it home, and you'd be dead in a matter
of a couple of hours. And as you mentioned, Kristin,
this situation with the young Janice family.
Speaker 4: Oh, that's awful.
Speaker 2: Three people in the same family all died within hours
of each other because they all shared a bottle of
time and all.
Speaker 4: One of them. So I think it was Adam Janis.
Adam Janis, he had taken the tileot all for headache.
I think it was he passed away relatively quickly after
coming home and from the hospital learning that their loved
one had died. It was either the sister in law
or the brother who took the tilet all because they
had a headache from crying, and then one died and
then the other did right after that, And I just
I can't imagine what terrible feelings that family was left
with to lose not one, not two, but three people
almost on the exact same day as a result of
the same bottle of contaminated to pilot all. It's awful.
I'm remembering properly. Last year, the surviving child of the
Janice family was actually featured on one of the investigative
shows talking about the fact that it's been forty years
and there still hasn't been an arrest in the case,
and that was just heartbreaking.
Speaker 2: One thing that cropped up in the Boston Globes coverage
of Lewis's death, and the Globe has done a fair
amount of coverage because of course James Lewis lived in
the Boston area for many years. They covered something that
I didn't remember seeing. The Boston Globe mentioned that the
Chicago Tribune in their coverage last year on the fortieth
anniversary of the time in All Murders, mentioned that James
lewis personal history, which is pretty twisted, had included being
charged in nineteen seventy eight with killing an elderly client
while he was working as a tax accountant. The charge
was dropped due to a police procedural error. I don't
remember ever hearing that Lewis was involved in other potential homicides.
So that's a fascinating little tidbit which will now steer
us back towards rereading the Chicago Tribunes coverage which came
up in the Boston Globe story about Lewis's body being discovered. Lewis,
by the way, was married and his wife was out
of town at the time of his death. Kristin, as
you mentioned, it appears for the moment anyway, that James
Lewis's death appears to be a natural one.
Speaker 4: Their suspicious circs for that very interesting sort of coda
to the Tailan All murders. We are very interested in
covering it if you are lovely listeners would be interested
in hearing us talk about it, So please do let
us know on our social media page how much interest
do you have in coverage on the tailenhol murders. Another
big piece of true crime news that happened just yesterday
is the parole of Manson killer Leslie van Houghton, And
because this is such a tremendous issue that we want
to get into, we are going to save that for
a future episode, So do stay tuned for an entirely
separate episode on Leslie van Houghton seventy three, who was paroled.
She is one of only two surviving Manson killers who
has received parole. There are still two others that are
in custody, and the others, cluding Manson, have since died
in prison. We are going to cover that particular sticky wicket.
When I put up an article on our Facebook page,
we had any number of people who had a wide
variety of opinions. So we are going to take a
little bit of time talk about the things that y'all
have said to us on our Facebook page about Leslie
van Houghton's parole and we are going to weigh in
with our two cents as well, so do stay tuned
for that in an upcoming episode. That's going to do
it for this episode of mind Over Murder. Thank you
so much for listening. We'll see you next time.
Speaker 1: Mind Over Murder is a production of Absolute Zero and
Another Dog Productions.
Speaker 2: Our executive producers are Bill Thomas and Kristin Dilley.
Speaker 1: Our logo art is by Pamela Arnois.
Speaker 2: Our theme music is by Kevin McLoud.
Speaker 1: Mind Over Murder is distributed in partnership with Coral Space Media.
Speaker 2: You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.
Speaker 1: You can also follow our page on the Colonial Parkway
Murders on Facebook.
Speaker 2: And finally, you can follow Bill Thomas on Twitter at
Bill Thomas five six.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to mind Over Murder.
Speaker 2: Hu