Speaker 1: Last episode, we began talking about Spahalski brothers. They were
Speaker 1: a pair of twins who grew up together, but even
Speaker 1: as their path split, they both went on to become murderers.
Speaker 1: So be sure to check out part one first, and
Speaker 1: if you're ready, then let's begin with the second half
Speaker 1: with Part two.
Speaker 2: My name's Ben, I'm Nicole, and you're listening to Wicked Ingram,
Speaker 2: a true crime podcast.
Speaker 1: Warning the following podcasts and material intent for a maturial audience.
Speaker 1: Listener discretion is advised. I don't know if anyone follows
Speaker 1: us on social media's but we've been doing some reels
Speaker 1: lately and Nicole put out her first reel the other day.
Speaker 2: Is that my first reel?
Speaker 1: Well, you're first reel in a long time. We did
Speaker 1: some reels back in the day, like a couple of
Speaker 1: years ago, and then we just didn't and now we're doing.
Speaker 2: It again, and it could I'd have to go look back,
Speaker 2: but it could be I guess, the first solo I.
Speaker 1: Don't real I don't think it's the first solo reel, okay,
Speaker 1: but it's the first solo reel in our new era
Speaker 1: in a very long time, in years probably, Yeah, And
Speaker 1: we're going to be making sure that we're getting very
Speaker 1: consistent at posting. So if you want to check out
Speaker 1: our socials links in the description, but I don't think
Speaker 1: you're here necessarily to go and see our Instagram stuff,
Speaker 1: although you could see our actual faces rather than just
Speaker 1: hearing our voice. But you are here for a podcast,
Speaker 1: for an episode, and for.
Speaker 2: A part two episode.
Speaker 1: It is part two of the Spahalski Brothers Today. Do
Speaker 1: you remember what happened in Part one?
Speaker 2: Yeah, to some extent. Actually, this one is sort of
Speaker 2: has sort of stuck in there. I've thought about it
Speaker 2: a few times since Tuesday, So.
Speaker 1: Well, that's good. I don't know if anyone heard the
Speaker 1: rooster crow in between me talking and Nicole. Yeah, gotta
Speaker 1: love little farm life in our tiny home. But I'm
Speaker 1: glad you've been thinking about it. I do have a
Speaker 1: summary for you if you're ready to hear that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's because I mean, I'm sure there's bits and
Speaker 2: pieces I've forgotten, So let's hear that.
Speaker 1: Right into the story, right into the gap and then
Speaker 1: the story. Yeah, okay, okay, So in part one, I
Speaker 1: started at the very beginning with Robert and Steven Spahalski
Speaker 1: they were growing up side by side in Elmira, New York.
Speaker 1: They were identical twins, living in the same house, with
Speaker 1: the same upbringing and same early environment, all of it.
Speaker 1: And that's what makes a story so strange right from
Speaker 1: the very start, because there's nothing obvious in those early
Speaker 1: years that explains what was actually coming. But as they
Speaker 1: moved into their teenage years, things began to shift. Robert
Speaker 1: started getting into trouble, first stealing cars, setting fires, and
Speaker 1: getting arrested. In nineteen seventy one, everything changed when Stephen,
Speaker 1: the other brother, at just sixteen years old, killed a
Speaker 1: man named Ronald Ripley in a brutal attack using both
Speaker 1: a hammer and a knife. Now he confessed and claimed
Speaker 1: it was triggered by an unwonted sexual advance, and eventually
Speaker 1: pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He was sentenced to prison from
Speaker 1: that point on, and Stephen's life became defined by the system,
Speaker 1: serving time, getting released, and then going right back in. Now,
Speaker 1: what stands out in his mindset, even years later on,
Speaker 1: was there was no remorse in the way he talked
Speaker 1: about what he did. He simply justified the murder of Ronald,
Speaker 1: and that was that. So while Stephen becomes a brother
Speaker 1: who killed and got caught. Robert, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: stayed free on the outside, drifting through crime, addiction and
Speaker 1: unstable living in Rochester, and then in nineteen ninety he
Speaker 1: crossed the very same line his brother did. But how
Speaker 1: it differs is that no one realized it. He killed
Speaker 1: a woman named Maureen Armstrong, then willingly spoke to police
Speaker 1: during the investigation. He actually walked up to the police
Speaker 1: to talk about it, and then he got away scott free.
Speaker 1: Then it happened again with Adrian Berger in nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 1: He was questioned but released. And where we left off
Speaker 1: was with Charles Grant. He was found dead and someone
Speaker 1: was found driving his car impersonating him during a typical roadstop.
Speaker 1: But however they didn't realize that fact until it was
Speaker 1: far too late. So that's where we are investigating the
Speaker 1: death of Charles grand and who was impersonating him. Does
Speaker 1: that all sound familiar?
Speaker 2: It sure does. Okay, it's wild. The fact that they're
Speaker 2: twins is just what really makes it wild.
Speaker 1: Twins that went down this same path, right, And that's
Speaker 1: very interesting with his story is there's so much that
Speaker 1: is the same. But you'll see when we get to
Speaker 1: the end that there is so much that's different at
Speaker 1: the same time.
Speaker 2: Wow, okay, you're really just getting us on the edge
Speaker 2: of our seat right off the.
Speaker 1: Bay at well, I'm not trying to on purpose. That's
Speaker 1: just literally part of this story. It's a major fact
Speaker 1: that there are such diverging personality traits, but so many
Speaker 1: things that come together in the same way too. It's
Speaker 1: different but same, you know. I don't know how else
Speaker 1: to put it, but anyways, I think it's on with
Speaker 1: the story if you're ready.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: So inside Charles's residence, investigators began the process of reconstructing
Speaker 1: what had happened that night he had died, and the
Speaker 1: nature of the attack wasn't exactly immediately apparent. Now, Charles
Speaker 1: had suffered multiple blows to the head, which was consistent
Speaker 1: with being struck repeatedly with a blunt object, and a
Speaker 1: hammer would later be identified as a weapon used in
Speaker 1: the assault, but the force of the blow and the
Speaker 1: number of times they had been delivered well indicated the
Speaker 1: attack was sustained instead of a single moment, and interestingly enough,
Speaker 1: there were additional details that suggested someone had attempted to
Speaker 1: interfere with the later and following investigation. See the thermostat
Speaker 1: in the home. It had been turned up, significantly increasing
Speaker 1: the temperature inside the residence. It was a clear attempt
Speaker 1: to help accelerate the decomposition process of Charles's body.
Speaker 2: Jeez, I would never have thought of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It actually it worked to a certain degree, ok too.
Speaker 1: I complicated some of the efforts to determine the exact
Speaker 1: time of death. However, it didn't prevent investigators from really
Speaker 1: establishing a general timeline though, But it did introduce just
Speaker 1: enough of that like uncertainty to make sure that the
Speaker 1: early stages of the investigation were a little more difficult.
Speaker 1: You know though, if it was left for much of
Speaker 1: an extended time, if it was days, that's when it
Speaker 1: could have started affecting a lot more Like if they
Speaker 1: found Charles a week later and he was sitting in
Speaker 1: that hot temperature, it would have made things extremely difficult.
Speaker 2: Oh dang, I don't know, I've never heard of that before.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean people do many things to try and
Speaker 1: speed up in slow decomp right, I mean, putting bodies
Speaker 1: in water accelerates dcomp Putting bodies on ice slows d coomp. Right,
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of different things, and yeah, turning
Speaker 1: up the thermostatus is one of those things. Interesting Now,
Speaker 1: the fact that the attack had occurred inside Charles's home
Speaker 1: suggested that whoever was responsible had likely been invited inside.
Speaker 1: Because there were no signs of forced entries, it didn't
Speaker 1: support any idea of like a theft or a break in,
Speaker 1: so it indicated that the initial interaction between Charles and
Speaker 1: whoever attacked him had likely not been a situation where
Speaker 1: they appeared threatening. So, with all this information at hand,
Speaker 1: detectives began canvassing the area and speaking with anyone who
Speaker 1: might have seen something unusual, and one witness, a man
Speaker 1: named Alan Streeter, provided a detail that quickly became rather significant.
Speaker 1: He reported seeing someone leaving the area in Charles's vehicle
Speaker 1: around the time the investigation believed the murder had taken place. Now,
Speaker 1: he did not know the individual's name, However, he was
Speaker 1: able to provide a description that was specific enough to
Speaker 1: be pretty useful, and when he was presented with a
Speaker 1: photo lineup well, Alan Streeter identified one of the images
Speaker 1: without hesitation. The man he selected was Robert Spahalski. Investigators
Speaker 1: then went back and revisited the earlier traffic stop, the
Speaker 1: officer who had conducted it was shown the very same
Speaker 1: photo lineup, and he too identified Robert as the individual
Speaker 1: he had spoken with the man who had claimed to
Speaker 1: be Charles Grand while driving Charles's vehicle. So with those
Speaker 1: two identifications in place, the connection between Robert and the
Speaker 1: case became suddenly much stronger. He was quickly located and
Speaker 1: taken into custody, but the charges brought against him, while
Speaker 1: they reflected the limitations of what investigators could prove at
Speaker 1: that point. See, while they had clear evidence that he
Speaker 1: had been in possession of Charles's car and that he
Speaker 1: had impersonated him during the traffic stop, they did not
Speaker 1: yet have the forensic evidence necessary to play inside the
Speaker 1: home at the time of the killing. As a result,
Speaker 1: he was charged only with criminal impersonation and related offenses
Speaker 1: rather than murder, but that didn't mean investigators were moving
Speaker 1: on from him. Even when Robert was released. However, in
Speaker 1: Robert's mind for the third time, he had now been
Speaker 1: linked to a violent death questioned by police as well,
Speaker 1: and he had simply gotten away with it. And even
Speaker 1: though investigators had their eyes on him, the momentum around
Speaker 1: the case began to fade. Without new evidence, and without
Speaker 1: a confession or a clear forensic link tying Robert directly
Speaker 1: to the act of the murder itself, the case stalled.
Speaker 1: Detectives who had been focused on it were pulled towards
Speaker 1: other investigations and other victims with other crimes that required
Speaker 1: their attention. In practical terms, the case moved from an
Speaker 1: active pursuit to an unresolved status. The same was true
Speaker 1: for the death of Moraine Armstrong and Adrian Burger. Each
Speaker 1: case existed in its own file, with its own set
Speaker 1: of facts and unanswered questions. There were even similarities between them,
Speaker 1: but without a link, they remained separate in the eyes
Speaker 1: of the system, each one waiting for something new that
Speaker 1: might move it forward. Eventually, memories faded with the passing years,
Speaker 1: and witnesses became harder to locate, and Robert he continued
Speaker 1: living his life. He remained in Rochester, moving between apartments
Speaker 1: and areas where people lived close to the margins of society,
Speaker 1: places where economy and stability and drug use and transient
Speaker 1: relationships were very common.
Speaker 2: He's he's killed three people now and he's just still
Speaker 2: out and about living his life.
Speaker 1: Correct and he was questioned each and every.
Speaker 2: Time, whoa okay? I thought for sure this third one
Speaker 2: it would be you know okay, like we got you,
Speaker 2: Like this is the end of it.
Speaker 1: Nope, they had nothing. Huh, And he's just outliving his life.
Speaker 1: Years are passing at this point. Honestly, whoa okay?
Speaker 2: That is like wild and also fricking terrifying.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, in the way he was living, though, it
Speaker 1: was very possible to exist without drawing much attention to himself,
Speaker 1: even for someone with a history of arrests and repeated
Speaker 1: contact with law enforcement like it allowed him to go
Speaker 1: those years without drawing that attention. Now, his crack cocaine
Speaker 1: addiction continued as well, and it shaped his decisions in
Speaker 1: ways that were both immediate and long term, influencing who
Speaker 1: he was associated with and how he spent his time,
Speaker 1: and even what risks he was willing to take. Supporting
Speaker 1: that habit required a steady flow of money, and without
Speaker 1: stable employment, he continued to rely on the same mix
Speaker 1: of activities that had honestly defined his life for years
Speaker 1: leading up to nineteen ninety one. He dealt drugs on
Speaker 1: a small scale, engaged in theft when necessary, and continued
Speaker 1: working as a sex worker. He was still arrested, periodically
Speaker 1: processed through the system, and then released once again. The charges, however,
Speaker 1: remained relatively small in the grand scheme of things such
Speaker 1: as burglary related offenses and other crimes. Was just one
Speaker 1: of the many individuals moving through that same cycle in
Speaker 1: a system that was managing a large number of similar cases,
Speaker 1: so he didn't stand out at all. There were moments, however,
Speaker 1: when the past did seem like it was close to resurfacing.
Speaker 1: In July of nineteen ninety two, less than a year
Speaker 1: after the death of Charles Grand, Robert was approached by
Speaker 1: two police officers while sitting on a bridge in downtown Rochester.
Speaker 1: Now it was a routine situation, as the conversation was deployed,
Speaker 1: and his response became noticeably defensive. He referenced without even
Speaker 1: being prompted, mind you, the earlier investigation into Charles Grand's death,
Speaker 1: describing it as something the police had already tried to
Speaker 1: pin on him. It was an unusual detail to introduce voluntarily,
Speaker 1: especially in a moment like that, when it's just like
Speaker 1: a walk up check on a person sitting there on
Speaker 1: a bridge.
Speaker 2: Yeah, dang, that does not seem like that was a
Speaker 2: good choice.
Speaker 1: No. Now, the officers ran his information, confirmed there were
Speaker 1: no outstanding issues requiring immediate attention, and so they allowed
Speaker 1: him to leave. Years later, in nineteen ninety eight, there
Speaker 1: was another encounter that followed a similar pattern. Robert was
Speaker 1: walking along North Clinton Avenue when a patrol car pulled
Speaker 1: over nearby. Officers approached him as part of an investigation
Speaker 1: into a stolen camera that had been reportedly been circulating
Speaker 1: the area. The situation had nothing to do with any
Speaker 1: of the earlier murders, but Robert, for a brief moment,
Speaker 1: believed the officers were there because of something else, entirely
Speaker 1: that they had come to arrest him for those murders,
Speaker 1: but that was obviously not the case. The officers asked
Speaker 1: their question, determined he was not involved in the incident
Speaker 1: they were investigating, and they left.
Speaker 2: Kay, he does seem like he's a bit on the
Speaker 2: paranoid side.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent, huh. But once again though, he just
Speaker 1: walked away.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but yeah, he's paranoid, and they're kinda you know,
Speaker 2: he's still in the eyes of the law with the
Speaker 2: way he's living, I suppose, but he's just still getting
Speaker 2: away with Lily everything.
Speaker 1: But it's clear that, like these murders are on his mind.
Speaker 1: It's like he's looking over his shoulder, almost waiting for
Speaker 1: the moment for his past to catch up with him.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now November of two thousand and five. By then fourteen
Speaker 1: years had passed since the death of Charles Grant in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety one, and Robert Spahalski was still living in
Speaker 1: Rochester and was still deeply entrenched in drug use, petty crime,
Speaker 1: and all the same things that made his life unstable,
Speaker 1: even developing relationships that reflected the nature of the environment
Speaker 1: around him, you know, the comings and goings of people
Speaker 1: with like yeah, just casual, quick, not lasting, all that
Speaker 1: sort of stuff. But one of those relationships was with
Speaker 1: a woman named Vivian IRASERI. Now, Vivian was fifty four
Speaker 1: years old and lived on the same apartment building as
Speaker 1: Robert on Spencer Street, and their connection wasn't as fleeting,
Speaker 1: I guess is a good word to put as many
Speaker 1: of his other relationships and connections were. They were quite
Speaker 1: familiar with one another, spending time together and as neighbors
Speaker 1: or acquaintances, right, they weren't like an item per se,
Speaker 1: but they were definitely good acquaintances, and on November fourth,
Speaker 1: two thousand and five, Vivian was inside Robert's apartment. The
Speaker 1: two of them were getting high together on their good
Speaker 1: old favorite crack cocaine, and according to Robert, the amount
Speaker 1: he consumed that day affected him in a way that
Speaker 1: disoriented his perception of what was happening around him. He
Speaker 1: would later describe experiencing hallucinations, and he claimed that Vivian's
Speaker 1: appearance changed and he no longer saw her as she was,
Speaker 1: but instead something else, something threatening, something he described in
Speaker 1: terms that suggested fear and confusion rather than recognition. Now,
Speaker 1: at some point during this high, he struck Vivian in
Speaker 1: the head, leaving her disoriented. And now the exact sequences
Speaker 1: of events is difficult to reconstruct in precise detail, because
Speaker 1: remember this is reconstructed through Robert, who was extremely high
Speaker 1: at the time. But it is clear that the violence
Speaker 1: did not end with that initial blow. In the earlier cases,
Speaker 1: the attack progressed and Robert began to strangle her until
Speaker 1: she was dead. Now, what happened afterwards marked a very
Speaker 1: significant shift from Robert's earlier behavior. In the cases from
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety and nineteen ninety one, Robert had left the
Speaker 1: scene distance himself from whatever he had done in allowing
Speaker 1: the investigation to unfold without his direct involvement. But this time, though,
Speaker 1: he did something extremely different. He moved Vivian's body into
Speaker 1: the bathroom of his apartment and he began to wash her. Afterwards,
Speaker 1: he wrapped her and took her down to the basement
Speaker 1: of the building, where it provided a degree of concealment,
Speaker 1: but was not a permanent solution by any means. It
Speaker 1: was a temporary measure, and for several days nothing was reported.
Speaker 1: Life in the building continued as it has before. People
Speaker 1: moved in and out of their apartments, carrying on with
Speaker 1: their routines, unaware of what had taken place or that
Speaker 1: there was a deceased person in the basement of the building,
Speaker 1: and during that time, Robert would return to the basement
Speaker 1: where Vivian was. According to his later statements, he visited
Speaker 1: her body during those days, standing over her and speaking
Speaker 1: to Vivian and expressing what he described as remorse.
Speaker 2: Hmmm, okay, that's really interesting and different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he claimed, he apologize that he experienced a sense
Speaker 1: of regret for what he had done, and now Whether
Speaker 1: those statements reflect genuine emotion or serve another purpose as
Speaker 1: difficult to say. But what we do know is that
Speaker 1: for the first time, there was no attempt to fully
Speaker 1: distance himself from what had happened, and something changed in
Speaker 1: the way he responded to the act of murder itself.
Speaker 1: For fourteen years, he had carried the weight of the
Speaker 1: earlier killings without any external consequence forcing him to confront them.
Speaker 1: But now, within days of his final act, the separation
Speaker 1: between action and consequence it began to collapse in on itself,
Speaker 1: and on November eighth, two thousand and five, four days
Speaker 1: after Vivian was killed, Robert went to the Rochester Public
Speaker 1: Safety Building. He approached the front desk and calmly stated
Speaker 1: that he needed to speak to someone about a homicide. Now,
Speaker 1: people occasionally come forward with information that turns out to
Speaker 1: be incomplete, exaggerated, or even unrelated to an actual crime itself,
Speaker 1: but Robert didn't hesitate or attempt to soften what he
Speaker 1: was saying in his situation. He made it very clear
Speaker 1: when he told officers that he himself had killed someone
Speaker 1: and that if police went to his apartment they would
Speaker 1: find a body with a claim like that. Officers were
Speaker 1: quickly dispatched to the Spencer Street address that he provided,
Speaker 1: and when they searched the building, they located Vivian iras
Speaker 1: Aari's body in the basement, exactly where Robert said it
Speaker 1: would be. Has a conscience somewhat, yeah, or he just.
Speaker 2: Really actually liked Vivian, I think, and this is the
Speaker 2: one that affected him, and he's like, I really wish
Speaker 2: I didn't do this, or the guilt of them all
Speaker 2: just kind of it was like, Okay, we're done with this.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: There is one specific point of information here that I'll
Speaker 1: touch on soon that kind of regards that guilty conscience
Speaker 1: sort of thing. I don't want to say it yet
Speaker 1: because trust me, it's an interesting piece. But we'll get
Speaker 1: to it, and I think you're going to find it fascinating.
Speaker 2: Kay.
Speaker 1: Now, In questioning, Robert described being with her in his
Speaker 1: apartment right they were getting high and doing their drugs,
Speaker 1: and he said he experienced what he claimed were hallucinations,
Speaker 1: and he told them about the violence that followed, explaining
Speaker 1: it in a way that aligned with the physical evidence
Speaker 1: found at the scene.
Speaker 2: Too.
Speaker 1: Now, at that point they knew he murdered Vivian that
Speaker 1: was very clear, but as they gathered information during the interview,
Speaker 1: they began reviewing his past as well, things like his arrests,
Speaker 1: his known associations, and his previous connect to unsolved cases.
Speaker 1: And his name had appeared in many earlier investigations, including
Speaker 1: the death of Charles Grant, and that connection provided a
Speaker 1: natural point of inquiry. At some point during the questioning,
Speaker 1: one of the investigators asked him directly about Charles. There
Speaker 1: was a brief pause. Robert had already admitted to one killing,
Speaker 1: and after a moment, he admitted that he too, killed
Speaker 1: Charles grand He began describing the interaction inside Charles's home,
Speaker 1: explaining that there was an argument that had taken place
Speaker 1: and that it had escalated. He said he hit Charles
Speaker 1: in the head with a hammer, detailing the act in
Speaker 1: a way that corresponded precisely with the injuries that were
Speaker 1: documented by investigators during the original investigation. He also addressed
Speaker 1: the events that followed too, including taking Charles's car and
Speaker 1: using it afterward, which directly connected to the earlier traffic
Speaker 1: stop where he was impersonating him and convicted of Now
Speaker 1: investigators soon also turned the conversation to another unresolved case.
Speaker 1: They asked Robert about Adrian Berger, and when her name
Speaker 1: was mentioned, his response introduced a subtle but important shift, because,
Speaker 1: instead of immediately denying any involvement, he asked whether the
Speaker 1: woman had lived on Emerson Street, and then, when confronted
Speaker 1: with the implications of that question alone, Robert admitted he
Speaker 1: killed Adrian as.
Speaker 2: Well, but he didn't really remember at first, well, or
Speaker 2: didn't recognize the name per se.
Speaker 1: Maybe not the name, and he's like, is that the
Speaker 1: one that lives on Emerson Street? And the police are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you realize what you just asked, Like that that is
Speaker 1: the one that lived on Emerson Street. And he's like, okay, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I killed her.
Speaker 2: Uh okay, I don't love that for like a lot
Speaker 2: of reasons, obviously, I.
Speaker 1: Know it also might have been him trying to play
Speaker 1: dumb as well and then just realizing, oh, yeah, what
Speaker 1: he asked definitely looks bad, so he just kind of
Speaker 1: went with it after that. Who knows, It's hard to say,
Speaker 1: but he described being with her in her apartment and
Speaker 1: explained that he had snapped during an encounter, ultimately strangling her. Now,
Speaker 1: at that point, investigators had obtained admissions to three separate murders,
Speaker 1: but if you're keeping count, there's one remaining case. And
Speaker 1: when Moraine Armstrong's name was introduced, the pattern of the
Speaker 1: interview changed suddenly. This time, Robert hesitated. He denied knowing her,
Speaker 1: denied involvement, and avoided providing a direct answer in a
Speaker 1: way that he had with the other victims. Even when
Speaker 1: presented with her photograph, he remained steadfast, suggesting he didn't
Speaker 1: recognize her or hadn't committed any sort of murder or anything.
Speaker 1: He didn't really acknowledge anything. His behavior during it was odd, defensive,
Speaker 1: and very hesitant, so after providing detailed accounts of the
Speaker 1: other killings, this stood out. And then at one point
Speaker 1: he made a very unusual request. He asked investigators for
Speaker 1: time to meditate. Now this was odd, but investigators allowed it.
Speaker 1: They stepped out of the room and gave him space.
Speaker 1: When they returned, his demeanor, though, was different, and he
Speaker 1: appeared a lot more composed. Now faced with investigators again,
Speaker 1: and rather than continuing to deny any involvement outright, Robert
Speaker 1: decided to ask a question of his own. He wanted
Speaker 1: to know whether an iron had been used in the
Speaker 1: killing and that detail had not been made public, and
Speaker 1: when investigators confirmed that it had been because if you
Speaker 1: remember from part one, the cord of an iron was
Speaker 1: used to strangle her.
Speaker 2: Okay, I did forget that little detail.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And Robert admitted to killing Moraine Armstrong, describing an
Speaker 1: argument that had escalated to him using that iron to
Speaker 1: strangle her.
Speaker 2: Huh. So, yeah, he's just dishing out all his dirty
Speaker 2: laundry at this point.
Speaker 1: He is, and all in all, by the end of
Speaker 1: the interrogation, Robert Spahalski had confessed to four separate murders.
Speaker 2: He confessed that, yes, I am a serial freakin killer.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, which it's funny you use that term, because
Speaker 1: that's the exact point I was alluding to earlier, where
Speaker 1: Robert was kind of a bit reluctantly, a bit reluctant
Speaker 1: for a certain point. So in his later statements, Robert
Speaker 1: explained his initial reluctancy to confess to Marine's murder. He
Speaker 1: believed that admitting to a fourth killing would define him
Speaker 1: in a way that he had not yet accepted himself,
Speaker 1: which makes sense now in hindsight when you look at
Speaker 1: him wanting to meditate for a bit before he talked
Speaker 1: about it. Okay, So in his understanding, there was a
Speaker 1: threshold of what would label him as a serial killer,
Speaker 1: and he had attempted, however, briefly, to avoid crossing into
Speaker 1: that definition.
Speaker 2: Huh.
Speaker 1: What he didn't realize, though, was that the pattern of
Speaker 1: his actions had already established that clarification. Because his definition
Speaker 1: of a serial killer was off. He thought it was
Speaker 1: four or more. The definition of a serial killer is
Speaker 1: actually three normal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's very interesting that. I wonder if these
Speaker 2: investigators have ever gotten a request from someone to meditate,
Speaker 2: you know, I know, right, I feel like if I
Speaker 2: was in that situation, I'd be so caught off garden
Speaker 2: and be like, uh like, I'm sure, okay, sure, like
Speaker 2: of course, but I'd also just be watching that whole
Speaker 2: meditation session behind the glass.
Speaker 1: Definitely. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's probably
Speaker 1: some religious ones that have happened, and I'm sure that's understandable.
Speaker 1: It probably wouldn't catch me off guard. But if you
Speaker 1: have someone who's just like not really religious, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know if he is or not, I'm assuming,
Speaker 1: but if you have someone who's just like, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: just randomly want to meditate rather than like, oh, it's
Speaker 1: my meditation time today, it's my ritual thing. It's a
Speaker 1: little different. It would catch me off guard for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, well, he doesn't seem like he would necessarily
Speaker 2: be this person that meditates like regularly either.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's a serial killer, so probably not.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, and I think he's like addicted to drugs
Speaker 2: and stuff, saying that you can't meditate if you're addicted
Speaker 2: to drugs. But just his lifestyle and everything, it caught
Speaker 2: me off guard.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's different, to say the least. But it is
Speaker 1: very interesting though, because you mentioned like the killing of Vivian.
Speaker 1: He seemed to really potentially like her and have really
Speaker 1: remorse for that. But was was Vivian the well, I'm
Speaker 1: officially a serial killer now idea in his head? Is
Speaker 1: is it the idea of Vivian? Or is it the
Speaker 1: idea of being a serial killer that brought him down?
Speaker 1: You know what I mean?
Speaker 2: Right? Okay?
Speaker 1: Is that what was nagging at him?
Speaker 2: It could have been that, Actually it could have been.
Speaker 1: But I mean, no matter his thoughts. Though, for the
Speaker 1: first time, the full scope of what had taken place
Speaker 1: between nineteen ninety and two thousand and five was now
Speaker 1: officially out in the open. Now, even though they had
Speaker 1: the confession, investigators still revisited each case individually, comparing Robert's
Speaker 1: statements with evidence that had been collected at the time. Now,
Speaker 1: when situations like this a confession alone, they're generally not enough.
Speaker 1: It must be supported by fact and by details that
Speaker 1: only the person responsible would know, information that had not
Speaker 1: been publicly released and could not have been guessed or
Speaker 1: reconstructed from outside sources. And in Robert's case those details
Speaker 1: were very much so present. For example, his description of
Speaker 1: Moraine Armstrong's death aligned with the use of the electrical
Speaker 1: cord taken from the iron, which was a specific element
Speaker 1: that wasn't made public. Also, the account of Adrian Berger's
Speaker 1: death provided an example for a case where the cause
Speaker 1: of death had remained uncertain due to the condition of
Speaker 1: the body when it was discovered. The manner in which
Speaker 1: he described the attack clarified what investigators had been unable
Speaker 1: to determine through physical evidence alone, and it matched. In
Speaker 1: the case of Charles Grand, his admission connected multiple pieces
Speaker 1: of information that had previously existed without a definitive link.
Speaker 1: The witness who had seen someone leaving in Charles's vehicle,
Speaker 1: the officer had conducted the traffic stop, and the physical
Speaker 1: evidence inside the home all pointed towards a single individual,
Speaker 1: and Robert's confession brought those elements together, providing a coherent
Speaker 1: narrative that explained not only how the crime had been committed,
Speaker 1: but also what had happened in the immediate aftermath. And
Speaker 1: as investigators worked through each and every one of these cases,
Speaker 1: the pattern was undeniable. Now most important part of this
Speaker 1: all is yeah, the pattern between all of these They
Speaker 1: were very connected through consistent behavior, consistent methods, and consistent
Speaker 1: sets of circumstances. Each victim had been killed in a
Speaker 1: private space in situations where Robert had direct access to them.
Speaker 1: The methods, while not identical in every case, reflected a
Speaker 1: reliance on what was immediately available at the crime scene,
Speaker 1: rather than a pre planned tool brought to the scene.
Speaker 1: Beyond the physical details, there was also a behavioral pattern
Speaker 1: that linked the cases together. Two In each instance, Robert
Speaker 1: had been present in the victim's environment, either as a
Speaker 1: known associate or someone who had gained access through brief interaction,
Speaker 1: and afterwards he had distance himself from each scene for years.
Speaker 1: That approach had been effective, but ultimately he couldn't keep
Speaker 1: the guilt inside, and by the time Robert's case moved
Speaker 1: forward to the trial in two thousand and six, the
Speaker 1: foundation against him was pretty extreme, and his own words
Speaker 1: formed the core of the prosecution's case. They were detailed,
Speaker 1: specific and aligned closely with the evidence that investigators had
Speaker 1: collected over the years. From a legal standpoint, that created
Speaker 1: an extremely powerful position for the prosecution. However, the defense
Speaker 1: did not dispute that Robert had made those statements. They
Speaker 1: weren't going against the fact that he had admitted these
Speaker 1: things at all, but it did challenge the condition under
Speaker 1: which they had obtained and the extent to which they
Speaker 1: should be relied upon these statements. One of the central
Speaker 1: arguments focused on the length and the nature of the
Speaker 1: interrogation process itself. See Robert had spent an extended period
Speaker 1: in police custody during questioning, and the defense raised concerns
Speaker 1: about whether the duration and circumstance of that interview had
Speaker 1: influenced the reliability of his statements. There was also an
Speaker 1: effort to frame his actions within the context of his
Speaker 1: mental state as well. For example, his history of drug use,
Speaker 1: particularly his heavy reliance on crack. Cocaine was introduced as
Speaker 1: a factor that may have impaired his judgment and perception
Speaker 1: at the times of the crimes, and the account he
Speaker 1: had given regarding hallucinations during the killing of Vivian. It
Speaker 1: was also used to support this argument too, suggesting that
Speaker 1: his understanding of events may not have been grounded in
Speaker 1: reality in the way the prosecution was now presenting it now.
Speaker 1: Despite those efforts, though, the broader contexts of the case
Speaker 1: worked against that defense. Sure, you can argue things like, Okay,
Speaker 1: he may have confessed this and said he did that,
Speaker 1: but he also said he was high hallucinating, so how
Speaker 1: can you trust his word and what he said he did? Right?
Speaker 1: But the confessions were not isolated to a single incident
Speaker 1: or a single moment of vulnerability, and that's important. They
Speaker 1: spanned across multiple cases, and each were supported by independent
Speaker 1: evidence that existed long before Robert had even come forward.
Speaker 1: He was only the stitch that pulled it all together.
Speaker 1: The consistency between his statements and the documented details of
Speaker 1: each crime only strengthened the prosecution's position, making it very
Speaker 1: difficult to argue that his omissions were unreliable or the
Speaker 1: result of even external pressure. During the trial, the jury
Speaker 1: was presented with a coherent account of the four killings.
Speaker 1: They heard about the death of Moraine Armstrong in December
Speaker 1: of nineteen ninety the circumstances of Adrian Berger's death in
Speaker 1: July of nineteen ninety one, the murder of Charles Grand
Speaker 1: in October of that same year, and the final killing
Speaker 1: a Vivian iras Ai in November of two thousand and five.
Speaker 1: Each case was examined in detail, with the prosecution outlining
Speaker 1: the sequence of events, the evidence collected at the time,
Speaker 1: and the way in which Roberts confess aligned with all
Speaker 1: of those findings, and the accumulative effect of that presentation
Speaker 1: was significant, because rather than evaluating each case on their own,
Speaker 1: the jury was able to see the pattern that connected
Speaker 1: them all together, and as the trial progressed, it became
Speaker 1: increasingly apparent that the case was not going to hinge
Speaker 1: on a single piece of evidence or a narrow interpretation
Speaker 1: of the events. Instead, it was clearly built on the
Speaker 1: accumulation of consistent details, each reinforcing the other and creating
Speaker 1: a strong narrative that was difficult, very difficult to dispute.
Speaker 1: So when the case was finally placed in the hands
Speaker 1: of the jury. The deliberation process did not take long.
Speaker 1: After hearing the evidence, reviewing the testimony, and considering the
Speaker 1: arguments from both sides, the jury reached a decision in
Speaker 1: less than two and a half hours. They found Robert
Speaker 1: Spahalski guilty on five counts of second degree murder, charges
Speaker 1: that collectively accounted for the four separate killings that had
Speaker 1: taken place between December of nineteen ninety and November of
Speaker 1: two thousand and four. Now, under New York law, a
Speaker 1: single incident can give rise to multiple counts of murder
Speaker 1: in the second degree, depending on how the prosecution frames
Speaker 1: the charges and the elements they seek to prove. In
Speaker 1: Robert's case, the counts reflect both intentional acts and circumstances
Speaker 1: that met additional legal criteria under the statue. So while
Speaker 1: the number of counts five counts exceed the number of
Speaker 1: four victims, the underlying reality remained the same. Four separate
Speaker 1: lives had been taken, each in its own setting, each
Speaker 1: connected through pattern that they had now been fully established
Speaker 1: in court.
Speaker 2: Okay, I was so confused? There did I miss one?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: So?
Speaker 1: Ok yes, four victims. But he did get five counts
Speaker 1: as they're looking at the thing as the events as
Speaker 1: as a whole. And yeah, I'm not too sure exactly
Speaker 1: what where they got the fifth one or how that
Speaker 1: works specifically, but it is possible to add on additional
Speaker 1: counts regardless of the number of victims.
Speaker 2: Sang, well, I mean regardless as well, Like he's going
Speaker 2: to just I feel like, be in jail for the
Speaker 2: rest of his life. So you think so, well, I
Speaker 2: would frickin' hope, So well, let me tell you about that.
Speaker 1: Okay. So, now with the verdict delivered, the case moved
Speaker 1: into the sentencing phase, and given the number of counts
Speaker 1: and the nature of the crimes, a sentence was expected
Speaker 1: to reflect the severity of what had taken place over
Speaker 1: the course of those fifteen years, and ultimately Robert Spahalski
Speaker 1: was sentenced to a total of one hundred years in prison.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm you had me really questioning life for a minute,
Speaker 2: just trolling you a little bit, because there is no
Speaker 2: way that this could be anything less than him just
Speaker 2: being in there for the rest of his life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, that's exactly what it was. The sentence was
Speaker 1: structured so that he would spend the remainder of his
Speaker 1: life incarcerated. There was no realistic path to being released,
Speaker 1: no scenario which he could return to the outside world
Speaker 1: on parole. Nothing. He would spend his life in prison, period.
Speaker 2: Full stop, rightfully. So, Yes, it had been there much earlier.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Now, this was a story that had begun decades
Speaker 1: earlier in Elmira, and it had finally come into focus
Speaker 1: in a way that no one could have fully understood
Speaker 1: at the very beginning. For years, the lives of Robert
Speaker 1: and Stephen had been viewed separately. Stephen's path had been
Speaker 1: defined very early, marked by a single act of violence
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy one, a single murder that led to
Speaker 1: his conviction that set the tone for everything that followed.
Speaker 1: His life became one of repeated incarcerations, cycles that never
Speaker 1: truly broke, shaped by the decisions that kept bringing him
Speaker 1: back into the same system. Yes, he murdered one person,
Speaker 1: but after that it was petty crimes, theft Robert, those
Speaker 1: sorts of things. Robert's path, by contrast, had unfolded in
Speaker 1: a way that was far less visible. He had remained
Speaker 1: on the edges of the system, moving in and out
Speaker 1: of custody for smaller offenses too, never standing out in
Speaker 1: a way that demanded sustained attention. The crimes he committed
Speaker 1: between nineteen ninety and nineteen ninety one existed without any
Speaker 1: sort of resolution, disconnected from one another and from him
Speaker 1: in any way that could ever be proven. For years,
Speaker 1: there was no clear indication that his life had diverged
Speaker 1: into something fundamentally different from what it appeared to be
Speaker 1: on the surface. It was only after his confession in
Speaker 1: two thousand and five that those two paths could be
Speaker 1: seen together. The connection between the two brothers wasn't simply
Speaker 1: that they were twins who had both committed acts of violence,
Speaker 1: but that their lives had followed trajectories that ultimately led
Speaker 1: to very similar outcomes. Each had crossed a line that
Speaker 1: separated them from the life they had begun with, and
Speaker 1: each had spent signific portions of their lives within the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system, and each of them had become a murderer. However,
Speaker 1: there is one major difference between the two of them now. Stephen,
Speaker 1: even years after his conviction, continued to speak about his
Speaker 1: actions in a way that suggested justification. His account of
Speaker 1: the killing of Ronald Ripley remained consistent He framed it
Speaker 1: in terms that placed responsibility on the circumstances rather than himself.
Speaker 1: Something that had to happen, and he didn't regret it.
Speaker 1: That way of thinking appeared to remain intact despite the
Speaker 1: time he had spent incarcerated and the consequences that he
Speaker 1: had faced as a result of his actions. But Robert's perspective,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, it was a lot different. He
Speaker 1: seemed to hold some sort of regret, some guilt. He
Speaker 1: spoke about the impact of his actions, and about how
Speaker 1: the role of his mental state and drug use and
Speaker 1: how it had played in shaping what he had done.
Speaker 1: Whether the remorse he held reflected a genuine shift in
Speaker 1: understanding or was influenced by the circumstances in which was
Speaker 1: expressed as something we cannot be determining with certainty, but
Speaker 1: it stands out with a very sharp contrast with the
Speaker 1: way his brother continued to describe his own past. Despite
Speaker 1: those differences, though the outcome for both of them was
Speaker 1: the same, in one fundamental way, their lives became defined
Speaker 1: by incarceration. Looking back, there is no clear point where
Speaker 1: everything can be traced back with a specific cause, no
Speaker 1: single explanation that accounts for two individuals with the same
Speaker 1: beginning arriving at a similar fate. Instead, there is a
Speaker 1: sequence of events, decisions, and circumstances over time, creating a
Speaker 1: pattern that only becomes visible when viewed with its entirety.
Speaker 1: Could this be a result of nurture or maybe nature
Speaker 1: that had caused this. It's such a unique look at
Speaker 1: this age old argument, and yet at the same time
Speaker 1: it doesn't seem to offer any new answers. The early
Speaker 1: years in Almira and the gradual shift into criminal behavior,
Speaker 1: with a first act of violence that defined one brother's
Speaker 1: path and the quieter progression that led the other down
Speaker 1: a similar road years later, all of it formed a
Speaker 1: timeline that is difficult to simplify. What remains at the
Speaker 1: end of that timeline is a story that is not
Speaker 1: easily reduced to a single explanation. It's a story about
Speaker 1: two lives that began in the same place, then followed
Speaker 1: different routes, only to arrive at a similar destination with
Speaker 1: different feelings and emotions after it's all said and done.
Speaker 1: It's a story about how patterns can develop without being
Speaker 1: fully recognized, and how the absence of immediate consequences can
Speaker 1: follow those patterns to continue long enough to become something
Speaker 1: much larger. And perhaps most of all, it's a story
Speaker 1: that leaves behind a question that does not have a
Speaker 1: clear your answer. How can two people start in the
Speaker 1: same place and still become something so difficult to understand?
Speaker 1: And that's the story of the Spahalski Brothers aka The
Speaker 1: Killer Twins.
Speaker 2: That title the Killer Twins.
Speaker 1: This story is a bit of a mind fuck, isn't it.
Speaker 2: It really is. Yeah, now that it's over, it's kind
Speaker 2: of like I need more time to reflect on that.
Speaker 1: I almost need like a focus group to sit down
Speaker 1: and like vent to on this case, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, because it doesn't seem like a ton is
Speaker 2: really super known. I guess about their start, but it
Speaker 2: obviously wasn't great.
Speaker 1: No, well, their start wasn't bad. Like they started with,
Speaker 1: you know, a mother and a father, and it was
Speaker 1: they're doing sports and all this sort of stuff. They're
Speaker 1: doing good. But then there was a divorce. And in
Speaker 1: that divorce, it's not like they're was abuse that took place,
Speaker 1: as far as we know, it was just kind of
Speaker 1: a lack of structure or.
Speaker 2: They had too much freedom at an age that they
Speaker 2: you know, were a little bit vulnerable.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, that structure that could have helped push them
Speaker 1: forward and support them through that stage wasn't there. And
Speaker 1: that that's not an excuse to go murder someone, Oh,
Speaker 1: just not having that structure in your life. But it
Speaker 1: seems like that structure was almost the turning point, huh.
Speaker 1: And it led into drug use, it led into sex work,
Speaker 1: it led into theft, and then eventually murder and for
Speaker 1: one of them, murdering at the age of sixteen.
Speaker 2: Even imagine just being their parents though, and say you
Speaker 2: haven't like ran into an acquaintance for a while, and
Speaker 2: then all of a sudden you do, and then they're like, oh,
Speaker 2: how are your boys or something, and then you're just like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: like my boys actually are murderers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, both of them, both twins.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so let's just move on to a different topic.
Speaker 2: For sure, Like that is wild.
Speaker 1: But it's crazy, like being twins, It's like, is that
Speaker 1: nature part of them a valid argument? Is it easy?
Speaker 1: It's definitely easy to say that, well, they're twins. They
Speaker 1: both ended up following the same path without a little
Speaker 1: bit of structure in their life, and they both moved
Speaker 1: on to be killers. It must have been in their DNA.
Speaker 1: It's very easy to say that. However, when you look
Speaker 1: at it as a whole, Well, one of them had
Speaker 1: remorse for it. It couldn't have been in his DNA.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But how much remorse did he really have?
Speaker 1: Though?
Speaker 2: Like I get that he had. Somebody also hid this
Speaker 2: for freaking fourteen years and he did it.
Speaker 1: Four times, so you're right, you're right. But there was
Speaker 1: a bit of remorse. There was a small voice in
Speaker 1: his head. Vivian. He cared for her remains after that.
Speaker 1: It's to a degree, mind you. But he washed her
Speaker 1: and he wrapped her up, and he looked over her
Speaker 1: and he spoke to her. That is remorse to some factor.
Speaker 1: And then he goes and admits to it, and he
Speaker 1: admits to it all. There's got to be something in
Speaker 1: there that's not built into his system fully to say
Speaker 1: that it's nature for both these individuals. Sure, maybe there's
Speaker 1: some nature in it, but you can also argue that
Speaker 1: is nature, there's some good too, So it's not fully nature,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean?
Speaker 2: Well, and maybe I'm mistaken. Did he have did it
Speaker 2: appear that he had remorse for the other three or
Speaker 2: mostly just Vivian.
Speaker 1: I think it was mostly Vivian, and that's part of
Speaker 1: it too, is was it remorse for Vivian or was
Speaker 1: it remorse for the fact that he crossed into serial
Speaker 1: killer status.
Speaker 2: That he Yeah, he was very wrong on that he
Speaker 2: already was.
Speaker 1: Which again speaks to that voice being like, oh, you're
Speaker 1: a serial killer. That's bad. You don't want that.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, because it is interesting too. Had the time
Speaker 2: span right between the three and then the last one,
Speaker 2: so yeah, he really could have just been like, Okay,
Speaker 2: I can't do a fourth because I want to be
Speaker 2: a serial killer.
Speaker 1: So there was some sort of good in him, which
Speaker 1: means it's not fully nature. It's not fully he was
Speaker 1: born that way, you know what I mean? Because there
Speaker 1: is that other voice as well, and he chose not
Speaker 1: to listen to it for so long, and then eventually
Speaker 1: that voice got to him and then he admitted to it.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying he's a good guy.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, I know. I'm like, you're giving him too
Speaker 2: much credit here, almost he is a freaking vile man.
Speaker 1: Well no, I'm not giving I'm trying not to get kicked. Okay,
Speaker 1: devil's advocacy here. What I'm fighting for is not Robert.
Speaker 1: I'm not fighting for him. I'm fighting for the nature
Speaker 1: of his being. Is he born a serial killer? A murderer?
Speaker 1: Was he written in the stars the very moment he
Speaker 1: came into this world that he was going to do this?
Speaker 1: I don't think so.
Speaker 2: Okay, See, I don't know. I have trouble to think
Speaker 2: the whole thing, like, born a serial killer, Well.
Speaker 1: That's that's the nature versus nurture. Yeah, Or is it
Speaker 1: in your nature to be a killer or was it
Speaker 1: like nurture the way you were raised and you were
Speaker 1: raised in a very harsh environment, abuse, and you instilled
Speaker 1: upon you that you were to be this killer. So
Speaker 1: I don't think there is proof for either in this situation,
Speaker 1: even though this is the best situation we have to
Speaker 1: look as an example of, but it still doesn't prove shit.
Speaker 2: I'm also it's confusing, it is. I'm very curious too
Speaker 2: if these these brothers like have any relationship, does like
Speaker 2: the one go visit the other one in jail and
Speaker 2: you know, vice versa and stuff. So yeah, I don't
Speaker 2: know how much are their past really crossing.
Speaker 1: I guess, yeah, it's hard to say. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I didn't really dive into that. I didn't
Speaker 1: write it in this perspective of the brothers the brother's
Speaker 1: story to sympathize with them. I wrote it in the
Speaker 1: perspective as almost like looking at them as a I
Speaker 1: don't want to say experiment or a project, but like
Speaker 1: a case study.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, it's definitely a freaking interesting one. It's I
Speaker 2: don't know. I'm also just I can't stop thinking about
Speaker 2: the perspective of the parent. Gosh, like, just imagine you
Speaker 2: have two kids or whatever and they both turn out
Speaker 2: like this. I was just I know, really, I was
Speaker 2: gonna say unfortunate but devastating.
Speaker 1: I think both of those are accurate words like I
Speaker 1: can't imagine how they feel. And I want to go
Speaker 1: have a whiskey and a cigarette after this. And I
Speaker 1: don't even smoke, so yeah, like I just feel like
Speaker 1: I just need, like chain smoke and drink a bottle
Speaker 1: of whiskey to decompress, so I can't imagine what their
Speaker 1: emotions would be like after that.
Speaker 2: No kidding, Well well done on these these two.
Speaker 1: Thank you and sorry for back to back two partners.
Speaker 1: Maybe you enjoyed it, maybe you didn't. The next one,
Speaker 1: I promise will not be a two parterer, so you'll
Speaker 1: get the full resolution in the next episode which is
Speaker 1: coming up next week. And don't forget to take a
Speaker 1: look at the description of our podcast. You can go
Speaker 1: ahead and see our social media is where you can
Speaker 1: see our new reels that we're making. We're going to
Speaker 1: be doing a real hopefully on every single case we
Speaker 1: come out with, so you'll hear that little bit of
Speaker 1: an elevator pitch on it. And if you're coming from
Speaker 1: our reels, if you're new here, thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: We appreciate you all. We are an independent podcast host,
Speaker 1: written researched all of it on our own in a
Speaker 1: little tiny home with our roosters and chickens outside, making
Speaker 1: far too much noise that often bleeds into our audio,
Speaker 1: and we are sorry for it, but we also love
Speaker 1: it and our unapologetically ourselves.
Speaker 2: I kind of hope it's just like a little hidden
Speaker 2: cham because there isn't really all we can do about it.
Speaker 1: I suppose, yeah. I mean, we do try and record
Speaker 1: at night when the roosters and stuff are at sleep
Speaker 1: or asleep, but occasionally the research takes me into the
Speaker 1: next day, and when we do record in the morning,
Speaker 1: that's when they get loud.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but honestly, there's a misconception about roosters. They literally
Speaker 2: are allowed all day pretty much. It's not just the morning.
Speaker 1: Definitely, and hens, trust me, can be very loud too.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But anyways, thank you.
Speaker 3: For being here and until next time, stay wicked and
Speaker 2: Oh