Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Path Went Chile for part two
Speaker 1: of our series about the death of Kevin show Walter. Robin,
Speaker 1: do you want to catch everyone up on what we
Speaker 1: talked about in our previous episode?
Speaker 2: Well, since the holidays are almost here, I decided to
Speaker 2: do a select a Christmas Eve theme mystery which took
Speaker 2: place all the way back in nineteen seventy three in
Speaker 2: the town of New London, Connecticut, and the victim was
Speaker 2: twenty year old Kevin show Walter. He had spent the
Speaker 2: evening with a girl named Deborah and she was driving
Speaker 2: him back to his own parked car, but then they
Speaker 2: got a flat tire and had to stop in a
Speaker 2: residential neighborhood. And then Kevin got out to change the tire,
Speaker 2: and it was a poorly lit area, but while Debra
Speaker 2: wasn't looking, a car just happened to pass by and
Speaker 2: hit him and then just sped away without even stopping.
Speaker 2: Kevin went died pretty quickly, but even though witnesses in
Speaker 2: the neighborhood were called seeing lights, no one actually got
Speaker 2: a good look at the getaway vehicle. Kevin's mother, Lucille
Speaker 2: show Walter, tried to open up her own independent investigation
Speaker 2: because the police really wouldn't do much of anything. They
Speaker 2: pretty much told her that the case would never be solved.
Speaker 2: They wound up losing pieces of evidence, and Lucille pretty
Speaker 2: much found out a reason why when she learned that
Speaker 2: the town's former mayor named Harvey Maluv, who was one
Speaker 2: of the more prominent and wealthiest citizens in New London,
Speaker 2: became the prime suspect. And the biggest issue was that Malove.
Speaker 2: He was originally very supportive and nice to Lucille, but
Speaker 2: he gave a story that seemed to contradict all the
Speaker 2: other witnesses at the scene because he claimed he had
Speaker 2: driven by himself and saw a man and a woman
Speaker 2: near another car who soon fled the scene. But this
Speaker 2: was contradicted by all the other witnesses, and they seemed
Speaker 2: to appear that Malub was just coming up with this
Speaker 2: story in case someone had saw him at the scene
Speaker 2: because he was likely the hit and run driver. So
Speaker 2: they would have a long grand jury proceedings, and at
Speaker 2: the end the judge said that even though there was
Speaker 2: not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution, I do think
Speaker 2: that Harvey Mallub was likely driver of the hit run vehicle,
Speaker 2: but things got complicated about a year later after the
Speaker 2: statute of limitations expired, when a man named Paul Hanson
Speaker 2: came forward and claimed that he believed he was the
Speaker 2: one who had struck Kevin, saying that he was very
Speaker 2: drunk when he was driving on Christmas Eve he thought
Speaker 2: he hit something but wasn't sure, but did not find
Speaker 2: out until the following morning that Kevin had been killed,
Speaker 2: and he feared that he was responsible. Had another preliminary hearing,
Speaker 2: but the judge thought that the evidence really didn't support
Speaker 2: the idea that Hanson did this, and the case fads
Speaker 2: from the spotlight. But then in two thousand and five,
Speaker 2: Hanson died by suicide and left behind a note where
Speaker 2: he still took responsibility for the hit and run. And
Speaker 2: by this point Harvey Malive had passed away, So there's
Speaker 2: a lot of controversy over whether Maliv or Hanson or
Speaker 2: someone else could have been the hit and run driver,
Speaker 2: And because so much evidence had gone missing over the years,
Speaker 2: it's really hard to conclusively prove what happened after all
Speaker 2: these years, and that's why the case is still unsolved
Speaker 2: to this day. So this is definitely a very tragic
Speaker 2: story for everyone involved. And I don't think I've ever
Speaker 2: seen a hit and run case Gardner as much notoriety
Speaker 2: as this one. It is dragged on for decades. But
Speaker 2: what's particularly sad is how preventable this whole situation could
Speaker 2: have been. When Judge dany He released his report about
Speaker 2: the grand jury investigation, he actually stated that Kevin placed
Speaker 2: himself in a dangerous situation by changing the tire in
Speaker 2: a crouch position on a dark street and switching off
Speaker 2: the vehicle's parking lights. That's not to say that Dana
Speaker 2: Hay was victim blaming or anything, but he believed that
Speaker 2: the driver of the vehicle who hit Kevin genuinely did
Speaker 2: not see him and might not have even realized they
Speaker 2: hit him when they drove off. Given the circumstances, dan
Speaker 2: He did not think the driver was criminally negligent, and
Speaker 2: provided that they were an intoxicated or recklessly speeding of
Speaker 2: the time, they probably never would have faced any charges
Speaker 2: or jail time if they had just turned themselves in
Speaker 2: and confessed right after the accident took place. Of course,
Speaker 2: the driver might have eventually been found had the new
Speaker 2: London Police Department not done such terrible work, and Judge
Speaker 2: Dannyhees's report was very critical of their investigation and their
Speaker 2: dismissive attitude towards Lucille's showalter. I mean, this wasn't a
Speaker 2: case where a young person's death was officially ruled a
Speaker 2: suicide or an accident and their parent was screaming foul
Speaker 2: play because they had a hard time dealing with the grief.
Speaker 2: It's pretty cut and dried that Kevin was fatally struck
Speaker 2: by a vehicle and the driver just took off, And
Speaker 2: regardless of whether or not there was intent, a hit
Speaker 2: and run is still crime and whoever was responsible should
Speaker 2: be forced to answer for it. You can't just tell
Speaker 2: the victim's mother, well, this is probably never going to
Speaker 2: be solved only a few weeks later and leave it
Speaker 2: at that. Now, as critical as Judge Danny he was
Speaker 2: towards the New London PD, he did not actually believe
Speaker 2: they were orchestrating a deliberate cover up and thought their
Speaker 2: investigation was the result of incompetence rather than knallice. But
Speaker 2: given that the prime suspect, Harvey Malov, was a former
Speaker 2: mayor who gave some high ranking police officials or jobs,
Speaker 2: it's not hard to believe that there might have been
Speaker 2: a conspiracy to sweep things under the rug.
Speaker 3: I think one of the things that's really hurtful for
Speaker 3: his mother, like you said, is that she was just dismissed.
Speaker 3: And she was also really kind of in her mind
Speaker 3: supported by one of the main suspects. When Harvey Malav
Speaker 3: was so supportive of her, and then come to find
Speaker 3: out he's one of the people they name as a
Speaker 3: main suspect. It seems like you were conn at the
Speaker 3: whole time, like that even grief support for you was
Speaker 3: fake and manipulated and political in nature. And so I
Speaker 3: think her desire to say, you know, I'm not even
Speaker 3: saying that my son was murdered or that I want
Speaker 3: justice for a homicide. I want someone to tell me
Speaker 3: what happened and be held accountable for a hit and run.
Speaker 3: And if they were transparent, I guarantee you his mother
Speaker 3: would have said, they're just as much a victim as
Speaker 3: my son was. They took someone's life that night, not knowing.
Speaker 3: It's tragic for both families. But here she's almost been
Speaker 3: played by everybody.
Speaker 1: That I feel like she was re traumatized, being portrayed
Speaker 1: as like this awful woman in the dramatization or the
Speaker 1: show that was based on this.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, we mentioned our last episode that they did
Speaker 2: a episode of the popular TV series lou Grant where
Speaker 2: they had a fictional story about a teenage son getting
Speaker 2: killed and a hit and run accident, and it turns
Speaker 2: out like a promened judge was responsible. And I know
Speaker 2: that Lucille was quite upset because the mother character in
Speaker 2: that episode was treated was portrayed as this very shrill, rude,
Speaker 2: and angry person, when everyone who knew Lucille show Walter
Speaker 2: personally said she was not like that at all. And
Speaker 2: this show pretty much pulled a law in order and
Speaker 2: then exploited a real life tragedy and pretty much re
Speaker 2: traumatized her all over again because by that point, I
Speaker 2: think the statute of limitations that expires, So Lucille had
Speaker 2: pretty much reached the conclusion that no one was ever
Speaker 2: going to go to jail or faced justice for my
Speaker 2: son's death. And now I'm seeing a fictional TV show
Speaker 2: paint me in a bad light.
Speaker 1: And here's another issue. Well, the grand jury investigation did
Speaker 1: bring Lucille show Walter some semblance of peace, it did
Speaker 1: not provide full closure, and there was controversy over the
Speaker 1: fact that Judge Danihe publicly named Harvey Malov as the
Speaker 1: probable driver of the hit and run vehicle. This mostly
Speaker 1: stems from the fact that Donahe used the word probable conclusive,
Speaker 1: as Malv and his supporters argued that if the investigation
Speaker 1: could not conclusively prove that Malove was a driver and
Speaker 1: he wasn't going to be prosecuted for the crime, then
Speaker 1: they should not have released his name to the public.
Speaker 1: If Malv was innocent, then this caused a lot of
Speaker 1: unwarranted damage to his reputation, and he did bring up
Speaker 1: a valid point. A grand jury investigation is not the
Speaker 1: same thing as a trial, so he did not get
Speaker 1: the opportunity to present a case for his innocence, which
Speaker 1: would have occurred if he had actually been charged with
Speaker 1: the crime. It's kind of a catch twenty two and
Speaker 1: that he spared the ordeal of a criminal trial. But
Speaker 1: unless he can find evidence pointing to another perpetrator, there
Speaker 1: really isn't anything that he can do to clear his name.
Speaker 1: And when you take into account that another man, Paul Hansen,
Speaker 1: would later confess to the crime, then this is clearly
Speaker 1: not a cut and dried case, A second grand jury
Speaker 1: investigation concluded that other than his own confession, there was
Speaker 1: no compelling evidence to suggest that Paul Hanson was responsible
Speaker 1: for the hit and run, and while there wasn't any
Speaker 1: hard evidence to link Harvey malv to the scene, he
Speaker 1: pretty much implicated himself by sharing his story about being there,
Speaker 1: which was contradicted by seven eyewitnesses. But since the New
Speaker 1: London PD lost or badly mishandled most of the evidence,
Speaker 1: it probably would have been impossible to conclusively link anyone
Speaker 1: to the accident scene, and the.
Speaker 3: Family was given so much hope throughout. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: almost this she's getting jerked around, even in the pursuit
Speaker 3: of justice when she's told in one scenario where you
Speaker 3: were pretty sure that it was this person, well, that
Speaker 3: doesn't bring you any kind of peace because if you're
Speaker 3: pretty sure, that doesn't mean it's definitely him, and there's
Speaker 3: no repercussions for someone that you're quote pretty sure was
Speaker 3: the one who hit your son and killed him. But
Speaker 3: also when you look at the way they handled the evidence,
Speaker 3: it's as if they didn't care that it was a
Speaker 3: hit and run, that it was just some car accident, right,
Speaker 3: and that they didn't need to be looking for anyone else.
Speaker 3: How do you lose evidence when in something that isn't
Speaker 3: really open and shut. There's someone who hit a kid
Speaker 3: and took his life. You need to be exploring who
Speaker 3: that was because it shows somebody who doesn't have a
Speaker 3: conscience to say, hey, I hit this kid. I need
Speaker 3: to tell somebody, I need to get him help. They
Speaker 3: drove off so likely they were intoxicated. In my opinion,
Speaker 3: they didn't want to get in trouble and that's why
Speaker 3: they sped away. I just feel so bad for his mother.
Speaker 3: She was never going to get quote closure, She's never
Speaker 3: going to get justice because one closure I don't think
Speaker 3: exists really unless you can bring their loved one back.
Speaker 3: But the justice part man. Everywhere she turns, it seems
Speaker 3: like they're making it worse instead of supporting her and
Speaker 3: making any kind of peace in her life.
Speaker 2: And I know Locilla was kind of at the point
Speaker 2: where she's like, well, I've come to terms with the
Speaker 2: fact that no one is actually going to serve time
Speaker 2: in print is in for killing my son. But at
Speaker 2: least the fact that Harvey Malof has been named publicly
Speaker 2: is providing a bit of accountability and it's an acknowledgment
Speaker 2: of who did something wrong here, but I'm sure it
Speaker 2: must have been an ordeal for her when we have
Speaker 2: this other guy, Paul Hanson, coming forward and he's confessing
Speaker 2: to the crime, so it leaves so much ambiguity about
Speaker 2: who the real perpetrator was. And to know that because
Speaker 2: the statute of limitation has expired, no one is going
Speaker 2: to be charged with this crime and you may just
Speaker 2: never know without conclusive evidence who really did this.
Speaker 4: I feel so bad for Lucille.
Speaker 1: I feel like there's all these men, because all of
Speaker 1: these people that we're talking about who are related to
Speaker 1: here are men, and I feel like they're all trying
Speaker 1: to either manipulate her, denigrade her character, misrepresent her, or
Speaker 1: ignore her. And it just feels like, through this process
Speaker 1: of trying to get answers what happened to her son,
Speaker 1: she's become a thorn in the side of a lot
Speaker 1: of different individuals, and it seems to be to her detriment.
Speaker 1: Like you think that this woman fighting for her son,
Speaker 1: that the people in law enforcement would see this and
Speaker 1: they would have just empathy and compassion for her and
Speaker 1: they would want to be fighting for her. But it
Speaker 1: just doesn't seem like we're seeing this. We're seeing people
Speaker 1: who are losing evidence, and Lucille just seems to be
Speaker 1: more of a pain to them than a mother who's
Speaker 1: grieving and has experienced this enormous loss.
Speaker 3: I think she became a squeaky wheel and it frustrated
Speaker 3: them because in their minds, they did everything they could,
Speaker 3: and this is a mother who's clearly frustrated with them
Speaker 3: and upset. And I think it's almost a pride ego
Speaker 3: thing that hey, listen, lady, we did the best we could.
Speaker 3: Back off, and they're not dealing with just a political
Speaker 3: issue or a simple case. It's someone's life and someone's son.
Speaker 3: So it's almost that ego pride got in the way
Speaker 3: of being able to have compassion. I think you see
Speaker 3: that from time to time with different cases we talk about.
Speaker 2: Even though there's a lot of information out there about
Speaker 2: Harvey Malluve's background, there's virtually nothing about Paul Hanson. All
Speaker 2: we know about him is that he came forward, confessed
Speaker 2: to the hint and run, was cleared by a grand
Speaker 2: jury investigation, but then completed suicide and left behind a
Speaker 2: confession letter. In two thousand and five, since he took
Speaker 2: his own life, we can reasonably assume that Hanson was
Speaker 2: a troubled individual, but other than that, there's nothing to
Speaker 2: go on. It's certainly possible that, even if he was innocent,
Speaker 2: Hanson could have been driving drunk on Christmas Eve in
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy three and legitimately had no memory of anything
Speaker 2: that happened that night, and when he heard about a
Speaker 2: fatal hit and run and notice damage to his car
Speaker 2: the following morning, he may have feared the worst even
Speaker 2: though he did not remember anything. Of course, it's awfully
Speaker 2: convenient that Hanson wouldn't come forward until after the statute
Speaker 2: of limitations it expired, and if that's where his story
Speaker 2: had ended, then I have little doubt that he was
Speaker 2: not the driver. But the fact that Hanson would still
Speaker 2: take responsibility for the incident in a suicide note over
Speaker 2: thirty years later makes it impossible for me to discount
Speaker 2: him completely. Since I know nothing about what Hanson's personal
Speaker 2: life was like in two thousand and five, I have
Speaker 2: no idea if the hit and run played any role
Speaker 2: in his decision to complete suicide, or if he decided
Speaker 2: to take his own life for completely different reasons. He
Speaker 2: might have just mentioned the hit and run in his
Speaker 2: note for attention, or perhaps he was still racked with
Speaker 2: guilt about the whole thing three decades later. One thing
Speaker 2: I am certain about is that if Hanson was the driver,
Speaker 2: then I don't think the New London PD would have
Speaker 2: orchestrated a cover up to protect him, since it doesn't
Speaker 2: sound like he was a person with connections, and he
Speaker 2: probably wouldn't have popped up on the radar as a
Speaker 2: suspect if he didn't confess. So if there really was
Speaker 2: a cover up, I'm sure the police would be more
Speaker 2: inclined to orchestrate one for a wealthy, prominent citizen like
Speaker 2: Harvey malliv So.
Speaker 3: Like you said, we really don't know to what extent
Speaker 3: this hit and run could have actually been a factor
Speaker 3: in his decision to complete suicide, but the fact that
Speaker 3: it ends up in the letter means that it does
Speaker 3: carry some kind of significance. That's his last letter to family, friends,
Speaker 3: loved ones, and he mentions it. What's really troubling is
Speaker 3: that I believe he had to be incredibly intoxicated that
Speaker 3: night and driving he hits something, wakes up the next
Speaker 3: morning and sees that a kid has been killed, and
Speaker 3: he says, oh, my god.
Speaker 2: Did I do that?
Speaker 3: And I think, over time, with mental health declines, you
Speaker 3: could convince yourself that that is exactly what happened. That
Speaker 3: you killed a kid and took him away from his mother,
Speaker 3: you took him away from his friends in his future.
Speaker 3: And I think he could have convinced himself that he
Speaker 3: did it even if he did not. There's also a
Speaker 3: potential that he knew exactly what he did, and because
Speaker 3: he had been drinking and driving, he waited till after that,
Speaker 3: statured to limitations and didn't want to be held accountable
Speaker 3: for it, and then came forward to try to get help.
Speaker 3: But to me, it's very possible that he also just
Speaker 3: convinced himself he was guilty.
Speaker 2: That's what I was thinking as well, that even if
Speaker 2: he legitimately did not do it, it probably did haunt
Speaker 2: him even after the grain jury proceedings ended, where he
Speaker 2: says that, well, they don't think there's enough evidence that
Speaker 2: I did it, but I still kind of convinced in
Speaker 2: the back of my mind that I did do it.
Speaker 2: And by the time his suicide take place, Lucille Showalter
Speaker 2: had already passed away. So if he knew about that.
Speaker 2: That could have only confounded the guilt, thinking that this
Speaker 2: poor woman went to a grave without receiving justice or
Speaker 2: knowing what happened. So that could be why he decided
Speaker 2: to make that final confession in his suicide note, even
Speaker 2: though the incident was over thirty years old at that point.
Speaker 1: The human mind has like this immense capacity to integrate
Speaker 1: false memories. There's famous research where the researchers showed participants'
Speaker 1: pictures of them on a vacation which had been photoshop
Speaker 1: to these different places, and they were able to then
Speaker 1: have these participants develop memories when asked questions about these
Speaker 1: trips and what they did, and they were like very
Speaker 1: tangible things. They were like visceral memories and remembering smell
Speaker 1: and sights and sounds, and so to think that he
Speaker 1: could have been completely blackout drunk like we talked about
Speaker 1: in episode one, and then just convinced himself that like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I was driving around that area, I'm the one that
Speaker 1: did it. I think that is altogether possible. Like Ash
Speaker 1: just said, there's a possibility that he may have actually
Speaker 1: done this, but I think that the former is more
Speaker 1: likely than the latter. One of the most dramatic developments
Speaker 1: in this story was a testimony from Catherine Krause and
Speaker 1: her claims that Walter Spring Junior and Walter Spring Third
Speaker 1: held her against her will in a Florida motel room
Speaker 1: after she told the police they'd done repairs on a
Speaker 1: vehicle which struck Kevin show Walter. I do admit that
Speaker 1: to being a bit skeptical about this, though the Springs
Speaker 1: do sound like they may be shady people. I know
Speaker 1: that one investigator testified that he believed Kraus and Walter Junior,
Speaker 1: who were both married to other people, had actually gone
Speaker 1: down to Florida together to carry on a secret affair,
Speaker 1: though I don't know if this was ever corroborated. It
Speaker 1: sounds like Walter Junior had a habit of making himself
Speaker 1: out to be a big shot who once belonged to
Speaker 1: the mafia, and the allegations of him threatening to rub
Speaker 1: out anyone who talked about his repair work on the
Speaker 1: hit and run vehicle may have been greatly exaggerated. I
Speaker 1: know that when Harvey Malov's Linking Continental was examined by
Speaker 1: the state police, they found traces of damage to the
Speaker 1: right fender in the approximate location where the hit and
Speaker 1: run vehicle might have struck Kevin. So if Malove was responsible,
Speaker 1: then this would seem to negate the story of the
Speaker 1: Springs doing secret.
Speaker 4: Repairs to his vehicle.
Speaker 1: The problem is that we really only have Malov's word
Speaker 1: that he drove the Linking Continental on Pequod Avenue that night,
Speaker 1: and since this damage was not examined until over three
Speaker 1: years after the accident, it could have conceivably been caused
Speaker 1: by something else. I don't know if the damage was
Speaker 1: caused by a hit and run. I really have my
Speaker 1: doubts that Malub would have left it there for years
Speaker 1: after the fact.
Speaker 4: So there are really three possibilities here.
Speaker 1: A the whole story about the Springs is fabricated and
Speaker 1: they have no involvement with the hit and run. B
Speaker 1: The Springs repaired Malub's Continental and he sustained damage from
Speaker 1: something else afterward. Or c The Springs did secret repairs
Speaker 1: to the vehicle which struck Keaven but someone else besides
Speaker 1: Harvey Mallov was a driver for his part. Even though
Speaker 1: Malov's Redevelopment Corporation had loaned three thousand to the Springs
Speaker 1: prior to the accident, He testified that he had never
Speaker 1: met them before, as he did not personally oversee every
Speaker 1: loan his corporation made.
Speaker 3: Is it possible that the lady who comes forward with
Speaker 3: the story about them, Is it possible she's doing it
Speaker 3: out of revenge and frustration if they were going down
Speaker 3: there to possibly have a secret affair.
Speaker 2: I do think that's possible, because, like we said, they
Speaker 2: were both married to other people. So if Walter Junior
Speaker 2: says that, hey, I'm not leaving my wife for you,
Speaker 2: I'm ending this relationship, that could have compelled her to
Speaker 2: come forward and give this false story about them being
Speaker 2: complicit in the hit and run on Kevin. Because stranding
Speaker 2: her in like a motel for like an entire month
Speaker 2: seems pretty extreme. And I don't know if they ever
Speaker 2: verified if that part of the story was.
Speaker 3: True, and did her husband miss her?
Speaker 4: How do they hold her in the hotel room?
Speaker 1: Like if she was duct taped, if she was chained,
Speaker 1: if she was drugged, there would be some kind of
Speaker 1: evidence of that, would there not?
Speaker 2: I think so? Yeah, Like she never actually said that
Speaker 2: she was forced against her will and said that they
Speaker 2: held a gun on me or they handcuffed me or
Speaker 2: taped me or anything. It's just kind of like they
Speaker 2: brought me to Florida and kept me in this room
Speaker 2: and told me not to leave. But like, if you're
Speaker 2: going to keep her there for an entire month, you'd
Speaker 2: have to do something more forceful, I think, and there
Speaker 2: would be evidence of that. The one thing which really
Speaker 2: seems to implicate Malub is his story about passing through
Speaker 2: the accident seen that night. It was contradicted by everyone
Speaker 2: else who was there, and without that story, I don't
Speaker 2: think Judge Danny would have had much grounds to name
Speaker 2: Mallub has probable hit and run driver. But I'm still
Speaker 2: trying to wrap my head around why Malib would have
Speaker 2: even shared that story in the first place if he
Speaker 2: was guilty. My best guess is that he was paranoid
Speaker 2: that one of the witnesses might have seen his vehicle
Speaker 2: driving down Pequad Avenue, so he had to concoct a
Speaker 2: cover story to explain what he was doing there at
Speaker 2: that time. However, since none of the witnesses got a
Speaker 2: good enough look at the hit and run vehicle to
Speaker 2: provide a description, Maluv's fabricated cover story was unnecessary and
Speaker 2: wound up backfiring on him instead. The weird part is
Speaker 2: that Malib also shared a story about seeing a dark
Speaker 2: green car park to the scene, as this was easily
Speaker 2: refuted by everyone else who was there. This might have
Speaker 2: stemmed from the fact that there were dark green paint
Speaker 2: particles found on Kevin's clothing, and the initial FBI lab
Speaker 2: report stated that it match the type of paint often
Speaker 2: found on a nineteen sixty eight Chrysler, a car which
Speaker 2: Malib would not have owned at that time, so this
Speaker 2: might have been Malub's subtle way of pointing the investigation
Speaker 2: towards an alternate vehicle, though the state police would later
Speaker 2: conclude that the green paint particles were likely a red
Speaker 2: herring and did not originate from the car which hit Kevin.
Speaker 2: You might be wondering why Malub would have decided to
Speaker 2: share such a blatantly false story with Lucille Showalter, but
Speaker 2: if he was the driver, he might have felt guilty
Speaker 2: over what happened and the fact that Lucille was being
Speaker 2: treated so badly by the police, So Maliv decided to
Speaker 2: play the role of the support of friend and toss
Speaker 2: Lucille a bone by telling her about this spictitious green
Speaker 2: car in order to give her something to chase after.
Speaker 2: Maybe he thought this was the best thing he could
Speaker 2: do for Lucille, aside from confessing to the crime and
Speaker 2: turning himself in. Of course, Maliv's ulterior motive was to
Speaker 2: lead the trail away from him, and he probably never
Speaker 2: envisioned that Lucille would eventually get far enough for a
Speaker 2: grand jury investigation to be launched.
Speaker 3: I'm sure all of them underestimated Lucille. She it was
Speaker 3: such an amazing advocate for her son, and refused to
Speaker 3: give up, and she kept pursuing different us potential leads,
Speaker 3: different potential avenue. She even tried to go to civil
Speaker 3: court just to get answers. Really, I don't think it
Speaker 3: was anticipating much, but I think just to get some answers.
Speaker 4: But you know, when you.
Speaker 3: Look at Maliv, what was he doing on that backstreet anyway?
Speaker 3: This was a very purposeful neighborhood street that if you
Speaker 3: didn't have a reason to be on it, it's not
Speaker 3: something you would have been taking. So did he ever
Speaker 3: explain where he had been, where he was going, and
Speaker 3: why he was there in the first place.
Speaker 2: I'm not entirely sure. I mean, he probably testified in
Speaker 2: the grand jury investigation and provided an alibi for himself,
Speaker 2: where he says, I went to this place at a
Speaker 2: particular time, I took this route home, But because the
Speaker 2: grand jury investigation was behind closed doors, we never really
Speaker 2: heard what his alibi was. It's never been shared to
Speaker 2: the public, but I'm guessing that it came across as
Speaker 2: suspicious where they were thinking, if you were driving from
Speaker 2: such and such a place to go home, there would
Speaker 2: be no reason for you to go on this particular
Speaker 2: street through this particular neighborhood.
Speaker 1: I Judge Danny he ruled that the investigation into Kevin's
Speaker 1: death was hampered by incompetence rather than a deliberate attempt
Speaker 1: at a cover up. But I actually think there are
Speaker 1: a number of things which point to the latter scenario
Speaker 1: we mentioned earlier. There was a suspicion that the green
Speaker 1: paint particles on Kevin's clothing were planted there and did
Speaker 1: not belong to the vehicle which struck him. There's also
Speaker 1: the box containing the headlight glass fragment, which was turned
Speaker 1: over to the state police for the grand jury investigation.
Speaker 1: It contained at least one fragment which did not originate
Speaker 1: from the hit and run and was likely deliberately removed
Speaker 1: from the headlight socket of a totally different vehicle. It
Speaker 1: seems the glass fragment was planted in the box by
Speaker 1: someone who hoped that no one would notice the difference,
Speaker 1: but an engineer from General Electric did, and I will
Speaker 1: concede that this might have been done by the new
Speaker 1: London PD to cover up the fact that they lost
Speaker 1: some of the original headlight glass recovered from the accident scene,
Speaker 1: rather than because they were attempting to protect someone. But
Speaker 1: it still looks pretty bad regardless. Prior to the grand
Speaker 1: jury proceedings, it also looks like there were several deliberate
Speaker 1: attempts to prevent Harvey Mallow from being investigated. For instance,
Speaker 1: Lucille frequently tried to garner the attention of County administrative
Speaker 1: Judge Angelo Santaniello, who later went on to become a
Speaker 1: Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. After ignoring her on
Speaker 1: multiple occasions, Judge Santiniello finally promised Lucille that he would
Speaker 1: hold a coroner's inquest, but they never actually issued a finding.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: It turned out that Santiniello was Melov's best friend, and
Speaker 1: no transcript was ever provided for this coroner's inquest until
Speaker 1: years after the fact. Santaniello's excuse was that he'd put
Speaker 1: his niece in charge of typing up the transcript, but
Speaker 1: she just never got around to it.
Speaker 3: Wow, that would make you, even if there was nothing
Speaker 3: of furious going on, if you step back and you
Speaker 3: look at this, it's really hard not to feel how
Speaker 3: disingenuine it is. Right you again have somebody saying, oh,
Speaker 3: don't worry, Lucille, We're really going to step up for you.
Speaker 3: I'm really going to help you this time, I hear
Speaker 3: you and validating her concern and frustration. And then again,
Speaker 3: just like Maliv had done to her, Maliff's friend does
Speaker 3: the exact same thing. He's basically pacifying her and not
Speaker 3: following through with any kind of genuine attempt to help her.
Speaker 2: Yep, that seems to be a pattern in this case,
Speaker 2: where they're like, well, we're going to do something to
Speaker 2: help you, Lucille, and it seems like they're just telling
Speaker 2: her what she wants to hear, hoping she'll go away
Speaker 2: and forget about it. But then they just never do
Speaker 2: anything and then come up with ridiculous excuses when nothing
Speaker 2: actually happens. While on the subject of hit and runs,
Speaker 2: have you guys been following the Karen Reid case this
Speaker 2: past year?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No. It's a pretty big case from Massachusetts about a
Speaker 2: police officer who was killed in a blizzard in what
Speaker 2: was an alleged hit and run from her girlfriend, Karen Reid,
Speaker 2: And she's already gone in trial and it's ended in
Speaker 2: a hunger and there's so much drama surrounding the case
Speaker 2: because there are allegations that members of the corrupt police
Speaker 2: force have planted evidence in order to frame her. And
Speaker 2: this is kind of bringing me flashbacks to this talking
Speaker 2: about planting this fake headlight glass because in Karen Reid's
Speaker 2: place of and allegations that they planted like tailight pieces
Speaker 2: to frame her as well. So I know that case
Speaker 2: wasn't around when I originally covered this on the Trail
Speaker 2: with Cold, but just talking about it now is now
Speaker 2: giving me flashbacks to the Karen Reid case.
Speaker 1: She should listen to the prosecutor's coverage on it. They
Speaker 1: really lay it out clearly, concisely, and succinctly, and so
Speaker 1: in like a few episodes you'll get all of the
Speaker 1: evidence and what it would take to have this conspiracy
Speaker 1: of many. In the end, I walked away thinking she
Speaker 1: did it. It's just really incompetent police work and getting
Speaker 1: evidence in like red solo cups. But then you're working
Speaker 1: against these horrible weather conditions, and they were trying to
Speaker 1: make do in that situation, and it was not ideal
Speaker 1: and there was a lot of errors made, but I
Speaker 1: think it was just rife for a situation where you
Speaker 1: could point to conspiracy, and Karen Reid was just the
Speaker 1: right kind of defendant to have a lot of people
Speaker 1: jump behind her on that bandwagon.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm fascinated. I will absolutely listen to it. Teddy
Speaker 3: needs some good true crime podcasting to listen to while
Speaker 3: we're you know, nursing and things like that.
Speaker 2: I started thought that case, it's the first case for
Speaker 2: baby to listen.
Speaker 3: Amen.
Speaker 2: And while we're on the subject of transcripts, how about
Speaker 2: the fact that the transcripts from the original Grandeury investigation
Speaker 2: mysteriously went missing in two thousand and five when The
Speaker 2: Day newspaper attempted to obtain them. Now, these transcripts have
Speaker 2: been withheld from the public since nineteen seventy eight, so
Speaker 2: there's no way to pinpoint the exact time period they
Speaker 2: went missing, but they were twelve volumes in over three
Speaker 2: thousand pages long, and you just don't lose something like
Speaker 2: that by accident. It takes work to get rid of
Speaker 2: that much material. So this indicates to me that someone
Speaker 2: took steps to make the transcripts disappear, possibly because there
Speaker 2: was something incriminating in there which they did not want
Speaker 2: to be released publicly. In addition, there was also the
Speaker 2: risk that Lucille could have used these transcripts as evidence
Speaker 2: to win a civil suit. Overall, this is what makes
Speaker 2: me think that Paul Hansen wasn't the actual driver of
Speaker 2: the hit run vehicle. His name was never mentioned during
Speaker 2: the grand jury proceedings, and no one even knew who
Speaker 2: he was until a year after the investigation concluded, so
Speaker 2: there would be no need to get rid of the
Speaker 2: transcripts or destroy evidence in order to protect him. But
Speaker 2: the big question is was there something in those transcripts
Speaker 2: to incriminate Harvey Malluf or someone else entirely.
Speaker 3: It's really bizarre when you think about it. Like you said,
Speaker 3: this is such a large quantity of information and paperwork
Speaker 3: that it's not just a form that goes missing. This
Speaker 3: is a complete file and multiple files. I mean it's huge,
Speaker 3: and to say, oh, I don't know where that went
Speaker 3: someone does. It almost reminds me Robin when we talk
Speaker 3: about the fact when you're moving offices you're given authorization
Speaker 3: to go through and select documents and files and things
Speaker 3: that you're responsible for getting rid of. I almost feel
Speaker 3: like someone had to specifically be assigned, like, hey, you
Speaker 3: need to go in the evidence room and you need
Speaker 3: to get old evidence or evidence is not relevant anymore
Speaker 3: and destroy it because it had to be purposeful. You
Speaker 3: don't just quote lose that.
Speaker 2: Yes, In case you people don't know, my day job
Speaker 2: is working for Global Affairs Canada as a records management officer,
Speaker 2: and we just recently completed a new move to a
Speaker 2: new office space and have gone completely paperless, which means
Speaker 2: that I've been in charge of making a whole bunch
Speaker 2: of old paper documents digital and storing them electronically and
Speaker 2: then having them destroyed. And I can tell you that's
Speaker 2: a long process. You have to get a lot of authorization,
Speaker 2: so no one is going to take three thousand pages
Speaker 2: of a transcript of a grand jury proceeding and then
Speaker 2: just shred them all by accident like someone has to
Speaker 2: make a calculated move to make that happen.
Speaker 1: Well, there's no way we can say with one hundred
Speaker 1: percent certainty, but I think there's a pretty compelling, circumstantial
Speaker 1: case against Malove to make him the strongest suspect.
Speaker 4: The biggest issue.
Speaker 1: Is that he told an obviously false story placing himself
Speaker 1: at the accident scene, and I see no reason for
Speaker 1: him to do this if he wasn't involved. This obviously
Speaker 1: isn't strong enough evidence to ever build a criminal case
Speaker 1: against him, but it's enough to arouse suspicion. From all
Speaker 1: I've read about Malove, he seemed to be very well
Speaker 1: liked and respected citizen, and I can give him the
Speaker 1: benefit of the doubt that he honestly did not see
Speaker 1: Kevin when he struck him allegedly, and he may have
Speaker 1: been completely unaware that he hit anyone when he left
Speaker 1: a scene. As long as Melov wasn't intoxicated or driving
Speaker 1: recklessly at the time, then this is probably one of
Speaker 1: those unavoidable tragic accidents in which no one is completely
Speaker 1: at fault. If Maluv had just come clean right at
Speaker 1: the outset, he probably wouldn't have faced criminal charges and
Speaker 1: saved everyone a lot of pain, and from what I've
Speaker 1: read about Lucille's show, Walter, I think she probably would
Speaker 1: have forgiven him the metal of likely felt like he
Speaker 1: had a reputation to maintain and could not connect his
Speaker 1: name to an incident which caused the death of another person.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right when you look at this case. It's
Speaker 3: one of those that I honestly feel like Lucille, despite
Speaker 3: how she was portrayed, solely wanted someone to say, let
Speaker 3: me answer your questions, let me tell you what happened.
Speaker 3: And I don't feel like she was out for revenge
Speaker 3: or out to hurt anybody, because it was a tragic accident.
Speaker 3: Anyone who knows their child was killed via a hit
Speaker 3: and run hit by an automobile changing a tire on
Speaker 3: a dark road, that is just pure tragedy.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: If someone had stopped and said, hey, this is what happened,
Speaker 3: or come forward the next day and say, hey, I
Speaker 3: was intoxicated, but this is what happened, there's so much
Speaker 3: respect and accountability there to say you made a big
Speaker 3: mistake and a mistake that stole the life of my
Speaker 3: child and our son and a friend and a young
Speaker 3: kid who had so much promise, but there's a room
Speaker 3: for compassion. It's when no one took accountability. And when
Speaker 3: then she started to get stone walled and dismissed. I
Speaker 3: think it caused an upset at the system, not at
Speaker 3: what happened to her son. That was simply tragic and
Speaker 3: disheartening that no one could answer her question. So my
Speaker 3: heart breaks because she just wanted someone to say, I
Speaker 3: know what happened, and now you can lay your son
Speaker 3: to rest without those questions going off in your head,
Speaker 3: and she never got that.
Speaker 2: And this is why I think it's a good chance
Speaker 2: that Mala who or whoever the driver was, was intoxicated
Speaker 2: at the time, and so even if they had just
Speaker 2: stopped the vehicle right there Agnfest, they probably still would
Speaker 2: have faced serious jail time for that. And that's probably
Speaker 2: why he just avoided the situation and never even came
Speaker 2: clean even years after the fact. Because we mentioned that
Speaker 2: Harvey mallib died of cancer in nineteen eighty nine, and
Speaker 2: I'd like to think that if he was a big
Speaker 2: enough man, he would have finally made a deathbed confession
Speaker 2: and called Lucille over and apologized for what he did
Speaker 2: to Kevin and taken full responsibility, but even on death's door,
Speaker 2: he never did that. However, maybe we're one hundred percent
Speaker 2: wrong on this and Malib is completely innocent and the
Speaker 2: real driver is another suspect we don't even know about.
Speaker 2: Whoever it was. I think it had to be someone
Speaker 2: prominent enough that the authorities were willing to sandbag an
Speaker 2: investigation and destroy evidence in order to protect them. Maybe
Speaker 2: probable was too strong a word for Judge Dany Heat
Speaker 2: to use when he named Harvey Malib as the driver,
Speaker 2: but he does seem more likely than anyone to have
Speaker 2: been the perpetrator. Now, since Lucille show Walter and the
Speaker 2: two prime suspects, Harvey Malob and Paul Hansen, have passed away,
Speaker 2: it's unlikely we'll ever learn the full truth about what happened.
Speaker 2: Even if we, it's not like the perpetrator could be charged,
Speaker 2: since the statute of limitations has long expired. However, Kevin
Speaker 2: had two brothers, and as far as I know, they're
Speaker 2: both still alive. Kevin's younger brother, Craig, actually published an
Speaker 2: editorial about the case in the Day newspaper on Christmas
Speaker 2: Eve of two thousand and eight. It was a classy
Speaker 2: piece of writing in which he expressed his condolences to
Speaker 2: the families of Hariy Mallev and Paul Hansen for all
Speaker 2: the suffering they had to endure. But it's also clear
Speaker 2: the show Walter family has gone through a lot of
Speaker 2: pain these fast five decades and would be nice if
Speaker 2: they could receive closure and finally put this matter to rest.
Speaker 2: So if you happen to have any information about the
Speaker 2: hit and run death of Kevin Showalter, please contact the
Speaker 2: appropriate authorities. Jules Ashley any final thoughts on this case.
Speaker 3: Well, his brother sure is a class act. That's what
Speaker 3: I was trying to describe without being as articulate as
Speaker 3: I needed to be earlier, is that in this tragedy,
Speaker 3: in something that's an accident, whether fully decisions were made
Speaker 3: to drink and drive or not, you still have the
Speaker 3: repercussions that you took somebody's life. And a family also
Speaker 3: has to face that their loved win took somebody's life.
Speaker 3: And so there's a lot of people who are affected
Speaker 3: in these kinds of accidents and hitting runs and drinking
Speaker 3: and driving accidents. It's not the victim only, it's the
Speaker 3: victim and their family. It's also the person who hits
Speaker 3: the victim and their family, and you know, I just, man,
Speaker 3: I feel so much respect for his brothers, saying, look,
Speaker 3: there are no winners here. My mom passed away without
Speaker 3: knowing my brother's deceased and didn't get to live his life.
Speaker 3: Multiple people have been named as suspects or come forward
Speaker 3: taking credit for the crime, and it's all tragic, you know.
Speaker 3: And I think that's the kind of ultimate conclusion here,
Speaker 3: is that it's just sad. You had a kid with
Speaker 3: so much potential who just went out for fun on
Speaker 3: Christmas Eve and he loses his life by trying to
Speaker 3: change a tire. Sad and a mother who said, please
Speaker 3: just pay attention to the fact that I lost the
Speaker 3: most important thing in my life and people didn't breaks
Speaker 3: my heart. This is one of the sadder, kind of
Speaker 3: emotionally heavy cases, just for how disregarded the survivors were
Speaker 3: in the case and how still the brother remains a
Speaker 3: class act, saying I feel empathy for everyone involved.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the brother is really a standout here.
Speaker 1: I feel like this case is shattering because it reverberates
Speaker 1: out and it affected so many people and so many families,
Speaker 1: and what is at the heart of it it seems
Speaker 1: to just be a tragic accident that likely could have
Speaker 1: been avoided. But accidents happen. And I mean, do I
Speaker 1: think that Harvey Malove is the most likely perpetrator. Yes,
Speaker 1: But in that split second decision that he made rather
Speaker 1: than call law enforcement and say this was an accident,
Speaker 1: he wasn't visible, he didn't have his breaks on. I
Speaker 1: couldn't see him and I hit him. But due to
Speaker 1: other factors, maybe he was intoxicated, maybe he wasn't. Given
Speaker 1: that he was a prominent political figure having his name
Speaker 1: tied to a tragedy in which Kevin died, it would
Speaker 1: have been difficult. It just seems so convoluted and conspiratorial,
Speaker 1: all of these different actions that were taken, evidence that
Speaker 1: was lost, and even the whole coroner's inquest to find
Speaker 1: out that that judge was best friends with Malove. And
Speaker 1: it's just like everybody is a little bit too cozy here,
Speaker 1: and the victims are truly people like Lucille's Showalter, who
Speaker 1: was just treated I feel like in such a disrespectful
Speaker 1: manner where they're either pacifying her, placating her, or passing
Speaker 1: her off or portraying her in a really unflattering light
Speaker 1: like she was portrayed on that TV show, and my
Speaker 1: heart truly breaks for Lucille because all she ever wanted
Speaker 1: was justice and answers for what happened to Kevin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we just mentioned what a class act Kevin's brother,
Speaker 2: Craig was with that editorially published and I was lucky
Speaker 2: enough to be contacted by Craig after I released my
Speaker 2: Trail one cold episode about this case in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: and he was really nice about it. He was very
Speaker 2: happy that I covered the case, and I think he's
Speaker 2: one of those family members who feels that even if
Speaker 2: we don't get a conclusive resolution after all these years,
Speaker 2: it's nice that people still remember Kevin and want to
Speaker 2: share his story, and also the story about his mother
Speaker 2: and what a great activist she was trying to find
Speaker 2: answers for her son. Because she could have just given
Speaker 2: up and accepted right at the outset that the case
Speaker 2: will never be solved, she'll never find out who did this,
Speaker 2: but she spent years fighting tireslessly, gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses,
Speaker 2: and as a result, it actually got presented in front
Speaker 2: of a grand jury, and we talked about how this
Speaker 2: ultimately cost more money than had ever been seen at
Speaker 2: that time for a hit and run case, for a
Speaker 2: hit and run investigation, And like we talked about, when
Speaker 2: you look at the evidence, it does seem probable that
Speaker 2: Harvey Mallib is the most likely suspect. We don't have
Speaker 2: enough evidence against him to prosecute him or take him
Speaker 2: to court, but the fact that he made those incriminating
Speaker 2: statements placing himself at the accident scene, which is contradicted
Speaker 2: by all the other witnesses there, seems to indicate that
Speaker 2: he may have been trying to clear his conscience or
Speaker 2: send Lucille in the wrong direction to cover for himself.
Speaker 2: But he pretty much stuck his own foot in his mouth.
Speaker 2: If he hadn't done that, I don't know if anyone
Speaker 2: ever would have linked him to this crime. I definitely
Speaker 2: think he's a more likely candidate to Paul Hanson. And
Speaker 2: like I said, the statute of limitations nearly ran out.
Speaker 2: Eventually ran out, so he never would have been charged anyway.
Speaker 2: But it would have just have been nice to see
Speaker 2: some accountability. That's all Lucille and her family won. It's
Speaker 2: someone to like finally say I was the one who
Speaker 2: hit your son I'm sorry that I ran away, but
Speaker 2: this is what happened, and she didn't even get that,
Speaker 2: and it does seem likely there was a cover up
Speaker 2: and a lot of people concealed the truth and this
Speaker 2: tragic accident wound up escalating into an unsolved cold case
Speaker 2: which still doesn't have a conclusive resolution. And after fifty years.
Speaker 1: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: about the Trail Went Cold?
Speaker 4: Patreon?
Speaker 2: Yes, The Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
Speaker 2: years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
Speaker 2: early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
Speaker 2: and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
Speaker 2: with us on Patreon. If you join our five dollars
Speaker 2: tier tier two, we also offer monthly bonus episodes in
Speaker 2: which I talk about cases which are not featured on
Speaker 2: the Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon,
Speaker 2: and if you join our highest tier tier three, the
Speaker 2: ten dollars tier. One of the features we offer is
Speaker 2: a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsolved Mysteries,
Speaker 2: where you can download an audio file and then boot
Speaker 2: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
Speaker 2: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
Speaker 2: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
Speaker 2: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
Speaker 2: first episode that I did commentary track over was the
Speaker 2: episode featuring this case. So if you want to download
Speaker 2: a commentary track in which I make more smart ass
Speaker 2: remarks about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join Tier three.
Speaker 5: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 5: about the Jeweles and Nashty patreons. So there's early ad
Speaker 5: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Speaker 5: Pathwent Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so
Speaker 5: they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
Speaker 5: turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those.
Speaker 4: So we hope you'll check out those patreons. We'll link
Speaker 4: them in the show notes.
Speaker 2: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
Speaker 2: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 2: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly appreciated.
Speaker 2: You can email us at The Pathwentchili at gmail dot com.
Speaker 2: You can reach us on Twitter at the Pathwin. So
Speaker 2: until next time, be sure to bundle up because cold
Speaker 2: trails and chili pass call for warm clothing.
Speaker 1: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy