Speaker 1: Welcome to part two of our series about the Bishop
Speaker 1: family murders. Let's jump right in, yeah, because he just
Speaker 1: strikes me as someone who was just so sick of
Speaker 1: his current life and felt that he wasn't living up
Speaker 1: to expectations. So he wanted to start afresh and maybe
Speaker 1: start a new family someday, but do it in like
Speaker 1: a completely different country where he's away from everyone. They
Speaker 1: did perform a search of the park and found no
Speaker 1: trace of him, so there is no evidence that he
Speaker 1: may have killed himself. I guess the one thing that
Speaker 1: gives me pause is that this was a pretty remote
Speaker 1: area and if he abandoned his vehicle, he would need
Speaker 1: transportation elsewhere in order to go to the nearest airport.
Speaker 1: There are no reports of any hitchhikers matching his description
Speaker 1: during that time period, but he was seen in the
Speaker 1: company of a dark skinned woman, so if he was
Speaker 1: in the relationship, it's possible he could have abandoned the
Speaker 1: station wagon and she had a vehicle of her own,
Speaker 1: and so she was the one who drove him out
Speaker 1: of the area and possibly took him to an airport.
Speaker 2: You've got a wonder too, if this poor woman is
Speaker 2: still alive if she was indeed with him, because you
Speaker 2: would think he would want to leave no witnesses behind.
Speaker 2: Either she's going to be coming with him and going
Speaker 2: the distance, or at some point if he feels like
Speaker 2: she's a threat to his safety and security and that
Speaker 2: she has information that would be highly valued to law
Speaker 2: enforcement and that she might be willing to share it,
Speaker 2: I would think that he would not think for a
Speaker 2: second but to end her life. So at this point,
Speaker 2: so many years later, if she did indeed exist and
Speaker 2: she was with him and they just like broke up,
Speaker 2: you'd think that she would come forward.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think that if she was involved in a relationship,
Speaker 1: she had no idea what he was doing, because we
Speaker 1: have seen documented cases where people are willing to hook
Speaker 1: up with men who have murdered their wives. But I
Speaker 1: think that most women would draw the line at a
Speaker 1: family annihilator, thinking that if he's capable of like bludgeoning
Speaker 1: his own mother and his children with a sledgehammer, that's
Speaker 1: not someone I want to spend the rest of my
Speaker 1: life with because he's obviously someone who's capable of flying
Speaker 1: off the handle and killing someone, So my own safety
Speaker 1: would be at risk.
Speaker 2: Well, hybristophelia is a real thing. And all you need
Speaker 2: to look to for reference that there's plenty of women
Speaker 2: out there who are willing is all of the fan
Speaker 2: mail and all of the attention that Chris Watts gets.
Speaker 1: It's true. Yeah, so some people think that if a
Speaker 1: man is charming and up are good lucky enough, they
Speaker 1: are willing to put up with anything. But since you
Speaker 1: mentioned wondering what happened to this woman, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: you're wondering about the fate of Leo the Dog, it
Speaker 1: turned out that weeks after the search of Great Smoky
Speaker 1: Mountains National Park included a park ranger was told by
Speaker 1: an acquaintance that they had seen a makeshift grave at
Speaker 1: a spot about a mile away from the parking lot
Speaker 1: where the station wagon had been abandoned. The park ranger,
Speaker 1: his name was Dwight McCarter, decided to go out and
Speaker 1: check the area, and he did say that he found
Speaker 1: a small grave which was marked by a pile of
Speaker 1: rocks and a wooden cross, and it appeared to have
Speaker 1: been tied together by a parachute cord. So he actually
Speaker 1: took photos of the grave, so we do know that
Speaker 1: it existed, but for whatever reason, he didn't tell anybody
Speaker 1: about this for years, and I think the first time
Speaker 1: this was released publicly was maybe like twenty eighteen or so,
Speaker 1: which is when they finally decided to publish these photographs
Speaker 1: in the newspaper of this Cross. And of course by
Speaker 1: the time he told everyone, they tried to do a
Speaker 1: search and find this grave, but the area had become
Speaker 1: so overgrown that they have been able to track it down.
Speaker 1: But there's been speculation that perhaps this is what happened
Speaker 1: to the poor dot Leo, that Brad decided, I can't
Speaker 1: take the dog with me if I'm traveling overseas, so
Speaker 1: maybe he decided to kill it, and because he still
Speaker 1: had a respect for Leo, he decided to give him
Speaker 1: the dignity of a makeshift grave, which is a sharp
Speaker 1: contrast to murdering your entire family and setting their bodies
Speaker 1: in fire in a grave.
Speaker 2: That's wild. If that was indeed Leo, to honor your
Speaker 2: dog with a cross and to bury him, and to
Speaker 2: just treat your family like we're just going to leave
Speaker 2: your bodies out there in the open. I still think
Speaker 2: he was interrupted and that he intended to bury them,
Speaker 2: not because he was honoring them or because he cared,
Speaker 2: but because he didn't want to get caught and he
Speaker 2: was going to use them not being able to be
Speaker 2: found as some kind of subter views where it's like, oh,
Speaker 2: he's disappeared as well. Maybe he is also the victim.
Speaker 2: But it's interesting that he waited until twenty eighteen to
Speaker 2: come out with this because he knew about the station
Speaker 2: wagon being abandoned there, did he not?
Speaker 1: I think so? Yeah, But maybe he just didn't put
Speaker 1: two and two together and figured that this might have
Speaker 1: a connection to there's wanted fugitive we've been trying to
Speaker 1: find in this same park. And while this might be
Speaker 1: a long shot, I suppose an alternate explanation is that
Speaker 1: if he decided to kill his female companion, maybe he
Speaker 1: buried her in that makeshift grave. I mean, I was
Speaker 1: thinking that if he killed her, that maybe he wouldn't
Speaker 1: go to the trouble of doing a wooden cross to
Speaker 1: mark the territory because he wouldn't want her body to
Speaker 1: be found. But I guess it is an alternate possibility.
Speaker 1: But I still think that most likely Leo was buried
Speaker 1: there because he probably didn't care well if they find
Speaker 1: Leo's body. I'm already a wanton murderer anyway, so it's
Speaker 1: not going to make much difference.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree. I think that there's a strong likelihood
Speaker 2: that if it was tied to him, that it was Leo.
Speaker 2: I mean, in my heart, I want to believe that
Speaker 2: like Leo continued to live his best life and found
Speaker 2: a new family and you know, lived to a happy
Speaker 2: like old age. But given what we know about William
Speaker 2: Bradford Bishop and how easy it is for him to
Speaker 2: kill those who he supposed to loves, I would think
Speaker 2: that the probabilities high that that makeshift grave was indeed Leo.
Speaker 2: And like you said, I don't think it was the
Speaker 2: female companion, because you don't want to go to the
Speaker 2: If you're going to go to the effort to bury
Speaker 2: this person, which we know that he doesn't do to
Speaker 2: honor people, because with his family he didn't seem to care.
Speaker 2: You're going to do it to conceal, and if your
Speaker 2: objective is to conceal, you're not going to then use
Speaker 2: a cross to draw attention to that grave.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, So I do think that in his twisted mind,
Speaker 1: he was like, well, I still love Leo, but if
Speaker 1: I'm going to take an international flight, I can't take
Speaker 1: my dog, so I'm going to give him a proper
Speaker 1: burial in this peaceful place. So over the years there
Speaker 1: would be a number of eye into citings of Bishop,
Speaker 1: but there were three that stand out because they were
Speaker 1: made by people who personally knew him and work with them,
Speaker 1: and all of them were overseas. The first one took
Speaker 1: place in July of nineteen seventy eight and was a
Speaker 1: Swedish woman who had worked with Brad when he was
Speaker 1: posted in Ethiopia years earlier, and she claimed that on
Speaker 1: two separate occasions within the span of one week, the
Speaker 1: woman claimed that she saw a bearded man resembling Brad
Speaker 1: at a public park in Stockholm, and she believed he
Speaker 1: was following her. But at the time she was not
Speaker 1: yet aware that Bishop had become a wanted fugitive. But
Speaker 1: once she learned about it, she reported her sightings to
Speaker 1: the authorities, but by that time so much time had
Speaker 1: passed they were unable to track him down.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes sense, and I think that what is
Speaker 2: somebody that he's worked with. I would say there's like
Speaker 2: a high validity to the sighting and it actually could
Speaker 2: have been William Bradford Bishop, because I don't think he
Speaker 2: ever took his own life, and I don't think that
Speaker 2: he remained in that park for any great length of time.
Speaker 2: I think his objective was always to go overseas. So
Speaker 2: this checks.
Speaker 1: Out exactly, and it becomes more believable when you hear
Speaker 1: my story about the next sighting, which took place six
Speaker 1: months later in January of nineteen seventy nine. And this
Speaker 1: one is more believable because it involves Roy Harrell, who
Speaker 1: was the person who he worked with at the State
Speaker 1: Department who spoke with him about not making the promotion
Speaker 1: on the list when he left work on the day
Speaker 1: of the murders. I know that Harrol was on a
Speaker 1: trip to Italy and was in the town of Sorrento,
Speaker 1: and he was waiting to board a bus to Rome,
Speaker 1: but decided to go into a restroom and it wasn't
Speaker 1: long before a disheveled looking man who looked like a
Speaker 1: transient walked inside, and even though he had shaggy hair
Speaker 1: and a beard, Roy looked at him and said, whoa,
Speaker 1: he has a striking resemblance to brad Bishop. And he
Speaker 1: claimed that he actually said, you're Brad Bishop, aren't you.
Speaker 1: And you would think that if this is a complete stranger,
Speaker 1: they might not even understand English and just look confused.
Speaker 1: But according to Roy, this guy just panicked and yelled
Speaker 1: oh my god no in what sounded like an American accent,
Speaker 1: and then ran out. And you should watch the Unsolved
Speaker 1: Mystery segment because the reenactment of the seat is unintentionally
Speaker 1: hilarious because of the bad acting where he goes, oh
Speaker 1: my god ah and runs out screaming, and the actor
Speaker 1: playing Roy goes, Brad, wait stop, don't reg and stuff
Speaker 1: like that. And I remember watching this segment on Unsolved
Speaker 1: Mysteries with my father, who's a commercial airline pilot who
Speaker 1: has traveled the world for decades, and he says, this
Speaker 1: sort of thing has happened to me, where I just
Speaker 1: randomly bump into friends and colleagues I know in foreign countries.
Speaker 1: I mean, I haven't run into any like former colleagues
Speaker 1: who were wanted murderers. But these sort of chance encounters
Speaker 1: do happen sometimes where you're over on the other side
Speaker 1: of the world and you just happen to bump into
Speaker 1: people you know.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, like pre COVID. My husband used to travel
Speaker 2: for work all the time, and he'd been all over
Speaker 2: the world and it happened to him several times where
Speaker 2: he'd bump into somebody that he knew randomly in countries.
Speaker 2: So it seems improbable. But if you're going to be
Speaker 2: traveling around and the thing is he's exposed to people
Speaker 2: that travel a lot for work, right and it was
Speaker 2: the same thing with my husband. So if that is
Speaker 2: the case, then it increases the probability that you're then
Speaker 2: going to bump into them in one of these locations
Speaker 2: that they're known to be exactly.
Speaker 1: And I can imagine if this was legitimate, like Brad's
Speaker 1: reaction would be like that, like I'm trying to hide
Speaker 1: out from the authorities and one of the odds that
Speaker 1: I run into my former co worker thousands of miles
Speaker 1: away in Italy in a restroom. So but I guess
Speaker 1: over the years there have been people who have questioned
Speaker 1: Roy Harrel's credibility because he has often done interviews surrounding
Speaker 1: this case. I think he kind of likes the attention
Speaker 1: of being the last person who saw Brad Bishop alive
Speaker 1: before he killed his family. And a couple years later,
Speaker 1: someone decided to call his bluff and say that ask
Speaker 1: him a question, do you know about Brad's connection with
Speaker 1: this certain person of interest? And then Roy said, well,
Speaker 1: I'll check into that and get back to you. And
Speaker 1: then he came back and spoke to this journalist and
Speaker 1: said that, oh, yeah, I know all about Brad's relationship
Speaker 1: with this person. They worked together at such and such.
Speaker 1: And then the journalist said, the problem is this person
Speaker 1: doesn't exist. I just made him up, and you just
Speaker 1: came up with this fake story about him and Brad
Speaker 1: being close associates. So they kind of think that Roy
Speaker 1: Harold did have like a tendency to like fabricate things
Speaker 1: for attention. So that has made people believe a wonder
Speaker 1: if this actual encounter with them in the bathroom in
Speaker 1: Italy actually happened.
Speaker 2: Given what you've just told me, it makes me question.
Speaker 2: It sounds a lot more specific, and it sounds like, Okay,
Speaker 2: there's a potential that, yeah, that could have happened, But
Speaker 2: did it? Is he just putting a little sauce on it.
Speaker 2: Is it possible that he saw somebody that like, maybe
Speaker 2: looked a little bit like him and he just added
Speaker 2: some to the story.
Speaker 1: That is possible that he did see a guy look
Speaker 1: like Brad, but he didn't give off that shocked reaction
Speaker 1: and run away. That maybe he just exaggerated that part
Speaker 1: of the story. And I know that Roy in his
Speaker 1: Unsolved Mysteries interview has kind of gotten a lot of
Speaker 1: heat for making this one comment. I'm going to share
Speaker 1: it word for word. Quote Brad Bishop felt from the
Speaker 1: time I knew him that there was something lacking in himself.
Speaker 1: This feeling was nourished constantly by both his mother and
Speaker 1: to some degree, his wife, who constantly told him that
Speaker 1: he was inadequate and washed up and wasn't going anywhere
Speaker 1: in his career. End quote. Well, I've read from other
Speaker 1: people who knew Annette and a Lobilia who say that
Speaker 1: those claims are greatly exaggerated about them belittling Brad constantly.
Speaker 1: So people have always thought that Roy's interview almost kind
Speaker 1: of sounds like victim blaming, Like he's almost saying that
Speaker 1: they they negg Brad too much, that they pretty much
Speaker 1: drove him to commit the murders.
Speaker 2: It's one hundred percent victim blaming. But in his defense,
Speaker 2: he's probably told by Brad that this is what's happening,
Speaker 2: and I'm sure that it's being greatly exaggerated. And that's
Speaker 2: the problem. When you're only getting one perspective, you're not
Speaker 2: getting this like holistic perspective where he's hearing from a
Speaker 2: net in Lubilia about William Bradford Bishop, his behavior and
Speaker 2: his tendencies, just the type of man that he is.
Speaker 2: From them, you're just hearing about how he's being stifled,
Speaker 2: and he is blaming them, probably for his inability to
Speaker 2: be able to reach his full potential when he really
Speaker 2: needs to look in a mirror and start taking some
Speaker 2: personal accountability. And I'm sure that they did have criticism
Speaker 2: for him because he did things that needed to be criticized.
Speaker 2: At times, he sounds like he just had this idea
Speaker 2: that he is the man everything needs to go through him.
Speaker 2: And I'm sure that that was stifling for a net
Speaker 2: and I'm sure was stifling for Lubilia as well, when
Speaker 2: he's probably looking to her as is like constant atm
Speaker 2: and then the money runs out and it's like, oh
Speaker 2: now he's got to stand on his own, and he's
Speaker 2: like this little toddler throwing a tantrum.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I really don't know how familiar Roy was
Speaker 1: with Loubilia and Annette if he spent much time with
Speaker 1: the Bishop family, so it's possible because they were co workers.
Speaker 1: Everything he was saying was what Brad told him. That
Speaker 1: maybe Brad privately complained to him that my mother and
Speaker 1: my wife are nagging me so much, and Brad just
Speaker 1: took that as gospel, not realizing Roy just took that
Speaker 1: as gospel, not realizing that, Yeah, you're speaking with a
Speaker 1: narcissist here who's probably going to stretch the truth to
Speaker 1: try to pain himself in the best possible light.
Speaker 2: And like, what are the chances that even if Roy
Speaker 2: was acquainted with a net in Lubilia that they would
Speaker 2: bright him in front of him? Do you know what
Speaker 2: I mean? Like you've got guests over, like let's criticize
Speaker 2: William Bradford Bishop and do it in front of Roy
Speaker 2: and make him and really just make him the victim here,
Speaker 2: Like I just don't think that ever happened.
Speaker 1: No, probably not. I don't think he personally witnessed it.
Speaker 1: So the last eyewitness sighting that took place in Europe
Speaker 1: was in September of nineteen ninety four, and this is
Speaker 1: after the Bishop case got lots of new national exposure
Speaker 1: because he was featured on Unsolved Mysteries and America's Most
Speaker 1: Wanted and the witness was a former neighbor of the
Speaker 1: best Shop family from Bethesta, who claimed that she was
Speaker 1: on vacation with her husband and saw a bishop through
Speaker 1: the window of a train on a platform, and said
Speaker 1: that he made direct eye contact and appeared to laugh
Speaker 1: at them as the train pulled away. And it's never
Speaker 1: been confirmed that this sighting was legitimate. But what's interesting
Speaker 1: is that she described Brad as looking well groomed, whereas
Speaker 1: the sightings from the nineteen seventies described him as having
Speaker 1: shaggy here and a beard, which made it look like
Speaker 1: he was a transient of some sort and may not
Speaker 1: have had a home. So if she is telling the truth,
Speaker 1: that makes you wonder did Brad have a few rough
Speaker 1: years over there where he was wandering on the streets
Speaker 1: living as a transient. But by the nineteen nineties, perhaps
Speaker 1: he had established a new identity and got a new
Speaker 1: job somewhere and it improved as in his station in life,
Speaker 1: and was living comfortably somewhere in Switzerland.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's entirely possible. I do question, like you're
Speaker 2: seeing somebody on a train platform. How close of a
Speaker 2: look can you truly get? And I mean if we
Speaker 2: look back at the seventies, I would think that maybe
Speaker 2: living this kind of transient lifestyle or having this big
Speaker 2: beard would be part of him trying to conceal his
Speaker 2: identity because I would think that like interpol or you know,
Speaker 2: the authorities would be looking for him. So anything you
Speaker 2: can do to look different than you would typically look,
Speaker 2: the pictures that would be circulated, I think would serve
Speaker 2: you in being able to evade authorities if they were
Speaker 2: ever onto you being in that country. And then by
Speaker 2: the nineties it's like, well it's not as hot as
Speaker 2: it used to be, and I've been living this life
Speaker 2: and maybe he met people and got opportunities because we
Speaker 2: know he's a smart guy, that it's very possible that
Speaker 2: maybe he stole somebody else's identity. We don't know what
Speaker 2: happened and if it was indeed him, but I think
Speaker 2: it's possible.
Speaker 1: Certainly is And like we see in every case involving
Speaker 1: missing persons and wanted fugitives, that there's going to be
Speaker 1: like hundreds of eyewitness sightings, but the authorities generally only
Speaker 1: report on the ones that they believe are credible, and
Speaker 1: these ones, even though they took place thousands of miles away,
Speaker 1: they were all from people who knew Bishop personally, so
Speaker 1: they probably thought, well, they probably got a better chance
Speaker 1: of recognizing him than rather than your average citizen. So
Speaker 1: another crazy story about associated with this case is that
Speaker 1: the Bishop family were close friends with a guy named
Speaker 1: Jacques d'ambois, who was one of the most famous ballet
Speaker 1: dancers in the world because he was kind of a
Speaker 1: child protege who was ballet dancing when he was in
Speaker 1: his tea means, and in the nineteen fifties he joined
Speaker 1: a traveling ballet troupe that was operating out of California,
Speaker 1: and because Loubilia and her husband were big ballet fans,
Speaker 1: they actually invited Jocque to live with her family in
Speaker 1: California during that time period so he could have a
Speaker 1: place to say, well, he was traveling and performing with them,
Speaker 1: and Jacques became friends with Brad when Brad was still
Speaker 1: a teenager, so they stayed in touch for years, and
Speaker 1: by nineteen seventy six, Jacques was like a very famous
Speaker 1: dancer who was invited to perform at the Kennedy Center
Speaker 1: for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, and he got
Speaker 1: in touch with Obilia and she actually invited Jacques and
Speaker 1: his wife Carrie to spend the night of the bishop
Speaker 1: residence in Bethesda after his performances were done on the
Speaker 1: evening of February the twenty ninth, But then at the
Speaker 1: last minute, Jacques suffered a foot injury and was forced
Speaker 1: to cancel his performance. Well, the night he was supposed
Speaker 1: to go there was the night before Bishop committed the
Speaker 1: family murders. So Jacques is always been haunted about that,
Speaker 1: saying that if me and my wife had been staying there,
Speaker 1: would that have prevented the murders from taking place? Or alternatively,
Speaker 1: would we have become victims too and been murdered because
Speaker 1: we happened to be there. So he just got very,
Speaker 1: very lucky that he suffered that foot injury because it
Speaker 1: prevented him from potentially becoming a victim in a family annihilation.
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess we don't know the dynamics of
Speaker 2: their friendship and how close they were, and if that
Speaker 2: would be prohibitive to William Bradford Bishop in committing the murders,
Speaker 2: or if he would just go, oh, what's two other people.
Speaker 2: I'm already killing those closest to me. What is it
Speaker 2: to me that I killed this person whom like I
Speaker 2: used to be close to but it's been years and
Speaker 2: his wife. I just don't think that there would be
Speaker 2: really anything that would stand in his way if that
Speaker 2: was his plan. So I just think that Jacques getting
Speaker 2: that foot injury was maybe his saving grace pretty much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And some people have said, don't blame yourself, because
Speaker 1: even if you had been there that night and it
Speaker 1: prevented Brad from committing the murders, he was still a
Speaker 1: taking time bomb. So he probably still would have done
Speaker 1: it eventually, even if it was just a couple days later.
Speaker 2: Oh for sure, I don't think it would have gotten
Speaker 2: in the way of his plan. The only thing, if
Speaker 2: you decided that Jacques and his wife being there, he
Speaker 2: wasn't going to kill his family those days. I would
Speaker 2: just think that maybe he would have just been more
Speaker 2: prepared and we wouldn't have had that receipt with his
Speaker 2: credit card from the sporting goods company and like days later,
Speaker 2: right exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that he might have just done it at a
Speaker 1: different time and maybe spent more time formulating his plan.
Speaker 1: So In September of nineteen ninety two, a very surprising
Speaker 1: development took place when investigators decided to check Brad's original
Speaker 1: personnel file from the State Department and discovered a letter
Speaker 1: that had been written to him by a career bank
Speaker 1: robber named Albert Kenneth Bankston, who in nineteen seventy six
Speaker 1: was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary Marion in Williamson County, Illinois.
Speaker 1: The letter was postmarked March fifteenth, nineteen seventy six, two
Speaker 1: weeks after the murders took place, and since Bankston made
Speaker 1: references to letter number four and letter number five and
Speaker 1: wrote the number six near the top of the page,
Speaker 1: this seemed to indicate that he and Brad had been
Speaker 1: corresponding on multiple occasions, and while the letter made no
Speaker 1: direct reference to murder, it hinted at the possibility that
Speaker 1: Brad may have been attempting to hire someone to kill
Speaker 1: his family, and in one passage, Bankston wrote, quote, yes,
Speaker 1: I am most sure she is in the North Carolina
Speaker 1: State Penitentiary. I do not know why Sonny would tell
Speaker 1: you something that could very easily be proved. When I
Speaker 1: wrote you in February letter number five I explained that
Speaker 1: she was there and that David Paul Allen knew this
Speaker 1: sonny in Atlanta. I'm sure he's a capable person and
Speaker 1: he knows all about Creswell. In fact, David said, you
Speaker 1: could walk to Phelipslake from Creswell. I think it's about
Speaker 1: five miles end quote. So what had happened here is
Speaker 1: that they saw the postmark March the fifteenth. That was
Speaker 1: the day that the authorities already looked at Bishop's office
Speaker 1: at the State Department and checked his personnel file. But
Speaker 1: it appeared that the letter arrived just a few days
Speaker 1: after that, and whoever, like a reception or so, someone
Speaker 1: probably put the letter in the file and it remained
Speaker 1: there for like sixteen years before anyone noticed it until
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety two. And unfortunately, by that point, Albert Kenneth
Speaker 1: Bankston had died of cancer in prison in nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 1: So even though the authorities were anxious to talk to
Speaker 1: him and ask what is the context of this letter,
Speaker 1: they couldn't because he was already dead.
Speaker 2: That's wild, Like we have multiple instances here, like with
Speaker 2: the grave and with this letter, where you're looking at
Speaker 2: like almost twenty years after the fact you're finding out
Speaker 2: this information, and it's like, this would have been really
Speaker 2: great to know at the time, because if you could
Speaker 2: have questioned him and said, Okay, it's clear that you're
Speaker 2: speaking in code here, But was he trying to solicit
Speaker 2: you to commit this murder or have you facilitate some
Speaker 2: connection with somebody else who he thought would have been
Speaker 2: able to carry it out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And people have questioned the possibility if it could
Speaker 1: have been a hoax, that maybe Bankston was trying to
Speaker 1: insert himself into the investigation for attention or something like that.
Speaker 1: But the letter was postmark March the fifteenth, and by
Speaker 1: that point the Bishop murders had not gotten much publicity.
Speaker 1: And even if they did, I don't know if Bankston
Speaker 1: would learn about them because he's incarcerated in a prison
Speaker 1: in Illinois, and how would he have known the address
Speaker 1: for Brad's office at the State Department. So it really
Speaker 1: does seem obvious that they had been corresponding for some
Speaker 1: time prior to this, and that maybe Brad was like
Speaker 1: looking for information on finding someone that he could hire
Speaker 1: to murder his family. But we still don't know to
Speaker 1: this day how he even found out about Albert Kenneth
Speaker 1: Bankston to begin with, what sort of relationship these two
Speaker 1: men had. So it was just a shame that they
Speaker 1: didn't find this letter until many years after the fact.
Speaker 2: This is so weird, Like, how would he have found
Speaker 2: him in the first place. Did they have a friend
Speaker 2: in common? Did he just randomly look for somebody who
Speaker 2: was incarcerated and looked at the crimes that they'd committed
Speaker 2: and thought, this is somebody who could be connected to
Speaker 2: somebody who could carry out these murders. It just seems
Speaker 2: wild to me.
Speaker 1: It does. And it gets even wilder because I know
Speaker 1: that Bankston made reference to a guy named David Paul
Speaker 1: Allen in the letter, and it turned out this guy
Speaker 1: did exist. He was still alive at this point. He
Speaker 1: was a career criminal who had served time in prison,
Speaker 1: so the authorities were able to track him down and
Speaker 1: question him, and he claimed that he did not know.
Speaker 1: Bishop had no knowledge of the murders, but he claimed
Speaker 1: he had once heard about a murder for higher plot
Speaker 1: in which a man with the last name Bishop was
Speaker 1: planning to pay twenty five thousand dollars in cash and
Speaker 1: some jewelry to have his entire family murdered and According
Speaker 1: to Alan, he heard that the crime would take place
Speaker 1: while Bishop was out of the country, but when he
Speaker 1: returned home, he was disappointed to discover that the contractors
Speaker 1: he had hired did not complete the job and just
Speaker 1: instead took his money and ran off. And they looked
Speaker 1: at the timeline, and like I mentioned, Brad had been
Speaker 1: on a business trip in Geneva, Switzerland, from January the
Speaker 1: twenty seventh until February the sixth of nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 1: one month before the murders took place. So it's entirely
Speaker 1: possible he did pay someone to kill his family and
Speaker 1: hope that would happen while he was out of the country,
Speaker 1: but for whatever reason, the whole plan fell through.
Speaker 2: Well, then this completely changes a lot of the information
Speaker 2: if that is true, because if you're going to say
Speaker 2: that you're having financial difficulties, then I would think that
Speaker 2: that might not have been the trigger point because if
Speaker 2: you have twenty five thousand dollars to spend, think if
Speaker 2: you could have put that towards your mortgage, right, you
Speaker 2: wouldn't be in this dire financial situation to begin with.
Speaker 2: Because this is the nineteen seventies, twenty five thousand dollars
Speaker 2: is a lot of money, so this seems really bizarre
Speaker 2: to me. Either he had other reasons that he wanted
Speaker 2: his family dead, or this just isn't true. I don't know,
Speaker 2: what do you think?
Speaker 1: Well, his yearly salary at that time was twenty five
Speaker 1: thousand dollars, and from what I tell I don't think
Speaker 1: he would have had twenty five thousand dollars in his
Speaker 1: savings account unless he had some sort of secret bank
Speaker 1: account that he didn't tell his family about. But it
Speaker 1: seems counterproductive to me that if you're suffering from financial
Speaker 1: problems that you would pay twenty five thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: lot of money for someone to kill your family. But
Speaker 1: it's possible that Alan has some of the details crossed up,
Speaker 1: like maybe he had arranged for someone to kill his
Speaker 1: family but it didn't happen because he didn't have the
Speaker 1: money to pay them or something like that, so they
Speaker 1: backed out and investigators. You might also recall that the
Speaker 1: letter mentioned a guy known only as Sonny, and investigators
Speaker 1: were able to figure out that he actually existed and
Speaker 1: was living in witness protection under a new name at
Speaker 1: that point, and once again, Sonny denied knowing anything about
Speaker 1: a murder for higher plot involving the bishops. But he
Speaker 1: did hint that perhaps if Brad had paid someone to
Speaker 1: kill his family, they may have elected not to go
Speaker 1: through with it because they didn't want to cross the
Speaker 1: line and murder three children. So it's possible he sitting
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of people to do the job for them,
Speaker 1: and when he realized that no one was willing to
Speaker 1: kill his kids, that's when Brad decided he had to
Speaker 1: do the whole thing himself or.
Speaker 2: Were just getting the information crossed and he didn't have
Speaker 2: twenty five thousand dollars or inadequate amount of money, so
Speaker 2: he decided that, Okay, either these people don't want to
Speaker 2: kill kids, or I'm going to try to save a
Speaker 2: few bucks here because i don't have the money and
Speaker 2: I'm just going to do it myself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that might be what happened that he just realized
Speaker 1: I don't have the money to do it, so I'm
Speaker 1: just going to go through with it, and I'm just
Speaker 1: going to start fresh and then just flee the country
Speaker 1: or something. And another interesting thing from the letter is
Speaker 1: that Bankston made reference to an unnamed woman from the
Speaker 1: North Carolina state penitentiary, which was also intriguing because a
Speaker 1: woman had been seen with Brad outside the sporting goods
Speaker 1: store in Jacksonville, North Carolina. I know that investigators looked
Speaker 1: into records from women who were serving time in North
Speaker 1: Carolina at that time, but could not find any records
Speaker 1: of someone who was released in early nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 1: anyone who seemed like a plausible suspect to have been
Speaker 1: this mysterious woman. But they also found it intriguing that
Speaker 1: Bankston also made reference to these specific locations in North
Speaker 1: Carolina which were not far from the spot where Brad
Speaker 1: burned his family's bodies. In fact, this place, Phelps Lake,
Speaker 1: was only about like five miles away, And investigators have
Speaker 1: always said that the location where he dug the hole
Speaker 1: was at the end of like a logging road, like
Speaker 1: a very remote area, And they've always suspected that you
Speaker 1: can't find this spot unless you're familiar with that location.
Speaker 1: So they've always wondered, did Brad spend a lot of
Speaker 1: time in North Carolina? Did he choose this spot for
Speaker 1: a reason to bury his family? So it just makes
Speaker 1: you wonder how long was he planning this? Did he,
Speaker 1: like say ahead of time that this place in North
Speaker 1: Carolina is going to be where I put my family's bodies.
Speaker 1: The letter just leaves you with so many any unanswered questions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if that is true, then yeah, if he would
Speaker 2: have had to have been familiar with that area, you
Speaker 2: have to think how long was he planning this? But
Speaker 2: there's elements of this case that seem like at odds
Speaker 2: with each other, because there's some things where it's like
Speaker 2: it looks like he planned this for a long time,
Speaker 2: and other things where it's like this seems completely impulsive.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because the lightter does suggest premeditation, and the reference
Speaker 1: to the woman in the North Carolina penitentiary almost makes
Speaker 1: it sound like perhaps this woman was directing Brad towards
Speaker 1: people who can murder his family. But if so, how
Speaker 1: did he meet this woman to begin with? Because if
Speaker 1: she's serving time in prison, I don't think he's going
Speaker 1: to go on a skiing trip with her in Switzerland
Speaker 1: back then. So it just raises more questions than it answers.
Speaker 1: So as if there weren't enough weird developments in this case.
Speaker 1: In March of two thousand, a North Carolina woman wound
Speaker 1: up purchasing an old diary out of flea markets at
Speaker 1: the Greensboro Coliseum, and she contacted the authorities when she
Speaker 1: discovered the words Bradford Bishop Diary on the front page
Speaker 1: and discovered that this was a diary that brad had
Speaker 1: written between October of nineteen sixty five until October of
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy one. And they were able to confirm that
Speaker 1: it was in his handwriting and contained enough specific details
Speaker 1: about his personal life to indicate that this was his diary,
Speaker 1: and they had the words seven seventy six Colonel James
Speaker 1: Auction written on it. So it turned out that a
Speaker 1: lot of the contents of the Bishop Home had been
Speaker 1: auctioned off at the Colonel James Auction Gallery in College Park,
Speaker 1: Maryland in the months following the murders. And we don't
Speaker 1: know how this happened, but somehow this diary was auctioned
Speaker 1: off and wound up at a flea market in North
Speaker 1: Carolina twenty four years later. And because the diary was
Speaker 1: written five years before the murders took place, it didn't
Speaker 1: offer too many insights on the murder plot, but they
Speaker 1: said that the writing got progressively more disjointed and angry
Speaker 1: as the years went along, which kind of offered an
Speaker 1: insight into Brad's unstable mind. And they're thinking to themselves,
Speaker 1: if he used this unstable and in such a dark
Speaker 1: place in nineteen seventy one, just imagine how one in
Speaker 1: a bad place he might have been in nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: six when he finally went through with killing his family.
Speaker 2: And that makes sense, especially if he'd had a long
Speaker 2: history with insomnia and all these other issues. You could
Speaker 2: see how it could get progressively worse. But it's just
Speaker 2: wild these things. In this case, we've got twenty four
Speaker 2: years here where we were waiting for the diary to
Speaker 2: come forward, which would have been an integral part of
Speaker 2: the investigation. I would think for law enforcement to be
Speaker 2: able to build a profile of who William Bradford Bishop was,
Speaker 2: it should fill in some of the details about how
Speaker 2: he felt about himself and how he felt about the
Speaker 2: world around him. And then we have eighteen years where
Speaker 2: we're waiting for those letters that he's corresponding. And then
Speaker 2: we had what was it like fourteen years with the grave,
Speaker 2: with the potentially with Leo.
Speaker 1: Like decades there was I know that the park ranger
Speaker 1: had discovered it like only a few weeks after the murder,
Speaker 1: but it didn't go public till twenty eighteen, which is
Speaker 1: like forty years after the fact.
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh my gosh.
Speaker 1: And to make things even weirder, it was not until
Speaker 1: April of twenty fourteen when the FBI announced that they
Speaker 1: were officially adding Bishop to their ten most Wanted Fugitives lists.
Speaker 1: And it kind of surprised me that he wasn't added
Speaker 1: much earlier, because you would think that a wanted family
Speaker 1: annihilator is the worst type of criminal, and they would
Speaker 1: have wanted to do everything in their power to find him.
Speaker 1: But what strikes me as odd is that if Brad
Speaker 1: was still alive at that point, he would have been
Speaker 1: seventy seven years old. And while they've been very secretive
Speaker 1: about the investigation, I'm thinking to myself, they would not
Speaker 1: be adding Brad after all this time unless they had
Speaker 1: received significant intelligence to indicate that he was still alive
Speaker 1: somewhere and could still be brought to justice, even though
Speaker 1: he would have been seventy seven years old. They eventually
Speaker 1: took him off the list in twenty eighteen, but the
Speaker 1: fact that they added him during that time period makes
Speaker 1: me think that they must have been really convinced that
Speaker 1: there was still a chance he could be captured alive
Speaker 1: and extra back to the US and brought to justice.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, they've been so tight lipped that I still
Speaker 1: don't know to this day why they suddenly decided to
Speaker 1: Adam to the list thirty eight years after the crime
Speaker 1: was committed.
Speaker 2: You've got to wonder if they've brought some kind of
Speaker 2: like hold back information or some kind of intelligence or
Speaker 2: a tip with some degree of specificity that they haven't
Speaker 2: told the public about. And that's what kind of reignited
Speaker 2: them and were like, hey, let's put them on the
Speaker 2: list and maybe then we're going to be able to
Speaker 2: smoke them out. But it just didn't go as they'd
Speaker 2: hope that it would.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I still remember a lot of excitement back
Speaker 1: in twenty fourteen because his story was making news like everywhere.
Speaker 1: That's when they launched the new John Walsh hosted series
Speaker 1: called The Hunt, which is like a new variation of
Speaker 1: America's Most One where they try to find wanted fugitives,
Speaker 1: and their very first episode was about William Bradford Bishop,
Speaker 1: which made me think that they're really looking very seriously
Speaker 1: to capture this guy after all, this time, and he
Speaker 1: even went to the trouble of getting forensic artists Karen
Speaker 1: Taylor to create an age progression sculpture of Brad's head
Speaker 1: to showcase what he might look like at the age
Speaker 1: of seventy seven. And that was a pretty big deal
Speaker 1: because you might recall earlier in this episode I mentioned
Speaker 1: wanted family annihilator John List, who, much like brad Bishop,
Speaker 1: he murdered his wife, his mother, and his three children
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy one before going on the run as
Speaker 1: a wanted fugitive, and then in nineteen eighty nine he
Speaker 1: was profiled on America's Most Wanted and they showed an
Speaker 1: age progression sculpture of his head created by Karen Taylor
Speaker 1: to show what John List might look like after eighteen years,
Speaker 1: and it actually paid off. He was discovered to be
Speaker 1: living a new life under a new identity, under a
Speaker 1: different state in a different state, and that bust created
Speaker 1: a huge role in getting him arrested after all this time,
Speaker 1: and he finally went to prison. So I'm thinking to myself,
Speaker 1: if they're willing to do that for William Bradford Bishop
Speaker 1: in twenty fourteen, they must be very serious about capturing him.
Speaker 2: How old would he be today? If he's still alive, he.
Speaker 1: Would be eighty nine years old today, or he's turning
Speaker 1: eighty nine later this year.
Speaker 2: Wow, that's a long time on the run. I wonder
Speaker 2: like what would have been their reason way back, like
Speaker 2: when the murders originally happened, and it was thought that
Speaker 2: he was on the run, that he wouldn't have been
Speaker 2: added to the list of America's Most Wanted because, like
Speaker 2: you said, what is worse than a family annihilator who
Speaker 2: has these connections in Europe and speaks multiple languages and
Speaker 2: has this ability to be able to move around more
Speaker 2: than the average person.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I've looked at some of the other fugitives
Speaker 1: who have been on the list over the years, and
Speaker 1: not to downplay their crimes, but some of them are
Speaker 1: like bank robbers who never actually killed anyone. So you
Speaker 1: think it would be a bigger priority to find a
Speaker 1: family annihilator who killed five people rather than a bank robber.
Speaker 1: But so I still do this day, don't know why
Speaker 1: they didn't add him to the list till twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: And here's one more crazy twist in this story is
Speaker 1: if we didn't have enough in March of twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: it was announced that a woman named Kathy Gilchrist, who
Speaker 1: had been adopted when she was a baby, wanted to
Speaker 1: do genetic genealogy to try to figure out who her
Speaker 1: birth parents were, so she submitted her DNA. She discovered
Speaker 1: the identity of her biological mother, who had passed away
Speaker 1: during the spring of twenty twenty but guests who turned
Speaker 1: out to be her biological father, well.
Speaker 2: Of course, William Bradford Bishop.
Speaker 1: Yes, and in case you're wondering, she was not conceived
Speaker 1: after he was already on the run as a wanted
Speaker 1: fugitive because Cathy was born in nineteen fifty seven. But
Speaker 1: they haven't revealed the identity of her biological mother for
Speaker 1: privacy reasons. But this would have taken place while brad
Speaker 1: was a student at Yale University. He Provedsumbly had an
Speaker 1: affair with this woman and she became pregnant. But this
Speaker 1: is also when Brad was still dating a net They
Speaker 1: had already in a relationship for this time, so that
Speaker 1: kind of shows a lot about his character that he
Speaker 1: was willing to cheat on her and father an illegitimate
Speaker 1: child with another woman. We still don't know if brad
Speaker 1: ever found out if this other woman was pregnant. But
Speaker 1: as you can imagine, it was a major shock to
Speaker 1: Kathy Gilchrist to wonder who her biological father was and
Speaker 1: then find out that he was a family annihilator who
Speaker 1: had been a wanted fugitive for nearly fifty years.
Speaker 2: I can't imagine having those questions about who your parents
Speaker 2: are and then to find something out like that, you
Speaker 2: would feel, I suppose blessed that you were given up
Speaker 2: for adoption and that you had a family that hopefully
Speaker 2: loved you and cared for you and the way that
Speaker 2: you needed. And it's good to have those questions answered.
Speaker 2: But also just so fortunate that Kathy never grew up
Speaker 2: in a home with William Bradford Bishop, because we know
Speaker 2: the way that he treated his family and how it
Speaker 2: ended for them exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So it was pretty much a blessing in disguise.
Speaker 1: And I know some people like to joke that they're
Speaker 1: often reluctant to use genetic genealogy and try to find
Speaker 1: out their birth family because you never know what you're
Speaker 1: going to find if the truth will be horrifying, and
Speaker 1: to discover your father is a family Annihilator is pretty
Speaker 1: high at the top of the list.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can't think many worse discoveries.
Speaker 1: Like I said, at the time of this recording, William
Speaker 1: Bradford Bishop would be nearly eighty nine years old. I
Speaker 1: do think the chances of him, even if he did
Speaker 1: get away, of him still being alive at this time
Speaker 1: are remote, but it's not impossible. But I don't discout
Speaker 1: the possibility that maybe we'll find out that he went
Speaker 1: on to live a new life under a new identity
Speaker 1: before he died of natural causes, and maybe they'll we'll
Speaker 1: get a link from DNA or genic genealogy and find
Speaker 1: out his current whereabouts. Because we've actually had a similar
Speaker 1: situation to this happened in the news recently a wanted
Speaker 1: fugitive named Sharon Kinney who murdered quite a few men
Speaker 1: during the nineteen sixties. She wound up going to prison
Speaker 1: for murder in Mexico and escaped in nineteen sixty nine
Speaker 1: and became one of the most notorious wanted female wanted
Speaker 1: fugitives in the history of the United States. And I
Speaker 1: always figure that she was probably killed in Mexico or
Speaker 1: something or something happened to her and She never made
Speaker 1: it back to the United States, but just a few
Speaker 1: months ago announced that DNA testing and fingerprint testing had
Speaker 1: discovered that she had actually managed to escape to Canada
Speaker 1: and was living in the small town of Taper, Alberta.
Speaker 1: And she got remarried, started a new life under a
Speaker 1: new identity, and she did not actually die of natural
Speaker 1: causes until twenty twenty two. So after she escaped from prison,
Speaker 1: she managed to live a new life for fifty three
Speaker 1: years without being captured before she died of natural causes.
Speaker 1: And I wonder if that's going to be the same
Speaker 1: thing with William Bradford Bishop, where we'll find out that
Speaker 1: he died a couple of years ago and they'll they'll
Speaker 1: use DNA testing to uncover the false identity he was
Speaker 1: living under.
Speaker 2: The difference is they have different laws in Europe surrounding
Speaker 2: genetic genealogy and DNA testing, do they not?
Speaker 1: They do, Yes, We've talked about this on our episodes
Speaker 1: about like Jennifer Fairgate, that they don't have genetic genealogy
Speaker 1: in place. So that is the one thing that worries
Speaker 1: me is that if he managed to escape the country
Speaker 1: and go overseas, then genetic genealogy may not be an
Speaker 1: option if he died of natural causes while living over there,
Speaker 1: But I think you're kind of in agreement with me.
Speaker 1: I know there are some people who think that his
Speaker 1: death was a suicide, that he walked into Great Smoky
Speaker 1: Mountains National Park and killed himself after he abandoned his
Speaker 1: station wagon, but I think there's just too many evidence
Speaker 1: pointing away from that. We've had all the sightings of
Speaker 1: him overseas, and the fact that he was added to
Speaker 1: the FBI's ten most Wanted list in twenty fourteen, which
Speaker 1: does make me think that he was still alive for
Speaker 1: a great period of time after he committed the murders,
Speaker 1: and that his remains are not in Great Smoky Mountains
Speaker 1: National Park.
Speaker 2: I one hundred percent agree with you. I think his
Speaker 2: objective was always to live the life that he felt
Speaker 2: that he deserved, and his family was an obstacle, so
Speaker 2: he needed to eliminate that obstacle and then he could
Speaker 2: continue on with his objective, which I think that he did.
Speaker 2: And I think at least some of those sightings by
Speaker 2: his coworkers. I don't know about Roy's, but I think
Speaker 2: that the other ones could potentially have been William Bradford Bishop,
Speaker 2: and I think that that's wild to think that protect
Speaker 2: Actually three co workers saw him overseas in different time periods,
Speaker 2: right like the female coworker seeing him in the nineteen
Speaker 2: nineties being clean cut. If that was indeed him, and
Speaker 2: if it was, if he was laughing at them like haha,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm getting away, like you're not going to
Speaker 2: be able to stop this train type of a thing,
Speaker 2: then that would kind of line up with like the
Speaker 2: cat that got the canary, knowing that like you haven't
Speaker 2: caught me yet, You're not going to catch me today.
Speaker 1: Pretty much, And unfortunately that is wrung true. And if
Speaker 1: he did start a new life, I am really anxious
Speaker 1: to find out if he ever got remarried or had
Speaker 1: more children, and if his new family were completely oblivious
Speaker 1: to the fact of what he had done back when
Speaker 1: he was living in America. So yeah, I thought this
Speaker 1: would be an interesting one to talk about because even
Speaker 1: though it's no mystery who did it, there are just
Speaker 1: so many weird things that have happened in this case,
Speaker 1: so many un answered questions. The discovery of the letters
Speaker 1: from Albert Kenneth Bankston makes me wonder like was there
Speaker 1: more to this story? Was he trying to start a
Speaker 1: murder for hire? And of course I still wonder did
Speaker 1: he have a email companion who helped them escape? Was
Speaker 1: he conducting an affair at the time. That's why I
Speaker 1: really want him to be captured alive, just so not
Speaker 1: only so he can face justice, but to answer all
Speaker 1: these weird questions we have surrounding this case. Because it's
Speaker 1: not often when a case involving a wanted fugitive where
Speaker 1: it's pretty clear cut who did it, can give you
Speaker 1: just so much to talk about and so much to analyze.
Speaker 2: It's true, there's just so much information here. It's overwhelming,
Speaker 2: almost because there's all of these women who could have
Speaker 2: been a part of his life. He could have been cheating,
Speaker 2: could have been doing this and that, And maybe he
Speaker 2: went and ended his own life in the forest, maybe
Speaker 2: he didn't. Where's the dog? And then we've wont all
Speaker 2: of these overseas sightings, So there's a lot to dig
Speaker 2: into here. And then when you add the coworkers as
Speaker 2: well's and the dynamics there and his dynamics at work,
Speaker 2: there's a lot to analyze. But I definitely agree with you,
Speaker 2: I think this is such a tragic case because in
Speaker 2: the midst of all of these big actions and these
Speaker 2: things that he's doing, it's like, we've got Brad Brad
Speaker 2: Brent and Jeffrey and Annette and Lubilia, and they're the
Speaker 2: true victims here. But it's so hard not to talk
Speaker 2: about all of the actions of William Bradford Bishop. And
Speaker 2: I think we see this so much with family annihilator cases.
Speaker 2: But it almost makes me angry at myself right because
Speaker 2: I want to be asking more about the victims. But
Speaker 2: the reality is we just don't know that much because Brad,
Speaker 2: Brent and Jeffrey were little kids, and when there's little kids,
Speaker 2: we just don't have as much to analyze because there
Speaker 2: isn't as much information about who they were out there.
Speaker 2: But we do know that Lubilia was a good mother,
Speaker 2: that she gave them that thirty thousand dollars to put
Speaker 2: down for their mortgage, and we know that Annette had
Speaker 2: dreams of I don't know if she wanted to work
Speaker 2: in the field of art or she was just studying art,
Speaker 2: but she had dreams outside of William Bradford Bishop and
Speaker 2: outside of that family, and she deserved to be able
Speaker 2: to actualize those dreams. But he took that from her,
Speaker 2: and he took too Lubilia's life from her, and took
Speaker 2: Brad's life from him, Brent's life from him, and Jeffrey's
Speaker 2: life from him, and none of them deserve that. And
Speaker 2: William Bradford Bishop is a horrible person for that exactly.
Speaker 1: And like you said, we're more of a victim Center podcast.
Speaker 1: We don't like to spend so much time talking about
Speaker 1: the perpetrators. But because this particular perpetrator has never been
Speaker 1: found and there's still questions about his motives, it's still unavoidable.
Speaker 1: But I will be satisfied if one day, even if
Speaker 1: he's in his nineties, you get to see him in
Speaker 1: handcuffs and brought back to the US to face justice
Speaker 1: for what he did.
Speaker 2: You can only hope that somehow along his travels he's
Speaker 2: suffered some kind of karmic retribution.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Like if that sighting of him in the
Speaker 1: restroom in Italy was legitimate, it looked like he was
Speaker 1: a transient who was living on the streets. So I'd
Speaker 1: like to think that if he has lived for years,
Speaker 1: that it hasn't been a happy life, that he hasn't
Speaker 1: had like a new family, a new job, and has
Speaker 1: made lots of money that he's constantly struggled to evade
Speaker 1: the authorities ever since he committed this horrible crime. So
Speaker 1: any further thoughts on William Bradford Bishop.
Speaker 2: No, I think that about wraps it up, But I'm
Speaker 2: with you. I would love to see this man arrested.
Speaker 2: I don't care if he's one hundred years old. Just
Speaker 2: knowing that he got caught and to be able to
Speaker 2: take that from him, of being able to get away
Speaker 2: with something like this and to evade authorities, I'm sure
Speaker 2: only feeds his narcissistic tendencies. So to know that he
Speaker 2: was caught and that he was outsmarted would I'm sure
Speaker 2: be satisfying for everybody who is connected to all of
Speaker 2: the victims.
Speaker 1: Yes. So I want to give out our advisory here
Speaker 1: that William Bradford Bishop's agent hands Bust is available on
Speaker 1: the internet anywhere to show what he might look like today.
Speaker 1: So if you think that you've seen him, please contact
Speaker 1: the appropriate authorities. So that about wraps up our series
Speaker 1: on the Bishop family murders and next time we'll be
Speaker 1: back with Ashley again. So until then, thank you. So
Speaker 1: much for your support, and we'll see you on our
Speaker 1: next series of episodes.
Speaker 2: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 2: about the trail Patreon.
Speaker 1: Yes, the Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
Speaker 1: years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
Speaker 1: early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
Speaker 1: and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
Speaker 1: with us on Patreon. If you join our five dollars
Speaker 1: tier tier two, we also offer monthly bonus episodes in
Speaker 1: which I talk about cases which are not featured on
Speaker 1: the trailwent Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon,
Speaker 1: and if you join our highest tier tier three, the
Speaker 1: ten dollar tier. One of the features we offer is
Speaker 1: a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsaved Mysteries,
Speaker 1: where you can download an audio file and then boot
Speaker 1: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
Speaker 1: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
Speaker 1: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
Speaker 1: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
Speaker 1: first episode that I did a commentary track over was
Speaker 1: the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
Speaker 1: download a commentary track at which I make more smart
Speaker 1: ass remarks about jewel Kaylor than be sure to join
Speaker 1: Tier three.
Speaker 2: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 2: about the jeweles and Nashty patreons. So there's early ad
Speaker 2: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Speaker 2: Pathwent Chili mini's which are always over an hour, so
Speaker 2: they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
Speaker 2: turn into a series and we're really enjoying doing those,
Speaker 2: so we hope you'll check out those patreons will link
Speaker 2: them in the show notes.
Speaker 1: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
Speaker 1: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 1: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly appreciated.
Speaker 1: You can email us at The Pathwentchili at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: You can reach us on Twitter at the Pathwin. So
Speaker 1: until next time, be sure to bundle up because cold
Speaker 1: trails and chili pass call for warm clothing.
Speaker 2: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy