Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Pathway Chili.
Speaker 2: I'm Robin, I'm Jules, and I'm Ashley.
Speaker 3: Let's dive right into this week's case.
Speaker 2: October sixth, nineteen eighty three, British Columbia, Canada, twenty seven
Speaker 2: year old Burned Erica and his twenty two year old fiance,
Speaker 2: Andrea Sharp are found shot to death next to a
Speaker 2: remote road. The couple hailed from West Germany and had
Speaker 2: been hitchhiking through Canada, but an unidentified man driving a
Speaker 2: pickup truck is he when using Andrea's travelers checks in
Speaker 2: the days following her death. Six years later, a suspect
Speaker 2: named Andy Rose is charged with the crime based on
Speaker 2: testimony from a former friend who claimed she heard him
Speaker 2: confess to the murders. After two trials and two overturned convictions,
Speaker 2: the charges against Andy are dropped when DNA testing excludes
Speaker 2: him as the perpetrator, but no one else is ever
Speaker 2: charged with killing Burned and Andrea.
Speaker 1: After that, the path went Chiley. So today we are
Speaker 1: going to be covering an unsolved cold case which led
Speaker 1: to a wrongful conviction. The nineteen eighty three murders of
Speaker 1: Burnt Gerica and Andrea Shirp. You know we love to
Speaker 1: cover wrongful conviction cases on a show because this is
Speaker 1: a topic that Ashley is very knowledgeable and passionate about.
Speaker 1: But this is the first time we have covered one
Speaker 1: of these stories from Jewels and I's home country of Canada.
Speaker 1: Our two victims were a West German couple named Burnt
Speaker 1: Gerica and Andrea Shirp, who have been making a lengthy
Speaker 1: two month trip through western Canada. They relied on hitch
Speaker 1: hiking as their primary mode of transportation, but unfortunately, while
Speaker 1: they were in British Columbia, it seemed like they hitch
Speaker 1: a ride with the wrong person, who fatally shot the
Speaker 1: couple and robbed them of all their personal possessions before
Speaker 1: dumping their bodies. It would not be until six years
Speaker 1: later when police finally charged a suspect named Danny Rose,
Speaker 1: a Newfoundland resident who had been living and working in
Speaker 1: British Columbia at the time of the murders. The problem
Speaker 1: was that the only evidence against Annie was the testimony
Speaker 1: of a woman who claimed that he showed up at
Speaker 1: her trailer one night while covered in blood and made
Speaker 1: a drunken confession to the murders. Even though there were
Speaker 1: a number of logistical issues which made it almost seem
Speaker 1: impossible that Andy could have committed this crime. He was
Speaker 1: found guilty by two separate juries at two separate trials.
Speaker 1: Andy was in the midst of going on trial for
Speaker 1: the third time in two thousand and one when the
Speaker 1: prosecution decided to drop the murder charges against him as
Speaker 1: DNA evidence from a pair of bloody genes found near
Speaker 1: the murder scene did not match him. Thus far, no
Speaker 1: one else has ever been charged with this crime. While
Speaker 1: the investigation did turn up a compelling alternate suspect who
Speaker 1: also allegedly confessed to the murders, the evidence does not
Speaker 1: really point towards him either. On this series of episodes,
Speaker 1: we're also going to be discussing a controversial police procedure
Speaker 1: known as the Mister Big technique, which was invented by
Speaker 1: the Royal Canadian Mountain Police and is actually banned in
Speaker 1: the United States, though it has played a role in
Speaker 1: some controversial convictions in Canada.
Speaker 3: Okay, I have two things I want to ask you about.
Speaker 3: First of all, I've heard of the Mister Big technique.
Speaker 3: Isn't it almost like the read techniques that's designed to
Speaker 3: elicit a confession from someone.
Speaker 1: It's very similar, but it involves undercover police officers, usually
Speaker 1: posing as criminals, and they try to use that as
Speaker 1: a means to get a confession out of a suspect
Speaker 1: by saying like, oh, we'll let you join our criminal
Speaker 1: gang if you tell us about all the murders you did.
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of controversy about it because you
Speaker 1: almost have to question the validity when they supposedly confess,
Speaker 1: because you're wondering, are they just tell the undercover officer
Speaker 1: what they want to hear by just bragging about a
Speaker 1: prime they did not commit, as.
Speaker 2: You Americans call it entropment.
Speaker 3: Yes, sense, so basically where the read techniques are controversial,
Speaker 3: But it's a uniformed officer who's sitting in an interrogation room.
Speaker 3: This is a group of officers undercover who are making
Speaker 3: promises and offering something attractive to that person who doesn't
Speaker 3: know their law enforcement to solicit a confession.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yes, Okay, well.
Speaker 3: Highly controversial, Okay, I can buy that. I'm also highly
Speaker 3: concerned about a couple of things that you've already told me.
Speaker 3: When we're talking about this woman who says he shows
Speaker 3: up bloody and confesses to a murder. You described her
Speaker 3: as a former friend. Do we later find out that
Speaker 3: that confession never took place, or that he actually did
Speaker 3: make a drunken confession.
Speaker 1: He always denied making that confession, And of course it
Speaker 1: was very suspicious because she didn't actually come f forward
Speaker 1: herself to share this story. We're going to find out
Speaker 1: that it was shared kind of third hand by another
Speaker 1: friend of hers, who said that, by the way, she
Speaker 1: told me one time, someone came to her trailer, well
Speaker 1: bloody and confess to this double murder. So obviously there
Speaker 1: were a lot of credibility issues. And what was particularly
Speaker 1: problematic about this case is that this was literally the
Speaker 1: only evidence proving that Andy Rose was responsible, Yet somehow
Speaker 1: the juries found it convincing enough to convict him on
Speaker 1: two separate occasions.
Speaker 3: I'm really frustrated because I can put into my mind
Speaker 3: a million scenarios where this woman would have a reason
Speaker 3: to make Andy look bad. Let's say she had formerly
Speaker 3: been interested in him and he wasn't interested. Let's say
Speaker 3: they had had a fling and she wasn't happy with
Speaker 3: the way it turned out. Let's say that they were
Speaker 3: friends and he did something that made her mad. There's
Speaker 3: a lot of reasons why people would even let's say,
Speaker 3: well she was drinking and hanging out with friends, would
Speaker 3: throw someone else under the bus. And so that's really
Speaker 3: problematic that one he doesn't say like, yeah, I did it,
Speaker 3: or he doesn't confess to law enforcement, which in and
Speaker 3: of itself doesn't necessarily prove anything. Either, he has this person, who,
Speaker 3: like you said, third party, is saying that he's guilty
Speaker 3: and he did this and confessed to her. And then
Speaker 3: we also have some unidentified individual who was using Andrea's
Speaker 3: travelers checks in some pickup truck. Remember they were hitch hiking,
Speaker 3: so it makes a lot of sense that you would
Speaker 3: think maybe someone they ran into while hitchhiking, hurt them,
Speaker 3: took their belongings and started using their travelers checks. That's
Speaker 3: the person I want to know about. And somehow Andy
Speaker 3: gets tied into this just because some woman who could
Speaker 3: have been upset with him says he confessed to her
Speaker 3: through a third party.
Speaker 1: And when you look at the timeline, it seems impossible
Speaker 1: that Andy could have been at these locations to use
Speaker 1: the travelers checks. It seems obvious it was somebody else.
Speaker 1: So yeah, this is definitely one of the weakest cases
Speaker 1: I've ever seen where someone went to trial and it
Speaker 1: still managed to secure a guilty verdict.
Speaker 2: And they did they go and do their due diligence
Speaker 2: with regards to testing the veracity of her statement. I mean,
Speaker 2: we know polygraphs are controversial, but did they give her
Speaker 2: a polygraph? Did they talk to other people in her
Speaker 2: life to see if she was indeed a credible witness?
Speaker 1: Do you know, Robin, Well, we're going to talk about that.
Speaker 1: They actually had to wear a wire and have a
Speaker 1: conversation a phone conversation with Andy years after the fact,
Speaker 1: but he never actually made any incriminating statements to back
Speaker 1: up her story that he confessed to this murder.
Speaker 2: So our story begins in my home province of British
Speaker 2: Columbia in nineteen eighty three. Our central figures our twenty
Speaker 2: seven year old Burned, Gerica and his twenty two year
Speaker 2: old fiance, Andrea Shirp, who originally hail from Bulga, West Germany.
Speaker 2: Following his graduation from university, Burned received an extended trip
Speaker 2: to Canada as a gift, so he and Andrea decided
Speaker 2: that they would spend nearly two months traveling through the
Speaker 2: western portion of the country. A good chunk of this
Speaker 2: trip would involve camping and backpacking, and they planned to
Speaker 2: use hitchhiking as their primary mode of transportation. The couple
Speaker 2: first touched down in Winnipeg, Manitoba, on August eighteenth, before
Speaker 2: going to visit relatives in the municipality of Roblin for
Speaker 2: the next several weeks. They proceeded to hitchhike their way
Speaker 2: through Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, and when they arrived
Speaker 2: in the municipality of Port Hardy, they boarded a ferry
Speaker 2: which took them to the port city of Prince Rupert.
Speaker 2: From there, they proceeded to travel north and cross the
Speaker 2: border into Haines, Alaska, before crossing the border back into
Speaker 2: Canada and continuing up north to Whitehorse, the capital city
Speaker 2: in the Yukon Territory. At some point, Burned and Andrea
Speaker 2: started heading back south into British Columbia, as they were
Speaker 2: scheduled to return back home by boarding a flight from
Speaker 2: Vancouver to Frankfurt, Germany, on October seventh. The last confirmed
Speaker 2: sighting of the couple took place on October third, as
Speaker 2: they were seen hitchhiking in Dawson Creek, nearly twelve hundred
Speaker 2: kilometers northeast of Vancouver, but unfortunately they would not make
Speaker 2: their flight. On October sixth a low resident discovered Burned
Speaker 2: in Andrea's bodies in a field next to an isolated
Speaker 2: road about a half kilometer away from Highway ninety seven.
Speaker 2: Burned had been shot once in the back of the
Speaker 2: head and once in the face, while Andrea received a
Speaker 2: fatal gunshot wound to the temple. The location was about
Speaker 2: thirty two kilometers west of the district municipality of chetwind
Speaker 2: and it was estimated that the couple had been dead
Speaker 2: about three days before their bodies were discovered. The investigation
Speaker 2: would be headed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police aka
Speaker 2: the RCMP, and they initially could not even identify the
Speaker 2: two victims because their identification, including their passports and driver's licenses,
Speaker 2: were missing. In fact, all of the items which Burned
Speaker 2: and Andrea had been carrying, including their backpacks, clothing, camping equipment,
Speaker 2: and a guitar Burned owned, were presumably stolen by the
Speaker 2: person who killed them, and they were never recovered, which
Speaker 2: makes me.
Speaker 3: Incredibly suspicious of the person who was using the cashier
Speaker 3: checks or the checks, because they obviously are unidentified. They're
Speaker 3: driving this truck. I could easily see them pulling over
Speaker 3: and talking to this couple and saying, hey, I can
Speaker 3: give you a ride, no problem. These are young kids.
Speaker 3: They're just floating from place to place. They were known
Speaker 3: to be hitch hiking, and so to me, it makes
Speaker 3: the most sense that that truck pulls over says that
Speaker 3: they can take these kids somewhere and then when they
Speaker 3: execute them is basically what happened. They steal all of
Speaker 3: their belongings and I'm sure scattered them along the way somewhere,
Speaker 3: but those checks were used. Those had to be on
Speaker 3: Andrea's persons before she was killed, because I can't imagine
Speaker 3: someone robbing them and them not reporting that or not
Speaker 3: saying anything and saying, oh, someone took my checks, but
Speaker 3: that's okay, We're just going to keep on going. That
Speaker 3: would be a major problem. If you were hitch hiking
Speaker 3: someone robbed you and took your money and access to
Speaker 3: your bank accounts, you would have said something. So that
Speaker 3: had to be tied into the person who killed them,
Speaker 3: because everything else was this scene as well. So it
Speaker 3: makes sense that whoever had those checks also killed this couple.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I definitely think that's what happened. That they were
Speaker 1: picked up hitchhiking by the wrong person who proceeded to
Speaker 1: kill them, and that person continued traveling south and using
Speaker 1: Andrea's checks. And cases like this are just a time
Speaker 1: capsule of a much different era where no one thought
Speaker 1: too much about the dangers of hitchhiking, and you hear
Speaker 1: stories about people traveling to foreign countries and hitch hiking
Speaker 1: the entire way, and unfortunately, cases like this are pretty
Speaker 1: much the ultimate cautionary tales and show why people know
Speaker 1: these days that hitch hiking should not be done and correctly.
Speaker 2: If I'm wrong, Robin, bit, aren't some of these areas
Speaker 2: in which they were traveling and where they were found
Speaker 2: close to the Highway of Tears. Isn't it Highway ninety seven?
Speaker 1: Uh? Let me just double check that I should know this. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: because you live in the area.
Speaker 3: I almost think you're right.
Speaker 1: I almost think you're right, Jewels, Oh, it's Highway sixteen.
Speaker 2: Actually, is it Highway sixteen? Okay?
Speaker 1: But yeah, this was the era of the of the
Speaker 1: Highway of Tears, where a lot of people were murdered
Speaker 1: hitchhiking in British Columbia.
Speaker 3: Okay, I have a very important question too. Is the
Speaker 3: Dawson's Creek? You mentioned the Dawson's Creek that I fell
Speaker 3: in love with in my teen TV show. No, okay,
Speaker 3: I just had to make sure. I just had to
Speaker 3: make sure.
Speaker 1: Go on this to be clear. This is Dawson Creek
Speaker 1: without an S on the end, so it's totally different.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he doesn't own it. Okay, that's fair.
Speaker 1: Fair. A forensic pathologist who conducted postmortem examinations on Burnt
Speaker 1: and Andrea was unable to determine the exact make and
Speaker 1: model of the bullets and guns used during the murders,
Speaker 1: but she fell it was consistent with either a thirty
Speaker 1: eight caliber or three fifty seven magnum handgun. The pathologists
Speaker 1: also suspected that the victims might be European, which prompted
Speaker 1: the RCMP to contact Interpol, and they eventually learned about
Speaker 1: a missing West German couple who had not returned home
Speaker 1: as scheduled from a trip to Canada. A friend of theirs,
Speaker 1: who lived in Edmonton, Alberta, had to be brought to
Speaker 1: British Columbia. To view the body, and they were positively
Speaker 1: identified as Burnt and Andrea on October the sixteenth, ten
Speaker 1: days after they were found. The most promising piece of
Speaker 1: evidence was a pair of PSI thirty four genes, which
Speaker 1: were discovered inside a waste disposal bin located alongside Highway
Speaker 1: ninety seven, about one kilometer south of the murder scene.
Speaker 1: The genes were heavily stained with blood spatter, particularly below
Speaker 1: the knees, and a forensic rologist determined that the blood
Speaker 1: was consistent with the two victims. There was also a
Speaker 1: bloodlike substance underneath Andrea's fingernails, which may have belonged to
Speaker 1: her killer. Investigators would also learn that on October the
Speaker 1: fourth and fifth American Express Travelers checks belonging to Andrea
Speaker 1: were used to purchase gasoline at no less than five
Speaker 1: service stations in Prince George Quinnell Mickley's Lake Lach Lajash
Speaker 1: and one hundred Mile House, which were all located hundreds
Speaker 1: of kilometers south of the murder scene. According to the
Speaker 1: various clerks at these stations, the individual who used these
Speaker 1: checks was a white male who appeared to be fed
Speaker 1: foot nine and approximately forty years old. And spoke with
Speaker 1: a slight American accent. He was also described as having straight,
Speaker 1: collar length, brown hair and slumped shoulders, and he was
Speaker 1: dressed in work clothes. The witnesses said that the man
Speaker 1: had a pleasant demeanor and did not do anything to
Speaker 1: arouse suspicion, which is why he agreed to accept travelers
Speaker 1: checks from him, and even though these checks had a
Speaker 1: woman's signature on them, the man was able to provide
Speaker 1: seemingly plausible stories to account for this. For instance, the
Speaker 1: clerk at the gas station in Mcleis's Lake said that
Speaker 1: the man told him he had bumped into a lady
Speaker 1: who ran out of gas up the road, so she
Speaker 1: gave him a signed ten dollars travelers check in order
Speaker 1: to fill up a gas can to bring back to her.
Speaker 1: The man was reportedly driving a green late nineteen sixties
Speaker 1: model pickup truck, which may have been a Chevrolet, but
Speaker 1: unfortunately none of the witnesses took down the license number.
Speaker 1: Even though a number of pickup truck owners from British
Speaker 1: Columbia were questioned by the RCMP, they were unable to
Speaker 1: find a match, and while two separate composite sketches were
Speaker 1: created and circulated for the mail driver. He could not
Speaker 1: be identified.
Speaker 3: I love how what threw them off was a quote
Speaker 3: lady's signature, because you know, I mean, most guys don't
Speaker 3: have a real pretty signature, but us women, I don't
Speaker 3: know that we have a distinct gendered signature. But Andrea
Speaker 3: is right at the top of the check as well.
Speaker 3: And so when he goes in and he's saying, hey,
Speaker 3: I have this traveler's check one A traveler's check is
Speaker 3: kind of an odd form of payment, maybe not so
Speaker 3: much back in the eighties, but you would think they'd
Speaker 3: scrutinize the check. It says Andrea at the top, and
Speaker 3: then he has to come up with these stories of hey,
Speaker 3: this woman gave me this check. She wants me to
Speaker 3: bring her car back. I'm just gassing it up for
Speaker 3: and like you said, because he seems pretty pleasant, which
Speaker 3: means he doesn't appear to be this kind of criminal
Speaker 3: mastermind or some gang leader or anything like that. It
Speaker 3: seems as though people just believe him and doesn't really
Speaker 3: register until it's called into question that these two kids
Speaker 3: died and Andrea happens to be one of them. So
Speaker 3: really interesting because it almost seems like this person so
Speaker 3: calm and cool and collected. Could they have done something
Speaker 3: like this before? Is it something that he just had
Speaker 3: enough time driving hundreds of miles to kind of be
Speaker 3: calm and regroup and think of stories he could tell
Speaker 3: to use her money? And do you think that was
Speaker 3: the main motivator behind the crime itself, just to get
Speaker 3: their stuff?
Speaker 1: Possibly? I mean, they never specified just how much money
Speaker 1: was the travelers checks were worked, because obviously we know
Speaker 1: he used one ten dollars one, which isn't a lot
Speaker 1: of money. As possible that he wasn't even planning to
Speaker 1: kill anyone, but maybe he made sexual advances on Andre
Speaker 1: or something and things escalated into violence. Or maybe he
Speaker 1: was just a serial killer who just loved to pick
Speaker 1: up random people and rob them while traveling through the area.
Speaker 1: Because they described him as having an American accent, So
Speaker 1: if he was from say, Washington State, and he went
Speaker 1: up to Canada to kill people, he might have just
Speaker 1: had the mentality, well, if I crossed the border and
Speaker 1: go back home, they'll never figure out that I was
Speaker 1: responsible for these crimes.
Speaker 2: I don't know, like I've got nothing to go on here,
Speaker 2: but I almost get a gut feeling that you're right, Ashley,
Speaker 2: that this is somebody who's done this before, and that
Speaker 2: they are like a chameleon, and that they can fit
Speaker 2: in in any scenario and come off seeming decent, so
Speaker 2: that people don't take down his license plate and they
Speaker 2: allow him to pay with these travelers checks that say
Speaker 2: Andrea sharp on them when he is clearly not an Andrea.
Speaker 2: And it almost feels like there's a possibility that the
Speaker 2: robbery element could just be a secondary motivation, like if
Speaker 2: your motivation is to murder, and then well, why wouldn't
Speaker 2: you then take advantage of the situation and take whatever
Speaker 2: belongings you could.
Speaker 3: That's very true. I mean you have this idea that
Speaker 3: one he could have been making sexual advances. One it
Speaker 3: could be a power control thing. He sees a couple,
Speaker 3: just like we know several killers have targeted couples, and
Speaker 3: what he does is he, let's say he kills the
Speaker 3: young man first and then kills the then kills Andrea.
Speaker 3: It makes sense and like you said, maybe just taking
Speaker 3: all our things as a way to erase their identity
Speaker 3: temporarily so he can get away further. Because if he's
Speaker 3: done it before, he knows you don't leave that kind
Speaker 3: of information. It makes the police very easily able to
Speaker 3: identify who the victims are and maybe gets them a
Speaker 3: jump start on the investigation. Oh question, do I have
Speaker 3: an American accent?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: I mean America is such a big country that I
Speaker 1: liked more specifics about which kind of region that your
Speaker 1: accent is from, because listening to your voice, I can
Speaker 1: tell you're American, but I wouldn't be able to guess
Speaker 1: where you're from.
Speaker 2: I love it, Jules, you said, yes, I hear American accent,
Speaker 2: but I also like, this will sound weird. When I
Speaker 2: hear Robin talk, I hear a Canadian accent that we
Speaker 2: don't necessarily have out here.
Speaker 3: So people think I'm from New York, which makes no
Speaker 3: sense because I'm from Florida and I've never been up
Speaker 3: in New York. But I don't have the typical Southern
Speaker 3: draw unless I've I don't know, unless I'm really tired
Speaker 3: or something. But I'm a Southern girl and people are
Speaker 3: always like, are you from New York? So we are
Speaker 3: very vastly different. Depending on what region you're from, people
Speaker 3: think they can identify where you're from.
Speaker 2: I get refined Southern from you. Yay.
Speaker 3: Thank you, God, bless you.
Speaker 2: Over the next several years, the RCMP collected around nine
Speaker 2: hundred tips, but none of them led the case any
Speaker 2: closer to a resolution. However, a major development took place
Speaker 2: in July of nineteen eighty nine, when the RCMP detachment
Speaker 2: in Gander, Newfoundland was contacted by Tom Martin, a drug
Speaker 2: dealer who acted as an informant for them. Martin claimed
Speaker 2: that months earlier, he'd been living in the town of
Speaker 2: Grand Falls, Windsor and sharing a house with a woman
Speaker 2: named Madonna Kelly. According to Martin, Madonna told him that
Speaker 2: she knew the identity of the person responsible for the
Speaker 2: murders of two German tourists in British Columbia. The RCMP
Speaker 2: eventually brought in Madonna for questioning, and she recounted this story,
Speaker 2: confirming that she'd been living in a rented trailer in Chetwyn,
Speaker 2: British Columbia, back in nineteen eighty three. At the time,
Speaker 2: Madonna was working at a sod farm and befriended another
Speaker 2: employee named Andy Rose. Like Madonna, Andy also hailed from
Speaker 2: Grand Falls, Windsor, Newfoundland, and was one of thirteen siblings
Speaker 2: in his family. Over the years. Andy had worked and
Speaker 2: lived in a number of different places, including Toronto, Edmonton,
Speaker 2: and Thompson, Manitoba, and had one failed marriage under his belt.
Speaker 2: Even though Andy was described as being a nice guy
Speaker 2: when he was sober, he did have issues with alcohol
Speaker 2: and had become something of a drifter who had a
Speaker 2: hard time holding down steady employment. After arriving in Chetwynd
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty three, Andy lived with one of his
Speaker 2: brothers for a month and moved into a motel once
Speaker 2: he got the job at the Sad Farm. According to Madonna,
Speaker 2: during the early morning hours of October fourth or fifth
Speaker 2: that year, Andy suddenly showed up on the doorstep of
Speaker 2: her trailer while he was intoxicated. Madonna described him as
Speaker 2: wearing blood stained jeans and having blood stained hands, and
Speaker 2: she also said he appeared to have scratches under his eyes.
Speaker 2: Andy then told Madonna that he had murdered two German
Speaker 2: people by blowing their heads off and leaving their bodies
Speaker 2: by the side of the road. The female victim had
Speaker 2: apparently fought back and caused scratches on Andy's face, which
Speaker 2: is why he wanted to borrow some makeup from Madonna
Speaker 2: in order to help him cover them up since there
Speaker 2: was a full moon that night. Madonna also described Andy
Speaker 2: as quote howling like a werewolf when he shared a story.
Speaker 2: She claimed that Andy threatened to kill her and her
Speaker 2: infant son if she ever told anyone about what he did,
Speaker 2: which is why she remained silent for nearly six years.
Speaker 2: Madonna then left Shetwynd and moved back to Newfoundland only
Speaker 2: weeks after this incident took place.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's look at his behavior. He seems like, like
Speaker 3: she talks about, he had an alcohol problem, he had
Speaker 3: become a drifter. It's kind of like he had this
Speaker 3: huge family, he started working on this farm and his
Speaker 3: life just started to kind of unravel.
Speaker 1: His mental health.
Speaker 3: Seems to be a little bit an end question here.
Speaker 3: And then you contrast that with the individual we know
Speaker 3: was caching these checks of Andrea's. That's someone who's calm,
Speaker 3: who's well put together, who arouses no suspicion, who can
Speaker 3: very calmly tell you stories about what he is doing
Speaker 3: and how he got these checks in his possession. Does
Speaker 3: not seem like the same person to me whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Yeah, That's what I'm thinking as well, And as we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about There is nothing to indicate that
Speaker 1: Andy ever traveled south during that time period, hundreds of
Speaker 1: kilometers to even use these travelers checks at these different locations.
Speaker 1: In fact, he was so poor that I'm not even
Speaker 1: sure he had access to a vehicle during that time period. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, I can understand investigating him after hearing this
Speaker 1: story about his so called confession, But when you look
Speaker 1: at like his movements and the timeline of when these
Speaker 1: murders took place, it just seems impossible that he could
Speaker 1: have just traveled one hundred kilometers south and then just
Speaker 1: suddenly returned act to chatwind and then moved on with
Speaker 1: his life.
Speaker 3: And think about too, if he's this person who's struggling,
Speaker 3: let's say, financially, who has an alcohol problem, who's a drifter,
Speaker 3: and these two kids are hitch hiking, don't you think
Speaker 3: there's some awareness when you're hitch hiking, Like if a
Speaker 3: really like I don't know, dishoveled individual pulls overs like
Speaker 3: get in the car, like you have the right to go, eh,
Speaker 3: we're okay, we're okay, we're gonna wait a little bit.
Speaker 3: You know, you don't have to get in the car
Speaker 3: with that person. So I also think there's a lot
Speaker 3: to say about who people choose to get in the
Speaker 3: car with. Even in the eighties, when you have someone
Speaker 3: who's charming, well put together, who is you know, kind
Speaker 3: and clean, and their car is clean, those kinds of
Speaker 3: things go a really long way to allow you to
Speaker 3: make assumptions of safety, Whereas if someone was just shoveled,
Speaker 3: let's say, had a really beat up car, those kinds
Speaker 3: of things, maybe you say I'm okay, no, thank you,
Speaker 3: especially when you're not just as you know, one individual,
Speaker 3: there's two of you, so two brains thinking. I would
Speaker 3: think that the person who pulls over and picks them up,
Speaker 3: both of these kids are looking at ho they were going, yep,
Speaker 3: let's get in the car with them.
Speaker 1: That totally makes sense because when you hear the description
Speaker 1: of the guy using the travelers checks, who seemed like
Speaker 1: a pleasant, charming guy, he sounds like an individual that
Speaker 1: the couple would have been comfortable climbing into a vehicle with. Well.
Speaker 1: Upon further investigation, it turned out that Andy had left
Speaker 1: Shedwyn around the same time Madonna did, and traveled to
Speaker 1: the town of Courtney to look for work before he
Speaker 1: relocated to Edmonton and got a job moving furniture for
Speaker 1: U Haul. By nineteen eighty nine, Andy was forty years
Speaker 1: old and finally achieved a bit of stability in his life,
Speaker 1: as he had spent the past three years living and
Speaker 1: working in Sun Dance, Manitoba. In fact, on October the
Speaker 1: twenty eighth, while the RCMP were building a case against him,
Speaker 1: Andy's common law wife gave birth to their first son.
Speaker 1: Even though Andy had once been arrested for public intoxication
Speaker 1: and spent the night in a drunk tank, he had
Speaker 1: no serious criminal record or history of violence, but the
Speaker 1: RCMP still felt he was worth pursuing as suspect. On
Speaker 1: September seventh, just ten days after Andy's child was born,
Speaker 1: the RCNP requested that Madonna phone him and Sun Dance
Speaker 1: while they secretly recorded the conversation. Their call lasted for
Speaker 1: about an hour, but when Madonna brought up Andy's alleged
Speaker 1: murder Confashion from nineteen eighty three, he completely denied that
Speaker 1: the incident occurred or that he had ever killed anybody.
Speaker 1: During the call, Andy did provide a potential alternate explanation
Speaker 1: for Madonna's story, as he acknowledged getting into a bar
Speaker 1: fight in Chetwind during that time period in which he
Speaker 1: was punched in the nose and wound up bleeding onto
Speaker 1: his own clothing. Andy recalled there being a full moon
Speaker 1: on that particular night, so if he had shown up
Speaker 1: to Madonna's trailer after the fight, perhaps this was the
Speaker 1: incident she recalled. And he also maintained that he did
Speaker 1: not own a gun or a car while he was
Speaker 1: living in Chetwind and would not have had the means
Speaker 1: to acquire them. He told Madonna, quote, I couldn't even
Speaker 1: buy my own breakfast. I drank every cent I had
Speaker 1: I end quote. Regardless, even though Andy did not make
Speaker 1: a confession or reveal anything incriminating during the recorded phone call,
Speaker 1: the RCNP still believe that Madonna's story was strong enough
Speaker 1: evidence to charge it with Burned and Andrea's murders. Andy
Speaker 1: was quickly arrested in sun Dance and eventually extradited into
Speaker 1: British Columbia to stand trial for the crime.
Speaker 3: Let's say he actually had confessed to exactly what Madonna said.
Speaker 3: He was such an inebriated individual at the time, and
Speaker 3: he's even saying, Man, I'm drunk all the time, every
Speaker 3: dime I have goes to drinking. He wasn't going to
Speaker 3: be sober enough to go hundreds of miles to pick
Speaker 3: them up, to go cash these checks, those kinds of things.
Speaker 3: He says he didn't have a car, but if he did,
Speaker 3: I highly doubt that someone who's struggling that hard with
Speaker 3: an addiction that they would prefer to buy beer or
Speaker 3: booze over let's say, shelter car, those kinds of things,
Speaker 3: holding down their job, having stability with their family, that
Speaker 3: alcohol was that important to him. I just don't see
Speaker 3: him being able to be one the person who presents
Speaker 3: as a safe driver and someone who is able to
Speaker 3: concoct these stories and go hundreds of miles casting these checks.
Speaker 3: It doesn't make sense. I would more likely, as a
Speaker 3: police believe that someone who's struggling with addiction like this
Speaker 3: would tell a fabricated story how at the moon and
Speaker 3: be in some drunken stupor where he's reiterating some news
Speaker 3: story he saw in the newspaper or on the news.
Speaker 3: So it's perplexing to me that her telling this story
Speaker 3: and not even being able to corroborate it on these
Speaker 3: recordings that he has with Madonna, they went forward and
Speaker 3: charged him anyway. It doesn't make sense. There's no evidence
Speaker 3: to match it, and it actually goes against what we
Speaker 3: think we know about this individual who was so calm
Speaker 3: and collected, so well put together. It is not someone
Speaker 3: who's struggling with alcohol addiction.
Speaker 2: There's an incongruity there, for sure. If it was a
Speaker 2: crime that she was talking about and it was like
Speaker 2: a smash and grab or a home invasion or something
Speaker 2: that would involve just him quickly getting money to feed
Speaker 2: that addiction, then that would make sense. But this seems
Speaker 2: to be like well thought out and like you said,
Speaker 2: he didn't have access to a vehicle, or he didn't
Speaker 2: own a vehicle. It just doesn't seem to be in
Speaker 2: line with the person that's described. Andy's trial would take
Speaker 2: place at British Columbia Supreme Court in Prince George in
Speaker 2: March of nineteen ninety one, and his defense team would
Speaker 2: attempt to poke holes in the Crown's case against him. Obviously,
Speaker 2: one of the biggest issues was that, in the days
Speaker 2: following the murders, Andrea's travelers checks were used at various
Speaker 2: gas stations located hundreds of kilometers south of chetwind The
Speaker 2: composite sketches of the man seen using the travelers checks
Speaker 2: did not have much of a resemblance to Andy, and
Speaker 2: employment record showed that he'd worked an eight hour shift
Speaker 2: at the sod farm in chetwind every single day between
Speaker 2: October third and October sixteenth, nineteen eighty three. And like
Speaker 2: we just mentioned, Andy did not even own a vehicle
Speaker 2: during that time period, so how would he have even
Speaker 2: driven to all of those gas stations. There was also
Speaker 2: no physical evidence linking Andy to the murders, and even
Speaker 2: though he did wear size thirty four Janes back in
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty three, there was nothing to conclusively prove that
Speaker 2: the blood stain thirty four genes found in the trash
Speaker 2: bin near the murder scene actually belonged to him. While
Speaker 2: Madonna had described Andy as wearing blood stained jeans while
Speaker 2: confessing to the murders outside her trailer, the trash bin
Speaker 2: was located only about one kilometer south of the crime scene,
Speaker 2: so there was some question about why Andy would have
Speaker 2: traveled over thirty kilometers to Chetwynd while wearing the bloody
Speaker 2: jeans and then make another thirty kilometer trip back to
Speaker 2: that particular trash bin in order to get rid of them.
Speaker 2: Another potential hole in Madonna's story was her description of
Speaker 2: Andy howling like a werewolf at the full moon. His
Speaker 2: records showed that there was actually a crescent moon in
Speaker 2: the night sky during early October of nineteen eighty three,
Speaker 2: and the full moon did not appear until two weeks
Speaker 2: after the murders. Regardless, even though Andy took the witness
Speaker 2: stand to testify in his own defense, the jury still
Speaker 2: found Madonna's testimony to be more credible. On March eighth,
Speaker 2: they wound up finding Andy guilty on two counts of
Speaker 2: second degree murder, and he received a sentence of life
Speaker 2: imprisonment with no possibility of parole for fifteen years.
Speaker 3: Well, let's go to the pants real quick. When you
Speaker 3: look at Min's jeans, thirty two thirty fours, though that
Speaker 3: waste size is the most common waist size rebel wears
Speaker 3: of thirty four. So I mean, when you look at
Speaker 3: these thirty fours were found on evidence that could have
Speaker 3: been a million people's pair of jeans. So unless you
Speaker 3: had said, hey, it had you know, some card that
Speaker 3: linked it back to him. There was a wallet found
Speaker 3: in it, there was initials, you know, sewn into the
Speaker 3: waistband or something that didn't happen. It's just a size
Speaker 3: thirty four pair of jeans, and he says he didn't
Speaker 3: even he did wear that size, but he didn't even
Speaker 3: have a car to be in that location in the
Speaker 3: first place. So when you think about him being put
Speaker 3: up on the stand and in Madonna, clearly Madonna seems
Speaker 3: to be stable when she's presenting, You've got to remember
Speaker 3: this is a man who's had mental health issues with
Speaker 3: addiction and those sorts. He's been a drifter. He clearly
Speaker 3: has had a really difficult life. I wonder how intelligent
Speaker 3: he comes off to the jury versus how Madonna comes off, because, genuinely,
Speaker 3: whether the facts are congruent or not, when you have
Speaker 3: two different personalities up on the stand, someone who seems
Speaker 3: articulate and stable and grounded, even if they're not saying
Speaker 3: facts that make sense, they're going to be believed over
Speaker 3: someone who's sputtering off these truths but don't seem to
Speaker 3: be a very reliable human being just in general. So
Speaker 3: I think he was set up to fail by testifying
Speaker 3: in the first place.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know Andy had some previous mental health
Speaker 1: and alcohol issues back in the early eighties, but he
Speaker 1: seemed to be in a good place by the time
Speaker 1: he was arrested, so I'm not entirely sure he came
Speaker 1: across that badly on the witness stand. But I haven't
Speaker 1: seen footage of the original trial, but I would be
Speaker 1: curious to see Madonna's testimony because all I can think
Speaker 1: was it must have been pretty damn convincing, because there
Speaker 1: are just so many holes in the prosecution's case, But
Speaker 1: on Madonna's testimony alone, the jury just seemed to think
Speaker 1: that proved Andy's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's
Speaker 1: why they decided to find him guilty. But I guess
Speaker 1: we just got to put ourselves in the shoes of
Speaker 1: a potential juror back in nineteen ninety one, when issues
Speaker 1: with wrongful convictions were just not general knowledge with the public,
Speaker 1: So they probably just had the mindset, well, why would
Speaker 1: this witness get on the stand and lie about this story.
Speaker 1: She must be telling the truth. Therefore, Andy is guilty.
Speaker 3: Question for you guys, when you look at America's justice system,
Speaker 3: it's you know, you're innocent until proven guilty beyond a
Speaker 3: reasonable doubt. You need to be ninety nine point nine
Speaker 3: nine nine percent sure that this is the true account.
Speaker 1: All of that's the same in Canada pretty much. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Like they still have the same mindset that you should
Speaker 1: not find someone guilty unless you feel that they have
Speaker 1: proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, there
Speaker 1: are some differences between the Canadian and American justice systems,
Speaker 1: but the basic essentials of a trial are pretty much
Speaker 1: the same.
Speaker 3: Okay, so he would have had many rights himself as well.
Speaker 1: Andy was sent to the Matsque Institution in Abbotsford, but
Speaker 1: his defense team immediately appealed his conviction. Just under two
Speaker 1: years later, on November twelfth, nineteen ninety two, the British
Speaker 1: Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that Andy was entitled to
Speaker 1: a new trial as they believe that the original trial
Speaker 1: judge had given inadequate instructions to the jury about the
Speaker 1: burden of proof and reasonable doubt. During the ruling, the
Speaker 1: three justices wrote, quote, experience tells us that while very
Speaker 1: few innocent persons are convicted, it does happen end quote.
Speaker 1: Andy would return to British Columbia Supreme Court in Prince
Speaker 1: George for his second trial in April of nineteen ninety four,
Speaker 1: and once again the only real evidence against him was
Speaker 1: the testimony of Adonna Kelly, who continued to maintain that
Speaker 1: Andy had confessed to her about his involvement in the murders.
Speaker 1: But even though the defense attempted to poke hole as
Speaker 1: a Madonna's story, the jury still seemed to think that
Speaker 1: she was a believable eyewitness. So on April the twenty sixth,
Speaker 1: Andy was found guilty on two counts of second degree
Speaker 1: murder for the second time. When sensing took place, Andy
Speaker 1: told the court quote, I didn't kill those people. I
Speaker 1: don't know what else I can say. There is no
Speaker 1: evidence I didn't kill them end quote. He received the
Speaker 1: same sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility parole for
Speaker 1: fifteen years, and was subsequently sent back to prison.
Speaker 3: I don't get it. In nineteen ninety one, and in
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety four, we definitely didn't have the technology we
Speaker 3: have with DNA. Remember Andrea had had blood evidence underneath
Speaker 3: her fingernails. Supposedly he was scratched. If we had that technology,
Speaker 3: we could go back and say, hey, look had this happened.
Speaker 3: But at the time, Andy saying I don't know what
Speaker 3: else to do. How do you truly prove your innocent?
Speaker 3: Your job is to prove that I'm guilty, you didn't
Speaker 3: do that, and it's almost impossible. I've told you I
Speaker 3: didn't have a car, I didn't have any money at
Speaker 3: the time. I sure wasn't driving hundreds of miles. I
Speaker 3: didn't say that I wasn't at Madonna's house confessing to
Speaker 3: that I was in a bar fight, which it would
Speaker 3: explain scratches and blood on me. But I don't know
Speaker 3: how else to prove I'm innocent. I've thought about that
Speaker 3: a lot before. If I had to prove my innocence,
Speaker 3: you know, you can prove I have receipts for this,
Speaker 3: I was here, But there's a lot of ways that
Speaker 3: people look the other way and say, like, I just
Speaker 3: don't buy it. I believe you're guilty. So it's very difficult.
Speaker 3: Andy found himself in an almost impossible situation of saying,
Speaker 3: prove that I did it. You didn't prove it, and
Speaker 3: yet the jury said, yes, they did.
Speaker 1: Andy was just unlucky because, as we're going to talk about,
Speaker 1: DNA testing does become a part of this case within
Speaker 1: the next few years. So I think that if Andy's
Speaker 1: trial had taken place just a couple years afterwards, he
Speaker 1: probably wouldn't have been convicted because they would have been
Speaker 1: able to use DNA evidence to pretty much prove beyond
Speaker 1: a shadow of a doubt to a jury that he
Speaker 1: could not have committed this crime.
Speaker 2: I'm curious, Robin, do you know in Canada if we
Speaker 2: have with the equivalent of in America's a bench trial.
Speaker 1: Let me just look that up. I seem to recall
Speaker 1: some examples of this happening in Canada, but I just
Speaker 1: want to double shu murder trial.
Speaker 2: Make sure you look in the Yeah, because it would
Speaker 2: be advantageous. I would think for Andy's defense to say, like,
Speaker 2: let's do a bench trial because the evidence was so weak.
Speaker 1: Yes, they do, because let me just look this up here. Yes,
Speaker 1: you've heard of the Richard Olin murder from New Brunswick
Speaker 1: that took place in twenty eleven. Yes, yes, where his
Speaker 1: son went on trial for murder. And I do know
Speaker 1: that his conviction was overturned and he got a retrial,
Speaker 1: and I think they did ask for a bench trial,
Speaker 1: and the judge pretty much ruled that I don't believe
Speaker 1: the evidence is strong enough to prove his guilty on
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt and found him not guilty. So yeah,
Speaker 1: those do exist and are definitely better if the prosecution
Speaker 1: is presenting a weak case, because most of the time
Speaker 1: the judges will act objective and say that I don't
Speaker 1: I'm not going to decide if you're guilty or innocence,
Speaker 1: but if I don't think the evidence is strong enough,
Speaker 1: I will acquit you.
Speaker 2: Because I think the judge is more likely to actually
Speaker 2: weigh the evidence in the case, whereas I think the
Speaker 2: jury is more likely to be swayed by who's telling
Speaker 2: the best story or what is the best narrative.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think that's probably what happened in these
Speaker 1: two trials.
Speaker 2: So Andy's defense team appealed his conviction, alleging that the
Speaker 2: trial judge had once again misdirected the jury and there
Speaker 2: were too many inconsistencies in Madonna's testimony. On February fourteenth,
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety six, the BC Court of Appeals announced that
Speaker 2: they had originally been planning to dismiss the appeal, but
Speaker 2: we're now going to reserve judgment until new forensic testing
Speaker 2: could take place. Well, DNA profiling and criminal investigations was
Speaker 2: still a relatively new thing. When Andy was for charged
Speaker 2: with the murders in nineteen eighty nine, the defense was
Speaker 2: hoping to perform DNA testing on the blood stained genes,
Speaker 2: as well as Andrea's fingernail clippings, which had traces of
Speaker 2: blood on them. The Court of Appeal ordered the Crown
Speaker 2: to release these exhibits for testing, and Andy even agreed
Speaker 2: to provide the RCMP with a blood sample so as
Speaker 2: DNA could be compared with the evidence. The results would
Speaker 2: later show no trace of Andy's DNA on the genes
Speaker 2: or the fingernail clippings, though it was determined that the
Speaker 2: blood under Andrea's nails was likely her own and may
Speaker 2: not have been the result of her scratching her killer.
Speaker 3: This is really fascinating. So even though he agrees, Andy
Speaker 3: agrees to go ahead and give this blood sample, we
Speaker 3: find out that Andy's DNA's nowhere. It's not anywhere that
Speaker 3: it probably should have been. Remember, Madonna says that he
Speaker 3: had these scratches on his face. If Andrea had truly
Speaker 3: scratched him with her nails, and you had looked at
Speaker 3: that blood and the DNA evidence of skin cells that
Speaker 3: were underneath her fingernails, they would have matched the perpetrator.
Speaker 3: And I'm assuming they run that evidence through other databases
Speaker 3: and they can't find a hit anywhere.
Speaker 1: I actually haven't heard that it has been clarified how
Speaker 1: thoroughly they have run this DNA to try to test
Speaker 1: it and see if it matches any other offenders. But
Speaker 1: I do know for certain that they have never attempted
Speaker 1: to use genetic genealogy on it, even though that is
Speaker 1: probably the best chance they have of figuring out who
Speaker 1: this DNA belongs to.
Speaker 3: Also that in phenotyping too, being able to run it
Speaker 3: through and having it pop up basically an image with
Speaker 3: about ninety eight percent certainty of skin color, eye color,
Speaker 3: you know, freckles are not dissent, all of those things.
Speaker 3: It'd be fascinating for them to have a true I
Speaker 3: know they have composite sketches, but a true image of
Speaker 3: what they think this person would have looked lying.
Speaker 1: Well. A surprising new development would occur in September of
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety seven when the RCNP was contacted by the
Speaker 1: police in pall Up, Washington, who shared information about a
Speaker 1: potential alternate suspect, Vance Hill. Hill originally hailed from California,
Speaker 1: but moved to Canada in nineteen sixty seven and eventually
Speaker 1: settled in Prince George. Vance and his wife, Willadeine Hill,
Speaker 1: had three children together while he worked in construction, but
Speaker 1: he also struggled with chronic alcoholism. In April of nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty three, the Hill separated and Willadeine decided to move
Speaker 1: back to California with their children, while Vance remained in
Speaker 1: Prince George. On October the twenty first of that year,
Speaker 1: three and a half weeks after the murders, Vance was
Speaker 1: arrested by the RCMP on two charges of obtaining lodging
Speaker 1: by false pretenses. After a brief stint in jail, Vance
Speaker 1: decided to leave the country and return to California so
Speaker 1: he could move into a new place that was closer
Speaker 1: to his family. In January of nineteen eighty four, Vance
Speaker 1: supposedly confessed to Willadeine that he was responsible for murdering
Speaker 1: a male and female hitchhiker he had met at a
Speaker 1: bar in Chetwynd. He claimed that the couple had asked
Speaker 1: him for a ride in his pickup truck, but while
Speaker 1: they were driving, Vance began to harass the woman when
Speaker 1: her male companion began to protest, Vance stopped the truck
Speaker 1: and both men climbed out. They proceeded to have a
Speaker 1: heated confrontation until Vance reached into his truck, pulled out
Speaker 1: a rifle, and fatally shot the man. The woman started screaming,
Speaker 1: and when she refused to shut up, Vance shot her
Speaker 1: as well, before dumping both victim's bodies by the side
Speaker 1: of the road. At the time, Willodeine apparently did not
Speaker 1: believe her husband's story and thought it was nothing more
Speaker 1: than one of his quote unquote drunken fantasies. But shortly thereafter,
Speaker 1: Willodeine found a suicide note that Vance had written inside
Speaker 1: her garage, in which he expressed his intention to kill
Speaker 1: himself because he didn't want to go to jail. Since
Speaker 1: Vance did not actually go through with ending his life,
Speaker 1: Willodeine never told him that she found his note. However,
Speaker 1: on July the twenty eighth, nineteen eighty five, which happened
Speaker 1: to be Vance's fifty seventh birthday, he finally did decide
Speaker 1: to kill himself ya a self inflicted gunshot wound. Vance
Speaker 1: left behind two more suicide notes, one for his wife
Speaker 1: and the other for his landlord, but neither of them
Speaker 1: made any mention of the murders. It was not until
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety seven when Willadine told her nephew about her
Speaker 1: late husband's alleged murder confession, and he decided to share
Speaker 1: this information with the Pialla Police Department. Once they contacted
Speaker 1: the RCMP about this, will Adeine was brought in to
Speaker 1: be formally questioned and she confirmed the story, well.
Speaker 3: This one surely seems more probable than what Andy's convicted on. Again,
Speaker 3: what a struggle is is that you have someone who
Speaker 3: has an alcohol addiction and who clearly has some mental
Speaker 3: health issues, as he's been suicidal multiple times, and then
Speaker 3: eventually does take his own life. It's really sad when
Speaker 3: you think about it. You know, his wife finds this
Speaker 3: note that he's going to kill himself and here's why,
Speaker 3: and then he doesn't follow through with it, which is
Speaker 3: really distressing. So you know that there was this fight
Speaker 3: of you know, almost begging him to save his own
Speaker 3: life and not hurt himself, and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 3: she does complete suicide and will Adein goes to find
Speaker 3: these notes and she says, well, it's interesting because these
Speaker 3: don't mention that, so is that not why he wanted
Speaker 3: to complete suicide the first time, so very confusing grief
Speaker 3: wise for her. I can imagine her sitting back and
Speaker 3: trying to process, like, what caused this? Why did he
Speaker 3: decide to take his own life? He has his kids, Yes,
Speaker 3: we weren't working out, but he had his children. What
Speaker 3: was it? And talking to her nephew about hey, you
Speaker 3: know once he had mentioned in this suicide note that
Speaker 3: he had killed this couple. So, you know, I feel
Speaker 3: like she's almost just trying to process her grief and
Speaker 3: the nephew shares with the police and they bring her in.
Speaker 3: It does seem like a story that's again, way more
Speaker 3: believable than what Andy's was.
Speaker 1: And I can give Willodeine some slack for not coming
Speaker 1: forward and telling the police because he never shared any
Speaker 1: specific details when he made this so called confession. He
Speaker 1: just mentioned murdering a couple, but he didn't give any names.
Speaker 1: He never said where the murders took place. And for
Speaker 1: all we know, will Adeine, because she was living in
Speaker 1: the United States at that time, probably had no idea
Speaker 1: that Anne d Rose had gone through two trials for
Speaker 1: a crime that her husband may have actually committed. So
Speaker 1: she's just casually mentioning this to her nephew years after
Speaker 1: the fact, that I think he was the one who
Speaker 1: put two and two together and thought, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: there's a big case in Canada involving a murdered couple
Speaker 1: and an innocent man might be in prison. So that's
Speaker 1: why I'm going to contact the police. But yeah, overall,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not going to say it's one hundred
Speaker 1: percent true, but will Adeine's story does seem more believable
Speaker 1: than Madonna Kelly's.
Speaker 2: On the basis of this new information about vance Hill,
Speaker 2: Andy's defense team filed an application to reduce fresh evidence,
Speaker 2: and in June of nineteen ninety eight, the BC Court
Speaker 2: of Appeal ruled that this was enough grounds to overturn
Speaker 2: Andy's conviction for the second time, and he was awarded
Speaker 2: a new trial. Andy was subsequently released from prison on
Speaker 2: bail and would move in with one of his brothers
Speaker 2: in Thompson, Manitoba to await his third trial. But since
Speaker 2: the RCMP was concerned about whether the evidence against Andy
Speaker 2: would be strong enough to secure another con they felt
Speaker 2: they might need to strengthen their case before the trial began,
Speaker 2: so in October of that year, they decided to launch
Speaker 2: a Mister Big sting operation and if you're not familiar
Speaker 2: with a Mister Big technique, we'll be sharing more details
Speaker 2: about it in our next episode, and we covered it
Speaker 2: a little bit in this one early on, but needless
Speaker 2: to say, it's considered to be one of the most
Speaker 2: controversial elements of the Canadian justice system. It usually involves
Speaker 2: undercover police officers posing as criminals who attempt to befriend
Speaker 2: and gain the trust of suspects in cold cases. These
Speaker 2: officers give off the impression that they want the suspect
Speaker 2: to join their so called criminal organization and get paid
Speaker 2: good money to perform jobs for them, but only if
Speaker 2: they disclose their full criminal history. Of course, this is
Speaker 2: often used as a ruse for the suspect to make
Speaker 2: a full confession to the crime that they are believed
Speaker 2: to have committed, and if the undercover officers managed to
Speaker 2: secretly record or videotape the confession, then this can be
Speaker 2: the one final piece of evidence for required for them
Speaker 2: to make an arrest. Following his release from prison, one
Speaker 2: of the conditions of Andy's bail was that he was
Speaker 2: required to sign in at the RCMP headquarters in Thompson,
Speaker 2: and while there he was approached by a man calling
Speaker 2: himself Fred. Fred claimed that he was an ex convict
Speaker 2: and quickly befriended Andy and wound up developing a close
Speaker 2: relationship with him. But in actuality, Fred was an undercover
Speaker 2: RCMP officer and the whole endeavor was a Mister Big
Speaker 2: sting operation.
Speaker 3: Let's hear it? How did this meeting with Fred go?
Speaker 1: Okay? Well, here are the details. The Mister Big operation
Speaker 1: would last over eight months, as Fred made Andy believe
Speaker 1: that he was part of a criminal organization which would
Speaker 1: pay him substantial amounts of money to assist them with
Speaker 1: their illegal activities. On July sixteenth, nineteen ninety nine, Fred
Speaker 1: brought Andy to a hotel suite in Winnipeg to meet
Speaker 1: a man named Al, who is the alleged head of
Speaker 1: this organization aka mister Big. But of course Al was
Speaker 1: also an undercover RCMP officer and na and over the
Speaker 1: course of two days, all of his conversations with Andy
Speaker 1: in the suite were secretly videotaped. Al told Andy that
Speaker 1: he was aware of his upcoming murder trial, but warned
Speaker 1: him that the police were pressuring Willadeine Hill to recanter story,
Speaker 1: which meant there was a major risk Andy might get
Speaker 1: convicted again. However, Al assured Andy that his organization had
Speaker 1: the influence to alter the evidence against him and guarantee
Speaker 1: that he would never even have to go on trial.
Speaker 1: But Al said that he could only offer this assistance
Speaker 1: if Andy officially became a member of their gang, which
Speaker 1: meant he had to come clean and disclose the full
Speaker 1: details about the murders he had committed. Even though Al
Speaker 1: told Andy that he did not care if he actually
Speaker 1: committed the crime and would fix the situation for him,
Speaker 1: Andy continued to maintain his innocence. During their meetings, Andy
Speaker 1: was told no less than twenty four times that he
Speaker 1: did not confess to the murders, he would go back
Speaker 1: to jail, but he still refused to admit any culpability.
Speaker 1: Given Andy's past struggles with alcoholism, the undercover officers decided
Speaker 1: to take a bane of the situation by bringing him
Speaker 1: to the hotel bar to drink beer for around two hours.
Speaker 1: When they returned to the suite, Andy finally stated quote, well,
Speaker 1: we'll go with I did it okay. He then made
Speaker 1: a full confession to the murders, unaware that the whole
Speaker 1: thing was being videotaped. Needless to say, Andie's defense team
Speaker 1: were a gas when they learned about what happened. But
Speaker 1: he maintained that his confession was false and he had
Speaker 1: been coerced, as he claimed that he only told the
Speaker 1: officers what they wanted to hear. Indeed, even though Andy
Speaker 1: admitted to the crime during the recordings, he did not
Speaker 1: reveal any exclusive details which were not already public knowledge.
Speaker 1: For instance, when asked about how he obtained the firearm
Speaker 1: used to commit the murders, and he never went into
Speaker 1: any specifics and simply said, quote, oh, I had it,
Speaker 1: I had it.
Speaker 3: Oh that's dirty. I think when you get somebody under
Speaker 3: the influence and you start to plan to something that
Speaker 3: they've struggled with, Like you said, it's controversial to say
Speaker 3: the least. But you know, he had maintained his innocence
Speaker 3: multiple times, twenty four times. He's being told you're going
Speaker 3: to go back to prison, you know that, right, and
Speaker 3: he's saying, yeah, but I didn't do it. Yeah, but
Speaker 3: I didn't do it. And this is to a group
Speaker 3: who's promising him thinks he's never had financial security protection
Speaker 3: in the legal system, which clearly he hasn't had and
Speaker 3: so it's really troubling when you think of this idea
Speaker 3: that they say, Okay, we're not getting the information we want,
Speaker 3: so let's actually get him intoxicated. Let's play into an
Speaker 3: addiction he has. And I wonder if he was actively
Speaker 3: an addict at the time, which is really stressful to
Speaker 3: think about too. But then he starts just unloading this
Speaker 3: very generic explanation for what he did, Like he can't
Speaker 3: even name how he got the gun. Remember he said
Speaker 3: he didn't own that, he didn't own a gun, he
Speaker 3: didn't own a truck, any of those things. And so
Speaker 3: here he's just going like, oh, yeah, I had I
Speaker 3: had it. Man, he's so drunk, who knows what he's saying.
Speaker 3: He's simply basically telling them a very watered down story
Speaker 3: so that he can check the boxes off and get
Speaker 3: what they're what's being promised to him. Worse than the
Speaker 3: read techniques in the United States, you think it can
Speaker 3: elicit a false confession. That's basically the only thing that
Speaker 3: I see coming out of this is that people are
Speaker 3: using a criminal enterprise and people's weaknesses and addictions to
Speaker 3: manipulate them mentally. That's pretty bad.
Speaker 1: I will acknowledge that there are some documented cases where
Speaker 1: the Mister Big technique did work successfully and help put
Speaker 1: guilty people away because some of them were stupid enough
Speaker 1: to make a confession to a crime they did commit.
Speaker 1: But there are also other cases, just like this one,
Speaker 1: where it just seemed obvious that the subject was just
Speaker 1: saying what people wanted to hear and that they were
Speaker 1: being manipulated. And they always seem like the Reek of Desperation,
Speaker 1: where the police are pretty much at their last resort
Speaker 1: and are thinking, well, we can't find any other evidence
Speaker 1: against this person, so we're going to do this elaborate
Speaker 1: sting operation and just hope we get the making a
Speaker 1: confession on tape. But of course the circumstances of how
Speaker 1: they do it are pretty problematic, and I think that
Speaker 1: Andy Rose's case is when of the very worst examples.
Speaker 1: So I think that about brings an end to Part one,
Speaker 1: and on our next episode will reveal how the Mister
Speaker 1: Big technique affected Ay's case when he went on trial
Speaker 1: for the third time. So join us next week as
Speaker 1: we present part two of our series on the murders
Speaker 1: of Burnt Gerrika and Andrea Shirt.
Speaker 2: Robin do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 2: about the Trail Went Cold 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 Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to
Speaker 1: Patreon and if you join our highest tier tier free
Speaker 1: the ten dollars tier. One of the features we offer
Speaker 1: is a audio commentary track over classic episodes of UNSAWD 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 in which I make more smart
Speaker 1: ass remarks about Jewel, Kaylor then be sure to join
Speaker 1: Tier three.
Speaker 4: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 4: about the Jules and Nashty patreons. So there's early ad
Speaker 4: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Speaker 4: Pathwent Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so
Speaker 4: they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
Speaker 4: turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those.
Speaker 2: So we hope you'll check out those patreons. We'll 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 d rate and review is greatly
Speaker 1: appreciate it. You can email us at The Pathwentchili at
Speaker 1: gmail dot com. You can reach us on Twitter at
Speaker 1: the Pathwent. So until next time, be sure to bundle
Speaker 1: up because cold trails and Chili pass call for warm clothing.
Speaker 2: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy