Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Path Went Chile for part two
Speaker 1: of our series about the murders of Burned Gerica and
Speaker 1: Andrea Shirt. Robin, do you want to catch everyone up
Speaker 1: on what we talked about in our previous episode?
Speaker 2: Well, this crime took place in British Columbia, Canada in
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty three. Burnt Gerica and Andrea Shirt were a
Speaker 2: couple from West Germany who were doing a hitchhiking and
Speaker 2: backpacking trip through Canada, but they missed the return flight
Speaker 2: home and they would be discovered murdered in a remote
Speaker 2: section of British Columbia. They've both been shot to death
Speaker 2: and most of their personal items have been stolen, and
Speaker 2: it would later turn out that Andrea's travelers checks had
Speaker 2: been used at various gas stations located hundreds of kilometers
Speaker 2: south from where the crime took place, so it seemed
Speaker 2: obvious that their killer was responsible and using her travelers checks.
Speaker 2: The case remained unsolved for over five years, but then
Speaker 2: they looked at a suspect named Andy Rose, who had
Speaker 2: been living in that region of British Columbia in nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty three. Pretty much the only evidence against him was
Speaker 2: the testimony of a woman named Madonna Kelly, who had
Speaker 2: been friends with Andy and BC back then, and claimed
Speaker 2: that he had shown up at her trailer one night,
Speaker 2: howling at the moon, covered in blood, claiming that he
Speaker 2: had killed a couple. But of course, there was no
Speaker 2: other corroborating evidence to support her story, and even though
Speaker 2: the cops recorded a phone call between Madonna and Andy,
Speaker 2: he never revealed anything incriminating or confessed to the crime.
Speaker 2: But in spite of this, he still got arrested, even
Speaker 2: though he insisted that back then he was so poverty
Speaker 2: stricken that he didn't even own a car, so how
Speaker 2: can he have driven one hundred kilometers south in order
Speaker 2: to be able to use those travelers checks? But in
Speaker 2: spite of this, he was found guilty at trial, he
Speaker 2: got his conviction overturned because the judge had given improper
Speaker 2: instructions to the jury, but he was found guilty a
Speaker 2: second time in nineteen ninety five. By this point, they
Speaker 2: finally started doing forensic testing. They had found a pair
Speaker 2: of bloody genes near the murder scene inside a waste
Speaker 2: basket and tested the blood, and even though it matched
Speaker 2: the two victims, none of the blood or the physical
Speaker 2: evidence on the genes belonged to Andy. They're planning to
Speaker 2: take on a trial again, but of course this was
Speaker 2: a big setback for the authorities, so they tried to
Speaker 2: entrap Andy and is what is known in Canada as
Speaker 2: the Mister Big sting operation, which is actually illegal in
Speaker 2: the United States because it is technically entrapment where a
Speaker 2: bunch of undercover cops will pose as criminals and offer
Speaker 2: things to their suspect in hopes of recording them making
Speaker 2: a full confession of the crime. And that's exactly what
Speaker 2: they did with Andy. They were saying, saying that we
Speaker 2: will make your problem go away. We will get rid
Speaker 2: of the evidence to ensure you don't have to go
Speaker 2: on trial a third time, just as long as you
Speaker 2: tell us everything about yourself and confess to the murder.
Speaker 2: And Andy pretty much just gave our sarcastic yeah, sure
Speaker 2: I did it, but then later recanted it and said
Speaker 2: that I was only telling them what they wanted to hear.
Speaker 2: And at the time we left off, Andy third trow
Speaker 2: was about to begin and even though his defense he
Speaker 2: wanted to get the Mister Big confession suppressed as evidence,
Speaker 2: the judge denied it, so as we're going to start
Speaker 2: off here. He's about to go on trial with the
Speaker 2: third time and his future is still uncertain.
Speaker 1: So Andy's defense team filed emotion to have his Mister
Speaker 1: Big confession suppressed. His evidence at his third trial were unsuccessful.
Speaker 1: As a result, their plan was to bring in a
Speaker 1: forensic psychologist with expertise in the subjects of police interrogations
Speaker 1: and false confessions, who would testify that Andy had been
Speaker 1: manipulated and coerced. They also planned to bring in Willedine
Speaker 1: Hill and her daughter to testify about vance Hill's alleged
Speaker 1: confession to the murders. The trial finally began in January
Speaker 1: of two thousand and one, but by this point even
Speaker 1: more evidence had emerged to support Andy's innocence. Advance forensic
Speaker 1: testing on the blood stained genes revealed traces of DNA
Speaker 1: belonging to three people. Of course, two of these people
Speaker 1: were burned in Andrea, as the blood spatter wound up
Speaker 1: matching them, but traces of genetic material, including a scalp hair,
Speaker 1: were found in the pants cuff. The DNA on the
Speaker 1: material belonged to a male, but Andy was excluded as
Speaker 1: being the source. Before the trial could be completed, Crown
Speaker 1: Prosecutor Gil McKinnon decided to consult with the British Columbia
Speaker 1: Attorney General, and on January twenty third, he announced that
Speaker 1: the murder charges against Andy were being stayed. McKinnon stated
Speaker 1: that given the amount of evidence which seemed to point
Speaker 1: away from Andy, he would have felt uncomfortable if the
Speaker 1: jury reached another guilty verdict. The Crown had a year's
Speaker 1: reactivate the murder charges against Andy, but they chose not to,
Speaker 1: meaning that he was finally exonerated. In two thousand and nine.
Speaker 1: The story would be featured on an episode of the
Speaker 1: Canadian investigative journalism program The Fifth Estate. By that point,
Speaker 1: Andy was working in a warehouse in Edmonton and had
Speaker 1: managed to start a new relationship with his son, who
Speaker 1: was less than two weeks old when Andy was arrested
Speaker 1: for the murders. Andy said that he now spent most
Speaker 1: of his time alone and as far as I can tell,
Speaker 1: he's never received any compensation for his wrongful incarceration. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the investigation has not had much luck identifying the real perpetrator.
Speaker 1: As it turned out the DNA evidence on the blood
Speaker 1: stained jeans did not match vance Hill either. In addition,
Speaker 1: even though these genes were assized thirty four, Hill was
Speaker 1: known for wearing pants that were as size forty or
Speaker 1: forty two. Since none of the missing identification or property
Speaker 1: that belonged to the two victims has ever been recovered,
Speaker 1: the RCMP has urged anyone who might have found them
Speaker 1: or has information to come forward. But after four decades,
Speaker 1: the murders of Burned Gerica and Andreas Sharp continued to
Speaker 1: remain unsolved.
Speaker 2: So I guess you could say the path went chili.
Speaker 3: Okay, So to back up and look at why Andy
Speaker 3: was actually accused in the first place, It's because this
Speaker 3: woman says that at some point he showed up bloody
Speaker 3: at her house and said he had killed the two
Speaker 3: of them.
Speaker 2: Correct, Yes, that's pretty much it. That is the only
Speaker 2: evidence against him, and they never found anything to corroborate
Speaker 2: this story, and Andy always denied it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's really interesting because they convicted him on that, right.
Speaker 3: This is how they got him in prison in the
Speaker 3: first place. And so when you're looking here, Andy, there's
Speaker 3: no evidence pointing to him. But then you start to
Speaker 3: have evidence like you just described where it points away
Speaker 3: from him, And I feel so much empathy and sadness
Speaker 3: for Andy because he said, you know, now I spend
Speaker 3: all this time alone, I missed out on time with
Speaker 3: my family, and there's likely no compensation here. A wrongful
Speaker 3: you know, a false confession is something that it's very
Speaker 3: difficult to understand. If you didn't do something, why would
Speaker 3: you say you did. Let's say Andy showed up intoxicated
Speaker 3: at this lady's house and said that he had gotten
Speaker 3: into a fuss with somebody and had killed someone. I
Speaker 3: don't even know at that point if I'd believe that confession,
Speaker 3: but we don't know that that even happened. There was
Speaker 3: no way of them validating what this woman had said
Speaker 3: or what her motivation could have been for coming forward.
Speaker 3: So I feel really just upset. You guys know how
Speaker 3: I am about wrongful convictions, that that's the only piece
Speaker 3: of evidence they had in the first place. It's incredible
Speaker 3: that you start to see these forensic facts come out,
Speaker 3: because so many people don't have that luxury when they're
Speaker 3: in prison for something they didn't do, but Andy did.
Speaker 3: Andy had things that started to come out. The DNA
Speaker 3: didn't match that, there were things that pointed away from him.
Speaker 3: He had people that were able to testify and put
Speaker 3: him somewhere else, and so Andy actually ended up being
Speaker 3: quite blessed in some ways, but he still has to
Speaker 3: deal with the fact that part of his life, part
Speaker 3: of his character, was killed. It was taken away from him,
Speaker 3: and so how do we go back and ever make
Speaker 3: that right, even when there is financial compensation, But for Andy,
Speaker 3: he didn't even get that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is not the only wrongful conviction case
Speaker 2: we've done where a wrongfully convicted person has been separated
Speaker 2: from their child and has tried to reunite with them
Speaker 2: once they're finally released. And we talked on our last
Speaker 2: episode that back in the early eighties, Andy was kind
Speaker 2: of a drifter. He drank too much, he was always
Speaker 2: getting into fights in trouble. But by nineteen eighty nine,
Speaker 2: he had turned his life around. He had a good job,
Speaker 2: he had good relationship, and he had a two week
Speaker 2: old son, so he was ready to start over and
Speaker 2: live a good life. And then he just suddenly gets
Speaker 2: arrested for this murder that took place six years ago
Speaker 2: that he had nothing to do with it. And this
Speaker 2: boy who was only two weeks old when he was arrested,
Speaker 2: is now like ten eleven years old when he finally
Speaker 2: gets out of prison, and now he has to rekindle
Speaker 2: a new relationship with them. So that's got to be
Speaker 2: extra difficult when you know that you missed so much
Speaker 2: time with your child because of this. So we've covered
Speaker 2: a number of wrongful conviction cases on the Path Went Chile,
Speaker 2: and this is our first Canadian one. And while wrongful
Speaker 2: convictions are nowhere nearest prominent in Canada as they are
Speaker 2: in the United States, the country still has serious issues
Speaker 2: with them, and this story is definitely an example of
Speaker 2: the Canadian justice system going horribly wrong. Quite frankly, the
Speaker 2: Crown's case against Andy Rose for the murders of Burnt
Speaker 2: Gerica and Andreas Shirp might be one of the weakest
Speaker 2: cases I've ever seen which resulted in a guilty verdict.
Speaker 2: And the fact that two separate juries at two separate
Speaker 2: trials felt that the evidence against Andy was strong enough
Speaker 2: to convict him beyond reasonable doubt he is pretty terrifying.
Speaker 2: On both occasions. All the prosecution really had was Madonna
Speaker 2: Kelly's testimony that Andy shsh She showed up at her
Speaker 2: door one night covered in blood and confessed to the murders,
Speaker 2: and that's literally it. There was no real evidence to
Speaker 2: corroborate Madonna's story, but there were a number of holes
Speaker 2: in it, as well as several logistical issues which made
Speaker 2: it seem impossible that Andy could have committed this crime.
Speaker 2: There's also the fact that Madonna never came forward and
Speaker 2: told the police about this so called murder confession, as
Speaker 2: they did not hear about it until nearly six years
Speaker 2: after the fact. You might be wondering how two juries
Speaker 2: were able to overlook the considerable logistical holes of Madonna's account,
Speaker 2: but she was apparently a very convincing witness who had
Speaker 2: a history of making false stories sound believable. While describing
Speaker 2: Madonna's testimony on the aforementioned Fifth Estate episode, Andy's sister
Speaker 2: and Collette stated, quote, she looked like the virgin Mary
Speaker 2: on the stand, but she's no Virgin Mary. End quote.
Speaker 2: The Fifth Estate was hoping to have Madonna pear on
Speaker 2: their episode, but she refused to do an interview unless
Speaker 2: they paid her thirty thousand dollars to say The show
Speaker 2: declined her offers, So we may never know her reasoning
Speaker 2: for doing what she did, but personally, I have to
Speaker 2: wonder if the whole thing may have been a lie
Speaker 2: which wound up escalating out of control. Remember, Madonna did
Speaker 2: not voluntarily come forward and shared this story with the
Speaker 2: police on her own accord. The only reason to even
Speaker 2: found out about it was because she happened to share
Speaker 2: the story with Tom Martin, a drug informant, who decided
Speaker 2: to pass it along to the authorities. Andy has acknowledged
Speaker 2: that there could have been one incident where he showed
Speaker 2: up to Madonna's trailer in the middle of the night
Speaker 2: while he was drunk and had blood on his clothes
Speaker 2: because he got into a bar fight. For reasons unknown,
Speaker 2: Madonna may have chosen to exaggerate this story and told
Speaker 2: Martin that Andy showed up in this condition and confessed
Speaker 2: about a double murder. However, when Martin took this information
Speaker 2: to the RCNP and they started questioning Madonna and pressuring
Speaker 2: her into testifying against Andy, she may have felt there
Speaker 2: was no turning back, so she had no choice but
Speaker 2: to stick to her original story. Hell, maybe she legitimate
Speaker 2: believe that Andy committed these murders and convinced herself that
Speaker 2: she was only lying to help put a guilty man
Speaker 2: in prison. I'm sure madonn and Ever envisioned that the
Speaker 2: whole ordeal would drag on for over a decade and
Speaker 2: she would be forced to testify at multiple trials.
Speaker 3: And the credibility of everyone involved in this is questionable.
Speaker 3: You had Tom Martin, who's a drug informant, and when
Speaker 3: we look at people who are paid informants, who are
Speaker 3: informants who are getting something in return from law enforcement,
Speaker 3: when we look at jail house snitches, when you have
Speaker 3: all of these these informants who are placed in positions
Speaker 3: to benefit and lessen the consequences of their actions, there's
Speaker 3: it's a massive contributor to wrongful convictions. They're being incentivized
Speaker 3: to get information which may or may not be there,
Speaker 3: and they often will make up information even if it's
Speaker 3: not part of the case they're assigned to, to bring back
Speaker 3: to police to gain favor. And so when you have
Speaker 3: someone like Tom Martin and then you have Madonna who's
Speaker 3: paired with him, I guarantee you whatever stories started, it's
Speaker 3: like a story of telephone in the first place, because
Speaker 3: Andy told Madonna. Supposedly Madonna then told Tom. Tom then
Speaker 3: told the people he worked for. Those people then told
Speaker 3: the prosecutors so it's this whole little trail of information
Speaker 3: from unreliable sources who are also potentially benefiting themselves by
Speaker 3: sharing it. I think it could be completely made up.
Speaker 3: I think there's potential Madonna could have had an issue
Speaker 3: with Andy and said something, maybe in jest, and then
Speaker 3: it got blown out of proportion, and then, like you said,
Speaker 3: who knows, maybe Madonna actually created this story in her head,
Speaker 3: or at some point the story became very real to
Speaker 3: her because she had told it so many times. But
Speaker 3: there's also a potential that by the time it gets
Speaker 3: to police and prosecutors that there's some misconduct going on
Speaker 3: as well, where they're basically told what that's story will
Speaker 3: now be, and that's created to be their truth from
Speaker 3: a third party telling them what they're truth is going
Speaker 3: to be.
Speaker 1: I'm really curious what you both make of the whole
Speaker 1: Fifth Estate thing, because this is Canada and our programs
Speaker 1: aren't going to pay anyone thirty thousand dollars to appear,
Speaker 1: especially if you're the witness for the prosecution in this trial.
Speaker 1: It just it doesn't seem it's not like this is
Speaker 1: somebody who is as high profile as like a Karla
Speaker 1: Hamoka or something like that where I don't know if
Speaker 1: programs would even pay her. It just doesn't seem like
Speaker 1: a very Canadian thing to do. So was her objective
Speaker 1: when she set this thirty thousand dollars minimum because she
Speaker 1: just knew that they wouldn't pay, and she was like,
Speaker 1: I don't want to have to go up against these
Speaker 1: investigative journalists because whenever she's in court, she's being coached
Speaker 1: by the prosecution and she's getting everything in line because
Speaker 1: they're helping her to do so, and they're helping her
Speaker 1: to remember what she said previously. But she wouldn't have
Speaker 1: that an intro.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've wondered about that because I can believe that
Speaker 2: she never intended to have Andy send to prison, that
Speaker 2: it was just kind of her lying to a friend
Speaker 2: of hers and it spiled out of control because she
Speaker 2: never expected Tom Martin to go to the police. But
Speaker 2: then you hear about like ten years after the fact,
Speaker 2: that she's trying to profit from it. It almost sounds
Speaker 2: like by demanding money that I'm pretty sure the Fifth
Speaker 2: of State is never going to pay because this case
Speaker 2: is not high profile enough that they're going to pay
Speaker 2: off a prosecution witness. So I do wonder did she
Speaker 2: legitimately think she was going to become wealthy over this
Speaker 2: case or was she just using as an excuse to
Speaker 2: avoid saying no to the interview because she was probably
Speaker 2: going to be uncomfortable and thought, well, if I demand
Speaker 2: to make the money and they say no, then what
Speaker 2: are you going to do? They can't say that I
Speaker 2: was the one who rejected the interview.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Absolutely, And I think here when when you look
Speaker 3: at her and you see where this started from, I'm
Speaker 3: with you, Jules. I think it started as something not
Speaker 3: a grand idea and Rob and like you said, I
Speaker 3: don't know that she really intended for Andy to go
Speaker 3: to prison or even truly believe this story to start,
Speaker 3: but it gets ballooned out, it gets magnified, and it
Speaker 3: becomes these sole piece of evidence in this court story.
Speaker 3: And so when you hear this fact over and over again,
Speaker 3: and you're Madonna and you're Tom and you literally are
Speaker 3: the crux of this case, there's so much pressure, there's
Speaker 3: so much validation put on you, and you're almost encouraged
Speaker 3: and amped up that you're this hero that you've provided
Speaker 3: this information they needed. These are two people who are
Speaker 3: going to get justice because of your bravery and your story,
Speaker 3: and let's make sure your story is right again. And
Speaker 3: like I said, it's like a fictional retelling. I'm just
Speaker 3: gonna tell you what I need you to say on
Speaker 3: the stand. I'm going to tell you what I need
Speaker 3: you to repeat while we're doing this interview. I'm going
Speaker 3: to tell you what I need you to hit on.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: It's like someone coaching you in a script. But this
Speaker 3: is someone's life on the other end of it. This
Speaker 3: is someone Andy's sitting on the other side going what
Speaker 3: are they talking about? This isn't true. But again, it's
Speaker 3: confirmed so many times throughout this lineup of people that
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, Madonna's sitting there going, Okay,
Speaker 3: I'm just going to tell this story. But she's just
Speaker 3: as selfish as anybody else. She says, Hey, I can
Speaker 3: actually capitalize on this. I could maybe make some money
Speaker 3: on this. And like you said, this is going to
Speaker 3: be a very vulnerable spot. Had they said yes to
Speaker 3: her thirty thousand dollars offer, which is crazy, had they
Speaker 3: said yes, would she have done well? Would she have
Speaker 3: told the same story? Possibly yes, because it had been
Speaker 3: told to her so many times, and she had recanted
Speaker 3: it so many times. But like you said, if she
Speaker 3: didn't bring her attorney with her, if she didn't bring
Speaker 3: a representative with her who's coaching and helping her, would
Speaker 3: you start to see holes in that story. It would
Speaker 3: have been fascinating to hear her version on some public
Speaker 3: television show and see if it actually lined up the
Speaker 3: same way it did in court.
Speaker 1: It's it's very unfortunate for Andy the DNA profiling was
Speaker 1: still in its infancy back in nineteen eighty nine, because
Speaker 1: if they had been able to perform testing on the
Speaker 1: bloody jeans right at the outset, he may never have
Speaker 1: been taken to trial in the first place. Even if
Speaker 1: you disregard that Madonna's story contained so many holes that
Speaker 1: there's just no way both juries should have convicted Andy.
Speaker 1: The most obvious issue is that Burned and Andrea were
Speaker 1: likely murdered while being picked up hitchhiking, and their bodies
Speaker 1: were found over thirty kilometers outside of chetwind But even
Speaker 1: though Andy was residing in Chetwynd back in nineteen eighty three,
Speaker 1: he didn't own a vehicle at the time, and it
Speaker 1: sounds like he was living a pretty nomadic lifestyle just
Speaker 1: bouncing around from place to place and taking whatever work
Speaker 1: he could find, but any money he earned would go
Speaker 1: right back towards his drinking. Even if Andy managed to
Speaker 1: borrow someone else's vehicle, There's still a major discrepancy with
Speaker 1: the fact that Madonna described him as wearing bloodstained jeans
Speaker 1: when he showed up outside her trailer, Yet bloody jeenes
Speaker 1: were found in a trash bin over thirty kilometers away.
Speaker 1: It makes zero sense for a guy who committed a
Speaker 1: double murder to wear the incriminating evidence around in public
Speaker 1: and then decide to travel all the way back to
Speaker 1: the murder scene to get rid of it, especially if
Speaker 1: they don't even own a vehicle. And while we're on
Speaker 1: the subject of Andy driving great distances, I really don't
Speaker 1: see how anyone could have legitimately believed that he committed
Speaker 1: this crime, as Andrea's travelers checks were used at numerous
Speaker 1: gas station locations hundreds of kilometers away in the days
Speaker 1: following the murder. Putting aside Andy having no mode of transportation,
Speaker 1: employment records showed that he was working in Chetwyn on
Speaker 1: the days those travelers checks were used, So how could
Speaker 1: investigators possibly explain that away? It sounds like the Crown
Speaker 1: tried to account for this at Andy's trials by acknowledging
Speaker 1: that someone else did use those checks, though I'm not
Speaker 1: entirely sure what their rationale was. Were we supposed to
Speaker 1: believe that Andy committed the murders and then inexplicably gave
Speaker 1: the Travelers checks to someone else, or by pure coincidence
Speaker 1: did another individual just happen to stumble upon Andrea's body
Speaker 1: and steal the checks from her. There's also the fact
Speaker 1: that both Burned and Andrea had a number of possessions
Speaker 1: on them which were never recovered, such as camping equipment
Speaker 1: and a guitar for someone who was perpetually broke. It's
Speaker 1: surprising that Andy didn't steal these items, and there's no
Speaker 1: record of him ever having attempted to sell them.
Speaker 3: Right, all the things that Andrea and Burned needed they
Speaker 3: didn't have on them anymore when their bodies were discovered.
Speaker 3: Someone took their things. In fact, I think what happened
Speaker 3: is they were hitchhiking, They get into the car with
Speaker 3: someone who's very used to trying to manipulate and lure
Speaker 3: somebody in. They're charming there, I would say, clean cut
Speaker 3: well put together, and they easily convinced these two young
Speaker 3: people to jump in the car with them. And when
Speaker 3: they start fussing right in the truck, because there's a
Speaker 3: truck scene with them with the checks. When they start
Speaker 3: fussing with him, or maybe he makes a move on Andrea,
Speaker 3: all of a sudden there's a confrontation, and I believe
Speaker 3: it led to their murder. And those checks I believe
Speaker 3: were taken by the killer and then attempted to be
Speaker 3: used elsewhere. Remember, the person using the checks can calmly
Speaker 3: explain away, Oh you know, I'm getting this for a friend.
Speaker 3: This is why the name on there is Andrea. If
Speaker 3: there's no anxiety, there's no worry. That is not Andy.
Speaker 3: Andy's not the person being described there. This is not
Speaker 3: Andy in the truck. And he doesn't have transportation. Like
Speaker 3: you said, he would have killed these people, gotten in
Speaker 3: a car that he had to borrow from someone without
Speaker 3: getting blood all over it. Get to Madonna, tell her
Speaker 3: this crazy story. Then get back in that borrowed car,
Speaker 3: drive all the way back and discard of those genes.
Speaker 3: Ride back with no pants on. Use these checks in
Speaker 3: this truck right. All the things that just don't make
Speaker 3: any sense. It's impossible in my head to figure out
Speaker 3: where and how The crown says, oh, yeah, let's move forward,
Speaker 3: let's prosecute this man. You have Madonna who doesn't have
Speaker 3: all of her stability to her. You have an informant Tom,
Speaker 3: and that is it. Everything else tells you you need
Speaker 3: to look somewhere else. This doesn't make sense. Step back
Speaker 3: and look at the bigger picture. This is not fitting.
Speaker 3: And instead it's like every other wrongful conviction where they say,
Speaker 3: guess what, we made our decision. It's Andy, and now
Speaker 3: we're just going to ride that wave and finish it
Speaker 3: without paying attention to all the facts that do not
Speaker 3: fit that narrative.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we see that as a recurring pattern in wrongful
Speaker 2: conviction cases, where they'll charge a suspect but not do
Speaker 2: any research beforehand. And of course this is one where
Speaker 2: you should have checked Andy's whereabouts, like you should have
Speaker 2: checked his time sheets to make sure he was not
Speaker 2: working on those particular days that the travelers checks were used.
Speaker 2: But I'm guessing they didn't do that until after they
Speaker 2: read to them and then had the mentality, well, we
Speaker 2: can't admit we were wrong. There's no turning back here,
Speaker 2: so they still decided to move forward at trial even
Speaker 2: though the whole case had fallen apart. So before we
Speaker 2: start talking about alternate suspects, I suppose we should address
Speaker 2: the notorious mister bing Sting operation, which could have conceivably
Speaker 2: led to Andy being convicted for the third time. I've
Speaker 2: already mentioned that the Mister Big technique is one of
Speaker 2: the most controversial elements of the Canadian justice system, so
Speaker 2: much so that its use is actually prohibited in criminal
Speaker 2: investigations in a number of other countries, including the United
Speaker 2: States and Great Britain. The whole thing was originally developed
Speaker 2: by the RCMP and has been used by them in
Speaker 2: hundreds of cases, and I will acknowledge that it has
Speaker 2: led to the successful conviction of a number of guilty suspects.
Speaker 2: But since the Mister Big technique is often considered to
Speaker 2: be a last resort which is only used to close
Speaker 2: unsolved cases where the evidence isn't particularly strong, even the
Speaker 2: most successful examples may wind up being surrounded by contra
Speaker 2: For instance, if you've seen the Netflix true crime series
Speaker 2: The Confession Tapes, you're probably familiar with the convictions of
Speaker 2: Sebastian Burns and a Tiefrafe, two young men who received
Speaker 2: life sentences for the murders of Rafe's parents and sister
Speaker 2: in Belle w Washington in nineteen ninety four. Even though
Speaker 2: Burns and Refee were Canadian citizens who lived in Vancouver,
Speaker 2: they wound up being charged with the murders after the
Speaker 2: RCMP launched a Mister Big sting operation in which undercover
Speaker 2: officers secretly recorded both suspects confessing the involvement in the crime.
Speaker 2: Of course, they've always maintained that their so called confessions
Speaker 2: were false, and even though the Netflix series tried to
Speaker 2: present a case for Burns and Refee being wrongly convicted,
Speaker 2: I personally believe they are guilty of this crime. But
Speaker 2: even so I can understand why there has always been
Speaker 2: debate about the legalities of their convictions, because the crime
Speaker 2: technically took place on American soil, and the arrests were
Speaker 2: made possible by a Canadian sting operation which was based
Speaker 2: around a technique that a mayor or law enforcement are
Speaker 2: forbidden to use. One case which was a major turning
Speaker 2: point in this whole controversy was the murder conviction of
Speaker 2: Nelson Hart, a Newfoundland resident who was charged with drowning
Speaker 2: his twin three year old daughters, Karen and Christa. In
Speaker 2: two thousand and two, once again, Heart's arrest was made
Speaker 2: possible following a videotape confession he made to an undercover
Speaker 2: RCMP officer during a Mister bing sting operation. When Heart's
Speaker 2: attorneys appealed his conviction and argued that his confession should
Speaker 2: not have been admissible, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court
Speaker 2: of Appeal agreed and ruled that Heart was entitled to
Speaker 2: a new trial. The case wound up making it all
Speaker 2: the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and in
Speaker 2: July twenty fourteen, they released a ruling in which they
Speaker 2: expressed air concern that all confessions obtained through the Mister
Speaker 2: Big technique were quote unquote, presumptively inadmissible. The ruling stated,
Speaker 2: quote the Crown must establish, on a balance of probabilities
Speaker 2: that the probate of value outweighs its prejudicial effect. The
Speaker 2: rebatea value does not outweigh its prejudicial effect, then the
Speaker 2: statement will be excluded. End quote. As a result, the
Speaker 2: murder charges against Nelson Hart were withdrawn and he was
Speaker 2: released from prison.
Speaker 3: Okay, but let's back up and look at Andy specifically,
Speaker 3: and this mister big sting operation. Andy had struggled with alcoholism,
Speaker 3: and they used alcohol correct when they were talking to him.
Speaker 2: Yes, like they invited him to like a hotel and
Speaker 2: then invite him down into the bar to have some beers.
Speaker 2: So he was getting intoxicated before they were trying to
Speaker 2: make him confess.
Speaker 3: Right, So okay to me that right there is problematic
Speaker 3: when you take somebody's medical, mental health kind of issues
Speaker 3: and you say, hey, let's exploit that, let's lower his inhibitions.
Speaker 3: How many of us have heard someone or even maybe
Speaker 3: personally have said something incredibly ignorant or offensive or wrong
Speaker 3: or lied while we were under the influence of something.
Speaker 3: I think you have. There's a reason why, right, It's
Speaker 3: an impairment when you are intoxicated. And so to say, hey, you.
Speaker 2: Know what we're going to do.
Speaker 3: We're going to just loosen his inhibitions. It doesn't just
Speaker 3: do that. It plays on other mental health issues and
Speaker 3: other concerns and other psychological effects when someone is intoxicated.
Speaker 3: And so to say, then we're going to get the truth,
Speaker 3: and we're going to just get him to say what
Speaker 3: he actually did. I think is ignorant in many ways,
Speaker 3: and it's very immoral. Let's say it's legal, who cares.
Speaker 3: I think it's it's immoral when you think about doing that, like, hey,
Speaker 3: let's take someone who struggles with their sobriety and let's
Speaker 3: feed him some alcohol and see what he says. Also,
Speaker 3: like we've talked about before, the setup, in and of itself,
Speaker 3: it's like dudes sitting around bragging and teasing and bantering
Speaker 3: and trying to one up one another. And everyone's witnessed
Speaker 3: conversations like that where you are pretty sure everything out
Speaker 3: of everyone's mouth is a lie. But it's like, I'm
Speaker 3: just gonna one up you. I'm gonna kind of measure
Speaker 3: myself against you by being better than you, bigger than you,
Speaker 3: badder than you. So I could easily see people saying,
Speaker 3: oh yeah, I killed a guy, Oh yeah, I killed
Speaker 3: these two people when you're feeding them and trying to
Speaker 3: prompt them that their value worth need to you would
Speaker 3: be how big of a man they can be, how
Speaker 3: bad of a man they can be. And so it's
Speaker 3: the whole concept in and of itself is wrong. But
Speaker 3: with Andy specifically, once they turn to that alcohol use
Speaker 3: and they say, hey, we're going to add that layer
Speaker 3: to me, that's not someone in their right mind talking
Speaker 3: to you.
Speaker 1: It makes it so complex when you take somebody with
Speaker 1: it's what it sounds like in alcohol use disorder, and
Speaker 1: then you put them in this situation where, like you said,
Speaker 1: all of these people are saying basically, we want to
Speaker 1: know this, and people in like you said, ash when
Speaker 1: they're inebriated, will often tell tall tales. And if you
Speaker 1: feel like these people who are in power and there
Speaker 1: is a power imbalance, if they want you to say
Speaker 1: a certain type of a thing, and you very much
Speaker 1: are going to get that feeling. And I don't know
Speaker 1: if either of you, Robin, you likely have seen the
Speaker 1: Sebastian burns and a t for fe mister big video.
Speaker 2: I have.
Speaker 1: Yes, Yeah, it's pretty intense. I mean, there's no argument
Speaker 1: for me that those two did it. But the type
Speaker 1: of pressure and the type of scenario in situation where
Speaker 1: you're going to be sharing this information, they very much
Speaker 1: tell you what they need to hear, not in the details,
Speaker 1: but in that we need to hear that you committed
Speaker 1: this crime or committed a crime, and we need details
Speaker 1: of it in order for you to enter this organization,
Speaker 1: So it's very much set up to confess whether you
Speaker 1: did it or not. And like Ashley paralleled it to
Speaker 1: the read technique in part one, and I think that
Speaker 1: is a really valid comparison.
Speaker 2: And even with Andy's they were trying to get him
Speaker 2: to reveal details which they he felt might incriminate him,
Speaker 2: like how did you get a hold of the gun
Speaker 2: that she used to kill burn and Andrea? And he
Speaker 2: never was able to do that. He just said, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: I had a gun. I had a gun, But he
Speaker 2: was not able to offer any specific details that were
Speaker 2: not public knowledge which showed that he committed the crimes.
Speaker 2: So it really just showed that they were reaching and
Speaker 2: they wanted him to confess, but they didn't want to.
Speaker 2: They were not able to make his confession convincing and
Speaker 2: get him to reveal anything that would approve and he
Speaker 2: was the killer.
Speaker 1: Now we can spend several podcast episodes debating the ethics
Speaker 1: of the Mister Big technique and the guilt or innocence
Speaker 1: of the suspects who'd been convicted by it. However, I
Speaker 1: think it's safe to say that Andy Rose was one
Speaker 1: of the most clear cut examples of an innocent person
Speaker 1: being railroaded by the process, and what separates his story
Speaker 1: from other Mister Big cases is that he had already
Speaker 1: been tried and convicted of his crime on two separate occasions.
Speaker 1: Since Andy's defense team were in the midst of performing
Speaker 1: DNA testing and there was an eyewitness claiming that another
Speaker 1: suspect confessed to the murders, it seemed clear the RCMP
Speaker 1: was worried that Andy might not get convicted this time around,
Speaker 1: so the whole thing was a very desperate, last ditch
Speaker 1: attempt to fabricate evidence against him. During the fifth Estate episode,
Speaker 1: one of Andy's defense attorneys was interviewed and said that
Speaker 1: she was livid when she first learned that Andy had
Speaker 1: admitted to the murders on tape, but once she watched
Speaker 1: the recording, she had a better understanding of how Andy
Speaker 1: could have been coerced to do this, even if he
Speaker 1: was completely innocent. If you watch footage of any of
Speaker 1: these Mister Big sting operations, one recurring pattern you might
Speaker 1: find amusing is it undercover cops loved to insert F
Speaker 1: bombs into pretty much every sentence during their conversations. It
Speaker 1: often comes across as if they're trying way too hard
Speaker 1: to portray themselves as tough criminals, but they're also establishing
Speaker 1: a constant pattern of abrasive, abusive, and intimidating language in
Speaker 1: order to exert pressure on the set expect and compel
Speaker 1: them to confess. But what's particularly troubling about andy sting
Speaker 1: operation As the undercover officers were feeding him blatantly false
Speaker 1: information about his upcoming trial, such as the fact that
Speaker 1: will Adine Hill was possibly going to recounter story about
Speaker 1: her former husband confessing to the murders. They made Andy
Speaker 1: believe there was a genuine chance that he would get
Speaker 1: convicted again, when in actuality, investigators feared that Andy might
Speaker 1: not get convicted unless they coerced a confession out of him.
Speaker 3: I think I've told you guys before that when I
Speaker 3: first started dating Rebel, he'said no one would ever falsely confess,
Speaker 3: you know, And now I've taught him well, But he
Speaker 3: teases and he says, oh my god, please don't ever die.
Speaker 3: Because if I'm getting interrogated and they use some of
Speaker 3: these techniques we've seen, I can understand how people will
Speaker 3: get confused and overwhelmed and feel like they need to
Speaker 3: try to get themselves out of this or even start
Speaker 3: to believe that something could have happen and that they
Speaker 3: don't remember, because, like you just said, well, they'll give
Speaker 3: blatantly false information. Here in the US, they're trained to
Speaker 3: use that as a mechanism. So they could say, hey,
Speaker 3: you know, rebel, Reagan is in the other room and
Speaker 3: she said that she heard you get up in the
Speaker 3: middle of the night. She heard her mother scream rebels
Speaker 3: stop right, rebel no, and then we found your wife, right,
Speaker 3: And so they can sit there and say people who
Speaker 3: love and care about you are using and telling information
Speaker 3: that incriminates you. That people who you trust and people
Speaker 3: who would validate what you know is true are in
Speaker 3: the room next door saying that that's not true, right,
Speaker 3: that you are the killer and that you had done something.
Speaker 3: And so it's insane. That's what mister Big is doing.
Speaker 3: They're sitting there feeding information, they're making up lies. You know.
Speaker 3: They could say, hey, Rebel, we actually have your DNA,
Speaker 3: we have your fingerprint and blood around her neck, you know,
Speaker 3: whatever it is, And then he's going, how did that happen?
Speaker 3: And Reagan's saying, I did it, Oh my gosh, Okay.
Speaker 3: So in some ways I think just the same way,
Speaker 3: these mister big sting operations could almost inflate someone's imagination
Speaker 3: to a point where they might even believe that they
Speaker 3: have something to tell that is not real. But more so,
Speaker 3: I think they create this hyper masculine or kind of
Speaker 3: importance or grandiose nature of the person that's being framed
Speaker 3: here basically and allows them to feel like there's somebody
Speaker 3: to people they want to impress, and that's it. I
Speaker 3: don't always think that these kinds of operations are resulting
Speaker 3: in someone being confused or even telling the truth. I
Speaker 3: think it's more to show off and to show out
Speaker 3: in Andy's case specifically, and in many other people's And
Speaker 3: then could you get troops out often?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 3: Absolutely, But does it set you up to also create
Speaker 3: false narratives and false stories? Yes, And if that's the case,
Speaker 3: it's not a good technique. It's not something that should
Speaker 3: be used because if there's one guilt he or one
Speaker 3: innocent person is going to prison on this, and ten
Speaker 3: are getting convicted using this fairly, that one person, right,
Speaker 3: that's a problem. And here Andy just happened to be
Speaker 3: that one person who's being manipulated and tells a story
Speaker 3: that ends up getting him in big trouble.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like you just mentioned, that's what a lot of
Speaker 2: people who have falsely confessed have said that if the
Speaker 2: police lie to them and tell them stuff like oh,
Speaker 2: we have a witness who saw you do this, or
Speaker 2: we have your DNA on there, that even if it's
Speaker 2: a blatant live they start questioning themselves. And they've even
Speaker 2: said that they reached the point where're like, well, maybe
Speaker 2: I did do it, but I blocked it out of
Speaker 2: my memory and I just can't recall it, so maybe
Speaker 2: I did it, And that's why they decide to confess.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that's why people doing it, even if they
Speaker 2: originally go in there being one hundred percent sure that no,
Speaker 2: I did not do this. That if you've got a
Speaker 2: skilled interrogator, they can start questioning themselves and maybe think,
Speaker 2: well maybe I did this after all.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's either that or they have this. It's either
Speaker 3: that or they have this idea that I will tell
Speaker 3: them whatever they want to hear. Right now, I am exhausted,
Speaker 3: I'm scared, I'm tired, i'm grieving, I'm hurting. I need
Speaker 3: to get out of here. So I'm going to tell
Speaker 3: them whatever they want to hear. Because clearly it's a lie.
Speaker 3: Everyone will know it's a lie, and I'll get a
Speaker 3: good attorney who can prove it's a lie. That's not
Speaker 3: how our justice system works. So either they convince them
Speaker 3: that they actually might just not remember right, and they
Speaker 3: start to actually orchestrate in their head a reality where
Speaker 3: maybe they could have done it because they trust the
Speaker 3: police and they trust that what they're telling them is true,
Speaker 3: or they get to a point where they say, screw it,
Speaker 3: I'll tell you whatever you want to hear, and then
Speaker 3: I got to get out of here.
Speaker 2: Let's also not forget that when Andy was first charged
Speaker 2: with the murders in nineteen eighty nine, the RC and
Speaker 2: P had secretly recorded a phone conversation between Andy and
Speaker 2: and Donna Kelly. Even though Andy did not have any
Speaker 2: idea that he was being investigated as a suspect at
Speaker 2: that point, he still did not confess or reveal anything
Speaker 2: incriminating this conversation, which I think is further evidence that
Speaker 2: as mister Big confession was bogus. I know that Andy's
Speaker 2: third trial was halted before it reached the jury, but
Speaker 2: even though the case against him was fraught with problems
Speaker 2: and the defense tried to discredit his confession, there was
Speaker 2: always a risk that the jury still could have found
Speaker 2: him guilty. Back in two thousand and one, the general
Speaker 2: public was not as well versed on the subject of
Speaker 2: false confessions, so they still might have put a lot
Speaker 2: of credence into the fact that Andy admitted to the
Speaker 2: murders on tape. However, I do have to credit Crown
Speaker 2: Prosecutor Gil McKinnon for not letting things get to that
Speaker 2: point and staying the murder charges against Andy after he
Speaker 2: learned that all the DNA evidence excluded him. McKinnon was
Speaker 2: not the prosecutor at Andy's first two trials and stated
Speaker 2: that he just had this uncomfortable feeling that he might
Speaker 2: be putting the wrong man away, which is why he
Speaker 2: didn't want to put the case into the hands of
Speaker 2: the jury. Believe me, I've seen enough wrongful conviction cases
Speaker 2: to note that it can usually be difficult, if not
Speaker 2: outright impossible, to get a prosecuting attorney to admit to
Speaker 2: a mistake and drop the charges against a defendant, even
Speaker 2: if the evidence overwhelmingly points towards them being innocent.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Absolutely, when you look at the idea that someone
Speaker 3: has been convicted, that means multiple players in our justice
Speaker 3: system have done an entire case, an entire trial, and
Speaker 3: convicted an individual, thinking and believing that they have done
Speaker 3: their best, brightest professional work to date right. No one
Speaker 3: wants to step back and say, did we make a mistake.
Speaker 3: The mentality is we do our job, we get it right.
Speaker 3: We're convicting that person, we provided justice. We're done. And
Speaker 3: to then ask them to question it. They struggle to
Speaker 3: question it throughout the process. To start with right, they
Speaker 3: lock in on somebody and they just double down to
Speaker 3: prove it. But once they've been convicted, it's like this
Speaker 3: official check market says, we got it right. Look the
Speaker 3: jury thought we got it right. We know we're correct
Speaker 3: in our assessment. So then to ask everyone in that
Speaker 3: process to step back and look at could they have
Speaker 3: gotten it wrong? It's nearly impossible. Judges don't want to
Speaker 3: take on cases where another judge has signed off. Prosecutors
Speaker 3: get really you know, overwhelmed, and they think, wait, they're
Speaker 3: going to show that I falsely imprisoned somebody. Heck, no,
Speaker 3: I would have never taken the case if I didn't
Speaker 3: believe that person did it, So no way is it
Speaker 3: that I'm wrong you know, the only people that are
Speaker 3: often advocating for someone's innocence is the person themselves and
Speaker 3: a defense attorney. And clearly you say, well, everyone in
Speaker 3: prison is innocent, right, every defense attorney wants the money
Speaker 3: to defend somebody and say that they're wrongfully convicted. But
Speaker 3: that's not the truth. We know that so many people
Speaker 3: because if eyewitness identification, false confessions, informants, all of this,
Speaker 3: you know, prosecutorial and police misconduct, faulty forensic science, all
Speaker 3: of that puts people well wigh when they didn't do
Speaker 3: the crime they're being held accountable for. And so we
Speaker 3: have to be in a position where we're willing to
Speaker 3: say we can get it wrong, and I'm willing to
Speaker 3: look at it again. And you do see integrity units
Speaker 3: popping up, especially in the United States, where integrity units
Speaker 3: are being hired by prosecutors' offices saying review some of
Speaker 3: these cases where they're claiming these are wrongful convictions. Could
Speaker 3: we have messed up? And when you have someone who
Speaker 3: has a high moral and ethical bar who's willing to say,
Speaker 3: I don't always get it right. I'm human, I make mistakes,
Speaker 3: and I'm not the only player in this game. Police
Speaker 3: give me information, you know, the witnesses give me information,
Speaker 3: and I trust it at the time. But if you
Speaker 3: can prove to me that this is incorrect information or
Speaker 3: prove that this person couldn't have done it, I'm human
Speaker 3: and I'm willing to tell you I messed up. That's huge.
Speaker 3: There are people, there are units out there that'll do it,
Speaker 3: but very rarely do you see teams that are willing
Speaker 3: to say, let's look at this again.
Speaker 1: They seem to go from the perspective of like the
Speaker 1: sunken cost fallacy, where we have invested so much time
Speaker 1: and energy and a lot of our reputations into these cases,
Speaker 1: and I think the fear of what lies beyond when
Speaker 1: they actually examine the cases, when you see prosecutors retry
Speaker 1: and retry and retry, and it's like, why don't you
Speaker 1: look into this case a little bit deeper? But it
Speaker 1: becomes more about that time invested, reputation invested, and how
Speaker 1: it will appear if they lose, because it all does
Speaker 1: come down to the numbers, especially with prosecutors, and there
Speaker 1: should be other motivations that underscore why people are doing
Speaker 1: what they're doing, and like what actually just brought up
Speaker 1: it's great when they have these integrity units which are
Speaker 1: going to provide some checks and balances with regards to
Speaker 1: these situations. And we do see the odd case where
Speaker 1: you see a prosecutor go, WHOA, I think I got
Speaker 1: that wrong. What was the conic, Junior.
Speaker 2: Yes, that was the murder of Crystal Champagne by a
Speaker 2: wrongfully convicted man named Damon Thibodeau. And that was one
Speaker 2: where the prosecutor, Paula Konic Junior, actually helped out the
Speaker 2: defense when they reinvestigated the case and came to the conclusion, Yep,
Speaker 2: this is an innocent man. We should release him. And
Speaker 2: he was willing to admit he made a mistake and
Speaker 2: it didn't ruin his career because he has been re
Speaker 2: elected I think seven or eight times over the past
Speaker 2: three decades, so making this mistake has not caused the
Speaker 2: voters to turn on him and decide that he should
Speaker 2: be run out of office.
Speaker 1: Sadly, so much focus was put on the wrongful conviction
Speaker 1: of Andy Rose that the two victims burned in Andrea
Speaker 1: almost seemed to be an afterthought in this story. However,
Speaker 1: their missing personal possessions makes me believe that robbery may
Speaker 1: have been the primary motive for the crime, particularly since
Speaker 1: there's no indication that Andrea was sexually assaulted. Usage of
Speaker 1: the travelers checks gives off the impression that the killer
Speaker 1: may not have been from the area where the murders
Speaker 1: took place and was just passing through, so Burned and
Speaker 1: Andrea were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Speaker 1: We do know that the perpetrator was traveling south through
Speaker 1: British Columbia when they used the travelers checks, so for
Speaker 1: all we know, they could have been heading towards the
Speaker 1: US border and eventually drove into Washington State. After all,
Speaker 1: the RCMP performed a check on all pickup trucks in
Speaker 1: British Columbia which matched the description of the truck that
Speaker 1: the killer drove, but they came up empty. And since
Speaker 1: the witnesses who interacted with this man described him as
Speaker 1: having a slight American accent, perhaps he was not even Canadian.
Speaker 1: It sounds like the last reported sighting it Burned in
Speaker 1: Andrea took place in Dawson Creek, which is about one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty kilometers from where their bodies were found,
Speaker 1: so we have no idea if they first crossed paths
Speaker 1: with their killer there or at another location.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. We're not sure that that's even where they
Speaker 3: were killed, right or where they were first finding this
Speaker 3: individual in the first place. So we don't know a lot,
Speaker 3: but we do know about those travelers checks and that truck.
Speaker 3: And so when you look at the fact that we
Speaker 3: can't identify who that was, to me, that is the
Speaker 3: person that you have to find. Andy didn't have transportation.
Speaker 3: No one came forward to say Andy burrowed any kind
Speaker 3: of vehicles from them. Madonna and Tom couldn't describe how
Speaker 3: he got a vehicle like that. And so when we
Speaker 3: look and especially at the behavior of the individual who's
Speaker 3: using the Travelers checks, we have a personality, We have
Speaker 3: almost this picture of who this person would be, and
Speaker 3: after all this work, they simply cannot locate the individual.
Speaker 2: We've covered so many cases from several decades ago in
Speaker 2: which victims went missing or murder, will hitchhiking, and I'll
Speaker 2: once again reiterate that it was just a much different time.
Speaker 2: It's pretty remarkable to look at the timeline of Burned
Speaker 2: and Andrey as nearly two month treks through Canada, as
Speaker 2: they literally traveled thousands of kilometers through multiple provinces and
Speaker 2: at least one American state, and their primary mode of
Speaker 2: transportation was hitchhiking. This story is a bit reminiscent of
Speaker 2: another case I covered on episode number two twelve of
Speaker 2: The Trail Went Cold about the murders of Marie Lillienburg
Speaker 2: and Maria Viln, two Swedish nationals who were murderable hitchhiking
Speaker 2: through California, and eerily enough, that crime took place in
Speaker 2: July of nineteen eighty three, less than three months before
Speaker 2: this one. That's not to say that the same killer
Speaker 2: was responsible for this crime, but in both cases, the
Speaker 2: original media coverage put a heavy emphasis on the cultural
Speaker 2: differences between Europe and North America, as hitchhiking was considered
Speaker 2: to be a safer form of transportation in the victim's
Speaker 2: host countries at that time, which is why they had
Speaker 2: no qualms about doing it when they traveled overseas and
Speaker 2: speaking of the world being a much different place back
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty three, the man who murdered Burnt and
Speaker 2: Andrea sounds like an incredibly lucky individual because they managed
Speaker 2: to get away with using a traveler's check with a
Speaker 2: woman's signing. Nature on it no less than five times,
Speaker 2: and none of the witnesses who saw him or his
Speaker 2: pickup truck managed to take down the license number. Now,
Speaker 2: what's interesting is that if you watch the fifth of
Speaker 2: State episode, they showcased two separate composite sketches of what
Speaker 2: appeared to be two separate men. However, it's not entirely
Speaker 2: clear to me if two men were actually seen together
Speaker 2: cashing these checks, or if the descriptions provided by the
Speaker 2: different attendants from the different service stations were so divergent
Speaker 2: that the authorities felt the need to create two separate sketches. Honestly,
Speaker 2: given that it would have been difficult for one killer
Speaker 2: to control both victims, it would not surprise me if
Speaker 2: more than one man was involved in this crime. But
Speaker 2: whoever the perpetrator or perpetrators might have been, it sounds
Speaker 2: like they completely disappeared off the radar after the last
Speaker 2: travelers check was used.
Speaker 3: What's really interesting when you have these two different attendants
Speaker 3: who are telling you, right, they're at different service stations,
Speaker 3: but they're telling you about different encounters with these individuals
Speaker 3: using the checks. Right, two different sketches come forward, It's
Speaker 3: possible multiple things are happening. That the memory's just simply wrong, right.
Speaker 3: There could have been two people there. But we go
Speaker 3: down diatribes every single time we talk about IWANN to
Speaker 3: S identification. It's very possible that if you ask me
Speaker 3: to recount someone coming into my store thirty minutes later,
Speaker 3: in all honesty, I won't be able to provide an
Speaker 3: accurate description. Think about how many people come in and
Speaker 3: out of a gas station. It's very similar to the
Speaker 3: retail store that I own and I work in. I
Speaker 3: see people all the time. They're like, oh, yeah, we
Speaker 3: were in yesterday, and I go, oh, okay, you know,
Speaker 3: you see hundreds of people a day, and so if
Speaker 3: they were asked to recall that information, it is possible
Speaker 3: it's the same individual coming into both service stations and
Speaker 3: they're describing the person they saw to the best of
Speaker 3: their ability. But both recollections are just off right. They
Speaker 3: don't match each other because one or both of the
Speaker 3: people recalling the facts don't have the proper factual information.
Speaker 3: That's simply the way our brains work. It's not a
Speaker 3: video camera. You're asking someone to recall these little details,
Speaker 3: and so I think it could have been two different people.
Speaker 3: But it's very possible. Those two attendants down the road
Speaker 3: were asked to recreate who they thought they saw, and
Speaker 3: they just came up with two very different versions of
Speaker 3: the same individual. It's really scary because this person I
Speaker 3: believe killed two people. The way that he acted, I
Speaker 3: almost feel like he had done it before because there
Speaker 3: was such confidence, not only with the you know, getting
Speaker 3: these people in his car and his truck, but also
Speaker 3: the way that he had such ease using their checks
Speaker 3: and not even worrying that he was going to get caught.
Speaker 3: It seems like someone who's very experienced and or who
Speaker 3: had an accomplice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I am inclined to believe it was just one
Speaker 2: man and that all these attendants saw the same man
Speaker 2: and just provided different descriptions because of faulty memories, and
Speaker 2: the authorities probably thought, well, we don't know which sketch
Speaker 2: is the most accurate, but to cover all our bases,
Speaker 2: let's just release both of them publicly anyway in case
Speaker 2: one of them turns out to be right.
Speaker 1: For years, the most promising alternate suspect was vance Hill,
Speaker 1: but since the DNA evidence on the bloody genes did
Speaker 1: not match him either, it sounds like the authorities no
Speaker 1: longer belief he was involved. The ironic thing is that
Speaker 1: the evidence against Vance was pretty much exactly the same
Speaker 1: as the evidence used to convict Andy, as all we
Speaker 1: had were the claims from his former wife, who said
Speaker 1: that he once made a drunken confession to the murders,
Speaker 1: and in both cases, the female witness never willingly came
Speaker 1: forward with this information, as they only shared their story
Speaker 1: with another person who then decided to contact the police.
Speaker 1: The key difference is that since vance Hill died back
Speaker 1: in nineteen eighty five, he never got to refute any
Speaker 1: of the allegations his wife made against him. Vance had
Speaker 1: been living in British Columbia for sixteen years and then
Speaker 1: just suddenly to decided to relocate to the United States
Speaker 1: in the weeks following the murders. Shortly after, he was
Speaker 1: arrested by the RCMP and served time in jail on
Speaker 1: an unrelated charge That might look suspicious on the surface,
Speaker 1: but given the Vance's wife and children had decided to
Speaker 1: return to California, you can understand him wanting to move
Speaker 1: there to be closer to them. Even if you discount
Speaker 1: the DNA evidence, there are still a number of holes
Speaker 1: in the theory that Bance was the killer. Willardeine Hill
Speaker 1: said that her husband told her that he picked up
Speaker 1: a male and female hitchhiker at a bar in chetwind Well.
Speaker 1: The problem is that Vance was living in Prince George
Speaker 1: at the time, which is three hundred kilometers south, so
Speaker 1: what would you be doing in chetwind to begin with.
Speaker 1: During her statement to the RCMP, Willardeine specifically said that
Speaker 1: the hitchhikers asked Vance for a ride to Dawson Creek.
Speaker 1: While the last confirmed sighting of Burned and Andrea took
Speaker 1: place at in Dawson Creek, It's located one hundred kilometers
Speaker 1: east of chetwind whereas their bodies were found thirty kilometers
Speaker 1: west in the opposite direction, So it makes no sense
Speaker 1: for the couple to want to ride to Dawson Creek,
Speaker 1: particularly when they were heading south towards Vancouver in order
Speaker 1: to catch a flight home days later. Investigators did acknowledge
Speaker 1: that even though Willadine got the time period in locations
Speaker 1: of the murders correct, during her statement, she also shared
Speaker 1: a number of details which were inaccurate, though to be fair,
Speaker 1: she was only passing along a story she'd supposedly heard
Speaker 1: from her husband thirteen years earlier. It sounds like Vance
Speaker 1: was driving a pickup truck when he lived in British
Speaker 1: Columbia in nineteen eighty three, though it's unclear if it
Speaker 1: was a late nineteen sixties Chevrolet style model which matched
Speaker 1: the description of the killer's truck. But it does not
Speaker 1: sound like Vance matched the description of the man seen
Speaker 1: using Andrea's travelers checks, as he was believed to be
Speaker 1: around forty years old, whereas Vance would have been about
Speaker 1: fifty five at the time.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean that's really hard too. I mean, aging
Speaker 3: somebody's very difficult unless he had a receding hairline. And
Speaker 3: you know, even if he had fully gray hair, A
Speaker 3: lot of people at age thirty five have gray hair,
Speaker 3: you know, and so forty fifty five, I don't know,
Speaker 3: that's really difficult to nail down somebody's age. Dance does
Speaker 3: seem like a very good fit to this crime. And
Speaker 3: like you said, are there holes in her story? Are
Speaker 3: there things that don't necessarily make sense? Yes, But remember
Speaker 3: she's recalling this thirteen years later. Her husband had written
Speaker 3: a suicide note that she found that had all of
Speaker 3: these details in there, and she doesn't bring it up
Speaker 3: because God knows, you know, that's scary. She's overwhelmed, she
Speaker 3: doesn't know what to do. He wants to end his
Speaker 3: own life, so she doesn't mention it. And then eventually,
Speaker 3: when he does die, he doesn't mention it in those
Speaker 3: letters right of what happened to these two, But she's
Speaker 3: kind of haunted by the fact that at some point
Speaker 3: he basically had a written confession that he had killed
Speaker 3: these two individuals. And so I think she's doing the
Speaker 3: best of her recollection to provide truthful information. Did he
Speaker 3: even get all the facts right? Is she recalling what
Speaker 3: she saw accurately? I think she has enough information to
Speaker 3: definitely put a red flag on Vance and to make
Speaker 3: him seem as though he's a pretty good fit. He
Speaker 3: was driving a truck at the time. I'd be really
Speaker 3: interested to know his mo of his personality. Is he
Speaker 3: calm and collected? Is he charming? Was he somebody who
Speaker 3: is clean cut and well put together that would fit
Speaker 3: that description of who we know likely picked these kiddos up.
Speaker 3: And you know, to me, I believe her.
Speaker 2: Well, it's easy to assume that Vance's eventual suicide was
Speaker 2: the result of being overwhelmed with guilt over what he
Speaker 2: had done. He was going through a number of serious
Speaker 2: issues at that time, such as the end of his
Speaker 2: marriage and chronic alcoholism, so I'm sure he could have
Speaker 2: chosen to take his own life for other reasons. It's
Speaker 2: odd that he would be willing to make a full
Speaker 2: confession about these murders to his wife but then not
Speaker 2: make any mention of them at all in his suicide notes. Look,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that Willodein completely fabricated this entire story
Speaker 2: about the confession, as is possible that Vance may have
Speaker 2: become so intoxicated one night that he convinced himself that
Speaker 2: he committed a double murder and then decided to blab
Speaker 2: about it. Willidin even said that she thought it was
Speaker 2: nothing more than one of her husband's quote unquote drunken fantasies,
Speaker 2: which seems to indicate that he did that sort of
Speaker 2: thing all the time whenever he was inebriated. All the
Speaker 2: speculation about Vance being no longer even be necessary since
Speaker 2: the DNA testing excluded him, and I think it's likely
Speaker 2: that the real perpetrator was someone who has never even
Speaker 2: popped up on the radar as a potential suspect.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's possible too. When we have the idea that
Speaker 3: oh wait, DNA didn't.
Speaker 2: Exclude him, it did exclude him, like it didn't match
Speaker 2: the DNA on the genes.
Speaker 3: Well, then when you look at that, I mean, you
Speaker 3: have this idea that Vance likely could not have been
Speaker 3: the perpetrator. And or if we go with that idea
Speaker 3: of could there have been a second person, Maybe it's
Speaker 3: the second person's DNA, but I'm more likely to think
Speaker 3: that the killer killed alone. And so if those genes
Speaker 3: are linked to the two victims but not to Vance,
Speaker 3: then now we have to go say, Okay, who's this
Speaker 3: third person? Who? It's not Andy, it's not Vance. Who
Speaker 3: else could have been the suspect? And what's crazy is
Speaker 3: at the time, when you have hitchhiking as a common
Speaker 3: mode of transportation, it could have been anyone. It could
Speaker 3: have been anyone. It could have been someone visiting from
Speaker 3: the US and traveling through. It could have been some
Speaker 3: you know, someone who's a local where the killings took place.
Speaker 3: It could have been someone driving across the you know,
Speaker 3: across Canada. So it's nearly impossible to say, how do
Speaker 3: we look for this generic description of a truck at
Speaker 3: a man who's aged forty. I mean, you're basically describing
Speaker 3: a large portion of the population. And so it's one
Speaker 3: of those cases where, if it's not these suspects that
Speaker 3: are coming forward, your net is so wide it would
Speaker 3: take something like genetic genealogy or phenotyping or something that
Speaker 3: gave a face or a name to that DNA that
Speaker 3: was found on the genes to make a breakthrough.
Speaker 1: The good news is that authorities do have DNA on
Speaker 1: the bloodstained genes that belongs to the killer, so there's
Speaker 1: always the chance that genetic genealogy could identify him. In fact,
Speaker 1: nearly five years ago, this exact scenario took place in
Speaker 1: another infamous wrongful conviction case from Canada, and that was
Speaker 1: the nineteen eighty four murder of nine year old Christine Jeffa.
Speaker 1: An innocent man named Guy Paul Moran wound up being
Speaker 1: wrongfully convicted for the crime until he was exonerated by
Speaker 1: DNA testing, and in October of twenty twenty, it was
Speaker 1: announced that genetic genealogy had linked DNA evidence from the
Speaker 1: victim's underwear to another suspect named Calvin Hoover. Even though
Speaker 1: Hoover had died in twenty fifteen. This provided beyond a
Speaker 1: shadow of a doubt that he was the killer, so
Speaker 1: the case could officially be closed. The same thing made
Speaker 1: very well happened in this case someday, as genetic genealogy
Speaker 1: can make it possible to positively identify burned and Andrea's killer,
Speaker 1: even if they are already deceased. So until this case
Speaker 1: is solved, it will continue to remain a tragic situation
Speaker 1: for everyone involved. Andy Rose is currently seventy six years old,
Speaker 1: and even though he's been a free man for over
Speaker 1: two decades, I'm not sure if he was ever compensated
Speaker 1: for his wrongful incarceration. Well, he'd always lived a fairly
Speaker 1: difficult life. It sounds like things were going fairly well
Speaker 1: for him in nineteen eighty nine, since he had a
Speaker 1: stable job, a stable relationship, and had just welcomed his
Speaker 1: first child into the world. But then his entire existence
Speaker 1: was yanked away from him when he was charged with
Speaker 1: the murder that he didn't commit. If this hadn't happened,
Speaker 1: who knows how Andy's life ultimately would have gone. But
Speaker 1: I hope he's found some semblance of peace.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, it's really complex when you think about everything this cost.
Speaker 3: Andy had this woman come forward who said, hey, he
Speaker 3: should have in my house. He was bloody, he said
Speaker 3: he killed these two people, and that's Andy saying that's
Speaker 3: not what happened. I never did that, And somehow he
Speaker 3: gets in this trap where eventually he even says, hey,
Speaker 3: I did do it. And when it's proven he could
Speaker 3: not have been the perpetrator, Andy is released and quote free,
Speaker 3: But how free are you when you've been behind bars
Speaker 3: and you've been labeled a murderer and you've lost all
Speaker 3: of the things that you had tried to build, no
Speaker 3: matter how big those things are. Again, Andy had overcome.
Speaker 3: Andy was trying to move forward. He had good things
Speaker 3: in his life and those were taken away. So when
Speaker 3: you look at someone trying to rebuild after being in prison,
Speaker 3: after having a label on them, whether the courts say, hey,
Speaker 3: he didn't do it and or we can't reprosecute this
Speaker 3: because we don't have enough evidence. Even if everyone came
Speaker 3: forward and said he could not have done it, then
Speaker 3: you still have people in the community that say, remember
Speaker 3: that's the killer, that's the guy who did that. There's
Speaker 3: still a cloud over Andy, and it doesn't go away.
Speaker 3: Even if he had been compensated financially, you still never
Speaker 3: can escape that. That is part of now your story
Speaker 3: and part of the way people view you.
Speaker 2: As for the families of Burned and Andrea, the whole
Speaker 2: situation must have been an absolute nightmare. As I'm sure
Speaker 2: it's the most helpless feeling in the world to have
Speaker 2: your loved ones become the victims of an unsolved crime
Speaker 2: in a foreign country thousands of miles away. It must
Speaker 2: be particularly difficult to believe that the responsible party was
Speaker 2: convicted of this crime, only to find out years after
Speaker 2: the fact that it was the wrong person all along,
Speaker 2: and that the real perpetrator has gotten away with it.
Speaker 2: And this is why the victims' families deserve a conclusive resolution.
Speaker 2: So if you happen to have information about the murders
Speaker 2: of Burnt Gerica and Andrea Shirp, please contact the Chetwynd
Speaker 2: branch of the RCMP at two five zero seven eighty
Speaker 2: eight nine two T two one. That's two five zero
Speaker 2: seven eight eight nine two two one, or you can
Speaker 2: call the Canadian Crime Stoppers tip line at one eight
Speaker 2: hundred two two two eight four seven seven that's one
Speaker 2: eight hundred two two two eight four seven seven Jules
Speaker 2: Ashley any final thoughts in this case, Well.
Speaker 3: It's another one of those cases where you say, look
Speaker 3: at these two individuals who went on this life adventure.
Speaker 3: They were having fun, they were exploring, they were about
Speaker 3: to head home, and because at the time it was
Speaker 3: commonplace to trust individuals to give a ride to you,
Speaker 3: these two people looked at whoever drove up to them
Speaker 3: and said, he looks safe, he looks like he would
Speaker 3: take us where we need to go. I'm not scared
Speaker 3: of him. In fact, Andrea and Byrne had to look
Speaker 3: at each other and say, I trust this person. And
Speaker 3: that simple act of just being a human who is
Speaker 3: vulnerable and open on this kind of care free trip
Speaker 3: cost them their life. Someone prayed on that, someone took
Speaker 3: advantage of that, and in my gut, Andrea became a
Speaker 3: target in that truck. Burned, stood up for him for
Speaker 3: her and got attacked, got you know, offended the person
Speaker 3: who was driving, and they both struggled and lost to
Speaker 3: this person who took their life. It's wild when you
Speaker 3: think about people who have been killed and that we
Speaker 3: have someone who's walking around who's responsible for that. Here,
Speaker 3: you also have other victims too, though. I feel really
Speaker 3: sorry for will Is it will Adeine?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Will Adeine? I feel sorry for her. She has this
Speaker 3: this guilt and this heaviness that she carries around wondering
Speaker 3: if her husband could be or could have been a murderer.
Speaker 3: She also has this kind of weight of saying I
Speaker 3: hate to even put that out there because if I'm wrong,
Speaker 3: I'm also you know, preventing investigation into somebody else. I
Speaker 3: feel so sorry for Anne and for the relationship he
Speaker 3: had before he was arrested, for the child that he
Speaker 3: brought into this world that you know, the relationship was
Speaker 3: impacted by his arrest and subsequent imprisonment, and you think
Speaker 3: about the community at large. Somebody prayed on these two
Speaker 3: individuals and has so far gotten away with it. It
Speaker 3: is my prayer that scientific breakthrough is whether the offender
Speaker 3: is alive or not. Now that the DNA can be
Speaker 3: the key in this case, where we say, you know what,
Speaker 3: it's becoming more accessible, it's becoming easier. We have bigger databases,
Speaker 3: we have more people volunteering to share DNA information to
Speaker 3: try to link themselves to criminals and to their own
Speaker 3: family treat I think it's amazing, it's fascinating, it's exciting,
Speaker 3: but it's difficult to say how frequent and how often
Speaker 3: this case specifically might get a chance of that. But
Speaker 3: I'm praying that maybe we get answers just from the
Speaker 3: advances in science, because this has the evidence sitting there,
Speaker 3: we just have to match it to somebody.
Speaker 1: I truly feel for Burned and Andrea's families. I can't
Speaker 1: imagine what it would be like having to deal with
Speaker 1: all of the complexities of a case like this and
Speaker 1: it going on overseas. I don't know how well and
Speaker 1: if they speak English, but it would be a really
Speaker 1: difficult landscape. And then when you're dealing with Andy Rose
Speaker 1: being convicted and then it being a wrongful conviction and
Speaker 1: feeling like you have that justice taken away from you.
Speaker 1: Like actually just said, I truly believe that in the future,
Speaker 1: I hope this will be like Robin's you know list
Speaker 1: versus article where he went through all of these different
Speaker 1: Jane does and nine other ten of Jane and John does,
Speaker 1: and nine out of ten of them have gotten their
Speaker 1: identities back through the views of DNA and genetic genealogy.
Speaker 1: And I think that this is a case where we
Speaker 1: might look back in retrospect in like five years or something,
Speaker 1: and Robin is going to have this big list of
Speaker 1: cases that he's going to go down and they're going
Speaker 1: to be the ones that we've spoken about, and they'll
Speaker 1: be solved because of genetic genealogy in the future. That
Speaker 1: is my hope for this case and so many others
Speaker 1: that we've covered.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, we just mentioned the Christine Jessup murder
Speaker 2: from nineteen eighty four, one of the most infamous wrongful
Speaker 2: convictions in Canadian history, and they solved it just under
Speaker 2: five years ago and found a suspect who was never
Speaker 2: on the radar, who was already dead. But at least
Speaker 2: they could say, now we can prove that this guy
Speaker 2: was the killer. And for a long time I never
Speaker 2: thought that case would be conclusively solved because in so
Speaker 2: many wrongful conviction cases, once the wrongfully accused is released
Speaker 2: from prison, the investigation just dies. But there is a
Speaker 2: possibility of solving this one because there is genetic material
Speaker 2: belonging to the killer on the pair of bloody jeans
Speaker 2: that were found, and if they were matched up to someone,
Speaker 2: even if that person is already deceased, they can still
Speaker 2: say beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person
Speaker 2: did this, because even though Andy Rose had the charges
Speaker 2: against him drop, you can never really be fully xon
Speaker 2: erted unless they find the real killer. And so even
Speaker 2: though like he's recognized as a wrongly convicted individual, he
Speaker 2: will never receive full vindication unless they find out who
Speaker 2: did this. But yeah, it's a heartbreaking case because Burnt
Speaker 2: and Andrea just felt they were on like a once
Speaker 2: in a lifetime trip getting to backpack through Canada, and
Speaker 2: they made it two months and were nearly home before
Speaker 2: they just ran into the wrong person and was killed.
Speaker 2: And usually in wrongful conviction cases, the victims get overlooked
Speaker 2: because when they put the wrong person in prison, they
Speaker 2: become the focal point of the story and their families
Speaker 2: are told, yes, this case is solved, you have finally
Speaker 2: receive justice, only to find out years later know they
Speaker 2: got the wrong person and that the real killer is
Speaker 2: still out there. So yeah, I mentioned that this is
Speaker 2: one of the weakest cases that I've ever seen, and
Speaker 2: in a guilty verdict in conviction and the fact that
Speaker 2: it happened to Andy Rose twice with two separate juries
Speaker 2: where the only evidence was an incredible story from Adonna
Speaker 2: Kelly is just a major travesty. I think if this
Speaker 2: crime had taken place years later, he never even would
Speaker 2: have been charged and gone a trial to begin with.
Speaker 2: So yeah, major tragedy. But I do hope somewhere down
Speaker 2: the line the usenek genealogy to identify the perpetrator so
Speaker 2: that Burnt and Andrea will finally receive justice and Andy
Speaker 2: Rose will finally receive vindication.
Speaker 1: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
Speaker 2: Yes. The Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
Speaker 2: years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
Speaker 2: early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
Speaker 2: and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
Speaker 2: with us on Patreon. If you join our five dollars
Speaker 2: tier Tier two, we also offer monthly bonus episodes in
Speaker 2: which I talk about cases which are not featured on
Speaker 2: the Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon.
Speaker 2: And if you join our highest tier tier three, the
Speaker 2: ten dollars tier. One of the features we offer is
Speaker 2: a audio commentary track over classic episodes of UNSAWD Mysteries.
Speaker 2: You can download an audio file and then boot up
Speaker 2: the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or YouTube
Speaker 2: and play it with my audio commentary playing in the background,
Speaker 2: where I just provide trivia and factoids about the cases
Speaker 2: featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very first episode
Speaker 2: that I did a commentary track over was the episode
Speaker 2: featuring this case. So if you want to download a
Speaker 2: commentary track in which I make more smart ass remarks
Speaker 2: about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join Tier three.
Speaker 4: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 4: about the Jeweles 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 4: So we hope you'll check out those patreons.
Speaker 1: We'll link them in the show notes.
Speaker 2: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
Speaker 2: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 2: with a friend or d rate and review is greatly
Speaker 2: appreciate it. You can email us at The Pathwentchili at
Speaker 2: gmail dot com. You can reach us on Twitter at
Speaker 2: the Pathway. So until next time, be sure to bundle
Speaker 2: up because cold trails and chili pass call for warm clothing.
Speaker 1: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy