Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Path Went Chile for part two
Speaker 1: of our series about the murders of Harry and Meghan Twos. Robin,
Speaker 1: do you want to catch everyone up from what we
Speaker 1: talked about in our previous episode.
Speaker 2: Well, this is the first case that we've covered on
Speaker 2: the Path Went Chili from Wales. It takes place at
Speaker 2: a farm outside a small village called one Hoari. The
Speaker 2: victims are sixty five year old Hairy Twos and his
Speaker 2: sixty seven year old wife, Megan Twos. We have a
Speaker 2: daughter named Cheryl who has been in a relationship for
Speaker 2: ten years with her boyfriend Jonathan Jones. In July of
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty three, Harry and Meghan were reported missing after
Speaker 2: they seemingly disappeared from their farmhouse. But shortly after the
Speaker 2: police launched an investigation, they wound up discovering Harry and
Speaker 2: Meghan's bodies inside a cowshd on the property, and they
Speaker 2: had both been shot once in the head with a shotgun,
Speaker 2: and it seemed apparent that because there were no signs
Speaker 2: of forest entry, that they invited the killer into their
Speaker 2: home and were probably in the midst of serving them
Speaker 2: tea when for one reason or another, the couple were
Speaker 2: taken out to the cowshd and both fatally shot. The
Speaker 2: police immediately focused on Jonathan Jones, as they thought he
Speaker 2: didn't seem emotional enough about the death of his in laws,
Speaker 2: and they wound up finding a thumbprint on a saucer
Speaker 2: beneath the tea cup that was found on the Tuesdays
Speaker 2: dining table, But Jonathan argued that because he frequently visited
Speaker 2: the house that he could have left the thumb print
Speaker 2: there on a previous occasion, or when he arrived at
Speaker 2: the murder scene, he may have been in such a
Speaker 2: state of shock that he could have touched the saucer
Speaker 2: without even realizing it and has no recollection of it.
Speaker 2: The police still felt that he wanted to kill Harry
Speaker 2: and Meghan because Cheryl stood to inherit their one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty thousand pound estate and Jonathan really wanted the money,
Speaker 2: so they argued that even though they lived in a
Speaker 2: district of London, that Jonathan made the two hundred male
Speaker 2: trip from London to lo Hari and killed the Twoses
Speaker 2: before coming back without his wife even noticing. He didn't
Speaker 2: really have a strong alibi, but there was also no
Speaker 2: evidence placing Jonathan and lan Hari either other than the
Speaker 2: thumb print on the saucer, and the murder weapon was
Speaker 2: also never found. But in spite of this, the police
Speaker 2: still charged him with a double homicide and Jonathan went
Speaker 2: on trial and was found guilty by majority of ten
Speaker 2: to two. But immediately after the trial, the judge expressed
Speaker 2: his concern about the conviction, saying that he had doubts
Speaker 2: about Jonathan's guilt and even wrote a letter about that
Speaker 2: expressing his concerns, and Jonathan was in prison for about
Speaker 2: a year before his case was heard before the Court
Speaker 2: of Appeal and they decided to overturn his conviction and
Speaker 2: he was finally released from prison. So, for the longest time,
Speaker 2: the police still maintained that Jonathan was the killer and
Speaker 2: they didn't decide to look at any other suspects or
Speaker 2: any other potential leads. But in recent years they have
Speaker 2: finally changed this mindset, and in December of twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: just a few weeks before we recorded this episode, they
Speaker 2: announced that they had arrested an eighty six year old
Speaker 2: man on suspicion of murder in this case. By at
Speaker 2: the time of this recording, they still haven't revealed this
Speaker 2: man's name. They haven't said anything about what new evidence
Speaker 2: led to this arrest, and he has also been released
Speaker 2: on bail. He has not been formally charged yet, and
Speaker 2: thus far the police are being very secretive about this case,
Speaker 2: and we still don't know at this point if this
Speaker 2: man will ever be formally charged or if we'll ever
Speaker 2: learned information about who he is and what led him
Speaker 2: to becoming a suspect on the police's radars. So we're
Speaker 2: going to spend the second part of this series talking
Speaker 2: about the case and these new implications. So I've covered
Speaker 2: a number of cases on this podcast which have never
Speaker 2: reached definitive conclusion because the authorities initially arrested or convicted
Speaker 2: the wrong person. And some of those cases you get
Speaker 2: the impression that investigators developed serious tunnel vision and ignored
Speaker 2: obvious leads to focus on the wrong individual. But in
Speaker 2: the case of Harry and Megan TWS, it seems like
Speaker 2: there was very little to work with at all. I
Speaker 2: definitely believe that on the basis of the evidence against him,
Speaker 2: Jonathan Jones never should have gone to trial for these murders,
Speaker 2: let alone been convicted. But at the same time, I
Speaker 2: can understand why the South Wales police would have zeroed
Speaker 2: in on him as a potential suspect, since nothing about
Speaker 2: this crime makes any sense. It's sound as like investigators
Speaker 2: had reached a complete dead end, so when they discovered
Speaker 2: Jonathan's thumb print on the saucer on the twos's dinner table,
Speaker 2: they decided to focus all their energies on him, even
Speaker 2: though there was really no other evidence to implicate Jonathan
Speaker 2: or place him at the murder scene. I guess on
Speaker 2: the surface, the idea of him murdering his in laws
Speaker 2: to cash in on his girlfriends one hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: thousand pounds inheritance might not seem like an implausible motive,
Speaker 2: especially when you consider that there doesn't seem to be
Speaker 2: a discernible motive for anyone else to have committed this crime.
Speaker 2: This seemed like the work of some cold calculated assassin,
Speaker 2: as both Harry and Meghan were shot in the back
Speaker 2: of the head execution style. Who would want to target
Speaker 2: this seemingly harmless elderly couple. While Jonathan had his conviction
Speaker 2: quashed and was released from prison, he technically was an
Speaker 2: exonerated per se and declared to be factually innocent. It's
Speaker 2: not like there was some slam dunk DNA evidence to
Speaker 2: clear him. But as we're going to talk about a
Speaker 2: bit later, the recent arrest of another suspect on suspicion
Speaker 2: of murder might finally lead to Jonathan receiving full vindication.
Speaker 2: I hate to refer to any wrongfully imprisoned individual as lucky,
Speaker 2: but Jonathan actually lucked out better than most people in
Speaker 2: his situation, since he was released only a year after
Speaker 2: he was originally convicted. However, this was still an extremely
Speaker 2: traumatic ordeal for Jonathan and his loved ones, and I
Speaker 2: don't think they've ever really recovered.
Speaker 3: No, how could you, Because even though he was released
Speaker 3: a year later and that they had actually squashed or
Speaker 3: responged the charges against him, the reality is is that
Speaker 3: the police and many family members still believe that they
Speaker 3: had gotten the right man. Why would you go to
Speaker 3: all the links of taking him to trial, of making
Speaker 3: sure that he was convicted if you weren't one hundred
Speaker 3: percent sure? And so I think that the loom of
Speaker 3: people suspecting him, the police treating it again from the
Speaker 3: get go. Once he was released, the police told Jonathan
Speaker 3: and Cheryl, guess what we're not hunting for anyone else
Speaker 3: because we're convinced we got the right man. So that
Speaker 3: wait for anyone, much less two new parents, people who
Speaker 3: had just lost their parents. All of that has to
Speaker 3: be so heartbreaking. And to think they were a strange
Speaker 3: from a lot of their other family that could have
Speaker 3: been support for them as well.
Speaker 1: And can you imagine, like it's nineteen ninety three when
Speaker 1: this took place, and I mean, I don't remember what
Speaker 1: year forensic files came out, but as far as true
Speaker 1: crime shows and the public's knowledge of investigations and the
Speaker 1: fallibility of police officers, there was more trust back then
Speaker 1: in that if you were accused of a crime, you
Speaker 1: most certainly were guilty, otherwise they wouldn't be wasting resources
Speaker 1: taking you to trial. Now we're a lot more discerning
Speaker 1: when we look at these cases because we've seen so
Speaker 1: many wrongful convictions where police got tunnel vision, the prosecutor
Speaker 1: got it wrong, and these people are actually innocent, and
Speaker 1: some of them are still in prison, like Tommy Ziegeler
Speaker 1: Robin's pat case. So I think when you look at
Speaker 1: it through the lens of nineteen ninety three, or when
Speaker 1: the trial happened, originally in nineteen ninety five, you have
Speaker 1: these family members going he did it. Maybe they didn't
Speaker 1: have the evidence, but otherwise they wouldn't have brought him
Speaker 1: to trial.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can only imagine there was a major social
Speaker 2: stigma for Jonathan and Cheryl after he was released from prison,
Speaker 2: because the police never did say made a mistake or
Speaker 2: exonerated him or said he was innocent. So I'm sure
Speaker 2: he had to go on trying to live a normal
Speaker 2: life again, raising a child, with a lot of people
Speaker 2: out there who were probably still convinced that he was
Speaker 2: a murderer who got off easy.
Speaker 1: They lived in London, right, and this took place in
Speaker 1: Lanhari and Wales. So do we know what type of
Speaker 1: coverage this case got in London?
Speaker 2: A pretty decent amount because they were originally from there.
Speaker 2: And I remember when I researched my trail in cold Episode,
Speaker 2: I found a lot of old newspaper coverage in at
Speaker 2: newspapers dot Com and a lot of London newspapers. So yeah,
Speaker 2: even though it took place in a small village in Wales,
Speaker 2: it got coverage all over the United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: So by the time Jonathan was arrested, Cheryl had become pregnant,
Speaker 1: but the whole situation caused severe post traumatic stress disorder,
Speaker 1: and she began to suffer from a rare condition during
Speaker 1: her pregnancy, which caused a cartilage between the bones and
Speaker 1: her body to waste away. After Cheryl's son was born,
Speaker 1: the cartilage started to recover, but not throughout her entire body.
Speaker 1: As a result, Cheryl partially lost her hearing, and to
Speaker 1: this day it's very difficult for her to walk without support.
Speaker 1: By all accounts, Cheryl was usually a shy, quiet woman,
Speaker 1: but Jonathan's wrongful incarceration turned her into a fighter, and
Speaker 1: her loyalty to him helped insure his release. This alienated
Speaker 1: her from the rest of her extended family, who were
Speaker 1: very outspoken about their belief that Cheryl was helping get
Speaker 1: a killer out of prison. However, Cheryl maintained that she
Speaker 1: and Jonathan both had a very close relationship with her parents,
Speaker 1: whereas those other family members barely saw Harry and Meghan
Speaker 1: while they were alive, and only started coming out of
Speaker 1: the woodwork when their murders received national headlines. Of course,
Speaker 1: fe ordeal pretty much caused Cheryl and Jonathan to lose
Speaker 1: all faith in the justice system. And during a two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight interview with Wales Online, Jonathan stated, quote,
Speaker 1: we may be walking down the street and I'm eating
Speaker 1: a Mars bar, for example, and I will put a
Speaker 1: rapper in the bin and Cheryl will pull it out
Speaker 1: in case the crime is committed nearby and the police
Speaker 1: would come along and find my DNA. That's the sort
Speaker 1: of paranoia that's still with both of us to some extent.
Speaker 3: End quote, how incredibly heavy to think about when you
Speaker 3: think about this idea that they can't even go on
Speaker 3: a walk without it being in the really the forefront
Speaker 3: of Cheryl's mind, that I have to protect him still,
Speaker 3: that it happened once, it could easily happen again, that
Speaker 3: he could be falsely accused of something, and I sure
Speaker 3: don't want there to be any kind of evidence that
Speaker 3: could link him to this location. And she's not doing
Speaker 3: that because she thinks there's any guilt there. She's doing
Speaker 3: it because it is this PTSD or complex post traumatic
Speaker 3: stress disorder where she truly lives in fear that another
Speaker 3: bungle is going to happen in some kind of investigation
Speaker 3: and her husband's going to be taken away from her again,
Speaker 3: and so that speaks to kind of the emotional weight
Speaker 3: that she's under even decades later. But think about this.
Speaker 3: That emotional weight is what's killing her body. It's that
Speaker 3: stress and that trauma that is physically eating her and
Speaker 3: changing the way that her body's able to function. And
Speaker 3: so it's you see physically on Cheryl the weight that
Speaker 3: this case had on them. And like she said, you know,
Speaker 3: those two were very close to her mom and dad.
Speaker 3: But when the trial came, and when she was being
Speaker 3: an advocate for her future husband and the father of
Speaker 3: her child and for a person that her parents loved,
Speaker 3: then these people start coming out. They're like, you know,
Speaker 3: that's an uncle I haven't seen in four years. This
Speaker 3: guy hadn't talked to my parents in ten years, and
Speaker 3: yet here he is the biggest advocate against my husband,
Speaker 3: and you know, my parents number one advocate in fan
Speaker 3: to make sure justice is done. I can't imagine what
Speaker 3: the estrangements, plus this kind of almost false affection for
Speaker 3: her parents must have felt.
Speaker 1: Like Robin, was it polychondritis? Is that what she was
Speaker 1: suffering from?
Speaker 2: I'm not entirely sure because I didn't put it in
Speaker 2: the script, so I'm guessing I didn't get a specific
Speaker 2: term when I did my original research for the script,
Speaker 2: but are you looking it up now? Is that.
Speaker 1: No. I did that specialization in autoimmune diseases, and that
Speaker 1: is one that causes wasting of cartilage. So I was
Speaker 1: just curious if that's what it was, especially because most
Speaker 1: autoimmune diseases happen in women, and most of them happened
Speaker 1: after a significant trauma, so all of that would line
Speaker 1: up with that being possibility.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that would make sense. I do remember when I
Speaker 2: read that interview with Cheryl, it just the article just
Speaker 2: said it was a condition that caused her cartilage to
Speaker 2: get weak in but I don't think it actually gave
Speaker 2: the specific term. So the fact that Jonathan and Cheryl
Speaker 2: were so close to Harry and Meghan and often visited
Speaker 2: their farm makes it seem plausible that Jonathan's thumbprint could
Speaker 2: have wound up on that saucer on a previous occasion
Speaker 2: prior to the murders. Cordatively, Jonathan could have touched the
Speaker 2: saucer when he traveled to the farmhouse after the murders
Speaker 2: and not even realized it without the thumb print. The
Speaker 2: other alleged evidence against Jonathan was incredibly weak, such as
Speaker 2: him supposedly not reacting much when he learned that Harry's
Speaker 2: body had been found. It seemed like the prosecution's case
Speaker 2: was based around discrediting Jonathan's alibi that he was in
Speaker 2: Orpington on the day of the crime. But the problem
Speaker 2: is that they didn't actually offer much evidence which proved
Speaker 2: that Jonathan was in Longhi committing the crime during that
Speaker 2: time period. Remember, traveling from Orpington to Long Harian back
Speaker 2: is a nearly four hundred mile round trip and it
Speaker 2: would be pretty difficult to do so without being seen
Speaker 2: by any eye witnesses or leaving a paper trail or
Speaker 2: physical evidence behind. It's one thing if no witnesses were
Speaker 2: called seeing Jonathan in Orpington, a section of Greater London
Speaker 2: which has a population of around ninety thousand, but in
Speaker 2: a small village like on Hai. I think that a
Speaker 2: distinctive six foot five individual like Jonathan would have stood
Speaker 2: out a lot more. Yet no one reported seeing him
Speaker 2: there that day.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's really interesting. You look at this idea that yes,
Speaker 3: he was alone during the day and he didn't really
Speaker 3: have an alibi witness that could help place him somewhere.
Speaker 3: No one else was able to say We saw Jonathan
Speaker 3: on this route via a car, We saw him on
Speaker 3: this route via a train, We saw him in this
Speaker 3: tiny town. Even though he's a distinct man, right, he's
Speaker 3: very tall. I just I don't see it. I don't
Speaker 3: see how he's going to love on Cheryl, tell her goodbye,
Speaker 3: go murder her parents when his wife's expecting a baby,
Speaker 3: their first baby. No way, there's just no way. They
Speaker 3: were more valuable to them alive than they were deceased.
Speaker 3: Even when you look at the financial support, when you
Speaker 3: think about my parents could help us with daycare. My
Speaker 3: parents could help us each year. You know, my parents
Speaker 3: could long term be you know, caregivers for him when
Speaker 3: we're at work, whatever it is. They could have made
Speaker 3: plans with their parents to be far more profitable to
Speaker 3: them than a one time inheritance that wasn't even you know,
Speaker 3: it was a lot of money, don't get me wrong,
Speaker 3: but you know, two hundred thousand dollars back in nineteen
Speaker 3: ninety three. But is it worth killing them over And
Speaker 3: when you look at the idea that Cheryl had a
Speaker 3: business plan, she was a very motivated individual, that Jonathan
Speaker 3: was super supportive, that they seem to really have their
Speaker 3: life put together. I say absolutely not.
Speaker 1: That's the tricky thing about alibis a guilty person who
Speaker 1: commits a crime might go the extra mile to fabricate
Speaker 1: an alibi for himself, whereas a completely innocent person is
Speaker 1: just going to be living out a routine, ordinary day
Speaker 1: and not thinking too much about their actions. If Jonathan's
Speaker 1: account is accurate, then his day was completely unremarkable, as
Speaker 1: he spent most of his time alone during such mundane
Speaker 1: tasks as looking for offices, walking around, and watching television
Speaker 1: in his flat. Jonathan said that he briefly spoke to
Speaker 1: some lift engine years in his building around the approximate
Speaker 1: time period his in laws were likely murdered, and if
Speaker 1: they'd been able to corroborate his story, this would have
Speaker 1: proven that Jonathan couldn't have committed the crime. When these
Speaker 1: lift engineers were called upon to testify at the trial,
Speaker 1: they did not recall speaking to Jonathan that day, But
Speaker 1: keep in mind that this was years after the facts,
Speaker 1: so it's not surprising that they may not have been
Speaker 1: able to recall such a mundane event from an ordinary day.
Speaker 1: I know that the trial judge, Justice Richard Rugier helped
Speaker 1: pave the path from the quashing of Jonathan's conviction when
Speaker 1: he sent off letters openly expressing his surprise at the
Speaker 1: guilty verdict. But ironically enough, Rougier may have inadvertently paved
Speaker 1: the way for this verdict when he gave the instructions
Speaker 1: to the jury before deliberations. Part of Jonathan's alibi was
Speaker 1: that he had been watching a cricket match on TV
Speaker 1: at his flat in the afternoon of the crime, and
Speaker 1: during this testimony, Jonathan provided specific details about the match,
Speaker 1: including how the commentators had mentioned stoppages for rain well
Speaker 1: during his instructions, just as Rugier told the jury that
Speaker 1: there'd been no rain stoppages during that particular match, which
Speaker 1: was a bit misleading. Jonathan never said he witnessed any
Speaker 1: stoppages for rain, only that the commentators had talked about
Speaker 1: the subject. Rugier received criticism for potentially misdirecting the jury,
Speaker 1: so I think his letter expressing doubt about the verdict
Speaker 1: were his attempt to make things right. I know that
Speaker 1: Rugier stated that if Jonathan was guilty of this crime,
Speaker 1: he was exceptionally cunning, because you'd think that a guy
Speaker 1: with no criminal record who'd supposedly not handled the gun
Speaker 1: in two decades would leave a lot more dowbing evidence
Speaker 1: behind if he took such a lengthy trip in order
Speaker 1: to commit a double murder.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, And I love when you said that the
Speaker 3: problem is when you have someone who's innocent, it's so
Speaker 3: much more difficult to prove your actual innocence, because if
Speaker 3: you were going to plot a murder, you do something
Speaker 3: like the Menindas brothers, right, went and bought movie tickets
Speaker 3: to confirm that we were at the movies when this happened.
Speaker 3: Or you would make sure that you you know, filled
Speaker 3: up with gas somewhere in your town, or ate at
Speaker 3: a diner somewhere that you made a big hoop lob,
Speaker 3: like hey, guys, good to see you. We should hang
Speaker 3: out soon, like remember you saw me? Right, You start
Speaker 3: to lay out a path or a trail that when
Speaker 3: you do need someone to say, hey, we saw him.
Speaker 3: Did they remember you? When you have zero accountability to
Speaker 3: a crime and you're asked, hey, what were you doing
Speaker 3: that day? What I do every day, it's pretty boring.
Speaker 3: I woke up, I cleaned the house, I went for
Speaker 3: a walk, I said hey to some lift guys. That's
Speaker 3: about it. Waited for Cheryl to come home, because that's
Speaker 3: his normal day. I guarantee you if they had planned
Speaker 3: out a four hundred mile round trip murder to make
Speaker 3: sure that they got this money, there would have been
Speaker 3: clear things put in place to make sure he got
Speaker 3: home to his child and was not sent to prison
Speaker 3: away from this new baby he was about to have.
Speaker 3: He would have laid groundwork to make sure there was
Speaker 3: evidence available to prove his whereabouts because he had actually
Speaker 3: plotted an alibi.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 3: Poor Jonathan was innocent, so he had nothing to prove,
Speaker 3: and he couldn't prove it.
Speaker 2: I've actually seen other cases where people have traveled lengthy
Speaker 2: distances from their home in order to commit crimes, and
Speaker 2: then they'll go to like a drive through and then
Speaker 2: get a like a McDonald's or something and get a
Speaker 2: timestamp receipt just so they could show to the police
Speaker 2: later on say, hey, look at me, I was in
Speaker 2: such and such a town at this time, so I
Speaker 2: couldn't have driven like one hundred miles to commit this murder.
Speaker 2: But it only makes the investigators more suspicious, like why
Speaker 2: are you saving a receipt from like buying a food
Speaker 2: at a restaurant like weeks earlier, why do you still
Speaker 2: have it? So it looks obvious that they're trying to
Speaker 2: fabricate an alibi for himself. But here Jonathan didn't attempt
Speaker 2: any of that. He just said, oh, I spent the
Speaker 2: day like wandering around London walking and I talked to
Speaker 2: these lift engineers. But it didn't really look like he
Speaker 2: was like trying to plan this four hundred mile round
Speaker 2: trip and establish an alibi for himself. So, following Jonathan's
Speaker 2: release from prison, it seemed to take a while for
Speaker 2: the South Wales Police to finally acknowledge that there might
Speaker 2: be another killer out there somewhere, but they ultimately did
Speaker 2: launch a new investigation, and of course another suspect has
Speaker 2: recently been taken into custody. Given that a neighbor reported
Speaker 2: hearing two gunshots from the two's property at around one
Speaker 2: thirty PM, and Harry and Meghan were each shot once,
Speaker 2: is reasonable to assume that this is when the murders
Speaker 2: took place, and since no one showed up at the
Speaker 2: farm to check on the couple until several hours later,
Speaker 2: the killer would have had ample time to cover up
Speaker 2: the crime and dispose of evidence. Once you discount the idea,
Speaker 2: that the Twoses were murdered so that their daughter could
Speaker 2: inherit the estate. There doesn't seem to be any apparent
Speaker 2: motive for this crime, as Harry and Megan didn't have in,
Speaker 2: you know, enemies, and nothing appeared to have been stolen
Speaker 2: from the residents. I started to wonder if the whole
Speaker 2: thing might have just been some sort of thrill kill
Speaker 2: from someone who just wanted to murder a random couple
Speaker 2: and selected the Twoses because they happened to live on
Speaker 2: an isolated farm. However, since the afore mentioned teacup and
Speaker 2: saucer were found on the dining room table and the
Speaker 2: couple appeared to be in the midst of preparing lunch,
Speaker 2: it does seem like the killer was invited into their home.
Speaker 2: Everyone who knew the Twoses said that they never brought
Speaker 2: out that particular China teacup unless they had a guest.
Speaker 2: The circumstances of how Harry and Meghan were shot and
Speaker 2: how their bodies wound up in the cowshd are not
Speaker 2: entirely clear. It seems like Harry was shot just inside
Speaker 2: the cowshed's front door, and Megan was shot outside before
Speaker 2: her body was dragged in there. And they were both concealed.
Speaker 2: It's possible that Megan was inside the cowshd when her
Speaker 2: husband was shot and attempted to make a run for it,
Speaker 2: or she heard the shot from inside the farmhouse and
Speaker 2: came running outside before she was ambushed. For all we know,
Speaker 2: the killer may have led Harry and Megan to the
Speaker 2: cowshed at gunpoint, or Harry escorted the perpetrator in there
Speaker 2: and was taken by complete surprise when he was shot.
Speaker 2: We have on Ai pom prints on the farmyard gates
Speaker 2: and the farmhouses front door which did not match the
Speaker 2: twoses Cheryl or Jonathan, and they may belong to the killer.
Speaker 2: But since the police did not do a good job
Speaker 2: preserving the crime scene, it sounds like there isn't much
Speaker 2: in the way a physical evidence at all.
Speaker 3: You know, when you think about the tea set, we
Speaker 3: are convinced that they had have known these people. What
Speaker 3: if I mean, I don't know. I think about my
Speaker 3: southern mother, right, she's not in Wales. However, if there
Speaker 3: was someone who had come to the door and was
Speaker 3: talking to my parents and was like, you know, yeah,
Speaker 3: I just I'm so sorry I got lost. I thought,
Speaker 3: you know, I needed some help. I need to use
Speaker 3: your phone, and they have a sob story or they're
Speaker 3: talking to you. I could easily see my mom saying, well,
Speaker 3: while you wait for you know them to call you back,
Speaker 3: or while you wait for you know someone to come
Speaker 3: pick you up, let me make you a cup of coffee,
Speaker 3: let me make you a cup of tea, and just
Speaker 3: being a hostess, she'd grab whatever was right there, right
Speaker 3: which could have been that cute little tea and made
Speaker 3: a cup of tea. Now more likely that they knew
Speaker 3: the person. But could they have been helping someone who
Speaker 3: had mental health issues and they knew that person and
Speaker 3: they were someone that they really cared for. I feel
Speaker 3: like they would have told Cheryl about you know, we
Speaker 3: have this troubled friend. They come and check on us,
Speaker 3: you know, we're trying to help him out. But I
Speaker 3: could see someone with a mental illness who they knew
Speaker 3: and cared for and didn't realize they were that sick.
Speaker 3: Turning on them doesn't have to be a motive for money,
Speaker 3: doesn't have to be something that seems logical. Could have
Speaker 3: been a thorough kill. Like Jules just said, but or
Speaker 3: Robin just said, but to.
Speaker 2: Me, I don't know.
Speaker 3: Saying that it had to be someone they know, I
Speaker 3: think is closing the circle too quickly. I think it's
Speaker 3: probable they knew them, but I don't think it has
Speaker 3: to be one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: I certainly don't discount the idea that the killer was
Speaker 2: a stranger, because Alan Harry sounds like one of those
Speaker 2: places that you hear about in true crime shows where
Speaker 2: they would use the cliche no one ever had to
Speaker 2: lock their doors because obviously it was not a place
Speaker 2: that had a lot of mind crime. So I'm sure
Speaker 2: Harry and Meghan were probably never thinking that someone was
Speaker 2: going to stop by the residents and decide to kill them.
Speaker 2: So if a stranger did show up, I think that
Speaker 2: they were friendly enough that they wouldn't have felt threatened
Speaker 2: and just invited this person inside and still been taken
Speaker 2: by complete surprise when they decided to kill them.
Speaker 1: So the contents of those letters that law enforcement received
Speaker 1: is that where they got the suggestion for who might
Speaker 1: have committed this crime, and that led them to the
Speaker 1: eighty six year old man.
Speaker 2: I'm not entirely sure, because I think they got those
Speaker 2: letters many years ago, so I'm thinking, yeah, it was
Speaker 2: an I think it was around like two thousand and
Speaker 2: three or so, like over twenty years. So obviously, if
Speaker 2: they had information which led them to a suspect, I
Speaker 2: don't think they would have taken this long to arrest them.
Speaker 2: So we still don't know the contents of those letters,
Speaker 2: but I have a feeling that it was probably different
Speaker 2: evidence which led to them arresting this person very recently.
Speaker 1: Do you think that there was a possibility that the
Speaker 1: investigators that were on the case in two thousand and
Speaker 1: three really convinced that it was Jonathan, so they didn't
Speaker 1: really look into the contents of the letters so deeply.
Speaker 1: But then maybe when they reapproached it, it was new investigators,
Speaker 1: fresh set of eyes, maybe not the bias towards Jonathan
Speaker 1: that the previous investigators had, and so when they looked
Speaker 1: at it they saw something completely different.
Speaker 2: That is possible because two thousand and three is when
Speaker 2: they started coming around and thinking, Okay, let's look at
Speaker 2: other alternate suspects and reopen the investigation. But I'm not
Speaker 2: sure that they were fully convinced yet that Jonathan was innocent.
Speaker 2: But that is how a lot of these cold cases
Speaker 2: got solved, involving wrongful convictions where years passed, they get
Speaker 2: new investigators on the case, they're not worrying about the
Speaker 2: political aspect. And then they get someone on the case
Speaker 2: he decides, I don't care if this makes our department
Speaker 2: look bad. I just want to get to the truth.
Speaker 2: And that's when they finally wind up apprehending the real killer.
Speaker 2: But I know that in twenty twenty three they said
Speaker 2: that they were doing new forensic testing on some items
Speaker 2: of evidence in the case, So I still inclined to
Speaker 2: believe that maybe that is what led them to this
Speaker 2: eighty six year old man.
Speaker 1: So who did we have in the wave of alternate suspects?
Speaker 1: While obviously an eighty six year old male suspect was
Speaker 1: recently taken into custody on suspicion of murder, but since
Speaker 1: investigators have not yet released any details about who this
Speaker 1: person is, we can still speculate about their identity. In
Speaker 1: the weeks prior to the murders, two eye witnesses claimed
Speaker 1: they drove past a man in a trench coat and
Speaker 1: dark sunglasses walking down the road in the direction of
Speaker 1: the Jos's farm. He was carrying a hold all bag
Speaker 1: and when he noticed the car passing by, the man
Speaker 1: apparently made an attempt to conceal his face, and the
Speaker 1: witnesses were pretty certain that he was not Jonathan Jones,
Speaker 1: as he was described as being considerably shorter than Jonathan
Speaker 1: at around five foot nine. We've had police provide descriptions
Speaker 1: of vehicles which were supposedly seen in the area on
Speaker 1: the day of the crime and have never been located,
Speaker 1: and there have also been vagar from neighbors that they
Speaker 1: heard loud arguing from the Tuesdays property during this time period.
Speaker 1: But I think the most intriguing lead was provided by
Speaker 1: a solicitor who claimed that Harry visited his office a
Speaker 1: week before the murder took place and was accompanied by
Speaker 1: a middle aged man whom he described as a plummy
Speaker 1: voice stranger. In case you're not familiar with that term,
Speaker 1: the definition of plummy is used to describe a low
Speaker 1: voice or way of speaking using long vowels, of a
Speaker 1: type thought to be typical of the English upper social class.
Speaker 1: The solicitor said that Harry inquired about his mother in
Speaker 1: law's will, as Megan's mother had left them the farm
Speaker 1: when she passed away years earlier. This meeting was described
Speaker 1: as being tense, and while details are pretty vague. The
Speaker 1: plummy voice stranger has never come forward or been identified.
Speaker 3: Very interesting. So you see Harry show up with this
Speaker 3: stranger and the solicitors like, I have no idea whose
Speaker 3: person was, but they were inquiring about Harry's mother or
Speaker 3: mother in law's will, saying that, you know, this farm
Speaker 3: had been left to them. He's inquiring about kind of
Speaker 3: their ownership and what the will specified in there with
Speaker 3: another man present. Again, it seems like if he was
Speaker 3: going to try to maybe solidify something for his own will,
Speaker 3: if he was trying to gather information for a business deal.
Speaker 3: It seems like something he would have spoken to his
Speaker 3: adult daughter about. You know, it's not like she's an
Speaker 3: eighteen year old and he doesn't want to bother her
Speaker 3: with financial issues or any kind of business decisions. I
Speaker 3: feel like when my parents are trying to investigate wills
Speaker 3: in the family, when they're trying to make a property sale,
Speaker 3: anything like that, I'm aware of it. So it's odd.
Speaker 3: Who was this person with him? And it seemed quote tense.
Speaker 3: Was this someone he was trying to make a business
Speaker 3: deal with? Was it somebody who thought that Harry owed
Speaker 3: him something? Again, is this something that would have been
Speaker 3: kept from Cheryl maybe if they thought they were kind
Speaker 3: of at risk or being exploited for something. But very interesting,
Speaker 3: and who's to say that that man that some of
Speaker 3: the witnesses saw walking that clearly was not Jonathan wasn't
Speaker 3: that eighty six year old man.
Speaker 2: That is possible, And it just seems strange to me
Speaker 2: that this lead with the plummy voice stranger wasn't treated
Speaker 2: with more seriousness at the time after the murders took place.
Speaker 2: And I think that was probably because they were so
Speaker 2: focused on Jonathan. And I don't know when this lead
Speaker 2: with the plummy voice stranger came about, but if it
Speaker 2: was years after Jonathan's conviction was overturned, that might be
Speaker 2: why it's so vague, Like maybe this solicitor came forward
Speaker 2: and says, oh, yeah, I remember several years later, Harry
Speaker 2: was in my office with this stranger. And that's why
Speaker 2: we don't have more specific details about what this meeting
Speaker 2: was about. But it seems to me that if the
Speaker 2: investigators had learned about this right from the outset, then
Speaker 2: this plummy voice stranger should have become the lead suspect.
Speaker 1: I feel like they released the details about him being
Speaker 1: a plumby voice stranger, But why don't we have more
Speaker 1: details about what approximate age he was, how tall he was?
Speaker 1: In ways it would obviously be excluding of Jonathan, so
Speaker 1: it could be inclusive of other people though, if we
Speaker 1: knew more information, and if we knew more about why
Speaker 1: it was tense, and what direction was that energy coming from.
Speaker 1: Was it the stranger or was it from Harry? And
Speaker 1: because they go back to what Ashley said, maybe they
Speaker 1: wanted to know the value of the farm because Harry
Speaker 1: had a potential debt. But it makes me wonder and
Speaker 1: I don't know if you have the answer to this, Robin,
Speaker 1: but did anybody else have a financial motive to end
Speaker 1: the lives of Harry and Meghan any other family members?
Speaker 2: Well that's what I've always wondered about, because they mentioned
Speaker 2: something about his mother in law's will, and I know
Speaker 2: that Megan had at least one brother, and I don't
Speaker 2: know if their deaths would cause that person or anyone
Speaker 2: else from Megan's side of the family to inherit anything.
Speaker 2: So that's why I wish we had more specific details
Speaker 2: about why Harry was suddenly interested in this will, considering
Speaker 2: that they had lived on the property for thirty years,
Speaker 2: So why did they have to go in at this
Speaker 2: particular time and see a solicitor? And why would Harry
Speaker 2: bring along this guy that no one seems to know
Speaker 2: his identity? So interestingly enough, prior to this meeting at
Speaker 2: the solicitor's office, Harry made a phone call to the
Speaker 2: National Farmers Union where he claimed that someone was trying
Speaker 2: to a victim, but never offered any additional information. So
Speaker 2: if Harry feared that he was going to be evicted,
Speaker 2: that might explain why he felt compelled to check his
Speaker 2: mother in law's will to make sure the property was his.
Speaker 2: The situation seems pretty odd since the Tuses had lived
Speaker 2: at the farm for over three decades at that point.
Speaker 2: So who was trying to evictim? Was it the same
Speaker 2: man who accompanied Harry to the solicitor's office? If not,
Speaker 2: then who was this guy? I suppose that if someone
Speaker 2: wanted the twos land and this could have given them
Speaker 2: a potential motive to commit murder, But since Cheryl wound
Speaker 2: up inheriting their estate, I'm not sure if anyone else
Speaker 2: gained anything from this crime. I suppose this alleged eviction
Speaker 2: could have been some elaborate con job from the killer,
Speaker 2: But what exactly was their endgame? And if the plummy
Speaker 2: voice stranger was planning to kill the twos is, why
Speaker 2: would he allow himself to be seen by solicitor. The
Speaker 2: fact that this man has never come forward seems to
Speaker 2: suggest that he was involved in this crime. But I
Speaker 2: just have this feeling that there's a big piece of
Speaker 2: the puzzle missing somewhere which might shed some light on
Speaker 2: what happened. I know police received an anonymous letter about
Speaker 2: the case sometime in the early two thousands, and while
Speaker 2: they've never publicly revealed its contents, I wonder if it
Speaker 2: provides any additional insight on this whole situation.
Speaker 3: So what about this? What if they went to check
Speaker 3: the mother in law's will because he was trying to
Speaker 3: prove to someone that it's his land. Like, let's say
Speaker 3: this person is a quote family member, but someone that
Speaker 3: isn't really active in their life and says that was
Speaker 3: my land. I was supposed to inherit that when she
Speaker 3: passed away, I'm the one who should have gotten that.
Speaker 3: You show me, you prove to me that it's not mine,
Speaker 3: And he's like, that's fine. Can I please see my
Speaker 3: mother in law's will just want to check and see
Speaker 3: who she left our land to.
Speaker 2: Oh me, okay?
Speaker 3: And could it be just out of anger and resentment
Speaker 3: that this person's like, you stole what was mine, and
Speaker 3: I'm going to steal what matters to you, which is
Speaker 3: your life. I mean, it's possible that someone thought they
Speaker 3: were entitled to the land. But again again, if some
Speaker 3: aunt crawt out of the woodwork and started coming after
Speaker 3: my mom saying, hey, you know, your home is my home.
Speaker 3: You inherited that from your mom or whatever, but it's mine,
Speaker 3: I feel like my mom would go, you won't believe
Speaker 3: the crap that's happening. I gotta go pull up the will,
Speaker 3: I gotta go see what this is. I just feel
Speaker 3: like that would have been a such a big deal
Speaker 3: and such a frustration that it would have been voiced
Speaker 3: at some point. But it could have been someone who
Speaker 3: says it's mine and when you don't give it to me,
Speaker 3: or I'm proven wrong, I'm so angry that I snap.
Speaker 1: People have different relationships with their parents, but we know
Speaker 1: that Cheryl talks to her parents like every single day,
Speaker 1: So that would lead me to believe that if something
Speaker 1: like this was going on, and it was very dramatic
Speaker 1: and very upsetting. The one of her parents would have
Speaker 1: told her about it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, even like mom going, I mean, just because I
Speaker 3: know she talks to them every day. So I talk
Speaker 3: to my parents every day. And trust me, if one
Speaker 3: parent doesn't tell me, the other one does. And it's
Speaker 3: always like, don't tell dad, Okay, doesn't want to upset you.
Speaker 3: But and then Dad has his own things that he's like,
Speaker 3: don't tell your mom I told you this, because she'll
Speaker 3: be worried and everything else. But you know, because I do.
Speaker 3: I call every day and I'm active in their lives
Speaker 3: even though I don't live close to them. So it's possible.
Speaker 3: And again, there are some parents who, even though they
Speaker 3: do talk and love on their babies every day, they
Speaker 3: spare them from any emotional or financial, you know, struggles.
Speaker 3: So it's possible that they kept it to themselves. But
Speaker 3: I just thought, you don't know, you never know. We
Speaker 3: don't know the right answer here, so it's all possible.
Speaker 1: Now. On Robin's original trail link hold, he discussed the
Speaker 1: possibility of a convicted serial killer named John Cooper being
Speaker 1: the real perpetrator. It's obvious that Cooper is not the
Speaker 1: man who was recently arrested on suspicion of murder, since
Speaker 1: the person was released on bail and Cooper is currently
Speaker 1: serving a life sentence in prison. But since Cooper has
Speaker 1: still not officially been ruled out as a suspect, we
Speaker 1: can still talk about his background. So in nineteen eighty five,
Speaker 1: Cooper was working as a farm laborer in the county
Speaker 1: of Pembrokeshire, and on December twenty second, he decided to
Speaker 1: break into a mansion located near the village of Schoveston
Speaker 1: to perform a burglary. The mansion was owned by fifty
Speaker 1: eight year old Richard Thomas and his fifty four year
Speaker 1: old sister, Helen Thomas, whom Cooper had previously worked for,
Speaker 1: and it sounds like he was expecting the residents to
Speaker 1: be unoccupied. However, Helen happened to be there, and Cooper
Speaker 1: killed her with a shotgun blast to the face when
Speaker 1: she recognized his voice. Before Cooper had a chance to leave,
Speaker 1: Richard returned home and was killed with a shotgun blast
Speaker 1: to the face as well. Cooper subsequently set fire to
Speaker 1: the house in an attempt to destroy evidence before fleeing
Speaker 1: the scene. On June twenty ninth, nineteen eighty nine, Cooper
Speaker 1: committed another double murder in Pembrokeshire, and this time the
Speaker 1: two victims were fifty one year old Peter Dixon and
Speaker 1: his fifty two year old wife, Gwenda Dixon, a couple
Speaker 1: who'd traveled to the area on a camping trip. The
Speaker 1: Dixons were taking a walk down Pembrokeshire Coast path when
Speaker 1: they crossed paths with Cooper, who was carrying a sawd
Speaker 1: off shotgun, and he proceeded to rob and tie up
Speaker 1: the couple before sexually assaulting Gwenda. Cooper then forced the
Speaker 1: Dixons to hand over their bank card and provide their
Speaker 1: personal identification number before he fatally shot them. In a
Speaker 1: bizarre turn of events, Cooper had recently been a contestant
Speaker 1: on the popular British game show Bullseye, and the episode
Speaker 1: aired only one month before the crime took place. In fact,
Speaker 1: footage from the show would have actually be used to
Speaker 1: match Cooper to a composite sketch of the suspect, which
Speaker 1: have been created from eyewitness descriptions. Two decades later, Cooper
Speaker 1: was finally linked to both of these double homicides via
Speaker 1: DNA evidence, and after being convicted in May twenty eleven,
Speaker 1: he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Speaker 3: Well, I sure wish that they had done a better
Speaker 3: investigation originally, because this guy uses a sawed off shotgun.
Speaker 3: We know that he has targeted couples before, and his
Speaker 3: DNA clearly is on record to be tested against. But again,
Speaker 3: because he did not know, he cannot be really explored
Speaker 3: fully because they didn't do a proper investigation.
Speaker 2: From the gid go attempts happen may to link Cooper
Speaker 2: to a number of cold cases, including the murders of
Speaker 2: Harry and Meghan two's. Well, there has never been any
Speaker 2: real evidence linking him to the twos murders. I can
Speaker 2: understand why he might seem like a compelling suspect, as
Speaker 2: double shotgun in the United Kingdom are extremely rare. Like
Speaker 2: I mentioned earlier, it seemed like whoever killed Harry and
Speaker 2: Meghan was very skilled at using a shotgun, and we
Speaker 2: know that Cooper previously murdered at least two couples in
Speaker 2: that fashion. As you might recall, the barrels of a
Speaker 2: twelve bore shotgun, two shotgun cartridges, and a holdall bag
Speaker 2: were discovered in a quarry and a mine shaft located
Speaker 2: in close proximity to the Toos farm. While it's never
Speaker 2: been conclusively proven that these items were used in the murders,
Speaker 2: is worth noting that the shotgun barrels were painted white,
Speaker 2: which is something that Cooper liked to do with his
Speaker 2: own shotgun. But while there are some similarities between the
Speaker 2: Twos murders and Cooper's other crimes, there are also a
Speaker 2: number of differences. Cooper's victims received a shotgun blasted the face,
Speaker 2: whereas the Twoses were shot in the back of the head.
Speaker 2: The Thomases and the Dixons were murdered in Pembrokeshire, which
Speaker 2: is where Cooper pretty much lived his entire life, but
Speaker 2: it's around one hundred miles away from Loanhari, and there's
Speaker 2: nothing to indicate that Cooper had any familiarity with the
Speaker 2: area at all, other than the fact that he once
Speaker 2: attended an appointment at a hospital in the nearby town
Speaker 2: of Bridge and one year before the Twos murders.
Speaker 3: Well, here's the thing I have to ask, if you
Speaker 3: had a serial killer on your hands, not just someone
Speaker 3: who commits a murder, but a serial killer who truly
Speaker 3: has this kind of desire and need to continue to
Speaker 3: escalate their crimes and to continue to kill, do you
Speaker 3: think that they would so flippantly discard their weapon, or
Speaker 3: because they know this is something they enjoy doing or
Speaker 3: that they have as a routine, do you think that
Speaker 3: they would just so kilessly discard it. I'm thinking that
Speaker 3: they would hold on to it because they're going to
Speaker 3: use it shortly after to kill again.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm thinking as well that I mean, we
Speaker 2: can't conclusively prove yet if those shotgun barrels were used
Speaker 2: in the two's murders, but if they were, then I
Speaker 2: could definitely see a first time killer disposing of them
Speaker 2: like that because this is the first time they've committed
Speaker 2: a crime like this and they want to distance themselves
Speaker 2: from the evidence. And we still don't know, oh, if
Speaker 2: Cooper killed any additional victims after nineteen ninety three, because
Speaker 2: like I said, they were still trying to link them
Speaker 2: to additional cold cases. But if he was someone who
Speaker 2: liked to kill for the thrill of it, like you said,
Speaker 2: I could definitely see him wanting to use the same
Speaker 2: murder weapon each time.
Speaker 1: But even before the recent arrest of this other suspect.
Speaker 1: The main reason to lean away from Cooper being the
Speaker 1: perpetrator in this case is motive. Throughout the course of
Speaker 1: his life, Cooper was known to have committed at least
Speaker 1: thirty burglaries, but nothing was stolen from the Juess farmhouse,
Speaker 1: which seems very out of character for him. Remember, the
Speaker 1: main reason Cooper murdered the Thomases was because he decided
Speaker 1: to burglarize their mansion and was not expecting them to
Speaker 1: be there, And it sounds like Cooper picked out the
Speaker 1: Dixons at random when he came across the couple on
Speaker 1: the coastal path and decided to rob them. Definitely does
Speaker 1: not seem like robbery was a primary motive for the
Speaker 1: Jueses murders, so why would Cooper have targeted them. It
Speaker 1: just seems like there was something a lot more personal
Speaker 1: about this crime. Now, Cooper wound up being linked to
Speaker 1: the Thomas and Dixon murders by DNA testing, but for
Speaker 1: many years it was unclear if any DNA evidence even
Speaker 1: existed in this case due to how much the crime
Speaker 1: scene is contaminated at the twos farmhouse. But of course,
Speaker 1: since the police announced their intention to perform a new
Speaker 1: forensic review in twenty twenty three. That implies that they
Speaker 1: did have some physical evidence to work with, and while
Speaker 1: they've never officially confirmed this, it's easy to assume that
Speaker 1: this led them to the eighty six year old man
Speaker 1: who was recently arrested. Like we just mentioned, this man
Speaker 1: is obviously not John Cooper, So while Cooper may have
Speaker 1: seemed like a compelling suspect in the past, it now
Speaker 1: seems apparent that he probably wasn't the perpetrator.
Speaker 3: Also, remember, he shot people in the face correct, like
Speaker 3: from the.
Speaker 2: Front, yes, whereas the tuses were shot in the back
Speaker 2: of the head.
Speaker 3: Which also makes me think, yes, it could be someone
Speaker 3: who's like a contract killer, right, But it also could
Speaker 3: have been someone who didn't want to see their face
Speaker 3: when they fired the shots, someone who wanted to commit
Speaker 3: the act, but because they did know them, it was
Speaker 3: something that even subconsciously, if I shoot them from behind,
Speaker 3: I don't really see the same aftermath as if I
Speaker 3: were to shoot them from the front.
Speaker 2: So back when I released my original Trail and Cold episode,
Speaker 2: I was inclined to believe that the killer might have
Speaker 2: been the unidentified man seen alongside Harry in the solicitor's office,
Speaker 2: and with the information we have right now, it's still
Speaker 2: possible that the man in the office and the man
Speaker 2: who was recently arrested are one and the same. Remember,
Speaker 2: just because this individual has been arrested on suspicion of
Speaker 2: murder does not necessarily mean that they will be charged
Speaker 2: with murder or go on trial. I have no idea
Speaker 2: what kind of evidence the authorities have on this man,
Speaker 2: but I'm guessing they hoped that by taking him into
Speaker 2: custody and bringing his story back into the spotlight again,
Speaker 2: they might wind up receiving additional evidence or information that
Speaker 2: strengthens their case against the suspect and makes them comfortable
Speaker 2: enough to file charges. The fact that he is eighty
Speaker 2: six years old might mean that investigators are making a
Speaker 2: last ditch effort to ensure that he faces justice while
Speaker 2: he is still alive, and if they were willing to
Speaker 2: release him on bail, that likely means they don't consider
Speaker 2: him to be a flight risk. Without knowing this person's identity,
Speaker 2: we can only speculate about what's going on here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I absolutely agree that the fact that this person's
Speaker 3: eighty six, it would have meant that they were about
Speaker 3: what fifty six when you had him going to the
Speaker 3: solicitor's office, or in his fifties, right, which would make
Speaker 3: sense that he had some kind of relationship with Harry,
Speaker 3: who was in his sixties, so definitely could have been
Speaker 3: the same person that was at the solicitor's office. But
Speaker 3: you also have to think, like you said, this person's
Speaker 3: eighty six, they're not going to be alive much longer.
Speaker 3: So by arresting this individual, would it give people in
Speaker 3: his circle confidence to say, the police have something. If
Speaker 3: I know anything and I went forward, they would believe me,
Speaker 3: whereas before maybe I was scared to come forward. So
Speaker 3: I think this very strategic that they wanted, yes, media
Speaker 3: attention on the subject, but they wanted people who knew
Speaker 3: this eighty six year old to say, hey, if you
Speaker 3: can let us know information, we have our sights on
Speaker 3: this person, You're not going to be at risk to
Speaker 3: disclose information that you might have been scared to disclose before,
Speaker 3: because we would actually act on it. And so I
Speaker 3: think they also were hoping that someone who had information
Speaker 3: would feel more confident to come forward and disclose, knowing
Speaker 3: that this person would likely be sent to prison if
Speaker 3: more information came out.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm thinking as well. They probably suspect that
Speaker 2: there are other people out there who knows something, and
Speaker 2: who knows Maybe these people weren't even aware that this
Speaker 2: man was still alive, but now they're hearing he's eighty six,
Speaker 2: We've almost got enough evidence to file charges, and he's
Speaker 2: out on bail. So if you know something, now's the
Speaker 2: time to finally share it with law enforcement and he'll
Speaker 2: finally face justice. So even though the Twoses were always
Speaker 2: in constant communication with their daughter, I have a feeling
Speaker 2: that something may have been going on in their lives
Speaker 2: during this time perce period which they never told Cheryl about.
Speaker 2: If this individual is currently eighty six years old, then
Speaker 2: that means that they would have been around fifty four
Speaker 2: when the crime took place, which is not the age
Speaker 2: when you'd expect someone to murder an elderly couple as
Speaker 2: some sort of random thrill kill. The fact that this
Speaker 2: person was just over a decade younger than the twos
Speaker 2: is makes me think it was someone who knew them personally.
Speaker 2: I've always found this whole case to be a major
Speaker 2: head scratcher, And if this eighty six year old man
Speaker 2: is eventually charged with the murders and stands trial. Perhaps
Speaker 2: we will finally learn the full truth about what happened. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: this crime pretty much destroyed the lives of Cheryl Twos
Speaker 2: and Jonathan Jones. So they, Harry and Meghan all deserve justice.
Speaker 2: So if you happen to have any information about the
Speaker 2: murders of Harry and Meghan Twos, please contact the appropriate authorities.
Speaker 2: Jules Ashley, any final thoughts on this case.
Speaker 3: It's one of those. It's urgent, right, this eighty six
Speaker 3: year old man that was in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: Three, correct, just a few weeks ago, Like they did
Speaker 2: a new DNA testing in twenty twenty three, but the
Speaker 2: rest of the man just came a few weeks before
Speaker 2: we recorded this episode.
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, Oh my gosh. Yes, Okay, So people
Speaker 3: share the information, you know, they're begging people to come forward,
Speaker 3: and they are eager to say, listen, we don't have
Speaker 3: much time left. If we are correct, and it is
Speaker 3: this individual, it's likely they got some new tip, some
Speaker 3: kind of information, and they just need more to make
Speaker 3: an official arrest and to actually charge him with a crime. Here,
Speaker 3: you have to look at the totality of what this did.
Speaker 3: It stole the lives of Harry and Megan, but it
Speaker 3: also stole from Cheryl and Jonathan, both physically and emotionally
Speaker 3: and mentally. But it also stole from their child who
Speaker 3: never got to meet their grandparents, also didn't ever get
Speaker 3: to meet the best version of their mom and dad
Speaker 3: because of the struggles that they were going through due
Speaker 3: to shame, stigma, judgment from the community, and the loss
Speaker 3: of their parents. So, for me, it runs so deep.
Speaker 3: It's a generational effect. It's one of those things that,
Speaker 3: like we said before, it wasn't Jonathan, and so that
Speaker 3: means somebody else was allowed to live a life, possibly
Speaker 3: even hurt other people and get away with it. So
Speaker 3: the idea that there is still attention on it is
Speaker 3: so interesting and I don't know if the proper word
Speaker 3: is exciting, but it is because there's generations of people saying,
Speaker 3: we still have time, Please show us some semblance of
Speaker 3: you know, accountability. In this case, You're never going to
Speaker 3: get justice because Harry and Megan are gone, but please
Speaker 3: give us somebody to hold accountable so that Jonathan's name
Speaker 3: is finally relieved to some extent, maybe Cheryl doesn't have
Speaker 3: to look over her shoulder as often, and maybe this,
Speaker 3: you know, grandchild of Harry and Megan, can have just
Speaker 3: another piece of a healing puzzle to say, I didn't
Speaker 3: even know them, and yet it's rocked my life that
Speaker 3: they were taken from us. So to me, it's that
Speaker 3: long term generational effects that you never know, one call,
Speaker 3: one little piece of evidence that someone doesn't even think
Speaker 3: it's significant, could change the whole trajectory of these people's future.
Speaker 1: Yeah, my heart really goes out to Cheryl and Jonathan
Speaker 1: and their child because this is truly one of those
Speaker 1: cases where you see the ramifications of a miscarriage of justice.
Speaker 1: Not only did they have to deal with the deaths
Speaker 1: of Harry and Meghan and the incredible emotional weight and
Speaker 1: impact that that had, but having to deal with Jonathan
Speaker 1: being incarcerated, then being let out a year later, and
Speaker 1: then the social stigma that accompanies that because the fact
Speaker 1: that this was covered intensely in England as well as
Speaker 1: it was in Wales is something that I'm sure impacted
Speaker 1: them because you're getting that side eye from random people
Speaker 1: or the people you know are whispering about you behind
Speaker 1: your back and then to be the child growing up,
Speaker 1: and that is the reality. Like Ashley said, you don't
Speaker 1: get to meet that version of your parents before all
Speaker 1: of this happened. There's an innocence that has been stolen,
Speaker 1: and then almost an innocence of that child that is
Speaker 1: stolen as well. And I keep going back to that
Speaker 1: plummy voiced individual that was at the solicitor's office with Harry.
Speaker 1: I keep thinking that there has to be some connection.
Speaker 1: There has to be somebody that thought that they would
Speaker 1: financially benefit from this, or thought that they had some
Speaker 1: right to the farm. It's so hard for me to
Speaker 1: grasp that this could just be a potential thrill kill
Speaker 1: and that somebody just decided to go to this farm
Speaker 1: and annihilate whomever was there and it happened to be
Speaker 1: Harry and Meghan, and that they were just so nice
Speaker 1: to invite some random stranger into their home and offer
Speaker 1: them tea while they were in the middle of cooking dinner.
Speaker 1: It feels to me, and I obviously can't know all
Speaker 1: things are in play until we know who this eighty
Speaker 1: six year old individual is, if he is indeed responsible,
Speaker 1: but just feel like it has to be somebody known
Speaker 1: to the couple.
Speaker 2: Yeah. As you probably know, at the end of every year,
Speaker 2: I like to release special update episodes of The Trail
Speaker 2: Went Cold in which I chronicle a lot of the
Speaker 2: cases that I've covered on the podcast which have either
Speaker 2: been solved or had major developments over the past year.
Speaker 2: And of course, at the end of twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: I released Update episode number seven for the podcast. But
Speaker 2: right before it was about to drop, I suddenly heard
Speaker 2: this news about an arrest in the twos murder's case,
Speaker 2: and it was like, Wow, wasn't expecting this to close
Speaker 2: off the year. So I instantly thought, we have to
Speaker 2: talk about this one on the path went Chili and
Speaker 2: revisit it now that we have this news, because I
Speaker 2: hadn't listened to my original episode in a while, and
Speaker 2: I was like looking through my old script and looking
Speaker 2: for clues about this eighty six year old man, and
Speaker 2: I'm thinking to myself, Oh, yeah, I'd forgot about this
Speaker 2: plumby voice stranger who visited this solicitor's office with Harry.
Speaker 2: I wonder if this is the man they're referring to.
Speaker 2: And also that mysterious man in the trench code who
Speaker 2: was seen walking down the road about a week before
Speaker 2: the murder. So the pieces of the puzzle are starting
Speaker 2: to come together here, but we just still don't know
Speaker 2: the full truth. And of course, when I first learned
Speaker 2: about this case, I never believed that Jonathan Jones was guilty.
Speaker 2: I just thought the original police investigation was a travesty
Speaker 2: where they compromised potential evidence by not securing the crime scene.
Speaker 2: It appeared they had a major case of chunnel vision
Speaker 2: against Jonathan and they took him to trial with extremely
Speaker 2: weak evidence, and thankfully the higher courts the thought that
Speaker 2: the conviction was a miscarriage of justice and the immediately
Speaker 2: released Jonathan from prison after only one year. But it
Speaker 2: still caused a lot of trouble for him and Cheryl
Speaker 2: because he was still recognized as a convicted murderer in
Speaker 2: the eyes of the law, and Cheryl also lost both
Speaker 2: of her parents and a lot of people thought that
Speaker 2: she was remaining in a relationship with their killer. But
Speaker 2: regardless of whether this eighty six year old man is
Speaker 2: ever charged and ever spends any time in prison, I
Speaker 2: think this news does show that Jonathan is finally going
Speaker 2: to receive full vindication. So hopefully the authorities at some
Speaker 2: point announced that he's factually innocent and say that he's
Speaker 2: officially been exonerated, even give him some compensation for the
Speaker 2: year that he had to spend in prison for a
Speaker 2: crime he did not commit. So yeah, hopefully we learn
Speaker 2: the full truth about what happened and that this eighty
Speaker 2: six year old man faces justice if he is in
Speaker 2: fact guilty, because for many years this has been a
Speaker 2: major head scratcher to me and I would love to
Speaker 2: learn the full truth about what actually happened.
Speaker 4: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 4: 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 free, the
Speaker 2: ten dollars tier. One of the features we offer is
Speaker 2: a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsaved Mysteries,
Speaker 2: where you can download an audio file and then boot
Speaker 2: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
Speaker 2: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
Speaker 2: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
Speaker 2: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
Speaker 2: first episode that I did a commentary track over was
Speaker 2: the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
Speaker 2: download a commentary track in which I make more smart
Speaker 2: ass remarks about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join
Speaker 2: Tier three.
Speaker 4: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 4: about the Jeueles and Nashty patreons. So there's early ad
Speaker 4: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Speaker 4: Path Went Chili mini's, which are always over an hour,
Speaker 4: so they're not very many, but they're just too short
Speaker 4: to 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 to rate and review is greatly appreciated.
Speaker 2: You can email us at the Pathwentchili at gmail dot com.
Speaker 2: You can reach us on Twitter at the Pathwin. So
Speaker 2: until next time, be sure to bundle up because cold
Speaker 2: trails and chili pass call for warm clothing.
Speaker 1: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy