Speaker 1: I'm Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 2: I'm a journalist who's spent the last twenty five years
Speaker 2: writing about true crime.
Speaker 3: And I'm Paul Hols, a retired cold case investigator who's
Speaker 3: worked some of America's most complicated cases and solve them.
Speaker 2: Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most
Speaker 2: compelling true crimes.
Speaker 3: And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring
Speaker 3: new insights to old mysteries.
Speaker 2: Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime
Speaker 2: cases through a twenty first century lens.
Speaker 4: Some are solved and some are cold, very cold.
Speaker 1: This is buried Bones.
Speaker 4: Hey Paul, Hey Kate, how are you?
Speaker 2: I'm fine because I know everything about this story, and
Speaker 2: you don't know anything about this story, and I know
Speaker 2: you've been thinking about it, haven't you.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, well it's so unusual because walking down this
Speaker 3: John an Evelyn relationship and John ends up dead and
Speaker 3: partially dismembered, and you're thinking, Okay, you know they took
Speaker 3: care of a problem. But then you tell me there's
Speaker 3: another body in a suitcase in Evelyn's residence, And now
Speaker 3: I'm I'm extraordinarily curious as to where this is going
Speaker 3: to go.
Speaker 2: I will say this part of the story surprised me
Speaker 2: a little bit. So let me go back just in
Speaker 2: case people have forgotten the details of the story, which
Speaker 2: I cannot imagine you have, but you might have. So
Speaker 2: we are in Ontario, Canada. We are in Hamilton, which
Speaker 2: is a medium sized city. Nineteen forty six, mid March,
Speaker 2: Torso is found partially dressed, and it turns out to
Speaker 2: be a man named John Dick. He was a streetcar
Speaker 2: driver for a transportation agency in the city. He worked
Speaker 2: it sounds like near or with his father in law,
Speaker 2: whose name is Donald, and Donald's daughter is John's wife,
Speaker 2: and her name is Evelyn. Certainly they had different approaches
Speaker 2: to marriage because she admitted that she's been cheating on
Speaker 2: him before, during, and after marriage. That their marriage only
Speaker 2: lasted a few months. They had a quick romance, a
Speaker 2: quick engagement, a quick wedding, and then a quick ending.
Speaker 2: After three months, he moved out into his cousin's house
Speaker 2: and Evelyn took up with a young man a couple
Speaker 2: of years older than her, named Bill. And now the
Speaker 2: police want to know about everything that's happening in this house.
Speaker 2: She had a car, a packer that had blood in it.
Speaker 2: That was Type O, which was John's type. There are
Speaker 2: bone fragments and teeth pieces in ashes outside of their house.
Speaker 2: The police have now ascended the staircase to the attic
Speaker 2: and have found a suitcase that has a body in it.
Speaker 2: And that's where I left off with you, because we
Speaker 2: weren't sure before we get to that other body. We
Speaker 2: weren't sure about the father in law's involvement. Maybe the
Speaker 2: mother in law's involved too. We know that John threatened
Speaker 2: Evelyn's father, Donald by exposing that Donald has been feeling
Speaker 2: I mean, in today's money upwards of two million dollars
Speaker 2: from this city department, which was very serious. So now
Speaker 2: you've got somebody who's been threatened and he's very clearly
Speaker 2: has body parts at this location. They're obviously involved in
Speaker 2: some way. The question is how involved is Evelyn? Is
Speaker 2: she just covering it up or was she directly involved?
Speaker 2: Doesn't matter? I think it will matter how involved she was.
Speaker 4: Oh, it absolutely does matter.
Speaker 3: And you know, I think one of the big questions
Speaker 3: with the second body in the suitcase is who has
Speaker 3: access to this location? You know, is this something where
Speaker 3: people like Donald the father can freely come and go.
Speaker 3: I completely forgot about Bill, you know, this new boyfriend
Speaker 3: of hers, you know, and what is his potential involvement
Speaker 3: in John's homicide?
Speaker 4: And then who is the second body is this? You know?
Speaker 3: On one hand, maybe this is all wrapped around Donald
Speaker 3: trying to protect his financial interests with this this I'm
Speaker 3: assuming an embezzlement type scheme out of the railway.
Speaker 4: Or do we have some sort of predator you do?
Speaker 3: We have this female serial killer on the loose, So
Speaker 3: I'm very curious to see how this progresses.
Speaker 2: Yep. And in the check box of where we feel
Speaker 2: about Evelyn and Evelyn's involvement in anything criminal other than
Speaker 2: being at a house, and it's seemingly covering up this
Speaker 2: you know crime. So far, the police have said, well,
Speaker 2: you know, they held her on vagrancy charges, which, just
Speaker 2: as a little explainer, the vacrancy charges had been everything
Speaker 2: from sex work to being homeless to you know, I'm loitering.
Speaker 2: I mean, it was like a catch all, and I
Speaker 2: don't know if it's still like that now. I know
Speaker 2: that vacrancy has been under fire, that sort of you
Speaker 2: cannot arrest somebody simply for vagrancy. Is that right? At
Speaker 2: this point?
Speaker 3: I think the equivalent statute that I'm aware of out
Speaker 3: of California is, you know this six forty seven PC,
Speaker 3: which has all sorts of those subdivisions like sex work,
Speaker 3: the drunken public. You know, there's various subcategories under six
Speaker 3: forty seven. It sounds like this vagrancy statute up there
Speaker 3: in Canada.
Speaker 2: It's a big catch all, is my understanding. Yeah, But
Speaker 2: they're holding her on these charges, that's why they're you know,
Speaker 2: then going in and looking through the attic, they find
Speaker 2: the suitcase and they open it up and inside they
Speaker 2: find a baby.
Speaker 4: Oh that's not where I thought this was.
Speaker 2: Going, I know. So remember I told you she had
Speaker 2: a series of kids. There was a stillborn baby. There
Speaker 2: was a girl who's clearly alive, the one that she
Speaker 2: said cut her face, and that's where all the blood
Speaker 2: came from. This is Peter. And when Peter left the hospital,
Speaker 2: which was this was just a year and a half
Speaker 2: to two years ago, the year before she met John.
Speaker 2: So John is not the father. When she left the
Speaker 2: hospital with Peter, he was ten days old and he
Speaker 2: was healthy. She said that she took him to an
Speaker 2: adoption agency. And obviously she didn't now what the pathologist says,
Speaker 2: and I wish I had more details about this. What
Speaker 2: the pathologist said was they believe that Peter had been strangled,
Speaker 2: and he had been encased in cement and then put
Speaker 2: into this suitcase, and he had been up in the attic.
Speaker 2: I'm assuming John didn't know about this for you know,
Speaker 2: two years. Sure, so they're surprised, to say the least.
Speaker 3: But it also speaks volumes about Evelyn. Assuming Evelyn is
Speaker 3: the one that killed Peter, She's very willing to resort
Speaker 3: to homicidal violence to get rid of somebody that is
Speaker 3: cramping what I'm going to assume is cramping her lifestyle,
Speaker 3: extrapolating that out to John, you know, And then the
Speaker 3: big question is is that who else helped Evelyn? Did
Speaker 3: anybody else help Evelyn? We know Evelyn is involved in
Speaker 3: aspects of John's homicide. She's the one that is getting
Speaker 3: that packered that car from the auto place and then
Speaker 3: returning that car, you know, so, and that car has
Speaker 3: obviously been used to transport John's body to dispose of
Speaker 3: the remains. And whether or not John is killed in
Speaker 3: that car, he's cut up in that car.
Speaker 4: Who knows at this point.
Speaker 3: So Evelyn is involved, but to what extent is she
Speaker 3: the killer? Did somebody else kill John? And then Evelyn
Speaker 3: helped dispose of the body, maybe even helped with the dismemberment.
Speaker 3: Right now, we don't have any information, but you throw Peter.
Speaker 4: Into the mix.
Speaker 3: In all likelihood, Evelyn is the one who strangled this
Speaker 3: ten day old infant and then try to hide that
Speaker 3: body with the cement. But again sloppy. Why is that
Speaker 3: body still inside the residence inside a suitcase. There's so
Speaker 3: many better ways to go about disposing of that body than.
Speaker 2: That process that nobody had found it true, with the
Speaker 2: exception of you know, of course, her being under suspicion
Speaker 2: for murdering her husband. And then they go up there
Speaker 2: and start looking around, and I don't know how much
Speaker 2: her parents know. I do want to go back to
Speaker 2: John because they've searched the house, they find this body.
Speaker 2: They're stunned by the discovery of this infant baby, and
Speaker 2: then of course the bone fragments and the teeth of John.
Speaker 2: So then they say, we need to get the hell
Speaker 2: over to Donald and Alexandra's house. So Evelyn's parents big
Speaker 2: search and this is what they find, and maybe this
Speaker 2: will help you figure out the order of things, because
Speaker 2: right now I'm curious about the order of events. They
Speaker 2: find a pair of John shoes in the basement which
Speaker 2: are blood stained, and there is also a large butcher
Speaker 2: knife and an axe, neither of which seemed to have
Speaker 2: blood on him, you know, according to the media, but
Speaker 2: who knows. They also find a thirty two caliber revolver
Speaker 2: that a ballistic expert would later say could have caused
Speaker 2: the gunshot wounds. Remember, we don't have casings or bullets
Speaker 2: or anything on his body. Does that make sense? Can
Speaker 2: they kind of eyeball that and say, wow, this looks
Speaker 2: like this kind of a bullet could have grazed his
Speaker 2: body in this way, so it was probably a thirty
Speaker 2: That doesn't seem like hard evidence to me.
Speaker 3: No, I can't really see where they could draw any
Speaker 3: type of conclusion. You know, of course, a larger caliber
Speaker 3: bullet could potentially leave a larger grazed wound. Dealing with
Speaker 3: such an elastic surface in terms of the skin, there's
Speaker 3: so many variables at play unless there's something just significantly
Speaker 3: unusual that I can't think about. I think all they
Speaker 3: could say is is that these appear consistent with the
Speaker 3: Gray's wounds from bullets, and there's no way you can
Speaker 3: tie a gun or a caliber of weapon to that.
Speaker 3: So I think they overstretched on that conclusion.
Speaker 2: I mean, at least it just shows that that Donald
Speaker 2: has a gun. You know it's there. Yeah, So they
Speaker 2: also find I thought you'd appreciate this. They also find
Speaker 2: a magazine called Famous Detective Stories. I think this is
Speaker 2: different from the true detective trash stuff we talked about before,
Speaker 2: but still there is an article that they has been
Speaker 2: here you're marked. That's how to dispose of a corpse
Speaker 2: through incineration one oh one, how to do it. I
Speaker 2: don't want to blame these magazines. I think it's sort
Speaker 2: of silly. But at the same time, you know, we're
Speaker 2: not talking about crime porn here. We're talking about how
Speaker 2: to on how to get rid of a body. So
Speaker 2: it sounds like Donald was doing some research. If we
Speaker 2: think that this is connected.
Speaker 3: For sure, you know we see this today. There's reasons
Speaker 3: why suspects computers and phones and tablets are confiscated during
Speaker 3: an investigation and then searched underneath a warrant to see, well,
Speaker 3: what are they looking at and what are they researching
Speaker 3: leading up to the you know, the timeframe of a
Speaker 3: crime being committed, and oftentimes, as I mentioned before, you know,
Speaker 3: most of these offenders have never killed before, and so
Speaker 3: now they're trying to find information on how to do it.
Speaker 3: And it's just you know, here we're talking nineteen forty six.
Speaker 3: You've got the paper magazine that has an article that
Speaker 3: just happens to fit with how John's. Part of John's
Speaker 3: body was disposed of.
Speaker 2: Well, they go back also and continue to do searching
Speaker 2: of work the torso was found, because they're hoping to
Speaker 2: find more information about whomever this person is who dumped
Speaker 2: the torso in the rural area. And they find a
Speaker 2: striped shirt that's found in the woods and it's identified
Speaker 2: as the one that John was last seen wearing. The
Speaker 2: shirt was completely buttoned up as it would have been
Speaker 2: when it was worn, and both arms of the shirt
Speaker 2: were cut off and the shirt was stained with blood.
Speaker 2: I can't even picture what that means. So what happened
Speaker 2: that you can tell so far? You know, the shoes,
Speaker 2: there's blood, there's a butcher knife at Donald's house, at
Speaker 2: her parents' house, and then the incineration. It sounds like
Speaker 2: happened at their house, at Evelyn and John's house.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, Well, and it appears that John is killed
Speaker 3: and in all likelihood, like I talked about before, it
Speaker 3: probably a gunshot wound to the head, and that can't
Speaker 3: be proven because his head is gone and presumably incinerated.
Speaker 4: But it does not appear that whoever.
Speaker 3: Is cutting up John is taking the time to take
Speaker 3: the clothes off. You know, they're literally just cutting his
Speaker 3: arms off, you know, sleeves and all. Now, the pathologists
Speaker 3: should be able to determine from the cut ends of
Speaker 3: the Let's say that the humorous on both arms, you
Speaker 3: know what type of tool was used.
Speaker 4: Was a saw used, you.
Speaker 3: Know, based on the tool marks that are present in
Speaker 3: the end of the bone, or is it more consistent
Speaker 3: with the axe. And that's not necessarily an easy thing.
Speaker 3: You know, you have to take multiple swings with the
Speaker 3: axe in order to be able to hack through the
Speaker 3: say the upper upper arm, and there's a good chance
Speaker 3: you're going to miss and you're probably going to hit
Speaker 3: part of the Torso doesn't sound like you have any
Speaker 3: information in terms of the pathologists rendering an opinion on
Speaker 3: the type of tool marks present on the bone ends.
Speaker 2: No, no, And you know, like they said that the
Speaker 2: axe and the other weapon that they found, it didn't
Speaker 2: appear to have blood. I'm sure it did, they just
Speaker 2: couldn't see it. Yeah, So what I mean, maybe not,
Speaker 2: I don't know what.
Speaker 3: All depends on how how well the tool has been cleaned,
Speaker 3: how bloody it got in the first place. You are
Speaker 3: dealing with the dead body. So now the heart is
Speaker 3: not pumping. You hack through these long bones and the
Speaker 3: arms and the legs. I mean, there is going to
Speaker 3: be blood that seeps out, but it's not gushing out
Speaker 3: because there's no pump present. The heart is done. So
Speaker 3: you know, it's possible that, let's say that if this
Speaker 3: axe or this butcher knife had been used, you know,
Speaker 3: blood staining likely would be present, but it may not
Speaker 3: be present where now it's seeping down in between the
Speaker 3: blade and the handle and all that they just cleaned
Speaker 3: it up.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, so far this seems pretty damning. Is this circumstantial?
Speaker 2: I mean, how would you label this case so far?
Speaker 2: Against You've got Donald and you've got Evelyn. We don't
Speaker 2: know anything about Bill just yet, and then we don't
Speaker 2: know about them all Alexandra.
Speaker 3: Well, there's evidence. I will tell you from a physical
Speaker 3: evidence standpoint, it is a strong case that these individuals
Speaker 3: are involved. What you don't have is who's doing what
Speaker 3: right And so this is where interviewing and it sounds
Speaker 3: like if you've got parts of the crime scene at
Speaker 3: Donald's house and parts at Evelyn's house, sounds like, well,
Speaker 3: we have multiple people involved, and you know, you think
Speaker 3: father daughter may be very loyal to each other.
Speaker 4: Maybe not.
Speaker 3: You know, you have to kind of play one against
Speaker 3: the other in terms of what their statements are and
Speaker 3: the jeopardy each one is subjected to. But then is
Speaker 3: there a third person? And again I go back to
Speaker 3: this new lover of Evelyn's, this Bill Evelyn sounds like
Speaker 3: she's somebody who would be willing to seduce a man,
Speaker 3: to get that man to commit a crime for her,
Speaker 3: and then probably eliminate that man as a witness after
Speaker 3: let's say the homicide of John is done.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you their theory first, just about the crime,
Speaker 2: and then I'll tell you about arrests. So I think
Speaker 2: this is what we've been talking about, the theory that
Speaker 2: the prosecutors say, once they've gathered all of this information,
Speaker 2: they say that John was murdered in the packer, likely
Speaker 2: from a gunshot wound too the head, like you said,
Speaker 2: but of course the head has been destroyed, presumably in
Speaker 2: the fire. It's theorized that he was dismembered at Donald's house,
Speaker 2: but the limbs were incinerated in Evelyn's furnace, and then
Speaker 2: John's torso was dumped in the woods, probably because it
Speaker 2: was too It was actually too big to fit into
Speaker 2: the furnace, so I think they went, oh shit, we
Speaker 2: got to put it somewhere, so they dumped it, you know,
Speaker 2: in this place. That all makes sense to you, I'm
Speaker 2: assuming rise or anything you disagree with in the prosecutor's case.
Speaker 4: No, that makes sense.
Speaker 3: I think it's it's interesting that they didn't bother to
Speaker 3: further cut up the torso, to incinerate it. It's possible
Speaker 3: that once they kind of got to the point where
Speaker 3: they did with the dismemberment of John, they're going, oh,
Speaker 3: this is unpleasant.
Speaker 4: You know, we just were not going to bother with
Speaker 4: the rest of the body.
Speaker 3: Let's just go dump it, you know, because it takes
Speaker 3: a certain what do you want to say, disposition, you know,
Speaker 3: to hack up a body and do it without possibly
Speaker 3: having to go throw up or going oh, I wasn't
Speaker 3: expecting this.
Speaker 4: I think they abandoned.
Speaker 3: The body disposal process early, considering that Donald had a
Speaker 3: magazine article on how to dispose of a body through incineration.
Speaker 3: So it seems like they didn't carry out the plan
Speaker 3: as far as they could have in terms of getting
Speaker 3: rid of the body through incineration.
Speaker 2: We've got some arrests. So remember they were holding Evelyn
Speaker 2: on vacrancy charges, really vague vagrancy charges, which to me
Speaker 2: it sounded like because she doesn't have a full time job,
Speaker 2: maybe you know, I mean stealing money, it was just
Speaker 2: a way for her to away from them, to keep
Speaker 2: a hold of her for a little bit. Yeap, okay.
Speaker 2: So they have brought charges for John's murder against Evelyn
Speaker 2: and Donald and the mom Alexandra, who they think was
Speaker 2: involved also, and Bill, who is Evelyn's I mean, I
Speaker 2: think boyfriend is a pretty loose term for what he
Speaker 2: probably was. I think you're right. I think he was
Speaker 2: probably a little bit of a patsy. So Evelyn just
Speaker 2: starts turning on people, which doesn't surprise me. She implicates
Speaker 2: Bill in the murders of John and this baby. I
Speaker 2: will not drag this out. She didn't even know Bill
Speaker 2: when she was pregnant. I was going to say with Peter,
Speaker 2: I mean, what is she thinking. So she's saying he
Speaker 2: strangled my kid, and it was easily proven you know
Speaker 2: that this was not the case. So I don't know
Speaker 2: if she's just throwing she's not smart, she's throwing stuff out,
Speaker 2: but she is trying to pin this on everybody but herself.
Speaker 3: Sure, you know, and again we've just seen this lack
Speaker 3: of awareness and knowledge and how the crime scene has handled,
Speaker 3: how sloppy it is. And now her statements are sloppy.
Speaker 4: In many ways.
Speaker 3: You know, this is something that those investigators would be
Speaker 3: able to easily see through. And when she's making those
Speaker 3: types of statements which are obvious lies, you know, those
Speaker 3: are just like ding ding ding, you know, both for
Speaker 3: the investigators going okay, you know we're on the right track,
Speaker 3: and for the prosecutors who will put that information in
Speaker 3: front of a jury.
Speaker 4: You know. So and in part it may just be,
Speaker 4: you know, she's what twenty five years old.
Speaker 3: In all likelihood, you know, this homicide of John is
Speaker 3: much more complicated than what she thought it was going
Speaker 3: to be you know, it's a ten day old infant.
Speaker 3: She came up with the excuse of well, the reason
Speaker 3: this infant is not Peter's not around anymore is because
Speaker 3: I gave him up for adoption, when in reality he's
Speaker 3: in case and Cement in a suitcase in her attic.
Speaker 2: Well, Evelyn and Bell are charged with the murder of Peter,
Speaker 2: and you know Bill will get out of that once
Speaker 2: they realize the timeline a little bit. So Donald and
Speaker 2: his wife are both charged additionally with John's murder, and
Speaker 2: Donald is, on top of that, charged with stealing money
Speaker 2: from the transport agency that he worked for. So this
Speaker 2: becomes a huge media sensation, as you can imagine, front
Speaker 2: page news all across the country. Lots of people show
Speaker 2: up trying to grab a seat and they want to
Speaker 2: gawk at someone they describe in the newspapers in the
Speaker 2: forties as a femfetale, which that really pisses me off.
Speaker 2: It's so dismissive. But they of course have photos of
Speaker 2: her sort of like lounging in this chair. She is
Speaker 2: an attractive woman, she's very hip looking. This sets up
Speaker 2: for this media circus because her sex life comes out
Speaker 2: all over this trial. And this is the slutshaming that
Speaker 2: I was talking about and how it plays into the trial,
Speaker 2: because there is, for me, the Evelyn who very clearly
Speaker 2: was involved in two murders. But then there is also
Speaker 2: the Evelyn who you know, when they put her on
Speaker 2: trial it is just like your horror and you did
Speaker 2: this because you're a whore. So it's hard to reconcile
Speaker 2: the two together. And so I want to talk about
Speaker 2: That's what we're heading next, is getting a fair trial.
Speaker 3: In terms of the slut shaming aspect of Evelyn. I
Speaker 3: guess I would need to know, Okay, what is being
Speaker 3: attributed to how the media is portraying her, and then
Speaker 3: what is how is she being portrayed in court? You know,
Speaker 3: because in some aspects her relationships do play in to
Speaker 3: the people the prosecutors laying the groundwork for motive, if
Speaker 3: you will. But is it completely needed, you know, I
Speaker 3: think it all depends on how the prosecutors are laying
Speaker 3: their case out.
Speaker 2: Well, I wasn't going to tell you this until a
Speaker 2: little bit later. I'm going to read you this a
Speaker 2: little bit from the trial right now, just to give
Speaker 2: you an idea of what it was like. She's on
Speaker 2: the stand. Now, this is a preliminary hearing, but she
Speaker 2: also testified at her trial. She is on the stand
Speaker 2: and the prosecutor says, tell the court how many men
Speaker 2: you've had sexual intercourse with? And she says maybe one
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty. Now, I don't know if she's gigging
Speaker 2: him or if that's accurate. Either way, that's her truth.
Speaker 2: I want you, this is the lawyer, I want you
Speaker 2: to name these men for the court right now. Who
Speaker 2: are they? She says, well, his son for one. She's
Speaker 2: looking at the judge. The lawyer says, were you indicating
Speaker 2: his honor? And she says, yes, the judge's son. The
Speaker 2: judge immediately struck the testimony from the record and issued
Speaker 2: a restraining order on the publication of the names of
Speaker 2: these one hundred and fifty men that she's talking about.
Speaker 2: That's where this trial is going. And I'm not saying that.
Speaker 2: You know, some parts of this are probably going to
Speaker 2: be applicable, but this was pretty blatantly framed around her
Speaker 2: being this temptress. So boy, I mean, I don't want
Speaker 2: to ever defend Evelyn, but this is sort of a
Speaker 2: case where I went this is gross. It felt so
Speaker 2: gross reading the transcripts.
Speaker 3: You know, well, that's that's extending out past what I
Speaker 3: would say, you know, the nexus of the crime is, yeah,
Speaker 3: you know, I think her coming out and admitting that
Speaker 3: she ended up having sex with a man within a
Speaker 3: few days of being married, you know, really establishing how
Speaker 3: she maintained a lifestyle involving multiple men outside of her
Speaker 3: relationship with John kind of establishes this dynamic where people
Speaker 3: would go, Okay, I can see where she really never
Speaker 3: loved or cared for John, you know. So I can
Speaker 3: see utilizing the relationships surrounding the crime to underscore sort
Speaker 3: of the dynamic between Evelyn and John, but not bringing
Speaker 3: in her entire love life from five years four. You know,
Speaker 3: that doesn't that doesn't equate. That sounds prejudicial.
Speaker 2: Let's switch over to another woman who takes in her
Speaker 2: stage here, and that's Evelyn's mother, who flips on her.
Speaker 2: So the men in this family seem sort of strangely
Speaker 2: loyal or in this story no women or not. Alexandros
Speaker 2: flips on Evelyn. She agrees to testify for the prosecutor
Speaker 2: in exchange for legal immunity. Okay, so remember they kind
Speaker 2: of took a net and arrested everybody and then said
Speaker 2: let's sort it out. She does not say too much,
Speaker 2: but she does say that even though Evelyn says, yeah,
Speaker 2: I got the packer, but I was with my parents
Speaker 2: the whole time, she said, there was a long time
Speaker 2: when she was not around. On March sixth, and she
Speaker 2: said that before the torso was discovered, but after John
Speaker 2: had been you know, declared missing, that Evelyn had said
Speaker 2: John's dead and you better keep your mouth shut about it.
Speaker 2: And that's what she said to her mother. Boy this family.
Speaker 2: So this is her mom testifying. This is specifically her trial,
Speaker 2: so she's not testifying against her own husband yet, but
Speaker 2: this is this is the way this is going. Are
Speaker 2: you surprised by that?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 3: You know, I think it really comes down to the
Speaker 3: family dynamics, because you know, when we started talking about
Speaker 3: Evelyn and her upbringing and how it sounded like she
Speaker 3: had an abusive childhood with Donald and Alexandra, I kind
Speaker 3: of wonder what the relationship between Donald and Alexandra was, Like,
Speaker 3: maybe he's abusive to her obviously, you know, with mom
Speaker 3: flipping at this point, it's self preservation and her self
Speaker 3: preservation is superseding any mother daughter feelings that she has
Speaker 3: with Evelyn.
Speaker 2: Well, and it sounds like I don't know how much
Speaker 2: knowledge Alexandra had, but enough to be able to say, well,
Speaker 2: I'm I'm not gonna risk my own skin for my daughter.
Speaker 2: Evelyn's not particularly helping herself. She keeps changing her story
Speaker 2: a lot. Time magazine reported on it, and they said
Speaker 2: that at some point she said a gang from another
Speaker 2: town must have killed him. She said that also the
Speaker 2: gang was hired by Bill the boyfriend, and that actually
Speaker 2: Bill did the killing, but her father, Donald was the
Speaker 2: one who strong harmed him into it. And you know
Speaker 2: Donald hated John. So who else you know, would have
Speaker 2: been responsible for this. So the one thing she does
Speaker 2: admit to is she says, you know, I did drive
Speaker 2: that packer to the location where we dumped the Torso
Speaker 2: so she's admitting to be I guess it would it
Speaker 2: be an accessory, is at what she's admitting to if
Speaker 2: if she's kind of covering it up.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, she's she's minimizing her role. That's what
Speaker 3: it sounds like. You know, all these statements that seem
Speaker 3: to conflict about you know, who actually is doing what.
Speaker 3: You know, it's pointing fingers at the other players and
Speaker 3: not her right, she's saying, well, I only did this
Speaker 3: everybody else, did you know the really bad stuff? And
Speaker 3: she's kind of taking a shotgun approach with her statements.
Speaker 3: She's conflicting herself multiple times. You know, this just all
Speaker 3: speaks to she's making things up on the fly with
Speaker 3: hope something sticks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she really is, and not being very smart about it. So,
Speaker 2: you know, a lot of this case covers the evidence,
Speaker 2: and we've talked about their physical evidence, their circumstantial evidence,
Speaker 2: but we do talk a lot about the slut shaming
Speaker 2: that happens. There is a lot about her black book,
Speaker 2: and the black book has all of these very important
Speaker 2: men who she's supposedly slept with. You know, that's why
Speaker 2: there's a huge media circus around this as people want
Speaker 2: to hear those names. And I think that the attorneys
Speaker 2: on both sides are just constantly trying to keep the
Speaker 2: names out because these are very important men in the
Speaker 2: area at the time. So as we move forward, do
Speaker 2: you think of these people? So we've got Alexandra, who
Speaker 2: I guess it doesn't matter. She has gotten immunity, so
Speaker 2: she's not going to be held or she won't be
Speaker 2: convicted no matter what. But with Evelyn and Donald and Bill,
Speaker 2: which we don't know very much about these three people,
Speaker 2: who is the strongest case against Do you think it's Evelyn?
Speaker 2: I mean, if we're looking at first degree murder, obviously
Speaker 2: this was planned kind of thing.
Speaker 3: It seems like you have equivalent cases against both Donald
Speaker 3: and Evelyn, and a lot of that has to do
Speaker 3: with you know, you have the physical evidence found at
Speaker 3: Donald's place. He also the gun, which you can't conclude
Speaker 3: is a murder weapon, but appears that he had the
Speaker 3: ability or Evelyn did at Donald's place to shoot John.
Speaker 3: And maybe Bill did you know, I don't know how
Speaker 3: he's factoring into this at this point. But then you
Speaker 3: also have all the evidence at Evelyn's place, you know,
Speaker 3: And I think it really just comes back down to, well,
Speaker 3: doesn't sound like Donald can alibi himself and say I
Speaker 3: wasn't there. Of course, my daughter can go into my basement,
Speaker 3: you know, and spend time down.
Speaker 4: There in terms of hacking up John. But as I.
Speaker 3: Mentioned earlier in this story, is well, who benefits from
Speaker 3: this homicide? And the reality is is Donald probably financially
Speaker 3: benefits the most because he's preserving his criminal operation through
Speaker 3: the rare way and then buzzling two million dollars, and
Speaker 3: with the level of income that Evelyn seems to possess
Speaker 3: without actually having a job to point to as being
Speaker 3: the source of the income, suggests that she's getting the
Speaker 3: pass through money from her father, so she's financially benefiting.
Speaker 3: And John became sort of a problem and he was eliminating.
Speaker 3: So I think you have equal cases against both Evelyn
Speaker 3: and Donald.
Speaker 4: I don't know about Bill.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right now, we're just gonna deal with Evelyn because
Speaker 2: this is her trial, and whatever the jury heard was
Speaker 2: enough to convict her of his murder. There's still more
Speaker 2: to this story, but she is given the death penalty,
Speaker 2: which is something for a woman in nineteen forty six
Speaker 2: in Canada. I was pretty surprised.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm surprised. Okay, So before we.
Speaker 2: Talk about what happens after that, let me kind of
Speaker 2: clean up everybody else. Bill is released of all charges
Speaker 2: for everything. He wasn't dating her or sleeping with her
Speaker 2: when Peter was born. They've proven that, and there's zero
Speaker 2: evidence that he was involved at all with John's murder. Now,
Speaker 2: he might have been, but they don't have enough evidence
Speaker 2: and so ultimately they just let him go. I'm assuming
Speaker 2: you agree with that. I mean, I think we just
Speaker 2: think there's what is there he might have done something,
Speaker 2: but there is nothing that says other than her word,
Speaker 2: that he did anything.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, it doesn't sound like they have any
Speaker 3: type of case against Bill, and you know, I don't
Speaker 3: know if he had any role in it. But I
Speaker 3: also think that potentially Evelyn and Donald being arrested possibly
Speaker 3: saved Bill's life.
Speaker 2: I agree. I mean he could have been well, he
Speaker 2: could have been a patsy. They could have killed him.
Speaker 2: I mean, we don't know. Yeah, you're right. I mean
Speaker 2: they're very dangerous people. Donald. I don't agree with this.
Speaker 2: He's found guilty of being an accessory to John's murder
Speaker 2: five years, He's given five years, plus another five years
Speaker 2: for robbing you know, the transport agency, and he's released
Speaker 2: from prison in nineteen fifty one. I mean, he is out.
Speaker 4: I'm surprised at that.
Speaker 2: I'm a little bit too. And I don't know, it
Speaker 2: doesn't sound like Alexandra, his wife, testified against him. It
Speaker 2: sounds like they just didn't have enough evidence and maybe
Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean, between the witnesses saying she
Speaker 2: had the car. They're putting her with that car. She's
Speaker 2: admitting she drove the car, and I think Donald probably
Speaker 2: just said, listen, just because this stuff is at my
Speaker 2: place doesn't mean I had any involvement, and they couldn't
Speaker 2: prove anything. Yeah, you know, I mean his daughter has
Speaker 2: access to his house. Likewise, he and his wife have
Speaker 2: access to her house.
Speaker 3: So and I think that that's when in assessing Donald,
Speaker 3: it really does come down to what could they prove
Speaker 3: in terms of where he was at at the time
Speaker 3: John went missing, was likely killed. What kind of freedom
Speaker 3: of movement does Evelyn have into and out of John's house? So,
Speaker 3: you know, on that front, I can kind of see, Yeah,
Speaker 3: maybe they don't have as strong of a case against Donald.
Speaker 3: I just go back to who benefited the most from
Speaker 3: John's homicide, and it really is Donald.
Speaker 2: Well listen to the rest of this. She is given
Speaker 2: the death penalty, but right after her sentencing she gets
Speaker 2: mystery money together. It's not her dad. I don't know
Speaker 2: where she's getting this money from, but she hires a
Speaker 2: well known attorney.
Speaker 4: I think she has probably multiple wealth.
Speaker 3: The men that, based on past relationships, are concerned that
Speaker 3: she might divulge that they were, you know, having a
Speaker 3: sexual affair with her or whatever that they're now saying, Okay,
Speaker 3: we'll give you money in order to keep your mouth
Speaker 3: shut about our relationship together.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so she hires a guy named John Robinette. He
Speaker 2: appeals her conviction. Of course, he cites twenty five procedural
Speaker 2: issues in her case. He says many of the statements
Speaker 2: used against Evelyn and Court were improperly obtained by police.
Speaker 2: He says that they did not adequately caution her after
Speaker 2: charging her with murder. Remember they held her on vagrancy
Speaker 2: charges where they cautioned her. So they don't have Miranda
Speaker 2: warnings in Canada, but they have something very similar and
Speaker 2: they did it for vagrancy apparently, but not for the
Speaker 2: murder charges. And I would not be telling you about
Speaker 2: appeals points if it did not work. And it worked.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: On my other podcast, we interviewed a Canadian law enforcement
Speaker 3: officer and they have a at least during the course of
Speaker 3: his career, which is more recent than nineteen forty six.
Speaker 3: They definitely have a very very similar requirement to what
Speaker 3: we know as Miranda here in the United States. And
Speaker 3: I can't remember what he called it. And so I
Speaker 3: can see where Evelyn is taken into custody and they
Speaker 3: basically let her know her rights now that she's in custody,
Speaker 3: and then she never leaves custody and is now in
Speaker 3: essence arrested and charged with murder because of her custodial
Speaker 3: status at least here in the United States, you know,
Speaker 3: that's where she needs to be told what her rights are.
Speaker 3: In addition, there's also a scenario where because she's in
Speaker 3: custody and she's represented by an attorne, then law enforcement
Speaker 3: interviewing her for more charges can sometimes get a little dicey.
Speaker 3: And I know, you know, because currently there's been some
Speaker 3: people I'd like to go in and talk to who
Speaker 3: have been convicted and possibly we're involved in other crimes.
Speaker 3: But the DA's involved in the conviction are saying, don't
Speaker 3: not well, he's represented and he's got an appeal going on, right,
Speaker 3: And this is not Joe DeAngelo Golden State killer. It's
Speaker 3: another guy, you know. But now her defense attorney is basically,
Speaker 3: you know, probably doing a pretty decent job in terms
Speaker 3: of going look at you know, law enforcement, the prosecutor's side,
Speaker 3: whatever they're called up there you know, they they misstepped m.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is a successful argument, and Evelyn is retried,
Speaker 2: and this time her attorney so she keeps this attorney.
Speaker 2: Robinette emphasiz this the possibility that Donald the dad, not Evelyn,
Speaker 2: killed John, and he is very convincing that, just like
Speaker 2: what you said, who really had the motive here, who
Speaker 2: had threatened John in the past, who was going to
Speaker 2: be exposed and arrested and fired and publicly humiliated in
Speaker 2: all of that stuff, when John was going to come
Speaker 2: out and report this, and John had already gone to
Speaker 2: the police. So Robinette says all of this, and it worked,
Speaker 2: and she has found not guilty of murdering her husband.
Speaker 2: In this second trial, she pleads guilty to being an
Speaker 2: accessory after the fact, but she is only then sentenced
Speaker 2: to four years in prison. And it's not over yet.
Speaker 2: But I will say, I mean, boy, when you have
Speaker 2: a good attorney, they can work wonders. And he knew
Speaker 2: exactly where to go with this. And I don't agree
Speaker 2: with this either.
Speaker 3: I don't necessarily agree with the outcome, but I think
Speaker 3: I agree with the strategy. Yeah, yeah, because all Robinette
Speaker 3: has to do for Evelynce is create reasonable doubt at
Speaker 3: least that would be the term here in the United States,
Speaker 3: and imagine it's a similar criteria, you know, for the
Speaker 3: Canadian court process, and that's what he could do because,
Speaker 3: you know, particularly in terms of the physical evidence side,
Speaker 3: I'm trying to think of, is there anything that there
Speaker 3: would be things that I'd be looking for, let's say,
Speaker 3: during the crime scene investigation that would support let's say
Speaker 3: Evelyn's presence, you know, at the time of the homicide,
Speaker 3: you know, gunshot. There might be something as an example,
Speaker 3: And this is just kind of fabricating based on the
Speaker 3: circumstances the type of evidence I'd be looking for. If
Speaker 3: John were truly shot in the head and possibly shot
Speaker 3: in the head multiple times, the shooter potentially could have
Speaker 3: backspatter from the entry wounds of the gunshots, in which
Speaker 3: blood and brain matter can spatter back onto the gun
Speaker 3: as well as the shooter's hand, the sleeves down on
Speaker 3: the pants leg. You could have shattered hair if it's
Speaker 3: a close enough shot to the head where that shattered
Speaker 3: hair would end up depositing on the shooter. So of course,
Speaker 3: trying to collect let's say Evelyn's clothing and Donald's clothing.
Speaker 3: In this day and age, that would be a form
Speaker 3: of evidence to try to determine who actually was the shooter. Now,
Speaker 3: John could have been shot from a distance, and you
Speaker 3: don't have any of that back spatter coming back onto
Speaker 3: the shooter, you know, And then now you have to
Speaker 3: rely on the interviews and statements and finger pointing as
Speaker 3: to well, who really is the shooter in this case?
Speaker 2: But if he's shot from a distance, wouldn't that have
Speaker 2: done damage to the packer, which the owner didn't mention
Speaker 2: any kind of damage except hey, where's my cover to
Speaker 2: this seat? Wouldn't there a bullet have gone somewhere?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: So when I say a distant you know, with a
Speaker 3: thirty two caliber revolver, the back spatter is going to
Speaker 3: be relatively minimal, you know. So you're talking about a
Speaker 3: very close range shot, you know, and I'm just going
Speaker 3: to throw out, like, you know, within two feet, and
Speaker 3: unless there's actual shooting, we would do what's called distance determinations.
Speaker 3: But you'd also try to get a sense for the
Speaker 3: power of this this particular handgun and this particular ammo.
Speaker 4: Of course, the more powerful the weapon, the more gases
Speaker 4: that are discharged.
Speaker 3: From the weapon, let's say, like a three fifty seven magnum,
Speaker 3: there's a greater likelihood of having more blood brain matter
Speaker 3: coming back, either as backspatter or from the rupture of
Speaker 3: the skull itself. And now you see the shooter get
Speaker 3: a fair amount of biological evidence on them. Okay, thirty
Speaker 3: two caliber is not a very powerful weapon, but it's
Speaker 3: something that when I say a distance, I'm talking yeah,
Speaker 3: like the shooters actually within the vehicle that's where John
Speaker 3: is shot, got it, but not up close.
Speaker 2: It sounds like John's settled. So you know, you've got
Speaker 2: Donald who has been the scapegoat for Robinette, and as
Speaker 2: an accessory, she has been given four years in prison.
Speaker 2: The prosecutors are pissed off, and so she goes on
Speaker 2: trial for murdering her infant son. Robinette does not have
Speaker 2: anything clever except to say, we've got to get her
Speaker 2: out of the death penalty, because they were going to
Speaker 2: go for the death penalty here. And he could not
Speaker 2: figure out a way to say somebody else did it.
Speaker 2: It's clear she did it, so he said, because of
Speaker 2: her trauma and abuse at the hands of her parents
Speaker 2: as a child, she had been emotionally stunted. She didn't
Speaker 2: understand that there were consequences for her actions, and the
Speaker 2: jury buys it, and she has found guilty of manslaughter
Speaker 2: and she's given a life sentence, right, so she spared
Speaker 2: the death penalty. She's supposed to be spending life in prison.
Speaker 2: But I think you probably know I'm heading down a
Speaker 2: road where she does not spend life in prison for this.
Speaker 2: So now she's been implicated and involved in two murders.
Speaker 3: I guess, you know, I just don't know what criteria
Speaker 3: up in Canada is used to justify the death penalty.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm really struggling to see, you know, the
Speaker 3: death of the infant's son, how there would be an
Speaker 3: argument for, you know, first degree murder with special circumstances
Speaker 3: if in fact Peter was strangled that show's intent. Does
Speaker 3: this come down to Peter is crying, Evelyn is just
Speaker 3: getting so frustrated with this baby crying that she just
Speaker 3: acts in sort of in the heat of the moment
Speaker 3: and strangles Peter. This would be more kin to like
Speaker 3: a second degree murder type of scenario in California. Manslaughter.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I'm not having too much issue with what Evelyn is
Speaker 3: ultimately convicted of. I'm surprised that if it's a manslaughter
Speaker 3: of this ten day old infant, that would be a
Speaker 3: life sentence, right.
Speaker 2: I don't know why that was a sentence. I will
Speaker 2: tell you she does not serve life. She only serves
Speaker 2: around eleven years total. In nineteen fifty eight, she's paroled.
Speaker 2: She's only thirty eight years old. She gets a new
Speaker 2: identity and totally falls off the radar. She's fully pardoned
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty five. According to this newspaper, I mean,
Speaker 2: I have no idea. This is what it says. Her
Speaker 2: government file remains sealed after she was granted a royal pejorative.
Speaker 2: I guess is that what I would say?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I have to rely on the attorneys in the
Speaker 3: no to describe what that means.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say, okay. Her government file remain sealed
Speaker 2: after she was granted a pardon in eighty five, a
Speaker 2: special pardon that is awarded an exceptional cases of substantial
Speaker 2: injustice or undue hardship, which would not seem to apply
Speaker 2: an Evlyn Dick's case. But many believe she had friends
Speaker 2: in high places who helped her get this pardon. As
Speaker 2: a wider strategy to muzzle stories about the people she
Speaker 2: was having sex with. Yeah, so we're back to the
Speaker 2: Little Black Book. You know, this is when she's now
Speaker 2: sixty five and she gets this full pardon where her
Speaker 2: case is basically you know, sealed, so nobody knows anything
Speaker 2: about it. And this is decades later.
Speaker 3: I mean, gosh, that's what it sounds like to me,
Speaker 3: you know, because it seems like that, you know, the
Speaker 3: Christ well, she was actually acquitted of John's homicide, right
Speaker 3: or of his murder.
Speaker 2: She was given four years as an accessory.
Speaker 3: Accessory murder, okay, and then and then life for Peter's murder.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Again, it's it's it's it's hard for me to to
Speaker 3: to figure out the life sentence, which seems like it
Speaker 3: might be excessive, just depending upon you know, what kind
Speaker 3: of case the prosecutors laid out.
Speaker 4: But yeah, the.
Speaker 3: Black Book, the people in the Black Book, sounds like
Speaker 3: she had some a at least one deep pocketed person
Speaker 3: that was supporting her to be able to hire the
Speaker 3: fancy attorney. There may be multiple depocketed people who, of course,
Speaker 3: over time, you know, probably continue to have influence and
Speaker 3: at any point if Evelyn ever felt that she had
Speaker 3: been betrayed by any of them. She could have divulged
Speaker 3: her secrets and so they're just trying to protect their asses,
Speaker 3: would be my guess.
Speaker 2: Yeah. There were, of course rumors of where she went.
Speaker 2: People have been trying to figure out where she went,
Speaker 2: who she became afterwards, reporters and biographers. They said some
Speaker 2: people thought she moved to Winnipeg under the name Betty.
Speaker 2: Other people thought she married a wealthy man and left town.
Speaker 2: That actually seems on brand, and others insist she stayed
Speaker 2: somewhere in Ontario. I don't really care what she did
Speaker 2: after she got out of prison. What I care about
Speaker 2: is a statement that you made long long ago, which
Speaker 2: was when we found out that Peter had been strangled
Speaker 2: and then encased in cement into a suitcase. This baby,
Speaker 2: this newborn baby, she did that, and she participated somehow
Speaker 2: in the murder of her husband. This is someone who
Speaker 2: is capable of removing an obstacle that is stopping her
Speaker 2: from living the life she wants to live. And that
Speaker 2: makes me concerned for whomever she was, whomever she encountered
Speaker 2: after she left the life of Evel and Dick. And
Speaker 2: that's that we don't know if she killed other people
Speaker 2: because we don't know who she is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, she's a dangerous woman. She was thirty eight when
Speaker 3: she gets out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she would be one hundred and four last year.
Speaker 2: I would think not, but I mean, listen, she lived
Speaker 2: to at least sixty five because she got an official pardon,
Speaker 2: but nobody knew where she was when that happened.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because I'm just thinking, Okay, how would I figure
Speaker 3: out who?
Speaker 4: You know, who she became?
Speaker 3: And you know, one way, is she still a child
Speaker 3: bearing age at age thirty eight when she gets out?
Speaker 3: Does she have any children? Have they had any children?
Speaker 3: Are they up in the genealogy databases? You know, would
Speaker 3: we be able to triangulate back and identify Evelyn via
Speaker 3: That means, you know, if there was a reason, you know,
Speaker 3: a justifiable reason to track her down, that's an avenue
Speaker 3: to pursue.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: Of course there's the investigator side, but I think just
Speaker 3: through genetics, just through genealogy, there's a way to identify
Speaker 3: what ended up happening to Evelyn.
Speaker 2: Well, it's possible that her daughter, Heather is still alive
Speaker 2: because she was born in forty one, but we don't
Speaker 2: know what happened to Heather, And I don't know if
Speaker 2: there would be a reason. It's interesting to hear that
Speaker 2: if there needed to be a reason, there are possibilities,
Speaker 2: and Heather might have had children, you know, yep.
Speaker 3: Most early, and you know that there is a source
Speaker 3: that could be used for genealogy and you could potentially
Speaker 3: we identify Evelyn using DNA.
Speaker 2: It's interesting to bring up things like the slut shaming
Speaker 2: and finger pointing and the black books and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: And normally for me, I feel like it's focusing on
Speaker 2: the victims and the prosecutor or the media or the perpetrator,
Speaker 2: the offenders being the ones who are doing the slut shaming.
Speaker 2: Who are you know, retraumatizing survivors, revictimizing victims, all of that,
Speaker 2: But to have the offender who clearly is an offender
Speaker 2: for me to say, God, I don't like the way
Speaker 2: this trial's going. I mean, I know, ultimately you have
Speaker 2: to go down different roads, but this was a pretty
Speaker 2: ikey road for the prosecutors. At some point when you
Speaker 2: go above and beyond explaining somebody's sex life, I think
Speaker 2: that having that on display with a very messy case
Speaker 2: involving a family and threats and everything. Nobody's perfect in
Speaker 2: this story. We almost never have perfect people, Paul.
Speaker 3: Well, crime is messy, right, No, I kind of along
Speaker 3: those lines. You know, this is where you know, there's
Speaker 3: there's reasons why prior cases, prior behaviors by the defendant
Speaker 3: don't get admitted into court because they're overly prejudicial. This
Speaker 3: is where the judge has to, you know, step in
Speaker 3: and the defense attorneys need to object. So you know,
Speaker 3: there is attempts at protection from what ended up happening
Speaker 3: to Evelyn in terms of her sexual relationships with all
Speaker 3: these men. A lot of at least the way you're
Speaker 3: telling it to me, doesn't seem to have any bearing
Speaker 3: on the crime itself. It really is just prejudicial. And
Speaker 3: of course that also could potentially influence jury selection.
Speaker 4: You know, if the media is portraying this, you.
Speaker 3: Know, after prelim and now they have to select a
Speaker 3: jury and they've seen the headlines about you know, this,
Speaker 3: this woman and her relationship, how is that going to
Speaker 3: impact a fair trial? So I think I definitely agree
Speaker 3: with you. It appears that Evelyn, as a defendant, her
Speaker 3: right to a fair trial was potentially violated and ultimately
Speaker 3: She ended up getting an attorney that was able to
Speaker 3: get her conviction overturned.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm, and let a very very, very dangerous woman
Speaker 2: out into the world to do god knows what. Hopefully
Speaker 2: Jos live a quiet life and be done with it,
Speaker 2: but I somehow doubt it. I don't know. Next week,
Speaker 2: Let's hope we have a less dangerous woman. If they
Speaker 2: are the offender, will see. We'll see that's unlikely. Female
Speaker 2: offenders are some of the most dangerous I have found.
Speaker 4: They're the most conniving for sure.
Speaker 2: Okay, I will see you next week.
Speaker 4: Rust up, all right, We'll do take care.
Speaker 2: Thanks. This has been an exactly right production for our
Speaker 2: sources and show notes go to Exactlyrightmedia dot com slash
Speaker 2: Buried Bones sources.
Speaker 1: Our senior producer is Alexis Emosi.
Speaker 3: Research by Maren mcclashan, Ali Elkin, and Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 2: Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.
Speaker 4: Our theme song is by Tom Bryfogel.
Speaker 2: Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.
Speaker 3: Executive produced by Karen Kilgaroff, Georgia hard Stark, and Daniel Kramer.
Speaker 2: You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook. At
Speaker 2: Ary Bones.
Speaker 3: Pod Kate's most recent book, All That Is Wicked, a
Speaker 3: Gilded Age story of murder and the race to decode
Speaker 3: the criminal mind, is available now
Speaker 2: And Paul's best selling memoir Unmasked, My life solving America's
Speaker 2: cold cases, is also available now