Speaker 1: I'm Kate Winkler Dawson. I'm a journalist who's spent the
Speaker 1: last twenty five years writing about true crime.
Speaker 2: And I'm Paul Hols, a retired cold case investigator who's
Speaker 2: worked some of America's most complicated cases and solve them.
Speaker 1: Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most compelling.
Speaker 2: True crimes, and I weigh in using modern forensic techniques
Speaker 2: to bring new insights to old mysteries.
Speaker 1: Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime
Speaker 1: cases through a twenty first century lens.
Speaker 3: Some are solved and some are cold, very cold.
Speaker 1: This is buried Bones.
Speaker 3: Hi, Kate, how are you?
Speaker 1: I'm well, Paul, how about you.
Speaker 2: I'm hanging in there. I've been reviewing my notes about
Speaker 2: this case out there in Baltimore, and I'm interested to
Speaker 2: see where you go from here with the details.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are a lot of details. Just to try
Speaker 1: to summarize this case. This is November seventh, nineteen sixty nine.
Speaker 1: There is a Catholic nun who is a teacher at
Speaker 1: a high school. Her name is Kathy Sesnik. She goes
Speaker 1: missing and then ultimately she is found dead with a
Speaker 1: huge gaping wound to her skull. There is another woman
Speaker 1: who goes missing around the same time. Her name is
Speaker 1: Joyce Malecki. We don't know if there's a connection between
Speaker 1: the two of them. We will eventually find out that
Speaker 1: there has been a horrible abuse, sexual abuse of students
Speaker 1: at this high school, Kiyo High School in Baltimore for years.
Speaker 1: We have students coming forward twenty five years later to
Speaker 1: say that this is what happened. And the key student
Speaker 1: here is a woman named Jean who in the show
Speaker 1: The Keepers comes forward and says that there was a
Speaker 1: priest who was abusing girls at the school, who, as
Speaker 1: a way to shut her up about his abuse against her,
Speaker 1: takes her to Sister Kathy's body and says, this is
Speaker 1: what will happen to you. So I think we have
Speaker 1: many tasks here. One does not need to be to
Speaker 1: prove the rampant sexual abuse that's happening at this high school,
Speaker 1: which The Keepers does very well. I am convinced, you
Speaker 1: are convinced, we are all convinced. What I'm trying to
Speaker 1: figure out, what we need to know is making that
Speaker 1: connection between what will end up being a little bit
Speaker 1: of a list of suspects on who murdered Kathy Seysnick,
Speaker 1: you know, versus how much did she know about the
Speaker 1: sexual abuse that was happening. And that's what we're really
Speaker 1: going to be digging into in this second episode, is
Speaker 1: you know what she knew? What witnesses say she knew
Speaker 1: and didn't know that sort of thing. So is that
Speaker 1: what your memory is of this story?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's that's what I'm recalling.
Speaker 2: And I guess I kind of want to start by
Speaker 2: just clarifying Gina saying this Joseph Maskell told her when
Speaker 2: he went out and had her see Kathy's body. Does
Speaker 2: he make any statements that he is the one that
Speaker 2: killed Kathy to Jean at that time?
Speaker 1: So this is what Gene says in the Keepers. She
Speaker 1: says that one day after sister Kathy disappeared, but before
Speaker 1: the body is discovered, so there's a two month gap there,
Speaker 1: that father Maskell drove her to sister Kathy's body at
Speaker 1: the dump, so this would have been sometime in November
Speaker 1: or December. She says that he told her the same
Speaker 1: thing would happen to her if she told anyone about
Speaker 1: the abuse. She says that she remembers there being maggots
Speaker 1: on sister Kathy's body. So this linds up being used
Speaker 1: to discredit her at some point because people had said
Speaker 1: it was too cold outside for maggots, but doctor Spitz
Speaker 1: confirmed there was maggot activity on her body. But again,
Speaker 1: you know, what the police eventually say is that she
Speaker 1: knows too much information about the body where the body
Speaker 1: was located to have not actually been there. It is
Speaker 1: my understanding that he is not saying I did it.
Speaker 1: He is saying here it is you need to keep
Speaker 1: your mouth shut. There's no confession as far as I know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you know what I'm drawing from this is
Speaker 2: Maskal minimally has knowledge of where Kathy's body has been placed. Now,
Speaker 2: there's maybe two competing scenarios. Is either he's the one
Speaker 2: who by himself killed Kathy put her body there, and
Speaker 2: he is utilizing this so Gene is basically made to
Speaker 2: fear for her life if she ever divulges the on
Speaker 2: going sexual abuse that she's experiencing from Mascal. The other
Speaker 2: competing theory is you have a close knit group of
Speaker 2: offenders that either one or multiple members of this group
Speaker 2: were involved in Kathy's abduction and homicide and they've shared
Speaker 2: information amongst themselves, and so now it's a matter of
Speaker 2: teasing out which theory is correct. And that's where if
Speaker 2: it's multiple people, if you have a conspiracy, investigators at
Speaker 2: least have a greater likelihood of getting one of the
Speaker 2: members of that conspiracy group to provide information. You can
Speaker 2: put that person in jeopardy in a variety of ways,
Speaker 2: whether it's that person's freedom that they're going to be
Speaker 2: charged unless they are able to conclusively say who is
Speaker 2: responsible for Kathy's homicide and get them to turn on
Speaker 2: the other group. If it's just Maskal, who by himself
Speaker 2: abducted and killed Kathy, then that's a little bit tougher,
Speaker 2: especially a quarter century later. But there is potential forensic evidence,
Speaker 2: you know, that they could potentially use to prove Mascal's
Speaker 2: involvement with Kathy's homicide.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you what ended up leading to it.
Speaker 1: Sounds like Mascal threatening Jeane by taking her to see
Speaker 1: Kathy's body. Let's talk about the lead up to that.
Speaker 1: Jeane says that in June, so the summer of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty nine, this was Kathy's last year at Keio before
Speaker 1: she took the sabbatical and worked at a public school.
Speaker 1: Sister Kathy asks her Jean if any of the priests
Speaker 1: are making her do things that she doesn't want to do,
Speaker 1: so Kathy is suspicious. Jeane says to her in confidence
Speaker 1: over the summer. Yes, Sister Kathy hugs her and tells
Speaker 1: her to go home and have a one erful summer
Speaker 1: and that she will fix it. And another student in
Speaker 1: the keepers in the documentary specifically remembers telling Kathy that
Speaker 1: Father Maskal would get physical in his office. This student
Speaker 1: says that she suspects that Kathy already knew about this
Speaker 1: because then a third student says she was with sister
Speaker 1: Kathy when Father Maskeal called her the student to his office,
Speaker 1: and Kathy turned to Mascal and said she's not coming,
Speaker 1: She's not available. And she says that they made eye contact,
Speaker 1: Kathy and this student, and it was clear that she
Speaker 1: knew what was going on. But when Jeane gets back
Speaker 1: to school in the fall, you know, and Kathy had
Speaker 1: said I'll take care of it, Kathy was gone and
Speaker 1: Father Maskal was still there, so Kathy was at another school.
Speaker 1: She had not been murdered at that point, he says.
Speaker 1: Father Maskal says to Jane early in that year, someone
Speaker 1: accused him of hurting the students, and so this is
Speaker 1: the build up to after the murder, but before her
Speaker 1: body is discovered. Within that two month period, Father Maskel
Speaker 1: is using the body as Kathy's body as a way
Speaker 1: to threaten Gene to keep her mouth shut because obviously
Speaker 1: people are coming forward and Kathy knew too much.
Speaker 2: Sure, you know, but the circumstances of how Kathy's body
Speaker 2: was found, in terms of the state of her clothing,
Speaker 2: her shirt is open. This in many ways doesn't equate
Speaker 2: to what I would consider a sheer elimination homicide, the
Speaker 2: elimination of a witness. There is a sexual component to
Speaker 2: what happened to Kathy, no question about it. If let's
Speaker 2: say Maskal is responsible for Kathy's homicide and he is
Speaker 2: abusing Gene and probably other female students, he is a
Speaker 2: predator that is working within this church environment or this
Speaker 2: religious school environment. Now the question, of course is is
Speaker 2: who else is aware of these activities. I can't imagine
Speaker 2: that Kathy is the only nun that is aware, and
Speaker 2: by focusing all efforts to eliminate Kathy as a witness,
Speaker 2: that that's going to solve the problem of Oh, people
Speaker 2: are talking and we're going to be found out, you know.
Speaker 2: So this is where I'm not sure what the motive is,
Speaker 2: you know, with Kathy being killed from that perspective, but
Speaker 2: there is a sexual component to Kathy's homicide and it
Speaker 2: is being done by an individual that doesn't have any
Speaker 2: qualms about committing the sexually motivated homicide.
Speaker 1: Well, let me tell you some more. So, Jean later
Speaker 1: remembers another detail. Now remember this is coming out pauled
Speaker 1: decades after all of this happened. She says one of
Speaker 1: her abusers was just referred to as brother Bob. She
Speaker 1: believes that he alluded to knowing about her murders, sister
Speaker 1: Kathy's murder, and about being present for it. But that's
Speaker 1: all she remembers. She doesn't have a lot of details
Speaker 1: about the body, and what they're claiming are recovered memories again,
Speaker 1: are things that happened a long time ago, but that
Speaker 1: she seems to remember specifically. And like I said that
Speaker 1: the newspaper reports were that there was a lot of
Speaker 1: information that she knew about the scene that there's no
Speaker 1: way she should have known. Let me tell you a
Speaker 1: weird story. So, according to the doc series, an anonymous
Speaker 1: student in her boyfriend had gone to Sister Kathy's home
Speaker 1: the afternoon of the day she disappeared, so not that
Speaker 1: night before she went out shopping, she was alive. The
Speaker 1: student and the boyfriend say that Father Maskell and Father
Speaker 1: Magnus burst into the apartment without knocking, and that sister
Speaker 1: Kathy sent the student and her boyfriend away. So that
Speaker 1: was a story that came up in the keepers. But
Speaker 1: the research note says, you know, we don't know where
Speaker 1: Sister Russell was. Jerry Kob says that he doubts that
Speaker 1: this happened because Sister Russell never said anything to anyone
Speaker 1: about that, but the student is insistent that this is
Speaker 1: what happened. The student also says that Sister Russell was there,
Speaker 1: so I don't know why they would be making it up.
Speaker 1: I'm sure I could figure many reasons out why they
Speaker 1: were making it up. But essentially, Sister Russell never said
Speaker 1: this happen, but the student was very clear that this
Speaker 1: is what happened. These two men accused of sexual abuse
Speaker 1: at Sister Kathy's school. First in and Sister Cathy said, okay,
Speaker 1: you two, you student and boyfriend.
Speaker 3: Need to leave.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this the student. This is also a statement
Speaker 2: that's being made twenty five years later, longer, even longer. Yes, okay,
Speaker 2: you know, and we know memory is elastic. It's kind
Speaker 2: of tough, you know for this type of witness statement
Speaker 2: from my perspective, to put a lot of weight on that.
Speaker 2: And I think, you know, there's aspects to this investigation.
Speaker 2: You know, was Magnus interviewed back in the day, do
Speaker 2: you know?
Speaker 1: Not that I know of. I think it was completely squashed.
Speaker 1: This sexual abuse stuff never came out, even though there
Speaker 1: was one person the Archdiocese of Baltimore said that Gene
Speaker 1: was the first one to come forward about maskal in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety two, but there was a guy who said
Speaker 1: he did come forward in sixty seven, right before Maskell
Speaker 1: was transferred to Keo, to the high school. So people
Speaker 1: had set stuff, but nothing had come out about the
Speaker 1: sexual abuse to the police or to any kind of
Speaker 1: authority figure. There was no reason to interview these guys.
Speaker 1: There there were no suspects, with the exception of father Jerry,
Speaker 1: and that was just because they had a personal relationship.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, and this is where you know, I
Speaker 2: think Sister Russell is critical because before the archdiocese is
Speaker 2: kind of squashing the investigation. Sister Russell is reporting Kathy missing,
Speaker 2: she is being contacted by law enforcement at one thirty
Speaker 2: am in the morning. So if Magnus and this other
Speaker 2: guy what was his name, Maskeal Maskeal and this other
Speaker 2: guy burst into their apartment complex the day that Kathy
Speaker 2: went missing, how comes Sister Russell isn't telling that to
Speaker 2: law enforcement at one thirty am. There's something not adding
Speaker 2: up here. Sister Russell to me, is critical in terms of,
Speaker 2: you know, what is going on. There's there's some goofiness
Speaker 2: in terms of the timeline with her calling up Jerry
Speaker 2: and Pete and them driving over the relationship between Jerry
Speaker 2: and Kathy. It seems like if there had been these men,
Speaker 2: even though they are you know, men of the cloth,
Speaker 2: but bursting into the apartment earlier that day, that there
Speaker 2: would be a statement to that effect by Sister Russell, right.
Speaker 1: I think that's why it's confusing for Jerry's part. Father Jerry,
Speaker 1: he says that Kathy wanted to talk to him about
Speaker 1: something serious. They had planned to get together the day
Speaker 1: after she disappeared, but he insists that she never told
Speaker 1: him about the abuse. So he says, I didn't know.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine that, but who knows. He says, I
Speaker 1: didn't know, and she didn't talk to me about it,
Speaker 1: but she sounded like she wanted to talk about something
Speaker 1: very serious, you know, on November eighth.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: I think one of the things I want to point out,
Speaker 2: as I've thought about this case is Kathy's car is
Speaker 2: a critical piece of evidence, not just because of what
Speaker 2: it could potentially have from a physical evidence standpoint, but
Speaker 2: also how it was left. And Kathy scenes sitting in
Speaker 2: her car in the proper parking space for apartment complex
Speaker 2: by a neighbor. I have great confidence that that neighbor
Speaker 2: is telling accurate information. And then the car is obviously
Speaker 2: gone to a secondary location where it gets the mud
Speaker 2: the vegetation on it. Inside of it, there's items from
Speaker 2: Kathy that are missing out of this car. And then
Speaker 2: the car is deposited back across the street from Kathy's
Speaker 2: apartment in a half hazard manner.
Speaker 3: It was done in haste. Why is that car brought back?
Speaker 2: It's because the offender's vehicle was at Kathy's location somewhere
Speaker 2: in that area. So the offender took Kathy killed Kathy
Speaker 2: and had to get back using Kathy's vehicle in order
Speaker 2: to get into their vehicle and drive off. So, you know,
Speaker 2: the scenario that I'm seeing is the offender is seeing
Speaker 2: Kathy either sitting alone in the vehicle or contacts Kathy
Speaker 2: when she's trying to get into her apartment, and then
Speaker 2: ultimately takes control of Kathy and her own vehicle, drives off,
Speaker 2: kills Kathy, dumps Kathy at the dump site that looks
Speaker 2: like it's what half hour away from where she was
Speaker 2: abducted from, and then drives back to get his own
Speaker 2: vehicle and drive off. This isn't Jerry and Pete. This
Speaker 2: is somebody else. Now is his father Maskell?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 2: Is he going to Kathy's apartment, sees her isolated and
Speaker 2: takes advantage of that He at least per gene is
Speaker 2: expressing knowledge where Kathy's body is. I have to assume
Speaker 2: that authorities sufficiently vetted the gene's statement so that they
Speaker 2: have confidence that this recovered memory. And I'm not even
Speaker 2: sure it classifies as a recovered memory. She just didn't
Speaker 2: come forward. She was a kid when this happened to her, right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, so I'm just going to trust that the
Speaker 2: authorities vetted her statement and say, yes, she is accurate
Speaker 2: to the details, that we believe that Gene is telling
Speaker 2: the truth about what happened. Well, now this becomes important.
Speaker 2: I think it's a very small circle of suspects that
Speaker 2: are responsible for Kathy's homicide and they just need to
Speaker 2: be vetted one by one and figure out, well, who
Speaker 2: is it and if they still have Kathy's clothing, you know,
Speaker 2: whatever is covered from her body, if they still have
Speaker 2: stuff out of the vehicle, Leyton Prince, whatever they did,
Speaker 2: you know, there's potentially physical evidence that can help sort
Speaker 2: this out.
Speaker 1: Let me wrap up this part of the story. None
Speaker 1: of this information about abuse that Keyo comes to light
Speaker 1: until about nineteen ninety four, and that's when Jane hires
Speaker 1: an attorney because she was being stonewalled by the church.
Speaker 1: This lawyer puts an advertisement in the Baltimore Sun asking
Speaker 1: for any information about are their survivors of abuse that
Speaker 1: went to Archbishop Keo school. That ad doesn't say anything
Speaker 1: about Father Maskeal in particular, but about forty women come
Speaker 1: forward and nearly all their stories are about him. This
Speaker 1: information is given to the state's attorney, but Mascal is
Speaker 1: never charged, never charged. Okay, so let me just tell
Speaker 1: you one other thing and then we need to get
Speaker 1: to other suspects too. In ninety four, Jean and another
Speaker 1: former student, who's a woman named Teresa Lancaster, sue father Maskal.
Speaker 1: And this is a suit that's ultimately dismissedly because the
Speaker 1: statue of limitations had lapsed. The case went to trial
Speaker 1: in the first place because because it questioned if the
Speaker 1: statute applies to memories that only recently surfaced at that time,
Speaker 1: this is considered a question of recovered memories. Though you know,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of new laws that have passed
Speaker 1: allowing child victims to come forward and sue as adults.
Speaker 1: This is interesting. The Baltimore Archdiocese has recently declared bankruptcy
Speaker 1: to avoid paying more of these settlements. So the recovered
Speaker 1: memory I had not really even I haven't crossed paths
Speaker 1: with that yet, and controversy around it, and I know
Speaker 1: we talked about it, and the questions about whether what
Speaker 1: Gene and any of these other students were experiencing were
Speaker 1: not It doesn't sound like recovered memories. It sounded like
Speaker 1: we're you know, we're pressed or you know, not coming forward, scared, forgotten,
Speaker 1: hidden for a while, something that hadn't been processed by
Speaker 1: the person, but not drawn out by somebody. And that's
Speaker 1: right to you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, and I'm trying to remember the exact details.
Speaker 2: California has been statute, you know, and I think California
Speaker 2: uses the term repressed memories, but I'm not entirely sure
Speaker 2: about that. But there's something to the effect that if
Speaker 2: a person comes forward with a repress memory and at
Speaker 2: the time of let's say their sexual abuse, they were
Speaker 2: fifteen years or younger, they have like thirty years after
Speaker 2: the crime occurred to come forward and then the case
Speaker 2: could potentially be charged. I may be way off base
Speaker 2: on that, but that's kind of what's ringing a bell.
Speaker 2: I had one case, and it had nothing to do
Speaker 2: with sexual abuse. It was a woman who came forward
Speaker 2: with a repressed memory saying she remembered her dad burying
Speaker 2: a body in the backyard, you know, and of course
Speaker 2: ended up never finding anything.
Speaker 3: But I do know that these types of.
Speaker 2: Memories you do have, from a psychological standpoint, there is
Speaker 2: the possibility of somebody just bearing this memory and then
Speaker 2: having it come forward at some point. But you have
Speaker 2: to kind of, you know, tease out the people that
Speaker 2: are being honest and truthful, people that are misremembering things,
Speaker 2: and then people who are just making stuff up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, just like in a normal witness repress
Speaker 1: memory or not, you're just having to figure out who's
Speaker 1: truthful and who's not, what their motives.
Speaker 3: Are, right, absolutely, yep, for sure.
Speaker 1: Well I wish this had a better ending that you know,
Speaker 1: father Maskell got punished in some way. He doesn't. He
Speaker 1: dies of a stroke in two thousand and one, which
Speaker 1: is too bad. At that point in time, the archdiocese
Speaker 1: says that the allegations against Maskal were credible, quote unquote,
Speaker 1: and confirmed that he did have guns in his residence.
Speaker 1: I don't think we're surprised by that. Sister Russell died
Speaker 1: not long after. She was not a nun any longer.
Speaker 1: She had been married and had a family, and she
Speaker 1: died just a couple of months after. And a friend
Speaker 1: called her when he died, when mass died before she died,
Speaker 1: and Sister Russell said, well, he took his secret to
Speaker 1: the grave. Now there's been renewed interests starting in two
Speaker 1: thousand and five, and there's a reporter named Tom Nugent,
Speaker 1: who writes a story for the Baltimore City Paper that
Speaker 1: rehashes everything that has happened, and for the first time,
Speaker 1: he starts looking at the connections between father Maskell and
Speaker 1: the other victim, Joyce Malecki, who we weren't sure is
Speaker 1: connected or not. So she's the other young woman who
Speaker 1: was killed right after sister Kathy disappeared. So tell me
Speaker 1: what you think about these connections. I'll go through half
Speaker 1: of them and stop, and then you can tell me
Speaker 1: if you think these are strong connections. Okay, So this
Speaker 1: is what Tom Nugent comes up with. He looks at
Speaker 1: the nineteen sixty eight sixty nine Kio year book. So
Speaker 1: this is the high school where Maskal was and it
Speaker 1: shows that a gift was made that year by the
Speaker 1: Malechi family on their patron's page. And the interviews with
Speaker 1: the remaining family members revealed that when they lived in Lansdowne,
Speaker 1: which is less than a mile from where Cathy Saysnick's
Speaker 1: body was, they attended a church, Saint Clement Church. The
Speaker 1: Maluche siblings, including Joyce, went to week long retreats as
Speaker 1: high school students, during which they spend entire days engaged
Speaker 1: in religious instruction with priests, So that might not seem
Speaker 1: like a big deal, except the Baltimore archdis and records
Speaker 1: confirm that Maskel served at Saint Clement in Lansdowne from
Speaker 1: sixty six to sixty eight, And this is essentially saying
Speaker 1: that they would have likely crossed paths. Joyce Maluche the
Speaker 1: dead Girl and Joseph Maskell. So what do you think
Speaker 1: so far? So they would have crossed paths. And I
Speaker 1: don't know. The family apparently gave money. I don't think
Speaker 1: the current family or the family that's around now knows why.
Speaker 1: But they gave money to the high school where Mascal worked,
Speaker 1: and it sounds like she attended week long retreats where
Speaker 1: Mascal would have been for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I don't know. I'm not putting much
Speaker 2: weight on this, this gift of money to the high school.
Speaker 2: If they could confirm that Mascal and Joyce were at
Speaker 2: the same location at the same time, you know, that's
Speaker 2: where now Mascal at least could see a victim as
Speaker 2: you know, maybe established a relationship you know, with this victim,
Speaker 2: just as this authority figure within this this location. But
Speaker 2: it's I mean, it's weak, you know, it's it could
Speaker 2: just be coincidental.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let me tell you a couple more things.
Speaker 1: It looks like the records show that father Maskal was
Speaker 1: Joyce Malech's parish priest during a two year period shortly
Speaker 1: before she was killed. I don't know if that means
Speaker 1: that they were just because he was, you know, her priest,
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that they had really personal interactions. I don't
Speaker 1: know if she took confession. I don't know any of that.
Speaker 1: We just know that they would have been certainly in
Speaker 1: the same vicinity. And Father Maskal sent her family a
Speaker 1: condolence card after she was found murdered. Oh interesting, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, so he knew her for sure. If we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about Joyce Malucky briefly, she was twenty
Speaker 1: and again she goes missing four days after Kathy Sesnant
Speaker 1: goes missing. Her brother was at a fast food restaurant
Speaker 1: outside of Baltimore, and she stopped by. Joyce stopped by
Speaker 1: to switch cars before heading to the mall, and she
Speaker 1: never came home. She was found at a nearby military
Speaker 1: base with signs of severe trauma, and an autopsy determined
Speaker 1: that she had been strangled. Okay, One police officer said
Speaker 1: that there was evidence she had put up a fight.
Speaker 1: It doesn't say anything about sexual assault. The night of
Speaker 1: her disappearance, she had plans to meet up with her
Speaker 1: boyfriend who was stationed at that military base, but he
Speaker 1: was ruled out as a suspect pretty early on in
Speaker 1: an investigation. I'm assuming he had some kind of great
Speaker 1: alibi or something. So this was an article written last year,
Speaker 1: about nine months ago, and it looks like Paul the
Speaker 1: FBI exhumed Joyce Maluche's body to try to figure out
Speaker 1: who her killer was. There were a couple of other
Speaker 1: people who went missing around that time period, and they
Speaker 1: solved one case using DNA in genealogy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, I think you know.
Speaker 2: What I wanted to hear was sort of the crossover
Speaker 2: in details between Kathy and Joyce's case. Basically, you have
Speaker 2: abduction homicides of two young females. So, you know, I think,
Speaker 2: you know, first it's the victimology you have, you know,
Speaker 2: two young women that are victims of abduction homicide. Even
Speaker 2: though we don't know the circumstances of what exactly happened
Speaker 2: with Joyce outside of strangulation, she was beat and she
Speaker 2: put up a fight. But I mean a twenty year
Speaker 2: old female being abducted and killed in all likelihood it's
Speaker 2: a sexually motivated crime.
Speaker 3: I think there's at least.
Speaker 2: Enough parallel from the circumstances you know that it could
Speaker 2: be the same offender. Now, if we throw gene statement
Speaker 2: out about Maskull showing this is where Kathy's body is,
Speaker 2: you know, it is entirely possible that you have a
Speaker 2: single predator that abducted and killed Kathy and abducted and
Speaker 2: killed Joyce and maybe did other things. That's where Gene's
Speaker 2: statement is so critical because what it does is it
Speaker 2: narrows down instead of it being a random or stranger
Speaker 2: type crime, it's a crime that Kathy's crime is a
Speaker 2: crime that is being committed, you know, by an individual
Speaker 2: or a group of individuals that had an association with her.
Speaker 2: And if it's maskl who it's shown that he has
Speaker 2: an association with Joyce, you know, this becomes critical because
Speaker 2: there's no question he is a child predator working. You know,
Speaker 2: he has access to all these young girls at the school.
Speaker 2: Predators go to where the praise at and so envisioning
Speaker 2: Mascal taking a crime further past sexual abuse and actually
Speaker 2: committing homicide that is well within the realm of this
Speaker 2: type of offender. You know, So I right now don't
Speaker 2: have I don't have an issue assuming Gene is completely
Speaker 2: accurate about her statement that Mascal Is by himself is
Speaker 2: responsible for these two homicides, but they need to get
Speaker 2: the evidence.
Speaker 3: To prove it.
Speaker 1: I've found a few more details. I doubt they make
Speaker 1: any kind of a difference about Joyce Malecki. So you know,
Speaker 1: she had been found with her hands tied behind her back,
Speaker 1: with scratches and bruises on her body. That's the part
Speaker 1: of the struggle I told you about. And they said
Speaker 1: that there was a single knife wound found in her throat,
Speaker 1: but it was not sufficient to cause death. But she
Speaker 1: had fifteen superficial cuts on the neck and abrasions on
Speaker 1: her fore head, nose, and chin. And the FBI took
Speaker 1: over the case because they were found obviously on federal
Speaker 1: property because it was the base Fort Meade. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, essentially, what they were saying was they had
Speaker 1: similar builds, these two women. Here's the only connection, real
Speaker 1: connection until you look at mascl They had similar builds.
Speaker 1: They were shopping in close proximity, but they were abducted
Speaker 1: days apart and that was it. So it sounds like
Speaker 1: people are still working on the case though.
Speaker 2: Yeah, hopefully, you know, because there is a chance with
Speaker 2: both cases that there is you know, physical evidence that
Speaker 2: can solve these cases. You know the fact that the
Speaker 2: FBI went through the process to exume Joyce's body that
Speaker 2: tells me that they felt that the initial collection of
Speaker 2: evidence from Joyce's body was inadequate, which you know from
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty nine, nineteen seventy. Of course, they're not focusing
Speaker 2: in on the possibility of DNA evidence. You know, they
Speaker 2: would process women's bodies for sexual assault evidence, but all
Speaker 2: they could do is you know, identify, Okay, there's there's
Speaker 2: seman presence, so yes, this is a sexually motivated crime.
Speaker 2: And that they literally would throw that kind of evidence
Speaker 2: out back then you know that possibly is what happened.
Speaker 2: And now the FBI is going, oh god, we need
Speaker 2: to hope that there's still that foreign DNA material on
Speaker 2: this body that has been buried for decades, and it
Speaker 2: is entirely possible they could get something. But then it's also, well,
Speaker 2: what about our clothing, just like Kathy's clothing, you know,
Speaker 2: is there a possibility that there's a thunder DNA off
Speaker 2: of those items, and so, you know, it's interesting. I've
Speaker 2: just experienced enough that I think there is a possibility
Speaker 2: that Kathy and Joyce's killer is one and the same person.
Speaker 2: But I would also say it's entirely possible that these
Speaker 2: are two completely unrelated crimes and you just have two
Speaker 2: different predators operating in the same area at the same time,
Speaker 2: doing kind of the same thing. I've seen it, I've
Speaker 2: personally experienced that. So it's until they get that objective
Speaker 2: identifying evidence on these cases, it's going to be hard
Speaker 2: to se a Father Maskal is their killer. They need
Speaker 2: to do more than just show you the connections that
Speaker 2: each one of the victims had to Father Maskal. Gene statement,
Speaker 2: I think is really sort of the big thing in
Speaker 2: the case, at least with Kathy's case, because again, if
Speaker 2: that is been proven that she had details that only
Speaker 2: somebody who observed Kathy's body out there at the dump,
Speaker 2: then I'm like, yeah, either Father Maskal or somebody closely
Speaker 2: affiliated with Father Maskal is responsible for Kathy's homicide.
Speaker 1: Well, for due diligence, let's go through two other suspects.
Speaker 1: That are not related to Father Maskal or the high
Speaker 1: school in particular, just because these are people that have
Speaker 1: floated around. This guy is named Ed Davidson. He's alive,
Speaker 1: at least when the keepers was made he was. He
Speaker 1: gives an interview. He's very frail. He says I have
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the murder. But his name gets
Speaker 1: brought up, and here's why. In twenty thirteen, former students
Speaker 1: of Sister Kathy's named Abby's Stow and Jimma Hoskins create
Speaker 1: a Facebook page to share their resources. It becomes a
Speaker 1: centralized resource on the case, but also for survivors from
Speaker 1: the abuse, and the documentary centers on these two women
Speaker 1: and their dogged research into the case. They're great characters.
Speaker 1: After this Facebook group is taken off, Jimma gets a
Speaker 1: text from a woman named Debbie Yawns who says that
Speaker 1: her uncle killed Sister Kathy. It is this guy, Ed Davidson,
Speaker 1: and his first wife tells the same story firsthand. The
Speaker 1: woman who doesn't want to be named in the documentary.
Speaker 1: The wife had recently given birth to twins in November
Speaker 1: of nineteen sixty nine. This is when you know Sister
Speaker 1: Kathy goes missing. One of the twins was in the
Speaker 1: nick you and just before nine point thirty on November seventh,
Speaker 1: that night that she disappeared, a nurse called and said
Speaker 1: the baby is going to be discharged tomorrow. This is
Speaker 1: why the wife remembers that day in the time. Just
Speaker 1: after hanging up the phone, Ed walks in the door
Speaker 1: and his shirt is covered in blood. He tells his
Speaker 1: wife that he got into a fight with his boss.
Speaker 1: But then a few days later, when sister Kathy's disappearance
Speaker 1: is reported on the news, Ed's wife looks at him
Speaker 1: and sees that he's smirking. He says her body is
Speaker 1: going to be covered with snow soon and will take
Speaker 1: months to find. Shortly after that, he buys all new
Speaker 1: tires first car, even though he doesn't really need them
Speaker 1: and the family doesn't have any money. A few weeks later,
Speaker 1: Ed is arrested in a stolen car which Paul. He
Speaker 1: has been trying to lure girls into Adam Middle School,
Speaker 1: very close to sister Kathy's apartment, and that Christmas, Ed
Speaker 1: gives his wife a necklace. It has a wedding bell
Speaker 1: pendant with a greenstone that looks like paradot, which would
Speaker 1: have been an August birthstone. I think the idea is
Speaker 1: that this might have been the gift that Kathy bought
Speaker 1: her sister. So perhaps Kathy bought her sister a necklace
Speaker 1: with the burthstone of her sister's fiance in it. What
Speaker 1: do you think so far? Covered in blood?
Speaker 2: I mean, good lord, this is a dime a dozen
Speaker 2: type of suspect that we see in these who don't
Speaker 2: homicides all the time. I can't say if this Davidson
Speaker 2: is responsible or not, but so far, this type of
Speaker 2: circumstantial evidence is weak. You know, it's it's there's something there,
Speaker 2: but it all could just be coincidence, you know, and
Speaker 2: covered in blood. Yeah, we will get these types of suspects,
Speaker 2: and there are things like this that happens, you know.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't know if Davidson's boss would still
Speaker 2: be alive, you know, to be able to verify. Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: we got into a fight and I was bleeding like crazy.
Speaker 2: Seems like, you know, law enforcement may have been called
Speaker 2: to something like that.
Speaker 3: So I don't know.
Speaker 2: You know, right now, I'm not blown away with the
Speaker 2: evidence that you've presented right now on Davidson.
Speaker 1: You know, the filmmakers interview him, and he said, listen,
Speaker 1: like I was kind of pulling my wife's leg on this.
Speaker 1: I did not kill this woman. I actually you know,
Speaker 1: I hurt my hand. That's why there was blood all
Speaker 1: over my shirt. Yeah, I kind of led her to
Speaker 1: believe I did something, but I didn't do anything, and
Speaker 1: that was that I made it up, you know, in general,
Speaker 1: so it doesn't really go anywhere. There is another person though,
Speaker 1: who's interesting unless you want to do you have a
Speaker 1: comment on that.
Speaker 2: I was just going to, you know, because this is
Speaker 2: what happened. Sometimes, you know, we get the street chatter
Speaker 2: where you do have guys, believe it or not. Guys
Speaker 2: will pretend that they were, you know, involved in some
Speaker 2: homicide because it gives them street credibility or some level
Speaker 2: of credibility with whoever they're wanting to impress by being
Speaker 2: capable of committing these horrific crimes. Just that's part of
Speaker 2: the reason why law enforcement has holdbacks, right, details that
Speaker 2: don't get made public because you get these nut jobs
Speaker 2: that are willing to whether they come into law enforcement
Speaker 2: confess or they just start. They're at a bar and
Speaker 2: they're trying to impress their their bar buddies. That hey,
Speaker 2: I killed her, you know, and believe it or not,
Speaker 2: they feel that they're impressing somebody by, you know, making
Speaker 2: that type of statement. They have nothing to do with
Speaker 2: the crime.
Speaker 1: Well, I have another suspect. This actually seems a little
Speaker 1: more credible to me. So there is a woman named
Speaker 1: Barbara Schmidt. So Barbara Schmidt is telling this story about
Speaker 1: her husband. He has a drinking problem that comes out
Speaker 1: of nowhere in the seventies, and one day her husband
Speaker 1: says to her it's because he and his brother Billy,
Speaker 1: killed a woman behind the shop, meaning behind the family's business.
Speaker 1: So we're talking about this guy, Billy Schmidt, and it
Speaker 1: sounds like this woman is saying that her husband helped
Speaker 1: his brother dispose sister Kathy's body. But she also says
Speaker 1: that one night, she's not saying specifically November seventh, he
Speaker 1: came home covered in blood and said he had been
Speaker 1: in a bar fight. But he doesn't look like he's
Speaker 1: gotten hurt at all, like at somebody else's blood. Now
Speaker 1: here's the weird stuff. Billy, the guy that we're talking about,
Speaker 1: was sister Kathy's neighbor. He lived right across the.
Speaker 3: Hall from her in the apartment complex.
Speaker 1: In the apartment complex. And here's something else that was
Speaker 1: really weird. The small dump where her body had been
Speaker 1: found is behind the Schmidt family business and very close
Speaker 1: to Billy's house where he and his brother grew up.
Speaker 2: Okay, so Billy has two anchor points. I'm kind of
Speaker 2: throwing out a geographic profile term. An anchor point is,
Speaker 2: you know, a location within a person's normal living pattern,
Speaker 2: such as a residence, such as a place of work,
Speaker 2: a hangout spot like the bar you know that they
Speaker 2: go to. Billy has two anchor points instead, are significant
Speaker 2: in the case the last location where Kathy was seen alive,
Speaker 2: sitting in the parking lot of the apartment complex that
Speaker 2: Billy and Kathy share.
Speaker 3: As well as the.
Speaker 2: Body dump location of Kathy's body, which is behind the
Speaker 2: Schmidt shop. So this is where now Billy has the
Speaker 2: local familiarity that you know, authorities are saying somebody must
Speaker 2: have had in order to have dumped Kathy's body there.
Speaker 2: So that checks a couple of boxes for me. The
Speaker 2: circumstances of the crime itself is Kathy never makes it
Speaker 2: back into her apartment, so she's contacted either in her car,
Speaker 2: getting out of her car or en route from her
Speaker 2: car into the apartment and her car was taken to
Speaker 2: a secondary location, which I'm going to assume is the
Speaker 2: dump site that night, and that the vegetation and the
Speaker 2: mud is probably from that dump site. I saw, you know,
Speaker 2: there was vegetation in terms of it looked like almost
Speaker 2: you know, little swaths of force that surrounded the vacant lot,
Speaker 2: if you will, where Kathy's body was, and it looked
Speaker 2: like her body was on the edge. And then Kathy's
Speaker 2: car is brought back after her body, after she's killed,
Speaker 2: and her body's dumped back to the apartment complex. So
Speaker 2: Billy living in that apartment complex, that checks a box
Speaker 2: there because he needs to get back home, and if
Speaker 2: he's taken off in Kathy's car, he's got to use
Speaker 2: Kathy's car to come back. So there's at least more
Speaker 2: of a nexus with Billy from the circumstances then with
Speaker 2: that Davidson. You know, that's where I'm evaluating these two
Speaker 2: individuals going, Yes, Billy is a stronger suspect from that perspective,
Speaker 2: but there needs to be more, of course, But he's
Speaker 2: he's more interesting to me than Davidson, you know, And
Speaker 2: this is just well, how if let's say Billy's the
Speaker 2: one responsible for Kathy's homicide, then how is Gene's statement
Speaker 2: with father Maskell? You know, how does that fit in?
Speaker 2: From my perspective? If I were to be starting to
Speaker 2: dig into this case, you know, one of the earliest
Speaker 2: things I would be doing would be truly assessing gene statement.
Speaker 2: And if she's still alive, reinterviewing her, I need to
Speaker 2: be confident that what she is remembering is spot on
Speaker 2: with what somebody would have observed of Kathy's body out
Speaker 2: at that location.
Speaker 1: Well, let me wrap up Billy real quick. So Barbara,
Speaker 1: the woman who called this in, says that Billy's mental
Speaker 1: health deteriorated after Kathy's murder. He talked about the case
Speaker 1: all the time. He was obsessed with nuns. She says,
Speaker 1: he kept a nun's habit in his attic and sometimes
Speaker 1: talked about it like it was a real person, like
Speaker 1: it was haunting him. And he died by suicide a
Speaker 1: few years later after this happened.
Speaker 3: So he's been dead for a long time.
Speaker 1: He's been dead for a long time. There were cigarette
Speaker 1: butts found near Kathy's body, and they were Salem's which
Speaker 1: is Billy's brand. But you know, I'm sure you could
Speaker 1: throw a rock in Maryland and hits somebody who smoked Salem's.
Speaker 1: But just to transition into DNA stuff, they did take
Speaker 1: a DNA sample. Right before The Keepers aired on Netflix,
Speaker 1: they exhumed Joseph Maskell's body. They took a DNA sample
Speaker 1: to compare it against DNA that was recovered from those
Speaker 1: cigarette butts found near sister Kathy's body. We have no idea,
Speaker 1: I know, that's what you are grimacing. We have no
Speaker 1: idea who's those are. And of course this DNA doesn't
Speaker 1: match the cigarette butts, and I'm sure they didn't decades later.
Speaker 1: They didn't compare DNA to this guy, to Billy Schmidt.
Speaker 1: But the DNA butts are kind of the thing that
Speaker 1: they have. It sounds like, yeah, this is where you.
Speaker 2: Know, assessing the evidence that the DNA's coming off of
Speaker 2: it is is it's not just an all or nothing.
Speaker 2: So most certainly, let's say Mascal's DNA is found on
Speaker 2: those cigarette butts, that is compelling because what is his
Speaker 2: association with that location?
Speaker 3: You know, So that's.
Speaker 2: Significant, even though it might be very tough to say, yeah,
Speaker 2: the killer is the one that's responsible for smoking those
Speaker 2: cigarette butts. Now with Billy Schmidt, it's right behind his
Speaker 2: family business. Yeah, if it is his DNA on those
Speaker 2: cigarette butts, the evidence against him is is weaker because
Speaker 2: he has an association with that location, so that you
Speaker 2: always have to interpret, you know, that the DNA evidence
Speaker 2: or any physical evidence within the context of the case
Speaker 2: and within the context of the suspects and the victims,
Speaker 2: et cetera. So you know, my hope would be is
Speaker 2: that they like exhooming Joyce's body or going after maybe
Speaker 2: Kathy's clothing, that they find foreign DNA from the victims
Speaker 2: themselves or the victims personal items that are found at
Speaker 2: the homicide location or the crime scene, and that becomes
Speaker 2: more compelling because now you're getting into that intimate contact
Speaker 2: between the offender and the victim, and it's harder to
Speaker 2: come up with with either of these suspects, you know,
Speaker 2: innocent explanation for their DNA being on you know, the particularly.
Speaker 3: If it's if it turns out it's let's say, semen.
Speaker 1: Right, well, you know everything I read was from December
Speaker 1: of last year, and it doesn't I don't see results back.
Speaker 1: So they exhumed her body in December of twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: Is that a reasonable amount of time? Is that bad
Speaker 1: news if we haven't heard anything, you know, in ten
Speaker 1: months or however long.
Speaker 3: No, not at all. You know, this is okay, you know,
Speaker 3: with a case that's old.
Speaker 2: If let's say they're submitting that to this is the
Speaker 2: FBI that exhumed the body from Joyce with Joyce, So
Speaker 2: if they're submitting that to FBI lab, it's going to
Speaker 2: take a while. I mean, this is a you know,
Speaker 2: federal level lab with you know, agencies from across the
Speaker 2: nation sending them evidence. Backlog is is extraordinary, So this
Speaker 2: case isn't going to have priority relative to maybe other
Speaker 2: cases that are more active. So no, that doesn't surprise
Speaker 2: me at all. So hopefully, you know, fingers crossed is
Speaker 2: that they did have success and maybe Joyce's case will
Speaker 2: have probative DNA evidence and with Kathy's case, I hope
Speaker 2: that they're able to go after whatever physical evidence still remains,
Speaker 2: you know there.
Speaker 1: To wrap up this section. You know, they're hopeful. There
Speaker 1: were in seventy and seventy one, two different sixteen year
Speaker 1: old girls in Maryland disappeared after last seen at shopping centers.
Speaker 1: One of those was solved. I mentioned it earlier, so
Speaker 1: you know they're trying for sure. While the allegations of
Speaker 1: abuse at Keel by Magnus and Mascal were credible, some
Speaker 1: people thought that the idea of sister Kathy being murdered
Speaker 1: because of them is more of a stretch than the
Speaker 1: idea that she was abducted and killed by a random person.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that. I think it's much more. I
Speaker 1: think it's much more likely that these two men people
Speaker 1: have killed for far less fears than being turned over
Speaker 1: for sexually abusing girls for years. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: understand why anybody wouldn't think that that's not a motive
Speaker 1: to murder somebody to keep them quiet about that.
Speaker 3: It's not a stretch at all.
Speaker 2: You know, I made the observation earlier that Kathy's homicide,
Speaker 2: you know, in the state of her clothing, you know,
Speaker 2: it's not merely an elimination homicide. I mean, there is
Speaker 2: a sexual component to her homicide, absent genes recovered memory
Speaker 2: or her memory of being taken out by Mascal to
Speaker 2: Kathy's body. If that statement didn't exist, then I would say,
Speaker 2: you know, what all possibilities are on the table. There's
Speaker 2: plenty of cases just like Kathy's across the nation. There's
Speaker 2: a case out of Iowa. I believe Jody wesen Throutt
Speaker 2: news anchor that you know, she looks like she was
Speaker 2: contacted by an offender out in the parking lot and
Speaker 2: has just disappeared. Those types of crimes do occur. You
Speaker 2: could have an active predator that's responsible for Kathy and
Speaker 2: Choices cases, or you have multiple predators, or because of
Speaker 2: Gene's statement, I put you know, I'm putting Mascal in play,
Speaker 2: and maybe associates of Mascal in play.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree. I mean bringing this right back to
Speaker 1: the original victim, Kathy. You know, her mom died in
Speaker 1: twenty ten not knowing what happened to her daughter, which
Speaker 1: I can't think of anything more upsetting. The family doesn't
Speaker 1: talk much about the murderer, certainly in the media over
Speaker 1: the years, but her sister Marilyn said that when their
Speaker 1: mom died, cleaning out the house and she found boxes
Speaker 1: and boxes of newspaper articles about the case on every
Speaker 1: single development, And I read that as sort of the
Speaker 1: last thing for us to talk about, because that really
Speaker 1: is what this comes down to. This was a woman
Speaker 1: who was very likely the closest confidante to many people,
Speaker 1: many of these girls, who seemed like she wanted to
Speaker 1: try to do something to help them, who was trying
Speaker 1: to protect them, and she ends up dead. And not
Speaker 1: only does she end up dead, but the real killer,
Speaker 1: the person who murdered her, gets away with it. And
Speaker 1: what a miscarriage of justice? Geez.
Speaker 2: You know, it's it's the ultimate frustration as an investigator.
Speaker 2: You know, when I've worked cases and have failed to
Speaker 2: close cases, which is many, many of these unsolved cases.
Speaker 2: And you know what, my biggest frustration is thinking that
Speaker 2: the killer is out there and they're living their life,
Speaker 2: and it's a life they don't deserve because they stole
Speaker 2: somebody else's life and all the life experiences that that person,
Speaker 2: the victim would have had, or what their family members
Speaker 2: would have had, et cetera. You know, so it is
Speaker 2: that's a hard thing to live with. Families don't get
Speaker 2: the answer, and justice isn't served and the killer gets
Speaker 2: away with it, and it just, I know, it eats
Speaker 2: at me.
Speaker 1: I teach a class at UT that's sort of an
Speaker 1: ethics in true crime podcasting class essentially what to look
Speaker 1: for when you're listening or watching true crime, what's ethical,
Speaker 1: what's not. I will say I think The Keepers is
Speaker 1: one of the best. And I know you don't like
Speaker 1: watching true crime stuff. You don't have enough room in
Speaker 1: your pretty little head for the current case is in
Speaker 1: barely enough room for what I'm telling you, let alone
Speaker 1: watching some case you have no involvement with. But I
Speaker 1: think that there are certainly podcasts, definitely shows out there
Speaker 1: that we should all support that are victim forward, that
Speaker 1: are not glamorizing in any way the Killer, and I
Speaker 1: think Keepers is one of them. Is It is a
Speaker 1: phenomenal show that has brought a lot of this to
Speaker 1: light that I had not heard of. You know, I
Speaker 1: really applaud them for that. So my goal between now
Speaker 1: and when I see you next week is to convince
Speaker 1: I've got to find something that's going to draw you
Speaker 1: in into kind of like the true crime world, where
Speaker 1: you're not having to solve something that you can just
Speaker 1: look at it and we can have a discussion about it.
Speaker 1: I guess Bury Bones.
Speaker 2: Should be enough for you, though, right just like here
Speaker 2: with Buried Bones, it's you know, I'm I'm wanting to
Speaker 2: solve you know, that's what I you know, that's why
Speaker 2: I got into the work. I got into Yeah, and
Speaker 2: sometimes you know, I can get frustrated watching some of
Speaker 2: the true crime stuff because I'm not given the information
Speaker 2: that I need to move forward with the case, you know,
Speaker 2: And I know that's part of it.
Speaker 1: I know. Sorry, Paul, I want to help. I want
Speaker 1: us to solve everything. But next week we'll have some
Speaker 1: fabulous case that you'll learn something about. It could be
Speaker 1: like how they made a krts and a horse and
Speaker 1: carts in the sixteen hundreds. It could be some wacky
Speaker 1: new way that they tested ballistics in the nineteen tens.
Speaker 1: Who knows what it'll be on something weird.
Speaker 3: I'm sure, Yeah, nope, I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 1: Okay, see you then, all right, Thanks Jig. This has
Speaker 1: been an exactly right production.
Speaker 2: For our sources and show notes go to exactly rightemedia
Speaker 2: dot com slash Buried Bones sources.
Speaker 1: Our senior producer is Alexis Emrosi.
Speaker 2: Research by Maren mcclashan, Ali Elkin, and Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 1: Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.
Speaker 3: Our theme song is by Tom Bryfogel.
Speaker 1: Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.
Speaker 2: Executive produced by Karen Kilgarriff, Georgia hart Stark and Daniel Kramer.
Speaker 1: You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at
Speaker 1: Buried Bones.
Speaker 2: Pod Kate's most recent book, All That Is Wicked, a
Speaker 2: Gilded Age story of murder and the race to decode
Speaker 2: the criminal mind, is available now, and
Speaker 1: Paul's best selling memoir Unmasked, My life solving America's cold Cases,
Speaker 1: is also available now