Speaker 1: Falling in love is the best feeling in the world.
Speaker 1: You see stars, you feel giddy, But sometimes that makes
Speaker 1: you do crazy things, and sometimes that means murder. Just
Speaker 1: because the story starts out with Once upon a Times
Speaker 1: doesn't mean it ends happily ever after. Welcome to Crazy
Speaker 1: and Love, a production of Katie Studios and I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Today's guests are producer Jeff Shane an investigative journalist Sue Buchanan.
Speaker 1: Sue spent many years working in Thailand and ended up
Speaker 1: writing the hip book The Curse of the Turtle, the
Speaker 1: true story of Thailand's backpacker murders. The book is about
Speaker 1: suspicious backpacker deaths that occurred on the island of Katao
Speaker 1: and is available now wherever you get your books. Sue
Speaker 1: can be found on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook at Sue Buchanan. Seventy,
Speaker 1: Episode thirty two, The Case of the Best Friends, the
Speaker 1: Cheat Husband, and the Lies That Bind. For anyone who
Speaker 1: knew thirty nine year old Brian Davis, the word that
Speaker 1: would come to mind was fun. Whether he was out
Speaker 1: on the lake fishing his biggest passion, or in the
Speaker 1: office working on selling insurance, Brian had a jovial and
Speaker 1: carefree attitude that was infectious. Friends and family said it
Speaker 1: was impossible not to have a good time when Brian
Speaker 1: was around, simply because he was that good natured. But
Speaker 1: fun wasn't Brian's only good quality. He was also an
Speaker 1: outgoing and intelligent man. He could strike up a conversation
Speaker 1: with just about anyone, and it didn't hurt that he
Speaker 1: seemed to know a little something about everyone. That intelligent
Speaker 1: confidence allowed Brian to meet his fair share of ladies,
Speaker 1: but one in particular caught his eye, a woman named
Speaker 1: Robin he met at work. Responsible and reserved, Robin didn't
Speaker 1: care for Brian's personality. Despite both being single parents who
Speaker 1: adored their kids, Robin didn't think they had anything in common.
Speaker 1: Frankly put, she found him annoying. So after three years
Speaker 1: of working together, Robin was surprised when Brian asked her out,
Speaker 1: and she was even more surprised at her response. Yes.
Speaker 1: Despite some trepidations, the two hit it off and were
Speaker 1: married within four years, living in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Here's
Speaker 1: Jeff So. While the story between Robin and Brian is
Speaker 1: certainly important to the case, the real relationship at the
Speaker 1: core of everything is actually between Robin and her best friend,
Speaker 1: a woman named Sissy Saltzman. The two had been friends
Speaker 1: for over twenty years and they did everything together. When
Speaker 1: they went to the beauty salon, they had a standing
Speaker 1: double appointment. They were both Southern women who were fiercely
Speaker 1: loyal to not only each other, but also the men
Speaker 1: in their lives. Robin explained their ship, It's the kind
Speaker 1: of friendship that all people should have, she said. It's
Speaker 1: the one person that you can call no matter what,
Speaker 1: and they're they're regardless. So do you know anything more
Speaker 1: about Robin and Brian's marriage, Well, I know that women
Speaker 1: needed to lean on each other when Robin had to
Speaker 1: deal with Brian, her husband. Despite Brian being a loving husband,
Speaker 1: he also had a wandering eye. Robin caught him cheating
Speaker 1: on her at least twice, and one of the affairs
Speaker 1: was with a woman named Fanny, and that one lasted
Speaker 1: for two years. According to Fanny, she and Brian loved
Speaker 1: each other, but it wasn't just Fanny. Brian was potatious
Speaker 1: with women everywhere he went. However, Robin gave him a pass.
Speaker 1: She decided to forgive him and move past it. So
Speaker 1: it sounds like while their marriage maybe worked, there were
Speaker 1: definitely some cracks. I think definitely. I mean, obviously he's um,
Speaker 1: he's a flirtatious guy. He's got a roving eye. And
Speaker 1: it's not just the eye that's roving. I mean he's
Speaker 1: acting on this and he's held down another relationship with
Speaker 1: this woman called Franny for for two years, So he's,
Speaker 1: you know, slightly devious, I would imagine, and I'm not
Speaker 1: quite sure how Robin could look past that and just
Speaker 1: suck it up. But it seems that, you know, there
Speaker 1: was enough in the relationship for her to decide to
Speaker 1: stay with him and stay low to him. Two years
Speaker 1: is not just a quick affair. That's a real relationship.
Speaker 1: I think if you're with someone for two years, you
Speaker 1: can't put that down to a mistake or one drunken
Speaker 1: night out where you've done something wrong. I mean explaining
Speaker 1: away how you've been, you know, having a double relationship
Speaker 1: for two years. It's not easy, is it. So I'm
Speaker 1: surprised Robin would would tolerate that. But then maybe she
Speaker 1: loved him, maybe she didn't want to be on her own,
Speaker 1: Maybe she was willing to get past that. Just so
Speaker 1: you know she didn't end up single, and by all accounts,
Speaker 1: she really leaned on her friends Sissy in good times
Speaker 1: and bad times. I think she had a really strong
Speaker 1: relationship with to See And obviously, you know, finding out
Speaker 1: your husband's cheating on you as devastating, so she would
Speaker 1: have needed her friend a lot for moral support for
Speaker 1: going out chewing over the fat discussing what her husband
Speaker 1: was doing, I mean, it has to be pretty devastating,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure her self esteem was very low, so
Speaker 1: I would imagine Cissy was the one that pepped her
Speaker 1: back up and gave it back her self worth. And
Speaker 1: it would be interesting to know if if Cissy had
Speaker 1: ever suggested that perhaps she was in the wrong relationship,
Speaker 1: if Robin should leave her husband. I mean, who knows.
Speaker 1: There were also kids involved in the relationship so well,
Speaker 1: So while we don't know for sure, it's possible that
Speaker 1: Robin felt like keeping her family together was more important
Speaker 1: than maybe happiness in her relationship. And I would imagine
Speaker 1: being a single mother again would be quite a daunting prospect.
Speaker 1: That maybe she was willing to not have a perfect
Speaker 1: relationship was better than going back to being a single mom.
Speaker 1: And remember this is the South. We obviously know that
Speaker 1: Robin really cared about her appearances. She went and got
Speaker 1: her hair and nails done every week, and so perhaps
Speaker 1: keeping up the appearance of this happy marriage was just
Speaker 1: more important to her than having a faithful marriage. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sure there was an element of pride and not
Speaker 1: wanting people to know that, you know, perhaps her relationship
Speaker 1: wasn't all that it seemed to be. I mean, you're
Speaker 1: not going to go around announcing that your husband's you know,
Speaker 1: regularly cheating on you, especially when one of the women
Speaker 1: he cheated with, Fanny, you know, said they were in
Speaker 1: love with each other. I mean, two years is a
Speaker 1: substantial amount of time to be dullying with somebody else.
Speaker 1: I mean there must have had, you know, some level
Speaker 1: of love for each other for it to last that long. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: why would why would he stick around? On June two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, Brian was about to fulfill a lifelong
Speaker 1: dream of buying a fishing boat. Ever, the supportive wife, Robin,
Speaker 1: joined her husband for a day of shopping, but after
Speaker 1: a few hours, Robin grew tired of looking at boat
Speaker 1: after boat, so around three thirty pm, Robin said that
Speaker 1: Brian dropped her off at home. He then switched cars
Speaker 1: and took off in his under accord it would be
Speaker 1: the last time Robin would ever see her husband alive.
Speaker 1: At ten PM, when Brian hadn't returned home, Robin called
Speaker 1: nine one. Police told her she had to wait twenty
Speaker 1: four hours to file a missing person's report. For two days,
Speaker 1: friends and family were panicked about Brian's whereabouts. It wasn't
Speaker 1: like the father of four to just up and leaf.
Speaker 1: Two days after disappearing, a man found Brian's body on
Speaker 1: wagon wheel drive, a small dirt road that is miles
Speaker 1: from Brian's house and near the expanse of Marshland in
Speaker 1: the region. Brian's body had been laying close to a
Speaker 1: swamp for at least two days in the southern summer heat,
Speaker 1: so there was a fair amount of decomposition. However, the
Speaker 1: coroner determined Brian had been shot four times in the back.
Speaker 1: Gunshell casings were also strewn around the area. Police studied
Speaker 1: the entire crime scene and made some interesting findings. Despite
Speaker 1: Brian's car being jacked up as if there were a
Speaker 1: flat tire, the tire itself was in working condition and
Speaker 1: wouldn't have required changing. Someone had also taken Brian's cell phone, wallet, laptop, gun,
Speaker 1: and GPS device, but detectives didn't think this was a robbery.
Speaker 1: Brian was still wearing his ring and watch. Police surmise
Speaker 1: that if someone were trying to rob the man, they
Speaker 1: would have taken all the valuables. But the most mysterious
Speaker 1: thing about the scene was the fact that Brian's shoes
Speaker 1: were off and his belt undone. One thing was clear.
Speaker 1: This case was not cut and dry here, Sue. Well,
Speaker 1: we know that Robin told the cops that she was
Speaker 1: really worried about Brian after he failed to come home,
Speaker 1: and she told the police she'd called him quite a
Speaker 1: few times and she'd left multiple voice messages before she
Speaker 1: eventually called nine one one. She was obviously really concerned
Speaker 1: about his whereabouts. But while all that seems like the
Speaker 1: right thing to do, Robin struck a nerve with Brian's
Speaker 1: family because she never called them so he was missing.
Speaker 1: Brian went missing on Monday, and his family didn't find
Speaker 1: out until Wednesday, and that was only when Brian's ex
Speaker 1: wife called his sister to ask her if she could
Speaker 1: help search for him. The sister was furious. She called
Speaker 1: Robin and Robin told her don't freak out, she could
Speaker 1: handle it, and as we know, later on that day
Speaker 1: Brian's body was found. Well, it seems like Robin had
Speaker 1: her own way of dealing with it. The police were
Speaker 1: hard at work trying to figure out what happened to Brian.
Speaker 1: Nine days after finding his body, the police brought in
Speaker 1: Robin's best friend, Sissy, for questioning. She was very close
Speaker 1: with the deceased and his wife, so it stood to
Speaker 1: reason she would have some information. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to some of her interview. The night before Sunday night,
Speaker 1: when I went to get in my car, it would start,
Speaker 1: so I just too his car home because he was
Speaker 1: taking her truck to work. Sissy told the cops that
Speaker 1: the last time she saw Brian was the day before
Speaker 1: the murder. What she said was that she borrowed his
Speaker 1: car because she was having trouble with hers. Cissy said
Speaker 1: that she dropped it back at his house the morning
Speaker 1: Brian disappeared. Where did she spend the day, cops asked.
Speaker 1: Sissy said that she had been harm between eleven am
Speaker 1: and three thirty pm, waiting for Robin to pick her up.
Speaker 1: Take a listen to her explaining her schedule to the police,
Speaker 1: didn't you anywhere come back? In all of the missing
Speaker 1: people's cases I've covered or even watched on documentaries, suspicion
Speaker 1: always goes to immediate family, normally partners. Do you have
Speaker 1: to wonder what family's husband was doing around this time.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's unusual to to bring people into questioning,
Speaker 1: you know, the wife, the friend of the wife, close family.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's where you're going to get all your
Speaker 1: information from. But I do find it strange that Robin
Speaker 1: didn't bother to tell his family he not shown up
Speaker 1: that night. You know, if someone was missing from my life,
Speaker 1: the first thing I do is call around and see
Speaker 1: if they'd seen him. That is weird. We know she
Speaker 1: was concerned enough that she said she called him multiple times,
Speaker 1: so you would sort of think, like you said, that
Speaker 1: she would also call his family and ask if he's there,
Speaker 1: Questions like have you seen him? Have you heard of
Speaker 1: her m Those are all things that the family might
Speaker 1: not Yeah, of course, because potentially if he's not at home,
Speaker 1: then maybe he's called rand to see his family. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe his mother fell ill, maybe he suddenly had to
Speaker 1: divert to the family home, so that would seem to
Speaker 1: me to be a logical place to start looking. But
Speaker 1: apparently she didn't make that call. And to play devil's advocate,
Speaker 1: we don't necessarily know her relationship with his family, and
Speaker 1: so maybe it wasn't the kind of relationship that she
Speaker 1: would even call in kind of a scary time. To me,
Speaker 1: it does seem weird, but again, we don't know the
Speaker 1: dynamics of this family. Even if I didn't get on
Speaker 1: with my in laws, I still want to knock off
Speaker 1: list of potential places he could be. But yeah, you're right,
Speaker 1: maybe they didn't have a good relationship. We don't know that,
Speaker 1: so difficult to stay, but certainly not unusual for the
Speaker 1: place to bring in, you know, close friends and family
Speaker 1: in this kind of investigation. In my experience, I'll just
Speaker 1: find interesting that his ex wife knew he was missing
Speaker 1: before his immediate family. As police looked at the people
Speaker 1: in good natured Brian's life, they wondered who would want
Speaker 1: him dead. It seemed that one person might have motive,
Speaker 1: the husband of Brian's long term mistress, a man named
Speaker 1: Shane Deets. Here's what we know about Shane. He had
Speaker 1: been married to Fanny who was having that two year
Speaker 1: affair with Brian. Fanny, the mistress, had allegedly told her
Speaker 1: husband Shane about the affair just two months before Brian
Speaker 1: was found dead. Getting back at the man who was
Speaker 1: sleeping with your wife would certainly be a good enough
Speaker 1: reason to kill So what else do we know about
Speaker 1: the relationship between Fanny and Brian. So we know that
Speaker 1: Fanny gave emails to the police between her and Brian,
Speaker 1: and in those emails, Fanny and Brian often talked about
Speaker 1: Brian's interest in public sex. And remember when he was
Speaker 1: found his belt and shoes were off. Could he have
Speaker 1: been out on wagon wheel road to meet Fanny for
Speaker 1: a trust? Not so fast. People who knew Brian said
Speaker 1: he was obsessed with his car and wouldn't have taken
Speaker 1: it down such a dirty and bumpy roade for nothing.
Speaker 1: In fact, Fanny said that even if he had flies
Speaker 1: on his windshield, he immediately got the car washed. But
Speaker 1: perhaps he was lured there by Shane and the false
Speaker 1: presentses about an open air rendezvous with Fanny. It turned
Speaker 1: out that, despite seemingly having a pretty good motive to
Speaker 1: kill him, the cops never even called Shane before questioning him.
Speaker 1: The police called his place of work instead, and his
Speaker 1: boss said that Shane had clocked in the day Brian disappeared.
Speaker 1: That was good enough for detectives to dismiss him as
Speaker 1: a suspect. It just seems weird because we don't actually
Speaker 1: know when Brian was killed, just the day that he disappeared.
Speaker 1: But in any case, Shane was never an official suspect.
Speaker 1: Let's clarify that, because we know that Brian was last
Speaker 1: seen sometime in the afternoon, either at the boat shop
Speaker 1: or dropping his wife off, and as far as our
Speaker 1: research could tell, we actually don't know a time of
Speaker 1: death because if you look at the decomposite Shan, Brian
Speaker 1: wasn't completely decomposed when the cops found him. And having
Speaker 1: covered a fair amount of these true crime cases, we
Speaker 1: know that a body can decompose in the summer quickly,
Speaker 1: and in Louisiana this time of year, Brian could have
Speaker 1: been decomposed very quickly. So I think, you know, there's
Speaker 1: very little evidence here in terms of time of death
Speaker 1: and the whereabouts the potential suspect. We're going to take
Speaker 1: a break, we'll be back in just a moment. I
Speaker 1: just can't believe that cops would not even call Shane
Speaker 1: because at the very least he would have information about
Speaker 1: the case. What if Fanny had been the killer, Shane
Speaker 1: could have at least provided some sort of insight into
Speaker 1: Brian's frame of mind or the relationship between Fanny and Brian.
Speaker 1: And it did say that, you know, Fanny and Brian
Speaker 1: have been having an affair for two years, but it
Speaker 1: seems like it possibly could have come to an end.
Speaker 1: And if she was really upset that he was going
Speaker 1: to stay with his wife when perhaps previously she thought
Speaker 1: she'd end up together with him, then that that gives
Speaker 1: someone else a motive. And you know, as anyone checking
Speaker 1: for a DNA, is anyone checking for firearms or anything
Speaker 1: in Fanny's car or Shane's car? I mean, why aren't
Speaker 1: these people being adequately investigated? That's a very good question.
Speaker 1: I mean, did Fanny have a gun? You know, did
Speaker 1: she go to the shooting range, did she have a
Speaker 1: temper as she got, any history of previous criminal activity?
Speaker 1: And the same goes for Shane. So you have two
Speaker 1: people here with a potential motive, and yet they've really
Speaker 1: not been investigated at all. What do we know about
Speaker 1: Shane's history. You know, has he got any criminal record,
Speaker 1: has he been involved in anything like this before, has
Speaker 1: he got a temper? I mean, who is this guy?
Speaker 1: We know so little about him, and so in your
Speaker 1: experience covering criminal cases, do you think that the police should,
Speaker 1: in their due diligence look at every single suspect thoroughly.
Speaker 1: From the information got here, I would say the police
Speaker 1: have shown no due diligence and it was a really
Speaker 1: shodly investigated case. I mean, you know, you've got a
Speaker 1: couple of potential suspect, you've not even been questioned, and
Speaker 1: they're just taking Shane's boss's word for it that he
Speaker 1: clocked in. Where's the proof he clocked in? You know,
Speaker 1: and we don't even know if that day was the
Speaker 1: day that Brian died anyway, so you know, they should
Speaker 1: be checking his whereabouts for you know, at least forty
Speaker 1: eight hours from him going missing to his body being found.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't seem like a very tight investigation to me.
Speaker 1: In fact, it seems that, you know, quite the opposite.
Speaker 1: It really just seems that there's no true diligence going
Speaker 1: on here. I wouldn't trust this police force as Shane
Speaker 1: was cleared of the crime, police turn their attention back
Speaker 1: to the two best friends who seemed to have a
Speaker 1: lot to hide. While Robin told the police she had
Speaker 1: called Brian numerous times when he failed to come home
Speaker 1: from boat shopping, her phone records proved otherwise. As it
Speaker 1: turns out Robin never called Brian. It wouldn't be the
Speaker 1: last lie the besties would allegedly tell. Sissy had told
Speaker 1: officials she had been home the day Brian disappeared. The
Speaker 1: police looked to sell tower records to see if this
Speaker 1: was true. It was not. Starting at one thirty pm,
Speaker 1: Sissy's phone picked off a tower that was eleven miles
Speaker 1: from her home. It also happened to be the closest
Speaker 1: tower to the crime scene. This means she made a
Speaker 1: call near the scene of the crime. According to cell
Speaker 1: tower experts, there was no way Sissy's cell phone would
Speaker 1: have picked from that tower if in fact, she had
Speaker 1: been home. The police's theory was that Brian never actually
Speaker 1: went home and switched cars like Robin had said, and
Speaker 1: that Sissy had never returned the car after borrowing it
Speaker 1: like she had said. The police thought that Sissy called
Speaker 1: Brian from wagon will drive, pretending to have a flat tire,
Speaker 1: and when Brian and Robin arrived, one or both of
Speaker 1: the woman shot him. Robin stood to gain more than
Speaker 1: six hundred thousand dollars and insurance out She did, in fact,
Speaker 1: attempt to cash in on that policy just two weeks
Speaker 1: after her husband's death. She had recently lost her job
Speaker 1: and had racked up considerable gambling debts, and the couple
Speaker 1: were on the verge of losing their home. So so
Speaker 1: why would Saysie also be involved? Well, that would be
Speaker 1: sheer loyalty to her best friend. I guess so often
Speaker 1: we see in these cases that money becomes the motivation,
Speaker 1: or at least what the police think is the motivation,
Speaker 1: to commit murder. I'd agree with that, but I also
Speaker 1: think that if I was about to lose my home
Speaker 1: and I had gambling debts and he had life insurance policy,
Speaker 1: I would be thinking of making myself financially secure anyway.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, that's what life insurance policies are born.
Speaker 1: So if one of you dies, the other one doesn't
Speaker 1: you know, land in the suit. So although I think
Speaker 1: it's a motive, I don't think it's that unusual. And
Speaker 1: I also think if I had killed my husband, I
Speaker 1: would be waiting more than two weeks before I cashed
Speaker 1: that in because they're looking too obvious. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's either not a very well thought out plan. But
Speaker 1: then on the other hand, it could be a smoke
Speaker 1: screen because she could say, well, you know, if I
Speaker 1: killed him, why would I be claiming on the insurance
Speaker 1: two weeks later? So there's different ways of looking at it.
Speaker 1: That's a very interesting point. If he had died of
Speaker 1: a heart attack, no one would bet an eyelash that
Speaker 1: she waited two weeks to collect the money. In fact,
Speaker 1: that would probably seem like a long time. So if
Speaker 1: she didn't actually kill him, the two week timeline doesn't
Speaker 1: really mean anything. No, I wouldn't have thought so. I mean,
Speaker 1: we know she'd lost her job, so you know, it
Speaker 1: seems quite radical to kill your husband to get money
Speaker 1: just because you've lost your job. Then he was also
Speaker 1: having affairs. If he died of natural causes, then you know,
Speaker 1: waiting a fortnight before trying to make yourself financially is
Speaker 1: actually quite a long time. Also, the fact that they
Speaker 1: sold insurance, I think speaks to this two week timeline.
Speaker 1: It's her job to know the system. So she knows
Speaker 1: very well that when someone dies you have to file
Speaker 1: to claim the money. And when you've lost someone you love,
Speaker 1: I mean six days is not going to bring him back,
Speaker 1: but it takes this thing out of it when you're
Speaker 1: not struggling for money. So and don't forget, you know,
Speaker 1: she's got his kids and her kids. She's got six
Speaker 1: kids now between them. Of course she's going to want
Speaker 1: some money. Six months after Brian was found dead, Robbin
Speaker 1: and Cissy were charged with murder. Internally, the police were
Speaker 1: referring to the investigation as the Felmer and Louise case.
Speaker 1: The two women would stay on trial as they did
Speaker 1: everything else together. We know that. The May two thousand
Speaker 1: and twelve trial, the defense talked about the lack of
Speaker 1: physical evidence. I mean, we've got no fingerprints here, we've
Speaker 1: got no DNA, And they also pointed to the fact
Speaker 1: that a local bar had a surveillance camera on the
Speaker 1: road and that would have easily proved if Robin and
Speaker 1: Cissy were guilty because the CCTV would have picked them
Speaker 1: up driving down that road. But amazingly, the cops actually
Speaker 1: lost the take. The defense went on to say the
Speaker 1: cops were incompetent to their theories just could not be trusted.
Speaker 1: And they also showed surveillance of Robin the morning of
Speaker 1: the murder shopping for a boat with Brian, and she
Speaker 1: could be seen wearing white capri pants and really flimsy
Speaker 1: flip flop sandals. No one, they argued he was planning
Speaker 1: on murdering their husband in a marsh would be wearing
Speaker 1: such an impractical life bit. The defense also performed tests
Speaker 1: with the cell phone towers that found when a tower
Speaker 1: becomes overloaded with calls, they get bounced to other towers,
Speaker 1: meaning Sissy might have been telling the truth. However, unfortunately
Speaker 1: for the defense, that test was ruled an admissible in court.
Speaker 1: So I want to go back to what the defense
Speaker 1: was saying about the outfit, because I think it's pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: They argued that Robin, who allegedly was the murderer, would
Speaker 1: not have worn white pants and sandals to go kill
Speaker 1: her husband. Basically, it's just an impractical outfit to do
Speaker 1: such a strenuous and potentially dirty activity. I mean, from
Speaker 1: my point of view and from my investigations, I mean
Speaker 1: there's a couple of points raised here. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: she was wearing that at the time. But if she
Speaker 1: premeditated this murder and she's been dropped off at home,
Speaker 1: was to say she hasn't got changed, And then you've
Speaker 1: got to decide was it premeditated or not. You know,
Speaker 1: if she just decided to kill her husband and hadn't
Speaker 1: pre planned it, you know, she's hardly going to be
Speaker 1: worried about what she's wearing. So you've got the idea
Speaker 1: here of premeditation or not premeditated, So you have to
Speaker 1: look into that. And also I'd be interested to know
Speaker 1: if she had ever shot a gun, you know, did
Speaker 1: she have a gun, did she know how to shoot
Speaker 1: a gun? And she got any experience with firearms? And
Speaker 1: she'd go to a shooting club, but she's been shooting
Speaker 1: with her husband and also Sissy, you know, did Cy
Speaker 1: have any experience with firearms. There's no information to say,
Speaker 1: you know, whether these women would even know how to
Speaker 1: handle a firearm. I know my mother certainly wouldn't. She's
Speaker 1: never touched one, so that's something else. I think it
Speaker 1: is quite interesting. But I think the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: the telling surveillance camera from that bar, that the fact
Speaker 1: that police lost it, did they not watch it. First,
Speaker 1: where's the evidence in court about what was on that tape?
Speaker 1: Even without the footage? You know, if someone has seen it,
Speaker 1: then that's another witness. That's a really good point. We
Speaker 1: don't know the answer to that. I would imagine if
Speaker 1: it had been good for the prosecution, someone would have
Speaker 1: come forward and said, oh, I saw that tape. I mean,
Speaker 1: how ad you lose the evidence like that? And like,
Speaker 1: you know, I can't deny the defense are right really
Speaker 1: when they when they suggested the cups are incompetent, but
Speaker 1: losing one piece of valuable evidence that would pinpoint who
Speaker 1: was at the steam Let's stop here for another break.
Speaker 1: The other thing I've been interested in is m if
Speaker 1: this theory that you know he wasn't in his car,
Speaker 1: they hadn't switched cars, and you know he'd gone down
Speaker 1: in in Robin's car, then why aren't we testing the
Speaker 1: other car? Steve it had been down there? Look, you know,
Speaker 1: why aren't we checking the tires while aren't we checking
Speaker 1: you know, marsh soil would attach itself to the underside
Speaker 1: of a car. You know, why aren't they scraping to
Speaker 1: to do soil matches to find out where the cars
Speaker 1: have been or at least where Robin's car has been.
Speaker 1: That's another great point. It just seems like a really
Speaker 1: ineffective investigation to me. I mean, there's just so many
Speaker 1: points that haven't been covered, or at least if they have,
Speaker 1: we don't know about it. What about muddy footprints in
Speaker 1: the footwell, you know, if Robin's been down there and
Speaker 1: shot her husband in this marshy land, you know, and
Speaker 1: she and she's got away in her car, why aren't
Speaker 1: we checking the footwell of her car? Why aren't we
Speaker 1: checking her shoes? Why aren't we checking her clothes to
Speaker 1: see if there's any splatterings of this marsh? You know,
Speaker 1: there's there's really not much going on here in terms
Speaker 1: of pinpointing where she might have been. After both the
Speaker 1: prosecution and defense rested, Robin and Sissy remained pointedly emotionless
Speaker 1: as the jury deliberated for three hours. By a vote
Speaker 1: of eleven to one, the women were both found guilty.
Speaker 1: So you might be wondering how this was possible. As
Speaker 1: you might know, in nearly every state in America in
Speaker 1: eleven to one jury split with Cosmos trial. But Louisiana
Speaker 1: actually has a lab that only ten jurors voting guilty
Speaker 1: are needed for a murder conviction, not a unanimous decision.
Speaker 1: Like most states, people who supported Robin and Cissy called
Speaker 1: into question the ethics of this law. So it seems
Speaker 1: like up until the very end, there's just some things
Speaker 1: here that did not go right, from the police losing
Speaker 1: the tape to focusing so much on Robin from the
Speaker 1: beginning to now this law that allows a jury to
Speaker 1: convict the pair without a unanimous decision. Through it all,
Speaker 1: I just don't know if Robin and Cissy got a
Speaker 1: fair shake. It doesn't sound to me like they had
Speaker 1: a fair trial. But then you know, we have one
Speaker 1: juror that was completely convinced that women didn't do it,
Speaker 1: but the others were, So you know, what were they
Speaker 1: basing that decision on, Because from what I understand about
Speaker 1: the case, I wouldn't be finding them guilty. I think
Speaker 1: it was a completely inadequate investigation, and they presented very
Speaker 1: little in the way of evidence, and you know, there
Speaker 1: was no physical evidence. Where's the murder weapon and where
Speaker 1: are the belongings that were sing? And you know, why
Speaker 1: would you rob your own husband but leave you know,
Speaker 1: his watches if you're going to try and make it
Speaker 1: like a robbery. Then that was kind of bungled too.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'd be interested to know what it was
Speaker 1: that these this jury found so compelling that they convicted them.
Speaker 1: And had this trial had been in any other state,
Speaker 1: this would have been a mistrial and they would have
Speaker 1: walked away. As the judge sentenced the women to life
Speaker 1: in prison without a chance of parole. The pair held hands. Today,
Speaker 1: Robin and Sissy are both serving their sentences in the
Speaker 1: same prison and claim they are closer than ever again.
Speaker 1: You can find Suzanne Buchanan on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook
Speaker 1: at Soue Buchanan seven zero. Her book, The Curse of
Speaker 1: the Turtle from Wild Blue Press is available now wherever
Speaker 1: you get your books. Yeah. The only thing I'd like
Speaker 1: to say about, you know, been the author of the
Speaker 1: Curse of the Turtle, which is the true story of
Speaker 1: Thailand's backpack and murders, is that you know, I've also
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time investigating cases where there's massive
Speaker 1: amount of evidence missing um and where the more questions
Speaker 1: you ask, the more questions you have, and where police
Speaker 1: investigations have been pretty shoddy, and where families have walked away,
Speaker 1: you know, very unsatisfied with what's happened because nothing adds up.
Speaker 1: And this case is incredibly interesting to me because it's
Speaker 1: very similar to all of the cases that I've investigated
Speaker 1: in Kotao on Thailand. So, you know, I really feel
Speaker 1: for these kinds of stories because I've spent seven and
Speaker 1: a half years investigating crimes, despicious death, evidence that doesn't
Speaker 1: add up, you know, theories that just don't make any
Speaker 1: sense whichever way you look at it. And as a journalist,
Speaker 1: I've always said, if you can't figure out a story,
Speaker 1: it's because you've got the wrong information or you don't
Speaker 1: have all of the information, and that certainly seems to
Speaker 1: be the case with this police investigation, because you know,
Speaker 1: whichever way you wrap it up, it still doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: Shameless plug. If you're enjoying Crazy and Love, leave us
Speaker 1: a review and listen to season three of our hit
Speaker 1: series The Piked and Massacre. New episodes there every Wednesday
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts, and don't forget to follow
Speaker 1: us on Instagram at Katie Underscore Studios. Crazy in Love
Speaker 1: is produced by Stephanie Lydecker, Jeff Shane, Chris Grieves, and
Speaker 1: me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound designed by Jeff Ta.
Speaker 1: Crazy in Love is a production of I heart Radio
Speaker 1: and Katie Studios. For more podcasts from I heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows. Stay safe, lovers,