I'm Kate Winkler Dawson.

I'm Kate Winkler Dawson.

I'm a journalist who's spent the last twenty five years writing about true crime.

I'm a journalist who's spent the last twenty five years writing about true crime.

And I'm Paul Hols, a retired cold case investigator who's worked some of America's most complicated cases and solve them.

And I'm Paul Hols, a retired cold case investigator who's worked some of America's most complicated cases and solve them.

Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most compelling true crimes.

Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most compelling true crimes.

And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring new insights to old mysteries.

And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring new insights to old mysteries.

Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime cases through a twenty first century lens.

Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime cases through a twenty first century lens.

Some are solved and some are cold, very cold.

Some are solved and some are cold, very cold.

This is buried Bones.

This is buried Bones.

Hey Paul, Hey Kate, how are you?

Hey Paul, Hey Kate, how are you?

I'm fine because I know everything about this story, and you don't know anything about this story, and I know you've been thinking about it, haven't you.

I'm fine because I know everything about this story, and you don't know anything about this story, and I know you've been thinking about it, haven't you.

Well, yeah, well it's so unusual because walking down this John an Evelyn relationship and John ends up dead and partially dismembered, and you're thinking, Okay, you know they took care of a problem. But then you tell me there's another body in a suitcase in Evelyn's residence, And now I'm I'm extraordinarily curious as to where this is going to go.

Well, yeah, well it's so unusual because walking down this John an Evelyn relationship and John ends up dead and partially dismembered, and you're thinking, Okay, you know they took care of a problem. But then you tell me there's another body in a suitcase in Evelyn's residence, And now I'm I'm extraordinarily curious as to where this is going to go.

I will say this part of the story surprised me a little bit. So let me go back just in case people have forgotten the details of the story, which I cannot imagine you have, but you might have. So we are in Ontario, Canada. We are in Hamilton, which is a medium sized city. Nineteen forty six, mid March, Torso is found partially dressed, and it turns out to be a man named John Dick. He was a streetcar driver for a transportation agency in the city. He worked it sounds like near or with his father in law, whose name is Donald, and Donald's daughter is John's wife, and her name is Evelyn. Certainly they had different approaches to marriage because she admitted that she's been cheating on him before, during, and after marriage. That their marriage only lasted a few months. They had a quick romance, a quick engagement, a quick wedding, and then a quick ending. After three months, he moved out into his cousin's house and Evelyn took up with a young man a couple of years older than her, named Bill. And now the police want to know about everything that's happening in this house. She had a car, a packer that had blood in it. That was Type O, which was John's type. There are bone fragments and teeth pieces in ashes outside of their house. The police have now ascended the staircase to the attic and have found a suitcase that has a body in it. And that's where I left off with you, because we weren't sure before we get to that other body. We weren't sure about the father in law's involvement. Maybe the mother in law's involved too. We know that John threatened Evelyn's father, Donald by exposing that Donald has been feeling I mean, in today's money upwards of two million dollars from this city department, which was very serious. So now you've got somebody who's been threatened and he's very clearly has body parts at this location. They're obviously involved in some way. The question is how involved is Evelyn? Is she just covering it up or was she directly involved? Doesn't matter? I think it will matter how involved she was.

I will say this part of the story surprised me a little bit. So let me go back just in case people have forgotten the details of the story, which I cannot imagine you have, but you might have. So we are in Ontario, Canada. We are in Hamilton, which is a medium sized city. Nineteen forty six, mid March, Torso is found partially dressed, and it turns out to be a man named John Dick. He was a streetcar driver for a transportation agency in the city. He worked it sounds like near or with his father in law, whose name is Donald, and Donald's daughter is John's wife, and her name is Evelyn. Certainly they had different approaches to marriage because she admitted that she's been cheating on him before, during, and after marriage. That their marriage only lasted a few months. They had a quick romance, a quick engagement, a quick wedding, and then a quick ending. After three months, he moved out into his cousin's house and Evelyn took up with a young man a couple of years older than her, named Bill. And now the police want to know about everything that's happening in this house. She had a car, a packer that had blood in it. That was Type O, which was John's type. There are bone fragments and teeth pieces in ashes outside of their house. The police have now ascended the staircase to the attic and have found a suitcase that has a body in it. And that's where I left off with you, because we weren't sure before we get to that other body. We weren't sure about the father in law's involvement. Maybe the mother in law's involved too. We know that John threatened Evelyn's father, Donald by exposing that Donald has been feeling I mean, in today's money upwards of two million dollars from this city department, which was very serious. So now you've got somebody who's been threatened and he's very clearly has body parts at this location. They're obviously involved in some way. The question is how involved is Evelyn? Is she just covering it up or was she directly involved? Doesn't matter? I think it will matter how involved she was.

Oh, it absolutely does matter.

Oh, it absolutely does matter.

And you know, I think one of the big questions with the second body in the suitcase is who has access to this location? You know, is this something where people like Donald the father can freely come and go. I completely forgot about Bill, you know, this new boyfriend of hers, you know, and what is his potential involvement in John's homicide?

And you know, I think one of the big questions with the second body in the suitcase is who has access to this location? You know, is this something where people like Donald the father can freely come and go. I completely forgot about Bill, you know, this new boyfriend of hers, you know, and what is his potential involvement in John's homicide?

And then who is the second body is this? You know?

And then who is the second body is this? You know?

On one hand, maybe this is all wrapped around Donald trying to protect his financial interests with this this I'm assuming an embezzlement type scheme out of the railway.

On one hand, maybe this is all wrapped around Donald trying to protect his financial interests with this this I'm assuming an embezzlement type scheme out of the railway.

Or do we have some sort of predator you do?

Or do we have some sort of predator you do?

We have this female serial killer on the loose, So I'm very curious to see how this progresses.

We have this female serial killer on the loose, So I'm very curious to see how this progresses.

Yep. And in the check box of where we feel about Evelyn and Evelyn's involvement in anything criminal other than being at a house, and it's seemingly covering up this you know crime. So far, the police have said, well, you know, they held her on vagrancy charges, which, just as a little explainer, the vacrancy charges had been everything from sex work to being homeless to you know, I'm loitering. I mean, it was like a catch all, and I don't know if it's still like that now. I know that vacrancy has been under fire, that sort of you cannot arrest somebody simply for vagrancy. Is that right? At this point?

Yep. And in the check box of where we feel about Evelyn and Evelyn's involvement in anything criminal other than being at a house, and it's seemingly covering up this you know crime. So far, the police have said, well, you know, they held her on vagrancy charges, which, just as a little explainer, the vacrancy charges had been everything from sex work to being homeless to you know, I'm loitering. I mean, it was like a catch all, and I don't know if it's still like that now. I know that vacrancy has been under fire, that sort of you cannot arrest somebody simply for vagrancy. Is that right? At this point?

I think the equivalent statute that I'm aware of out of California is, you know this six forty seven PC, which has all sorts of those subdivisions like sex work, the drunken public. You know, there's various subcategories under six forty seven. It sounds like this vagrancy statute up there in Canada.

I think the equivalent statute that I'm aware of out of California is, you know this six forty seven PC, which has all sorts of those subdivisions like sex work, the drunken public. You know, there's various subcategories under six forty seven. It sounds like this vagrancy statute up there in Canada.

It's a big catch all, is my understanding. Yeah, But they're holding her on these charges, that's why they're you know, then going in and looking through the attic, they find the suitcase and they open it up and inside they find a baby.

It's a big catch all, is my understanding. Yeah, But they're holding her on these charges, that's why they're you know, then going in and looking through the attic, they find the suitcase and they open it up and inside they find a baby.

Oh that's not where I thought this was.

Oh that's not where I thought this was.

Going, I know. So remember I told you she had a series of kids. There was a stillborn baby. There was a girl who's clearly alive, the one that she said cut her face, and that's where all the blood came from. This is Peter. And when Peter left the hospital, which was this was just a year and a half to two years ago, the year before she met John. So John is not the father. When she left the hospital with Peter, he was ten days old and he was healthy. She said that she took him to an adoption agency. And obviously she didn't now what the pathologist says, and I wish I had more details about this. What the pathologist said was they believe that Peter had been strangled, and he had been encased in cement and then put into this suitcase, and he had been up in the attic. I'm assuming John didn't know about this for you know, two years. Sure, so they're surprised, to say the least.

Going, I know. So remember I told you she had a series of kids. There was a stillborn baby. There was a girl who's clearly alive, the one that she said cut her face, and that's where all the blood came from. This is Peter. And when Peter left the hospital, which was this was just a year and a half to two years ago, the year before she met John. So John is not the father. When she left the hospital with Peter, he was ten days old and he was healthy. She said that she took him to an adoption agency. And obviously she didn't now what the pathologist says, and I wish I had more details about this. What the pathologist said was they believe that Peter had been strangled, and he had been encased in cement and then put into this suitcase, and he had been up in the attic. I'm assuming John didn't know about this for you know, two years. Sure, so they're surprised, to say the least.

But it also speaks volumes about Evelyn. Assuming Evelyn is the one that killed Peter, She's very willing to resort to homicidal violence to get rid of somebody that is cramping what I'm going to assume is cramping her lifestyle, extrapolating that out to John, you know, And then the big question is is that who else helped Evelyn? Did anybody else help Evelyn? We know Evelyn is involved in aspects of John's homicide. She's the one that is getting that packered that car from the auto place and then returning that car, you know, so, and that car has obviously been used to transport John's body to dispose of the remains. And whether or not John is killed in that car, he's cut up in that car.

But it also speaks volumes about Evelyn. Assuming Evelyn is the one that killed Peter, She's very willing to resort to homicidal violence to get rid of somebody that is cramping what I'm going to assume is cramping her lifestyle, extrapolating that out to John, you know, And then the big question is is that who else helped Evelyn? Did anybody else help Evelyn? We know Evelyn is involved in aspects of John's homicide. She's the one that is getting that packered that car from the auto place and then returning that car, you know, so, and that car has obviously been used to transport John's body to dispose of the remains. And whether or not John is killed in that car, he's cut up in that car.

Who knows at this point.

Who knows at this point.

So Evelyn is involved, but to what extent is she the killer? Did somebody else kill John? And then Evelyn helped dispose of the body, maybe even helped with the dismemberment. Right now, we don't have any information, but you throw Peter.

So Evelyn is involved, but to what extent is she the killer? Did somebody else kill John? And then Evelyn helped dispose of the body, maybe even helped with the dismemberment. Right now, we don't have any information, but you throw Peter.

Into the mix.

Into the mix.

In all likelihood, Evelyn is the one who strangled this ten day old infant and then try to hide that body with the cement. But again sloppy. Why is that body still inside the residence inside a suitcase. There's so many better ways to go about disposing of that body than.

In all likelihood, Evelyn is the one who strangled this ten day old infant and then try to hide that body with the cement. But again sloppy. Why is that body still inside the residence inside a suitcase. There's so many better ways to go about disposing of that body than.

That process that nobody had found it true, with the exception of you know, of course, her being under suspicion for murdering her husband. And then they go up there and start looking around, and I don't know how much her parents know. I do want to go back to John because they've searched the house, they find this body. They're stunned by the discovery of this infant baby, and then of course the bone fragments and the teeth of John. So then they say, we need to get the hell over to Donald and Alexandra's house. So Evelyn's parents big search and this is what they find, and maybe this will help you figure out the order of things, because right now I'm curious about the order of events. They find a pair of John shoes in the basement which are blood stained, and there is also a large butcher knife and an axe, neither of which seemed to have blood on him, you know, according to the media, but who knows. They also find a thirty two caliber revolver that a ballistic expert would later say could have caused the gunshot wounds. Remember, we don't have casings or bullets or anything on his body. Does that make sense? Can they kind of eyeball that and say, wow, this looks like this kind of a bullet could have grazed his body in this way, so it was probably a thirty That doesn't seem like hard evidence to me.

That process that nobody had found it true, with the exception of you know, of course, her being under suspicion for murdering her husband. And then they go up there and start looking around, and I don't know how much her parents know. I do want to go back to John because they've searched the house, they find this body. They're stunned by the discovery of this infant baby, and then of course the bone fragments and the teeth of John. So then they say, we need to get the hell over to Donald and Alexandra's house. So Evelyn's parents big search and this is what they find, and maybe this will help you figure out the order of things, because right now I'm curious about the order of events. They find a pair of John shoes in the basement which are blood stained, and there is also a large butcher knife and an axe, neither of which seemed to have blood on him, you know, according to the media, but who knows. They also find a thirty two caliber revolver that a ballistic expert would later say could have caused the gunshot wounds. Remember, we don't have casings or bullets or anything on his body. Does that make sense? Can they kind of eyeball that and say, wow, this looks like this kind of a bullet could have grazed his body in this way, so it was probably a thirty That doesn't seem like hard evidence to me.

No, I can't really see where they could draw any type of conclusion. You know, of course, a larger caliber bullet could potentially leave a larger grazed wound. Dealing with such an elastic surface in terms of the skin, there's so many variables at play unless there's something just significantly unusual that I can't think about. I think all they could say is is that these appear consistent with the Gray's wounds from bullets, and there's no way you can tie a gun or a caliber of weapon to that. So I think they overstretched on that conclusion.

No, I can't really see where they could draw any type of conclusion. You know, of course, a larger caliber bullet could potentially leave a larger grazed wound. Dealing with such an elastic surface in terms of the skin, there's so many variables at play unless there's something just significantly unusual that I can't think about. I think all they could say is is that these appear consistent with the Gray's wounds from bullets, and there's no way you can tie a gun or a caliber of weapon to that. So I think they overstretched on that conclusion.

I mean, at least it just shows that that Donald has a gun. You know it's there. Yeah, So they also find I thought you'd appreciate this. They also find a magazine called Famous Detective Stories. I think this is different from the true detective trash stuff we talked about before, but still there is an article that they has been here you're marked. That's how to dispose of a corpse through incineration one oh one, how to do it. I don't want to blame these magazines. I think it's sort of silly. But at the same time, you know, we're not talking about crime porn here. We're talking about how to on how to get rid of a body. So it sounds like Donald was doing some research. If we think that this is connected.

I mean, at least it just shows that that Donald has a gun. You know it's there. Yeah, So they also find I thought you'd appreciate this. They also find a magazine called Famous Detective Stories. I think this is different from the true detective trash stuff we talked about before, but still there is an article that they has been here you're marked. That's how to dispose of a corpse through incineration one oh one, how to do it. I don't want to blame these magazines. I think it's sort of silly. But at the same time, you know, we're not talking about crime porn here. We're talking about how to on how to get rid of a body. So it sounds like Donald was doing some research. If we think that this is connected.

For sure, you know we see this today. There's reasons why suspects computers and phones and tablets are confiscated during an investigation and then searched underneath a warrant to see, well, what are they looking at and what are they researching leading up to the you know, the timeframe of a crime being committed, and oftentimes, as I mentioned before, you know, most of these offenders have never killed before, and so now they're trying to find information on how to do it. And it's just you know, here we're talking nineteen forty six. You've got the paper magazine that has an article that just happens to fit with how John's. Part of John's body was disposed of.

For sure, you know we see this today. There's reasons why suspects computers and phones and tablets are confiscated during an investigation and then searched underneath a warrant to see, well, what are they looking at and what are they researching leading up to the you know, the timeframe of a crime being committed, and oftentimes, as I mentioned before, you know, most of these offenders have never killed before, and so now they're trying to find information on how to do it. And it's just you know, here we're talking nineteen forty six. You've got the paper magazine that has an article that just happens to fit with how John's. Part of John's body was disposed of.

Well, they go back also and continue to do searching of work the torso was found, because they're hoping to find more information about whomever this person is who dumped the torso in the rural area. And they find a striped shirt that's found in the woods and it's identified as the one that John was last seen wearing. The shirt was completely buttoned up as it would have been when it was worn, and both arms of the shirt were cut off and the shirt was stained with blood. I can't even picture what that means. So what happened that you can tell so far? You know, the shoes, there's blood, there's a butcher knife at Donald's house, at her parents' house, and then the incineration. It sounds like happened at their house, at Evelyn and John's house.

Well, they go back also and continue to do searching of work the torso was found, because they're hoping to find more information about whomever this person is who dumped the torso in the rural area. And they find a striped shirt that's found in the woods and it's identified as the one that John was last seen wearing. The shirt was completely buttoned up as it would have been when it was worn, and both arms of the shirt were cut off and the shirt was stained with blood. I can't even picture what that means. So what happened that you can tell so far? You know, the shoes, there's blood, there's a butcher knife at Donald's house, at her parents' house, and then the incineration. It sounds like happened at their house, at Evelyn and John's house.

Right, Yeah, Well, and it appears that John is killed and in all likelihood, like I talked about before, it probably a gunshot wound to the head, and that can't be proven because his head is gone and presumably incinerated.

Right, Yeah, Well, and it appears that John is killed and in all likelihood, like I talked about before, it probably a gunshot wound to the head, and that can't be proven because his head is gone and presumably incinerated.

But it does not appear that whoever.

But it does not appear that whoever.

Is cutting up John is taking the time to take the clothes off. You know, they're literally just cutting his arms off, you know, sleeves and all. Now, the pathologists should be able to determine from the cut ends of the Let's say that the humorous on both arms, you know what type of tool was used.

Is cutting up John is taking the time to take the clothes off. You know, they're literally just cutting his arms off, you know, sleeves and all. Now, the pathologists should be able to determine from the cut ends of the Let's say that the humorous on both arms, you know what type of tool was used.

Was a saw used, you.

Was a saw used, you.

Know, based on the tool marks that are present in the end of the bone, or is it more consistent with the axe. And that's not necessarily an easy thing. You know, you have to take multiple swings with the axe in order to be able to hack through the say the upper upper arm, and there's a good chance you're going to miss and you're probably going to hit part of the Torso doesn't sound like you have any information in terms of the pathologists rendering an opinion on the type of tool marks present on the bone ends.

Know, based on the tool marks that are present in the end of the bone, or is it more consistent with the axe. And that's not necessarily an easy thing. You know, you have to take multiple swings with the axe in order to be able to hack through the say the upper upper arm, and there's a good chance you're going to miss and you're probably going to hit part of the Torso doesn't sound like you have any information in terms of the pathologists rendering an opinion on the type of tool marks present on the bone ends.

No, no, And you know, like they said that the axe and the other weapon that they found, it didn't appear to have blood. I'm sure it did, they just couldn't see it. Yeah, So what I mean, maybe not, I don't know what.

No, no, And you know, like they said that the axe and the other weapon that they found, it didn't appear to have blood. I'm sure it did, they just couldn't see it. Yeah, So what I mean, maybe not, I don't know what.

All depends on how how well the tool has been cleaned, how bloody it got in the first place. You are dealing with the dead body. So now the heart is not pumping. You hack through these long bones and the arms and the legs. I mean, there is going to be blood that seeps out, but it's not gushing out because there's no pump present. The heart is done. So you know, it's possible that, let's say that if this axe or this butcher knife had been used, you know, blood staining likely would be present, but it may not be present where now it's seeping down in between the blade and the handle and all that they just cleaned it up.

All depends on how how well the tool has been cleaned, how bloody it got in the first place. You are dealing with the dead body. So now the heart is not pumping. You hack through these long bones and the arms and the legs. I mean, there is going to be blood that seeps out, but it's not gushing out because there's no pump present. The heart is done. So you know, it's possible that, let's say that if this axe or this butcher knife had been used, you know, blood staining likely would be present, but it may not be present where now it's seeping down in between the blade and the handle and all that they just cleaned it up.

Okay, well, so far this seems pretty damning. Is this circumstantial? I mean, how would you label this case so far? Against You've got Donald and you've got Evelyn. We don't know anything about Bill just yet, and then we don't know about them all Alexandra.

Okay, well, so far this seems pretty damning. Is this circumstantial? I mean, how would you label this case so far? Against You've got Donald and you've got Evelyn. We don't know anything about Bill just yet, and then we don't know about them all Alexandra.

Well, there's evidence. I will tell you from a physical evidence standpoint, it is a strong case that these individuals are involved. What you don't have is who's doing what right And so this is where interviewing and it sounds like if you've got parts of the crime scene at Donald's house and parts at Evelyn's house, sounds like, well, we have multiple people involved, and you know, you think father daughter may be very loyal to each other.

Well, there's evidence. I will tell you from a physical evidence standpoint, it is a strong case that these individuals are involved. What you don't have is who's doing what right And so this is where interviewing and it sounds like if you've got parts of the crime scene at Donald's house and parts at Evelyn's house, sounds like, well, we have multiple people involved, and you know, you think father daughter may be very loyal to each other.

Maybe not.

Maybe not.

You know, you have to kind of play one against the other in terms of what their statements are and the jeopardy each one is subjected to. But then is there a third person? And again I go back to this new lover of Evelyn's, this Bill Evelyn sounds like she's somebody who would be willing to seduce a man, to get that man to commit a crime for her, and then probably eliminate that man as a witness after let's say the homicide of John is done.

You know, you have to kind of play one against the other in terms of what their statements are and the jeopardy each one is subjected to. But then is there a third person? And again I go back to this new lover of Evelyn's, this Bill Evelyn sounds like she's somebody who would be willing to seduce a man, to get that man to commit a crime for her, and then probably eliminate that man as a witness after let's say the homicide of John is done.

Let me tell you their theory first, just about the crime, and then I'll tell you about arrests. So I think this is what we've been talking about, the theory that the prosecutors say, once they've gathered all of this information, they say that John was murdered in the packer, likely from a gunshot wound too the head, like you said, but of course the head has been destroyed, presumably in the fire. It's theorized that he was dismembered at Donald's house, but the limbs were incinerated in Evelyn's furnace, and then John's torso was dumped in the woods, probably because it was too It was actually too big to fit into the furnace, so I think they went, oh shit, we got to put it somewhere, so they dumped it, you know, in this place. That all makes sense to you, I'm assuming rise or anything you disagree with in the prosecutor's case.

Let me tell you their theory first, just about the crime, and then I'll tell you about arrests. So I think this is what we've been talking about, the theory that the prosecutors say, once they've gathered all of this information, they say that John was murdered in the packer, likely from a gunshot wound too the head, like you said, but of course the head has been destroyed, presumably in the fire. It's theorized that he was dismembered at Donald's house, but the limbs were incinerated in Evelyn's furnace, and then John's torso was dumped in the woods, probably because it was too It was actually too big to fit into the furnace, so I think they went, oh shit, we got to put it somewhere, so they dumped it, you know, in this place. That all makes sense to you, I'm assuming rise or anything you disagree with in the prosecutor's case.

No, that makes sense.

No, that makes sense.

I think it's it's interesting that they didn't bother to further cut up the torso, to incinerate it. It's possible that once they kind of got to the point where they did with the dismemberment of John, they're going, oh, this is unpleasant.

I think it's it's interesting that they didn't bother to further cut up the torso, to incinerate it. It's possible that once they kind of got to the point where they did with the dismemberment of John, they're going, oh, this is unpleasant.

You know, we just were not going to bother with the rest of the body.

You know, we just were not going to bother with the rest of the body.

Let's just go dump it, you know, because it takes a certain what do you want to say, disposition, you know, to hack up a body and do it without possibly having to go throw up or going oh, I wasn't expecting this.

Let's just go dump it, you know, because it takes a certain what do you want to say, disposition, you know, to hack up a body and do it without possibly having to go throw up or going oh, I wasn't expecting this.

I think they abandoned.

I think they abandoned.

The body disposal process early, considering that Donald had a magazine article on how to dispose of a body through incineration. So it seems like they didn't carry out the plan as far as they could have in terms of getting rid of the body through incineration.

The body disposal process early, considering that Donald had a magazine article on how to dispose of a body through incineration. So it seems like they didn't carry out the plan as far as they could have in terms of getting rid of the body through incineration.

We've got some arrests. So remember they were holding Evelyn on vacrancy charges, really vague vagrancy charges, which to me it sounded like because she doesn't have a full time job, maybe you know, I mean stealing money, it was just a way for her to away from them, to keep a hold of her for a little bit. Yeap, okay. So they have brought charges for John's murder against Evelyn and Donald and the mom Alexandra, who they think was involved also, and Bill, who is Evelyn's I mean, I think boyfriend is a pretty loose term for what he probably was. I think you're right. I think he was probably a little bit of a patsy. So Evelyn just starts turning on people, which doesn't surprise me. She implicates Bill in the murders of John and this baby. I will not drag this out. She didn't even know Bill when she was pregnant. I was going to say with Peter, I mean, what is she thinking. So she's saying he strangled my kid, and it was easily proven you know that this was not the case. So I don't know if she's just throwing she's not smart, she's throwing stuff out, but she is trying to pin this on everybody but herself.

We've got some arrests. So remember they were holding Evelyn on vacrancy charges, really vague vagrancy charges, which to me it sounded like because she doesn't have a full time job, maybe you know, I mean stealing money, it was just a way for her to away from them, to keep a hold of her for a little bit. Yeap, okay. So they have brought charges for John's murder against Evelyn and Donald and the mom Alexandra, who they think was involved also, and Bill, who is Evelyn's I mean, I think boyfriend is a pretty loose term for what he probably was. I think you're right. I think he was probably a little bit of a patsy. So Evelyn just starts turning on people, which doesn't surprise me. She implicates Bill in the murders of John and this baby. I will not drag this out. She didn't even know Bill when she was pregnant. I was going to say with Peter, I mean, what is she thinking. So she's saying he strangled my kid, and it was easily proven you know that this was not the case. So I don't know if she's just throwing she's not smart, she's throwing stuff out, but she is trying to pin this on everybody but herself.

Sure, you know, and again we've just seen this lack of awareness and knowledge and how the crime scene has handled, how sloppy it is. And now her statements are sloppy.

Sure, you know, and again we've just seen this lack of awareness and knowledge and how the crime scene has handled, how sloppy it is. And now her statements are sloppy.

In many ways.

In many ways.

You know, this is something that those investigators would be able to easily see through. And when she's making those types of statements which are obvious lies, you know, those are just like ding ding ding, you know, both for the investigators going okay, you know we're on the right track, and for the prosecutors who will put that information in front of a jury.

You know, this is something that those investigators would be able to easily see through. And when she's making those types of statements which are obvious lies, you know, those are just like ding ding ding, you know, both for the investigators going okay, you know we're on the right track, and for the prosecutors who will put that information in front of a jury.

You know. So and in part it may just be, you know, she's what twenty five years old.

You know. So and in part it may just be, you know, she's what twenty five years old.

In all likelihood, you know, this homicide of John is much more complicated than what she thought it was going to be you know, it's a ten day old infant. She came up with the excuse of well, the reason this infant is not Peter's not around anymore is because I gave him up for adoption, when in reality he's in case and Cement in a suitcase in her attic.

In all likelihood, you know, this homicide of John is much more complicated than what she thought it was going to be you know, it's a ten day old infant. She came up with the excuse of well, the reason this infant is not Peter's not around anymore is because I gave him up for adoption, when in reality he's in case and Cement in a suitcase in her attic.

Well, Evelyn and Bell are charged with the murder of Peter, and you know Bill will get out of that once they realize the timeline a little bit. So Donald and his wife are both charged additionally with John's murder, and Donald is, on top of that, charged with stealing money from the transport agency that he worked for. So this becomes a huge media sensation, as you can imagine, front page news all across the country. Lots of people show up trying to grab a seat and they want to gawk at someone they describe in the newspapers in the forties as a femfetale, which that really pisses me off. It's so dismissive. But they of course have photos of her sort of like lounging in this chair. She is an attractive woman, she's very hip looking. This sets up for this media circus because her sex life comes out all over this trial. And this is the slutshaming that I was talking about and how it plays into the trial, because there is, for me, the Evelyn who very clearly was involved in two murders. But then there is also the Evelyn who you know, when they put her on trial it is just like your horror and you did this because you're a whore. So it's hard to reconcile the two together. And so I want to talk about That's what we're heading next, is getting a fair trial.

Well, Evelyn and Bell are charged with the murder of Peter, and you know Bill will get out of that once they realize the timeline a little bit. So Donald and his wife are both charged additionally with John's murder, and Donald is, on top of that, charged with stealing money from the transport agency that he worked for. So this becomes a huge media sensation, as you can imagine, front page news all across the country. Lots of people show up trying to grab a seat and they want to gawk at someone they describe in the newspapers in the forties as a femfetale, which that really pisses me off. It's so dismissive. But they of course have photos of her sort of like lounging in this chair. She is an attractive woman, she's very hip looking. This sets up for this media circus because her sex life comes out all over this trial. And this is the slutshaming that I was talking about and how it plays into the trial, because there is, for me, the Evelyn who very clearly was involved in two murders. But then there is also the Evelyn who you know, when they put her on trial it is just like your horror and you did this because you're a whore. So it's hard to reconcile the two together. And so I want to talk about That's what we're heading next, is getting a fair trial.

In terms of the slut shaming aspect of Evelyn. I guess I would need to know, Okay, what is being attributed to how the media is portraying her, and then what is how is she being portrayed in court? You know, because in some aspects her relationships do play in to the people the prosecutors laying the groundwork for motive, if you will. But is it completely needed, you know, I think it all depends on how the prosecutors are laying their case out.

In terms of the slut shaming aspect of Evelyn. I guess I would need to know, Okay, what is being attributed to how the media is portraying her, and then what is how is she being portrayed in court? You know, because in some aspects her relationships do play in to the people the prosecutors laying the groundwork for motive, if you will. But is it completely needed, you know, I think it all depends on how the prosecutors are laying their case out.

Well, I wasn't going to tell you this until a little bit later. I'm going to read you this a little bit from the trial right now, just to give you an idea of what it was like. She's on the stand. Now, this is a preliminary hearing, but she also testified at her trial. She is on the stand and the prosecutor says, tell the court how many men you've had sexual intercourse with? And she says maybe one hundred and fifty. Now, I don't know if she's gigging him or if that's accurate. Either way, that's her truth. I want you, this is the lawyer, I want you to name these men for the court right now. Who are they? She says, well, his son for one. She's looking at the judge. The lawyer says, were you indicating his honor? And she says, yes, the judge's son. The judge immediately struck the testimony from the record and issued a restraining order on the publication of the names of these one hundred and fifty men that she's talking about. That's where this trial is going. And I'm not saying that. You know, some parts of this are probably going to be applicable, but this was pretty blatantly framed around her being this temptress. So boy, I mean, I don't want to ever defend Evelyn, but this is sort of a case where I went this is gross. It felt so gross reading the transcripts.

Well, I wasn't going to tell you this until a little bit later. I'm going to read you this a little bit from the trial right now, just to give you an idea of what it was like. She's on the stand. Now, this is a preliminary hearing, but she also testified at her trial. She is on the stand and the prosecutor says, tell the court how many men you've had sexual intercourse with? And she says maybe one hundred and fifty. Now, I don't know if she's gigging him or if that's accurate. Either way, that's her truth. I want you, this is the lawyer, I want you to name these men for the court right now. Who are they? She says, well, his son for one. She's looking at the judge. The lawyer says, were you indicating his honor? And she says, yes, the judge's son. The judge immediately struck the testimony from the record and issued a restraining order on the publication of the names of these one hundred and fifty men that she's talking about. That's where this trial is going. And I'm not saying that. You know, some parts of this are probably going to be applicable, but this was pretty blatantly framed around her being this temptress. So boy, I mean, I don't want to ever defend Evelyn, but this is sort of a case where I went this is gross. It felt so gross reading the transcripts.

You know, well, that's that's extending out past what I would say, you know, the nexus of the crime is, yeah, you know, I think her coming out and admitting that she ended up having sex with a man within a few days of being married, you know, really establishing how she maintained a lifestyle involving multiple men outside of her relationship with John kind of establishes this dynamic where people would go, Okay, I can see where she really never loved or cared for John, you know. So I can see utilizing the relationships surrounding the crime to underscore sort of the dynamic between Evelyn and John, but not bringing in her entire love life from five years four. You know, that doesn't that doesn't equate. That sounds prejudicial.

You know, well, that's that's extending out past what I would say, you know, the nexus of the crime is, yeah, you know, I think her coming out and admitting that she ended up having sex with a man within a few days of being married, you know, really establishing how she maintained a lifestyle involving multiple men outside of her relationship with John kind of establishes this dynamic where people would go, Okay, I can see where she really never loved or cared for John, you know. So I can see utilizing the relationships surrounding the crime to underscore sort of the dynamic between Evelyn and John, but not bringing in her entire love life from five years four. You know, that doesn't that doesn't equate. That sounds prejudicial.

Let's switch over to another woman who takes in her stage here, and that's Evelyn's mother, who flips on her. So the men in this family seem sort of strangely loyal or in this story no women or not. Alexandros flips on Evelyn. She agrees to testify for the prosecutor in exchange for legal immunity. Okay, so remember they kind of took a net and arrested everybody and then said let's sort it out. She does not say too much, but she does say that even though Evelyn says, yeah, I got the packer, but I was with my parents the whole time, she said, there was a long time when she was not around. On March sixth, and she said that before the torso was discovered, but after John had been you know, declared missing, that Evelyn had said John's dead and you better keep your mouth shut about it. And that's what she said to her mother. Boy this family. So this is her mom testifying. This is specifically her trial, so she's not testifying against her own husband yet, but this is this is the way this is going. Are you surprised by that?

Let's switch over to another woman who takes in her stage here, and that's Evelyn's mother, who flips on her. So the men in this family seem sort of strangely loyal or in this story no women or not. Alexandros flips on Evelyn. She agrees to testify for the prosecutor in exchange for legal immunity. Okay, so remember they kind of took a net and arrested everybody and then said let's sort it out. She does not say too much, but she does say that even though Evelyn says, yeah, I got the packer, but I was with my parents the whole time, she said, there was a long time when she was not around. On March sixth, and she said that before the torso was discovered, but after John had been you know, declared missing, that Evelyn had said John's dead and you better keep your mouth shut about it. And that's what she said to her mother. Boy this family. So this is her mom testifying. This is specifically her trial, so she's not testifying against her own husband yet, but this is this is the way this is going. Are you surprised by that?

No?

No?

You know, I think it really comes down to the family dynamics, because you know, when we started talking about Evelyn and her upbringing and how it sounded like she had an abusive childhood with Donald and Alexandra, I kind of wonder what the relationship between Donald and Alexandra was, Like, maybe he's abusive to her obviously, you know, with mom flipping at this point, it's self preservation and her self preservation is superseding any mother daughter feelings that she has with Evelyn.

You know, I think it really comes down to the family dynamics, because you know, when we started talking about Evelyn and her upbringing and how it sounded like she had an abusive childhood with Donald and Alexandra, I kind of wonder what the relationship between Donald and Alexandra was, Like, maybe he's abusive to her obviously, you know, with mom flipping at this point, it's self preservation and her self preservation is superseding any mother daughter feelings that she has with Evelyn.

Well, and it sounds like I don't know how much knowledge Alexandra had, but enough to be able to say, well, I'm I'm not gonna risk my own skin for my daughter. Evelyn's not particularly helping herself. She keeps changing her story a lot. Time magazine reported on it, and they said that at some point she said a gang from another town must have killed him. She said that also the gang was hired by Bill the boyfriend, and that actually Bill did the killing, but her father, Donald was the one who strong harmed him into it. And you know Donald hated John. So who else you know, would have been responsible for this. So the one thing she does admit to is she says, you know, I did drive that packer to the location where we dumped the Torso so she's admitting to be I guess it would it be an accessory, is at what she's admitting to if if she's kind of covering it up.

Well, and it sounds like I don't know how much knowledge Alexandra had, but enough to be able to say, well, I'm I'm not gonna risk my own skin for my daughter. Evelyn's not particularly helping herself. She keeps changing her story a lot. Time magazine reported on it, and they said that at some point she said a gang from another town must have killed him. She said that also the gang was hired by Bill the boyfriend, and that actually Bill did the killing, but her father, Donald was the one who strong harmed him into it. And you know Donald hated John. So who else you know, would have been responsible for this. So the one thing she does admit to is she says, you know, I did drive that packer to the location where we dumped the Torso so she's admitting to be I guess it would it be an accessory, is at what she's admitting to if if she's kind of covering it up.

Yeah, you know, she's she's minimizing her role. That's what it sounds like. You know, all these statements that seem to conflict about you know, who actually is doing what. You know, it's pointing fingers at the other players and not her right, she's saying, well, I only did this everybody else, did you know the really bad stuff? And she's kind of taking a shotgun approach with her statements. She's conflicting herself multiple times. You know, this just all speaks to she's making things up on the fly with hope something sticks.

Yeah, you know, she's she's minimizing her role. That's what it sounds like. You know, all these statements that seem to conflict about you know, who actually is doing what. You know, it's pointing fingers at the other players and not her right, she's saying, well, I only did this everybody else, did you know the really bad stuff? And she's kind of taking a shotgun approach with her statements. She's conflicting herself multiple times. You know, this just all speaks to she's making things up on the fly with hope something sticks.

Yeah, she really is, and not being very smart about it. So, you know, a lot of this case covers the evidence, and we've talked about their physical evidence, their circumstantial evidence, but we do talk a lot about the slut shaming that happens. There is a lot about her black book, and the black book has all of these very important men who she's supposedly slept with. You know, that's why there's a huge media circus around this as people want to hear those names. And I think that the attorneys on both sides are just constantly trying to keep the names out because these are very important men in the area at the time. So as we move forward, do you think of these people? So we've got Alexandra, who I guess it doesn't matter. She has gotten immunity, so she's not going to be held or she won't be convicted no matter what. But with Evelyn and Donald and Bill, which we don't know very much about these three people, who is the strongest case against Do you think it's Evelyn? I mean, if we're looking at first degree murder, obviously this was planned kind of thing.

Yeah, she really is, and not being very smart about it. So, you know, a lot of this case covers the evidence, and we've talked about their physical evidence, their circumstantial evidence, but we do talk a lot about the slut shaming that happens. There is a lot about her black book, and the black book has all of these very important men who she's supposedly slept with. You know, that's why there's a huge media circus around this as people want to hear those names. And I think that the attorneys on both sides are just constantly trying to keep the names out because these are very important men in the area at the time. So as we move forward, do you think of these people? So we've got Alexandra, who I guess it doesn't matter. She has gotten immunity, so she's not going to be held or she won't be convicted no matter what. But with Evelyn and Donald and Bill, which we don't know very much about these three people, who is the strongest case against Do you think it's Evelyn? I mean, if we're looking at first degree murder, obviously this was planned kind of thing.

It seems like you have equivalent cases against both Donald and Evelyn, and a lot of that has to do with you know, you have the physical evidence found at Donald's place. He also the gun, which you can't conclude is a murder weapon, but appears that he had the ability or Evelyn did at Donald's place to shoot John. And maybe Bill did you know, I don't know how he's factoring into this at this point. But then you also have all the evidence at Evelyn's place, you know, And I think it really just comes back down to, well, doesn't sound like Donald can alibi himself and say I wasn't there. Of course, my daughter can go into my basement, you know, and spend time down.

It seems like you have equivalent cases against both Donald and Evelyn, and a lot of that has to do with you know, you have the physical evidence found at Donald's place. He also the gun, which you can't conclude is a murder weapon, but appears that he had the ability or Evelyn did at Donald's place to shoot John. And maybe Bill did you know, I don't know how he's factoring into this at this point. But then you also have all the evidence at Evelyn's place, you know, And I think it really just comes back down to, well, doesn't sound like Donald can alibi himself and say I wasn't there. Of course, my daughter can go into my basement, you know, and spend time down.

There in terms of hacking up John. But as I.

There in terms of hacking up John. But as I.

Mentioned earlier in this story, is well, who benefits from this homicide? And the reality is is Donald probably financially benefits the most because he's preserving his criminal operation through the rare way and then buzzling two million dollars, and with the level of income that Evelyn seems to possess without actually having a job to point to as being the source of the income, suggests that she's getting the pass through money from her father, so she's financially benefiting. And John became sort of a problem and he was eliminating. So I think you have equal cases against both Evelyn and Donald.

Mentioned earlier in this story, is well, who benefits from this homicide? And the reality is is Donald probably financially benefits the most because he's preserving his criminal operation through the rare way and then buzzling two million dollars, and with the level of income that Evelyn seems to possess without actually having a job to point to as being the source of the income, suggests that she's getting the pass through money from her father, so she's financially benefiting. And John became sort of a problem and he was eliminating. So I think you have equal cases against both Evelyn and Donald.

I don't know about Bill.

I don't know about Bill.

Yeah, right now, we're just gonna deal with Evelyn because this is her trial, and whatever the jury heard was enough to convict her of his murder. There's still more to this story, but she is given the death penalty, which is something for a woman in nineteen forty six in Canada. I was pretty surprised.

Yeah, right now, we're just gonna deal with Evelyn because this is her trial, and whatever the jury heard was enough to convict her of his murder. There's still more to this story, but she is given the death penalty, which is something for a woman in nineteen forty six in Canada. I was pretty surprised.

Yeah, I'm surprised. Okay, So before we.

Yeah, I'm surprised. Okay, So before we.

Talk about what happens after that, let me kind of clean up everybody else. Bill is released of all charges for everything. He wasn't dating her or sleeping with her when Peter was born. They've proven that, and there's zero evidence that he was involved at all with John's murder. Now, he might have been, but they don't have enough evidence and so ultimately they just let him go. I'm assuming you agree with that. I mean, I think we just think there's what is there he might have done something, but there is nothing that says other than her word, that he did anything.

Talk about what happens after that, let me kind of clean up everybody else. Bill is released of all charges for everything. He wasn't dating her or sleeping with her when Peter was born. They've proven that, and there's zero evidence that he was involved at all with John's murder. Now, he might have been, but they don't have enough evidence and so ultimately they just let him go. I'm assuming you agree with that. I mean, I think we just think there's what is there he might have done something, but there is nothing that says other than her word, that he did anything.

Yeah, you know, it doesn't sound like they have any type of case against Bill, and you know, I don't know if he had any role in it. But I also think that potentially Evelyn and Donald being arrested possibly saved Bill's life.

Yeah, you know, it doesn't sound like they have any type of case against Bill, and you know, I don't know if he had any role in it. But I also think that potentially Evelyn and Donald being arrested possibly saved Bill's life.

I agree. I mean he could have been well, he could have been a patsy. They could have killed him. I mean, we don't know. Yeah, you're right. I mean they're very dangerous people. Donald. I don't agree with this. He's found guilty of being an accessory to John's murder five years, He's given five years, plus another five years for robbing you know, the transport agency, and he's released from prison in nineteen fifty one. I mean, he is out.

I agree. I mean he could have been well, he could have been a patsy. They could have killed him. I mean, we don't know. Yeah, you're right. I mean they're very dangerous people. Donald. I don't agree with this. He's found guilty of being an accessory to John's murder five years, He's given five years, plus another five years for robbing you know, the transport agency, and he's released from prison in nineteen fifty one. I mean, he is out.

I'm surprised at that.

I'm surprised at that.

I'm a little bit too. And I don't know, it doesn't sound like Alexandra, his wife, testified against him. It sounds like they just didn't have enough evidence and maybe I don't know. I mean, between the witnesses saying she had the car. They're putting her with that car. She's admitting she drove the car, and I think Donald probably just said, listen, just because this stuff is at my place doesn't mean I had any involvement, and they couldn't prove anything. Yeah, you know, I mean his daughter has access to his house. Likewise, he and his wife have access to her house.

I'm a little bit too. And I don't know, it doesn't sound like Alexandra, his wife, testified against him. It sounds like they just didn't have enough evidence and maybe I don't know. I mean, between the witnesses saying she had the car. They're putting her with that car. She's admitting she drove the car, and I think Donald probably just said, listen, just because this stuff is at my place doesn't mean I had any involvement, and they couldn't prove anything. Yeah, you know, I mean his daughter has access to his house. Likewise, he and his wife have access to her house.

So and I think that that's when in assessing Donald, it really does come down to what could they prove in terms of where he was at at the time John went missing, was likely killed. What kind of freedom of movement does Evelyn have into and out of John's house? So, you know, on that front, I can kind of see, Yeah, maybe they don't have as strong of a case against Donald. I just go back to who benefited the most from John's homicide, and it really is Donald.

So and I think that that's when in assessing Donald, it really does come down to what could they prove in terms of where he was at at the time John went missing, was likely killed. What kind of freedom of movement does Evelyn have into and out of John's house? So, you know, on that front, I can kind of see, Yeah, maybe they don't have as strong of a case against Donald. I just go back to who benefited the most from John's homicide, and it really is Donald.

Well listen to the rest of this. She is given the death penalty, but right after her sentencing she gets mystery money together. It's not her dad. I don't know where she's getting this money from, but she hires a well known attorney.

Well listen to the rest of this. She is given the death penalty, but right after her sentencing she gets mystery money together. It's not her dad. I don't know where she's getting this money from, but she hires a well known attorney.

I think she has probably multiple wealth.

I think she has probably multiple wealth.

The men that, based on past relationships, are concerned that she might divulge that they were, you know, having a sexual affair with her or whatever that they're now saying, Okay, we'll give you money in order to keep your mouth shut about our relationship together.

The men that, based on past relationships, are concerned that she might divulge that they were, you know, having a sexual affair with her or whatever that they're now saying, Okay, we'll give you money in order to keep your mouth shut about our relationship together.

Yeah, so she hires a guy named John Robinette. He appeals her conviction. Of course, he cites twenty five procedural issues in her case. He says many of the statements used against Evelyn and Court were improperly obtained by police. He says that they did not adequately caution her after charging her with murder. Remember they held her on vagrancy charges where they cautioned her. So they don't have Miranda warnings in Canada, but they have something very similar and they did it for vagrancy apparently, but not for the murder charges. And I would not be telling you about appeals points if it did not work. And it worked.

Yeah, so she hires a guy named John Robinette. He appeals her conviction. Of course, he cites twenty five procedural issues in her case. He says many of the statements used against Evelyn and Court were improperly obtained by police. He says that they did not adequately caution her after charging her with murder. Remember they held her on vagrancy charges where they cautioned her. So they don't have Miranda warnings in Canada, but they have something very similar and they did it for vagrancy apparently, but not for the murder charges. And I would not be telling you about appeals points if it did not work. And it worked.

Yeah.

Yeah.

On my other podcast, we interviewed a Canadian law enforcement officer and they have a at least during the course of his career, which is more recent than nineteen forty six. They definitely have a very very similar requirement to what we know as Miranda here in the United States. And I can't remember what he called it. And so I can see where Evelyn is taken into custody and they basically let her know her rights now that she's in custody, and then she never leaves custody and is now in essence arrested and charged with murder because of her custodial status at least here in the United States, you know, that's where she needs to be told what her rights are. In addition, there's also a scenario where because she's in custody and she's represented by an attorne, then law enforcement interviewing her for more charges can sometimes get a little dicey. And I know, you know, because currently there's been some people I'd like to go in and talk to who have been convicted and possibly we're involved in other crimes. But the DA's involved in the conviction are saying, don't not well, he's represented and he's got an appeal going on, right, And this is not Joe DeAngelo Golden State killer. It's another guy, you know. But now her defense attorney is basically, you know, probably doing a pretty decent job in terms of going look at you know, law enforcement, the prosecutor's side, whatever they're called up there you know, they they misstepped m.

On my other podcast, we interviewed a Canadian law enforcement officer and they have a at least during the course of his career, which is more recent than nineteen forty six. They definitely have a very very similar requirement to what we know as Miranda here in the United States. And I can't remember what he called it. And so I can see where Evelyn is taken into custody and they basically let her know her rights now that she's in custody, and then she never leaves custody and is now in essence arrested and charged with murder because of her custodial status at least here in the United States, you know, that's where she needs to be told what her rights are. In addition, there's also a scenario where because she's in custody and she's represented by an attorne, then law enforcement interviewing her for more charges can sometimes get a little dicey. And I know, you know, because currently there's been some people I'd like to go in and talk to who have been convicted and possibly we're involved in other crimes. But the DA's involved in the conviction are saying, don't not well, he's represented and he's got an appeal going on, right, And this is not Joe DeAngelo Golden State killer. It's another guy, you know. But now her defense attorney is basically, you know, probably doing a pretty decent job in terms of going look at you know, law enforcement, the prosecutor's side, whatever they're called up there you know, they they misstepped m.

Yeah, and this is a successful argument, and Evelyn is retried, and this time her attorney so she keeps this attorney. Robinette emphasiz this the possibility that Donald the dad, not Evelyn, killed John, and he is very convincing that, just like what you said, who really had the motive here, who had threatened John in the past, who was going to be exposed and arrested and fired and publicly humiliated in all of that stuff, when John was going to come out and report this, and John had already gone to the police. So Robinette says all of this, and it worked, and she has found not guilty of murdering her husband. In this second trial, she pleads guilty to being an accessory after the fact, but she is only then sentenced to four years in prison. And it's not over yet. But I will say, I mean, boy, when you have a good attorney, they can work wonders. And he knew exactly where to go with this. And I don't agree with this either.

Yeah, and this is a successful argument, and Evelyn is retried, and this time her attorney so she keeps this attorney. Robinette emphasiz this the possibility that Donald the dad, not Evelyn, killed John, and he is very convincing that, just like what you said, who really had the motive here, who had threatened John in the past, who was going to be exposed and arrested and fired and publicly humiliated in all of that stuff, when John was going to come out and report this, and John had already gone to the police. So Robinette says all of this, and it worked, and she has found not guilty of murdering her husband. In this second trial, she pleads guilty to being an accessory after the fact, but she is only then sentenced to four years in prison. And it's not over yet. But I will say, I mean, boy, when you have a good attorney, they can work wonders. And he knew exactly where to go with this. And I don't agree with this either.

I don't necessarily agree with the outcome, but I think I agree with the strategy. Yeah, yeah, because all Robinette has to do for Evelynce is create reasonable doubt at least that would be the term here in the United States, and imagine it's a similar criteria, you know, for the Canadian court process, and that's what he could do because, you know, particularly in terms of the physical evidence side, I'm trying to think of, is there anything that there would be things that I'd be looking for, let's say, during the crime scene investigation that would support let's say Evelyn's presence, you know, at the time of the homicide, you know, gunshot. There might be something as an example, And this is just kind of fabricating based on the circumstances the type of evidence I'd be looking for. If John were truly shot in the head and possibly shot in the head multiple times, the shooter potentially could have backspatter from the entry wounds of the gunshots, in which blood and brain matter can spatter back onto the gun as well as the shooter's hand, the sleeves down on the pants leg. You could have shattered hair if it's a close enough shot to the head where that shattered hair would end up depositing on the shooter. So of course, trying to collect let's say Evelyn's clothing and Donald's clothing. In this day and age, that would be a form of evidence to try to determine who actually was the shooter. Now, John could have been shot from a distance, and you don't have any of that back spatter coming back onto the shooter, you know, And then now you have to rely on the interviews and statements and finger pointing as to well, who really is the shooter in this case?

I don't necessarily agree with the outcome, but I think I agree with the strategy. Yeah, yeah, because all Robinette has to do for Evelynce is create reasonable doubt at least that would be the term here in the United States, and imagine it's a similar criteria, you know, for the Canadian court process, and that's what he could do because, you know, particularly in terms of the physical evidence side, I'm trying to think of, is there anything that there would be things that I'd be looking for, let's say, during the crime scene investigation that would support let's say Evelyn's presence, you know, at the time of the homicide, you know, gunshot. There might be something as an example, And this is just kind of fabricating based on the circumstances the type of evidence I'd be looking for. If John were truly shot in the head and possibly shot in the head multiple times, the shooter potentially could have backspatter from the entry wounds of the gunshots, in which blood and brain matter can spatter back onto the gun as well as the shooter's hand, the sleeves down on the pants leg. You could have shattered hair if it's a close enough shot to the head where that shattered hair would end up depositing on the shooter. So of course, trying to collect let's say Evelyn's clothing and Donald's clothing. In this day and age, that would be a form of evidence to try to determine who actually was the shooter. Now, John could have been shot from a distance, and you don't have any of that back spatter coming back onto the shooter, you know, And then now you have to rely on the interviews and statements and finger pointing as to well, who really is the shooter in this case?

But if he's shot from a distance, wouldn't that have done damage to the packer, which the owner didn't mention any kind of damage except hey, where's my cover to this seat? Wouldn't there a bullet have gone somewhere?

But if he's shot from a distance, wouldn't that have done damage to the packer, which the owner didn't mention any kind of damage except hey, where's my cover to this seat? Wouldn't there a bullet have gone somewhere?

Right?

Right?

So when I say a distant you know, with a thirty two caliber revolver, the back spatter is going to be relatively minimal, you know. So you're talking about a very close range shot, you know, and I'm just going to throw out, like, you know, within two feet, and unless there's actual shooting, we would do what's called distance determinations. But you'd also try to get a sense for the power of this this particular handgun and this particular ammo.

So when I say a distant you know, with a thirty two caliber revolver, the back spatter is going to be relatively minimal, you know. So you're talking about a very close range shot, you know, and I'm just going to throw out, like, you know, within two feet, and unless there's actual shooting, we would do what's called distance determinations. But you'd also try to get a sense for the power of this this particular handgun and this particular ammo.

Of course, the more powerful the weapon, the more gases that are discharged.

Of course, the more powerful the weapon, the more gases that are discharged.

From the weapon, let's say, like a three fifty seven magnum, there's a greater likelihood of having more blood brain matter coming back, either as backspatter or from the rupture of the skull itself. And now you see the shooter get a fair amount of biological evidence on them. Okay, thirty two caliber is not a very powerful weapon, but it's something that when I say a distance, I'm talking yeah, like the shooters actually within the vehicle that's where John is shot, got it, but not up close.

From the weapon, let's say, like a three fifty seven magnum, there's a greater likelihood of having more blood brain matter coming back, either as backspatter or from the rupture of the skull itself. And now you see the shooter get a fair amount of biological evidence on them. Okay, thirty two caliber is not a very powerful weapon, but it's something that when I say a distance, I'm talking yeah, like the shooters actually within the vehicle that's where John is shot, got it, but not up close.

It sounds like John's settled. So you know, you've got Donald who has been the scapegoat for Robinette, and as an accessory, she has been given four years in prison. The prosecutors are pissed off, and so she goes on trial for murdering her infant son. Robinette does not have anything clever except to say, we've got to get her out of the death penalty, because they were going to go for the death penalty here. And he could not figure out a way to say somebody else did it. It's clear she did it, so he said, because of her trauma and abuse at the hands of her parents as a child, she had been emotionally stunted. She didn't understand that there were consequences for her actions, and the jury buys it, and she has found guilty of manslaughter and she's given a life sentence, right, so she spared the death penalty. She's supposed to be spending life in prison. But I think you probably know I'm heading down a road where she does not spend life in prison for this. So now she's been implicated and involved in two murders.

It sounds like John's settled. So you know, you've got Donald who has been the scapegoat for Robinette, and as an accessory, she has been given four years in prison. The prosecutors are pissed off, and so she goes on trial for murdering her infant son. Robinette does not have anything clever except to say, we've got to get her out of the death penalty, because they were going to go for the death penalty here. And he could not figure out a way to say somebody else did it. It's clear she did it, so he said, because of her trauma and abuse at the hands of her parents as a child, she had been emotionally stunted. She didn't understand that there were consequences for her actions, and the jury buys it, and she has found guilty of manslaughter and she's given a life sentence, right, so she spared the death penalty. She's supposed to be spending life in prison. But I think you probably know I'm heading down a road where she does not spend life in prison for this. So now she's been implicated and involved in two murders.

I guess, you know, I just don't know what criteria up in Canada is used to justify the death penalty. You know, I'm really struggling to see, you know, the death of the infant's son, how there would be an argument for, you know, first degree murder with special circumstances if in fact Peter was strangled that show's intent. Does this come down to Peter is crying, Evelyn is just getting so frustrated with this baby crying that she just acts in sort of in the heat of the moment and strangles Peter. This would be more kin to like a second degree murder type of scenario in California. Manslaughter.

I guess, you know, I just don't know what criteria up in Canada is used to justify the death penalty. You know, I'm really struggling to see, you know, the death of the infant's son, how there would be an argument for, you know, first degree murder with special circumstances if in fact Peter was strangled that show's intent. Does this come down to Peter is crying, Evelyn is just getting so frustrated with this baby crying that she just acts in sort of in the heat of the moment and strangles Peter. This would be more kin to like a second degree murder type of scenario in California. Manslaughter.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I'm not having too much issue with what Evelyn is ultimately convicted of. I'm surprised that if it's a manslaughter of this ten day old infant, that would be a life sentence, right.

I'm not having too much issue with what Evelyn is ultimately convicted of. I'm surprised that if it's a manslaughter of this ten day old infant, that would be a life sentence, right.

I don't know why that was a sentence. I will tell you she does not serve life. She only serves around eleven years total. In nineteen fifty eight, she's paroled. She's only thirty eight years old. She gets a new identity and totally falls off the radar. She's fully pardoned in nineteen eighty five. According to this newspaper, I mean, I have no idea. This is what it says. Her government file remains sealed after she was granted a royal pejorative. I guess is that what I would say?

I don't know why that was a sentence. I will tell you she does not serve life. She only serves around eleven years total. In nineteen fifty eight, she's paroled. She's only thirty eight years old. She gets a new identity and totally falls off the radar. She's fully pardoned in nineteen eighty five. According to this newspaper, I mean, I have no idea. This is what it says. Her government file remains sealed after she was granted a royal pejorative. I guess is that what I would say?

Yeah, I have to rely on the attorneys in the no to describe what that means.

Yeah, I have to rely on the attorneys in the no to describe what that means.

Yeah, I would say, okay. Her government file remain sealed after she was granted a pardon in eighty five, a special pardon that is awarded an exceptional cases of substantial injustice or undue hardship, which would not seem to apply an Evlyn Dick's case. But many believe she had friends in high places who helped her get this pardon. As a wider strategy to muzzle stories about the people she was having sex with. Yeah, so we're back to the Little Black Book. You know, this is when she's now sixty five and she gets this full pardon where her case is basically you know, sealed, so nobody knows anything about it. And this is decades later.

Yeah, I would say, okay. Her government file remain sealed after she was granted a pardon in eighty five, a special pardon that is awarded an exceptional cases of substantial injustice or undue hardship, which would not seem to apply an Evlyn Dick's case. But many believe she had friends in high places who helped her get this pardon. As a wider strategy to muzzle stories about the people she was having sex with. Yeah, so we're back to the Little Black Book. You know, this is when she's now sixty five and she gets this full pardon where her case is basically you know, sealed, so nobody knows anything about it. And this is decades later.

I mean, gosh, that's what it sounds like to me, you know, because it seems like that, you know, the Christ well, she was actually acquitted of John's homicide, right or of his murder.

I mean, gosh, that's what it sounds like to me, you know, because it seems like that, you know, the Christ well, she was actually acquitted of John's homicide, right or of his murder.

She was given four years as an accessory.

She was given four years as an accessory.

Accessory murder, okay, and then and then life for Peter's murder.