November 13, 2025 • 38 mins
Paul Hutchinson's suicide was his final act of cowardice. He saved himself the pain of facing his community, not to mention Danni’s family. Meanwhile, his actions introduced a whole new level of pain and confusion to those who knew him and cared about him. Those people have been left to grapple with questions without the opportunity to ever have them answered. In this episode, we talk to Paul's family, friends, coworkers, and hunting partners to ask whether there was any indication in Paul's character or behavior that he'd killed an innocent girl nearly 30 years ago. We also talk with investigators and a forensic psychologist to determine the likelihood that Paul committed that horrible atrocity and then went on to live a normal, crime-free life. Was Danni Paul's only victim? Or will law enforcement find a string of crimes in the same areas he traveled to hunt turkeys, waterfowl, and big game?
Want more Blood Trails? Check out this episode's Case File.
Follow Blood Trails on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, iHeart, Pandora, Amazon.
Connect with Jordan Sillars and MeatEater
MeatEater Podcast Network on YouTube
Jordan Sillars on Instagram
MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Youtube Clips
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This episode contains discussion of crimes involving sexual violence and murder.
It also deals with suicide. Listener discretion is advised. If
you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide,
caller text nine to eight eight to reach the suicide
and Crisis lifeline.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
This is part two of our two part series on
the murder of fifteen year old Danny Houchens. If you
haven't already, go back and listen to part one. It
tells the story of how investigators cracked the thirty year
old cold case and tried to bring a hunter and
BLM biologist named Paul Hutchinson to justice. But they never
got the chance to prosecute the case in court because
(00:38):
after their initial interview, Paul drove to the outskirts of
town and shot himself. Our story picks up there. Paul's
suicide was his final act of cowardice. He saved himself
the pain of facing his family, friends, and co workers,
not to mention Danny's family. Meanwhile, his actions introduced a
(00:59):
whole new level of pain and confusion to those who
knew him and cared about him. Those people have been
left to grapple with questions without the opportunity to ever
have them answered. Paul's immediate family declined to speak with
us for this podcast, but his nephew, Zach Hutchinson reached out.
Zach is the son of Paul's older brother, and he
(01:20):
knew Paul before he left.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
For the Marine Corps.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
That's the detail of Paul's life we'll get to in
a few minutes. Zach says he had many fond memories
of hunting and fishing with his uncle, and he never
saw the side of Paul that could rape and murder
a fifteen year old.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
It's been really difficult because it's kind of like when
you find out your hero is a fraud.
Speaker 5 (01:41):
This guy was like one.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Of the most pure versions of a role model that
I had growing up my whole life, and then when
this came out, I just felt like it was all
a fraud. It's not like something where I can just
say there's like an exac feel And I mean, I've
been angry and I've been sad, and I've had a
lot of remorse for what I have been or why
this happened, and like, I've thought a lot about all
(02:03):
of this stuff, and I have a lot of empathy
for the victim's family and everything they went through. I mean,
it's terrible to have our name associated with such a
atrocity like this.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
That association has made it difficult for Paul's family, especially
his wife and kids who live in Dylan. I've been
told that their house has been vandalized and that threats
forced them to call off Paul's memorial service. Zach said
he hasn't heard from them since the news came out
about Danny, but he understands the reaction from their community.
Speaker 6 (02:34):
I think it's a really natural thing for the public
in general to need somebody to blame that still here
so they get all of the anger and frustration that
should have been directed towards Paul, and instead his kids
and wife have to take.
Speaker 5 (02:48):
The brunch of all that.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Christy Hutchinson, Paul's wife, hasn't spoken to the media, but
she did leave a note on what used to be
Paul's obituary on the funeral home website. She said, quote,
we are sly heartbroken to learn this news, and our
hearts go out to the Houchen's family. It is good
to know that they will at last be able to
find the closure that they deserve. Our own family was
already reeling from dealing with Paul's suicide in twenty four
(03:12):
years of marriage. There was never any hint that something
like this could be lurking in the background. Paul was
an exceptional husband and father. This latest news makes our
grieving so much more complicated. Of course, his family weren't
the only people to be confused and disturbed by Paul's actions.
We heard from many people who had hunted with Paul
from all across the country. Some had hunted with him
(03:34):
for years, while others had only gone out with him
a few times. Many remembered that he was always happy
to share hunting tips and tactics, and he was active
on forums like hunt talk and various Facebook groups.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
One hunter named.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Bryant Jones were called bumping into Paul while hunting elk
in a remote area he thought no one else knew about.
Bryant invited him to share his campsite, but Paul said
he wanted to hunt alone. Bryant lives in the same
county as Paul, and they saw each other again a
few times after that. He said in an email quote,
we always seem to share a commonality of elk and hunting,
(04:09):
a sense of respect, knowing he had the same drive
and passion for ELK that I did. And after all,
we shared a secret hunting spot that neither of us
were willing to share with just anyone. I guess you
could say Paul was good at keeping secrets. Another hunter
named Heath Smith described a kind of interaction we heard
a lot during the course of this investigation. Heath met
(04:31):
Paul on a Facebook group dedicated to turkey hunting.
Speaker 5 (04:35):
I asked a question about some states, and he was
super helpful. He reached out and said, Hey, you know,
I hunt all over the country. I'm trying to kill
a turkey in all forty nine states. I do hunt swaps.
You know, where are you going? How can I help you?
You know, I'll point you in the right direction. Basically
super nice.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Paul agreed to take Heath turkey hunting in Montana in
the hopes that Heath would return the favor and host
Paul in his home state of Illinois. Heith and his
cousin traveled up to Montana in twenty twenty two, and
they planned to hunt along the Yellowstone. At this point,
he'd been messaging with Paul and calling him on the
phone for almost two years, which is why he felt
comfortable making this joke that in retrospect is not funny.
Speaker 5 (05:17):
I actually remember on making a joke when we got
in the truck, kind of hey, Paul, where our families
are worried about us? You know, they think you might
be a killer. Kind of joke. We all had a
laugh and down the road we went.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Heith says they had a great time. They killed a
few turkeys and agreed to host Paul in Illinois. The
next spring, Heath got a camper from his cousin and
they parked it in Heath's driveway for Paul to sleep in.
I asked, Heith, what you're probably thinking looking back? Did
Paul say or do anything that he now sees in
a new light? He said their interactions with him were
(05:52):
always positive, but at the same time I.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
Could see there being another side of him, Like he
was definitely an awkward dude. Like I said, my wife
has the Spidey sense, you know, when he left, she
definitely had the hebegbis And maybe we just were kind
of blind to it. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
This description of Paul as awkward or off putting was
echoed by another hunter from the mid Atlantic region who
swapped waterfowling trips with Paul. In the early twenty tens,
he traveled up to Great Falls, Montana, and Paul was
supposed to pick him up from the airport, but he
never showed. Paul eventually showed up and they hunted with
him for a few days, but then he vanished. This
(06:34):
hunter says they woke up one morning and Paul wasn't
in his hotel room and his truck was gone. They
tried calling him, but he never responded. This hunter also
commented that to him, Paul's anti social behavior was noticeable
enough that he wasn't surprised to learn about his crimes.
Of course, not all socially awkward people are murderers, and
(06:56):
everyone has a bad day or a bad week, but
the fact that Paul traveled so much to hunt and
had so much opportunity to be alone with people in
the wilderness is obviously concerning. We also heard from several
of Paul's coworkers who spent time with them as part
of their work for the Bureau of Land Management. These
individuals would go out with Paul, often by themselves, into
(07:18):
the mountains around Dylan to do fish population surveys. Using
a method called electro shocking, where fish are stunned by
an electric current and then can be collected in a net.
When Tom Elfmott heard about this, he had a recommendation
for BLM law enforcement.
Speaker 7 (07:35):
I recommended to the BLM law enforcement that they go
back and they interview female interns who worked for the
BLM in the summers with him for the least the
past five years to see if there was anything appropriate
inappropriate that went on that he might have done, like hey, look,
(07:56):
if you really want a full time job with BLM.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Know we're out here in the middle of the woods,
so you gotta do this or you gotta do that.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
We spoke with two of these young women, both of
whom you heard in the intro to Part one. Jordan
Walker told us she went into the mountains with Paul
and had a terrible time. She said he was impatient
as she struggled to catch the electro shocked fish, and
the experience made her decide to pursue something other than
fishery science.
Speaker 8 (08:25):
So when I went out there, I didn't know what
I was doing, and he was We were shocking fish
that day, and I would have to grab him and
put them in a bucket. Well, I couldn't see all
those little one inch brown ones in the muddy water,
and so he was getting super super upset with me.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Nothing else happened that day, but Jordan was understandably upset
when she heard about what Paul had done.
Speaker 8 (08:49):
I was at a little spooked, for sure. I guess
I've just kind of looked back on the day and
I was like, man, anything could have happened to me.
I had no clue where where I was or whatever,
and I'm sure most people didn't know exactly where we were.
It would have been easy to get away with anything. Really.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Jordan wasn't the only newbie to go into the mountains
with Paul that summer. She told me that Paul's usual
partner had left the BLM unexpectedly, and so Paul needed
people to come out and help him. According to Jordan,
there was some discussion in the BLM office about why
this man left.
Speaker 8 (09:24):
I know some people were wondering what happened to the
person that worked with him for ten years. Paul was
saying some stuff afterwards, like you can't tell people anything,
and they were just kind of wondering what happened with
him because I know you'd like that job.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
We reached out to Paul's work partner, but he declined
to be interviewed for this podcast. This partner never came
up in Tom's interview with Paul, but he did mention
having to work with new seasonal employees, so.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
You train him up.
Speaker 5 (09:53):
Is he kind of doing an internship?
Speaker 8 (09:55):
Is that what it is?
Speaker 9 (09:56):
No seasonal technician?
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Well, they break him in just for certain times of
the year or something.
Speaker 9 (10:00):
Yeah, we got for the summer and there's a young
lady working with him and neither No, they didn't know
what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Yeah, Jordan was eighteen years old this summer. She spent
that day with Paul. Another young woman who spoke to
us anonymously due to fear of professional repercussions, described a
much better experience with a fifty five year old man.
This woman, who will call Molly, had never been electro fishing,
but she says Paul was pleasant to be around, if
a little reserved.
Speaker 10 (10:29):
He had some embarrassing stories about my supervisor to tell,
just as far as like teaching him how to snow
machine and all that good stuff. And then the thing
that we actually were able to talk about a whole
bunch was his family and his kids.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
The day was uneventful otherwise, and Molly was grateful to
put electro fishing experience on her resume, but her good
day with Paul made what he did to Danny even
more confusing.
Speaker 10 (10:57):
So there were two like really hard things for me initially,
the first being how do I interact with coworkers in
the future that I don't know very well or even
that I do know very well. Right, in these jobs,
you go out for sometimes a week or so at
a time in places with no service. You have to
(11:17):
trust the people that you're out there with. So like
coming to terms with like not being afraid was something
that I had to go through. And then the other
thing that I had to think about a lot was
like this idea of how do the actions of your
mentors or the people who are teaching you things change
your experience or does it change your experience?
Speaker 5 (11:40):
Right?
Speaker 10 (11:40):
So, like Paul is the one who taught me how
to electrofish, and that was kind of huge for getting
me to where I am today. And so just like, yeah,
wrestling with that question of like does that change where
I am? And like the path that got me here,
you know, we.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Spoke with unofficial with knowledge of Paul's case, who was
also granted anonymity due to professional repercussions of talking to us.
This person told us that there were a number of
seasonal employees who worked with Paul but then never returned
to the BLM. This person said the reason those seasonal
workers didn't return is because they were quote creeped out
by him. At the same time, Paul's coworkers never formally
(12:20):
complained about him to the BLM. This could be exonerating
or it could be suspicious. It's easy to lodge a
complaint with the agency, so officials were surprised to learn
that no one had ever complained about Paul. We asked
the BLM to confirm these details about Paul's personnel record,
but the agency declined to comment. After the break, we
(12:46):
look to the future. Stephanie tells me about her fight
to improve Montana's law enforcement system. We hear from a
forensic psychologist about whether Paul could have committed other crimes,
and Steve Vernella gives us an inside look at how
this story has impact did hunters and anglers in the
Boseman area.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
That's next on Blood Trails Part six.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Moving forward, It's been a little over a year since
Paul killed himself on July twenty fourth, twenty twenty four,
but this story is far from over. Stephanie has launched
an advocacy campaign to address what she describes as serious
flaws in Montana's law enforcement capabilities. Here she is during
a press conference shortly after the resolution.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Of the case.
Speaker 11 (13:35):
Call and write to your legislators. Demand adequate funding for
the Montana State Crime Lab. Demand a news system of
peer review for law enforcement when a violent rape and
murder happens in their jurisdiction. Demand a centralized database of
cold cases in this state. We must demand better for
(14:00):
victims of sexual assault and murder in Montana.
Speaker 12 (14:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
The Montana State Legislature has so far declined to increase
funding for law enforcement or institute a cold case database,
but Stephanie is currently raising money to found a volunteer
case review committee with the Montana Peace Officers Association, and
she's gaining traction.
Speaker 11 (14:28):
If victims families like me don't fight for victims and
families like who's going to I'll see through the accountability
and justice for my sister. But the next phase for
me is really figuring out how I try to make
it better.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
And Stephanie says she's fighting for justice for her sister.
She doesn't just mean that figuratively on behalf of her
sister's estate. She told me she plans to file a
wrongful death lawsuit against Paul Hutchinson's estate.
Speaker 11 (14:58):
What is really important to me going forward is that
other rapists and murderers don't think that the pathway of
taking your own life is a viable pathway to dodge
accountability for your violence and your crimes. So I'm going
to see that accountability through.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
I asked Stephanie what she would say to someone who
would question the justice of suing the Hutchinson family when
they're not the ones who committed the crime.
Speaker 11 (15:28):
I have certainly had people approach me with the sentiment
that Paul Hutchinson's family is a victim are victims too
of what he did. And while that may be true,
the victimization of Paul Hutchinson's family is not my responsibility.
The victimization of the Hutchins family and of Danielle Houchins
(15:48):
is my responsibility. And at the end of the day,
victims who have birthdays are less of a victim than
victims who don't.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Zach Hutchinson, Paul's nephew, does believe Paul's wife and kids
were victims. At the same time, he understands why Stephanie
and Danny's family filed the lawsuit.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
I think that's a perfectly natural response to them, because again,
it's really difficult to have anger towards somebody that's dead.
It's really difficult to have accountability to somebody who is unaccountable.
Speaker 5 (16:26):
So I mean, I think that that's a very natural reaction.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Of course, the biggest question, the one that we may
never have a good answer to, is whether Danny was
Paul Hutchinson's only victim. Galaton County Sheriff Dan Springer told
me that they've submitted Paul's case profile to local, state,
and federal databases. If they find Paul's DNA on another
victim or law enforcement in another jurisdiction see similarities between
(16:52):
Danny's death and other cold cases, they'll be able to
flag it. So far as far as Sheriff Springer knows,
there haven't been any connections made to other victims, but
that doesn't mean they aren't out there to help me
shed more light on this question, I reached out to
doctor Jeff Kalshevsky. Doctor Koallshevski is a forensic psychologist with
(17:13):
a doctorate from the University of Iowa. He's basically spent
his entire career talking to criminals. He worked in prisons
for a long time doing psychological evaluations, and he spent
the last quarter century in private practice doing the same
thing in other criminal cases. If you've committed a crime
and want to plead insanity, he's the guy you have
(17:33):
to convince that you're not competent to stand trial. I
asked doctor Kolshewsky whether, in his professional opinion, someone could
rape and murder a fifteen year old girl and then
go on to live a crime free life.
Speaker 12 (17:47):
That's a tough question, because, let me tell you, I've
talked to people who've done terrible, egregious things like this.
Kaikark And said they always fantasized about doing it, and
then they did it, and the fantasy did not meet
up to the reality, and then it became a proverbial
skeleton in their closet, and then they were caught many
(18:09):
years later. I think we don't know enough about the
case hat to really go in either direction.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Doctor Kolshevski never interviewed Paul and hasn't seen the case file,
so he didn't want to speak definitively on this question. However,
he does host a YouTube channel where he offers his
opinion on high profile cases and criminals, and he was
willing to give me his general thoughts based on his
decades of experience interviewing inmates. One of the things that
stood out to doctor Kolshewski was Paul's military career when
(18:39):
he served for four years in the Marine Corps.
Speaker 12 (18:42):
I'd really be interested in what happened during his military career,
you know, was there anything there were there any misconducts
where was he stationed to Because I've had some cases where, unfortunately,
if someone has a twisted sexual paraphilia or perversion, I've
had cases where these guys were in the military and
(19:03):
they were in third world countries where they could engage
in some of that stuff without being caught, and then
once they're out of the military, that paraphilia is strong
and they can't really exercise that as easily here as
they could say in a third world country. If that
appetite is wetted and that parophilia becomes strong. Unfortunately, sometimes
(19:26):
it's just a matter of time before it comes out,
and it could be an opportunity like what happened in
this case.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I haven't seen Paul's military record myself, but Tom Elfmont
was able to secure a copy. He told me Paul
did basic training at Camp Le June in North Carolina
and was stationed for a time in Alaska. Paul was
in the infantry, but he never served in combat and
didn't get into any official trouble. Tom asked Paul about
his military service during that initial interview.
Speaker 7 (19:57):
You know, I liked it.
Speaker 9 (20:00):
If they would have given me what I wanted, I
would have relisted. I had I had fun. You look back,
did you either want to deserve?
Speaker 5 (20:06):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (20:06):
I did.
Speaker 9 (20:06):
You know, so you look back at boot camp, and
it's one thing when you look back, that stuff was funny.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Yeah when you were there.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
What you want to do?
Speaker 9 (20:16):
I wanted to I wanted to go Security Forces, and
you got to pick. There's a hardship and then there's
what they called the gravy tour. I actually wanted two
of the hardships I wanted. I spent six months in
South America. I want to go back to South America. Yeah,
they wouldn't do it.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
We don't know why Paul was in South America or
why he wanted to go back. We also can't say
for sure whether or not Paul's time in the military
had anything to do with his subsequent behavior. Zach Hutchinson
believes his uncle's time in the Marines may have changed him,
but right now we don't have any direct evidence that
suggests it did. Doctor Karlschewski was also interested in Paul's
(20:52):
response to being confronted, probably for the very first time,
about Danny.
Speaker 12 (20:57):
One thing that was a bit surprising for me was
a suicide, particularly with a guy who is a skilled
and experienced outdoorsman. He could have tried to sort of
make a run for it, and just that how upset
he became after he saw that photo. If he was
a serial killer, this is sort of odd to say
(21:19):
he wasn't really that good at it and didn't have
much of a stomach for it, because a lot of
times with these experienced serial killers, when they're presented and
faced with the evidence or information about the victim, they
don't have an emotional reaction like that.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
To say that Paul may not have been a serial
killer is hardly exonerating, and doctor Kelshewsky pointed out that
there have been serial killers who aren't psychopaths who do
feel empathy. It's also true that no one really knows
why Paul committed suicide. He may have done it because
he was upset about Danny, or he may have had
another reason. But if we're trying to figure out whether
(21:54):
Paul victimized other people, his decision to take his own
life is another factor that doctor kel Schevsky would consider.
I also pose this question to Tom, who knows Paul's
file better than anyone.
Speaker 7 (22:07):
I would think that the propensity would be for him
to have done other things. But he may have just
committed rapes. He may have just done in decent exposure
where he's in the woods and some woman's walking her
dog along a canal or something. He could be responsible
for other sex crimes, but the murder was probably because
(22:31):
he panicked and Danny was trying to get away and
he killed her.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Tom shared two pieces of information from his investigation that
led him to believe in Paul's propensity towards sexual crimes.
Speaker 7 (22:43):
One of the telling things was I reached out to
his fiance who lived with him in nineteen ninety six,
and I asked her, did you ever recognize or see
any abnormal or unus usual sexual behaviors.
Speaker 3 (23:02):
On his part?
Speaker 7 (23:03):
And she declined to answer, and then just never called
me back after that. And the other thing was after
his funeral, his sister called his wife and it was
then reported to the sheriff and Dylan that he made
an advance on their ten year old his ten year
(23:24):
old niece years and years ago in an attempt to
molest her, and they never reported it to the police.
So it's still a mystery. But you know, if I
got a phone call today from a small sheriff's department
in East Texas and they said, you know, we went
(23:44):
through our files and in nineteen ninety five or eight
or two thousand and one, we found a woman who
was raped along a river, and we checked and we
found out Paul had a turkey hunting license in tech
just at that time.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
It wouldn't surprise me.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
At all if there are any other victims out there.
Doctor Kolshewski believes the fact pattern in those cases will
be similar to what happened along the Gallatin River.
Speaker 12 (24:12):
If the person is a serial killer and they develop
a career as a killer. They tend to use similar methods.
It may change over time, but similar methods. They tend
to pick similar victims. They tend to pick similar settings.
They do become a bit creatures a habit because one
of the reinforcements they get from this act is kind
(24:32):
of carrying out those habits and rituals. So looking for
those kind of things will be important.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Part seven Close to home For us here at meat Eater,
this story hits a little too close for comfort. The
crime took place just outside of Bozeman, at a fishing
access many of us have been to. The perpetrator worked
for the Bureau of Land Manage, an agency that's familiar
to many of us and whose employees we know and
interact with all the time. When we posted on Instagram
(25:07):
that we were looking to speak with people who knew Paul,
we received dozens of emails. We all run in the
same circles, and so we're trying to make sense of
this along with other members of our community.
Speaker 13 (25:18):
It just, all of a sudden just felt very central
to our town, central to our communities, central to hunters
and anglers that live in this area.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
That's me Eater founder Steve Ranella. He's the one who
first told me about this case and suggested that we
cover it in an episode of Blood Trails. I sat
down with him to talk about why the story jumped
out of him and why he felt like we had
a duty to try to understand and process what happened.
Speaker 13 (25:43):
Me and Paul, you know, we came I came from Michigan,
he came from New England. We moved to mont at
the same time. We're both interested in hunting, We're both
interested in fishing, We're both fur trappers, hung out in
the same places. I've been to this river access a
ton of times where the murder took place. There are
a ton of times I know it very well. I
know the town very well, and so in that way,
(26:05):
you know, there was like an alignment, like I could
easily picture the enthusiasm of an outdoorsman moving out west
at that time and what that felt like. So I
understood it. Even though we didn't know each other, we
knew the same people. He worked for an agency where
I have friends that work at the agency that I
(26:28):
have professional collaborations with the agency. He worked on fisheries
projects that it sounds so weird to say he worked
on fisheries projects that I like benefited from I probably
read and digested research he did. So it was like
it was a very much a fishing story. It was
an outdoor story. It was about a place that you know,
(26:51):
I knew well, people I knew well, and so it
felt to me like very like we had every right
almost that we had a obligation to talk about this story.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Yeah, and hunting, I mean turned out to be a
really big part of the story that I don't think
a lot of other outlets really touched on his travel
for hunting and the concern that that, you know, brought
to mind for investigators. He's out there in the woods
a lot alone in remote areas in other states. You
mentioned the fishing access site. Could you describe that site.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
A little bit? We didn't.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
We didn't get into that a lot in the podcast.
I mean, for me, it's a little surprising because this
happened apparently around like noon, like maybe late morning, early afternoon,
and if you're not from there or you've never been there,
I think it's maybe unusual or surprising that that could
have happened in the middle of the day. Presumably there
(27:44):
was there was noise, there was screaming. Could you just
sort of paint a picture of what that area is like.
Speaker 13 (27:50):
Yeah, First off, point out that that area, like most
areas in the Gallton Valley area, has changed tremendously over
the years. I would have first been at that access
site around the same time, you know, I would have
started hanging out there. I moved to Bozeman in the
year two thousand. I was living in Missoula starting in
nineteen ninety six. But you know, there's quite a number
(28:13):
of river access sites they're in. They tend to be
around here in these big valley bottoms, you know, braided
river channels.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Lots of cottonwood, lots of brush.
Speaker 13 (28:24):
So even though they are around habitations, they might be
very close to busy roads, there's still a lot of
solitude around them. The other thing about river access sites
is Montana has great stream access law, So as long
as you can access the river legally, you can go
anywhere as long as you stay within the high water mark.
So one of the great draws of river access sites
is it gives you a legal point of entry into
(28:45):
a river and then you can wade up and down
wherever you want to go. If you pull into a
river access site and you see a half dozen cars there,
you might then use that river access site and go
fish for an hour, not run into the people, because
people disperse round there's a lot of you know, there's
privacy in solitude to be had there. And even though
it is near town, it's closer to Belgrade, Montana than
(29:06):
Bozeman proper. It's totally plausible that midday a couple of
people could be there and you could have a crime
like this play out over fifteen minutes or twenty minutes
or even an hour and have no witnesses to it,
even though you probably listening to cars driving by on
the bridge, And that would still be true today of
most of the river access sites around here.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
There's no part of that that's surprising at all.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
As someone who you know, you go out, but you
also go out with your family, with your wife and
your kids. How do you deal with that possibility of
someone being out there who doesn't have a criminal record,
isn't a wanted killer, right, just stumbling upon the wrong
person at the wrong time, with those vulnerable people that
(29:50):
you might be with.
Speaker 13 (29:51):
Man, even knowing this, it's not a thing we pay
attention to as parents. We talk a lot about water safety.
We taught our kids a swim a young age. We
kind of brush up now and then in certain areas.
We brush up now and then on the best protocol
around in Grizzly Bear country. Spatial awareness, taking no to landmarks,
(30:12):
to understand where you're at, paying attention.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
To what's going on.
Speaker 13 (30:14):
But we never ever talk about being attacked by a
human being. And I have a lot of people who
live with kids and raise families around here, and I'm
telling you, in any conversations I have, it doesn't come up. Yeah,
it doesn't come up.
Speaker 5 (30:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 13 (30:32):
You know, people might joke right like, oh, you know,
a guy in a van by the river kind of joke.
But no, no, I would say in this community, like,
being attacked by a human being is not a thing
that takes up a lot of psychological space.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
But that's again, that's for me.
Speaker 13 (30:52):
If you're if I was a woman in my teens
or twenties hanging out and I like to go to
river access sites by myself off the fish. To be
honest with you, like I can't get in. I don't
know what that experience is like, but I would think
that you'd get a very different answer from them.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Absolutely, and I'm sure everyone in the Belgrade area was
terrified in the months and years after this happened. I mean,
a girl was murdered, they didn't find the killer. Is
he still out there? Will he do this again? Is
it safe to be outside by yourself? It's funny to
terrorize the public and then go work for an agency
that's supposed to help facilitate outdoor recreation. You know, it's
(31:29):
more than a little ironic. I want to transition from
the story itself to a little inside baseball on how
we reported this case. One of the reasons we were
able to connect with so many people who knew Paul
is because you posted about it on your Instagram. Both
of us had the opportunity to speak with a lot
of people, many of whom eventually decided they didn't want
(31:51):
to participate. What was your experience like speaking with some
of those individuals.
Speaker 13 (31:58):
Right when I graduated from high school, I had jury
duty in Mousketon County, Michigan, and I remember it was
a drug trial with a crack cocaine dealer and we
came back with a guilty verdict, And at that time,
that was a life sentence for the guy, and they
hauled the defendant away and the judge, I remember.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
The guy's name was Mike Cobbs. Judge Mike Cobbs.
Speaker 13 (32:25):
He asked all of us jurors to stay, and he
said he wanted to speak with us. And then he
went and told us all these all the non admissible evidence,
so all the things they couldn't bring up in trial
because of double jeopardy, just that this whole bunch of
sordid details about the defendant. His point was, if you
(32:45):
ever feel bad about what you did sending him to jail,
I want you to consider these things. I want you
to know the truth of these things that we couldn't
present in the trial. And I thought about that often
when we were looking at this story here, because man
Jordan talked to I talked to a number of people
who knew Paul who didn't want us to share any information.
(33:10):
People would decline to speak, and oftentimes people would speak
and then tell you all these details but say, but
I don't want you to share that, like they don't
want investigators to know, they don't want the family to know.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
Whatever.
Speaker 13 (33:21):
They would tell you to clear their conscious of things.
But then say you couldn't share it, and then putting
a project like this together, it gets frustrating because there
are details that we know about Paul that would illuminate
this or shed light on this we're not able to
put out there. That's frustrating. You know, you want to
be like the judge who just is able to lay
(33:43):
it all out, but you're prevented to out of needing
to honor anonymity.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Yeah, in a trial, they have rules about what's admissible,
what's not admissible, what can they talk about, what can
they not And when you're reporting a story, you also
have rules. If people say something to you and then
say I don't want you to report that, and then
you go and report it, you know, there can be
some pretty negative consequences. So we have to abide by
(34:09):
some of those rules, and sometimes it can be a
little frustrating. And you know, some of the people, like
you heard, you know you've heard in the episode, they
wanted to talk to us, but only anonymously. And sometimes
it sort of makes sense, like the they work in
a similar field, they worry about professional repercussions. Some people,
it seemed like, just didn't want their name associated with
(34:32):
this at all. Some people's reasons are a bit more selfish,
I think, and we also ran into that.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
As we explored the story.
Speaker 13 (34:39):
One of the things I kept coming back to again
and again in my mind, this individual Paul, he loved
a lot of the things I love. I love to
hunt turkeys. Here's this guy, he loved to hunt turkeys.
I like trap and he liked trapping. I love to
hunt man. I like listening to El Bugle. I like
all this right and too. But I always wonder, even
(35:02):
though I understand the joy of those things, I kept wondering, like,
how could someone ever find or retain joy in those
things knowing what they had done after he'd done it,
having done what he did, after he did it, the
only suitable thing to do is what he ultimately did,
which was to kill himself. But the fact that you
(35:23):
could live all those years.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
And like.
Speaker 13 (35:26):
Take pictures of yourself hunting turkeys and enjoy that kind
of stuff, Like, how like what kind of depravity is
in somebody that they could find joy in anything in
life knowing that you had just out of some kind
of blind rage or blind lust, like killed a teenage
(35:48):
girl and walked away from her dead body it's it's
like such an obvious thing to wonder, but I kept warning, like,
what is in a person that they can then enjoy
their life?
Speaker 3 (36:00):
Yeah, and not just want to end it?
Speaker 2 (36:02):
Yeah, or enjoy their kids have kids that are about
that age. And that's one of the things that the
investigators in their interview with Paul really kind of hammered
him on that you have a daughter, right, how would
you feel if this happened to her? And I don't
(36:23):
know if that's what drove him to do what he did,
but it's hard to imagine that didn't have any effect.
But as you say, he lived his whole life with that.
I don't you know, why would it have an effect?
Speaker 9 (36:36):
Right?
Speaker 5 (36:36):
Then?
Speaker 3 (36:37):
Who knows?
Speaker 5 (36:38):
No?
Speaker 3 (36:40):
Who knows?
Speaker 2 (36:41):
It seems fitting to end this episode with a question.
This case brought much needed closure to the Houchin's family.
They finally figured out who killed their daughter and sister,
and the killer was, in some measure brought to justice.
But we'll never know why Paul did what he did
or what he was thinking and feeling in the years
after he murdered Danny. We can't get inside his head,
(37:04):
not that we'd really want to, but the person he
presented to the world was inconsistent. Some people we spoke
with said they weren't surprised, they knew there was something
off about that guy. Others really liked him and said
they were shocked by what he'd done. But it's this
inconsistency that makes him ordinary, and in that way all
(37:27):
the more terrifying.
Speaker 3 (37:29):
He wasn't a villain from a superhero movie.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
With an evil laugh and an evil eye. And he
wasn't a genius con man who fooled everyone with his
charming smile and winning ways. He was just a dude,
a dude he might meet at the store or your
kid's soccer game, strike up a friendship, and go hunting with.
Speaker 3 (37:48):
We can't suspect everyone.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
We don't know of horrible crimes, but Paul's story is
a reminder that you never really know what kind of
monster might be lurking just below the surface.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Yes, thanks for listening to this episode of Blood Trails.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
If you'd like to see images related to this case,
including images of Danny and hunting photos of Paul, head
over to the meeater dot com slash blood Trails and
click on the case file for this episode. If you
have a tip, about this case or another case you
think we should cover. Send us an email at blood
Trails at the meeteater dot com. That's b l o
O D t R a I L S at the
(38:36):
meeater dot com. See you next time, and stay safe
out there.
This episode contains discussion of crimes involving sexual violence and murder.
It also deals with suicide. Listener discretion is advised. If
you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide,
caller text nine to eight eight to reach the suicide
and Crisis lifeline.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
This is part two of our two part series on
the murder of fifteen year old Danny Houchens. If you
haven't already, go back and listen to part one. It
tells the story of how investigators cracked the thirty year
old cold case and tried to bring a hunter and
BLM biologist named Paul Hutchinson to justice. But they never
got the chance to prosecute the case in court because
(00:38):
after their initial interview, Paul drove to the outskirts of
town and shot himself. Our story picks up there. Paul's
suicide was his final act of cowardice. He saved himself
the pain of facing his family, friends, and co workers,
not to mention Danny's family. Meanwhile, his actions introduced a
(00:59):
whole new level of pain and confusion to those who
knew him and cared about him. Those people have been
left to grapple with questions without the opportunity to ever
have them answered. Paul's immediate family declined to speak with
us for this podcast, but his nephew, Zach Hutchinson reached out.
Zach is the son of Paul's older brother, and he
(01:20):
knew Paul before he left.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
For the Marine Corps.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
That's the detail of Paul's life we'll get to in
a few minutes. Zach says he had many fond memories
of hunting and fishing with his uncle, and he never
saw the side of Paul that could rape and murder
a fifteen year old.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
It's been really difficult because it's kind of like when
you find out your hero is a fraud.
Speaker 5 (01:41):
This guy was like one.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Of the most pure versions of a role model that
I had growing up my whole life, and then when
this came out, I just felt like it was all
a fraud. It's not like something where I can just
say there's like an exac feel And I mean, I've
been angry and I've been sad, and I've had a
lot of remorse for what I have been or why
this happened, and like, I've thought a lot about all
(02:03):
of this stuff, and I have a lot of empathy
for the victim's family and everything they went through. I mean,
it's terrible to have our name associated with such a
atrocity like this.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
That association has made it difficult for Paul's family, especially
his wife and kids who live in Dylan. I've been
told that their house has been vandalized and that threats
forced them to call off Paul's memorial service. Zach said
he hasn't heard from them since the news came out
about Danny, but he understands the reaction from their community.
Speaker 6 (02:34):
I think it's a really natural thing for the public
in general to need somebody to blame that still here
so they get all of the anger and frustration that
should have been directed towards Paul, and instead his kids
and wife have to take.
Speaker 5 (02:48):
The brunch of all that.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Christy Hutchinson, Paul's wife, hasn't spoken to the media, but
she did leave a note on what used to be
Paul's obituary on the funeral home website. She said, quote,
we are sly heartbroken to learn this news, and our
hearts go out to the Houchen's family. It is good
to know that they will at last be able to
find the closure that they deserve. Our own family was
already reeling from dealing with Paul's suicide in twenty four
(03:12):
years of marriage. There was never any hint that something
like this could be lurking in the background. Paul was
an exceptional husband and father. This latest news makes our
grieving so much more complicated. Of course, his family weren't
the only people to be confused and disturbed by Paul's actions.
We heard from many people who had hunted with Paul
from all across the country. Some had hunted with him
(03:34):
for years, while others had only gone out with him
a few times. Many remembered that he was always happy
to share hunting tips and tactics, and he was active
on forums like hunt talk and various Facebook groups.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
One hunter named.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Bryant Jones were called bumping into Paul while hunting elk
in a remote area he thought no one else knew about.
Bryant invited him to share his campsite, but Paul said
he wanted to hunt alone. Bryant lives in the same
county as Paul, and they saw each other again a
few times after that. He said in an email quote,
we always seem to share a commonality of elk and hunting,
(04:09):
a sense of respect, knowing he had the same drive
and passion for ELK that I did. And after all,
we shared a secret hunting spot that neither of us
were willing to share with just anyone. I guess you
could say Paul was good at keeping secrets. Another hunter
named Heath Smith described a kind of interaction we heard
a lot during the course of this investigation. Heath met
(04:31):
Paul on a Facebook group dedicated to turkey hunting.
Speaker 5 (04:35):
I asked a question about some states, and he was
super helpful. He reached out and said, Hey, you know,
I hunt all over the country. I'm trying to kill
a turkey in all forty nine states. I do hunt swaps.
You know, where are you going? How can I help you?
You know, I'll point you in the right direction. Basically
super nice.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Paul agreed to take Heath turkey hunting in Montana in
the hopes that Heath would return the favor and host
Paul in his home state of Illinois. Heith and his
cousin traveled up to Montana in twenty twenty two, and
they planned to hunt along the Yellowstone. At this point,
he'd been messaging with Paul and calling him on the
phone for almost two years, which is why he felt
comfortable making this joke that in retrospect is not funny.
Speaker 5 (05:17):
I actually remember on making a joke when we got
in the truck, kind of hey, Paul, where our families
are worried about us? You know, they think you might
be a killer. Kind of joke. We all had a
laugh and down the road we went.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Heith says they had a great time. They killed a
few turkeys and agreed to host Paul in Illinois. The
next spring, Heath got a camper from his cousin and
they parked it in Heath's driveway for Paul to sleep in.
I asked, Heith, what you're probably thinking looking back? Did
Paul say or do anything that he now sees in
a new light? He said their interactions with him were
(05:52):
always positive, but at the same time I.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
Could see there being another side of him, Like he
was definitely an awkward dude. Like I said, my wife
has the Spidey sense, you know, when he left, she
definitely had the hebegbis And maybe we just were kind
of blind to it. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
This description of Paul as awkward or off putting was
echoed by another hunter from the mid Atlantic region who
swapped waterfowling trips with Paul. In the early twenty tens,
he traveled up to Great Falls, Montana, and Paul was
supposed to pick him up from the airport, but he
never showed. Paul eventually showed up and they hunted with
him for a few days, but then he vanished. This
(06:34):
hunter says they woke up one morning and Paul wasn't
in his hotel room and his truck was gone. They
tried calling him, but he never responded. This hunter also
commented that to him, Paul's anti social behavior was noticeable
enough that he wasn't surprised to learn about his crimes.
Of course, not all socially awkward people are murderers, and
(06:56):
everyone has a bad day or a bad week, but
the fact that Paul traveled so much to hunt and
had so much opportunity to be alone with people in
the wilderness is obviously concerning. We also heard from several
of Paul's coworkers who spent time with them as part
of their work for the Bureau of Land Management. These
individuals would go out with Paul, often by themselves, into
(07:18):
the mountains around Dylan to do fish population surveys. Using
a method called electro shocking, where fish are stunned by
an electric current and then can be collected in a net.
When Tom Elfmott heard about this, he had a recommendation
for BLM law enforcement.
Speaker 7 (07:35):
I recommended to the BLM law enforcement that they go
back and they interview female interns who worked for the
BLM in the summers with him for the least the
past five years to see if there was anything appropriate
inappropriate that went on that he might have done, like hey, look,
(07:56):
if you really want a full time job with BLM.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Know we're out here in the middle of the woods,
so you gotta do this or you gotta do that.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
We spoke with two of these young women, both of
whom you heard in the intro to Part one. Jordan
Walker told us she went into the mountains with Paul
and had a terrible time. She said he was impatient
as she struggled to catch the electro shocked fish, and
the experience made her decide to pursue something other than
fishery science.
Speaker 8 (08:25):
So when I went out there, I didn't know what
I was doing, and he was We were shocking fish
that day, and I would have to grab him and
put them in a bucket. Well, I couldn't see all
those little one inch brown ones in the muddy water,
and so he was getting super super upset with me.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Nothing else happened that day, but Jordan was understandably upset
when she heard about what Paul had done.
Speaker 8 (08:49):
I was at a little spooked, for sure. I guess
I've just kind of looked back on the day and
I was like, man, anything could have happened to me.
I had no clue where where I was or whatever,
and I'm sure most people didn't know exactly where we were.
It would have been easy to get away with anything. Really.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Jordan wasn't the only newbie to go into the mountains
with Paul that summer. She told me that Paul's usual
partner had left the BLM unexpectedly, and so Paul needed
people to come out and help him. According to Jordan,
there was some discussion in the BLM office about why
this man left.
Speaker 8 (09:24):
I know some people were wondering what happened to the
person that worked with him for ten years. Paul was
saying some stuff afterwards, like you can't tell people anything,
and they were just kind of wondering what happened with
him because I know you'd like that job.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
We reached out to Paul's work partner, but he declined
to be interviewed for this podcast. This partner never came
up in Tom's interview with Paul, but he did mention
having to work with new seasonal employees, so.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
You train him up.
Speaker 5 (09:53):
Is he kind of doing an internship?
Speaker 8 (09:55):
Is that what it is?
Speaker 9 (09:56):
No seasonal technician?
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Well, they break him in just for certain times of
the year or something.
Speaker 9 (10:00):
Yeah, we got for the summer and there's a young
lady working with him and neither No, they didn't know
what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Yeah, Jordan was eighteen years old this summer. She spent
that day with Paul. Another young woman who spoke to
us anonymously due to fear of professional repercussions, described a
much better experience with a fifty five year old man.
This woman, who will call Molly, had never been electro fishing,
but she says Paul was pleasant to be around, if
a little reserved.
Speaker 10 (10:29):
He had some embarrassing stories about my supervisor to tell,
just as far as like teaching him how to snow
machine and all that good stuff. And then the thing
that we actually were able to talk about a whole
bunch was his family and his kids.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
The day was uneventful otherwise, and Molly was grateful to
put electro fishing experience on her resume, but her good
day with Paul made what he did to Danny even
more confusing.
Speaker 10 (10:57):
So there were two like really hard things for me initially,
the first being how do I interact with coworkers in
the future that I don't know very well or even
that I do know very well. Right, in these jobs,
you go out for sometimes a week or so at
a time in places with no service. You have to
(11:17):
trust the people that you're out there with. So like
coming to terms with like not being afraid was something
that I had to go through. And then the other
thing that I had to think about a lot was
like this idea of how do the actions of your
mentors or the people who are teaching you things change
your experience or does it change your experience?
Speaker 5 (11:40):
Right?
Speaker 10 (11:40):
So, like Paul is the one who taught me how
to electrofish, and that was kind of huge for getting
me to where I am today. And so just like, yeah,
wrestling with that question of like does that change where
I am? And like the path that got me here,
you know, we.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Spoke with unofficial with knowledge of Paul's case, who was
also granted anonymity due to professional repercussions of talking to us.
This person told us that there were a number of
seasonal employees who worked with Paul but then never returned
to the BLM. This person said the reason those seasonal
workers didn't return is because they were quote creeped out
by him. At the same time, Paul's coworkers never formally
(12:20):
complained about him to the BLM. This could be exonerating
or it could be suspicious. It's easy to lodge a
complaint with the agency, so officials were surprised to learn
that no one had ever complained about Paul. We asked
the BLM to confirm these details about Paul's personnel record,
but the agency declined to comment. After the break, we
(12:46):
look to the future. Stephanie tells me about her fight
to improve Montana's law enforcement system. We hear from a
forensic psychologist about whether Paul could have committed other crimes,
and Steve Vernella gives us an inside look at how
this story has impact did hunters and anglers in the
Boseman area.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
That's next on Blood Trails Part six.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Moving forward, It's been a little over a year since
Paul killed himself on July twenty fourth, twenty twenty four,
but this story is far from over. Stephanie has launched
an advocacy campaign to address what she describes as serious
flaws in Montana's law enforcement capabilities. Here she is during
a press conference shortly after the resolution.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Of the case.
Speaker 11 (13:35):
Call and write to your legislators. Demand adequate funding for
the Montana State Crime Lab. Demand a news system of
peer review for law enforcement when a violent rape and
murder happens in their jurisdiction. Demand a centralized database of
cold cases in this state. We must demand better for
(14:00):
victims of sexual assault and murder in Montana.
Speaker 12 (14:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
The Montana State Legislature has so far declined to increase
funding for law enforcement or institute a cold case database,
but Stephanie is currently raising money to found a volunteer
case review committee with the Montana Peace Officers Association, and
she's gaining traction.
Speaker 11 (14:28):
If victims families like me don't fight for victims and
families like who's going to I'll see through the accountability
and justice for my sister. But the next phase for
me is really figuring out how I try to make
it better.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
And Stephanie says she's fighting for justice for her sister.
She doesn't just mean that figuratively on behalf of her
sister's estate. She told me she plans to file a
wrongful death lawsuit against Paul Hutchinson's estate.
Speaker 11 (14:58):
What is really important to me going forward is that
other rapists and murderers don't think that the pathway of
taking your own life is a viable pathway to dodge
accountability for your violence and your crimes. So I'm going
to see that accountability through.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
I asked Stephanie what she would say to someone who
would question the justice of suing the Hutchinson family when
they're not the ones who committed the crime.
Speaker 11 (15:28):
I have certainly had people approach me with the sentiment
that Paul Hutchinson's family is a victim are victims too
of what he did. And while that may be true,
the victimization of Paul Hutchinson's family is not my responsibility.
The victimization of the Hutchins family and of Danielle Houchins
(15:48):
is my responsibility. And at the end of the day,
victims who have birthdays are less of a victim than
victims who don't.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Zach Hutchinson, Paul's nephew, does believe Paul's wife and kids
were victims. At the same time, he understands why Stephanie
and Danny's family filed the lawsuit.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
I think that's a perfectly natural response to them, because again,
it's really difficult to have anger towards somebody that's dead.
It's really difficult to have accountability to somebody who is unaccountable.
Speaker 5 (16:26):
So I mean, I think that that's a very natural reaction.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Of course, the biggest question, the one that we may
never have a good answer to, is whether Danny was
Paul Hutchinson's only victim. Galaton County Sheriff Dan Springer told
me that they've submitted Paul's case profile to local, state,
and federal databases. If they find Paul's DNA on another
victim or law enforcement in another jurisdiction see similarities between
(16:52):
Danny's death and other cold cases, they'll be able to
flag it. So far as far as Sheriff Springer knows,
there haven't been any connections made to other victims, but
that doesn't mean they aren't out there to help me
shed more light on this question, I reached out to
doctor Jeff Kalshevsky. Doctor Koallshevski is a forensic psychologist with
(17:13):
a doctorate from the University of Iowa. He's basically spent
his entire career talking to criminals. He worked in prisons
for a long time doing psychological evaluations, and he spent
the last quarter century in private practice doing the same
thing in other criminal cases. If you've committed a crime
and want to plead insanity, he's the guy you have
(17:33):
to convince that you're not competent to stand trial. I
asked doctor Kolshewsky whether, in his professional opinion, someone could
rape and murder a fifteen year old girl and then
go on to live a crime free life.
Speaker 12 (17:47):
That's a tough question, because, let me tell you, I've
talked to people who've done terrible, egregious things like this.
Kaikark And said they always fantasized about doing it, and
then they did it, and the fantasy did not meet
up to the reality, and then it became a proverbial
skeleton in their closet, and then they were caught many
(18:09):
years later. I think we don't know enough about the
case hat to really go in either direction.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Doctor Kolshevski never interviewed Paul and hasn't seen the case file,
so he didn't want to speak definitively on this question. However,
he does host a YouTube channel where he offers his
opinion on high profile cases and criminals, and he was
willing to give me his general thoughts based on his
decades of experience interviewing inmates. One of the things that
stood out to doctor Kolshewski was Paul's military career when
(18:39):
he served for four years in the Marine Corps.
Speaker 12 (18:42):
I'd really be interested in what happened during his military career,
you know, was there anything there were there any misconducts
where was he stationed to Because I've had some cases where, unfortunately,
if someone has a twisted sexual paraphilia or perversion, I've
had cases where these guys were in the military and
(19:03):
they were in third world countries where they could engage
in some of that stuff without being caught, and then
once they're out of the military, that paraphilia is strong
and they can't really exercise that as easily here as
they could say in a third world country. If that
appetite is wetted and that parophilia becomes strong. Unfortunately, sometimes
(19:26):
it's just a matter of time before it comes out,
and it could be an opportunity like what happened in
this case.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I haven't seen Paul's military record myself, but Tom Elfmont
was able to secure a copy. He told me Paul
did basic training at Camp Le June in North Carolina
and was stationed for a time in Alaska. Paul was
in the infantry, but he never served in combat and
didn't get into any official trouble. Tom asked Paul about
his military service during that initial interview.
Speaker 7 (19:57):
You know, I liked it.
Speaker 9 (20:00):
If they would have given me what I wanted, I
would have relisted. I had I had fun. You look back,
did you either want to deserve?
Speaker 5 (20:06):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (20:06):
I did.
Speaker 9 (20:06):
You know, so you look back at boot camp, and
it's one thing when you look back, that stuff was funny.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Yeah when you were there.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
What you want to do?
Speaker 9 (20:16):
I wanted to I wanted to go Security Forces, and
you got to pick. There's a hardship and then there's
what they called the gravy tour. I actually wanted two
of the hardships I wanted. I spent six months in
South America. I want to go back to South America. Yeah,
they wouldn't do it.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
We don't know why Paul was in South America or
why he wanted to go back. We also can't say
for sure whether or not Paul's time in the military
had anything to do with his subsequent behavior. Zach Hutchinson
believes his uncle's time in the Marines may have changed him,
but right now we don't have any direct evidence that
suggests it did. Doctor Karlschewski was also interested in Paul's
(20:52):
response to being confronted, probably for the very first time,
about Danny.
Speaker 12 (20:57):
One thing that was a bit surprising for me was
a suicide, particularly with a guy who is a skilled
and experienced outdoorsman. He could have tried to sort of
make a run for it, and just that how upset
he became after he saw that photo. If he was
a serial killer, this is sort of odd to say
(21:19):
he wasn't really that good at it and didn't have
much of a stomach for it, because a lot of
times with these experienced serial killers, when they're presented and
faced with the evidence or information about the victim, they
don't have an emotional reaction like that.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
To say that Paul may not have been a serial
killer is hardly exonerating, and doctor Kelshewsky pointed out that
there have been serial killers who aren't psychopaths who do
feel empathy. It's also true that no one really knows
why Paul committed suicide. He may have done it because
he was upset about Danny, or he may have had
another reason. But if we're trying to figure out whether
(21:54):
Paul victimized other people, his decision to take his own
life is another factor that doctor kel Schevsky would consider.
I also pose this question to Tom, who knows Paul's
file better than anyone.
Speaker 7 (22:07):
I would think that the propensity would be for him
to have done other things. But he may have just
committed rapes. He may have just done in decent exposure
where he's in the woods and some woman's walking her
dog along a canal or something. He could be responsible
for other sex crimes, but the murder was probably because
(22:31):
he panicked and Danny was trying to get away and
he killed her.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Tom shared two pieces of information from his investigation that
led him to believe in Paul's propensity towards sexual crimes.
Speaker 7 (22:43):
One of the telling things was I reached out to
his fiance who lived with him in nineteen ninety six,
and I asked her, did you ever recognize or see
any abnormal or unus usual sexual behaviors.
Speaker 3 (23:02):
On his part?
Speaker 7 (23:03):
And she declined to answer, and then just never called
me back after that. And the other thing was after
his funeral, his sister called his wife and it was
then reported to the sheriff and Dylan that he made
an advance on their ten year old his ten year
(23:24):
old niece years and years ago in an attempt to
molest her, and they never reported it to the police.
So it's still a mystery. But you know, if I
got a phone call today from a small sheriff's department
in East Texas and they said, you know, we went
(23:44):
through our files and in nineteen ninety five or eight
or two thousand and one, we found a woman who
was raped along a river, and we checked and we
found out Paul had a turkey hunting license in tech
just at that time.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
It wouldn't surprise me.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
At all if there are any other victims out there.
Doctor Kolshewski believes the fact pattern in those cases will
be similar to what happened along the Gallatin River.
Speaker 12 (24:12):
If the person is a serial killer and they develop
a career as a killer. They tend to use similar methods.
It may change over time, but similar methods. They tend
to pick similar victims. They tend to pick similar settings.
They do become a bit creatures a habit because one
of the reinforcements they get from this act is kind
(24:32):
of carrying out those habits and rituals. So looking for
those kind of things will be important.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Part seven Close to home For us here at meat Eater,
this story hits a little too close for comfort. The
crime took place just outside of Bozeman, at a fishing
access many of us have been to. The perpetrator worked
for the Bureau of Land Manage, an agency that's familiar
to many of us and whose employees we know and
interact with all the time. When we posted on Instagram
(25:07):
that we were looking to speak with people who knew Paul,
we received dozens of emails. We all run in the
same circles, and so we're trying to make sense of
this along with other members of our community.
Speaker 13 (25:18):
It just, all of a sudden just felt very central
to our town, central to our communities, central to hunters
and anglers that live in this area.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
That's me Eater founder Steve Ranella. He's the one who
first told me about this case and suggested that we
cover it in an episode of Blood Trails. I sat
down with him to talk about why the story jumped
out of him and why he felt like we had
a duty to try to understand and process what happened.
Speaker 13 (25:43):
Me and Paul, you know, we came I came from Michigan,
he came from New England. We moved to mont at
the same time. We're both interested in hunting, We're both
interested in fishing, We're both fur trappers, hung out in
the same places. I've been to this river access a
ton of times where the murder took place. There are
a ton of times I know it very well. I
know the town very well, and so in that way,
(26:05):
you know, there was like an alignment, like I could
easily picture the enthusiasm of an outdoorsman moving out west
at that time and what that felt like. So I
understood it. Even though we didn't know each other, we
knew the same people. He worked for an agency where
I have friends that work at the agency that I
(26:28):
have professional collaborations with the agency. He worked on fisheries
projects that it sounds so weird to say he worked
on fisheries projects that I like benefited from I probably
read and digested research he did. So it was like
it was a very much a fishing story. It was
an outdoor story. It was about a place that you know,
(26:51):
I knew well, people I knew well, and so it
felt to me like very like we had every right
almost that we had a obligation to talk about this story.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Yeah, and hunting, I mean turned out to be a
really big part of the story that I don't think
a lot of other outlets really touched on his travel
for hunting and the concern that that, you know, brought
to mind for investigators. He's out there in the woods
a lot alone in remote areas in other states. You
mentioned the fishing access site. Could you describe that site.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
A little bit? We didn't.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
We didn't get into that a lot in the podcast.
I mean, for me, it's a little surprising because this
happened apparently around like noon, like maybe late morning, early afternoon,
and if you're not from there or you've never been there,
I think it's maybe unusual or surprising that that could
have happened in the middle of the day. Presumably there
(27:44):
was there was noise, there was screaming. Could you just
sort of paint a picture of what that area is like.
Speaker 13 (27:50):
Yeah, First off, point out that that area, like most
areas in the Gallton Valley area, has changed tremendously over
the years. I would have first been at that access
site around the same time, you know, I would have
started hanging out there. I moved to Bozeman in the
year two thousand. I was living in Missoula starting in
nineteen ninety six. But you know, there's quite a number
(28:13):
of river access sites they're in. They tend to be
around here in these big valley bottoms, you know, braided
river channels.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Lots of cottonwood, lots of brush.
Speaker 13 (28:24):
So even though they are around habitations, they might be
very close to busy roads, there's still a lot of
solitude around them. The other thing about river access sites
is Montana has great stream access law, So as long
as you can access the river legally, you can go
anywhere as long as you stay within the high water mark.
So one of the great draws of river access sites
is it gives you a legal point of entry into
(28:45):
a river and then you can wade up and down
wherever you want to go. If you pull into a
river access site and you see a half dozen cars there,
you might then use that river access site and go
fish for an hour, not run into the people, because
people disperse round there's a lot of you know, there's
privacy in solitude to be had there. And even though
it is near town, it's closer to Belgrade, Montana than
(29:06):
Bozeman proper. It's totally plausible that midday a couple of
people could be there and you could have a crime
like this play out over fifteen minutes or twenty minutes
or even an hour and have no witnesses to it,
even though you probably listening to cars driving by on
the bridge, And that would still be true today of
most of the river access sites around here.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
There's no part of that that's surprising at all.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
As someone who you know, you go out, but you
also go out with your family, with your wife and
your kids. How do you deal with that possibility of
someone being out there who doesn't have a criminal record,
isn't a wanted killer, right, just stumbling upon the wrong
person at the wrong time, with those vulnerable people that
(29:50):
you might be with.
Speaker 13 (29:51):
Man, even knowing this, it's not a thing we pay
attention to as parents. We talk a lot about water safety.
We taught our kids a swim a young age. We
kind of brush up now and then in certain areas.
We brush up now and then on the best protocol
around in Grizzly Bear country. Spatial awareness, taking no to landmarks,
(30:12):
to understand where you're at, paying attention.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
To what's going on.
Speaker 13 (30:14):
But we never ever talk about being attacked by a
human being. And I have a lot of people who
live with kids and raise families around here, and I'm
telling you, in any conversations I have, it doesn't come up. Yeah,
it doesn't come up.
Speaker 5 (30:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 13 (30:32):
You know, people might joke right like, oh, you know,
a guy in a van by the river kind of joke.
But no, no, I would say in this community, like,
being attacked by a human being is not a thing
that takes up a lot of psychological space.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
But that's again, that's for me.
Speaker 13 (30:52):
If you're if I was a woman in my teens
or twenties hanging out and I like to go to
river access sites by myself off the fish. To be
honest with you, like I can't get in. I don't
know what that experience is like, but I would think
that you'd get a very different answer from them.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Absolutely, and I'm sure everyone in the Belgrade area was
terrified in the months and years after this happened. I mean,
a girl was murdered, they didn't find the killer. Is
he still out there? Will he do this again? Is
it safe to be outside by yourself? It's funny to
terrorize the public and then go work for an agency
that's supposed to help facilitate outdoor recreation. You know, it's
(31:29):
more than a little ironic. I want to transition from
the story itself to a little inside baseball on how
we reported this case. One of the reasons we were
able to connect with so many people who knew Paul
is because you posted about it on your Instagram. Both
of us had the opportunity to speak with a lot
of people, many of whom eventually decided they didn't want
(31:51):
to participate. What was your experience like speaking with some
of those individuals.
Speaker 13 (31:58):
Right when I graduated from high school, I had jury
duty in Mousketon County, Michigan, and I remember it was
a drug trial with a crack cocaine dealer and we
came back with a guilty verdict, And at that time,
that was a life sentence for the guy, and they
hauled the defendant away and the judge, I remember.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
The guy's name was Mike Cobbs. Judge Mike Cobbs.
Speaker 13 (32:25):
He asked all of us jurors to stay, and he
said he wanted to speak with us. And then he
went and told us all these all the non admissible evidence,
so all the things they couldn't bring up in trial
because of double jeopardy, just that this whole bunch of
sordid details about the defendant. His point was, if you
(32:45):
ever feel bad about what you did sending him to jail,
I want you to consider these things. I want you
to know the truth of these things that we couldn't
present in the trial. And I thought about that often
when we were looking at this story here, because man
Jordan talked to I talked to a number of people
who knew Paul who didn't want us to share any information.
(33:10):
People would decline to speak, and oftentimes people would speak
and then tell you all these details but say, but
I don't want you to share that, like they don't
want investigators to know, they don't want the family to know.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
Whatever.
Speaker 13 (33:21):
They would tell you to clear their conscious of things.
But then say you couldn't share it, and then putting
a project like this together, it gets frustrating because there
are details that we know about Paul that would illuminate
this or shed light on this we're not able to
put out there. That's frustrating. You know, you want to
be like the judge who just is able to lay
(33:43):
it all out, but you're prevented to out of needing
to honor anonymity.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Yeah, in a trial, they have rules about what's admissible,
what's not admissible, what can they talk about, what can
they not And when you're reporting a story, you also
have rules. If people say something to you and then
say I don't want you to report that, and then
you go and report it, you know, there can be
some pretty negative consequences. So we have to abide by
(34:09):
some of those rules, and sometimes it can be a
little frustrating. And you know, some of the people, like
you heard, you know you've heard in the episode, they
wanted to talk to us, but only anonymously. And sometimes
it sort of makes sense, like the they work in
a similar field, they worry about professional repercussions. Some people,
it seemed like, just didn't want their name associated with
(34:32):
this at all. Some people's reasons are a bit more selfish,
I think, and we also ran into that.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
As we explored the story.
Speaker 13 (34:39):
One of the things I kept coming back to again
and again in my mind, this individual Paul, he loved
a lot of the things I love. I love to
hunt turkeys. Here's this guy, he loved to hunt turkeys.
I like trap and he liked trapping. I love to
hunt man. I like listening to El Bugle. I like
all this right and too. But I always wonder, even
(35:02):
though I understand the joy of those things, I kept wondering, like,
how could someone ever find or retain joy in those
things knowing what they had done after he'd done it,
having done what he did, after he did it, the
only suitable thing to do is what he ultimately did,
which was to kill himself. But the fact that you
(35:23):
could live all those years.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
And like.
Speaker 13 (35:26):
Take pictures of yourself hunting turkeys and enjoy that kind
of stuff, Like, how like what kind of depravity is
in somebody that they could find joy in anything in
life knowing that you had just out of some kind
of blind rage or blind lust, like killed a teenage
(35:48):
girl and walked away from her dead body it's it's
like such an obvious thing to wonder, but I kept warning, like,
what is in a person that they can then enjoy
their life?
Speaker 3 (36:00):
Yeah, and not just want to end it?
Speaker 2 (36:02):
Yeah, or enjoy their kids have kids that are about
that age. And that's one of the things that the
investigators in their interview with Paul really kind of hammered
him on that you have a daughter, right, how would
you feel if this happened to her? And I don't
(36:23):
know if that's what drove him to do what he did,
but it's hard to imagine that didn't have any effect.
But as you say, he lived his whole life with that.
I don't you know, why would it have an effect?
Speaker 9 (36:36):
Right?
Speaker 5 (36:36):
Then?
Speaker 3 (36:37):
Who knows?
Speaker 5 (36:38):
No?
Speaker 3 (36:40):
Who knows?
Speaker 2 (36:41):
It seems fitting to end this episode with a question.
This case brought much needed closure to the Houchin's family.
They finally figured out who killed their daughter and sister,
and the killer was, in some measure brought to justice.
But we'll never know why Paul did what he did
or what he was thinking and feeling in the years
after he murdered Danny. We can't get inside his head,
(37:04):
not that we'd really want to, but the person he
presented to the world was inconsistent. Some people we spoke
with said they weren't surprised, they knew there was something
off about that guy. Others really liked him and said
they were shocked by what he'd done. But it's this
inconsistency that makes him ordinary, and in that way all
(37:27):
the more terrifying.
Speaker 3 (37:29):
He wasn't a villain from a superhero movie.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
With an evil laugh and an evil eye. And he
wasn't a genius con man who fooled everyone with his
charming smile and winning ways. He was just a dude,
a dude he might meet at the store or your
kid's soccer game, strike up a friendship, and go hunting with.
Speaker 3 (37:48):
We can't suspect everyone.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
We don't know of horrible crimes, but Paul's story is
a reminder that you never really know what kind of
monster might be lurking just below the surface.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Yes, thanks for listening to this episode of Blood Trails.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
If you'd like to see images related to this case,
including images of Danny and hunting photos of Paul, head
over to the meeater dot com slash blood Trails and
click on the case file for this episode. If you
have a tip, about this case or another case you
think we should cover. Send us an email at blood
Trails at the meeteater dot com. That's b l o
O D t R a I L S at the
(38:36):
meeater dot com. See you next time, and stay safe
out there.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.