Cold Heart PT 2

In this second part of a two-part episode, Kate and Paul return to early 1900s Buffalo, and an investigation to find the killer of a man whose wife was cheating on him with his best friend. The authorities build a case based on blood work technology, but is it enough to convict? 

Support this podcast by shopping our latest sponsor deals and promotions at this link: https://bit.ly/4buCoMc

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
I'm Kate Winkler Dawson. I'm a journalist who's spent the
last twenty five years writing about true crime.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
And I'm Paul Hols, a retired cold case investigator who's
worked some of America's most complicated cases and solve them.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most
compelling true crimes.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring
new insights to old mysteries.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime
cases through a twenty first century lens.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Some are solved and some are cold, very cold.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
This is buried Bones. Hi, Kate, Hi, Paul. Were you

(01:03):
thinking about this story of Ed Burdick and what happened
to this guy for the last week? I hope you've
come up with a really, really strong theory and this
will be the shortest episode we've ever done if you
have the best theory.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
I have so many questions. Oh gosh, I have been
thinking about it. Yeah, no, I'm as I said. It's
going to be a Bourbon episode, but sort of not bourbon.
It's a hard Seltzer episode. How's that our Seltzer?

Speaker 1 (01:33):
Do you know? That if I drank hard Seltzer during
our episodes, I would be curled up in a ball
in a sleep by the end of So. I don't
know how you do this.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
It's called tolerance.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
I guess I respect it. I guess I don't know
if I respect. I guess I respect it. Anyway, I'll
be just sipping my peach ginger herbal tea at the
same war word different, aren't we? Aren't you and I?
Really different? Stuff like this?

Speaker 2 (01:56):
Hey, that's what allows us to mesh so well.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
Toget opposites a tract. Absolutely, there you go. Well, let's
do a summary. I've made you do your summaries in
the past, but I'll go ahead and just rip this
one out. So our summary is We're in Buffalo in
nineteen oh three. There is a very successful businessman named
Ed Burdick. He is found murdered on his fainting couch

(02:21):
in his big home by housekeeper and his mother in law.
He is separated, it sounds like, and going through divorce
with his wife Alice. She has been having an affair
with his closest friend for it sounds like about five years,
and the friend has Arthur, has threatened him is kind
of the big thing right now. Had threatened him that

(02:43):
if you go through this divorce, it will expose all
of my private business. I do not want that. Don't
do it. I will kill you and then I will
take my own life. And Ed responded with, listen, you know,
divorce your wife. I'll divorce mine. You two get married,
and you can have the our kids that half the time,
and I'll take the kids half the time, and everything

(03:05):
will be okay. But he seemed to be the only
one okay with this arrangement. And now we are all
on the day that he was discovered and police are
arriving to find Ed face down, no clothes except an
undershirt on beaten to death. Autopsy shows at least ten
blows to the head. We will have a murder weapon soon.

(03:28):
And now they are trying to figure out what happened
to this very successful man. Is that good? Is that
your understanding of what happened?

Speaker 2 (03:35):
That is my understanding? So yes, I need more details, okay.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
So the police come after the cook Maggie had run
to the pharmacy and phoned the doctor and then they
phoned the police. The police show up and they immediately
think robbery, gone wrong, even though he's not wearing any pants.
Even though you know, it looks like nothing's been taken,
it sounds like it looks it's like, according to the police,

(04:01):
someone came into the house through the window, ran into
ed unexpectedly. They must have assumed that he was upstairs
where bedrooms would traditionally be. They killed them, and then
they ran out the front door. So that's where police
see things going. There are a lot of details about
the room, but I can also show you the diagram,

(04:21):
which I will say is rough, to say the least
of what police say the room was. Like, what do
you think we should do first? I mean, there's like
weird stuff throughout the room that people have theories about,
but there's also this diagram.

Speaker 2 (04:35):
Yeah, let me see the diagram.

Speaker 1 (04:37):
Okay, So take a look at the diagram that I
sent you. It's kind of hard to read. You describe
what you see, and if you need help translating some
of this stuff, let me know.

Speaker 2 (04:46):
Yeah. So what I'm looking at is what would be
considered a hand drawn diagram. It's actually technically what we
would call a bird's eye sketch or crime scene sketch.
So this is literally looking right down on the den
where Ed was found killed. The outer walls of the

(05:08):
diagram have obviously been drawn with a straight edge, showing
two windows on the left side of the diagram and
the door going into the room or you know, the
door to the room on the kind of the bottom
right wall of the diagram. The prominent feature, of course,
is what they're calling a couch, which you had previously

(05:31):
referred to as a divan, and it's indicating it's it
looks like it's somewhat at just a slight diagonal inside
the you know, the center part of this room, and
it's indicating it's about eight and a half feet long.
They're noting there's a chair that's just inside the door
to the room, there's a bookcase, there's a table that's

(05:53):
to the left of the door into the room, and
there they write table from which letters were taken above
the couch, and there's an X that is marked right
sort of at the right hand head of this couch
is a what appears to be a location that is

(06:15):
described as underwear trousers and stockings, and an arrow pointing
to that X. Then just inside the door, it says
two golf sticks, which I'm assuming that's their terminology for
golf clubs. You're right, yep, Okay, so that's that is

(06:35):
what this diagram is depicting, and it's a simple diagram.
What I really like is are showing where Ashland Avenue is,
which is on the bottom of the diagram. It's on
the side of the den in which the door is in,
and they actually have a north and south arrow so
it helps orient this is. You know, as simple as
this is, this is a reasonable bird's eye crime scene

(07:00):
sketch that gives me at least a spatial layout of
the room as well as where some what they've determined
to be prominent items of evidence are located within the room.

Speaker 1 (07:11):
Yes, there are a couple things that I wanted to
sort of point out because I'm sure you'll have questions
about the stockings. It looks like on the other side
of the couch they found what did they say, trousers,
underwear and stockings. I just wanted to clarify stockings were
socks for men essentially in the early nineteen hundreds. This

(07:33):
is not women's stockings. These are men's stockings. So it's
not like some random woman was there. This is all
his stuff. His underclothing or the trousers are kind of
piled up.

Speaker 2 (07:44):
It sounds like, yeah, and do we have any information
would Ed sleep in the den.

Speaker 1 (07:51):
Let's get into some more details and I'll kind of
give you that information. So first, let's start with the
items that are in this room will inform us of
Ed's habits and things that were not his habits. And
this is the stuff that the domestic staff was very
helpful because they were the ones who really flagged some
weird things. There's a tray of cheese and crackers on

(08:14):
the table. There's a bottle of liquor, and there's another
bottle of liquor, the one the pre mixed cocktail that
he bought. It sounds like there's one glass someone had
been drinking out of it. But the household staff say,
all of them say, this is not something this man
would have done for himself in the middle of the night. Ever,

(08:34):
he did not eat in this din He only smoked
in the den after dinner. And that is it. This
is weird. This is not the right set up for
Ed Burdick at home, you know, hanging out after everybody
went to sleep. There's a tart that the cook knows
ed hated, he refused to eat it when she made

(08:55):
it for him, and the tart is there. It looks
like he had someone else in that den at some point,
So no one understands if he is hosting somebody why
the kitchen window was open, and it sounds like because
there's food on the table and somebody opened the window.
It just it all seems like somebody is staging something,

(09:19):
either staging the food, which I don't know why somebody
breaking into the house would stage somebody in the house
doing it, or the other way around, somebody who had
been hosted by him or who lived there at one
point was then trying to make it look like someone
broke in. So staging is that the right word?

Speaker 2 (09:36):
Well, yeah, you're describing the right term staging, but I
kind of want to dig into that a little bit.
No earlier, you said the kitchen window was open. Did
you mean the den window?

Speaker 1 (09:49):
Now the kitchen window, which is very close to the den. Okay,
this is when Maggie came downstairs, the front door was
open and the kitchen window was open. They looked outside.
It looked like some of the snow had been brushed
away from the outer window. Sill of the kitchen, the
one that was open. But there are no footprints in
the snow underneath the window or several feet around it,

(10:12):
and there's not fresh snow. It had not snowed that night.
So they said, listen, if somebody broke in, there would
be footprints right underneath the sill. And that's not what
this looks like. But I don't know if that's solid
evidence or not.

Speaker 2 (10:25):
Now, so you know, the victimology is always so important,
and so what I'm hearing is is that Ed changed
his pattern and that was directly witnessed by the domestic staff.
He's bringing alcohol, he's got the pre mixed cocktail, and
then of course what you're seeing inside the den is

(10:46):
supporting the possibility that someone else was present. Is this
a staged crime scene where somebody setting it up to
make it look like Ed was entertaining somebody. I'm not
convinced of that, because Ed's change behavior that was directly witnessed.
It's almost as if Ed was expecting somebody to come over,

(11:08):
and maybe somebody did come over. Now that could be
the killer, or that could be the reason Ed was
killed by whoever came after the person he was entertaining
the open window. You know, this is where the presumption
is is that that open window is a point of entry.

(11:28):
That open window may be merely a portal to look out.
You know. Let's say you're an offender. You've killed Ed.
Now you're trying to figure out how am I going
to get out of this house without being seen. You've
got a window, this kitchen window that maybe gives you
the best view of the escape route you want to take.
So you open the window up so you can lean

(11:49):
out a little bit to see is it safe to go.
Due to the post offense behavior, people are often in
a rush to escape. The offender doesn't close the wind,
goes out the front door, leaves the front door open.
That is a possibility here. The original investigator, saying this
must have been a robbery gone bad, tells me they

(12:10):
did not know what they were looking at. You know,
so that this is by any any measure, you know,
seeing Ed's body covered, his head wrapped in a quilt,
you know, this bludgeting everything else. There's nothing about this
that is would be typical of a kind of a
robber going in going oh shit, kills Ed and then
runs out. You know that would be more of a

(12:31):
blitz style attack, and there wouldn't be the interactions between
the offender and Ed in that scenario. So you know,
of course Ed's state address is important. You're going to
tell me what the murder weapon is.

Speaker 1 (12:44):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
The offender taking the time to cover it up still
is very significant.

Speaker 1 (12:53):
Let's first talk about robbery. Investigators start looking around. They're
trying to figure out if anything was taken, so as
wallets and his pants. The pants are folded up in
a neat pile by the couch, and there's about forty
dollars in his wallet, which is about one thousand dollars today,
and the clothes in the pile are clean, no blood,

(13:14):
so it sounds like Ed was the one who took
his own clothes off, maybe before he was killed. There
are valuable objects left in the din and he had
a gun with him, a small revolver, but it's been untouched.
It's in the pocket of a smoking jacket that he
had been wearing earlier in the evening and he had
hung on a chair. Also, one of Ed's desk doors

(13:37):
is open. It's been rifled through, so they are saying, okay,
we get it. This doesn't seem to be a robbery.
And then I want to talk to you about blood,
because there's blood in different places. I know that I
had initially said that there was splatter on the walls,
which is true, but there's also some pools of blood
that I think are probably pretty interesting. So I would say,

(13:58):
take robbery off the table here, because the common things
that people would snatch, the real easy things that you
could just throw in, you know, your pants, money, anything,
none of that stuff was taken. None of the valuables
were taken.

Speaker 2 (14:10):
Yeah. No, I agree, there's nothing about this crime scene
that speaks robbery to me.

Speaker 1 (14:15):
Okay, so there's a bunch of stuff, so keep up
with me because it changes a little bit here. Okay.
So the corner looks and after they turn him over,
you know, you could see that his skull has been crushed.
The corner notes that he has later on that he
has a very thin skull. And what they're trying to

(14:36):
say is that it would have been very easy to
beat him to death. Is that a thing? Is it
really going to be easier for somebody who has a
thinner skull?

Speaker 2 (14:45):
So I have personally witnessed kind of the differences in
victim's skulls. In fact, I recently consulted on a case
out of Texas in which a male victim had been
beaten many times on his head with a claw hammer,
and yet none of the blows cause any depressed fractures

(15:07):
in this man's skull. And at autopsy, I'm taking a
look at the skull and it was like an inch thick.
I've never seen a skull this thick. So, you know,
the physical attributes of that skull, you know, potentially, you know,
might allow for lesser blows to cause damage. You know,

(15:27):
but human skulls, when they're intact, are quite hardy. You know,
it does take a fair amount. But once the skull
is compromised, and let's say it's fractured, then subsequent blows,
particularly from a more massive object, can easily start crushing
the head. It's interesting that they're noting that Ed has
a thinner skull, but I don't necessarily think that that's

(15:52):
going to inform me anything about the force of the
blows or any of the physical attributes of the offender.

Speaker 1 (16:01):
Okay, Ed is five foot six and he's a very
slight man. So let me tell you about the blood.
The blood has saturated the couch in a large puddle
and has sprayed across the room and is on the
door and the doorknob. It looks like there are bloody
fingerprints on his body, but it doesn't sound like anybody
ever tried to match them. That wouldn't be a very

(16:23):
good sample doing old school fingerprinting anyway. I mean, how
would you be able to get a decent sample off
of somebody's body with clothes and stuff. I mean, is
that possible?

Speaker 2 (16:33):
Well, if there was ridge detail left in his blood
and it dried, let's say, on his skin, yes, that's
possible for sure. It all depends on it. Sounds like
the offender ended up with blood on his or her hands,
touched ed for whatever reason during the manipulation of his body.

(16:55):
Usually what we see are smears versus a nice, you know,
finger being left behind. But if they touched with the
bloody fingers ed in a certain way and lifted those
fingers up without any type of movement sideways movement, yes
you could get identifiable fingerprints in the victim's blood left

(17:16):
by the offender on his skin. That's probably the few
one of the few examples of being able to get
a fender fingerprints off of human skin.

Speaker 1 (17:26):
Well, it didn't matter anyway, because fingerprinting was not a
thing in America in nineteen oh three, and it was
barely a thing in Europe where it originated from. So
there's blood all over the place. That corner thinks that
Ed was struck for the first time on the back
of his head and then struck many more times after that.
He puts his time of death at about two am.

(17:48):
They think that Ed has been repositioned on the couch
because there's blood and brain matter on a different part
of the couch and there was no blood under his
head on the spot where he was found. So would
he have actually had to be repositioned or is there
another explanation for that blood on one end and not

(18:08):
on the end where's head was.

Speaker 2 (18:10):
Well, the observation, let's say, blood spatter and brain matter
at a location that is distinct from where he's found
his position has found. That tells me yes, he's likely
His head is likely in an area that would allow
that blood spatter and brain matter from the blows. His
head is at the other side of the couch, and

(18:32):
then he's he's wrapped up because he's going to be bleeding.
I mean, these these lacerations, these blows, He's going to
be bleeding significantly from the head. So it sounds like
the offender took this I think you described it as
a quilt and wrapped it around his head, which, of
course now is going to contain the blood. And they're
manipulating Ed for some reason and then ultimately covering him

(18:54):
up with the cushions. And why are they doing that?
You know, that's again that's a significant action. It was
there maybe a thought of transporting Ed away from the house,
and they were starting to package him up and then
abandon that effort. Or is this an offender that has
some sort of connection to Ed And now it's just
like I can't look at this and I want to

(19:17):
cover him up.

Speaker 1 (19:18):
Okay, well, let's keep going. I want to stick with blood.
I was going to jump to another piece of forensic evidence,
but I want to stick with blood because they are
looking for the murder weapon. The police chief and the
coroner find a pair of golf clubs in the room
close to the doorway. Remember everybody, I mean, it's like
a bad Agatha Christie. Everybody belongs to this golf club

(19:41):
and there are these golf clubs there. At first they
look and they say there's no blood. But about a
week later, investigators find through chemical tests tiny specks of
blood and bits of brain matter on the putter, and
that would turn out to be they assume the murder weapon.
Wanted to give you a little fun fact. In nineteen

(20:02):
oh one, two years earlier, this is when researchers declared
there are different blood types within the human body. They
were recognized in nineteen oh one as ab AB and
something called C which we now know as O and
chemical testing have been around for decades. So they said,
blood brain matter on the putter, this is the murder

(20:24):
weapon and this was his putter.

Speaker 2 (20:26):
Yeah, I'm having a problem with this. What's the problem?
So ed has been has received at least ten blows,
including a crushed skull. You have blood spatter and brain
matter on the sofa. The murder weapon is going to
have a significant amount of blood contact transfers from the blows.

(20:48):
You're going to see possibly some droplets, you know, from
each blow going into a pooled blood source. And they
don't visually see any blood at the scene on either
of these golf clubs, which to me is inconsistent with
what was done to Ed. Additionally, something like this putter,

(21:09):
you know, And again I'm having to rely on your
description that a skull was crushed in. When I think
of a skull crushed in, I'm thinking, Okay, the skull itself.
Let's say the back of his skull. He's face down,
he's receiving multiple blows. Is that indicative of a weapon
that has some mass versus this putter? So this is

(21:31):
where photos would be huge for me. I'm a little
bit questioning, mostly because of the lack of blood on
the putter, that it was the one that had inflicted
all these blows, unless he received a blow or two
and then he's covered up and the rest of the
blows are inflicted while he's got the quilt wrapped around

(21:53):
his head. The problem I'm having with that scenario is
the observation of blood spatter and brain matter on the
sofa itself. A single blow from a putter isn't going
to do that. That's going to take multiple blows. So
right now I have concerns about them ruling this putter
as the murder.

Speaker 1 (22:11):
Weapon and sticking it under the sink and turning the
faucet on wouldn't have washed off the majority of that blood.

Speaker 2 (22:17):
Well, if there's a thought that the offender did, let's say,
go out to the kitchen and wash the putter off.
That's completely changing what would be observed as evidence on
the putter. Now why take the time to do that
and then place it back into the den? Right now,
I'm going to move forward with the presumption that the
putter is the murder weapon. But I do have concerns

(22:39):
about there, at least with the way it's been described
to me, about their conclusion that it was used to
inflict these blows and crush to skull in.

Speaker 1 (22:47):
Yeah, and I mean as far as the chemical testing goes,
it sounds pretty straightforward, at least from my research from
American Sherlock. But who knows how consistent any of this is.
But this is what they believe. They think that the
this was his putter, it was used. There are some
hairs that are the same color as Ed's hair, but
you know they're on him. They think it came from

(23:09):
a woman at first, and then they later on look
under the microscope and say, okay, it came from Ed actually,
But it's kind of too late. This is already fueling
speculation that a woman was the one who did it.
And of course because he's half naked and he has
that thin skull, Remember, that's super easy to crack apart.
Some weakling woman wouldn't have had a problem doing it.
I know, I say that was some sarcasm. I can

(23:31):
crack open anybody's skull if I'm angry enough with a putter.

Speaker 2 (23:35):
Wow. Yeah, don't piss kate off.

Speaker 1 (23:38):
Opiss me off with a putter. So you know, the
police spread out their search in the room. They find
all kinds of weird stuff, like under the desk they
find so this is his desk. So this is Ed's desk.
Is it's sort of like a little work desk at home.
It's his den, it's his man cave where he does
his smoking and stuff. The police find a photo of
Gertrude Pain, who is the woman who he loaned money to.

(24:02):
But everybody, including her husband, said, Ed's a good guy.
Nobody's having an affair in this couple. Nobody's having an affair.
But it's not unusual for people to exchange photographs. I'm
not sure why. In higher levels of society, it was
just kind of commonplace. And again, no one goes down
that road with Gertrude or her husband. There's a newspaper

(24:25):
clipping that's announcing the Warren's divorce that is in his desk,
which you know, people think could be a little bit odd.
There are copies of Arthur's love letters that are found
in Ed's wallet. Fun fact that I figured out Victorian
era men's wallets were sometimes twelve inches by six inches,

(24:46):
big big, And so he has these letters folded up
in his wallet, and it's the ones that he transcribed.
Ed transcribed himself that he had done a superspy steamed
open and at the top of one of the letters
that was in it Ed's wallet, Arthur says, when I
think of how he has treated you, I feel I
must kill Ed Burdick.

Speaker 2 (25:07):
Do we know when that letter was written.

Speaker 1 (25:10):
I believe it was nineteen oh two, so this would
have been in the last six months when he threatened
him to begin with. I mean, this has been these
threats have been going on forever.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
Well, it's all part of the lover's triangle, you know.
And from an evident standpoint, I'd want to see the
letters that were written by Arthur himself versus something that
Ed has supposedly transcribed right right and actually have Arthur
confronted with his own writing to Alice. But let's presume
that Arthur actually did write that, you know, Arthur and

(25:42):
Ed were best friends at one point, maintain some sort
of facade of friendship even after the affair was revealed.
You know, is it possible that Arthur could have come
over later at night to kind of work things out
with Ed and then things went sideways. Ed's state address
suggests that that's not likely. The entertainment aspect of what's

(26:04):
going on sounds like Ed probably had a woman over.
Is it possible that a woman set it up, distracted him,
and then somebody else came in and struck him with
the hutter, which I'm skeptical about, Or could somebody, let's say,
a woman under the ruse of you know, maybe a

(26:25):
physical encounter at a certain point, grabs one of these
golf clubs and hits head in the back of the
head when he's not looking. You know, it's just a
surprise attack. And then now he's rendered, he's incapacitated, and
then you have the homicidal blows being inflicted. So there's
you know, there's multiple possible scenarios that I'm kind of,

(26:47):
you know, churning on, chewing on as you're telling me
these details.

Speaker 1 (26:51):
There are so many things I find confusing. So you know,
he's half naked, which the police are saying, this must
have been a meet up with a woman. Like you said,
There's like cheese and crackers and tarts and stuff that
did not fit with what he normally did. The housekeepers
were not asked to prepare these things. Ed probably would

(27:12):
not have done that himself, even if he were going
to have a woman come over. But he did pick
up pre mixed cocktail mix, which he had never done
really before. So you're right, it's super confusing. And then
you've got the open window, and so the police are
befuddled is probably an understatement for what they are trying
to figure out, trying to untangle all of this. He

(27:35):
had co founded a magazine as a side business, very successful,
and the magazine says this whole thing was staged to
make it look like he had a liaison with a woman,
but it's not true. He was absolutely murdered. And people
are starting, of course to point to Alice and Arthur
based on some of the stuff spilling out. So if

(27:55):
any of these couples wanted to keep their dirty little secrets,
killing Ed was not the way to do it, certainly, no, you.

Speaker 2 (28:03):
Know, And part of let's say we were to investigate
this case and during the modern era, it's possible that
Ed was killed after a sexual encounter, and so we
would be collecting evidence from his body and analyzing that
and saying, oh, you know, yes, he has foreign DNA
in various areas of his body that would suggest that

(28:25):
he had been physical with somebody prior to being killed. Here,
we don't have that information. All we are relying upon
is his state of dress that coupled with the you know,
the various other things within the room, the tart and
the drinks and stuff, suggests that whatever encounter occurred, that
it got to a point where you know, he's basically

(28:47):
nate nude from the waist down, that there was potentially
sexual activity going to occur or had occurred, and the
net is killed.

Speaker 1 (28:55):
Yeah, And you know, I think kind of as a
police move forward, they're really trying to hold the list
of suspects and we're getting really down to Arthur. So
they talked to this guy named Charles Park who was
Ed's business partner, and Charles Park says, Arthur is the
one who did this. Arthur came to my office with

(29:16):
Ed there and threatened to kill Ed and then kill
himself if Ed went through with this divorce with Alice,
which we know this is one of probably several conversations
that Arthur was singing this tune, I will kill you,
I will kill myself if you do this. But you know,
of course, the police are saying, listen, if Arthur's goal

(29:36):
was to keep his reputation intact and to keep these
letters out of the limelight, then murdering Ed would not
have supported that goal. Because now Arthur's names in the newspaper,
the affair is out, people are quoting the letters. Arthur
is having a very difficult time. He writes to a
friend and says, it's not true. I wasn't having an affair.

(29:57):
Ed was having an affair. It's not me. So he's
trying to clear his name. In the meantime, police are
trying to figure out if it was Arthur, how did
he get in. You could make duplicate keys back in
nineteen oh three, and they think that he made a
duplicate key from Alice.

Speaker 2 (30:14):
Well, this is a this is a common trap people
fall into. You could have married a duplicate key. Was
a duplicate key found? You know? This is this is
where it's there's presumption. But you can't prove a case
with presumption. You know, you need to have that hard evidence.
So as an investigator, you go, oh, yeah, maybe a

(30:35):
duplicate key was made. Now you try to find the
duplicate key. You can't just all of a sudden ascribe
on a suspect. Oh he must have done this, but
we have no proof of it.

Speaker 1 (30:45):
Well, let's talk about Arthur's alibi. So when he was
questioned the night following the discovery of the body, he
said that that night before he was at dinner with
his wife, dropped off at home. He took his automobile
to a mechanic nearby. He came back home and read

(31:06):
for a while with his wife, and the two of
them went to bed between ten and ten thirty. The
Panel's house, as well as Alice and Ed's house are
all very close to one another, and so's the mechanic.
So Carrie Pronell says, my husband was at home. You
guys are crazy. He is a rock solid alibi. And
of course the police search the panel house and they

(31:27):
don't find anything. So Carrie is an alibi. Doesn't sound
so great as far as I'm concerned, But who knows.

Speaker 2 (31:34):
No, you know, especially considering several years of Carrie in
essence trying to preserve the marriage, her social status, She's
likely going to feed up an alibi once she finds
out that Arthur is potentially a suspect in Ed's homicide.
So I wouldn't put a lot of weight on Carrie

(31:55):
saying he was home with me. You know, you've got
other information, you know, with the mechanic, you know, what
is the mechanics relationship? You know, you're dealing with a
very wealthy man who has a lot of influence. Is
that going to influence a mechanic making certain statements to
keep Arthur's physical presence away from the house around the

(32:16):
time of Ed's homicide? Right now, I'm not blown away
by the veracity of this alibi, but we'll see where
this goes.

Speaker 1 (32:26):
Okay, So the police as of right now do not
think Arthur was the one who did it. They are saying,
why were his pants down, and why would someone serve
cheese and crackers and a tart and have a cocktail
if Arthur and Ed hated each other at this point,
and on top of that, this had to be either
someone who was already inside the house or a pre

(32:49):
arranged meeting, because it sounds like their doorbell was very,
very loud, unusually loud and would have woken everybody up
in the house. And this is a full house, three kids,
a mother in law, and two domestic workers. So you know,
they just don't think that this cheese and cracker and cocktail,
which was unusual for him to buy, and tart were

(33:11):
something that he would have done for Arthur certainly, right
you know, we can talk a little bit more about
that now, but then we can also talk about the
other couples and how they play into it.

Speaker 2 (33:22):
I kind of really lean that Ed knew and had
arranged that somebody's coming over that night, and somebody that
he wanted to inter you know, spend some time with alone,
and short of the offender taking Ed's you know, lower
garments off after he's been killed, which potentially, you know,

(33:43):
blood patterns, blood spatter would be able to sequence the events.
Right now, I really leaned strongly towards Ed had pre
arranged a meeting with somebody that he was going to
enjoy the encounter with This isn't the man who's having
an affair with his wife and hey, let's come over
and have tarts and cocktails together. I no, you know,

(34:07):
and something went sideways, either with that person he's with
or somebody else comes in. Well Ed is distracted, which
possibly indicates that he was set up.

Speaker 1 (34:18):
Well, let's talk about the supposed affairs he had, Gertrude
Pain and Missus Warren. So you know, in theory, both
husbands would have been suspects, and both husbands were out
of town and had rock solid alibis. Now JB. Warren,
who's in the middle of a divorce, and it sounds
like Edon Helen might his wife might have been involved. JB.

(34:41):
Warren says, I'm glad that guy's dead. I didn't do it,
but he can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
So there are suspects here, and they are just grasping.
They're trying to figure out anybody who would have had
a likely motive. They rule out the kids, They rule
out Missus Hull because she's a weakling at sixty four,
which we know is not true, Go ahead, Paul, I

(35:02):
know you want to interrupt.

Speaker 2 (35:04):
Well, no, I mean with everything, It's like, where is
Alice in this whole thing at this time? I know
because I see Ed. You know. Let's say Alice is
letting Ed know, Hey, I want to try to make
things work out. She's not living in the house at
the time. Can I come over? Ed is hoping to

(35:27):
rekindle things. Alice and Ed end up in the den
and then Alice picks up the putter and wax him
and then beats him to death, covers him up, which
I could see Alice doing, you know, and then takes off.
That's just a one of multiple theories. But investigating this case,

(35:48):
I want to know about Alice and her alibi for
this evening.

Speaker 1 (35:52):
Well, it sounds like Alice actually has a pretty good alibi.
She was in Atlantic City.

Speaker 2 (36:00):
And that was verified.

Speaker 1 (36:02):
Well, this is what happens. Yes, So when he is found,
her mom sends Alice a telegram at the hotel where
she's staying and it says, come home, mister Burdick is dead.
She gets on the train with the train ticket verified. Okay,
She goes from Atlantic City to Buffalo. She arrives early
the next morning. And I'm telling you this now because investigators.

(36:25):
Of course, it took a couple of days for them
to even meet up with her, and they had thought
it was a woman because of the weird hair, which
turned out to be his hair. The reporters are at
the train station when she gets there from Atlantic City.
The story had run on the front page of the
evening edition the day that he was found. She's there
the next day. She's very calm. She wants to know

(36:45):
what happened. She asks reporters a lot of questions because
she doesn't know anything. She says, all she knows is
what was in that telegram from her mom. They say
your husband was bludgeoned to death, and your boyfriend is
a suspect. She told reporters that Arthur and Ed have
always gotten along. They never quarreled as far as she knows,
and obviously that's not true. She's lying. She moves back

(37:08):
into the house with the kids and the mom and
the servants. People start to drop by and give her condolences,
and she doesn't take any visitors for the next couple
of days, and an inquest is coming. They're calling for
an inquest here, of course, so what do you think
about that? So she is in Atlantic City, they meet
her at the train station. It doesn't mean necessarily that

(37:29):
she didn't secretly come in, I guess, but police are
saying it sounds pretty rock solid.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
Yeah, you know, I think I agree with that. With
that set of circumstances, I wouldn't eliminate Alice of having
prior knowledge that this was going to occur. But how
you know, because it's Alice and Arthur, and I don't
think the way, you know, the entertainment aspect of what's

(37:57):
going on, and potentially the sexual aspect of what's going
on with Ed and whoever he's with that night, just
doesn't seem like Ed is planning on entertaining Arthur to
come over, you know. So this is where I think,
in all likelihood Ed was expecting a woman to come
over that night, and whether that woman actually showed, we

(38:18):
don't know, but I would say likely because of Ed's
state address. And then whether that woman is his killer
or somebody associated with that woman is his killer right now,
I just don't I can't say.

Speaker 1 (38:31):
Yeah, And I had wondered what if Arthur and Alice
had a conversation and she called Ed and said, listen,
you know, I need to talk to you. I don't
know if she said something about reconciling, but over the
phone ranged, I will be there at eleven o'clock. Leave
the door open, and then it's Arthur. It's not Alice,
and she's safe in Atlantic City.

Speaker 2 (38:52):
Yeah, but then Ed is opening the door and inviting
Arthur in and pulling his pants down.

Speaker 1 (38:58):
Yeah, doesn't say.

Speaker 2 (38:59):
I mean see their scenarios where that does occur, but
I don't think in this relationship that that's what's happening.

Speaker 1 (39:05):
No, But I mean, why can't Arthur after he's dead
pull his pants down. I guess because blood would have
gotten on his pants.

Speaker 2 (39:13):
That's that's again where there'd have to be an assessment
of the blood patterns and everything. Yeah, you know, and
we don't know right now. Obviously, it is fully expecting
somebody that he is. He is planning on having an
enjoyable evening. He's got the cocktail, the other alcohol that
was present, the tarts, et cetera. I want to eliminate

(39:35):
the idea of Ed setting things up and expecting let's
say some woman coming in and Arthur's the one that
shows up. But to me I think that's less likely
than a woman actually did show up. And what I
don't know is whether or not that woman could be
his killer or somebody associated with that woman is the killer.

(39:56):
At this point, well.

Speaker 1 (39:57):
Let's talk about the inquest. The prosecutor's official inquest begins
about two weeks after Ed dies. So the coroner testifies. First,
he talks about the positioning of Ed's body and the
fact that his pants had been off when he was killed,
and the fact that it looked like he had been
repositioned on the couch after he had been killed. And

(40:17):
then the detective testifies about the state of the den,
where there were photographs found under the desk. Somebody had
gone through the desk. Clearly it sounds like some letters,
some of Arthur's letters, might have been taken, and the
fact that doctor Marcy kept trying to interfere with this investigation.
There was a furnace repair guy who came the mourning

(40:39):
of the discovery of Ed's body. One of the housekeepers said,
can you come in here because we cannot get this
house warm because the window and a door was open
all night. And he came in and he heard the
mom talking to in hush tones with the doctor, and
they were very startled when the furnace guy showed up.
And it sounds like the police were saying it could

(41:00):
either be that they were trying to look out for
somebody's reputation or for the kids, or there's some conspiracy
involving Alice and her mother and maybe this doctor. But
it didn't get very far. I will just say that
they're trying to in the inquest really show the scene
as odd, and there's so much conflicting information. I think

(41:22):
it's hard to know where they're actually going. Because they
have Missus Hull come, who is the mother in law,
Marie Hull, and she lies on the stand. She said
that she and Alice had last exchanged telegrams a few
weeks before the murderers, But the investigators know that's not
clear because they learned that Arthur was on a business

(41:43):
trip in New York City two days before the murder,
and you know there were telegrams exchanged between the mom
and Alice about this trip. So the mom's lying on
the stand. I mean, I don't know if it's anything
that's significant, but there's just different sort of thing where
it looks like Missus hall is covering up some information.

Speaker 2 (42:04):
I do want to interject a little bit, and I
should have caught onto this earlier in which you have
this desk slash table. Photographs are found underneath the table.
You have these letters that were taken from the table.
When I've worked crime scenes, and let's say it's like
a Ransack burglary, you see the offenders just searching everywhere

(42:29):
looking for something. Right. They're pulling out drawers or opening
up cabinets or tossing things because they know they know
kind of where people typically store valuables and they kind
of go to those areas. But also they just kind
of make a huge mess. I've had homicide cases and

(42:49):
sometimes in fact, I can think of one case in
which it was staged to look like a burglary. But
you also see a focus on an area that doesn't
contain valuables but contains personal information that's very informative about
who the offender is relative to the victim. Here, this
is that type of scenario. This offender is focusing in

(43:13):
on a very distinct area within this den where letters
from Arthur to Alice, or at least a transcription of
those letters are located, and those letters are taken. This
is very informative. The offender knew where those letters were,
and those letters are significant to the offender. Why has

(43:35):
the offender taken them? Probably because there's aspects in those
letters that could harm the offender, and now he or
she needs to hide to those to make them disappear.

Speaker 1 (43:47):
I think that's interesting, and I'm glad you brought up
familiarity because Maggie the cook says the same thing, not
about the letters, but about the little scene that was
set up with the cheese and the crackers and everything.
She said, you know, the tart was weird because he
didn't like that tart. Missus Hull and the kids would
have known where to find the stored tart, but some

(44:09):
stranger wouldn't have. And she said, you know, maybe a
stranger or someone less familiar with the house would have
stumbled upon it. But everything else that was as symbol
the cocktail said. Sheese, the crackers, the tart, all of
that stuff were all over the kitchen. She said, you
had to have known where those things were. And that's
when people look at Missus Hull a little bit. The
mother in law was she trying to cover something up

(44:33):
because there were just so many things happening. Maggie said,
I don't even think Ed knew where any of that
stuff was. He never went into the kitchen, So this
was not Ed setting this up.

Speaker 2 (44:41):
I mean, Ed most certainly could spend some time in
the kitchen and find things he lives there. Right, It's
very different than a stranger coming in under pressure to
move fast. This is where we talked about earlier. You
brought it up. You know, the idea is this a
staged crime scene? You know, if this is Maria Hall

(45:03):
setting this up to make it look scandalous that Ed,
you know, he was killed because he had some affair
going on with some woman, you know, and she's trying
to protect her daughter, and so she's making things look
like Ed was entertaining a woman. Right. The problem is
is that we have the unusual aspect that the domestic

(45:26):
worker said Ed came home with this pre mixed cocktail.
He never did that. You know. This is where there's
a change in the victimology that day, which suggests to
me that Ed was expecting somebody to come over. He's
going to you know, he's bringing alcohol home. He's expecting
somebody to come over. So there's something in Ed's mind

(45:48):
at least, that there's somebody that he's going to be
interacting with. Now, maybe there's you know, Maria's setting him up,
you know, after the fact, But right now, I don't
have a problem with the idea. Even though Ed was
not somebody who was real familiar with things in the kitchen,
he lives there, he can go and find things, going, oh,
I want to make this woman really feel like she's

(46:10):
special to me. I'm going to have the tart set
up and everything else. And he's opening up cabinets and
the refrigerator and going, oh, here it is, And that
to me is not outside the realm of possibilities. And
I think that's more likely than the idea that now
Maria is the one that's trying to set this up
to make it look like, you know, the scandalous affair

(46:30):
of Ed entertaining some unknown woman and that's why he
was killed.

Speaker 1 (46:33):
I don't want to get graphic, and I certainly don't
want you to get graphic about this, But isn't it
possible that he was just spending.

Speaker 2 (46:40):
Some alone time. That aspect, you know, did cross my mind,
Ed spending alone time with him? I don't see him
setting it up like he's got some sort of like
kids have their you know, their mystery friend and they
talked to an empty chair and stuff like that. I
don't see ed doing that in order to have some

(47:03):
quality alone time. That's just let's just say, that's not
how men think.

Speaker 1 (47:11):
Alice takes the stand in this inquest. She says, I
would have divorced that guy so fast. I wanted to
divorce him. I had no reason to stay. And she
denies really having a big affair with Arthur and all
of this stuff. You know, it's so interesting with history.
On the one hand, you look at this and say,
all these people are lying, there's got to be a

(47:33):
guilt there. On the other hand, they're lying because they
still want to protect their reputations despite all of this.
The reputation is the most important thing. There is a man,
an insurance salesman in a bartender. Both come forward in
New York and they say that in the weeks before
the murder, Arthur told them that he wanted to kill
a guy. Some people think it's inconsequential that, you know,

(47:56):
he was just kind of spouting off, And some people
think that this is a big He's threatened it directly
to Ed's face. He's told other people that he's going
to do this, and he you know, wrote it in
that letter to Alice. So Arthur is not somebody who's
kind of protecting his feelings here. He's expressing himself pretty clearly.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
Yeah, and of course God to pay attention to that.
You know, you take a look at this ongoing affair
between Arthur and Alice. Ed is, you know, wanting to
divorce Arthur does not. You know, it's such weird setup.
Arthur doesn't want Ed to divorce Alice because of the
whole stigma and social aspects, but it's continuing to have

(48:37):
an affair with Aus. There's so much there, you know,
from the emotional aspect, you could see where Arthur absolutely
has motive to kill Ed. Ed has just as much motive,
if not more, to kill Arthur or Alice. You know,
that's all part of it. It's just that now the

(48:58):
crime scene itself is not what I would expect. If
Arthur is the one that is actually physically coming in
and killing Ed, doesn't mean that Arthur couldn't have done this.
I'm just going there's sort of contradiction of Arthur being
the one coming over. And I always say, whether you're

(49:18):
a crime scene investigator or you're an investigator, if you
see contradiction, you have to stop and reassess what you
think is going on here. And that's where we are at,
is there is contradiction. We know who has motive to
kill Ed, and it's Arthur, and Arthur's alibi, from my perspective,

(49:40):
is not good. But there's the rumors of Ed having
affairs with other women, yep. And this is now okay,
So how robust was the investigation into this Elmwood Avenue
Society or this Red Jacket Club where now you've it
appears that there's a lot of churn and a lot

(50:02):
of potential side relationships occurring within this small group. And
now this is where from my perspective, the investigation is
really leaning on the people in this group and making
them uncomfortable, making them think that they're being looked at.

(50:24):
Somebody's going to crack, you know. That's what I would think,
is somebody's going to go, Okay, this is what I heard,
you know, and this is what was going on and
everything else, and there probably would be a lot of
good information coming out of doing some very intensive interviews
of everybody, kind of almost I mean, you couldn't do
it simultaneously with you know, twenty couples or whatever it was.

(50:46):
But you want to try to get this group, each
of these groups kind of as isolated and as wondering, well,
what is the other person saying? You know, I better
let you know, let law enforcement know what I know
before people start pointing the finger at me.

Speaker 1 (51:03):
This story moves so quickly, so I did withhold a
little tiny bit of information from you.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
Of course you did, I know.

Speaker 1 (51:12):
So he dies at the end of February, and there
is an inquest about two weeks later. I would love
to be able to tell you what Arthur Panell and
Carrie Panell say at the inquest, but I can't because
the two of them were involved in a car accident

(51:35):
a few days after Ed was murdered and they both died.

Speaker 2 (51:39):
Okay, was this truly an accident?

Speaker 1 (51:41):
Okay, let me tell you about it. Okay, the news
This happens March fifth, This is about a week later.
Sounds like Arthur is under a huge amount of mental stress, nervous.
He is doing his best to maintain calmness, but he's
a lawyer, and he at work his cases are suffering.

(52:02):
This is becoming like a Buffalo's modern day celebrity scandal,
and Arthur's miserable. So on March ninth, he tells Carrie,
his wife, that he's going to go for a drive
in his electric carriage. Carrie says, I'm going to go
with you. It's late in the afternoon and it starts
to rain. A lot of witnesses are seeing them on

(52:23):
this drive, and they say that both of them are
behaving in an odd way. Arthur drives slowly up and
down a country road, and it's so slow that people
are walking past them. The two of them stop at
a saloon and Carrie waits outside while Arthur buys some cigars.
They get back into the car. They drive to the

(52:43):
edge of Buffalo and they stop. They get out in
the rain and then take the removable roof off of
this carriage. They get back in and they drive getting wet.
So it is pouring down rain and they are in
like a convertible. Two boys are seeing them do that
and think they're nuts. They're driving along a quarry and
the wind is blowing Arthur's hat off his head. He

(53:06):
reaches to grab the hat, the car swerves and falls
thirty feet over the edge of the quarry. Arthur dies there,
carries alive, but when they finally get her out, she
dies at the hospital. So the boys with this rain
and the swerving convinced the police essentially that this was
an accident, even though the papers say there's no way

(53:28):
this is not a coincidence, this is suicide. The police
were closing in on this guy, but the investigators later
find that Arthur had engaged the breaks of the car
he tried to stop it. So people do believe this
was an accident, So I don't We're not going to
get an answer on that. It's weird that this happened,
you know, about a week before the inquest starts, and

(53:50):
it's both of them, he and his wife, and they
both died.

Speaker 2 (53:53):
Do they ever search Arthur's residence or anything he had
connection to and do they find the letters that were
taken from Ed's table slash desk.

Speaker 1 (54:04):
Nope, not a thing, no key to the house, no letters,
no evidence. He had just wiped everything about Alice and
Ed clean if there was anything there to begin with.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
And I'm assuming the investigation into Ed's homicide at this
point just basically stops.

Speaker 1 (54:21):
You're right, yeah, So you know, the ending with this
here is that Arthur had left Alice a bond in
the amount of twenty five thousand dollars that was in
her safety deposit box, which is a million dollars today,
almost a million today. And you know that doesn't have
anything to do with the death. It just kind of
I think it just shows, you know, his loyalty to her,

(54:44):
his love for her, and you know, basically, at the
end of the inquest, the judge said, I don't have
enough to charge Alice. I don't think a woman physically
could have done this anyway. She was in Atlantic City.
He said, I don't think a stranger did this because
of the the way the crime scene was set up.
He said, I think that the mother in law was

(55:04):
pretty weird that morning, but he doesn't think there's a
plausible explanation for strange behavior or how it related to
the crime. He didn't think there was a conspiracy there.
He said, if Arthur were alive, he would have issued
a warrant for his arrest. He said, Alice, you've been
a bad girl and you shouldn't cheat on your husband
and a lot of this has come down on you,

(55:25):
But that is it. No one's charged, end of story.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
And I think somebody got away with murder.

Speaker 1 (55:31):
Oh yeah, somebody definitely got away with murder, for sure.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
I'm not convinced about Arthur, even though motive is most
certainly there. I see the conflict with the crime scene
and Arthur being the offender that solely comes over. I
think somebody else had knowledge minimally and was present for
at least part of that evening, you know. And you know,
we're talking about what we know about Ed's life. You know,

(55:58):
we've got Arthur, their analysis in their affair, We've got
Gertrude and Helen that Ed was rumored to have an
affair with. What we don't know? Is there a secret
life to Ed that wasn't revealed, you know. So that's
where at this point, you know, I hate to be

(56:20):
in this. I always like to have a conclusion, but
I don't have a conclusion in this case. I'm looking
at this and I think, Okay, Arthur is in play.
I think it also could be other individuals that we
either know about or we don't know about. So it's
an unsolved case. I want to be able to say

(56:42):
it was Arthur, and I just at this point there's
too much contradiction for me to feel confident that it's Arthur.
He's just he's I would say he's a suspect and
nothing more than that.

Speaker 1 (56:55):
Yeah, I agree, And I think that that's one of
the difficult things about these cases, these really old cases.
I was thinking, did they even look at his businesses?
I mean, this could have been anything. We don't know.
He owned a bunch of businesses we don't know, and
you're right, I mean, you've got these other affairs, these
other we there could have been other conflicts. Sure, you know,
he he might have tried to attack Maggie and she

(57:18):
the cook and she's been lying this whole time. She
knew where all this stuff was. I mean, we don't know,
but boy would a case because it seemed like in
some ways, people were more concerned about this affair coming
out than being connected to a murderer. You know, everyone's
trying to protect themselves and their reputations, and sometimes I

(57:39):
feel like that now you know, we're we're so we're
very concerned. I mean, I think everybody is concerned about
making sure that you know online that people interpret what
you're saying correctly. And in nineteen oh three, it was
just everything to stay out of the scandalous sections of
the newspapers. Otherwise, you know, you would lose your business,

(58:00):
you would lose your family. Women had no recourse, you know,
men could divorce them. It just it was awful. So
I think if this were a different family, then what
would happen would be ed would accept this and they
wouldn't get a divorce. They would just try to live separately,

(58:22):
or maybe sneak around or something. They would figure out something,
because that's often what happened. There would be an arrangement.
And boy were they just everybody here was so concerned
about what people thought of them. So I think it's
just like we see that now people are killing other
people because of things that they say to each other
and embarrassments and hurt egos, and so obviously that's something

(58:46):
that has happened with the honor code and everything else
that has happened for generations.

Speaker 2 (58:52):
Yeah, you know, and kind of in hindsight, you know,
doctor Marcy might might actually be key. You know, he's
try trying to convince the coroner to rule this a suicide,
and obviously is a homicide, you know, so who is
he trying to protect? You know, he may have had
greater knowledge than what he told investigators, you know, and

(59:14):
it really just underscores, you know, if you have you know,
sort of this family doctor in the area who's putting
his neck out to try to protect somebody in the society.
It just shows how deep, you know, the social aspects
of this case run.

Speaker 1 (59:31):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (59:31):
So yeah, right now, Yeah, wide open case. And unfortunately
it's it's a you know, due to the age of
the case, there will never be an answer unless somebody
wrote in a diary somewhere that gets uncovered in an
attic two hundred years from now and there's a confession.

Speaker 1 (59:48):
What if it's a couple of years from now, that
would be nice, and then we could have an update
two hundred years from now.

Speaker 2 (59:54):
Paul, Well, hey, I'm just dealing with the timeframes that
you're typically dealing with.

Speaker 1 (59:59):
So well, I will say, next week, I can almost
guarantee we won't have this much husband wife drama. We
may have a lot, but this was pretty next level
even for us. So we will leave Buffalo and travel
to another city in another time next week.

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
All right, I'm looking forward to it once again.

Speaker 1 (01:00:19):
Me too, see you Okay bye. This has been an
exactly right production for our sources and show notes go
to Exactlyrightmedia dot com slash Buried Bones Sources. Our senior
producer is Alexis Emosi.

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
Research by Maren mcclashan, Ali Elkin and Kate Winkler Dawson.

Speaker 1 (01:00:41):
Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.

Speaker 2 (01:00:43):
Our theme song is by Tom Bryfogel.

Speaker 1 (01:00:46):
Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.

Speaker 2 (01:00:48):
Executive produced by Karen Kilgarriff, Georgia hard Stark, and Danielle Kramer.

Speaker 1 (01:00:52):
You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at
bary Bones pod.

Speaker 2 (01:00:57):
Kate's most recent book, All That Is Wicked, a Gilded
Age story of murder and the race to decote the
criminal mind, is available

Speaker 1 (01:01:04):
Now, and Paul's best selling memoir Unmasked, My life Solving
America's Cold Cases is also available now