Cutthroat

On today’s episode, Paul and Kate head to late 1892 Delaware to a scene of a 17-year-old woman who was discovered almost completely decapitated. An investigation into the circumstances right before she went missing introduce a whole cast of characters to police. 

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.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
True crimes, 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.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
Hey Paul, Hey Kate, how are you.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
I'm doing well. You were busy. That's what the crowd
is saying, is you're busy. I don't know who the
crowd is. That's what they say.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Oh you know, I've I have just been buried, you know,
of course recording the two podcasts, and you know, I'm
actually doing a lot of training for law enforcement, and
I have you know, the author and casework. But I'm
also doing an audible project, which is an active investigation.
And a few weeks ago, I just returned back from

(01:33):
the Bay Area and have some new information about the case.
And actually it's multiple cases, multiple homicides. It's one of
my old cases and it's a lot. You know, I'm
trying to get this thing wrapped up so you know,
we'll be ready for the listeners at some point when
Audible decides to release it. But you know, actual casework

(01:54):
doesn't necessarily line up with production schedules.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
I know, I've noticed. I know that you have been
doing just a ton of stuff, which is always great.
It's an embarrassment of riches. So I'm always and especially
because you've got your foot at everything, and the active
investigations is what helps us the most. Being totally selfish, Paul,
that's what I care about, is what actually helps the

(02:19):
listeners in me.

Speaker 2 (02:21):
Well, you know, I appreciate that thought. You know, of course,
I'm doing what I used to do before I retired
in similar capacity, not identical, because I'm no longer a
peace officer. I don't have access to stuff, and I
have to rely on law enforcement agencies and give them
guidance and hope that they follow through. But trying to
do that in addition to doing sort of the true

(02:44):
crime aspect. Yeah, you know it is. It's turned into
somewhat of a struggle just to figure out how to
allot my time. But so far, you know, I seem
to be staying afloat and hopefully things will turn out
good in the long run.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
Is this more relaxing your schedule now than when you
were working working with the Sheriff's department or wherever you were?

Speaker 2 (03:10):
You know, it's well, it's it's very different, you know.
I think, you know, the casework was always a passion
and it can be stressful. But when I was active,
I had other responsibilities. You know, I was, you know,
at with Sheriff's office. I was a division commander with
the DA's office. I was a chief and oversaw you know,
investigative units and other things, and you know, had a

(03:33):
lot of administrative duties. So trying to juggle casework and
the administrative duties and reporting to a boss is a struggle. Now,
you know, author might have a boss there, of course,
but you know, nowadays it's with what I'm doing, there's
a lot of independence, and I do enjoy the independence.

Speaker 1 (03:50):
Yeah, I can imagine that too. I mean, I'm juggling
a lot of stuff. I've got the book that came
out a couple of months ago. And then of course
those kids, Yeah, I've got those two. I've got those
two Carls stinking kids who had a sleepover in my cottage.
And I said, this is not what the game plan was.
The game plan was that I come out here and
I'm on my own and they loved it. They had

(04:11):
a great time. I think it was kind of spooky
for him. And it didn't help that I came out
at midnight and was knocking on the.

Speaker 2 (04:18):
Walls wearing some ghoul mask.

Speaker 1 (04:23):
Isn't that what good parents do? I thought, that's what.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
Is to keep them on their toes.

Speaker 1 (04:27):
Yeah, I do that. So you know this, we're going
to transition to a case that I think feels familiar,
which is unfortunate because we do spend an awful lot
of time talking about women who are found, you know,
by themselves dead, they've been potentially attacked, and it's a mystery.

(04:47):
I just feel like we've just said this over and
over and over again. And the more we talk about
things like this, you know, being alone in the dark,
and you know, women feeling like they're being stalked, all
of that for me just makes it more and more
clear how how vulnerable women are, you know, and these
stories and we just keep going backwards in time and

(05:08):
it's the same old story.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
Yeah, you know, and it's just it's such a sad state,
you know. It's it's very different, like I can go out,
let's say, if I want to do a jog, I
can go out jogging at night, and the chances of
me becoming a victim are much lower than if a
woman were to go out at the same time, you know,
And that's I don't know what the answer is to that,

(05:30):
you know. You know, my entire career has been really
focused on going after the men that victimize women. And
I don't know, you know, how do we get this
where women can feel safe? And it sounds like you're
probably going to be telling me a story from I
don't know how long ago. You know, this is just
something that's been going on probably forever. Oh yeah, you know,

(05:52):
and it's you know, it's just it's just sad.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
You know. This is another I think difficult story. It's
set in eighteen ninety two, so we are going very
far back. Okay, So let's go ahead and set the
scene Wilmington, Delaware. I love Delaware. Love it, love it,
love it great state. I know this is like the
obligatory question I always ask, you haven't been to Delaware before?
Have you been to Wilmington before?

Speaker 2 (06:15):
I have not been to Delaware nor Wilmington, or I
guess if I say, if I haven't been to Delaware,
then of course I haven't been to Wilmington. So no,
don't know it. You know that the kind of the
northeast part of the country is the area that I
really have the least amount of experience with.

Speaker 1 (06:32):
Yeah, well, luckily for us, you have a lot of
experience with crime. So so don't worry about Delaware. Delaware
does not play a big role in this. Okay, I'm
going to set the scene. You know, sometimes I build
up to who's the victim and you know who's the killer,
And in this case, we're going to just start with
what investigators find. So eighteen ninety two, it's October twentieth,

(06:54):
around noon, and a man stumbles onto a horrific scene
as he's crossed a field and he's using this field
as a shortcut, and it's the body of a teenage girl.
There's a lot of different bits of info, so I
might have to skip around on the document a little bit,
depending on what you want to hear about. But let
me tell you what he sees first. So she is seventeen.

(07:17):
We know later she is lying on her back with
her head turned to one side, and she is fully
clothed except for her hat, which is about ten feet
from her body, so we would presume knocked off. And
it seems pretty obvious even to this man who finds her,
that she's been the victim of something very violent. She's

(07:40):
in a pool of blood, and her eyes are battered
and bruised in her throat, her throat is so deeply
severed that she's almost decapitated. And there is a razor,
which I'm assuming is a straight razor like you would
use in a barber shop, and there is a razor
on the ground beside her body. We have talked about

(08:01):
the amount of force, or the least amount of force
she needs to almost decapitate. Somebody, Can a woman do this?
You know it silly things like that. So can you
tell me where you want to start? This is what
we know so far.

Speaker 2 (08:13):
Okay, So obviously the woman is out in a field,
you know, and I want to know a little bit
more about you know, what kind of access out to
this field, what kind of field it is? You know,
she off of a trail or did somebody you know,
push their way through, you know, some sort of crop.
You know. The razor, you know, that sounds like something
that she would not carry herself, So that sounds like

(08:36):
something that the offender would have brought to the scene.
And razors, of course, are when they're maintained, the straight
razors are very very sharp, and so I've previously discussed
because it's it's always brought up. You know, you have
a throat cut, it's near decapitation. This must show that
there's just extreme violence and rage by the offender on

(08:57):
the victim. And the reality is that homicidal throat slashings
with a sharp edged weapon through the front of the neck,
the soft tissues, the trachia, it almost always looks like
its near decapitation. That's not surprising that she has such
a deep cut to her throat if the razor was

(09:18):
in fact used to cut it. You mentioned that she's
laying in a pool of blood, and of course i'd
want to see the distribution of this pool of blood.
It is consistent with her throat being cut while she's
laying down, and it just she bleeds out like that.
So she was overpowered ahead of time? Or has she
been moved after she starts bleeding? Does she have other

(09:41):
bleeding injuries? Does she have defensive injuries? The battered and
bruised eyes, if they are in fact indicative that she
was receiving blows to the face, probably ahead of her
throat being cut, This indicates that the offender used forced
to overpower her and she may have resisted. So there's
you know, there's some information here that gives me a

(10:04):
sense as to what's going on, But of course the
devil's in the details.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
I don't get a sense that there's blood anywhere else.
It seems like it's concentrated under her head or under
her throat. Okay, with this straight razor, sometimes I think,
is this a crime of opportunity where somebody is walking by,
he sees this young girl walking through this field and
he says, this is my opportunity. That seems unlikely, right,

(10:31):
because he's carrying a razor. It's not like he's carrying
a little gun as a personal protection. I mean, this
seems like something that's supposed to be threatening you.

Speaker 2 (10:40):
Know, maybe you know, but I don't know. I mean,
it doesn't seem like, you know, these straight razors would
be something that men would normally just randomly carry. I
think determining if it's a random crime or not really
relies more on the victimology. You know, what is her life,
life patterns? Why is she would she normally be passing

(11:03):
through this field? You know, different details like that. The
presence of the razor may indicate that the offender had
violence on his mind when he left wherever he left.
Or maybe he's a he's a barber and this is
his tool of trade and he always has one tucked away.

Speaker 1 (11:20):
That would be a coincidence, I get, But you could
be right. I guess we'll find out. Yeah, well, we
do have some suspects, and we'll see what they do
for a living, and maybe your barber theory will come through. Okay,
we'll make things a lot easier.

Speaker 2 (11:32):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (11:32):
If I were a barber, I'm not sure I would
use a straight trade razor, but that would point right
to me. Okay, so let me tell you what. I'm
going to jump around a little bit. So this is
what we hear the corner says when they end up
doing an autopsy. So he says that Katie, her name
is Katie Dugan, that Katie had both of her carotid

(11:54):
arteries severed, and then this says as well as her
internal and external jugular and that now this is you know,
an assumption here. The depth of the slash to her
neck suggests that the perpetrator was very strong. We just
sort of talked about that, and what do you think
about that?

Speaker 2 (12:12):
Well, you know, the fact that both carotids, the crowdits
lay underneath the jugulars. So of course, just by the
fact that both crotids are cut indicates that it's a
very deep incision, which is not surprising oftentimes with cut
throats if the cut is more geared towards one side

(12:33):
or the other, and this sometimes could indicate which hand
the offender is holding the weapon in at the time
he cuts the throat. But you'll see, you know, the
left jugular and the left carotid cut, while the other
ones are intact on the other side of the neck.
With both crodits being cut and both external internal jugulars

(12:53):
being cut, this tells me that this throat cut was
deep and cut. I wouldn't sayly straight across, but cut
through the neck on both sides of the neck. And
this is where I would not be surprised if it's
low enough down on the neck that it possibly went
through the trachia. And I've actually seen that as well,

(13:14):
where I'm looking down the trachia of somebody who has
had their throat cut. This is basically sudden death for Katy.
You know, in essence, you know she's as soon as
her karates are cut, her brain is no longer receiving
a blood supply, and in essence, within ten seconds she's

(13:35):
unconscious and there's nothing that could be done to save her.

Speaker 1 (13:38):
Well, I'm glad that this happened quickly because it sounds horrific.
So I know that this is a gruesome question, and
those are the kinds of questions I ask on this show.
Do you, as the offender need to be behind Katie
to make this kind of cut or can you be
standing in front of her? I don't think I've ever
asked this question before about throats being slashed.

Speaker 2 (13:58):
It's either okay in terms of the relative position of
the offender to the victim at the time that the
throat is cut, you know, there can be some indicators. However,
there's so many variables that I don't think you can
make a definitive statement as to their relative positions just
based off of how the throat was cut.

Speaker 1 (14:21):
Okay, so now let me tell you a little bit
about Katie, because we do need to have some victimology here.
I think that we do have a corner's in quest,
but I think it's more an in quest where they
know it's murder, but they want to discuss more of
the circumstances. Because the last detail that the corner gave
us is that she was the seventeen year old girl

(14:43):
four months pregnant. And I'm going to say it one
more time. I say this in book talks, I say
it all the time. The National Institute of Health says
that homicide is the leading cause of death for women
who are pregnant and in the postpartum period. In America,
leading cause of death is homicide. It is when women
are most vulnerable. So four months pregnant, and I will say,

(15:04):
she is not married, and she lives with her parents.
Recently she moved back in with her parents, So eighteen
ninety two, this would have been quite scandalous. So what
do we think so far? Obviously this adds another dimension
to Katie's life.

Speaker 2 (15:18):
Well, immediately, you know, my mind goes to, Okay, who
is the biological father? What is that relationship? Is there
any jeopardy that he might be under if it is
found out that he is impregnated the seventeen year old
teenage girl. Then the other side is is she in
a relationship with a man who she's got pregnant by

(15:43):
and there's a jealous ex lover stalker, you know, somebody
that is really upset that she's in this other relationship.
So those are going to be kind of two things
immediately on my mind. However, right now we don't know
if this is somebody that even knows her right, you know,
But this is where the victimology starts to come into play.

(16:06):
It's like, okay, given this time frame, eighteen ninety two,
seventeen year old girl, unmarried who is four months pregnant,
we know that this is something that society at that
point in time is not going to be kind in
thinking about. And this could cause jeopardy on whoever, you know,
is who's responsible, especially you know, let's say it's you know,

(16:27):
as an example, you know, a religious figure from the
church she attends, you know, and so he may resort
to violence in order to protect himself. And that right
now is just sort of a you know, speculative type
of scenario, but we know that based off of other
cases that we've done, that that is a real scenario
during this time, even today, you know, that would be

(16:49):
something that would have to be considered. You know, the
victimology ends up sometimes pointing within the victim's own social circles,
and you evaluate who's within her social circles that would
benefit from her death.

Speaker 1 (17:02):
Well, her parents say they had no idea that she
was pregnant, which, if they're telling the truth, I believe
she was four months pregnant. She could have at four
months covered that up. Sure, So I'll tell you more
about Katie. She had been a domestic worker, live in
domestic worker. She moved back in with her parents. We
don't know why just yet, but word of the murder

(17:23):
and her pregnancy comes as a shock to the whole community.
So here's an interesting thing. So the investigators initially, when
they look at the scene, they think that whoever killed
her put this razor right next to her. To make
it look like she took her own life. Then of
course they immediate, thankfully, they immediately dismissed that. And I

(17:43):
know that we've talked about people have taken their own
lives with razors before, which I just find horrific. But
they immediately say, just based on the cuts, it just
doesn't seem like something she could do to herself. But
you have had, without being too graphic, you've had instances
where people really have been able to get it do
a really deep cut on themselves.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
Yes. No, I have a case where an adult male
killed himself by cutting his throat. Now, within that case,
there was other indicators that he did it to himself.
There are hesitation marks. You know. Somebody who is getting
ready to cut into themselves oftentimes has to build up
the courage, and they do that by dragging the weapon over.

(18:25):
Let's say they're going to cut the wrists. You often
see several very superficial types of either linear abrasions like
it's not even cutting the skin, but it's just superficially
damaging the skin, or more superficial cuts before you get
the deeper cut that actually is fatal. Same thing with
this gentleman with his neck. You could actually see some

(18:45):
of the hesitation marks. And he had also other knife
play that he had done to himself as he was
really mentally struggling. So they're you know, this is evaluating
the totality of the circumstances. But yes, somebody like as
an example with Katie, could she have cut her own
throat with a razor and could it have been very deep? Absolutely?

(19:08):
What argues against her doing this to herself, at least
on the surface is the battered and bruised eyes. Now,
could she have been doing something to herself that caused that. Possibly,
But that's where it's really kind of digging into what
is going on with her, what are her injuries and
what is the totality of everything that's being assessed. Offenders

(19:32):
often leave the murder weapon behind, So just the fact
that the razor is, you know, sitting next to her
does not indicate suicide. You know, this is something that's
very common. Could be a gun, it could be a knife.
We see that all the time, and it's truly homicide.

Speaker 1 (19:49):
Right, and you know, the offender is not thinking fingerprints
because fingerprints were not a thing just yet in investigations. Right,
let's get to the corner because I have a question,
a technical question. I've never asked you this before. They
hold no, no, no, you'll get this. Be fine. Don't panic,
Paul Stump the dummy time. No, no panic. Okay. So

(20:14):
the corner's inquest is held and witnesses are brought in
one by one and they are not allowed to listen
to each other's testimonies. Is that right?

Speaker 2 (20:23):
Well, that should be standard, okay. And so whether it
be a corner's in quest or actually at trial, you know,
you want the witnesses to get up there and testify
to what they know and not be influenced by something
that they've heard by other witnesses on the stand. So typically,
like even I as whether I was a criminalist or

(20:44):
working as a CSI, I was not allowed inside the courtroom,
you know, while other witnesses are are going on the stand,
and then I would I'd be sitting on the hall.
Sometimes i'd be out in the hall for a week,
you know, waiting to get on the stand, just the
way things played out, and then I would go in
and testify. I have no idea what the other witnesses
have said. All I can do is talk about what

(21:05):
I know. And what in the opinions that I can express.
So it sounds like if they are barring these witnesses
from coming in. Well that's good, you know, that's what
I would expect as being the standard in order to
get independence in the testimony from each of these witnesses.

Speaker 1 (21:23):
Okay, well good, I'm glad to hear that. From the beginning,
they're doing things right. They're confirming this is definitely not
a suicide, and they're you know, making sure nobody hears
the testimony at this corner's in quest. So let's keep
going and see if they continue to do a good
job here. Okay. First one on the stand is James Dugan.
So this is her father, and he says that he

(21:44):
last saw his daughter the night before, so this would
have been Wednesday of the nineteenth. She was found the
next day, on the twentieth, in the field. It's I mean,
no surprise. Her body was rigid, and you know, it
probably was a cool night. It was in October in Delaware.
So James as that as he was leaving he saw
a man lingering near the house, so not inside the

(22:06):
house or in front of the house. Near the house,
he didn't recognize this guy.

Speaker 2 (22:10):
This was a.

Speaker 1 (22:10):
Stranger to him, and he didn't think very much of it.
So about eight oh five, according to her sister, Katie
went outside and then she vanished. That was it, and
then they found her the next day. Katie had told
her sister Lizzie that she'd be back in just a
couple of minutes, but she didn't really say to Lizzie
at least where she went. She didn't come back, and

(22:34):
her family assume that she decided to stay at an
aunt's house nearby. Again, this is where we go back
to telephones and text messaging, and there's no landlines here
even where you have to make assumptions, and there's such
a delay because they didn't have instant communication back then.

Speaker 2 (22:51):
Sure, what I'm hearing Katie is telling her sister, I'm
going outside. I'll be back in a few minutes. The
fact that she's notifying her sister sounds like this was
not a normal thing that she would be doing. So
she's just saying, Hey, I've got to go do this.
I don't know what's you know, if there's some type
of task that she would need to go outside to

(23:13):
do some sort of chore, But is there like a
pre arranged meeting. That is what I'm starting to think about,
especially with Dad seeing some strange man lingering around outside. Again,
is you know how busy is this neighborhood? You know,
are these like you know, today's California neighborhoods with a
whole bunch of houses that are around, or are these

(23:35):
very isolated houses where somebody shouldn't be near the house
if they didn't have business at the house.

Speaker 1 (23:43):
Yeah, and I get the impression that this is kind
of just a suburban street neighbors. You know, there are
other houses around, not isolated. But that's a good point.
It does sound like she's just gonna hop outside. I
don't know if it's to have a conversation with this
stranger for a few minutes. But the mystery deep So
her mother, whose name Catherine Dugan, says that Katie had

(24:06):
received a letter in the mail in the post a
few hours before her death. She reads it, she stuffs
it into her pocket, and she seems very cheerful. So Lizzie,
Katie's sister, said that she kind of looked over her
shoulder and she saw the name Jack written on the letter. Okay,
of course we don't have a I don't have a

(24:26):
copy of the letter, but the police do find the
letter in her pocket and it says meet me on
Wednesday night at the same place at the same time.
So there you go, some kind of a rendezvous in
some way, and she seems happy, and she's four months pregnant.

Speaker 2 (24:44):
I guess where you know where I'm going? And hearing
about this is of course, Jack becomes very interesting in
terms of her homicide. You know, Katie's cheerful, sounds like
somebody that you know, this Jack is somebody that she
actually likes, and it's not scared of. So Jack is

(25:06):
somebody that needs to be investigated. And then the other
possibility is is who did Jack tell that he was
going to be meeting Katie? You know? Is that information
has it been broadcast to where now somebody who wants
to take advantage of Katie being isolated and now knows
that Katie's going to be traveling to a certain location

(25:28):
alone can intercept Katie before catching up to Jack. And
I'm assuming Jack is well and he's not dead somewhere
else in a different part of the Wilmington, Delaware area.

Speaker 1 (25:40):
Yes, you can trust me on that.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
Well, I don't know you have not established trust over
the course of our episodes.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
You think I'm an unreliable source of well, it wouldn't
be fun if I were always reliable polholes. Okay, So
here's here's the thing that is interesting to me. This
is a very familiar story, and I know that I
interviewed for you for my book listeners all abow. But
this mirrors what happened to the main character in my book,

(26:11):
Sarah Cornell. She's pregnant, and in Sarah's case, she had
been making demands of the father of the baby. She
left the house. She was really cheerful. There is a
letter that says meet me at this location. It is unsigned.
She goes, and the next day she is found dead
hanging from a haystack pole. That's right, So I don't

(26:33):
know if that's the case here. Sarah was cheerful when
she left the house. This takes place in Fall River, Massachusetts,
in eighteen thirty two. She was cheerful because it sounded
like from a letter that one of the women at
the house had read that the father was saying, I'll
take care of it. Don't worry about it, I'll take

(26:53):
care of everything. Bring the letter with you that all
the letters that I've written with you and will burn
them and I will take care of t He'll support.
So I don't know if it's cheerful because Katie likes
this man, or if some kind of you know, agreement
was made and this is just somebody who you know,
she ended up having an affair with, or I don't

(27:15):
know yet, but it felt very familiar when I was
reading this.

Speaker 2 (27:18):
You know, taking the circumstances in Sarah's case into consideration,
so reading into Katie's cheerfulness of receiving this letter from Jack.
Either as I mentioned before, she likes Jack, you know,
and it's like he's willing to meet with her after hours.
She's excited about it. You know, this is a romance

(27:39):
and she's concerned about whether or not it's going to continue,
and it seems to be reaffirmed when she receives this letter.
Or maybe it's like in Sarah's case, to where now,
whatever problems we're going on in Katie's life, this letter
is something that is going to alleviate some of those problems,
and that's could be the reason for her to be cheerful.

(28:02):
So you know, right now, maybe initially I read too
much into the possibility. Okay, Jack is somebody that he's
the father of the baby, and she wants to have
a romantic relationship. That could be the case, or maybe
there's something else going on that would cause Katie to be,
you know, in this cheerful mood after receiving the letter.

Speaker 1 (28:21):
Well, let's continue, because now we have more witnesses who
may or may not be reliable. We'll see. There is
somebody named James Riley who they describe as a boy,
which I have to think is you know, fourteen or under.
He said he saw Katie with a man that night.
The man had one arm around Katie and the other

(28:44):
one in his coat pocket. I would not hope on
the razor. I mean, that just seems odd. But who knows,
I don't know. So that's one witness. Another witness, actually
two more witnesses, so a guy named Edward mcwa and
Thomas Connell say that they saw Katie with a man

(29:04):
that night. Also, they don't know who this person is.
This was not someone they were familiar with, but based
on their description, they say that he is clean shaven
and he has a light complexion. There is a man
in Katie's life who fits that description, and I'll tell
you about him in a second. But you know, according
to the boy, James Riley, he said that he overheard

(29:29):
Katie shout after they walked off in the distance, she
said oh my several times, and when he got home
he told his mother and sister about the encounter. And
I don't think they did anything about it, so I
don't have information of how distressful it was. But it
didn't sound like a joyful oh my. And they were
in the distance.

Speaker 2 (29:49):
Yeah, you know, it's tough to read in in terms
of what would cause Katie to yell out oh my.
Is she receiving information from this man that artles her
that she's not expecting, or is all of a sudden
she's recognizing that this man is a threat to her.
He's pulled the raiser out. You know, it's not just

(30:10):
you know, sort of the stereotypical woman's scream in the night.
You know, she may be going oh my, as she's
being confronted with this person that she sounds like she
potentially trusted is now turning on her, or maybe somebody
else comes into the picture. As you know, Katie and
this man are walking along, you know who knows at

(30:31):
this point, going back, you know, with what Edward and
Thomas are saying, clean shaven man, light complected.

Speaker 1 (30:38):
It's probably half a New England.

Speaker 2 (30:40):
True. So no, when Edward and Thomas are saying that
they're seeing Katie with this man, he's clean shaven, light complected,
and you said that there's one person in her life
that matched that description. You know, maybe I'm kind of
reading you a little bit. But now I go back
to her work as a domestic worker, and you know,
I go, well, who is she working for?

Speaker 1 (31:00):
Yes, and I like that very suspicious look. Okay, let
me tell you about this guy. So investigators obviously looking
at her social circle, they looked at the family. So
this match is the description. This light complexion you know
in clean shaven, which as I said, is probably half
of New England, matches the description of a young man

(31:20):
named Richard Riley. He was known to be friendly with Katie.
It does not sound like they were dating, but they
flirted a lot, Okay, and I don't know if this
is the beginning of courting her. He says, I am
clueless about this pregnancy. I think he was shocked, and
investigators said he looked shocked. So he said, I hadn't

(31:42):
seen her since two days before she was murdered. So
if we assume maybe she was murdered Wednesday night, he
said he saw her on Tuesday, that they had seen
each other and they made plans for that Sunday and
that was it. He said that he had not heard
about the murder until several hours after the body was discovered,

(32:04):
and he was at the ironically at the barber shop,
and he found out about this. You know, I can
tell you about Richard's alibi, but the investigators were alarmed
enough about him that they had him testify for more
than an hour at the coroner's jury. So, I mean,
I know that's not a lot of information, But what
do you think about what he said? He said, I
saw her the day before. You know, we were friends.

(32:27):
They were not known to be dating or sleeping together.

Speaker 2 (32:29):
Oh there's you know right now, it's wide open, you know,
I mean, he may be telling the truth. He could
be absolutely lying. You know, this is pretty typical. If
he's the one that's responsible for Kadie's death, of course
he's going to try to put distance from him and
Katie from the last time they were seen together and
for him to be able to make that statement, he
must have some confidence. If he's the actual killer, he

(32:52):
must have some confidence that he was able to meet
up with Katie. And there were no witnesses. But I
need to know more, you know, like how old is
Richard Riley? You know, what is the know? How did
they know each other? That's kind of a kind of
a curiosity, if you will.

Speaker 1 (33:09):
They just say young man Paul, if he were probably
in his twenties, I think they would have mentioned it.
So it must have been someone who maybe was a
few years older than Katie. But regardless, I think her father.
I got the impression that her father knew him or
had seen him. So if we're going off of this
theory that other witnesses say there's a man walking with her,

(33:32):
he's got his arm around her, I think that James
would have thought that the man who is sort of
loitering in their area, I think he would have known
that this is Richard Riley. I'm not one hundred percent
sure though.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Okay, so I'm going to assume that Richard Riley is
somewhat within Katie's datable age range. Yes, yeah, that would
be acceptable by society at the time. You know, of
course him being at a barber shop. You know, there's
a little bit of a concern about that, considering it
sounds like she was killed with a straight raizor that
would likely be found at a barbershop, you know. Digging

(34:05):
into Richard Riley, you know, I'd want to know, you know,
if he had impregnated Katie, you know, how does that
impact him negatively? And would this be something as an example,
maybe he has a search of social status. Does that
social status get corrupted, if you will, by having this
seventeen year old teenage girl being pregnant by him? Would

(34:27):
his parents have concerned? Does his dad have a concern
about this? And could dad be you know, interceding in
his son's life and protecting you know, his son's future
by taking out Katie. You know, there's there's different things
that I'd be looking at in terms of Richard Riley,
But right now he's just somebody in Katie's social circle

(34:48):
and he's denying, and so we'll see where the clues go.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
I think one thing that investigators found intriguing was apparently
what Richard wore to an event that I'm going to
tell you about in a second. Was quickly laundered after
Katie's murder, like that same day, most likely, he says,
calm down, I dropped coconut cake on this. It's not
the hardest evidence in the world.

Speaker 2 (35:11):
Oh, I thought you were flirting with me somehow. You're
calling me coconut cake? What is going on?

Speaker 1 (35:17):
He ate coconut cake, Paul. Let's see, I don't know
if you've had a coconut cake. There's delicious.

Speaker 2 (35:23):
I do not like coconut you don't. No, no, I
had a bad episode with coconut cake when I was young,
to the point where I threw it up, and I
won't eat coconut cake ever again.

Speaker 1 (35:35):
No, are you serious. You can't let childhood trauma come
back like that, Paul. You have to try again. I think, Well, anyway,
the police think this is the stupidest thing ever. But
he said, what can I tell you? I was messy
that night and I wanted to get that stuff off
of me, so let me get to the alibi. Though,
investigators kind of finally take their eyes off of Richard

(35:55):
Riley because he had been very busy that night. Remember,
Katie left with this mystery man. According to witnesses, a
little after eight o'clock, and Richard was at some kind
of like a fun fair at the Sacred Heart Church,
which is a local church, until about ten forty five
people saw him there. He was, you know, having a

(36:17):
great time. He was very social, and he's got witnesses
who say that. Then after he left the fair, he
was home by about eleven o'clock. So and I didn't know.
This is his family that is saying he's home. But
the witnesses who said they saw a man with Katie
that night with his arm around her, say when they
see Richard, they say, this is not the same guy

(36:39):
at all. So the pale faced, clean shaven man is
still a mystery for us.

Speaker 2 (36:44):
Sure, And I guess one of the things I don't
know is how far away is Katie's body from her house?
How long would it roughly take to get to that location.

Speaker 1 (36:54):
It's walkable. The boy sees Katie and it's not far
from her house at all. Well, she's with this man,
and then he says they walk off in a distance,
but it's close enough to him where he can hear
the oh my screams. So I don't think this is
very far from her house.

Speaker 2 (37:09):
Got it a few blocks maybe at most yeah, I think.

Speaker 1 (37:12):
So okay, all of this being said witnesses on the stand,
her parents, her sister, this young man Richard Riley. The
coroner's jury says, we don't have a conclusion and we
can't hold him, and they weren't convinced anyway that Richard
Riley was the one who did it. And there, thank goodness,
even in eighteen ninety two, they said this is not

(37:33):
enough evidence. The case goes cold. It is brought back
to life about two years later, and Catherine, who is
Katie's mother, is the one who instigates this sort of
new investigation. We don't know why Catherine decided this was
the time to go to the police. So this would
have been eighteen ninety four, two years later, but she

(37:55):
goes to the police and she said that the family
feels like they know maybe who did this, and it's
because she had remembered Katie talking about a man named
Jack whose name was not really Jack. So this man's
name was Albert Stout. He's forty. This is disgusting to

(38:19):
me if this is true. She's seventeen, and he was
a well known businessman. Katie called him Jack, but his
name was Albert Stout. He was a freight agent for
a company called the Charles Warner Company. We don't know
why Catherine decided to go ahead and go to the
police now, but the police are actually this has been

(38:40):
an open investigation because this has been very alarming, of
course to the people of Delaware, that the seventeen year
old girl was murdered so viciously, So they have already
started zeroing in on Albert as a suspect.

Speaker 2 (38:54):
Can you guess why now? First, I think I'm a
little bit perplexed that it took more two years to
come forward with this information. Yeah, that's that kind of
henks me up a little bit, because it seems like
pretty quick a mom would go, oh, yeah, there was
a guy named Jack and Katie's life, you know, once

(39:14):
she found out about the letter. So that's one thing.
And then it sounds like Jack fits sort of the
profile of somebody who would be hiring a younger kid
in order to do work for him. So I'm assuming
that Albert Stout, this Jack was the employer of Kate

(39:39):
as a domestic worker.

Speaker 1 (39:40):
Yes, okay, so he has a wife and three kids.
He hired her. She lived there until just a couple
of months before she died, but she never told her
parents why she left. And if I were to guess,
if we think that Catherine is, you know, being on
the up and up here, and she came by a

(40:02):
couple of years later to the police, I would think
that maybe she was in this time period in denial
that an upstanding citizen who is forty years old would
have done anything like this. That's just a guess that
her employer would have done this. I think that maybe
she and the family could have thought that this was

(40:22):
a random act and maybe it never occurred to her.
And I'll make a correction. I don't know if Katie
actually said that Albert Stout was Jack to her family,
but two people in her life other than her family,
she said that she called him Jack. I'm assuming. I
mean he was married, and she I assumed knew that

(40:44):
this would be a bad thing to get out, especially
if he's a well known businessman, so she gave him
a moniker. So I can tell you more about that,
or you can kind of give me your impression. So far,
this is obviously a power dynamic that's terrible. A seventeen
year old and a forty year old married man with
three kids in the same house, you know, and she's pregnant.

Speaker 2 (41:02):
Yeah, but this is I hate to use the word common,
I know it is, you know, so I think you know,
obviously this Albert Stout, you know, he's you know, businessman,
He's probably got a reputation within the community, married with
three kids. If he gets Katie pregnant, he has jeopardy

(41:23):
on him, right, This is he is going to be
perceived very badly. This could impact possibly the success he
could have as a businessman, how he's viewed, If he's assuming,
he's probably involved with some sort of religious group that
may look poorly upon him for doing this. Yeah, of

(41:43):
course his wife is going to have a problem, you know.
And so you know, at least there's with with Albert.
He has the negative impact on his future as a
result of getting Katie pregnant. So there's motive. And I
have always said we don't need to prove motive, but

(42:04):
when there is possible motive, you have to pay attention
to that from an investigative slant.

Speaker 1 (42:09):
Yeah, I mean, if you compare Albert and his life
to Richard Riley, who's a young man, Albert has so
much more to lose. Yeah, let me tell you a
little bit about what happens here. So the assumption is that,
according to Katie's family, what they think happened, and what
investigators are trying to piece together is that they had

(42:31):
some kind of a relationship. It sounded consensual to me.
Seventeen year old girl and forty year old man is
not consensual, but there didn't seem to be acrimony between
the two of them from the outside. She gets pregnant,
and the word is that she got booted out of
the house. I'm assuming Albert just didn't want, you know,

(42:52):
to have to explain anything to his wife. I don't
know if this has happened before with him or not.
I bet yes. She never told her parents why she left,
which is understandable now that we know these circumstances. Investigators
say that they kept in touch and they might have
continued this relationship after she was booted from the house.
And they find four witnesses who say that they saw

(43:16):
Katie with Albert on the night of the murder. And
I don't know why they can definitively say this is
Albert Stout and I don't know where they were two
years ago. I mean, this was widely publicized and they
didn't come forward. So I look at this a little
bit with a John decigah, because from my book from
the Centers all Bow, you know, the defense and the

(43:36):
prosecutor out there with just operatives trying to find witnesses,
and I don't know if I trust any of them,
regardless they say, these witnesses said that they remember seeing
Katie that night where she's with this man, crying and
arguing with Albert, and they said that they looked like
Albert and Katie were heading directly to that field where

(43:57):
her body was discovered hours later. And then I have
some more forensic evidence eighteen ninety two styles such as
it is.

Speaker 2 (44:04):
Okay, so these four witnesses are they being interviewed during
the original investigation or two years later?

Speaker 1 (44:10):
Two years later? That's what I mean. I don't know
why where were you in eighteen ninety two?

Speaker 2 (44:14):
Yeah, okay? So yeah, you know, you brought up the
concerns about the veracity of the accuracy of these types
of witnesses that come forward. You know after two years,
are they being influenced in one way or another? You know,
it does give me a little bit of pause about
how much, you know, how reliable these statements are from
these four witnesses. It would be evaluating, you know, these

(44:37):
four witnesses know each other. Is there some sort of
common connection between these four witnesses, you know, could they
have a you know, collaborated on a story or have
been told by an individual this is what you saw
that night. You know. However, in terms of sort of
the dynamics of this case, Albert Stout kind of fits

(44:59):
the profile of who Katie's killer is. So you know,
there's to me, there's churn with Albert just because of
the jeopardy he would have having impregnated Katie, sort of
like you brought up Sarah's case earlier. Katie would be
cheerful to hear from Albert's slash jack. Right. Yeah, and

(45:21):
either because she still has some sort of you know,
romance ideations, romantic ideations, or maybe there's she's thinking, okay,
well I'm on my own, but he's going to financially
support me as I have this baby or whatever else,
you know, whatever the reason she's cheerful for. But he
is kind of checking the boxes much more so than

(45:43):
the young Richard Riley.

Speaker 1 (45:45):
Yeah, there are a couple of things. Again, the parallels
between this and my book are kind of incredible. There
are there is a handwriting expert who analyzes the note
found in Katie's pocket, the one that has meet me
on Wednesday night at the same place in same time time,
compares it with Albert Stouts writing and says that this

(46:05):
is a total match. I had to hire my own
handwriting expert now to look and it was so interesting
to see the comparison between the suspect in my case
and the letters. And this was an interesting point. So
in my case, Sarah Cornell decided to copy one of
the anonymous letters and send it to her sister word

(46:28):
for word, and I sent it to this handwriting expert,
and then I gave her the letter, the actual letter
that was the anonymous letter, because Sarah kept that one,
even though he told her to burn it. She was
very smart. So she said, I don't know if I've
ever had a case where I could look at the
victim and look at the anonymous letter and it's the
exact same wording. She copied it over and to be

(46:49):
able to compare how she would have written it versus
how it was actually written. And of course it excluded Sarah.
So you know, I don't know about eighteen ninety two.
I have a lot more confidence in my twenty twenty
four handwriting expert. But you know, I mean it's kind
of the same practice. What do you think about.

Speaker 2 (47:07):
That, you know, handwriting comparisons. You know, when there's sufficient
exemplars present in order to say this is the known
spectrum of handwriting characteristics from this one individual. And now
you have that you know, broad set of exemplars and
are comparing it to let's say a letter from Jack,

(47:28):
then yes, you can start to see maybe some differences
that you don't see in the exemplars. And there's a
lot more that they can be taking a look at.
And of course today forensically in terms of comparing the
inks the paper, in dented writing, there's all sorts of
things that document examiners can go after. So there is
it's a comparative science, and we know that there's issues

(47:49):
with comparative sciences, but most certainly you know, when there
are significant differences, then yes they can form an opinion
this document contains handwriting that is different than the known
handwriting from the individual. Now I don't think that you
can say that person did not write this. You know,
I think that that's probably too strong of an opinion

(48:10):
for this type of science, even though I do think
that these experts do reach that type of conclusion. But
it most certainly has some validity, you know, with this
handwriting expert in eighteen ninety two. You know, I'm sure
they're not. He's not writing it with a ballpoint pen.
It's probably like a fountain pen, right, or pencil or sure? Okay,

(48:32):
you know, so I don't you know, if it's like
the fountain pen. I'm not entirely sure. Because they were
so artistic with their writing back in the day. You
know that there may be some to try to copy
somebody's cursive writing using a fountain pen to look exactly
like somebody else's handwriting, I bet would be extremely difficult.

(48:53):
Having just looked at you, I mean, it's like calligraphy, right,
It's just like wow, you know, there's an art to
it that's unique to the person that's writing.

Speaker 1 (49:01):
And one of the reasons why I hired the expert
for my book is that the defense said Sarah Cornell
was an expert at mimicking someone else's handwriting, So I
wanted to disprove that because it couldn't be proven word
disproven in eighteen thirty two. Sure, So the theory that
prosecutors came up with is that Albert tried to pressure

(49:22):
Katie to terminate the pregnancy, she said no, and then
he killed her, you know, obviously to cover up his infidelity,
which is a very similar thing that might have happened
with Sarah Cornell's case. So with Sarah's case, there were
bruises that that matron's who undressed her for her funeral,
all over her body like she had been in a fight.

(49:42):
That's not the case here. So it sounds like it
could have been a if this is true, a verbal
argument maybe and when then she offered a hard know
on that, then that's when he reacted with the razor.

Speaker 2 (49:53):
That it's possible, you know, but however, you know, she
does have the battered and bruised eyes. If you think
about cutting somebody's you're let's say, overpowering this person, forcing
them down on the ground, is it possible, as hand
is around her neck, is there potentially some level of
strangulation that's occurring. You could potentially start to see, you know,

(50:13):
some these smaller blood vessels you know, starting to burst
as a result of that act. And I'm sure this
pathologist wasn't very sophisticated, so could there be some bruising
from that or did this verbal argument escalate into a
physical altercation where she's actually receiving blows to the face
before her throat is cut. And that's where it's really

(50:35):
doing a much deeper dive in terms of what these
injuries to her eyes and the surrounding area are.

Speaker 1 (50:43):
They found a pack of envelopes in Albert's house that
seemed to match the kind of envelope that Katie received
for this rendezvous. I mean, you know, I guess they
could do fiber analysis now, but it's a common envelope,
I'm assuming, so I'm not sure that's going to be
something that's relying. We do have an alibi, and I

(51:03):
can't wait for you to comment on this. Albi again,
very similar to the suspects alibi in my case with
Sarah Cornell. So here's the alibi. This is two years ago,
two years later. This is what he says. He says,
on the night of the murder, he left his house
at seven, he went to the office. He got there

(51:25):
at seven twenty five. He does no real good answer
about why he got there late and why he was
working late. He boarded a horse car and hopped out
a little while later at a very specific house, where
he placed a bill under the door on behalf of
his employer. He claims that he rang the doorbell. Nobody answered,
so we don't know. There's no witnesses to say anything here.

(51:48):
He said he'd forgotten to pick up some laundry. He
walked a short distance to get it, and afterwards he
hopped on a trolley car and arrived home around eight
oh five, very specific, and then he said he was
in the house after that, So a coincidence that he
was at the house by eight oh five when she
was last seen at AO five by her sister walking

(52:10):
away with the man. This is incredibly detailed. So what
do you think about that? No, he's lying, well, yeah.

Speaker 2 (52:20):
You know two years later, yeah, two years later. You know, basically,
he's just Any good interviewer is just going to hammer
him on this. Let's say he's innocent and he finds
out that this teenage girl that he had had sex
with and impregnated had been murdered. You know, most certainly

(52:43):
that would be any event that would kind of stick
in his memory banks after two years, but the night
before or you know, the night of her before her
body's found for him to remember down to the minute
on what he is doing, and you know, the the
number of things he was doing in this very brief

(53:05):
period of time in which Katie is going to go
out and meet with this Jack, which that's what she
called him. You know that it's so obvious that he
has come up with something to try to show that
he just could not have physically been with Katie at

(53:27):
the time she was killed. Yeah, and in essence, he's
now this is like a just a beacon flashing to
law enforcement, going, oh, he would have no reason to
lie about this. If he's innocent, There's no way he
would remember him. I mean, the proper response would be,
are you kidding me? Two years later and you want

(53:48):
me to kind of figure out what I did that night? Yep,
There's just no way.

Speaker 1 (53:52):
And it gets worse because he had another domestic worker
working that night. She testified, and she said he got
in at nine o'clock. She knows because the clock in
the study struck nine, so she knew he came in
at nine and Katie was seen with that man at
eight oh five, which is plenty of time. And I'm

(54:13):
assuming investigators looked and there would be plenty of time
for all that. So here's a conclusion. There are about
a dozen witnesses that testify, and you know, this to
me seems like a compelling case. Now, what do you
think the grand jury is going to say here? Based
on your you know, account of the evidence. What do
you think is there enough legally to at least have

(54:36):
a trial for this guy or is there enough to
convict him.

Speaker 2 (54:40):
Well per the expected standards of today. No, you know,
because you take a look at what you've really have
is you have the letter and you have it signed Jack.
Katie goes out supposedly to meet with Jack. However, you
can't necessarily. I think you have the handwriting analysis that

(55:04):
says this handwriting is consistent with Alberts, but two years later,
you have absolutely no physical evidence that they could go after.
They can't. First they can't, you know, prove who's the
father the child. Right today we could they can't prove
Albert is present at the crime scene. You know that

(55:25):
is there contact DNA present, things that we could potentially
look at Where is there any of his clothing that
you know, maybe he stepped in some of this this
blood that was spilled. Is this razor got his you know,
bloody fingerprints on it, or Layton Prince or his DNA
on it. You know, they have none of that.

Speaker 1 (55:43):
Is there something under her nails that maybe they'd be
able to pull a she fight back in any way
like that? I mean, she's been punched. I don't know
if she's just going to sit there and take that.
Who knows.

Speaker 2 (55:53):
Yeah, you know, so today, you know, there's a lot
of things that we potentially would expect to at least pursue,
and some of those things would show that, yes, Albert's
presence at the crime scene is there. What they're working
with is very indirect. It's really a weak circumstantial I
just don't think that there's enough today in order to

(56:16):
be able to convict or for a grand jury to indict.
But back then, I think they probably put a lot
of weight on the circumstances. And I'm not arguing that
they're wrong. I'm just going, yeah, it's a relatively speaking,
it's a weak case. It's sort of a Oh, investigatively,
this looks like the guy that I need to pursue
and I need to figure out, you know, can I

(56:39):
build a case against them or can I eliminate him
and do somebody else become a better suspect.

Speaker 1 (56:43):
You know, I don't think I've ever heard you use
that phrase. Well, no, not based on the expectations of today,
which does put it in perspective. You know, this seems
like an overwhelmingly good, circumstantial case for eighteen ninety two.
I mean, rarely do you get witnesses, is handwriting is
They've spent some money on this case, but ultimately the

(57:05):
grand jury did not want to indict somebody who could
have been innocent, and so they didn't indict him. Okay,
so this is now officially a unsolved case. No arrest
werever made, nothing ever happened. That's it.

Speaker 2 (57:20):
I guess I am surprised because I would have thought
that back in eighteen ninety I guess this would have
been eighteen ninety four, eighteen ninety five, when the grand
jury was evaluating the case, that this would have been
something that they would have indicted on. Now, back then,
with the grand jury, all that is in essences is

(57:41):
that they are saying, yes, we think that the state
has sufficient evidence and now he would be going to trial.
Is that kind of how things were back then? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (57:52):
Same, Okay, so he didn't even get to trial.

Speaker 2 (57:55):
Well, probably today this would be a relatively easy case
to prove.

Speaker 1 (58:00):
Probably today he wouldn't have left behind the murder weapon,
and he would have been looking out for CCTV, And
I mean, I think it would have been a different situation.
I think one thing I had thought about with Sarah
Cornell's case is, yes, she was drawn out to this
desolate farm. Yes, she's found hanging from a haystack poll

(58:20):
and there's debate about whether or not she took her
own life or if she was murdered, and if this
is the man who did it. But you know my
thought was, and I think I had asked you this
for the book. Even if she is drawn out to
this farm, there's an argument, I'm not going to terminate
the pregnancy.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
Go to hell.

Speaker 1 (58:37):
He could have left and somebody else could have murdered her. Still,
there wasn't enough evidence actually saying he did it. He
put his hands on her and did it. It could
have been a weird circumstance. And then you've convicted. I
don't think that's the case with Albert, and I don't
think it was the case with Sarah Cornell. But then you're,
you know, trying a capital case with somebody who's potentially

(58:59):
innocent stagers.

Speaker 2 (59:01):
Yeah, you know, and there is depending on circumstances, but
that is always sort of a potential defense. Is there
was that window after the suspect or defendant left where
somebody else could have come in and committed the crime,

(59:22):
you know, But that that's where now it's really you're
taking a look at the totality of the circumstances, you know,
And with with Albert, you know, it really looks like
he is one responsible for getting Katie pregnant. You have
multiple witnesses. The veracity of their statements after two years
is a little suspect, But you have multiple witnesses that

(59:43):
are saying Katie was with Albert that night of the homicide.
You know, he's lying about his alibi, you know what
he did that night, you know. So there's there is
churm about Albert for sure, you know. And it's it's
sort of like, yeah, I think he's the one responsible.
It's just it's not a strong case relatively speaking. You

(01:00:05):
know to what we would expect today that would be
presented to a jury.

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
This is why I don't like unsolved cases. I need
a conclusion one way or the other. I know, and
I know that's why you love unsolved cases. That's why
we're good partners. I can't stand it, but I yeah,
I know you find them intriguing and you want to
solve them and I just want an answer and to
be able to write about them. And it's hard.

Speaker 2 (01:00:27):
Yeah, different perspectives.

Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
Yeah. Well, next week we will have a solved under
three lines, three underline, solved case. I'll be happy to
present that to you. But in the meantime, I'm going
to be thinking about Katie Dugan and her parents and
just me and I wish she had justice here seventeen
life in front of her seventeen. Yeah, it's always very upsetting.

(01:00:51):
But next week will be a very very different case,
and I can't wait to present it to you.

Speaker 2 (01:00:57):
Okay, Well, as always, I'm looking forward to it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:00):
Okay, see you then?

Speaker 2 (01:01:01):
All right? Sounds good.

Speaker 1 (01:01:06):
This has been an exactly right production.

Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
For our sources and show notes go to Exactlyrightmedia dot com,
slash Buried Bones sources.

Speaker 1 (01:01:14):
Our senior producer is Alexis Mrosi.

Speaker 2 (01:01:17):
Research by Maren mcclashan, Ali Elkin and Kate Winkler Dawson.

Speaker 1 (01:01:22):
Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.

Speaker 2 (01:01:24):
Our theme song is by Tom Bryfogel.

Speaker 1 (01:01:27):
Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.

Speaker 2 (01:01:29):
Executive produced by Karen Kilgarriff, Georgia hart Stark, and Daniel Kramer.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at
Buried Bones pod.

Speaker 2 (01:01:39):
Kate's most recent book, All That Is Wicked, a Gilded
Age story of murder and the race to decode the
criminal mind, is available now.

Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
And Paul's best selling memoir Unmasked, My life Solving America's
Cold Cases is also available now.

Speaker 2 (01:01:52):
Listen to Baried Bones on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts. Two