August 7, 2024 • 49 mins
In this week's episode, the first of a two-parter, Kate and Paul head to 1974 Washington state where a wealthy woman falls for a fast-moving businessman. After a quick courtship, their marriage gets complicated when suddenly the woman is nowhere to be found.
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
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.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Hey, Paul, Hi, Kate, how are you.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
I'm doing well? How about you?
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I am I'm hanging in there. Maybe better than hanging
in there.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Hey, that's an improvement. I feel like we pretty much
stick with hanging in there, So that's good.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Well, I want to ask you questions. So this case
that we're getting ready to talk about, the case appears
in a book written by the most prolific I think
author certainly true crime author of all time and rule
oh I know, and who wrote a book called Most
Dangerous Killers. And this case pops up in that book.
So number one, have you read any and Rule? Is
(01:40):
one of my big questions.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
I think the one and Rule book I've read, I
believe it was called Stranger Beside Me, who was about
her relationship with Ted Bundy. Yeah, but I am familiar
with Anne Rule, you know, to a point. But I
don't think I haven't extensively read her.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
I actually haven't either, and I should just because she's
such an icon. So, you know, this case appears in
the book, and it got me wondering, do you ever
read any of the books about the cases that you've covered?
Like paul I kid you not. I can't even keep
track of how many Golden State Killer, both before and
after Joseph DiAngelo books there are. Did you even read
(02:18):
I'll Be Gone in the Dark.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
No, But that's that's more complicated because of my close
relationship with Michelle, you know, I just have not been
able to bring myself to read it just because it
would bring up, you know, memories. But when it comes
to true crime, I used to voraciously read true crime
early on in my career, and I considered it part
(02:41):
of my studies. And then as I got more and
more invested, in my own cases. You know, I just
couldn't continue to consume other cases. I had to focus in.
And then when you think about something like Golden State Killer,
when I really focused in on that case, that case,
with all the cases associated with that series, we had
(03:02):
over fifteen thousand pages of case file. Imagine reading a
novel that's fifteen thousand pages long and any detail within
those pages or something that could turn the case. So
I couldn't be distracted by other people's stories, so to speak.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Yeah, I think that makes sense. And you know, you
and I had been talking a while back about Zodiac
and how you had worked to the Zodiac case, and
we will get into that at another time, but how
you had worked the Zodiac case and had actually read
Robert Graysmith's book, who was the journalist who well, I
would say cartoonists who arguably worked the case also, so
(03:38):
you are reading those kinds of books.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Yeah, that was during that era, early on in my career.
And of course, you know, being in the Bay Area
was very familiar as Zodiac before you even started working
the case. In fact, on my commute sometimes I would
have to take a side road which was Lake Herman Road,
and that was where his first attack occurred, you know.
And then subsequently I got involved with the case. I
(04:02):
did go to every crime scene of his and then
actually did a TV show way back when like twenty
ten called Mystery Quest or myself one of these online
sleuts who I had never met prior to this, went
to each of the crime scenes and at all but
the presidio shooting, we had original investigators from the agencies
(04:25):
show up and you know, walk us through, and that
was there's a show that I'm in with the Zodiac.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Wow. And so you read that book. Did you come
away with any insights from that book that you had
not known digging into your own files and getting all
of the information that you had gathered in the mid nineties.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well, you know, the book itself I read before I
really did any work on the Zodiac case. And so
a lot of my original information on Zodiac came from
Gray Smith's books. As I got involved with the case
and met with several of the agencies, as well as
found files within my crime lab because there had been
(05:07):
evidence submitted from Zodiac back in the seventies to my lab,
so I had access to forensics reports and stuff. You know.
I started to get you know, official information about Zodiac
and you know, and that's where when you look at
a true crime book, you always have to understand sort
(05:27):
of maybe the journalistic integrity of the person that's writing
the book and they what materials are relying on, you know,
to have you know, is it factual? Is there a
lot of supposition? You know? And then also you like
with with Gracemith's book, it's also well who is he
and evaluating his investigative abilities. You know, he may have
(05:51):
had a decent aptitude, but what was his experience, you know,
and taking a look at things and evaluating circumstantial evidence.
Had he worked other cases, had he run across similar
types of suspects, because he does, you know, focus in
on a particular suspect in his books. And that's where
somebody like myself, as I'm reading and rereading his material,
(06:13):
I end up recognizing, Okay, he doesn't necessarily have full
comprehension of how to build a case that is based
on factual information and having a nexus to the actual
crimes themselves. And that I see this a lot with
some of the online sluice.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
So you are too busy now to read books, not
even my books. You can't even take the time to read.
Is that what's happening? You can't even read my books?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Look, you're giving me a guilt trip.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
What about the audiobook, Paul? You know I do read
my own audiobooks, So that's any incentive.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
I'm sorry, I have not I haven't read.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
I haven't read as if you don't listen to me enough. Yeah,
I understand taking a break. Well, this is a case,
as I said, from Anne Rule, and so we do
quote her book, which is really insightful I think in
some parts. So let's jump in. This is a very
very contemporary case, mid nineteen seventies, I mean, okay, twentieth century.
(07:17):
Here we go.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, well this is this is you know, the decade
that I probably did the most work in.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Okay, well this will be interesting. So we're in Washington State,
and let's set the scene. So let's talk about the
couple who will be our focus. It's a couple named
Ruth and Tony Fernandez. And let's talk about how they met.
So I'm not going to talk about who the victim
is if there is a victim in this case. Okay,
(07:45):
I want to set the intention that we're going to
get to know them as a couple and know what
their background is like, and then kind of moving forward,
we can put some pieces together. So they met in
nineteen seventy one. She was forty two Ruth and she
was Ruth log not Ruth Nan does just yet. She
was widowed after the death of her husband in nineteen
(08:05):
sixty six, so she had been single for about five years.
She had two adult children and she wanted to downsize
because they were out of the house. She was in Auburn, Washington.
She put her house up for sale, and in nineteen
seventy one, this man who was good looking and very charming,
pulls up in a Cadillac, knocks on the door. He says,
I'm sorry, I'm interested in buying your house. She said, okay,
(08:28):
I'll give you a tour. He introduces himself as doctor
Anthony Fernandez, but he says you can call me Tony.
He's forty eight, so just about six years older than
she is. He is divorced, and he has a counseling
clinic nearby. So he's a psychologist and he wants a
house because he needs to commute pretty easily back and
(08:48):
forth between his home and his work at this counseling center.
So Ruth is charmed immediately. He is good looking, he
seems very kind, and he says, let's go to dinner
and talk about the house, which is an interesting ruse,
and she says okay, and they have such a great time.
They start dating and she pulls the house off the
market and they check up. He moves in. This is
(09:11):
a very quick relationship. You know, she is taken by him.
And for me, I mean, there's nothing wrong with jumping
into relationships. I have done that myself and they have
ended fine. But they have ended. But when we are
talking about a true crime case, I think that alarm
bells should go off that you are jumping into a
(09:33):
relationship with someone that you might not know very well
and that could make either one of them vulnerable. Frankly, well, you.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Know, I right off the bat, I'm kind of guessing
where this is potentially going in terms of one way
or the other. There are peers. You know, this very
short term or short dating relationship, and now you have
Tony moving in. You know, in some ways you start
thinking about my mind is going towards okay? Is he
is he sort of a con man? Is he finding
(10:02):
a vulnerable woman, you know, that appears to have some
financial assets, and you know, is he going around and
hitting open houses and meeting women and finding the one
that's going to be the you know, the one that
he can exploit. But no, I'll see how this develops.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
That sounds like an interesting scheme, hitting open houses and
meeting women. Yeah, that would make sense. Well, we don't
know just yet, but when they get involved with each other.
He has all sorts of assets that he has talked
to her about. He has timber holdings, he's got this
counseling practice. He has a nice car. She is worth
(10:43):
several hundred thousand dollars, which, by the way, is a
couple of million today. I am in denial that money
from the year I was born seventy four would be
worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars, would be worth
almost two million dollars today. But that's what the world,
what web tells me. So she's worth quite a lot
of money, and you know, he is seemingly smitten with her.
(11:08):
They seem to have a good relationship. Her family does
not like Tony, not one little bit. They do some
surface level digging and they look in local newspaper archives.
You know, this is the seventies. They work really hard.
There's no internet, so they work really hard and start
digging in, and they see that he's been involved in
some fraud lawsuits and he was in prison for fraud.
(11:32):
And we could talk about a little bit more about
that in a little bit. I'm trying to build a
picture here of Tony. He seems successful right now, and
they seem to be in a pretty good relationship. Her
family goes to Ruth and says, listen, I don't know
this guy. You know, I know that he has this
counseling practice. I know he has this in that, but
he's had these lawsuits. And she says, bug off, I
(11:54):
already know. I don't care. It's fine, And Rule the
author says her impression was that Ruth was somebody who
believed in second chances, and she was not going to
not be with this man who was treating her very
well just because he had this sort of dubious past.
Just because he's been convicted of fraud doesn't mean he's violent.
(12:16):
And so I don't want you to jump to conclusions
just yet, but what do we think about the fraud charges?
And lawsuits and all of this.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Well, I think you know, of course, you have to consider,
you know, what does this mean about who Tony really is?
But at the same time, you know this could be
something wherein you know, select occupations. You know, you can
have people accuse you of certain types of crimes or
civil actions, and now you're having to defend your name
(12:45):
and you're completely innocent. So at this point you know
the fraud aspect without knowing any more, I'm just going, okay,
you know he has had some legal stuff going on
in the past. I mean, I believe you brought up
that he had been in prison, and of course I'd
like to know what he was in prison for, and
I'm sure you'll tell me at some point.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Yes, and involves fraud, so at least it's not violent,
but it does put Tony in a pretty bad light. Here,
a couple of things start to happen that make her
family really nervous. First of all, of course, she marries
him very quickly, so they had only been together for
ten months. They get married in January of nineteen seventy two,
and you know, this for them is sort of head
(13:27):
snapping too fast. Her estate had been in her will
left to her two daughters, Kathleen and Susan. She changes
the will and now everything goes to Tony. This is
not a big surprise, you know. I mean, I know
that happens when people get married. But the young women
who are her daughters are incredibly alarmed by all sorts
(13:47):
of things, and I think they just think he's a
sleazy guy. But Ruth can't see it now. I was
actually just having a conversation with two of my closest
friends about this a couple of weeks ago. When you
have a friend who is involved with somebody, a man
or a woman who you just don't like, and they
break up and then you say, oh, that guy was
the worst or she was terrible to you, and then
(14:09):
they get back together and then they create this distance.
So I think that this is a fine line for
Kathleen and Susan, her daughters, who are trying not to,
you know, create this big problem between them and their mother.
But at the same time, you know, what do you
do if you're really scared that your mother is jumping
into a relationship that could potentially I don't think they
(14:32):
think this is going to end in death, but could
potentially ruin her financially. I don't know what the answer is,
and I don't know if you do either, But what
do you do?
Speaker 2 (14:40):
It's a tough situation because you think about this, this
phrase blinded by love. The family members they are possibly
seeing very clearly the type of man Tony is. But
Ruth is head over heels for Tony and she's liking
the way he's treating her and would be in denial
(15:01):
if any family members or friends come up to her
and say, hey, I've got some concerns, and she basically
would be in that well, bug off. You know. I
love him, you know, and you're misinterpreting who he is.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
And I think it's difficult because right now, Tony hasn't
done anything wrong that we know of. You know, of course,
Ruth could be keeping secrets. They've been married for now,
let's say about a year or so, and we can
talk about Tony's background. We don't know a lot about
his childhood, but he was born in Washington State in
nineteen twenty one. He seems legitimate from early on. So
(15:35):
in the early nineteen fifties, when he is in his
mid to late twenties, he becomes active in Washington and
Oregon's timber industry. So remember I said he had timber holdings,
He had a lot of success. By the time he
was thirty one, he was running a company. He had
a big house with a bunch of cars. And at
this point Tony is married with four children, and he's
(15:57):
on his local city council, well respected in his community.
But before long, I think the outlook of the community
on Tony's image is starting to go down. Because by
the mid nineteen fifties, a thirteen year old girl accuses
Tony of what they called indecent liberties. Of course we
(16:19):
are going to say molestation here. He is eventually acquitted
of these alleged crimes by a judge. We don't have
a lot of details about this, Paul, We just know
he was accused and not convicted, not you know anything.
But this is becoming more serious. And I don't think
this is the stuff that her family was able to
(16:39):
dig up, because it sounds like it was dismissed. But
now things are becoming a lot more I think in
focus regarding Tony and kind of his criminal activity and
is certainly his morals.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Yeah, you'd it'd be interesting to know exactly how the
accusation of these indecent liberties came to be. The parents
of the thirteen year old girl report this report Tony
to the police that the thirteen year old girl gives
some statements. The fact that it's dismissed. You think about
this era in nineteen fifties. You know, they were so
(17:16):
lenient when it came to you know, child molestation, crimes
against children, crimes against women during this time that if
they did not have, you know, some overwhelming case that
just appalled everybody, it likely is going to be either
reduced charges or dismissed. So it's hard to evaluate this dismissal.
(17:39):
Does that mean that he was falsely accused. I'm really
needing to know more of the details about how that
case progressed in order to say, oh, you know, he
had this Tony. He obviously had an issue in the
fifties with this kid, So I wish.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
We had a little bit more information on that. Also,
I think that even the accusation itself seems to have
put him in a pretty bad light, and then it
gets worse in a different way. A couple of years later,
he is accused of logging in areas that he has
no authorization to be in. And then it sounds like
he has swindled buyers of land by offering to sell
(18:17):
logging sites that he doesn't actually own. So here comes
the fraud. He's accused of taking advantage of landowners also
by having them sign contracts that were blank. And according
to these folks, these accusers of his, the contracts would
be fraudulently filled in as if the landowners had agreed
to hand this over. Now, as an aside, I'm not
sure why you would sign a blank contract, but it
(18:39):
sounds like this was something he was doing. So he
would rip off buyers and he would rip off sellers
at the same time. So this is where some of
the frog comes in. It just seems like Tony's character
has really been in question for now. It looks like
about twenty years or so.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Sure, you know, with the accusation of the sexual assault
on the thirteen old, I'd say with there's smoke right,
most certainly there's smoke there. Now you have this fraud
and being able to get the individuals, the buyers and
sellers to sign blank contracts. That's interesting. That sounds like
(19:17):
Tony was able to get these individuals to trust him
and say, hey, I can make this happen. I'll fill
in the details later, right, And because of his personality,
he ingratiated himself enough to where these financial partners had
trust in him. He's also showing a level of greed
(19:38):
by committing this crime. And so now kind of extrapolating
up into Ruth, who's a wealthier single female who's was
trying to downsize from the house that she had. That
tells me that her house is probably larger, you know,
and he's recognizing that if he goes and sees this,
he's going, wow, you know, she has a really large house. Single.
(20:01):
You know, he's probably very adept at reading you know
the person and going likely has some larger bank accounts.
So I could see where now his personality, the charm
can come out because he's now pursuing a greed aspect
with Ruth. That's how I'm starting to extrapolate from his
criminal history.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
He definitely is motivated by money, it sounds like. And
remember I said he had four kids, he had a
very large house, flashy cars. I was driving around with
one of my girls the other night, and you know,
we were seeing a driveway that was just full of
really expensive cars, and of course it's this massive house.
And one of my kids said, well, this is somebody
who obviously makes a lot of money, and I said,
(20:44):
I don't know, because you know, we, especially in our country,
we know people can completely overleverage every part of their lives.
And that's one of the things that I talked to
my kids about a lot financial literacy. You know, don't
spend more than you have. And so that reminded me
of Tony as I was kind of reading up on
this last night. Your boy, appearances really do mask who
(21:07):
the person is, and this becomes a big problem for him.
He finally gets caught. There's a four year investigation in
this what Anne Rule calls a timber swindle, and he
is indicted in sixty two by a grand jury, federal
grand jury. He is convicted on seven counts of interstate
fraud and one count of conspiracy. He gets twelve years
(21:30):
in prison, but he's released on parole sometime around nineteen
seventy and then one year later, he shows up at
this lovely woman's house with a for sales sign in
the front yard and knocks on the door, but in
the meantime, his wife dumped him and divorced him. This
is kind of where we are. Ruth has met this man,
and she says she knows all about his history.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
At least she thinks she knows all about his history.
He's maybe telling her something that is men what he
was truly doing. You know, we see this a lot
with registered sex offenders. You know, they go out and
they want to get into relationships again, and of course
it's public knowledge that they're sex offenders, and so their
(22:14):
new partner, potential partner could easily find out. And oftentimes
these guys who were convicted of you know, horrific rapes
are even worse. They say, oh, you know, I was
nineteen years old and I just got caught having sex
with an underaged minor type of thing. You know, so
they tried to try to minimize it to explain what
(22:35):
their love interest if you want to call it, that
potentially could find out down the road. So I would
imagine Tony is going to Ruth knowing that there's maybe
some public records or if anybody really digs into him,
that they will find out that he has this conviction
in this prison sentence, and so he's maybe saying, oh, well, yeah,
I had this, but you know, really it wasn't that
big of a deal.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
And you know, I'm sure this accusation from the thirteen
year old from his past that was dismissed by a judge.
It's not in the newspapers, so this can't be something
I'm assuming that her kids dug up. Otherwise, I cannot
see from what I know about Ruth, that doesn't seem
like something that she would, you know, stay with a
man knowing that there was even this accusation. I could
(23:18):
be wrong. It sounds like what they dug up was
the conviction, you know, the federal charges. The conviction and
that he was sentenced to twelve years is what they
brought to him. And who knows you're right, who knows
what he said to them?
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Well, in the nineteen seventies, you think about actually going
back to the indecent liberties with a thirteen year old.
You know, that probably didn't make a local newspaper. But
if it did, which local newspaper did it make? Right?
You know, they would have to go from library to
library and to see if they could find something. And
(23:52):
so it was so different back then than what we
have today by you know, on the keyboard and the
online searching capabilities. You know, when you say that he
was convicted of like seven I think you said seven
interstate fraud charges.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
Seven counts of interstate fraud and one count of conspiracy.
I don't know the difference.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Well, the conspiracy indicates that he is he's got another
maybe another partner in this that may have been brought
up in some charges. But what's catching my attention is
the fact that these were interstate fraud and so I'm
wondering if there was an FBI investigation and there you
could have potentially when he's convicted out of the timber industry,
(24:33):
maybe there are some headlines he had oh that weren't
necessarily just in a local newspaper, but maybe in a
more broadly distributed type of newspaper where it'd be much
easier for the family to find this out.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Now, it would be easy now to pull up the complaints,
that charges, trial transcripts, any of that kind of saif
there's a plea deal, I guess it would not be
that difficult. Now, what would you do in the seventies
if you're just a citizen alone person and you find
out that this guy who's dating your mother went to
prison for six years and was released. Where would you
(25:09):
go to get a transcript of whatever happened in the seventies.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
You'd have to go to the courts. If it made
the newspapers and you knew roughly where this crime occurred
and where the media had attention on this crime, then yeah,
you could go and maybe do newspaper searches from around
the date range that you think it possibly would have occurred.
But once you get the information as to you know,
(25:34):
what court he was tried in, now you can go
to that court and request the public records out of
that court, which could include the transcripts from the you know,
the court reporter taking material down, the various emotions. You know,
everything is kind of kept by the courts and their
public records, and to this day that's how you still
(25:57):
will do things. You can only get so much detail online.
You can go to let's say superior court website and
find out a docket number, you know, when the case occurred,
how it was disposed of, But to actually get the details,
that's where you'd go to the courts and request the records.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
And I'm assuming that her daughters the rest of her
family thought these articles would be enough. Hey, mom, look
at this guy's background. Did you know that he had
just been released from prison a year before for ripping
people off? And it sounds like she did know, or
at least she played it off like she did know
to not sort of, you know, embarrass him or embarrass her.
Let's talk about his credentials, because I said that he
(26:38):
opened up this counseling clinic that was not far from
Ruth's house. So when he was incarcerated, before he knew Ruth,
he did get an associate's degree through a to come
to Washington Community College, and according to the Longview Daily News,
he continued working on the degree once he was paroled.
We don't know a lot about his educational history, but
(27:00):
most of the sources agree that he was pursuing a
degree in psychology. Somebody said that he studied law, maybe ecology,
but psychology seemed to be what everybody agreed on. He
had attended the Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma for a
little while, and he enrolled at a college in Florida
and he received like this honorary doctorate, which it doesn't
(27:22):
sound like meant very much. He went to Washington State
where he studied acupuncture and then opened up this clinic
as doctor Anthony Fernandez, and then he meets Ruth. So
I mean, he is definitely not a doctor, but he
seems like knowledgeable enough and bright enough to be able
(27:43):
to pull off this counseling clinic. I don't know how
popular it was, and I don't know how long he
kept it open after he and Ruth were married. But
he does start to sound like a serial fraudster for sure,
in a lot of different aspects of his life.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Yeah, he sounds like a con man, right. What was
that that movie with Tom Hanks and he was law
enforcement chasing Leonardo DiCaprio's.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Character catch me if you can catch.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Me, If you can? You know where that that type
of criminal has the aptitude and the skill set to
be able to, you know, pose as a certain type
of person. And that's what conmn's do. They have the
personality and maybe the aptitude, Like if you want to
pose as a psychologist, you have at least some knowledge
(28:34):
base to convince people, Oh he knows what he's talking about,
but maybe another well educated psychologist, you know, asking deeper
questions would go, oh, no, he is not a licensed psychologist.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Yep. That's that's why when you're a con man, you
have to be really careful who you talk to at
dinner parties. Make sure that this is not somebody who
knows anything that's right. Let's get back to Tony and
Ruth and see if Ruth at any point catches on
to this guy. They met in seventy one, they married
in seventy two. We are now two years into their
(29:08):
marriage in nineteen seventy four, spring of nineteen seventy four.
At this point, Ruth is saying things are not going well.
She tells a close friend of hers named Irene Rise
that her marriage is in shambles, and she decides she
needs some space from Tony, which sounds like a great idea.
(29:28):
She takes a month long trip to Texas, where one
of her kids lives, where Kathleen lives, and Tony of
course doesn't go. When she's on this trip with Kathleen
with her daughter, Kathleen says that Ruth told her they
weren't getting along, that he wouldn't come home at night,
and that he either had another woman or an alcohol problem,
(29:50):
and as an aside, I would suspect, probably both, but
who knows. Kathleen said that her mother was going to
talk to an attorney about divorce. She said that her
life has been difficult. You know. Of course she had
lost her first husband, so it sounded like she really
loved him, and now she's married to this loser of
a guy who wasn't coming home at night, and that
(30:10):
she couldn't do this anymore, She could not continue to
live under this constant pressure, financial pressure. And you know,
I know we're going to talk about this. Talk of
a divorce can be an inciting incident for a lot
of murders. And it sounds like she was making a decision.
And I'm sure this was not going to be a
surprise to Tony.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
No, Well, Tony's fully aware of what the state of
the relationship is too. You know, it is going to
be coming down to, well, what is his true feelings
for Ruth? And was this just this marriage just a
sham so he could have access to her financial assets.
And when she starts to threaten to take his access
to those financial assets away, that's when things could probably
(30:52):
get kind of ugly in this relationship.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
And I wonder in this seventies what divorce would have
been like, Like would she have been able to walk
away with half of what she had, which would have
been a substantial estate without him having any of it?
Or would there have been some sort of spousal support
on his part. I don't know enough about what would
have happened in the seventies, but I just wonder that
(31:16):
must have played into it somehow. Also, he knew he
probably wasn't going to get anything if they did divorce.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Yeah, you know what, I think it's state by state,
you know, in terms of you once you get married,
each individual's assets become community property, and so upon divorce,
is it, you know, split evenly unless there's a prenuptial agreement,
you know, And was there a prenupt in this particular case,
because Ruth does have some financial assets that maybe she
wanted to protect ahead of time. So that's all part
(31:43):
of evaluating. Okay, what is Tony going to lose out
on when Ruth goes I want a divorce?
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Well, Tony's determined to not lose out on anything, because
while Ruth is in Texas with her daughter Kathleen, he
is calling and strong arming Ruth into giving him power
of attorney over her affairs. And now Paul's leaning forward
and wanting to say something, and I will say one
more sentence before you talk about power of attorney, which
(32:10):
is another inciting incident. Ruth doesn't want to do it,
but eventually, inexplicably, she says, okay, So there you go.
He gets power of attorney.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
He's obviously making a play in order to be able
to scramble and get assets kind of being directed towards
him in the event of this potential sounds like likely divorce.
This is where it almost sounds like, you know, Tony
is reasonably sophisticated when it comes to business transactions. You know,
(32:42):
he's running a timber company, he's committing fraud. Sounds like
he's able to dupe some other sophisticated business associates for
the fraud cases. And I think he's taken advantage maybe
of Ruth's naivity when it comes to this aspect. Ruth
is probably recognizing, Oh, if I give him power of attorney,
(33:04):
he can do X, Y and Z. But what's the likelihood, right,
not necessarily recognizing you know, he's sort of a wolf
in sheep's clothing on this front, and he knows exactly
what he's doing, you know, So he's just saying, hey,
I want power of attorney. Who knows what those conversations
were like, whether she felt like she's intimidated, But I
bet he fully understood what he could do once he
(33:27):
got power of attorney, and she probably didn't have the
same level of understanding. That's my guess in this relationship.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
I think you're spot on because he immediately starts selling
off some of her land using power of attorney capabilities.
Ruth does not know that he's doing this, and he
is selling the land far under price than what it's worth.
So he is gathering resources right now before she comes back,
and she's only gone for a month.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Yeah. Yeah, he's purposefully undercutting the going rate because he
wants to move it quickly.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
So she goes back to Washington State from Texas. I'm
sure Kathleen does not want her to do that. I
know everybody is fearful at this point, but I'm not
sure anyone is thinking this is going to have a
violent outcome. I think they're just thinking this guy is leazy.
Maybe she can divorce him, and maybe she gave him
(34:21):
power of attorney just to get out of this, just
knowing that maybe this would shut him up long enough
for her to file for divorce. But boy, it's pretty risky,
and especially considering the estate she has, which I will
tell you, Paul by this time is about four hundred
to five hundred thousand dollars in nineteen seventy four, so
we're talking I think about four to five million dollars.
(34:45):
Lots and lots of money is her estate at this point.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
Sure she could come back from this trip to Texas
and be so completely pissed off at what he's doing
that she has motive to off him, you know. So
it'll be interesting to see how this develops.
Speaker 1 (34:59):
Well, here we go. So she returns to Washington state.
He is there, and he does something that is charming
or convincing because she agrees to go on a week
long camping trip with him.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
Oh I know, and.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
I hate to phrase it like, I don't know what
she was thinking, but that's what I say in my head.
What what happened? He must have really turned on the
charm because she agreed to be in an RV a
Winnebago with this man to go to a campsite in
near North Bend, Washington and she owns land there, and
she says, let's go. She and her now deceased husband
(35:39):
Less used to do that all the time. She drove
RVs all the time. She love camping, She loved doing this.
I don't know why she would go with Tony, but
something switched and she said, okay, she did not go
against her will.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Well, you know, first, it tells me she's not feeling
any type of threat to her person, you know, her safety.
She is unhappy in the relationship, but Tony hasn't demonstrated
maybe a level of violence that she's thinking, I cannot
be alone with him. I'm assuming he's taking advantage of
(36:12):
her love to do this type of activity to isolate her.
I'm sure there probably aren't other people going on the
same camping trip. It's just him and her, and he's
now done. What we see killers do is they need
to isolate the victims, and then that's when bad things happen.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
I think you're probably right. I think that he took
advantage of the fact that she was feeling vulnerable, and
it could be that she felt like she was looking
for any kind of sincerity or affection authenticity from him,
and he probably turned on the charm and said let's
go do this. She didn't feel threatened. They packed up.
(36:53):
They have a little suv. I think they called it
a scout and other sources called it a jeep. They
bring that along with them, I'm assuming so they can
go do you know, some off road stuff, or go
take adventures without the RV. They stop at a restaurant
called the Mount Sie Golf Course, and we have information
(37:13):
sort of from witnesses. People are trying to piece together
before what happens happens, what their interactions were like beforehand,
because that hopefully will tell us a little bit. They
have lunch and they have some cocktails there and rule
the author reports that they had been in the restaurant
for a long time, and according to witnesses, they had
had several drinks. Ruth was known to have several drinks,
(37:35):
not over indulged, but she was definitely no teetoller, and
she had a few drinks, and some of the witnesses
said that seemed like they might have been a little
bit tipsy. Definitely not drunk, not attracting tons of attention,
but they seem to be getting along. So this was
about lunchtime and then more witnesses around four fifteen, so
several hours later see them when they stop at an
(37:59):
office for a local timber company on a business errand
because he's got some timberland. Ann Rule says that the
employees there were called, that Ruth seemed to be very unhappy,
but Tony was very quiet. Neither of them seemed drunk
or tipsy at this point, and then they head to
the campsite. So that is sort of the way things went.
(38:21):
And nobody was fighting there, weren't you know, the police
weren't called. They didn't seem to be overly thrilled with
each other, but it seemed to be a rather peaceful
trip going toward this campsite.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
So in the restaurant where they are in a public location,
people are able to observe them, and it sounds like
Ruth and Tony are interacting fine as what you would
expect a couple that's not fighting, you know, they're just
kind of engaging in conversation, having a few drinks together.
It's interesting that when Tony goes to this what was
(38:54):
it was a timber.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Business, Yes, it was a timber business.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
And their demeanor sounds like from the witnesses is a
little bit more reserved. She sounds a little more sullen.
So I'm wondering that after they left the restaurant, they
have a few drinks in them. Now they're in an RV,
they're in private, and I wonder if there was maybe
some more negative conversation, you know, that transpired. You know,
(39:19):
it's kind of speculating, but it seems like that could
have occurred.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
Yeah, whatever their interactions were at both the restaurant and
this timber office, nobody was alarmed by any of it.
They get back into the RV and they head up
to the camp site. So this is like a mountain
pass they have to go up, and then it puts
them on the a logging road and then everything goes
silent for a while until eight thirty. So the last
(39:45):
people to see Ruth were four to fifteen at this
timber company, four fifteen pm at eight thirty that same night.
So four hours later, Tony calls the restaurant where they
had been, Mount Sai restaurant where he had had lunch,
you know, eight hours earlier, and he says Ruth had
gone to the campsite with him. They were hanging out.
(40:08):
She turned to him and said, I'm going to go
on a walk, and she's gone, And he says, has
anybody seen her? And I don't know why he would
think the restaurant would mean it sounds like they're kind
of quite a bit aways from the restaurant. Yeah, but
I don't, you know, I actually don't know how far
away they are. But it doesn't seem like she would
walk to a restaurant at eight thirty at night, even
(40:29):
if it's July and it would be lighter, because at summertime.
It just seems kind of like an odd thing. But
he is establishing that his wife is gone from the campsite.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
Were they able to drive the RV all the way
up to this campsite or did they have to park
the RV like at the restaurant and then take this
scout or jeep on the logging road to get to
the campsite? You know anything about that?
Speaker 1 (40:54):
I know for a fact that they took the RV okay,
And you're gonna find out shortly why.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
Well, that just kind of informs me as to, you know,
how accessible the camp site is and basically, if an
RV is getting back there, this campsite is accessible to
just about any type of vehicle.
Speaker 1 (41:12):
Well, and it's a logging road that they eventually have
to go down to get to the campsite. So it's
a mountain pass that hooks them up to a logging road.
So that's big vehicles, I would assume, right, Yeah, though.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
You know, these these logging roads can be a little
bit tougher for your average vehicle, and especially if they
have you know, rougher terrain. You know, an RV could
struggle because if they're towing the scout or jeep behind
the RV, you know, that's and you see that kind
of setup. That's so you know, the people can go
(41:42):
to other locations that the RV typically isn't going to
be able to get to, or they just want to
you know, kind of drop anchor with the RV at
a location and then use the smaller vehicle to go
and tour around and hit town or whatever else. And
so this is where I'm just trying to make sure
how remote this camp site is. But it sounds like
(42:04):
this is a campsite that pretty much anybody could get
to if they wanted to. Any type of vehicle can
get to it. And if Ruth is out there walking
by herself. It increases the likelihood that there's potential witnesses
who are driving by. When I go out in my
jeep with some of the side roads, there's nobody out
there except maybe other people with a well built off
(42:26):
road rig, right, So you have a smaller potential pool
of witnesses because it's not that heavily traveled in that scenario.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
Well, it sounds like when she went for a walk.
He unhooked the jeep and we're just gonna call it
a jeep. It's sort of inconsistent, but some suv. He
unhooked the jeep and went down to the nearest place
to make phone calls. He called Mount Sai restaurant. They said, no,
we haven't seen her. He called nearby cafe in North Bend,
said the same thing, do you know where she is?
(42:56):
They had known Ruth, probably because she owned land and
she had been up before. She was familiar with this area.
She knew how to drive an RV, so she's not
scared to do any of this. The cafe says, no,
we haven't seen her either. So he makes these calls
and then panics and reaches out to the Washington State
Patrol Station and says that he's worried about Ruth, but
(43:19):
now things start to get a little odd and rule
the author says that Tony changes his story during this
particular call to the Washington State Patrol. He says that
the couple had decided, rather than camp, that they were
going to return to their Auburn home, and that he
decided to take the SUV and she decided to get
(43:41):
a head start by driving the Winnebago. Okay, so now
the story has completely changed. It has not. She walked
off and now she hasn't come back, and maybe a
bear aid her. This is we decided to head back
to Auburn, and she went ahead in the RV and
I'm in the SUV and I now I don't know
where she is.
Speaker 2 (43:59):
Right But at the time that he is talking to
the State Patrol, they don't know that he's given different
statements to the two restaurants, right, so you know they're now, okay,
this is the facts that they know. She's in an
RV and he says, I've got our cheap.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
And he says that he waited about twenty minutes to leave,
so she had a twenty or thirty minute head start.
He didn't see her or the RV anywhere on the
road he had reported that. Eventually neither were in Auburn.
He finally goes back to the couple's house and no
one hears from Ruth throughout the night, So the state
police are saying, well, it's dark and now the family
(44:43):
is alarmed. So this is where things get a little
bit complicated. The next day, Tony and a man named
Donald Stafford, who is engaged to Ruth's daughter, Susan, the
other one that's not in Texas, start driving around and
Donald is the one who spots this. Okay, there are
skid marks on this logging road that has a steep,
(45:05):
rocky embankment off its shoulder, so it's been described as
a slope or cliff that leads into a ravine. And
about three hundred feet down the embankment is there smashed
Winnebago r V and it looks like if Ruth was
driving that she had careened off the logging road sometime
that night and crashed below.
Speaker 2 (45:27):
Okay, I'm picturing several different visuals of the skid marks.
I can easily see the logging road in my head,
and you know, the steep embankment. You know, the skid
marks are interesting. Are these skid marks just showing almost
like the Winnebago RV rolling off the embankment? Or is
(45:48):
it showing that the Winnebagel is traveling at high speed
and brakes are being applied. You know, this is where
getting you know, some experts to assess the mechanics of
the Winnebago after it's recovered, as well as evaluating these
these skid marks. So that would be something I wish
we had pictures of.
Speaker 1 (46:07):
I know, Sorry, Paul, I know a little shocked to
be down from the nineteen seventies, but we have some
pretty good descriptions that I'll tell you about. So first
let's talk about Ruth. We have this smashed up RV
and Donald investigates and of course is scared to see
what he finds here. So not far from the wreckage,
(46:28):
about one hundred feet down the embankment from the RV
is the lifeless body of Ruth Fernandez. So she is
not in the Winnebago, but she has clear signs of
trauma to her head and to her stomach. And the
presumption is that the RV veered off the steep embankment
that sits along the logging road and on the way
(46:51):
down the rocky slope, she had been ejected from the vehicle.
So this is a story about whether or not this
was an accident or whether this was a murder.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
And these sometimes can be tough to try to tease out.
So I'm kind of curious, of course, what the autopsy shows,
what the evaluation of Winnebago shows, you know, And I'm
sure you will fill me in on that.
Speaker 1 (47:17):
In one week, I knew it.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
He got me hanging on the edge. Oh hold on,
no pun intended that.
Speaker 1 (47:26):
Number one question that I don't want you to answer
right now is have you worked a case like this
where somebody is ejected from the car and it is
a question about whether or not this is murder or
whether or not this is an accident, Because this seems
like an excellent way to cover up a murder. But
I also thought fire was an excellent way to cover
(47:46):
up a murder, and I have since found out that
I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (47:49):
It's all and how it's done.
Speaker 1 (47:52):
Okay, Well, I will see you in one week and
we will talk about Ruth and Tony Fernandez and what
may or may not.
Speaker 2 (47:59):
Have had okay, looking forward to hearing the rest of
the story.
Speaker 1 (48:04):
Kape see you soon.
Speaker 2 (48:05):
Sounds good.
Speaker 1 (48:10):
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 Emrosi.
Speaker 2 (48:21):
Research by Maren mcclashan, Ali Elkin, and Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.
Speaker 2 (48:28):
Our theme song is by Tom Bryfogel.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
Executive produced by Karen Kilgaroff, Georgia hard Stark, and Daniel Kramer.
Speaker 1 (48:37):
You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at
ary Bones pod.
Speaker 2 (48:42):
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 (48:49):
And Paul's best selling memoir Unmasked, My life solving America's
Cold Cases is also available now
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.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Hey, Paul, Hi, Kate, how are you.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
I'm doing well? How about you?
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I am I'm hanging in there. Maybe better than hanging
in there.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Hey, that's an improvement. I feel like we pretty much
stick with hanging in there, So that's good.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Well, I want to ask you questions. So this case
that we're getting ready to talk about, the case appears
in a book written by the most prolific I think
author certainly true crime author of all time and rule
oh I know, and who wrote a book called Most
Dangerous Killers. And this case pops up in that book.
So number one, have you read any and Rule? Is
(01:40):
one of my big questions.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
I think the one and Rule book I've read, I
believe it was called Stranger Beside Me, who was about
her relationship with Ted Bundy. Yeah, but I am familiar
with Anne Rule, you know, to a point. But I
don't think I haven't extensively read her.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
I actually haven't either, and I should just because she's
such an icon. So, you know, this case appears in
the book, and it got me wondering, do you ever
read any of the books about the cases that you've covered?
Like paul I kid you not. I can't even keep
track of how many Golden State Killer, both before and
after Joseph DiAngelo books there are. Did you even read
(02:18):
I'll Be Gone in the Dark.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
No, But that's that's more complicated because of my close
relationship with Michelle, you know, I just have not been
able to bring myself to read it just because it
would bring up, you know, memories. But when it comes
to true crime, I used to voraciously read true crime
early on in my career, and I considered it part
(02:41):
of my studies. And then as I got more and
more invested, in my own cases. You know, I just
couldn't continue to consume other cases. I had to focus in.
And then when you think about something like Golden State Killer,
when I really focused in on that case, that case,
with all the cases associated with that series, we had
(03:02):
over fifteen thousand pages of case file. Imagine reading a
novel that's fifteen thousand pages long and any detail within
those pages or something that could turn the case. So
I couldn't be distracted by other people's stories, so to speak.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Yeah, I think that makes sense. And you know, you
and I had been talking a while back about Zodiac
and how you had worked to the Zodiac case, and
we will get into that at another time, but how
you had worked the Zodiac case and had actually read
Robert Graysmith's book, who was the journalist who well, I
would say cartoonists who arguably worked the case also, so
(03:38):
you are reading those kinds of books.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Yeah, that was during that era, early on in my career.
And of course, you know, being in the Bay Area
was very familiar as Zodiac before you even started working
the case. In fact, on my commute sometimes I would
have to take a side road which was Lake Herman Road,
and that was where his first attack occurred, you know.
And then subsequently I got involved with the case. I
(04:02):
did go to every crime scene of his and then
actually did a TV show way back when like twenty
ten called Mystery Quest or myself one of these online
sleuts who I had never met prior to this, went
to each of the crime scenes and at all but
the presidio shooting, we had original investigators from the agencies
(04:25):
show up and you know, walk us through, and that
was there's a show that I'm in with the Zodiac.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Wow. And so you read that book. Did you come
away with any insights from that book that you had
not known digging into your own files and getting all
of the information that you had gathered in the mid nineties.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well, you know, the book itself I read before I
really did any work on the Zodiac case. And so
a lot of my original information on Zodiac came from
Gray Smith's books. As I got involved with the case
and met with several of the agencies, as well as
found files within my crime lab because there had been
(05:07):
evidence submitted from Zodiac back in the seventies to my lab,
so I had access to forensics reports and stuff. You know.
I started to get you know, official information about Zodiac
and you know, and that's where when you look at
a true crime book, you always have to understand sort
(05:27):
of maybe the journalistic integrity of the person that's writing
the book and they what materials are relying on, you know,
to have you know, is it factual? Is there a
lot of supposition? You know? And then also you like
with with Gracemith's book, it's also well who is he
and evaluating his investigative abilities. You know, he may have
(05:51):
had a decent aptitude, but what was his experience, you know,
and taking a look at things and evaluating circumstantial evidence.
Had he worked other cases, had he run across similar
types of suspects, because he does, you know, focus in
on a particular suspect in his books. And that's where
somebody like myself, as I'm reading and rereading his material,
(06:13):
I end up recognizing, Okay, he doesn't necessarily have full
comprehension of how to build a case that is based
on factual information and having a nexus to the actual
crimes themselves. And that I see this a lot with
some of the online sluice.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
So you are too busy now to read books, not
even my books. You can't even take the time to read.
Is that what's happening? You can't even read my books?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Look, you're giving me a guilt trip.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
What about the audiobook, Paul? You know I do read
my own audiobooks, So that's any incentive.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
I'm sorry, I have not I haven't read.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
I haven't read as if you don't listen to me enough. Yeah,
I understand taking a break. Well, this is a case,
as I said, from Anne Rule, and so we do
quote her book, which is really insightful I think in
some parts. So let's jump in. This is a very
very contemporary case, mid nineteen seventies, I mean, okay, twentieth century.
(07:17):
Here we go.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, well this is this is you know, the decade
that I probably did the most work in.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Okay, well this will be interesting. So we're in Washington State,
and let's set the scene. So let's talk about the
couple who will be our focus. It's a couple named
Ruth and Tony Fernandez. And let's talk about how they met.
So I'm not going to talk about who the victim
is if there is a victim in this case. Okay,
(07:45):
I want to set the intention that we're going to
get to know them as a couple and know what
their background is like, and then kind of moving forward,
we can put some pieces together. So they met in
nineteen seventy one. She was forty two Ruth and she
was Ruth log not Ruth Nan does just yet. She
was widowed after the death of her husband in nineteen
(08:05):
sixty six, so she had been single for about five years.
She had two adult children and she wanted to downsize
because they were out of the house. She was in Auburn, Washington.
She put her house up for sale, and in nineteen
seventy one, this man who was good looking and very charming,
pulls up in a Cadillac, knocks on the door. He says,
I'm sorry, I'm interested in buying your house. She said, okay,
(08:28):
I'll give you a tour. He introduces himself as doctor
Anthony Fernandez, but he says you can call me Tony.
He's forty eight, so just about six years older than
she is. He is divorced, and he has a counseling
clinic nearby. So he's a psychologist and he wants a
house because he needs to commute pretty easily back and
(08:48):
forth between his home and his work at this counseling center.
So Ruth is charmed immediately. He is good looking, he
seems very kind, and he says, let's go to dinner
and talk about the house, which is an interesting ruse,
and she says okay, and they have such a great time.
They start dating and she pulls the house off the
market and they check up. He moves in. This is
(09:11):
a very quick relationship. You know, she is taken by him.
And for me, I mean, there's nothing wrong with jumping
into relationships. I have done that myself and they have
ended fine. But they have ended. But when we are
talking about a true crime case, I think that alarm
bells should go off that you are jumping into a
(09:33):
relationship with someone that you might not know very well
and that could make either one of them vulnerable. Frankly, well, you.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Know, I right off the bat, I'm kind of guessing
where this is potentially going in terms of one way
or the other. There are peers. You know, this very
short term or short dating relationship, and now you have
Tony moving in. You know, in some ways you start
thinking about my mind is going towards okay? Is he
is he sort of a con man? Is he finding
(10:02):
a vulnerable woman, you know, that appears to have some
financial assets, and you know, is he going around and
hitting open houses and meeting women and finding the one
that's going to be the you know, the one that
he can exploit. But no, I'll see how this develops.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
That sounds like an interesting scheme, hitting open houses and
meeting women. Yeah, that would make sense. Well, we don't
know just yet, but when they get involved with each other.
He has all sorts of assets that he has talked
to her about. He has timber holdings, he's got this
counseling practice. He has a nice car. She is worth
(10:43):
several hundred thousand dollars, which, by the way, is a
couple of million today. I am in denial that money
from the year I was born seventy four would be
worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars, would be worth
almost two million dollars today. But that's what the world,
what web tells me. So she's worth quite a lot
of money, and you know, he is seemingly smitten with her.
(11:08):
They seem to have a good relationship. Her family does
not like Tony, not one little bit. They do some
surface level digging and they look in local newspaper archives.
You know, this is the seventies. They work really hard.
There's no internet, so they work really hard and start
digging in, and they see that he's been involved in
some fraud lawsuits and he was in prison for fraud.
(11:32):
And we could talk about a little bit more about
that in a little bit. I'm trying to build a
picture here of Tony. He seems successful right now, and
they seem to be in a pretty good relationship. Her
family goes to Ruth and says, listen, I don't know
this guy. You know, I know that he has this
counseling practice. I know he has this in that, but
he's had these lawsuits. And she says, bug off, I
(11:54):
already know. I don't care. It's fine, And Rule the
author says her impression was that Ruth was somebody who
believed in second chances, and she was not going to
not be with this man who was treating her very
well just because he had this sort of dubious past.
Just because he's been convicted of fraud doesn't mean he's violent.
(12:16):
And so I don't want you to jump to conclusions
just yet, but what do we think about the fraud charges?
And lawsuits and all of this.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Well, I think you know, of course, you have to consider,
you know, what does this mean about who Tony really is?
But at the same time, you know this could be
something wherein you know, select occupations. You know, you can
have people accuse you of certain types of crimes or
civil actions, and now you're having to defend your name
(12:45):
and you're completely innocent. So at this point you know
the fraud aspect without knowing any more, I'm just going, okay,
you know he has had some legal stuff going on
in the past. I mean, I believe you brought up
that he had been in prison, and of course I'd
like to know what he was in prison for, and
I'm sure you'll tell me at some point.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Yes, and involves fraud, so at least it's not violent,
but it does put Tony in a pretty bad light. Here,
a couple of things start to happen that make her
family really nervous. First of all, of course, she marries
him very quickly, so they had only been together for
ten months. They get married in January of nineteen seventy two,
and you know, this for them is sort of head
(13:27):
snapping too fast. Her estate had been in her will
left to her two daughters, Kathleen and Susan. She changes
the will and now everything goes to Tony. This is
not a big surprise, you know. I mean, I know
that happens when people get married. But the young women
who are her daughters are incredibly alarmed by all sorts
(13:47):
of things, and I think they just think he's a
sleazy guy. But Ruth can't see it now. I was
actually just having a conversation with two of my closest
friends about this a couple of weeks ago. When you
have a friend who is involved with somebody, a man
or a woman who you just don't like, and they
break up and then you say, oh, that guy was
the worst or she was terrible to you, and then
(14:09):
they get back together and then they create this distance.
So I think that this is a fine line for
Kathleen and Susan, her daughters, who are trying not to,
you know, create this big problem between them and their mother.
But at the same time, you know, what do you
do if you're really scared that your mother is jumping
into a relationship that could potentially I don't think they
(14:32):
think this is going to end in death, but could
potentially ruin her financially. I don't know what the answer is,
and I don't know if you do either, But what
do you do?
Speaker 2 (14:40):
It's a tough situation because you think about this, this
phrase blinded by love. The family members they are possibly
seeing very clearly the type of man Tony is. But
Ruth is head over heels for Tony and she's liking
the way he's treating her and would be in denial
(15:01):
if any family members or friends come up to her
and say, hey, I've got some concerns, and she basically
would be in that well, bug off. You know. I
love him, you know, and you're misinterpreting who he is.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
And I think it's difficult because right now, Tony hasn't
done anything wrong that we know of. You know, of course,
Ruth could be keeping secrets. They've been married for now,
let's say about a year or so, and we can
talk about Tony's background. We don't know a lot about
his childhood, but he was born in Washington State in
nineteen twenty one. He seems legitimate from early on. So
(15:35):
in the early nineteen fifties, when he is in his
mid to late twenties, he becomes active in Washington and
Oregon's timber industry. So remember I said he had timber holdings,
He had a lot of success. By the time he
was thirty one, he was running a company. He had
a big house with a bunch of cars. And at
this point Tony is married with four children, and he's
(15:57):
on his local city council, well respected in his community.
But before long, I think the outlook of the community
on Tony's image is starting to go down. Because by
the mid nineteen fifties, a thirteen year old girl accuses
Tony of what they called indecent liberties. Of course we
(16:19):
are going to say molestation here. He is eventually acquitted
of these alleged crimes by a judge. We don't have
a lot of details about this, Paul, We just know
he was accused and not convicted, not you know anything.
But this is becoming more serious. And I don't think
this is the stuff that her family was able to
(16:39):
dig up, because it sounds like it was dismissed. But
now things are becoming a lot more I think in
focus regarding Tony and kind of his criminal activity and
is certainly his morals.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Yeah, you'd it'd be interesting to know exactly how the
accusation of these indecent liberties came to be. The parents
of the thirteen year old girl report this report Tony
to the police that the thirteen year old girl gives
some statements. The fact that it's dismissed. You think about
this era in nineteen fifties. You know, they were so
(17:16):
lenient when it came to you know, child molestation, crimes
against children, crimes against women during this time that if
they did not have, you know, some overwhelming case that
just appalled everybody, it likely is going to be either
reduced charges or dismissed. So it's hard to evaluate this dismissal.
(17:39):
Does that mean that he was falsely accused. I'm really
needing to know more of the details about how that
case progressed in order to say, oh, you know, he
had this Tony. He obviously had an issue in the
fifties with this kid, So I wish.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
We had a little bit more information on that. Also,
I think that even the accusation itself seems to have
put him in a pretty bad light, and then it
gets worse in a different way. A couple of years later,
he is accused of logging in areas that he has
no authorization to be in. And then it sounds like
he has swindled buyers of land by offering to sell
(18:17):
logging sites that he doesn't actually own. So here comes
the fraud. He's accused of taking advantage of landowners also
by having them sign contracts that were blank. And according
to these folks, these accusers of his, the contracts would
be fraudulently filled in as if the landowners had agreed
to hand this over. Now, as an aside, I'm not
sure why you would sign a blank contract, but it
(18:39):
sounds like this was something he was doing. So he
would rip off buyers and he would rip off sellers
at the same time. So this is where some of
the frog comes in. It just seems like Tony's character
has really been in question for now. It looks like
about twenty years or so.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Sure, you know, with the accusation of the sexual assault
on the thirteen old, I'd say with there's smoke right,
most certainly there's smoke there. Now you have this fraud
and being able to get the individuals, the buyers and
sellers to sign blank contracts. That's interesting. That sounds like
(19:17):
Tony was able to get these individuals to trust him
and say, hey, I can make this happen. I'll fill
in the details later, right, And because of his personality,
he ingratiated himself enough to where these financial partners had
trust in him. He's also showing a level of greed
(19:38):
by committing this crime. And so now kind of extrapolating
up into Ruth, who's a wealthier single female who's was
trying to downsize from the house that she had. That
tells me that her house is probably larger, you know,
and he's recognizing that if he goes and sees this,
he's going, wow, you know, she has a really large house. Single.
(20:01):
You know, he's probably very adept at reading you know
the person and going likely has some larger bank accounts.
So I could see where now his personality, the charm
can come out because he's now pursuing a greed aspect
with Ruth. That's how I'm starting to extrapolate from his
criminal history.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
He definitely is motivated by money, it sounds like. And
remember I said he had four kids, he had a
very large house, flashy cars. I was driving around with
one of my girls the other night, and you know,
we were seeing a driveway that was just full of
really expensive cars, and of course it's this massive house.
And one of my kids said, well, this is somebody
who obviously makes a lot of money, and I said,
(20:44):
I don't know, because you know, we, especially in our country,
we know people can completely overleverage every part of their lives.
And that's one of the things that I talked to
my kids about a lot financial literacy. You know, don't
spend more than you have. And so that reminded me
of Tony as I was kind of reading up on
this last night. Your boy, appearances really do mask who
(21:07):
the person is, and this becomes a big problem for him.
He finally gets caught. There's a four year investigation in
this what Anne Rule calls a timber swindle, and he
is indicted in sixty two by a grand jury, federal
grand jury. He is convicted on seven counts of interstate
fraud and one count of conspiracy. He gets twelve years
(21:30):
in prison, but he's released on parole sometime around nineteen
seventy and then one year later, he shows up at
this lovely woman's house with a for sales sign in
the front yard and knocks on the door, but in
the meantime, his wife dumped him and divorced him. This
is kind of where we are. Ruth has met this man,
and she says she knows all about his history.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
At least she thinks she knows all about his history.
He's maybe telling her something that is men what he
was truly doing. You know, we see this a lot
with registered sex offenders. You know, they go out and
they want to get into relationships again, and of course
it's public knowledge that they're sex offenders, and so their
(22:14):
new partner, potential partner could easily find out. And oftentimes
these guys who were convicted of you know, horrific rapes
are even worse. They say, oh, you know, I was
nineteen years old and I just got caught having sex
with an underaged minor type of thing. You know, so
they tried to try to minimize it to explain what
(22:35):
their love interest if you want to call it, that
potentially could find out down the road. So I would
imagine Tony is going to Ruth knowing that there's maybe
some public records or if anybody really digs into him,
that they will find out that he has this conviction
in this prison sentence, and so he's maybe saying, oh, well, yeah,
I had this, but you know, really it wasn't that
big of a deal.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
And you know, I'm sure this accusation from the thirteen
year old from his past that was dismissed by a judge.
It's not in the newspapers, so this can't be something
I'm assuming that her kids dug up. Otherwise, I cannot
see from what I know about Ruth, that doesn't seem
like something that she would, you know, stay with a
man knowing that there was even this accusation. I could
(23:18):
be wrong. It sounds like what they dug up was
the conviction, you know, the federal charges. The conviction and
that he was sentenced to twelve years is what they
brought to him. And who knows you're right, who knows
what he said to them?
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Well, in the nineteen seventies, you think about actually going
back to the indecent liberties with a thirteen year old.
You know, that probably didn't make a local newspaper. But
if it did, which local newspaper did it make? Right?
You know, they would have to go from library to
library and to see if they could find something. And
(23:52):
so it was so different back then than what we
have today by you know, on the keyboard and the
online searching capabilities. You know, when you say that he
was convicted of like seven I think you said seven
interstate fraud charges.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
Seven counts of interstate fraud and one count of conspiracy.
I don't know the difference.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Well, the conspiracy indicates that he is he's got another
maybe another partner in this that may have been brought
up in some charges. But what's catching my attention is
the fact that these were interstate fraud and so I'm
wondering if there was an FBI investigation and there you
could have potentially when he's convicted out of the timber industry,
(24:33):
maybe there are some headlines he had oh that weren't
necessarily just in a local newspaper, but maybe in a
more broadly distributed type of newspaper where it'd be much
easier for the family to find this out.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Now, it would be easy now to pull up the complaints,
that charges, trial transcripts, any of that kind of saif
there's a plea deal, I guess it would not be
that difficult. Now, what would you do in the seventies
if you're just a citizen alone person and you find
out that this guy who's dating your mother went to
prison for six years and was released. Where would you
(25:09):
go to get a transcript of whatever happened in the seventies.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
You'd have to go to the courts. If it made
the newspapers and you knew roughly where this crime occurred
and where the media had attention on this crime, then yeah,
you could go and maybe do newspaper searches from around
the date range that you think it possibly would have occurred.
But once you get the information as to you know,
(25:34):
what court he was tried in, now you can go
to that court and request the public records out of
that court, which could include the transcripts from the you know,
the court reporter taking material down, the various emotions. You know,
everything is kind of kept by the courts and their
public records, and to this day that's how you still
(25:57):
will do things. You can only get so much detail online.
You can go to let's say superior court website and
find out a docket number, you know, when the case occurred,
how it was disposed of, But to actually get the details,
that's where you'd go to the courts and request the records.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
And I'm assuming that her daughters the rest of her
family thought these articles would be enough. Hey, mom, look
at this guy's background. Did you know that he had
just been released from prison a year before for ripping
people off? And it sounds like she did know, or
at least she played it off like she did know
to not sort of, you know, embarrass him or embarrass her.
Let's talk about his credentials, because I said that he
(26:38):
opened up this counseling clinic that was not far from
Ruth's house. So when he was incarcerated, before he knew Ruth,
he did get an associate's degree through a to come
to Washington Community College, and according to the Longview Daily News,
he continued working on the degree once he was paroled.
We don't know a lot about his educational history, but
(27:00):
most of the sources agree that he was pursuing a
degree in psychology. Somebody said that he studied law, maybe ecology,
but psychology seemed to be what everybody agreed on. He
had attended the Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma for a
little while, and he enrolled at a college in Florida
and he received like this honorary doctorate, which it doesn't
(27:22):
sound like meant very much. He went to Washington State
where he studied acupuncture and then opened up this clinic
as doctor Anthony Fernandez, and then he meets Ruth. So
I mean, he is definitely not a doctor, but he
seems like knowledgeable enough and bright enough to be able
(27:43):
to pull off this counseling clinic. I don't know how
popular it was, and I don't know how long he
kept it open after he and Ruth were married. But
he does start to sound like a serial fraudster for sure,
in a lot of different aspects of his life.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Yeah, he sounds like a con man, right. What was
that that movie with Tom Hanks and he was law
enforcement chasing Leonardo DiCaprio's.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Character catch me if you can catch.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Me, If you can? You know where that that type
of criminal has the aptitude and the skill set to
be able to, you know, pose as a certain type
of person. And that's what conmn's do. They have the
personality and maybe the aptitude, Like if you want to
pose as a psychologist, you have at least some knowledge
(28:34):
base to convince people, Oh he knows what he's talking about,
but maybe another well educated psychologist, you know, asking deeper
questions would go, oh, no, he is not a licensed psychologist.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Yep. That's that's why when you're a con man, you
have to be really careful who you talk to at
dinner parties. Make sure that this is not somebody who
knows anything that's right. Let's get back to Tony and
Ruth and see if Ruth at any point catches on
to this guy. They met in seventy one, they married
in seventy two. We are now two years into their
(29:08):
marriage in nineteen seventy four, spring of nineteen seventy four.
At this point, Ruth is saying things are not going well.
She tells a close friend of hers named Irene Rise
that her marriage is in shambles, and she decides she
needs some space from Tony, which sounds like a great idea.
(29:28):
She takes a month long trip to Texas, where one
of her kids lives, where Kathleen lives, and Tony of
course doesn't go. When she's on this trip with Kathleen
with her daughter, Kathleen says that Ruth told her they
weren't getting along, that he wouldn't come home at night,
and that he either had another woman or an alcohol problem,
(29:50):
and as an aside, I would suspect, probably both, but
who knows. Kathleen said that her mother was going to
talk to an attorney about divorce. She said that her
life has been difficult. You know. Of course she had
lost her first husband, so it sounded like she really
loved him, and now she's married to this loser of
a guy who wasn't coming home at night, and that
(30:10):
she couldn't do this anymore, She could not continue to
live under this constant pressure, financial pressure. And you know,
I know we're going to talk about this. Talk of
a divorce can be an inciting incident for a lot
of murders. And it sounds like she was making a decision.
And I'm sure this was not going to be a
surprise to Tony.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
No, Well, Tony's fully aware of what the state of
the relationship is too. You know, it is going to
be coming down to, well, what is his true feelings
for Ruth? And was this just this marriage just a
sham so he could have access to her financial assets.
And when she starts to threaten to take his access
to those financial assets away, that's when things could probably
(30:52):
get kind of ugly in this relationship.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
And I wonder in this seventies what divorce would have
been like, Like would she have been able to walk
away with half of what she had, which would have
been a substantial estate without him having any of it?
Or would there have been some sort of spousal support
on his part. I don't know enough about what would
have happened in the seventies, but I just wonder that
(31:16):
must have played into it somehow. Also, he knew he
probably wasn't going to get anything if they did divorce.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Yeah, you know what, I think it's state by state,
you know, in terms of you once you get married,
each individual's assets become community property, and so upon divorce,
is it, you know, split evenly unless there's a prenuptial agreement,
you know, And was there a prenupt in this particular case,
because Ruth does have some financial assets that maybe she
wanted to protect ahead of time. So that's all part
(31:43):
of evaluating. Okay, what is Tony going to lose out
on when Ruth goes I want a divorce?
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Well, Tony's determined to not lose out on anything, because
while Ruth is in Texas with her daughter Kathleen, he
is calling and strong arming Ruth into giving him power
of attorney over her affairs. And now Paul's leaning forward
and wanting to say something, and I will say one
more sentence before you talk about power of attorney, which
(32:10):
is another inciting incident. Ruth doesn't want to do it,
but eventually, inexplicably, she says, okay, So there you go.
He gets power of attorney.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
He's obviously making a play in order to be able
to scramble and get assets kind of being directed towards
him in the event of this potential sounds like likely divorce.
This is where it almost sounds like, you know, Tony
is reasonably sophisticated when it comes to business transactions. You know,
(32:42):
he's running a timber company, he's committing fraud. Sounds like
he's able to dupe some other sophisticated business associates for
the fraud cases. And I think he's taken advantage maybe
of Ruth's naivity when it comes to this aspect. Ruth
is probably recognizing, Oh, if I give him power of attorney,
(33:04):
he can do X, Y and Z. But what's the likelihood, right,
not necessarily recognizing you know, he's sort of a wolf
in sheep's clothing on this front, and he knows exactly
what he's doing, you know, So he's just saying, hey,
I want power of attorney. Who knows what those conversations
were like, whether she felt like she's intimidated, But I
bet he fully understood what he could do once he
(33:27):
got power of attorney, and she probably didn't have the
same level of understanding. That's my guess in this relationship.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
I think you're spot on because he immediately starts selling
off some of her land using power of attorney capabilities.
Ruth does not know that he's doing this, and he
is selling the land far under price than what it's worth.
So he is gathering resources right now before she comes back,
and she's only gone for a month.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Yeah. Yeah, he's purposefully undercutting the going rate because he
wants to move it quickly.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
So she goes back to Washington State from Texas. I'm
sure Kathleen does not want her to do that. I
know everybody is fearful at this point, but I'm not
sure anyone is thinking this is going to have a
violent outcome. I think they're just thinking this guy is leazy.
Maybe she can divorce him, and maybe she gave him
(34:21):
power of attorney just to get out of this, just
knowing that maybe this would shut him up long enough
for her to file for divorce. But boy, it's pretty risky,
and especially considering the estate she has, which I will
tell you, Paul by this time is about four hundred
to five hundred thousand dollars in nineteen seventy four, so
we're talking I think about four to five million dollars.
(34:45):
Lots and lots of money is her estate at this point.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
Sure she could come back from this trip to Texas
and be so completely pissed off at what he's doing
that she has motive to off him, you know. So
it'll be interesting to see how this develops.
Speaker 1 (34:59):
Well, here we go. So she returns to Washington state.
He is there, and he does something that is charming
or convincing because she agrees to go on a week
long camping trip with him.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
Oh I know, and.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
I hate to phrase it like, I don't know what
she was thinking, but that's what I say in my head.
What what happened? He must have really turned on the
charm because she agreed to be in an RV a
Winnebago with this man to go to a campsite in
near North Bend, Washington and she owns land there, and
she says, let's go. She and her now deceased husband
(35:39):
Less used to do that all the time. She drove
RVs all the time. She love camping, She loved doing this.
I don't know why she would go with Tony, but
something switched and she said, okay, she did not go
against her will.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Well, you know, first, it tells me she's not feeling
any type of threat to her person, you know, her safety.
She is unhappy in the relationship, but Tony hasn't demonstrated
maybe a level of violence that she's thinking, I cannot
be alone with him. I'm assuming he's taking advantage of
(36:12):
her love to do this type of activity to isolate her.
I'm sure there probably aren't other people going on the
same camping trip. It's just him and her, and he's
now done. What we see killers do is they need
to isolate the victims, and then that's when bad things happen.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
I think you're probably right. I think that he took
advantage of the fact that she was feeling vulnerable, and
it could be that she felt like she was looking
for any kind of sincerity or affection authenticity from him,
and he probably turned on the charm and said let's
go do this. She didn't feel threatened. They packed up.
(36:53):
They have a little suv. I think they called it
a scout and other sources called it a jeep. They
bring that along with them, I'm assuming so they can
go do you know, some off road stuff, or go
take adventures without the RV. They stop at a restaurant
called the Mount Sie Golf Course, and we have information
(37:13):
sort of from witnesses. People are trying to piece together
before what happens happens, what their interactions were like beforehand,
because that hopefully will tell us a little bit. They
have lunch and they have some cocktails there and rule
the author reports that they had been in the restaurant
for a long time, and according to witnesses, they had
had several drinks. Ruth was known to have several drinks,
(37:35):
not over indulged, but she was definitely no teetoller, and
she had a few drinks, and some of the witnesses
said that seemed like they might have been a little
bit tipsy. Definitely not drunk, not attracting tons of attention,
but they seem to be getting along. So this was
about lunchtime and then more witnesses around four fifteen, so
several hours later see them when they stop at an
(37:59):
office for a local timber company on a business errand
because he's got some timberland. Ann Rule says that the
employees there were called, that Ruth seemed to be very unhappy,
but Tony was very quiet. Neither of them seemed drunk
or tipsy at this point, and then they head to
the campsite. So that is sort of the way things went.
(38:21):
And nobody was fighting there, weren't you know, the police
weren't called. They didn't seem to be overly thrilled with
each other, but it seemed to be a rather peaceful
trip going toward this campsite.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
So in the restaurant where they are in a public location,
people are able to observe them, and it sounds like
Ruth and Tony are interacting fine as what you would
expect a couple that's not fighting, you know, they're just
kind of engaging in conversation, having a few drinks together.
It's interesting that when Tony goes to this what was
(38:54):
it was a timber.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Business, Yes, it was a timber business.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
And their demeanor sounds like from the witnesses is a
little bit more reserved. She sounds a little more sullen.
So I'm wondering that after they left the restaurant, they
have a few drinks in them. Now they're in an RV,
they're in private, and I wonder if there was maybe
some more negative conversation, you know, that transpired. You know,
(39:19):
it's kind of speculating, but it seems like that could
have occurred.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
Yeah, whatever their interactions were at both the restaurant and
this timber office, nobody was alarmed by any of it.
They get back into the RV and they head up
to the camp site. So this is like a mountain
pass they have to go up, and then it puts
them on the a logging road and then everything goes
silent for a while until eight thirty. So the last
(39:45):
people to see Ruth were four to fifteen at this
timber company, four fifteen pm at eight thirty that same night.
So four hours later, Tony calls the restaurant where they
had been, Mount Sai restaurant where he had had lunch,
you know, eight hours earlier, and he says Ruth had
gone to the campsite with him. They were hanging out.
(40:08):
She turned to him and said, I'm going to go
on a walk, and she's gone, And he says, has
anybody seen her? And I don't know why he would
think the restaurant would mean it sounds like they're kind
of quite a bit aways from the restaurant. Yeah, but
I don't, you know, I actually don't know how far
away they are. But it doesn't seem like she would
walk to a restaurant at eight thirty at night, even
(40:29):
if it's July and it would be lighter, because at summertime.
It just seems kind of like an odd thing. But
he is establishing that his wife is gone from the campsite.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
Were they able to drive the RV all the way
up to this campsite or did they have to park
the RV like at the restaurant and then take this
scout or jeep on the logging road to get to
the campsite? You know anything about that?
Speaker 1 (40:54):
I know for a fact that they took the RV okay,
And you're gonna find out shortly why.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
Well, that just kind of informs me as to, you know,
how accessible the camp site is and basically, if an
RV is getting back there, this campsite is accessible to
just about any type of vehicle.
Speaker 1 (41:12):
Well, and it's a logging road that they eventually have
to go down to get to the campsite. So it's
a mountain pass that hooks them up to a logging road.
So that's big vehicles, I would assume, right, Yeah, though.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
You know, these these logging roads can be a little
bit tougher for your average vehicle, and especially if they
have you know, rougher terrain. You know, an RV could
struggle because if they're towing the scout or jeep behind
the RV, you know, that's and you see that kind
of setup. That's so you know, the people can go
(41:42):
to other locations that the RV typically isn't going to
be able to get to, or they just want to
you know, kind of drop anchor with the RV at
a location and then use the smaller vehicle to go
and tour around and hit town or whatever else. And
so this is where I'm just trying to make sure
how remote this camp site is. But it sounds like
(42:04):
this is a campsite that pretty much anybody could get
to if they wanted to. Any type of vehicle can
get to it. And if Ruth is out there walking
by herself. It increases the likelihood that there's potential witnesses
who are driving by. When I go out in my
jeep with some of the side roads, there's nobody out
there except maybe other people with a well built off
(42:26):
road rig, right, So you have a smaller potential pool
of witnesses because it's not that heavily traveled in that scenario.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
Well, it sounds like when she went for a walk.
He unhooked the jeep and we're just gonna call it
a jeep. It's sort of inconsistent, but some suv. He
unhooked the jeep and went down to the nearest place
to make phone calls. He called Mount Sai restaurant. They said, no,
we haven't seen her. He called nearby cafe in North Bend,
said the same thing, do you know where she is?
(42:56):
They had known Ruth, probably because she owned land and
she had been up before. She was familiar with this area.
She knew how to drive an RV, so she's not
scared to do any of this. The cafe says, no,
we haven't seen her either. So he makes these calls
and then panics and reaches out to the Washington State
Patrol Station and says that he's worried about Ruth, but
(43:19):
now things start to get a little odd and rule
the author says that Tony changes his story during this
particular call to the Washington State Patrol. He says that
the couple had decided, rather than camp, that they were
going to return to their Auburn home, and that he
decided to take the SUV and she decided to get
(43:41):
a head start by driving the Winnebago. Okay, so now
the story has completely changed. It has not. She walked
off and now she hasn't come back, and maybe a
bear aid her. This is we decided to head back
to Auburn, and she went ahead in the RV and
I'm in the SUV and I now I don't know
where she is.
Speaker 2 (43:59):
Right But at the time that he is talking to
the State Patrol, they don't know that he's given different
statements to the two restaurants, right, so you know they're now, okay,
this is the facts that they know. She's in an
RV and he says, I've got our cheap.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
And he says that he waited about twenty minutes to leave,
so she had a twenty or thirty minute head start.
He didn't see her or the RV anywhere on the
road he had reported that. Eventually neither were in Auburn.
He finally goes back to the couple's house and no
one hears from Ruth throughout the night, So the state
police are saying, well, it's dark and now the family
(44:43):
is alarmed. So this is where things get a little
bit complicated. The next day, Tony and a man named
Donald Stafford, who is engaged to Ruth's daughter, Susan, the
other one that's not in Texas, start driving around and
Donald is the one who spots this. Okay, there are
skid marks on this logging road that has a steep,
(45:05):
rocky embankment off its shoulder, so it's been described as
a slope or cliff that leads into a ravine. And
about three hundred feet down the embankment is there smashed
Winnebago r V and it looks like if Ruth was
driving that she had careened off the logging road sometime
that night and crashed below.
Speaker 2 (45:27):
Okay, I'm picturing several different visuals of the skid marks.
I can easily see the logging road in my head,
and you know, the steep embankment. You know, the skid
marks are interesting. Are these skid marks just showing almost
like the Winnebago RV rolling off the embankment? Or is
(45:48):
it showing that the Winnebagel is traveling at high speed
and brakes are being applied. You know, this is where
getting you know, some experts to assess the mechanics of
the Winnebago after it's recovered, as well as evaluating these
these skid marks. So that would be something I wish
we had pictures of.
Speaker 1 (46:07):
I know, Sorry, Paul, I know a little shocked to
be down from the nineteen seventies, but we have some
pretty good descriptions that I'll tell you about. So first
let's talk about Ruth. We have this smashed up RV
and Donald investigates and of course is scared to see
what he finds here. So not far from the wreckage,
(46:28):
about one hundred feet down the embankment from the RV
is the lifeless body of Ruth Fernandez. So she is
not in the Winnebago, but she has clear signs of
trauma to her head and to her stomach. And the
presumption is that the RV veered off the steep embankment
that sits along the logging road and on the way
(46:51):
down the rocky slope, she had been ejected from the vehicle.
So this is a story about whether or not this
was an accident or whether this was a murder.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
And these sometimes can be tough to try to tease out.
So I'm kind of curious, of course, what the autopsy shows,
what the evaluation of Winnebago shows, you know, And I'm
sure you will fill me in on that.
Speaker 1 (47:17):
In one week, I knew it.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
He got me hanging on the edge. Oh hold on,
no pun intended that.
Speaker 1 (47:26):
Number one question that I don't want you to answer
right now is have you worked a case like this
where somebody is ejected from the car and it is
a question about whether or not this is murder or
whether or not this is an accident, Because this seems
like an excellent way to cover up a murder. But
I also thought fire was an excellent way to cover
(47:46):
up a murder, and I have since found out that
I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (47:49):
It's all and how it's done.
Speaker 1 (47:52):
Okay, Well, I will see you in one week and
we will talk about Ruth and Tony Fernandez and what
may or may not.
Speaker 2 (47:59):
Have had okay, looking forward to hearing the rest of
the story.
Speaker 1 (48:04):
Kape see you soon.
Speaker 2 (48:05):
Sounds good.
Speaker 1 (48:10):
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 Emrosi.
Speaker 2 (48:21):
Research by Maren mcclashan, Ali Elkin, and Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.
Speaker 2 (48:28):
Our theme song is by Tom Bryfogel.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
Executive produced by Karen Kilgaroff, Georgia hard Stark, and Daniel Kramer.
Speaker 1 (48:37):
You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at
ary Bones pod.
Speaker 2 (48:42):
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 (48:49):
And Paul's best selling memoir Unmasked, My life solving America's
Cold Cases is also available now
Hosts And Creators
Kate Winkler Dawson
Paul Holes
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.