December 4, 2025 • 43 mins
Back in 2013, Robin wrote a Listverse article profiling ten heartbreaking cases of unidentified people found under mysterious circumstances—Jane and John Does whose names seemed lost forever. At the time, they were buried under placeholder names like “Little Miss Panasoffkee,” “Lyle Stevik,” and “Beth Doe,” with investigators following dead-end leads and families never knowing what happened to their loved ones.
But here’s the incredible part: they’re not mysteries anymore. Thanks to groundbreaking advances in DNA technology, forensic genealogy, and tireless cold case investigators, several of these forgotten souls have finally gotten their names back. Over this three-episode series, we’ll revisit each case from Robin’s original article, share the haunting details that captivated true crime followers for decades, and reveal the remarkable breakthroughs that solved them.
You’ll hear about Little Miss Panasoffkee, identified in October 2025 after 54 years through cutting-edge fingerprint technology; Lyle Stevik, whose identity was uncovered by genetic genealogy but remains protected by his family’s wishes; Beth Doe, the brutally murdered pregnant teen who turned out to be 15-year-old Evelyn Colon; Baby Hope, identified as 4-year-old Anjelica Castillo after an anonymous tip; and the Grateful Dead fan finally named as Jason Callahan after Reddit sleuths and DNA testing brought him home. We’ll also cover El Dorado Jane Doe (now known as “Kelly”), Caledonia Jane Doe (Tammy Jo Alexander), and explore which cases still remain unsolved, waiting for that one crucial breakthrough.
Each episode will take you through the original mystery, the painstaking investigation, and the emotional moment when these unidentified people finally got their dignity—and their names—back.
Support the Show:
Patreon.com/julesandashley
Patreon.com/thetrailwentcold
But here’s the incredible part: they’re not mysteries anymore. Thanks to groundbreaking advances in DNA technology, forensic genealogy, and tireless cold case investigators, several of these forgotten souls have finally gotten their names back. Over this three-episode series, we’ll revisit each case from Robin’s original article, share the haunting details that captivated true crime followers for decades, and reveal the remarkable breakthroughs that solved them.
You’ll hear about Little Miss Panasoffkee, identified in October 2025 after 54 years through cutting-edge fingerprint technology; Lyle Stevik, whose identity was uncovered by genetic genealogy but remains protected by his family’s wishes; Beth Doe, the brutally murdered pregnant teen who turned out to be 15-year-old Evelyn Colon; Baby Hope, identified as 4-year-old Anjelica Castillo after an anonymous tip; and the Grateful Dead fan finally named as Jason Callahan after Reddit sleuths and DNA testing brought him home. We’ll also cover El Dorado Jane Doe (now known as “Kelly”), Caledonia Jane Doe (Tammy Jo Alexander), and explore which cases still remain unsolved, waiting for that one crucial breakthrough.
Each episode will take you through the original mystery, the painstaking investigation, and the emotional moment when these unidentified people finally got their dignity—and their names—back.
Support the Show:
Patreon.com/julesandashley
Patreon.com/thetrailwentcold
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
Welcome to a very special edition of The Pathwent Chile.
I'm Robin and I'm with my co host Jules and Ashley,
and we're going to be doing something a little different
from the norm. Many years before I became a true
crime podcaster, I used to write freelance articles for a
website called listpers dot com about cold cases and unsolved
mysteries and true crime. Back in April of twenty thirteen,
(00:49):
I wrote an article titled ten Mysterious Cases Involving Unidentified People,
where I talked about a bunch of John and Jane
Does who at the time were unidentified. Well, as you
probably know, in the past several years, we've seen a
rise of genetic genealogy where a lot of these victims
have finally got their identities back. And for a long
time they had actually identified nine out of the ten
(01:12):
victims from my original list, and there was only one
hold out. But just very recently they finally identified the
tenth entry on the list. So officially all ten of
the victims on this list have officially been identified and
got their names back. So Jules and I came up
with the idea that we should do a series of
episodes about this where I go over the list each
(01:32):
case one by one, I share all the details about it,
and then I'll reveal the details about how they eventually
came to be identified. So I'll be reading the writeup
of each case and then Jewles and Ashley will give
your thoughts, and then I will share the details of
how they were identified, and then they will do the
same thing again. Do you have any thoughts you want
to give before we start?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
I want to say it's great to have Ashley back
because we have missed her these last few series of episodes.
So why don't you tell the listeners what you've been
up to.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Ash Oh Man, life, guys, just life. I'm you, guys know.
I'm a mom to a one year old now and
started a new job as an elementary school teacher this year,
and so I got all the wonderful crud that comes
with that. Every illness my students have I have had
as well. Sorry if I sound horse right now, but
also I've had the pleasure of getting to dive back
(02:23):
into a little bit of my creative side and work
with some high school students and elementary school students around
the state of Arkansas on creative writing projects. And helping
little ones fall back in love with reading.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
I love that, Okay, So Ashley, before we recorded, she
told me some of the exercises that she did with
her students, prompting them with things like, you know, it's
a rainy, cold night and it's so dark, and there's
a knock at the door, and now write for ten minutes.
How fun does that sound? Robin?
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Oh, yeah, definitely, That's something I would have loved to
have done when I was in school. I know when
I took creative writing in high school and Universe they
would sometimes do that where they would give you a
scenario and just says, whatever thoughts you have on paper
and see where it leads.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
And what was cool is that I told him me,
you know that there's a knock at the door and
the person on the other side changes your life forever.
Who is it? And some people used real life narratives.
One little girl had lost her dad and said like,
what if it was my dad on the other side
of the door. There was another person who made it
really creative and fun, sci fi esque. There's people that
made it horror humorous, and so to see how these
(03:29):
kids each took the same prompt and came up with
their own genre to pull from. It was so moving
and inspiring.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
I love it.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
I'm a big nerd when it comes to seeing young
people be creative and stretch their brains.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
I love that you are shaping the future minds of America.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Good luck.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
And I wonder if my elementary school and high school
writing teachers wouldever envision that I'd be writing articles about
unidentified deceiteds all those years later.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
I'm the opposite. I wonder if all my criminology friends
would envision me teaching elementary school.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Yeah, exactly. So now we're going to start with the
first entry on the list, a deceited named little miss Panasafki,
and for many years this was the loan holdout until
she was finally identified a few weeks before we recorded
this episode, and a couple of years ago, the three
of us actually recorded a bonus Patreon Minisota about this case.
(04:22):
So I'm anxious to see if you still remember it
and are looking forward to hearing your thoughts. So I'll
start going down the list now, number ten, little miss Panasafki.
And here is the original write up that I did
for list fers on February the nineteenth nineteen seventy one
in Sumter County, Florida, the decomposed body of a young
woman was discovered beneath the bridge in Lake Panasafki. She
(04:44):
was believed to be in her early twenties and had
been strangled to death with a man's belt, which was
still wrapped around her throat. She had no identification, and
since no one ever came forward to claim her body,
she was nicknamed little Miss Panasafki and laid to rest
in the area. Years later, her body was zoomed in
an attempt to identify her. One of the most curious
discoveries they made was that a form of surgery called
(05:06):
the Watson Jones technique had been performed on her ankle.
She had extensive dental work, and a recent study of
the lead isotopes in her teeth has led to the
theory that she may have been a residence of Labriy
on a fishing port near Athens, Greece. It is also
believed that she had given birth to a child that
one point. In spite of these very distinct clues, her
(05:26):
real identity has yet to be uncovered.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
These are the cold cases that really interest me because
you look at the details, and just from that small synopsis,
there's so many things. As an investigator, you think, let's.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Follow that lead.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Let's look for Haya, Where does that surgery get performed,
Where could that dental work have been performed? If she
has a baby, is there someone who's searching for a
missing mom, those kinds of things. There's a lot of
details here. That belt around her neck, so we know
it's a homicide and not a potential accident or suicide.
And so in these cases where there is a host
(06:01):
of evidence, and then to know that this was in
the seventies and it wasn't even she wasn't even identified
until a couple of weeks ago, it really blows my
mind because we've had decades to look back at some
very grounded evidence to one just say, who is little
miss Panasovski. So I'm very interested to hear more. I
(06:22):
briefly remember doing this Patreon, but I would love to
hear more about what happened to this young lady and
what her remains were eventually identified.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
As I remember when we covered this case, and there's
something so heartbreaking about a young woman being discarded like trash,
and just the fact that the belt was still around
her throat. That resonated with me for some reason, I'm
not sure why, And I'm really glad that this final
holdout was finally solved and she was given back her identity.
(06:55):
How did you feel when you heard that the last
of the holdouts was finally salt dropping.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (07:00):
I was just a static because I've been waiting for
them to identify her for a long long time. And
what was interesting is that one of the reasons I
felt there was a hold up and identification is because
of this theory that she was originally from Greece, because
Europe does not have the same laws for genetic genealogy,
and for a while, they theorized that she might have
been an exchange student who was sent over to the
(07:22):
United States to work and probably had no living relatives there,
which meant that even if you entered her DNA into
a genealogy system in North America, it might not match
any relatives in Europe. But surprisingly the isotope tests analysis
that they performed which made them think that she was
from Greece, it turns out it was completely wrong, because
(07:43):
it was announced that she had been originally born in
Maine and was an American citizen. They finally made the
announcement on October twenty ninth, twenty twenty five, the Sumter
County Sheriff's Office announced that little miss Panasofki had been
identified as Marine Minor Rowan, who went by the nickname Cookie,
which is how they referred to her and I like
I said. She was originally born in Maine and had
(08:06):
been living in Florida at the time of her disappearance
with her husband, Charles Emery Rowan, who went by the
name Henry, as well as her two children, so they
were at least right at that part that she had
given birth to a child at one point. But it
turned out that because of the embalming fluid they had
used in her body, that it probably affected the isotope
testing and that's why it had this wrong false positive,
(08:28):
making everyone believe that she was from this fishing village
in Greece. And it turned out that they didn't actually
have a full DNA profile for because she had been
buried for so many years the evidence had deteriorated, so
they actually identified her old school with fingerprints. It turned
out that she had actually been arrested at one point.
I think for shoplifting, but because she was originally discovered
(08:51):
in the nineteen seventies when technology wasn't all that great,
they weren't able to make a match. But in recent
years they had done this updated nash Old fingerprint database
with all these digital copies of old fingerprints from arrest
records which had been entered into the system, and they
wound up trying little miss Panasofki's prints entered them into
(09:12):
the system, and it wound up being matched to Marine
Cookie Rowan, who had been arrested shortly before her murder,
and that's how they were able to finally identify her.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Now, when she went missing, and did the husband and
or the children through out time did they report her
as a missing person?
Speaker 1 (09:30):
It does not look like it. And they've announced that
her husband, Emory, that apparently the marriage was not in
a good place at that time. They were separated and
Emory died in twenty fifteen, and they named him as
a person of interest because when you see the way
she was strangled, it almost looks like it was personal.
And it's tempting to believe that if he killed her,
(09:50):
that he deliberately made a choice not to report her missing,
but At the moment, they don't have enough evidence to
formally declare him as a suspect. It's still an act
of Homa side investigation. And I haven't heard anything from
the two children yet. I think they've been staying out
there the spotlight thus far, so I have no idea
how they reacted when their mother went missing. I have
(10:11):
to wonder perhaps if maybe Emory just told them that
she ran away or something like that, and they had
no idea that she was dead until very recently.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
It's giving Jewel Kayler vibes if Jewel Kayler and Dottie
Kaylor had a couple of kids.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Yes, And it's also you might remember, Jules that a
couple of years ago, we did an episode on the
murder of Ruth Marie Terry, who was also known as
the Lady of the Dunes. She was an unidentified murder
victim who was found in Massachusetts in nineteen seventy four,
and in recent years they identified her. And of course
she was in a bad marriage and her estranged husband
(10:47):
pretty much never reported or missing, and even though he
died several years ago and will never be charged by
the they did a new investigation and pretty much concluded that, yeah,
all the evidence points towards her husband having been the killers,
so we're closing the investigation and are confident that he
was the one who was responsible. So I have to
wonder if upon further investigation, they're going to do the
(11:09):
same thing with Emery Rowan, and that even though he's deceased,
they're going to say, yeah, we're pretty confident that he
murdered Cookie and we can close the investigation.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Well, unless she had a history of actually abandoning her
children and leaving, even if you were a strange from
your spouse, anyone with a sound heart and mind would say,
I want my children to have their mother in their life.
And so if she went missing, even if as a
as a spouse or ex spouse, you weren't interested in
knowing where she was for your children's sake, you would
think you'd still file a missing person's report, And you'd
(11:42):
think he would want assistance where he got help with
his kids. So there's a woman who I maybe don't like,
but she helps me raise my children. To not report
her sends off huge red flags. Almost screams like I
wanted her gone so that I don't have to fight
for my kids. I don't have to share my kids,
I don't have to give her money. And so that's
a very very very strong probability that he had something
(12:05):
to do with it because he didn't report it.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Yeah, that would make sense to me. I mean, innocent
until proven guilty. But like you said, even if he
didn't really care for his wife anymore, I'm sure he
should still want his children to find out what happened
to their mother. So and of course, back in the seventies,
if there was no direct evidence of foul play, it
was sometimes really hard to file a missing person's report,
And because her family lived in Maine at the time
(12:30):
and she was murdered in Florida, I'm sure there were
a whole bunch of jurisdictional issues that prevented them from
reporting or missing as well.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
It makes me wonder what her life was like in Florida,
because you'd think that if you go missing, there's going
to be people who are going to go where are they?
And the fact that he was able to get away
with Cookie being gone and not filing a missing perfins
report that did she not have any friends? That we're
asking questions?
Speaker 1 (12:59):
I have no idea that haven't released that information yet,
but I do wonder the same thing. I don't know
how long she'd been living in Florida at the time,
if there was anyone else who wondered what happened to her,
But it could be that maybe she didn't have anyone
else in her life in Florida besides her husband and
her children, and if they don't do anything, then you
can understand why she would slip completely under the radar.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
We could maybe infer, if he is indeed guilty allegedly,
that if you were going to murder your wife via strangulation,
he could have been abusive prior to that. Those who
strangle typically there is a history of abuse, so there
could have been some type of isolation. And if cookie
didn't have any connections, there was nobody close by who
(13:39):
would notice that she was missing. That would make it
really easy in the nineteen seventies to cover up a
crime like that.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
Oh definitely, And that's exactly what happened in the Ruth
Marie Terry case, where the husband murdered his wife while
they were on vacation in a state that they didn't
have any connections to, and then he just pretty much
moved back home and went on living his life and
his Her family was powerless to do anything about it.
They could not report her missing because they didn't know
where she went missing from. It was just a lot
(14:07):
easier to get away with murder back in the seventies, unfortunately.
So one more thing I wanted to mention is that
I became familiar with this case when it was featured
on Unsolved Mysteries back in the early nineteen nineties. And
I have to give it a lot of credit to
the Sumter County sheriff at that time, his name was
Jamie Adams, because she had pretty much been forgotten about
after her body was found. She was buried in a
(14:29):
pauper's grave. But then when Jamie Adams was elected Sumter
County Sheriff, he was looking through the old files read
about little miss Panasofki and he actually said during his
Unsold Mysteries interview, as a daddy and a granddaddy myself,
I couldn't stand the idea of this young woman having
a granddaddy or daddy who didn't know where she was.
So he took the initiative to exhume her after twenty years,
(14:52):
and that's where they got the DNA, the fingerprints, all
the forensic evidence, and paved the way for her being identified.
And sadly, Jamie Adams passed away in twenty twenty two,
so he didn't live long enough to finally see Cookie
get her name back, but he gets all the credit
in the world because otherwise, if he had not taken
the initiative to exhume her, she probably would have been
(15:12):
completely forgotten history. So our next case on this list
is one that Jules and I actually covered on a
Patreon miniso just a couple months ago, and that's this
Sumter County mystery couple. So I'm going to read the
write up right now. It's another Sumter County, this one
in South Carolina instead of Florida. But on August the ninth,
nineteen seventy six, the bodies of a young man and woman,
(15:35):
both believed to be between eighteen and twenty two years old,
were found on a secluded dirt road. They had both
been shot to death, and a local resident claimed they
heard the sounds of gunshots and a vehicle speeding off
shortly before the victims were found. Neither the male nor
the female had any identification or money on them. Even
though they had no money. The victims both wore fairly
(15:56):
expensive looking jewelry and had extensive dental work. Months later,
a witness came forward who believed he had crossed paths
with the couple at a campground. He said the male
claimed that his name was Jock and he was traveling
through the US because he had been disowned by his father,
who was a prominent doctor in Canada. Not much is
known about the female, but the authorities have speculated that
(16:17):
the couple may have actually been brother and sister. In
spite of these leads, no one has ever come forward
to claim the victim's bodies, and the identity of their
killer is also unknown.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
This case really haunted me, and I think it was
because obviously, when there's two individuals, to think that neither
of them had their identities back, that two people could
go missing and that their remains would be there, but
their families wouldn't know what happened to them. And I
think because there was that whole story was like there
(16:49):
was a question of whether he was fabricating the story,
whether it was the whether the person remembered correctly, if
it was the same people that they saw. But two
things that I remember stuck out to me, and that
was the expense of dental work. As we all know,
dental work doesn't come cheap, so that would speak to
people that were cared for when they were younger. And
(17:10):
since they were fairly young, then wasn't like they were
outside sleeping rough or at least if they were, it
wasn't for a long period of time. And then another
thing was the motivation for the crime. So we know
that they didn't have any money found on them, but
the fact that they were wearing rather expensive looking jewelry
I thought was really interesting. So it made me think
(17:32):
was there another motive? Was rape the motive? Was there
something else? Because are you in such a hurry that
you're just going to take the money? If you're on
a secluded dirt road, I would think that that would
provide you with enough cover in order to be able
to take the money out of the wallets and then
also take the jewelry.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
I agree one thousand percent. When you look at this
when there's two people, so two families possibly or one
if they're brother and sister, but two families potentially are
missing one of their loved ones, and like you said,
they're young eighteen to twenty two. So let's say an
estrangement had occurred, it wouldn't have been a very long
estrangement because they are still dressing very nicely, They're still weary,
(18:15):
nice jewelry. You can tell that these are people that
are not quote throwaways or runaways that you would see
in other traditional cases where identity is really hard to
discover because they don't have things like don't work, they
don't have records of medical care. But these individuals did.
You could tell that someone had taken care of them
(18:35):
and that they were getting help and living a seemingly
normal life, and then all of a sudden you find
their deceased bodies, like jewels said, with jewelry still on them.
I have to go with what she was saying where
it looks like something else motivated this. Maybe there was
a ploy to say give me all your money, and
so the kids are emptying their pockets and give cash.
(18:56):
But then that really wasn't the intent, and so whatever
crime was really the purpose happens after that fact. But
it wouldn't take you more than two minutes to slip
rings and bracelets off of somebody or a watch off
of the man and they just left that. So it's
a very very intriguing case. Are there two families that
failed to identify and report that they're looking for these
(19:18):
two young people.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Well, they did do DNA testing to confirm they were
not brother and sister because there was no genetic match.
And for the longest time I was really intrigued by
the idea that he may have originally been from Canada
and that his name was Jacques. We just talked about
the dental work, and there was kind of a stereotypical
theory that maybe he was a former hockey player who
had lost his teeth playing in Canada and that's why
(19:42):
he got the dental work done. But they finally did
identify them. On January of twenty twenty one, they held
a press conference and announced that the victims were twenty
nine year old James Paul Fruned and twenty four year
old Pamela May Buckley, who were not from Canada. And
what's also weird is that once the families found out
about the identification, they both claimed I didn't even know
(20:05):
the other, Like James's family did not know Pamela. Pamela's
family did not know James, and so They still a
big mystery about how these two originally met because they
were from completely different states. So James Froun was born
in Fitsburg, Massachusetts and lived most of his life in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
So I still don't know the lead about the guy
(20:26):
who claimed his name was Jock. I'm presuming maybe the
campground owner was mistaken and talked to a completely different person,
or perhaps James was lying about his background. But it
turned out that James in nineteen sixty five had gotten
married to a woman named Sherry Lean Albright, and the
couple had one child together before they filed for divorce.
And it sounds like james family pretty much last heard
(20:49):
from him in December of nineteen seventy five, as you
get the impression he might have been traveling the country
and just stopped contacting his family because as far as
anyone can tell, he did not have any ties to
South Carolina. And as for Pamela Buckley, she was born
in Redwood County, Minnesota, and spent most of her life
living in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and in the early nineteen
(21:14):
seventies she had actually been part of a folk band
called Sun Lending, which toured around the West coast in
the Midwest, and she got married to a man named
Gary Clifford Canal in nineteen seventy two, and they eventually
separated and divorced. And much like James, it sounds like
Pamela's family last heard from her in late nineteen seventy
five before she broke off all of contact, and they
(21:36):
just assumed that maybe they were off somewhere living their
own life, because back in the seventies it was really
hard to file a missing person's report because of jurisdictional
reasons if you didn't know where they were at that time,
if they didn't have a fixed address, Because it just
sounds like they were traveling the country living kind of
a nomadic lifestyle before they wound up murdered. And it
seems like James and Pamela at some point Cross Pass
(21:59):
Baby came a couple and then started traveling together before
they were murdered together in Sumter County, South Carolina.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
So when you first talked about this case, and I wouldn't,
I looked up a couple of details. It seems that
there was some evidence found early on that they did
actually did not process or pay attention to properly like
a belt buckle. Do you remember this? In the case,
there was a belt buckle with his initials.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Not about buckle but actually a ring and it had
the initials JPF, which they assumed was for Jacques, but
now it's for James Paul Frune, so obviously it belonged
to him.
Speaker 3 (22:31):
This case is really interesting because if you look at
the initial investigation, it seems like a few pieces of
key evidence were not really paid close attention to. So,
for example, there was an item found that had initials
carved into it that would indicate, I believe it what was.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
A JB JPF, which was his initials James Paul fruned
Yes JPF.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
So it wasn't until years later that someone red looked
at the evidence and said, this is a lead that
we need to pursue. But initially that was not even
you know, recognize. However, their sketches were distributed widely. There
were several people that perhaps mistakenly were describing that they
had interactions with this couple, and so there was a
lot of attention around these two deceased individuals and down
(23:14):
the road, Henry Lee Lucas was actually some when they
started to suspect could he have been involved, because even
though he falsely confessed to so many crimes, he had
been linked to a couple other murders in Somethner County
around that same time, and so there's been almost a
lure around what happened to these two, saying is it
even possible they're linked to a serial killer?
Speaker 1 (23:37):
And will were talking about trying to identify them. This
had one of the most morbid things I've ever seen,
where the local sheriff's office actually put the bodies together
inside some airtight compartments with glass on them and put
them in a church and actually sent out an advertisement
if you have any missing family members who match their description,
you are welcome to come to this church and view
(23:57):
their bodies to see if it's them. And they actually
left them there for about a year before they finally realized, okay,
they're starting to decompose, now we should finally bury them.
But hundreds of people like came to look at their
bodies and they still couldn't be identified. So I can
only assume that James and Pamela's families never heard about
this because they lived in totally different states. But I
(24:17):
can't imagine something like that happening now.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
I mean in churches in Europe they have the bodies
of saints in a lot of the churches, So I
guess it's not outside the realm of trying to help.
I mean I think that like their hearts were in
the right place. You'd never see anybody doing that today
where you take the bodies out and they're on display,
because today you would have too many like Lukilus who
(24:40):
are like big true crime fanatics, and they would come
and see the bodies and it would be barry macabre
and it wouldn't have the right type of vibe or
energy around it. But at the time, it sounds like
they were using like really creative measures in order to
try to give these two decendents their identities back. And unfortunately,
(25:00):
like you said, word wouldn't have gone to their families
because they live so far away.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
Yeah, I mean, this was the pre internet world of
nineteen seventy six, where you couldn't just share their photos
and their composite sketches around. So I guess they thought
this was the best solution, and at least they tried,
like they didn't just like try to bury these people
and cast them off immediately. They made an effort to
try to get them identified, and of course we have
the ring with JPF with the initials, and when the
(25:26):
witness thought that they interacted with the man and thought
that their name was Jacques, it's reasonable to assume that
maybe the J stood for Jacques, But of course now
we know it stood for James. But it just goes
to show how much more frustrating it was to identify
these people during the nineteen seventies when technology was a
lot more primitive. So this is technically still a half
solved mystery because their murderer has never been identified. And
(25:50):
in December of nineteen seventy six they actually had a
pretty promising lead when a truck driver named Lonnie George
Henry was pulled over for a DUI and they found
to three point fifty seven caliber revolver in his possession
with serial numbers scratched off, which looked suspicious, and when
it was sent for ballistics testing, it seemed to show
that it was the same murder weapon used to shoot
(26:11):
James and Pamela, and Henry kept changing his story about
where he got the gun. He claimed he bought it
from a truck driver and that the serial numbers were
already scratched off, but investigators looked at the serial number
and discovered that Henry's brother had actually given it to
him for a Christmas gift years earlier, and he swore
that the serial numbers were still there and that Henry
(26:32):
must have scratched them off at a later time when
he was given a polygraph test, and even though there
were some questions where the reading showed that he was
being untruthful, when they flat out asked him if he
killed the couple, Henry said no, and the polygraph seemed
to indicate that he was telling the truth about that.
The main reason they were unable to charge him is
(26:53):
that he seemed to have a fairly strong alibi because
he was visiting his wife in a hospital in the
town of money Row, North Carolina, on the date when
the couple were believed to have been murdered, and that
was and the hospital was about one hundred miles away,
so they just never had enough evidence to link him
to the crime scene in spite of him having this
gun with the serial number scratched off, and he passed
(27:16):
away in nineteen eighty two, so obviously the murder investigation
is still open, so if Lonnie George Henry was guilty
of this crime, they will never be able to charge him,
but it'll be interesting to see if they can find
any new evidence that clears or links him definitively to
these murders. So we do know that ballistic testing is
not one hundred percent reliable, So I am going to
(27:38):
give Henry the benefit of the doubt and maybe think
that maybe they screwed up on their original testing and
that the gun he possessed was not the murder weapon,
because I have seen other cases where the ballistic tests
turned out to be faulty and wound up implicating an
innocent person. So who knows that could have been a
complete red herring. What are your thoughts? Do you think
that Lonnie George Henry seems like a good suspect.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
I think that like it's possible, but I also think
that it's it's not like ironclad enough for me to
be like, he's absolutely the guy. But I think it's
it's a possibility, but I'm not convinced that he is
the guy.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
I mean, the scenario would make sense because he was
a truck driver, that maybe James and Pamela were hitch
hiking and got picked up. But it makes you wonder though,
like what was the motive whoever did this? Because Pamela
was not sexually assaulted and nothing was taken from them,
So what compelled someone to shoot this couple together on
that lonely dirt road at that particular time.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
But we also don't know certain things too, Like it
could have been him, it could have been somebody else.
It would make sense it would be a truck driver
because they were likely hitchhiking. But when they say that
she wasn't sexually assaulted, did they check if he was
sexually assaulted? And what if somebody couldn't finish right, they
weren't able to perform, and so maybe they were angry
(29:00):
about that and ended up murdering them. I think that
there's a lot of different scenarios where it could have
still been sexually motivated. We just didn't see the evidence
of rape.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
That is true, Like they were found with their clothes on,
But I guess it's possible that maybe someone was planning
to assault them but then just couldn't perform or something,
and then could have like put their clothes back on.
Even if they took them off after they were killed,
just to cover up the motive for the crime. But
until they actually identified the killer, we'll probably never know
for certain.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
Or their intent was to sexually assault or do something
else to them and got into a fight where they
killed one of them and went, oh my god, it's
went totally different. So they killed both and run. You know,
it could be that as well.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
Okay, so now we're going to move on to our
next one about a decedent known as Beth Doe. And
this is a really horrible story. So one of the
most brutal homicides of all time took place in Carbon County, Pennsylvania,
on December the twentieth, nineteen seventy six. Three suitcases were
found under bridge along the Lehigh River, and they each
contained the remains of an unidentified woman who was believed
(30:05):
to be between sixteen and twenty two years old. She
had been strangled, shot in the neck, and dismembered. One
of the suitcases contained her arms and legs, and her eyes, nose,
and breasts had also been removed. It's estimated that the
killer made a failed attempt to toss the suitcases into
the river, causing two of them to break open on impact.
As if the crime wasn't vicious enough, the woman was
(30:27):
also pregnant, as a full term female fetus was also
found amongst the remains. A potentially significant clue was some
letters and numbers written in ink on the victim's left hand,
possibly a license plate number, but authorities were never able
to figure out their meeting. Over thirty five years later,
the victim is buried in a grave under the name
Beth Doe, but no one has ever been able to
(30:49):
determine her identity or find out who killed her in
such a cruel fashion.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
Like you said, this is one of the most horrific
cases to hear about because of the nature in which
her body was disposed of, and to think that there
was a full grown child that was about to be
born found with her. It makes it seem very very personal,
because let's say you would kill this individual and you
wanted to dismember them and get rid of them. I
(31:14):
could see that being somebody who may not know about
who she is, but they want to just get rid
of the body and try to not have their selves identified.
But when they start removing pieces of her, like her
you said, her breast, her eyes things like that. It
seems so brutal that they just want to destroy what
she looks like, disfigure her, take intimate pieces away from
(31:36):
her body, and wasn't motivated because of this child that
was about to be born. That they didn't want this child,
that it was perhaps the result of an affair or
something else, right, they don't want the responsibility of this child.
It seems so heartless and so purposeful that there was
an intent behind it, and the person who killed her
knew her very well.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
There's something about about this that reminds me of Lazy
Peterson and her baby Connor. It really hate me in
the gut. And it also makes me wonder about the
language used because it says the full term fetus was found.
Does that mean that she gave birth after death or
that it was removed Because they don't say a baby,
(32:20):
They say a fetus, and I find that confusing. And
they also don't give as insofar as I know, or
the information that's provided, the baby in name, which makes
me think that somehow they believe the baby wasn't yet born.
I'm like a little confused by this. Robin. Can you
shed any light?
Speaker 1 (32:38):
Uh, let me just look at it here, well, Robin
looks it up.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
Though Lacey's case, Connor was not born either, correct, he was.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
He was found separate from her body though, That's what
I'm saying like.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
That, Yeah, yeah, but he had already received his name
from his baby shower and things like, you know, like
there was such a celebrated child and it's so sad
that you have even if it was unborn. Right, this
is somebody was excited that that baby was being born
into this world. And it's just like it's a full,
full grown fetus. It loses the power that someone chose
(33:13):
to kill a mother and her child.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Yeah, the language of fetus versus baby, especially at that
point exactly.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
Well, all the sources say that it was a fetus,
but it was confirmed that it was a nine month
old fetus, so one that was very close to being born,
or possibly was born before the murder took place. We
still don't know the truth behind that. But they separated
them into the suitcases. How there were three of them
all together, and one of the cases contained the victim's
head and two halves of her torso and the fetus.
(33:44):
So they did put the fetus together inside her body
parts and of course, the moment you see that, you're
automatically thinking domestic homicide, that to this victim was killed
by someone who knew her and possibly did not want
this child.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
I think maybe the different friends with the language too,
is that this was nineteen seventy six, and what was
the murder of Lacy Peterson was that like late nineties.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
Actually two thousand and two, two.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Thousand and two, okay, so like that's a huge number
of years, and so I think that maybe in the
seventies people weren't naming their babies before they were born
to the level of prevalence that it was in the
two thousand I mean, Ashley, maybe you can speak to that.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
Yes, And women's and children's rights have changed. So there
was a point where, you know, as women gained rights,
children were still viewed as a property of the family.
And now family law and things like that have grown
so much more that these things aren't quo just behind
closed doors or just a family issue. Children are society's
responsibility and women have you know, the more rights and
(34:46):
more recognition, and so I think that has also changed
the way that there's more attention paid to children and
unbortant children now is that that's you know, children have
become a larger global responsibility and not just well, that's
your responsibil.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
And obviously the big issue with this one is that
they didn't know her identity. So possibly she had named
her child, but they just couldn't tell at that time
because they didn't know who she was. And even though
they've since identified her, I think it sounds like she
was so isolated from people that even if she had
named the child, she probably never told anyone. So unfortunately,
this fetus has still never been given a name. So
(35:23):
the identification of the victim took place in March of
twenty twenty one. They identified Beth as an Evelon Cologne,
And what makes it even sadder is that she was
only fifteen years old at the time she was murdered,
and she was originally hailed from Jersey City, New Jersey,
and surprise, surprise, it turned out that the prime suspect
was her former partner, a man named Luis Sierra, who
(35:46):
was nineteen years old at the time, and he actually
got arrested a very short time after Evelyn was identified.
It was made possible, of course, by forensic genealogy, as
her DNA was entered into a genealogical database and was
eventually matched to her biological nephew. So the story goes
that Evelyn became pregnant with Louise's child in nineteen seventy six,
(36:08):
but sometime after they moved into an apartment together, they
both just seemed to vanish without explanation from Jersey City,
and in January of nineteen seventy seven, a couple weeks
after the remains were found, Evelyn's family received an anonymous
letter informing them that Evelyn and Louise had moved to
Connecticut together, and oddly, they said that she had recently
(36:29):
given birth to a baby boy that they named Louis Junior,
even though the fetus was for a female. And of course,
Louis eventually admitted that he was the one who wrote
the letter as a form of diversion or something like that,
And it's kind of weird that he came up with
this fantasy where he says that they gave birth to
a baby boy. So it might be a thing where
(36:49):
he was angry that she was having a girl didn't
want a daughter, and that could have been a motivation
for the homicide. But here's the real frustrating part of
this is Louise has continually denied invoton Evelyn's murder. He
was locked away for a couple of years awaiting trial,
but investigators found evidence which showed that Evelyn's murder took
place in Jersey City, New Jersey, rather than Pennsylvania where
(37:12):
she was found. So Luis's defense asked for the charges
to be dismissed due to jurisdictional issues, and the court
agreed to do so in March of twenty twenty four,
and Luis is currently out on bail and new charges
have still not been filed. He's a free man walking
around somewhere because it's up to now New Jersey rather
than Pennsylvania to try this case. And until they get
(37:34):
their act together and finally filed charges, Luise is still
going to be walking around and this case will still
remain officially unsolved. So I don't know what the holdup
is because it's been nearly two years since they made
this decision and they have not filed charges again.
Speaker 3 (37:49):
That is so frustrating. Well, let me start by saying
this baby cologne should be honored as well, so there
is a name for that child. Baby Cologne was found
with its mother right in her little mom right there together.
And so that's one thing we can put a name
to that baby. But second of all, when you think
about this, he was nineteen and she was fourteen when
(38:10):
he got her pregnant.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
What year was this nineteen seventy six?
Speaker 3 (38:14):
Okay, so were there statutory rape laws at the time.
Was that a large enough age gap back in the seventies.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
Depends on the state, right.
Speaker 1 (38:23):
Yes, So I don't know what they would have been.
They were living in New Jersey at that time. I mean,
she was fifteen when she was murdered, but she may
have been fourteen when she became pregnant, and he might
have been eighteen. And I'm just going to look this
up out of curiosity. This rape laws in New Jersey
age of content, age of consent is sixteen. Now, I'm
not sure what it was back in nineteen seventy six.
Speaker 3 (38:45):
Well, to me, I wonder, like I would love to
know more about did the family know about this baby?
Was it a baby being celebrated because the fact that
they get this letter that has a baby boy's been born?
When did they even know she was pregnant? Two? Were
they in contact with her at all about her pregnancy,
because she would have been talking to her family about
being pregnant. Now, maybe gender wasn't revealed, But it's interesting
(39:08):
because why would he even include that detail in the
letter if they didn't know about the pregnancy, And if
they did know about the pregnancy and just didn't know
the gender, because sometimes families don't find out and especially
in the seventies, right, that wasn't as common. But if
you gave it the you said a boy was born,
that would throw detectives off. Well, it can't be her
because there was a little girl found with her, So
(39:31):
I could see both ways. But I could also see
if they didn't know about the pregnancy, just leave it out.
Why would he want to even mention the baby.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
He might have just wanted to add a little to
the story. And maybe in his like twisted mind or fantasy,
there would have been an alternate scenario where this boy
would have been born and it would have bore his
name as well, and it would have been a junior,
and so he's kind of played out that scenario in
his mind. So I doubt they knew the gender of
the baby in nineteen seventy six, So I think He
(40:00):
probably just had thought about this, decided to add it
into the letter, thought it was really specific and it
would be something that she would include. But it seems
pretty likely that, like you said, nineteen seventy six, they
wouldn't have known. And I also looked up the age
of consent in seventy six in Jersey and it was
also sixteen, so it would have been statutory rape.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
See.
Speaker 3 (40:23):
So I wondered too, did that cover for some of it?
Did they say, you know? Was he saying I got
our pregnant, so I can't even just say I'm dating her,
you know, and that we're not intimate or things like that,
or that I'm just her friend, Like, Nope, I got
our pregnant. So was that a fear too that he
was going to get in trouble?
Speaker 1 (40:39):
Yeah? We really don't have too many details about what
Evelyn's family did or did not know. I haven't heard
much about them speaking to the media, and for all
we know, maybe her parents have since passed away. But
that might have been his reason for coming up for
thinking that if things go wrong, I could be charged
with statutory rape. I don't want to raise this child,
so I'm just going to murder them and then her
(41:00):
body out to a different state, which is a strategy
that technically worked, because that's the only reason that he's
still not in jail right now is because of the
jurisdictional issues. And I did look them up on Find
a Grave and they now list the baby child as
Emily Grace Cologne, So it looks like Balbo, that was
going to be your name, Emily, so that's how they're
referring to her now. But unfortunately she just never got
(41:22):
a chance. And of course that it doesn't seem like
a lot of mystery here about who was responsible for
this crime and why it took place, but it is
just kind of a tragedy now that even though like
Evelyn and Emily have got their names back and we
know who likely killed them, we still have not seen
full justice. So since we've talked a lot about the
cases we've already discussed, we're going to be making this
(41:45):
a three part series, So we've covered entries ten through
eight on this episode, and next week we're going to
cover our next couple entries. So join us for part
two of our three part series about ten no longer
mysterious cases involving identified people.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
Speaker 1 (42:06):
Yes, The Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
with us on Patreon. If you join our five dollars
tier tier two, we also offer monthly bonus episodes in
which I talk about cases which are not featured on
(42:29):
the Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon,
and if you join our highest tier tier three, the
ten dollar tier. One of the features we offer is
a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsalved Mysteries,
where you can download an audio file and then boot
up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
(42:52):
the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
first episode that I did a commentary track over was
the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
download a commentary track in which I make more smart
ass remarks about Jewel, Kaylor then be sure to join
Tier three.
Speaker 4 (43:11):
So I want to let you know a little bit
about the jewels and Nashty patreons. So there's early ad
free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Pathwent Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so
they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those,
so we hope you'll check out those patreons.
Speaker 2 (43:29):
We'll link them in the show notes.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
So I want to thank you all for listening, and
any chance you have to share us on social media
with a friend or to rate and review is greatly
appreciate it. You can email us at The Pathwent Chili
at gmail dot com. You can reach us on Twitter
at the Pathwin. So until next time, be sure to
bundle up because cold trails and Chili pass call for
warm clothing.
Speaker 2 (43:50):
Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy
Welcome to a very special edition of The Pathwent Chile.
I'm Robin and I'm with my co host Jules and Ashley,
and we're going to be doing something a little different
from the norm. Many years before I became a true
crime podcaster, I used to write freelance articles for a
website called listpers dot com about cold cases and unsolved
mysteries and true crime. Back in April of twenty thirteen,
(00:49):
I wrote an article titled ten Mysterious Cases Involving Unidentified People,
where I talked about a bunch of John and Jane
Does who at the time were unidentified. Well, as you
probably know, in the past several years, we've seen a
rise of genetic genealogy where a lot of these victims
have finally got their identities back. And for a long
time they had actually identified nine out of the ten
(01:12):
victims from my original list, and there was only one
hold out. But just very recently they finally identified the
tenth entry on the list. So officially all ten of
the victims on this list have officially been identified and
got their names back. So Jules and I came up
with the idea that we should do a series of
episodes about this where I go over the list each
(01:32):
case one by one, I share all the details about it,
and then I'll reveal the details about how they eventually
came to be identified. So I'll be reading the writeup
of each case and then Jewles and Ashley will give
your thoughts, and then I will share the details of
how they were identified, and then they will do the
same thing again. Do you have any thoughts you want
to give before we start?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
I want to say it's great to have Ashley back
because we have missed her these last few series of episodes.
So why don't you tell the listeners what you've been
up to.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Ash Oh Man, life, guys, just life. I'm you, guys know.
I'm a mom to a one year old now and
started a new job as an elementary school teacher this year,
and so I got all the wonderful crud that comes
with that. Every illness my students have I have had
as well. Sorry if I sound horse right now, but
also I've had the pleasure of getting to dive back
(02:23):
into a little bit of my creative side and work
with some high school students and elementary school students around
the state of Arkansas on creative writing projects. And helping
little ones fall back in love with reading.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
I love that, Okay, So Ashley, before we recorded, she
told me some of the exercises that she did with
her students, prompting them with things like, you know, it's
a rainy, cold night and it's so dark, and there's
a knock at the door, and now write for ten minutes.
How fun does that sound? Robin?
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Oh, yeah, definitely, That's something I would have loved to
have done when I was in school. I know when
I took creative writing in high school and Universe they
would sometimes do that where they would give you a
scenario and just says, whatever thoughts you have on paper
and see where it leads.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
And what was cool is that I told him me,
you know that there's a knock at the door and
the person on the other side changes your life forever.
Who is it? And some people used real life narratives.
One little girl had lost her dad and said like,
what if it was my dad on the other side
of the door. There was another person who made it
really creative and fun, sci fi esque. There's people that
made it horror humorous, and so to see how these
(03:29):
kids each took the same prompt and came up with
their own genre to pull from. It was so moving
and inspiring.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
I love it.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
I'm a big nerd when it comes to seeing young
people be creative and stretch their brains.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
I love that you are shaping the future minds of America.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Good luck.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
And I wonder if my elementary school and high school
writing teachers wouldever envision that I'd be writing articles about
unidentified deceiteds all those years later.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
I'm the opposite. I wonder if all my criminology friends
would envision me teaching elementary school.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Yeah, exactly. So now we're going to start with the
first entry on the list, a deceited named little miss Panasafki,
and for many years this was the loan holdout until
she was finally identified a few weeks before we recorded
this episode, and a couple of years ago, the three
of us actually recorded a bonus Patreon Minisota about this case.
(04:22):
So I'm anxious to see if you still remember it
and are looking forward to hearing your thoughts. So I'll
start going down the list now, number ten, little miss Panasafki.
And here is the original write up that I did
for list fers on February the nineteenth nineteen seventy one
in Sumter County, Florida, the decomposed body of a young
woman was discovered beneath the bridge in Lake Panasafki. She
(04:44):
was believed to be in her early twenties and had
been strangled to death with a man's belt, which was
still wrapped around her throat. She had no identification, and
since no one ever came forward to claim her body,
she was nicknamed little Miss Panasafki and laid to rest
in the area. Years later, her body was zoomed in
an attempt to identify her. One of the most curious
discoveries they made was that a form of surgery called
(05:06):
the Watson Jones technique had been performed on her ankle.
She had extensive dental work, and a recent study of
the lead isotopes in her teeth has led to the
theory that she may have been a residence of Labriy
on a fishing port near Athens, Greece. It is also
believed that she had given birth to a child that
one point. In spite of these very distinct clues, her
(05:26):
real identity has yet to be uncovered.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
These are the cold cases that really interest me because
you look at the details, and just from that small synopsis,
there's so many things. As an investigator, you think, let's.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Follow that lead.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Let's look for Haya, Where does that surgery get performed,
Where could that dental work have been performed? If she
has a baby, is there someone who's searching for a
missing mom, those kinds of things. There's a lot of
details here. That belt around her neck, so we know
it's a homicide and not a potential accident or suicide.
And so in these cases where there is a host
(06:01):
of evidence, and then to know that this was in
the seventies and it wasn't even she wasn't even identified
until a couple of weeks ago, it really blows my
mind because we've had decades to look back at some
very grounded evidence to one just say, who is little
miss Panasovski. So I'm very interested to hear more. I
(06:22):
briefly remember doing this Patreon, but I would love to
hear more about what happened to this young lady and
what her remains were eventually identified.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
As I remember when we covered this case, and there's
something so heartbreaking about a young woman being discarded like trash,
and just the fact that the belt was still around
her throat. That resonated with me for some reason, I'm
not sure why, And I'm really glad that this final
holdout was finally solved and she was given back her identity.
(06:55):
How did you feel when you heard that the last
of the holdouts was finally salt dropping.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (07:00):
I was just a static because I've been waiting for
them to identify her for a long long time. And
what was interesting is that one of the reasons I
felt there was a hold up and identification is because
of this theory that she was originally from Greece, because
Europe does not have the same laws for genetic genealogy,
and for a while, they theorized that she might have
been an exchange student who was sent over to the
(07:22):
United States to work and probably had no living relatives there,
which meant that even if you entered her DNA into
a genealogy system in North America, it might not match
any relatives in Europe. But surprisingly the isotope tests analysis
that they performed which made them think that she was
from Greece, it turns out it was completely wrong, because
(07:43):
it was announced that she had been originally born in
Maine and was an American citizen. They finally made the
announcement on October twenty ninth, twenty twenty five, the Sumter
County Sheriff's Office announced that little miss Panasofki had been
identified as Marine Minor Rowan, who went by the nickname Cookie,
which is how they referred to her and I like
I said. She was originally born in Maine and had
(08:06):
been living in Florida at the time of her disappearance
with her husband, Charles Emery Rowan, who went by the
name Henry, as well as her two children, so they
were at least right at that part that she had
given birth to a child at one point. But it
turned out that because of the embalming fluid they had
used in her body, that it probably affected the isotope
testing and that's why it had this wrong false positive,
(08:28):
making everyone believe that she was from this fishing village
in Greece. And it turned out that they didn't actually
have a full DNA profile for because she had been
buried for so many years the evidence had deteriorated, so
they actually identified her old school with fingerprints. It turned
out that she had actually been arrested at one point.
I think for shoplifting, but because she was originally discovered
(08:51):
in the nineteen seventies when technology wasn't all that great,
they weren't able to make a match. But in recent
years they had done this updated nash Old fingerprint database
with all these digital copies of old fingerprints from arrest
records which had been entered into the system, and they
wound up trying little miss Panasofki's prints entered them into
(09:12):
the system, and it wound up being matched to Marine
Cookie Rowan, who had been arrested shortly before her murder,
and that's how they were able to finally identify her.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Now, when she went missing, and did the husband and
or the children through out time did they report her
as a missing person?
Speaker 1 (09:30):
It does not look like it. And they've announced that
her husband, Emory, that apparently the marriage was not in
a good place at that time. They were separated and
Emory died in twenty fifteen, and they named him as
a person of interest because when you see the way
she was strangled, it almost looks like it was personal.
And it's tempting to believe that if he killed her,
(09:50):
that he deliberately made a choice not to report her missing,
but At the moment, they don't have enough evidence to
formally declare him as a suspect. It's still an act
of Homa side investigation. And I haven't heard anything from
the two children yet. I think they've been staying out
there the spotlight thus far, so I have no idea
how they reacted when their mother went missing. I have
(10:11):
to wonder perhaps if maybe Emory just told them that
she ran away or something like that, and they had
no idea that she was dead until very recently.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
It's giving Jewel Kayler vibes if Jewel Kayler and Dottie
Kaylor had a couple of kids.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Yes, And it's also you might remember, Jules that a
couple of years ago, we did an episode on the
murder of Ruth Marie Terry, who was also known as
the Lady of the Dunes. She was an unidentified murder
victim who was found in Massachusetts in nineteen seventy four,
and in recent years they identified her. And of course
she was in a bad marriage and her estranged husband
(10:47):
pretty much never reported or missing, and even though he
died several years ago and will never be charged by
the they did a new investigation and pretty much concluded that, yeah,
all the evidence points towards her husband having been the killers,
so we're closing the investigation and are confident that he
was the one who was responsible. So I have to
wonder if upon further investigation, they're going to do the
(11:09):
same thing with Emery Rowan, and that even though he's deceased,
they're going to say, yeah, we're pretty confident that he
murdered Cookie and we can close the investigation.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Well, unless she had a history of actually abandoning her
children and leaving, even if you were a strange from
your spouse, anyone with a sound heart and mind would say,
I want my children to have their mother in their life.
And so if she went missing, even if as a
as a spouse or ex spouse, you weren't interested in
knowing where she was for your children's sake, you would
think you'd still file a missing person's report, And you'd
(11:42):
think he would want assistance where he got help with
his kids. So there's a woman who I maybe don't like,
but she helps me raise my children. To not report
her sends off huge red flags. Almost screams like I
wanted her gone so that I don't have to fight
for my kids. I don't have to share my kids,
I don't have to give her money. And so that's
a very very very strong probability that he had something
(12:05):
to do with it because he didn't report it.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Yeah, that would make sense to me. I mean, innocent
until proven guilty. But like you said, even if he
didn't really care for his wife anymore, I'm sure he
should still want his children to find out what happened
to their mother. So and of course, back in the seventies,
if there was no direct evidence of foul play, it
was sometimes really hard to file a missing person's report,
And because her family lived in Maine at the time
(12:30):
and she was murdered in Florida, I'm sure there were
a whole bunch of jurisdictional issues that prevented them from
reporting or missing as well.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
It makes me wonder what her life was like in Florida,
because you'd think that if you go missing, there's going
to be people who are going to go where are they?
And the fact that he was able to get away
with Cookie being gone and not filing a missing perfins
report that did she not have any friends? That we're
asking questions?
Speaker 1 (12:59):
I have no idea that haven't released that information yet,
but I do wonder the same thing. I don't know
how long she'd been living in Florida at the time,
if there was anyone else who wondered what happened to her,
But it could be that maybe she didn't have anyone
else in her life in Florida besides her husband and
her children, and if they don't do anything, then you
can understand why she would slip completely under the radar.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
We could maybe infer, if he is indeed guilty allegedly,
that if you were going to murder your wife via strangulation,
he could have been abusive prior to that. Those who
strangle typically there is a history of abuse, so there
could have been some type of isolation. And if cookie
didn't have any connections, there was nobody close by who
(13:39):
would notice that she was missing. That would make it
really easy in the nineteen seventies to cover up a
crime like that.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
Oh definitely, And that's exactly what happened in the Ruth
Marie Terry case, where the husband murdered his wife while
they were on vacation in a state that they didn't
have any connections to, and then he just pretty much
moved back home and went on living his life and
his Her family was powerless to do anything about it.
They could not report her missing because they didn't know
where she went missing from. It was just a lot
(14:07):
easier to get away with murder back in the seventies, unfortunately.
So one more thing I wanted to mention is that
I became familiar with this case when it was featured
on Unsolved Mysteries back in the early nineteen nineties. And
I have to give it a lot of credit to
the Sumter County sheriff at that time, his name was
Jamie Adams, because she had pretty much been forgotten about
after her body was found. She was buried in a
(14:29):
pauper's grave. But then when Jamie Adams was elected Sumter
County Sheriff, he was looking through the old files read
about little miss Panasofki and he actually said during his
Unsold Mysteries interview, as a daddy and a granddaddy myself,
I couldn't stand the idea of this young woman having
a granddaddy or daddy who didn't know where she was.
So he took the initiative to exhume her after twenty years,
(14:52):
and that's where they got the DNA, the fingerprints, all
the forensic evidence, and paved the way for her being identified.
And sadly, Jamie Adams passed away in twenty twenty two,
so he didn't live long enough to finally see Cookie
get her name back, but he gets all the credit
in the world because otherwise, if he had not taken
the initiative to exhume her, she probably would have been
(15:12):
completely forgotten history. So our next case on this list
is one that Jules and I actually covered on a
Patreon miniso just a couple months ago, and that's this
Sumter County mystery couple. So I'm going to read the
write up right now. It's another Sumter County, this one
in South Carolina instead of Florida. But on August the ninth,
nineteen seventy six, the bodies of a young man and woman,
(15:35):
both believed to be between eighteen and twenty two years old,
were found on a secluded dirt road. They had both
been shot to death, and a local resident claimed they
heard the sounds of gunshots and a vehicle speeding off
shortly before the victims were found. Neither the male nor
the female had any identification or money on them. Even
though they had no money. The victims both wore fairly
(15:56):
expensive looking jewelry and had extensive dental work. Months later,
a witness came forward who believed he had crossed paths
with the couple at a campground. He said the male
claimed that his name was Jock and he was traveling
through the US because he had been disowned by his father,
who was a prominent doctor in Canada. Not much is
known about the female, but the authorities have speculated that
(16:17):
the couple may have actually been brother and sister. In
spite of these leads, no one has ever come forward
to claim the victim's bodies, and the identity of their
killer is also unknown.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
This case really haunted me, and I think it was
because obviously, when there's two individuals, to think that neither
of them had their identities back, that two people could
go missing and that their remains would be there, but
their families wouldn't know what happened to them. And I
think because there was that whole story was like there
(16:49):
was a question of whether he was fabricating the story,
whether it was the whether the person remembered correctly, if
it was the same people that they saw. But two
things that I remember stuck out to me, and that
was the expense of dental work. As we all know,
dental work doesn't come cheap, so that would speak to
people that were cared for when they were younger. And
(17:10):
since they were fairly young, then wasn't like they were
outside sleeping rough or at least if they were, it
wasn't for a long period of time. And then another
thing was the motivation for the crime. So we know
that they didn't have any money found on them, but
the fact that they were wearing rather expensive looking jewelry
I thought was really interesting. So it made me think
(17:32):
was there another motive? Was rape the motive? Was there
something else? Because are you in such a hurry that
you're just going to take the money? If you're on
a secluded dirt road, I would think that that would
provide you with enough cover in order to be able
to take the money out of the wallets and then
also take the jewelry.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
I agree one thousand percent. When you look at this
when there's two people, so two families possibly or one
if they're brother and sister, but two families potentially are
missing one of their loved ones, and like you said,
they're young eighteen to twenty two. So let's say an
estrangement had occurred, it wouldn't have been a very long
estrangement because they are still dressing very nicely, They're still weary,
(18:15):
nice jewelry. You can tell that these are people that
are not quote throwaways or runaways that you would see
in other traditional cases where identity is really hard to
discover because they don't have things like don't work, they
don't have records of medical care. But these individuals did.
You could tell that someone had taken care of them
(18:35):
and that they were getting help and living a seemingly
normal life, and then all of a sudden you find
their deceased bodies, like jewels said, with jewelry still on them.
I have to go with what she was saying where
it looks like something else motivated this. Maybe there was
a ploy to say give me all your money, and
so the kids are emptying their pockets and give cash.
(18:56):
But then that really wasn't the intent, and so whatever
crime was really the purpose happens after that fact. But
it wouldn't take you more than two minutes to slip
rings and bracelets off of somebody or a watch off
of the man and they just left that. So it's
a very very intriguing case. Are there two families that
failed to identify and report that they're looking for these
(19:18):
two young people.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Well, they did do DNA testing to confirm they were
not brother and sister because there was no genetic match.
And for the longest time I was really intrigued by
the idea that he may have originally been from Canada
and that his name was Jacques. We just talked about
the dental work, and there was kind of a stereotypical
theory that maybe he was a former hockey player who
had lost his teeth playing in Canada and that's why
(19:42):
he got the dental work done. But they finally did
identify them. On January of twenty twenty one, they held
a press conference and announced that the victims were twenty
nine year old James Paul Fruned and twenty four year
old Pamela May Buckley, who were not from Canada. And
what's also weird is that once the families found out
about the identification, they both claimed I didn't even know
(20:05):
the other, Like James's family did not know Pamela. Pamela's
family did not know James, and so They still a
big mystery about how these two originally met because they
were from completely different states. So James Froun was born
in Fitsburg, Massachusetts and lived most of his life in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
So I still don't know the lead about the guy
(20:26):
who claimed his name was Jock. I'm presuming maybe the
campground owner was mistaken and talked to a completely different person,
or perhaps James was lying about his background. But it
turned out that James in nineteen sixty five had gotten
married to a woman named Sherry Lean Albright, and the
couple had one child together before they filed for divorce.
And it sounds like james family pretty much last heard
(20:49):
from him in December of nineteen seventy five, as you
get the impression he might have been traveling the country
and just stopped contacting his family because as far as
anyone can tell, he did not have any ties to
South Carolina. And as for Pamela Buckley, she was born
in Redwood County, Minnesota, and spent most of her life
living in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and in the early nineteen
(21:14):
seventies she had actually been part of a folk band
called Sun Lending, which toured around the West coast in
the Midwest, and she got married to a man named
Gary Clifford Canal in nineteen seventy two, and they eventually
separated and divorced. And much like James, it sounds like
Pamela's family last heard from her in late nineteen seventy
five before she broke off all of contact, and they
(21:36):
just assumed that maybe they were off somewhere living their
own life, because back in the seventies it was really
hard to file a missing person's report because of jurisdictional
reasons if you didn't know where they were at that time,
if they didn't have a fixed address, Because it just
sounds like they were traveling the country living kind of
a nomadic lifestyle before they wound up murdered. And it
seems like James and Pamela at some point Cross Pass
(21:59):
Baby came a couple and then started traveling together before
they were murdered together in Sumter County, South Carolina.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
So when you first talked about this case, and I wouldn't,
I looked up a couple of details. It seems that
there was some evidence found early on that they did
actually did not process or pay attention to properly like
a belt buckle. Do you remember this? In the case,
there was a belt buckle with his initials.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Not about buckle but actually a ring and it had
the initials JPF, which they assumed was for Jacques, but
now it's for James Paul Frune, so obviously it belonged
to him.
Speaker 3 (22:31):
This case is really interesting because if you look at
the initial investigation, it seems like a few pieces of
key evidence were not really paid close attention to. So,
for example, there was an item found that had initials
carved into it that would indicate, I believe it what was.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
A JB JPF, which was his initials James Paul fruned
Yes JPF.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
So it wasn't until years later that someone red looked
at the evidence and said, this is a lead that
we need to pursue. But initially that was not even
you know, recognize. However, their sketches were distributed widely. There
were several people that perhaps mistakenly were describing that they
had interactions with this couple, and so there was a
lot of attention around these two deceased individuals and down
(23:14):
the road, Henry Lee Lucas was actually some when they
started to suspect could he have been involved, because even
though he falsely confessed to so many crimes, he had
been linked to a couple other murders in Somethner County
around that same time, and so there's been almost a
lure around what happened to these two, saying is it
even possible they're linked to a serial killer?
Speaker 1 (23:37):
And will were talking about trying to identify them. This
had one of the most morbid things I've ever seen,
where the local sheriff's office actually put the bodies together
inside some airtight compartments with glass on them and put
them in a church and actually sent out an advertisement
if you have any missing family members who match their description,
you are welcome to come to this church and view
(23:57):
their bodies to see if it's them. And they actually
left them there for about a year before they finally realized, okay,
they're starting to decompose, now we should finally bury them.
But hundreds of people like came to look at their
bodies and they still couldn't be identified. So I can
only assume that James and Pamela's families never heard about
this because they lived in totally different states. But I
(24:17):
can't imagine something like that happening now.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
I mean in churches in Europe they have the bodies
of saints in a lot of the churches, So I
guess it's not outside the realm of trying to help.
I mean I think that like their hearts were in
the right place. You'd never see anybody doing that today
where you take the bodies out and they're on display,
because today you would have too many like Lukilus who
(24:40):
are like big true crime fanatics, and they would come
and see the bodies and it would be barry macabre
and it wouldn't have the right type of vibe or
energy around it. But at the time, it sounds like
they were using like really creative measures in order to
try to give these two decendents their identities back. And unfortunately,
(25:00):
like you said, word wouldn't have gone to their families
because they live so far away.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
Yeah, I mean, this was the pre internet world of
nineteen seventy six, where you couldn't just share their photos
and their composite sketches around. So I guess they thought
this was the best solution, and at least they tried,
like they didn't just like try to bury these people
and cast them off immediately. They made an effort to
try to get them identified, and of course we have
the ring with JPF with the initials, and when the
(25:26):
witness thought that they interacted with the man and thought
that their name was Jacques, it's reasonable to assume that
maybe the J stood for Jacques, But of course now
we know it stood for James. But it just goes
to show how much more frustrating it was to identify
these people during the nineteen seventies when technology was a
lot more primitive. So this is technically still a half
solved mystery because their murderer has never been identified. And
(25:50):
in December of nineteen seventy six they actually had a
pretty promising lead when a truck driver named Lonnie George
Henry was pulled over for a DUI and they found
to three point fifty seven caliber revolver in his possession
with serial numbers scratched off, which looked suspicious, and when
it was sent for ballistics testing, it seemed to show
that it was the same murder weapon used to shoot
(26:11):
James and Pamela, and Henry kept changing his story about
where he got the gun. He claimed he bought it
from a truck driver and that the serial numbers were
already scratched off, but investigators looked at the serial number
and discovered that Henry's brother had actually given it to
him for a Christmas gift years earlier, and he swore
that the serial numbers were still there and that Henry
(26:32):
must have scratched them off at a later time when
he was given a polygraph test, and even though there
were some questions where the reading showed that he was
being untruthful, when they flat out asked him if he
killed the couple, Henry said no, and the polygraph seemed
to indicate that he was telling the truth about that.
The main reason they were unable to charge him is
(26:53):
that he seemed to have a fairly strong alibi because
he was visiting his wife in a hospital in the
town of money Row, North Carolina, on the date when
the couple were believed to have been murdered, and that
was and the hospital was about one hundred miles away,
so they just never had enough evidence to link him
to the crime scene in spite of him having this
gun with the serial number scratched off, and he passed
(27:16):
away in nineteen eighty two, so obviously the murder investigation
is still open, so if Lonnie George Henry was guilty
of this crime, they will never be able to charge him,
but it'll be interesting to see if they can find
any new evidence that clears or links him definitively to
these murders. So we do know that ballistic testing is
not one hundred percent reliable, So I am going to
(27:38):
give Henry the benefit of the doubt and maybe think
that maybe they screwed up on their original testing and
that the gun he possessed was not the murder weapon,
because I have seen other cases where the ballistic tests
turned out to be faulty and wound up implicating an
innocent person. So who knows that could have been a
complete red herring. What are your thoughts? Do you think
that Lonnie George Henry seems like a good suspect.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
I think that like it's possible, but I also think
that it's it's not like ironclad enough for me to
be like, he's absolutely the guy. But I think it's
it's a possibility, but I'm not convinced that he is
the guy.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
I mean, the scenario would make sense because he was
a truck driver, that maybe James and Pamela were hitch
hiking and got picked up. But it makes you wonder though,
like what was the motive whoever did this? Because Pamela
was not sexually assaulted and nothing was taken from them,
So what compelled someone to shoot this couple together on
that lonely dirt road at that particular time.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
But we also don't know certain things too, Like it
could have been him, it could have been somebody else.
It would make sense it would be a truck driver
because they were likely hitchhiking. But when they say that
she wasn't sexually assaulted, did they check if he was
sexually assaulted? And what if somebody couldn't finish right, they
weren't able to perform, and so maybe they were angry
(29:00):
about that and ended up murdering them. I think that
there's a lot of different scenarios where it could have
still been sexually motivated. We just didn't see the evidence
of rape.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
That is true, Like they were found with their clothes on,
But I guess it's possible that maybe someone was planning
to assault them but then just couldn't perform or something,
and then could have like put their clothes back on.
Even if they took them off after they were killed,
just to cover up the motive for the crime. But
until they actually identified the killer, we'll probably never know
for certain.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
Or their intent was to sexually assault or do something
else to them and got into a fight where they
killed one of them and went, oh my god, it's
went totally different. So they killed both and run. You know,
it could be that as well.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
Okay, so now we're going to move on to our
next one about a decedent known as Beth Doe. And
this is a really horrible story. So one of the
most brutal homicides of all time took place in Carbon County, Pennsylvania,
on December the twentieth, nineteen seventy six. Three suitcases were
found under bridge along the Lehigh River, and they each
contained the remains of an unidentified woman who was believed
(30:05):
to be between sixteen and twenty two years old. She
had been strangled, shot in the neck, and dismembered. One
of the suitcases contained her arms and legs, and her eyes, nose,
and breasts had also been removed. It's estimated that the
killer made a failed attempt to toss the suitcases into
the river, causing two of them to break open on impact.
As if the crime wasn't vicious enough, the woman was
(30:27):
also pregnant, as a full term female fetus was also
found amongst the remains. A potentially significant clue was some
letters and numbers written in ink on the victim's left hand,
possibly a license plate number, but authorities were never able
to figure out their meeting. Over thirty five years later,
the victim is buried in a grave under the name
Beth Doe, but no one has ever been able to
(30:49):
determine her identity or find out who killed her in
such a cruel fashion.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
Like you said, this is one of the most horrific
cases to hear about because of the nature in which
her body was disposed of, and to think that there
was a full grown child that was about to be
born found with her. It makes it seem very very personal,
because let's say you would kill this individual and you
wanted to dismember them and get rid of them. I
(31:14):
could see that being somebody who may not know about
who she is, but they want to just get rid
of the body and try to not have their selves identified.
But when they start removing pieces of her, like her
you said, her breast, her eyes things like that. It
seems so brutal that they just want to destroy what
she looks like, disfigure her, take intimate pieces away from
(31:36):
her body, and wasn't motivated because of this child that
was about to be born. That they didn't want this child,
that it was perhaps the result of an affair or
something else, right, they don't want the responsibility of this child.
It seems so heartless and so purposeful that there was
an intent behind it, and the person who killed her
knew her very well.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
There's something about about this that reminds me of Lazy
Peterson and her baby Connor. It really hate me in
the gut. And it also makes me wonder about the
language used because it says the full term fetus was found.
Does that mean that she gave birth after death or
that it was removed Because they don't say a baby,
(32:20):
They say a fetus, and I find that confusing. And
they also don't give as insofar as I know, or
the information that's provided, the baby in name, which makes
me think that somehow they believe the baby wasn't yet born.
I'm like a little confused by this. Robin. Can you
shed any light?
Speaker 1 (32:38):
Uh, let me just look at it here, well, Robin
looks it up.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
Though Lacey's case, Connor was not born either, correct, he was.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
He was found separate from her body though, That's what
I'm saying like.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
That, Yeah, yeah, but he had already received his name
from his baby shower and things like, you know, like
there was such a celebrated child and it's so sad
that you have even if it was unborn. Right, this
is somebody was excited that that baby was being born
into this world. And it's just like it's a full,
full grown fetus. It loses the power that someone chose
(33:13):
to kill a mother and her child.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Yeah, the language of fetus versus baby, especially at that
point exactly.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
Well, all the sources say that it was a fetus,
but it was confirmed that it was a nine month
old fetus, so one that was very close to being born,
or possibly was born before the murder took place. We
still don't know the truth behind that. But they separated
them into the suitcases. How there were three of them
all together, and one of the cases contained the victim's
head and two halves of her torso and the fetus.
(33:44):
So they did put the fetus together inside her body
parts and of course, the moment you see that, you're
automatically thinking domestic homicide, that to this victim was killed
by someone who knew her and possibly did not want
this child.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
I think maybe the different friends with the language too,
is that this was nineteen seventy six, and what was
the murder of Lacy Peterson was that like late nineties.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
Actually two thousand and two, two.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Thousand and two, okay, so like that's a huge number
of years, and so I think that maybe in the
seventies people weren't naming their babies before they were born
to the level of prevalence that it was in the
two thousand I mean, Ashley, maybe you can speak to that.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
Yes, And women's and children's rights have changed. So there
was a point where, you know, as women gained rights,
children were still viewed as a property of the family.
And now family law and things like that have grown
so much more that these things aren't quo just behind
closed doors or just a family issue. Children are society's
responsibility and women have you know, the more rights and
(34:46):
more recognition, and so I think that has also changed
the way that there's more attention paid to children and
unbortant children now is that that's you know, children have
become a larger global responsibility and not just well, that's
your responsibil.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
And obviously the big issue with this one is that
they didn't know her identity. So possibly she had named
her child, but they just couldn't tell at that time
because they didn't know who she was. And even though
they've since identified her, I think it sounds like she
was so isolated from people that even if she had
named the child, she probably never told anyone. So unfortunately,
this fetus has still never been given a name. So
(35:23):
the identification of the victim took place in March of
twenty twenty one. They identified Beth as an Evelon Cologne,
And what makes it even sadder is that she was
only fifteen years old at the time she was murdered,
and she was originally hailed from Jersey City, New Jersey,
and surprise, surprise, it turned out that the prime suspect
was her former partner, a man named Luis Sierra, who
(35:46):
was nineteen years old at the time, and he actually
got arrested a very short time after Evelyn was identified.
It was made possible, of course, by forensic genealogy, as
her DNA was entered into a genealogical database and was
eventually matched to her biological nephew. So the story goes
that Evelyn became pregnant with Louise's child in nineteen seventy six,
(36:08):
but sometime after they moved into an apartment together, they
both just seemed to vanish without explanation from Jersey City,
and in January of nineteen seventy seven, a couple weeks
after the remains were found, Evelyn's family received an anonymous
letter informing them that Evelyn and Louise had moved to
Connecticut together, and oddly, they said that she had recently
(36:29):
given birth to a baby boy that they named Louis Junior,
even though the fetus was for a female. And of course,
Louis eventually admitted that he was the one who wrote
the letter as a form of diversion or something like that,
And it's kind of weird that he came up with
this fantasy where he says that they gave birth to
a baby boy. So it might be a thing where
(36:49):
he was angry that she was having a girl didn't
want a daughter, and that could have been a motivation
for the homicide. But here's the real frustrating part of
this is Louise has continually denied invoton Evelyn's murder. He
was locked away for a couple of years awaiting trial,
but investigators found evidence which showed that Evelyn's murder took
place in Jersey City, New Jersey, rather than Pennsylvania where
(37:12):
she was found. So Luis's defense asked for the charges
to be dismissed due to jurisdictional issues, and the court
agreed to do so in March of twenty twenty four,
and Luis is currently out on bail and new charges
have still not been filed. He's a free man walking
around somewhere because it's up to now New Jersey rather
than Pennsylvania to try this case. And until they get
(37:34):
their act together and finally filed charges, Luise is still
going to be walking around and this case will still
remain officially unsolved. So I don't know what the holdup
is because it's been nearly two years since they made
this decision and they have not filed charges again.
Speaker 3 (37:49):
That is so frustrating. Well, let me start by saying
this baby cologne should be honored as well, so there
is a name for that child. Baby Cologne was found
with its mother right in her little mom right there together.
And so that's one thing we can put a name
to that baby. But second of all, when you think
about this, he was nineteen and she was fourteen when
(38:10):
he got her pregnant.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
What year was this nineteen seventy six?
Speaker 3 (38:14):
Okay, so were there statutory rape laws at the time.
Was that a large enough age gap back in the seventies.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
Depends on the state, right.
Speaker 1 (38:23):
Yes, So I don't know what they would have been.
They were living in New Jersey at that time. I mean,
she was fifteen when she was murdered, but she may
have been fourteen when she became pregnant, and he might
have been eighteen. And I'm just going to look this
up out of curiosity. This rape laws in New Jersey
age of content, age of consent is sixteen. Now, I'm
not sure what it was back in nineteen seventy six.
Speaker 3 (38:45):
Well, to me, I wonder, like I would love to
know more about did the family know about this baby?
Was it a baby being celebrated because the fact that
they get this letter that has a baby boy's been born?
When did they even know she was pregnant? Two? Were
they in contact with her at all about her pregnancy,
because she would have been talking to her family about
being pregnant. Now, maybe gender wasn't revealed, But it's interesting
(39:08):
because why would he even include that detail in the
letter if they didn't know about the pregnancy, And if
they did know about the pregnancy and just didn't know
the gender, because sometimes families don't find out and especially
in the seventies, right, that wasn't as common. But if
you gave it the you said a boy was born,
that would throw detectives off. Well, it can't be her
because there was a little girl found with her, So
(39:31):
I could see both ways. But I could also see
if they didn't know about the pregnancy, just leave it out.
Why would he want to even mention the baby.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
He might have just wanted to add a little to
the story. And maybe in his like twisted mind or fantasy,
there would have been an alternate scenario where this boy
would have been born and it would have bore his
name as well, and it would have been a junior,
and so he's kind of played out that scenario in
his mind. So I doubt they knew the gender of
the baby in nineteen seventy six, So I think He
(40:00):
probably just had thought about this, decided to add it
into the letter, thought it was really specific and it
would be something that she would include. But it seems
pretty likely that, like you said, nineteen seventy six, they
wouldn't have known. And I also looked up the age
of consent in seventy six in Jersey and it was
also sixteen, so it would have been statutory rape.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
See.
Speaker 3 (40:23):
So I wondered too, did that cover for some of it?
Did they say, you know? Was he saying I got
our pregnant, so I can't even just say I'm dating her,
you know, and that we're not intimate or things like that,
or that I'm just her friend, Like, Nope, I got
our pregnant. So was that a fear too that he
was going to get in trouble?
Speaker 1 (40:39):
Yeah? We really don't have too many details about what
Evelyn's family did or did not know. I haven't heard
much about them speaking to the media, and for all
we know, maybe her parents have since passed away. But
that might have been his reason for coming up for
thinking that if things go wrong, I could be charged
with statutory rape. I don't want to raise this child,
so I'm just going to murder them and then her
(41:00):
body out to a different state, which is a strategy
that technically worked, because that's the only reason that he's
still not in jail right now is because of the
jurisdictional issues. And I did look them up on Find
a Grave and they now list the baby child as
Emily Grace Cologne, So it looks like Balbo, that was
going to be your name, Emily, so that's how they're
referring to her now. But unfortunately she just never got
(41:22):
a chance. And of course that it doesn't seem like
a lot of mystery here about who was responsible for
this crime and why it took place, but it is
just kind of a tragedy now that even though like
Evelyn and Emily have got their names back and we
know who likely killed them, we still have not seen
full justice. So since we've talked a lot about the
cases we've already discussed, we're going to be making this
(41:45):
a three part series, So we've covered entries ten through
eight on this episode, and next week we're going to
cover our next couple entries. So join us for part
two of our three part series about ten no longer
mysterious cases involving identified people.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
Speaker 1 (42:06):
Yes, The Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
with us on Patreon. If you join our five dollars
tier tier two, we also offer monthly bonus episodes in
which I talk about cases which are not featured on
(42:29):
the Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon,
and if you join our highest tier tier three, the
ten dollar tier. One of the features we offer is
a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsalved Mysteries,
where you can download an audio file and then boot
up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
(42:52):
the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
first episode that I did a commentary track over was
the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
download a commentary track in which I make more smart
ass remarks about Jewel, Kaylor then be sure to join
Tier three.
Speaker 4 (43:11):
So I want to let you know a little bit
about the jewels and Nashty patreons. So there's early ad
free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
Pathwent Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so
they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those,
so we hope you'll check out those patreons.
Speaker 2 (43:29):
We'll link them in the show notes.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
So I want to thank you all for listening, and
any chance you have to share us on social media
with a friend or to rate and review is greatly
appreciate it. You can email us at The Pathwent Chili
at gmail dot com. You can reach us on Twitter
at the Pathwin. So until next time, be sure to
bundle up because cold trails and Chili pass call for
warm clothing.
Speaker 2 (43:50):
Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy
Popular Podcasts
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.