Michael Sullivan and Camden Sylvia Pt. Two

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Welcome back to the Path Went Chile for part two
of our series about the disappearance of Michael Sullivan and
Camden Sylvia. Robin, do you want to catch everyone up
when we talked about in our previous episode.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Well, Michael Sullivan and Camden Sylvia were a couple who
had been living together for several years out of loft
in Manhattan. Because Michael had moved in there during the
nineteen seventies. It was much cheaper than usual because I
think he was only being charged like three hundred dollars
per month, and since there was rent control, he was
paying far less than the other tenants in the building.
This was nineteen ninety seven November, and Michael and Camden

(01:04):
at some point went missing. No one can really pinpoint
the exact moment they went missing. We know that they
rented a movie at a video store brought it back
to their apartment, but at some point they left their
apartment again and just vanished without a trace. So at
first no one really knew what to make of this,
But it turned out that on the same day they
went missing, they had been confronting their building's landlord, Robert Rodriguez,

(01:27):
because he had been very neglectful. He had not been
implementing heat in the apartment and it was a very
cold winter, so they presented a letter informing him that
they were not going to pay any more rent until
he fixed the problem. But it was right after that
when Michael and Camden vanished without a trace, and when
police wanted to bring Rodriguez to the station to question him,

(01:48):
he just decided to disappear for several days without even
telling his own family where he was going before he resurfaced.
But by that point he had hired an attorney and
would not cooperate with the investigation, so they began to
suspect that he might have been involved in that Perhaps
he wanted Michael and Camden out of the loft so
he could rent it out again at it much higher prices,

(02:10):
And when they looked into Rodriguez's background, they found out
that another man named David King, who was one of
his former co workers in business Associates, had also went
missing back in nineteen ninety. At first, they just kind
of thought that King disappeared on his own, but since
so many people connected to Rodriguez seemed to be going
missing under his watch, they began to wonder if he

(02:32):
might have had something to do with King's disappearance as well.
Puerto Riguz eventually got indicted on several charges of fraud
because he was suffering from financial problems and doing chicane
rey to try to cover it up, so he served
some time in prison before he was released. But at
one point he could have attained early parole if he
had readed to a request to turn over some guns

(02:54):
he owned, but he said he no longer had them,
and as retribution, he was forced to finish serving his
full sentence, which has created speculation that these guns may
have played a role in Michael and Camden's disappearance. Rob
Rodriguez was eventually released, and they have never found any
the victim's bodies or any evidence of foul play, so
it remains up in the air what actually happened to

(03:15):
Michael and Camden. So this is an unsolved mystery which
seems to be based around a very identifiable situation, as
I'm sure that many of us have been through a
situation where we've had a dispute with a landlord, but
it's not often that these situations escalate to the point
where they potentially lead to murder, even though this case
does have a very promising potential suspect in Robert Rodriguez,

(03:37):
law enforcement is never officially named of as a suspect
and the disappearances of Michael Sullivan and Camden Sylvia, and
there's a very good reason for that. Well, Rodriguez definitely
displayed some suspicious behavior. There is no evidence here that
a crime has even been committed, let alone that Rodriguez
harmed these two missing individuals. If he was responsible for this,

(03:58):
he did a very thorough job at covering his tracks.
We do know that on the day that Michael and
Camdo went missing, Rodriguez have been presented with a signed
letter in which the couple and a number of the
other tenants announced their intention to go on a red
strike unless he provided them with adequate heating for their apartments.
But I'd hardly call that a strong motive to commit murder,

(04:18):
as it sounds like this issue popped up every single
year since Rodriguez was known for taking his sweet time
to heat up the building at the start of the
winter season. Even if you're a major penny pincher trying
to save money by any means possible, it seems like
quite an overreaction to decide you're going to kill two
people rather than simply turn on the furnace. But if

(04:39):
you put aside the why for Rodriguez committing this crime,
the how, when, and where are still complete head scratchers. Theoretically,
let's just say that there was some sort of confrontation
which escalated into murder. If this took place inside the
apartment building, not only would Rodriguez have to kill two people,
but he would have to do so in a fashion

(04:59):
which he didn't attract the attention of any of the
other tenants, as I don't believe they ever reported seeing
or hearing anything unusual all that day. He would then
somehow have to get their bodies out of the building
and dispose of them. But it's very difficult to be
inconspicuous about doing something like that in downtown Manhattan.

Speaker 3 (05:18):
Right, and it's such a populated area. There's you know,
I'm sure there's not much sound proofing and things like
that in these older apartment buildings, and so it would
be very difficult to murder two people. You have a
man and a woman. You have to think about the
way that he would have to approach and defend himself
against two people who would react to him coming into

(05:40):
their space or confronting them. When you do back up though,
and you think about the idea that he was charging
these people three hundred and some odd dollars for rent
because of rent control, but in you know, then now
he would have been able to collect three thousand and
some odd dollars a month if a new tenant were
to move in in that rent control was no longer honored,

(06:01):
and so there is a significant financial reason for him
to need these two people gone, in addition to the
fact that they were causing social issues and possibly legal
issues for him as well. But like you said, if
we can understand, okay, he has the motive to do it,
how when and where did he do it? I'm just
as clueless as you.

Speaker 1 (06:22):
I think when it comes to the why. If we
are to believe that he's killed before, it just seems
like whenever he has a problem, his go to solution
is I'm going to eliminate that problem. But then there
is a problem with the how, because if it was
in the apartment, how do you subdue to people. Perhaps
he had a firearm or something like that, and he

(06:44):
was able to keep them quiet, But then if you
murdered them in the apartment, what do you do, like
in the movies, roll them into a rug and put
them in a truck. Do you have a vehicle for transport?
Or did you hold a gun to their head and
take them into a van or something and then take them,
you know, to New Jersey or something like that where
there might be somewhere you could easily dispose of the bodies.

(07:06):
There's a lot of questions surrounding how you could do
that with two individuals. Like with one individual, I would say, yeah,
it would be a lot easier, especially if it was
a woman who was just Camden. But when you've got
two people, it's just the degree of difficulty goes up exponentially.

Speaker 3 (07:24):
Is there any way that he could have asked them
to meet with him, saying, Hey, I'm going to talk
to you about this issue. I don't want this to
have to go to a legal place. I don't want
you guys to have to go on a rent strike.
Can you meet me? But if he did that, it's
not just Camden and Michael who are involved in this issue.
There's multiple tenants who are supporting them and behind them.

(07:45):
It's almost like something that the community bonds over so
if they were going to go try to argue on
behalf of the other tenants or their building or something
like that, in a meeting with him, I feel like
they would have disclosed that to somebody.

Speaker 1 (07:59):
I think there's a dam in being like, let's set
a meeting. I think if he did do it, it
had to have been spontaneous, like he showed up at
their door. Maybe he convinced them to go somewhere with him,
and then he was able to get the jump on them.
But it almost seems like there would have to be
somebody else involved because if it was like, Hey, we're
going to go somewhere and he's driving, how do you

(08:20):
get the jump on them? Do you have a firearm somewhere?
And then you pull into like this undisclosed location. But
I feel like there'd be a lot of questions that
would be being asked, and because there's two of them,
I think that they would have been able to overpower
the drivers. So I don't know, Robin, what's your take.

Speaker 2 (08:37):
Well, he did have a locksmith shop that he ran
on the ground floor of his apartment, which I think
function is his office, and I know that on the
day that Camden and Michael went missing. That's where they
met him to present him with the letter about the
rent strike. So it's reasonable to assume that if he
asked the two of them to meet him somewhere, that
they would do so at the locksmith shop, which is
still in the building and is still going to attract

(08:59):
a lot of time if you shoot them there or something,
and it would be difficult to smuggle their bodies out
because it's in the middle of a crowded neighborhood. And
I'd like to think that if he told them, oh,
why don't you meet us off site somewhere, like at
a different place, They're probably going to get really suspicious
and wonder why is our landlord asking us to meet
him elsewhere instead of at his locksmith shop. So yeah,

(09:20):
it's really hard to figure out. It just seems that
if he killed them in the apartment building, it would
have been very difficult to do it without attracting attention
from someone.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
Here's a question for you. Did he have a van
because oftentimes if there's a locksmith shop, you're going to
get calls to apartments where people have locked themselves out,
So you would have to have some kind of transportation,
and oftentimes you would see a locksmith getting around in
a van or a car of some sort with maybe
like the logo for their locksmith shop emblazoned on the side.

Speaker 2 (09:52):
I don't have that information if he had a van,
but it would make sense to me. I know that
he had a car that he used when he disappeared
for a few days when he did want to talk
to the police, But maybe he had a separate van
for business purposes that he would use on the job.
And like you said, that would be much easier to
use to dispose of two bodies.

Speaker 1 (10:11):
So I think another issue with figuring out what happened
here is that it's really hard to pin down the
last time that Michael and Camden were confirmed to be alive.
Some sources, like the victim's profile pages at the Charlie Project,
make it sound like they left their apartment to go jogging,
which is something they frequently did. If they managed to

(10:31):
exit the building and jog somewhere, then they could have
crossed paths with an unknown third party besides Rodriguez, who
proceeded to abduct and murder them. But from what we've
read in most of the news articles about this case,
it was only theorized that they went jogging because their
running shoes were missing from the apartment. As far as
I can tell, I don't believe there were any eyewitnesses

(10:53):
that could actually confirm having seen them out jogging that day,
which would mean that the last verified sighting of the
couple was when they rented the movie Addicted to Love
from the video store. Since the video was found inside
the apartment, they obviously returned there at some point, and
given that one set of keys and Michael's wallet were
also left behind, it seems likely that the couple left

(11:15):
together but weren't planning to be out all that long.
So the big question is did they cross paths with
Rodriguez and have some sort of confrontation with him before
they exited the building. Well, searches of the building failed
to turn up any evidence of foul play, but the
problem is that it was six days before the couple
were actually reported missing, so Rodriguez would have had ample

(11:39):
time to cover his tracks. Now, according to Camden's mother,
Laurie Sylvia, when she first met Rodriguez, he couldn't have
been any nicer, as he gave Laurie a new set
of keys for the apartment and said, quote, let me
know if there's anything else I can do to help. So,
at the very least, this suggests Rodriguez was not too
concerned about Laurie finding anything incriminating inside the laft. It

(12:03):
sounds like Rodriguez was very cooperative during the early stages
of the investigation until police ask him to come in
for a formal interview, which led to him suddenly taking
off and disappearing for ten days. However, did Rodriguez do
this because he was involved in Michael Incambenen's disappearances or
was he paranoid that the police might find some other

(12:24):
skeletons in his closet?

Speaker 3 (12:26):
Okay, exactly when you look at this, there's a couple
of things that I want to ask you about. One,
I don't have a pair of quote running shoes. Judge
me if you will. Shoes are not my thing. I
have a pair of sneakers, and I have dress shoes,
and I have boots. So if I am not going
to want to wear dress shoes or my boots, I'm
wearing my quote sneakers and that's if I'm running or working.

(12:50):
It doesn't matter. So is it possible that these two
simply wore their quote jogging shoes as every day wear.

Speaker 1 (12:59):
I'm a fashion girl, Like I love fashion, and you
go and look at street style, and like the streets
of Paris or New York. Today, everybody's wearing runners with everything.
But at that time, I don't know if it was
as much the fashion. But I think it is possible
that somebody might have just one pair of runners, and

(13:19):
like you call them runners, but like really they're just
sneakers and you could wear them for a multitude of
different occasions. It doesn't have to be just for the
express purpose of exercise.

Speaker 3 (13:30):
Right, So when people are like, Okay, well they're jogging
shoes are missing, I'm like, God bless them. I don't exercise.
So if my running shoes are missing, don't think I
went running because I did not. Okay, so note that down.
But so that was one of the things, you know,
this is a idea of should we be looking for
a jogging route or something. I think I wouldn't put
my sneakers on to go rent the movie, and maybe

(13:52):
when I came home I didn't take them off yet,
And so I'm not sure that that's even a lead.
But when we go down to the other idea, Rodriguez,
and the idea that initially he's very cooperative and then
all of a sudden he becomes very elusive and goes
on the run and becomes really shut off to police.
When Robin and Jules describe his background to me, I'm

(14:15):
sitting there thinking, wait a minute, is he so friendly
and nice at first because he has nothing to do
with it? And then when he realizes this is not
just going to be these two people that wandered off
and aren't home yet, this is going to be a
criminal investigation. They want to keep talking to me. If
they start to run my name, they're going to find
all of these things I'm wanted for issues I'm having,

(14:36):
or you know, these scams I'm running. And could he
have simply panicked and shut down and said I cannot
cooperate or else so much of my life is at stake.

Speaker 2 (14:47):
Well, not only was he committing fraud at that point,
but we also have the disappearance of David King, which
took place years earlier, and that would be the wildest twist.
I don't know if that's what happened. If he was
completely innocent and Michael and Cambden's just disappearance, but was
guilty of the disappearance of David King. So he doesn't
cooperate in this case because he figures, well, if they
delve into my background, this whole thing with David King

(15:09):
is going to pop up again and they might find
some incriminating against evidence against me in that case. I mean,
I don't think that's a likely scenario, but it could
be an alternate explanation for why he was acting so dodgy.

Speaker 1 (15:21):
Here refreshed my memory, Robin. We spoke about this in
our last episode. But wasn't there a bag of Camden's
that was missing as well? And wasn't it like a
large bag that could have been like a briefcase size,
or like a very large purse that would have been
able to carry documents or something of the sort.

Speaker 2 (15:42):
Yeah, the only details about it were that was a
bag that Camden normally carried when she took work home
from the office and it happened to be missing, And
obviously that's not something she would ordinarily take out if
she was simply going for a jog.

Speaker 1 (15:55):
No, I'm not going to go jogging, I think I
said in the first episode with a giant purse. For one,
if you're a jogger, even if you bring any kind
of purse that isn't strapped to you, it will bang
up against your butt, so and if you're you're not
gonna hold it in your hand. So like if you've
got a cross body purse or whatever, it's going to
hit your body with every stride that you take is

(16:15):
going to be so uncomfortable. So it's inexplicable that they
could have just gone out for a jog and then
taken that bag with them. I mean, I guess you
could say that they went out for a jog, something
happened and then the bag got stolen, But like that
seems entirely improbable.

Speaker 3 (16:30):
So she would take that big bag, but he wouldn't
take his wallet.

Speaker 2 (16:36):
I mean, if it's a thing where they had documentation,
like theoretically they're going downstairs to present Rodriguez with some
paperwork while he's in his locksmith shop, that would make
sense why they would take the bag but not Michael's wallet.

Speaker 1 (16:48):
And maybe just because they were going downstairs, Like I
don't know how you guys are when you get home,
Like as soon as I get home in like a
comfy space, I put on like my sweats and I
get into my comfy clothes. So maybe because it was
sort of informal with Rodriguez, they if they were going
downstairs to the locksmith's shop, maybe they were just in
their sweats at home and they were like, well, obviously

(17:09):
I'm not gonna put on dress shoes. I'm just gonna
put on whatever sneakers i've got kicking around. Doesn't mean
they're going for a jog. But maybe they're just going
downstairs to talk to Rodriguez and they bring the bag
and they're also wearing their sneakers. That would be the
only scenario that would make sense to me.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
I think so because I think one of the sticking
points with the sneakers it was early November, a lot
colder than usual, So I think that's why people thought, well,
if they were going outside to do something besides jogging,
there shouldn't be any logical reason for them to wear
their sneakers. It would make more sense for them to
wear heavier footwear. But if they were just going downstairs
in the apartment and not going outside, then yes, it

(17:47):
makes sense they would put their sneakers on.

Speaker 1 (17:49):
Was there any snow or rain or anything.

Speaker 2 (17:51):
I don't think so. No, but they just described that
it was a colder than usual November and that's why
they were so anxious to get the heating turned on.
So one ironic detail about Rodriguez is that he kept
a newspaper article about himself on the wall of his
office because in nineteen eighty four there was an incident
where he returned a loss nine hundred thousand dollars checked
to its rightful owner and was hailed as a hero

(18:13):
by the press. But it seems like Rodriguez might have
been over compensating a little bit, considering the numerous acts
of fraud he committed over the years. I think it
says something that Rodriguez originally bought the building with insurance
money he received from his house burning down. Yes, I
guess they technically never proved that he committed our sin.
But when you're the type of person who uses the

(18:33):
identity of a dead guy to obtain credit cards, I
think it's safe to say that there's no limit to
the type of scamshi'll pull. And of course there's the
fact that another person connected to him, David King, happened
to go missing while they were both embroiled in a
civil lawsuit. We'll talk more about David King in a
little while, But regardless of whether or not Rodriguez was
involved in his disappearance, the fact that he was allegedly

(18:56):
using King to provide him with confidential information from a
rio I have a fire alarm company really says a
lot about his character.

Speaker 3 (19:03):
Okay, let's back up a little bit. He has this
newspaper article that he returns a lost nine hundred thousand
dollars check to its rightful owner. What are you going
to do with a nine hundred thousand dollars check written
out to somebody else, Because it's not like it's a
forty dollars check, and you might be able to run
to the bank and try to cash it. And if

(19:24):
they said, hey, I need your idea to make sure
this is you, you'd be like, oh, I forgot my idea.
I'm so sorry. I'll be back, and you don't get
your forty dollars. Or because it's a small check, they
just cash it. Because you know, I'll pull into a
bank here and I don't think they know me. And
if I try to cash a small amount, they cash it.
If it's a larger amount, they need proof of identification.

(19:45):
He was never going to be able to do anything
with that nine hundred thousand dollars check. So the idea
that I just said, hey, I found this check written too,
you know, Robin, And I'm like, hey, Robin, I found
this check of yours? Is that really heroic?

Speaker 2 (20:00):
Probably not? No, Like he if he had been able
to figure out a way to use the money for himself,
I'm sure he probably could have. But like you said,
you're not going to cash a nine hundred thousand dollars
check under someone else's name unless you have a fake
ID or something like that, or concoct an elaborate scheme.

Speaker 3 (20:16):
Right. I guess it was nice he returned it, but
I mean, it just it doesn't seem like a heroic
thing that a newspaper would write something up about. But
I guess it is. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (20:25):
I think that we can bet that he went through
every possible scenario to see if he could get away
with keeping that money. It's not like his first impulse
was like, oh, I better return the money. I think
that was just the last resort when he realized, shoot,
I'm going to get caught here if I try to
deposit this into my account, or if I try to
like fake this in some way, So why don't I

(20:46):
come out looking like, you know, smelling like roses and
look like the hero. But I agree, it's not really heroic.
It's like the only option.

Speaker 3 (20:53):
Yes, and if it was nine hundred thousand dollars cash
and you returned it hero here, Yes, Okay, this is
a check written as somebody else, Like you don't just
walk up to the bank and like cash this baby
for me, you know, No, No, we're gonna go ahead
and need some some proof of identification. So I don't know.
I think it kind of shows this narcissism that he

(21:14):
has this newspaper article framed about himself while he's actively
committed fraud. Is it something that almost provides him this
illogical comfort of I'm a good person, I do good things,
and he has a frame to look at because honestly,
in his everyday life, he's not able to do that consistently.

Speaker 2 (21:31):
Baby, it's an entitlement thing saying I heroically returned nine
hundred thousand dollars, so therefore I deserve to make nine
hundred thousand dollars through other means. So what I'm doing
is not illegal.

Speaker 1 (21:41):
Yeah, So by the time Rodriguez resurface after disappearing for
ten days, he hired himself the services of an attorney
named Michael Rosen, and this was a very prominent, high
priced guy, as Rosen once represented Thomas Gambino of the
infamous Gambino crime family. Since Rodriguez lied to his family

(22:02):
about going in for a police interview before he took off,
this suggests that he was incredibly paranoid about something. But
was it because he had knowledge or involvement in the
disappearances of Michael and Camden Well. It's easy to take
his actions as a sign of guilt, but Rodriguez had
spent the past several years committing numerous acts of fraud,
so even if he was completely innocent of any role

(22:24):
in the disappearances, he might have feared that if the
police started interviewing him and investigating him, they were going
to turn up his other financial indiscretions, which is why
he panicked and got himself a lawyer. If this was
Rodriguez's intention all along, then it didn't really do him
any good, since it only provided further motivation for authorities

(22:46):
to look into his background and that's when they uncovered
enough evidence to arrest him on all those other charges
and send him to prison. Well, it's undeniable that Rodriguez
is a criminal. Does this necessarily mean that he's a murderer?
If Michael and Camden had somehow uncovered evidence of Rodriguez's
history of fraud, that might have given him a motive

(23:08):
to kill them, But there's nothing to indicate that they
knew about it.

Speaker 3 (23:12):
Also, when you think about the idea that these two
people were murdered, and you know, we had this knowledge
that they went to the video store and run in
a video, we have knowledge that he left his wallet there.
If they voluntarily left their apartment and were victims of
some kind of random act, do most random double murders

(23:34):
result in someone hiding two bodies so well? Or would
it be more like, Hey, if I was robbing these two,
or I was trying to confront these two, wouldn't you
have just found their body in the park or wherever
they had just been attacked? So I don't know. I
just keep thinking like, was this a targeted killing? But
how did they get them out of their apartment for

(23:55):
a temporary moment when everything inside their apartment shows that
they were going to be coming back and spending the
evening there.

Speaker 2 (24:03):
Yeah, I agree. Like if they went out and were
the victims of random mugging, I think whoever killed them
would just leave them there rather than going to the
trouble of transferring their bodies and getting rid of them,
which is why it seems likely that they were murdered
by someone they knew who had a lot to hide,
And of course Rodriguez seems like the most logical suspect
to do that. But once again, the logistics of him

(24:24):
pulling off are the part that we just can't figure out.

Speaker 1 (24:27):
What do we know about his associates? Did he have
any other criminal friends that he hung out with, because
if this happened, it seems likely to me that there
could have, or maybe potentially was a second person who
was assisting Rodriguez.

Speaker 2 (24:45):
I mean, that's what I'm thinking. I haven't heard about
him having any associates who helped him with his criminal activities.
As far as I know, he worked alone, and I
don't know if he had anyone else closer to him
who would have helped him dispose of two bodies. I
guess is that another possibility as he could have gotten
members of his family to help out, because they were
described as not being very cooperative with the police whence

(25:06):
Rodriguez went missing. But that depends like, do you want
to protect a family member that you think who has
committed fraud. I'm sure they would be willing to do that,
But would they go to that length to help protect
him if they knew that he had committed two murders.
So another potential motive which has been pushed forward, is
that Rodriguez wanted the couple out of the way so
we could finally rent out their loft to someone for

(25:28):
a much larger sum of money. I mean, even in
nineteen ninety seven, paying a monthly rent of only three
hundred and four dollars for a fourteen hundred square foot
loft in Manhattan is a pretty mind blowing deal. Even
if there were issues with the heating or Rodriguez in general.
I can definitely understand why Michael and Candon would have
wanted to hold onto this place. At the time, New

(25:50):
York City had very strict rent control and stabilization, and
since Michael had originally rented the place over twenty years earlier,
he did not have to worry too much about him.
We know that Rodriguez was suffering from financial problems and
over thousands of dollars in back taxes on the building,
so yes, it would have been in his best interest
to have Michael and Camden out of the loft so

(26:12):
that he could rent it to a new tenant at
three thousand dollars per month. That might seem like a
compelling motive, but the problem is that Rodriguez really didn't
gain anything from the couple's absence in the long run.
I know that until Rodriguez's arrest, there was a dispute
between him and Camden's mother, Laurie Sylvia, because she wanted
to pay the three hundred and four dollars monthly rent

(26:33):
to hold on to the loft, but he refused to
accept the money. Rodriguez's attorney did make a public statement
that he had no intention of renting out the loft
while Michael and Camden were missing, but it's possible that
Rodriguez was advised to do this for pr purposes in
order to make himself look less suspicious. But the ironic
thing is that the publicity surrounding the disappearances actually drew

(26:55):
interest in the loft from a number of curiosity seekers
who wanted to rent it. Rodriguez could have made himself
a good chunk of money if he let this happen,
but he never did, and the loft did not go
on the market again until after Rodriguez was arrested and
sold the building to new owners. So yes, Campden and
Michael's disappearances did not financially benefit Rodriguez in any way

(27:18):
until Rodriguez's arrest. I cannot imagine how awkward it must
have been for the other residents of that building to
be living with a landlord who was under suspicion for
potentially causing the disappearances of two tenants, even if they
didn't believe he was guilty. How weird would it have
felt to bring an issue to this guy's attention. I
wonder if anyone ever complained about the heat again?

Speaker 3 (27:41):
Yeah you know, I mean for me when you look
at this idea, would it have benefited him to get
rid of them? I think in the long run, yes,
short term no, because again he denies that he's willing
to take payment for the rent. But remember he's only
getting three hundred dollars a month. When is three thousand
a month. So is he really going to be made

(28:05):
or broken because of the three hundred dollars a month
he's missing? Probably not. It almost makes me wonder does
he not fix things in the building hoping that these
people who have been there for a long time get
fed up and they want to leave. But I think
when you're being held at a three hundred and four
dollars a month rent, I would put up with a

(28:25):
heck of a lot, and I would fuss and fight,
but I would have zero intention of leaving. But I
wonder if he thinks in his head, if I can
just hold out long enough, they'll get so miserable that
they'll want out, and then he could start running those
other loss out for the three thousand dollars a month.
Does he think he's gonna go by and kill every
single one of the residents that's paying three hundred and

(28:46):
seven dollars a month? No? Probably not. But like we
talked about earlier, is it possible that a confrontation went
sour even when it wasn't intended to result in their
deaths and that's what happened? Or is this just simultaneously
existing with a really bad guy being their landlord and
they also go missing because of nothing he did. I

(29:09):
don't like Rodriguez. He has so many arrows and neon
signs pointing to him. But again, I'm trying to figure
out how and how did he hide it so good,
And the police did really explore and examine his life
and they didn't find any evidence or anything to link
him to Michael and Camden. So I'm just torn.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
And it's like, if a crime had taken place in
the apartment building, and if any of the other tenants
like heard or saw anything unusual, I don't think they
keep their mouth shuts about it because they disliked Rodriguez too.
It would have been more than happy to see him
removed his landlord if he was a suspect and a murder.
But the fact that they didn't report anything suspicious just
seems so odd to me and makes me wonder if

(29:52):
murders took place they took if they occurred at another location.

Speaker 1 (29:57):
Now we mentioned earlier that we cannot possible the pinpoint
the last time Michael and Camden were confirmed to be alive,
and we can't even be one hundred percent certain that
they interacted with Rodriguez. According to their neighbor Check Delaney,
He did see Camden in the building that morning and
she told him she was heading to Rodriguez's locksmith shop
to present him with a signed letter about the rent strip.

(30:20):
We know this letter did wind up in the office,
but it's unclear if Camden just dropped it off there
or if she interacted with Rodriguez. Since Rodriguez declined to
discuss the case publicly, he never did confirm or deny
if he spoke with her. The transaction at the video
store confirmed that Camden did visit other locations that day,

(30:41):
and the primary theory, which has been presented by her mother, Laurie,
is that after renting the video, Camden returned to the
apartment and both she and Michael decided to go out
and confront Rodriguez together. This is when things could have
gone horribly wrong and they both wound up dead. But again,
if Rodriguez committed murder inside the building, how did he

(31:02):
manage to do so without attracting attention and how did
he dispose of the two bodies?

Speaker 3 (31:08):
And remember, police do start to explore and examine Rodriguez
as someone who's a person of interest, So do we
know if they ever investigated or went in and explored
the locksmith shop. Did they go in and look at
vehicles of his and do any kind of luminol testing
or look for evidence or find anything of theirs. I

(31:28):
don't think they did. But remember it's weeks later that
we're starting to get all this information about Rodriguez, So
I I don't know. I sit there and I think, well,
if police had immediately known, could he have maybe not
been able to dispose of something that would have linked him.
But once they identified him, did they go and start
to investigate and explore spaces that he could have possibly

(31:52):
done something to them?

Speaker 2 (31:54):
I think they did. They did use cadab or sniffing
dogs and tore up the flooring in Rodriguez's locksmith shop,
but this didn't take place until I think over a
year after the fact, when Rodriguez was arrested on the
fraud charges. So they didn't get to do it immediately.
So if there was any evidence there a foul play,
he would have had ample time to dispose of it
and cover it up.

Speaker 3 (32:13):
Oh the two people being killed and the blood that
could have resulted from that, there's a lot of cases
that years later they go and they pull flooring up,
and while the surface might be clean and you might
not be able to get information, there is DNA and
there is biological evidence that's on the undersides or through
the cracks of the floor. So it's kind of fascinating

(32:36):
to me that there was nothing if they went to
that extent to tear the floors up, I would assume
it did not take place in the locksmith shop.

Speaker 1 (32:43):
But that's the assumption that the way that they were
killed was a way that drew blood. True could have
been blunt force trauma, could have been strangulation. There could
have been different ways in which they were killed, especially
if there was two people in They wouldn't necessarily have
to be a gun because you're right in the middle

(33:04):
of the city center, and if it's right by all
of these units, then you run the risk of somebody
hearing that gunfire unless you have a silencer or you
you make like a homemade silencer. Seems like it's very
risky to use a gun, and even if it is
a head injury, like you can't guarantee there won't be
blood because often there is. But I think there are

(33:24):
different scenarios where he could have carried this out at
the locksmith's shop, and there might not have been very
much biological evidence that at the time they would have
been able to maybe gather, whereas today if they would
have gone in and assessed it, it might have been
a different story.

Speaker 3 (33:40):
Very true. And if there was blood, who's to say
they weren't on some area rug or something like that.
That or but if he grabbed him and broke one
of their necks, and you know who knows. You're right,
there's many many causes of death that would not have
resulted in a substantial amount of blood. You're right. I
was thinking stabbing or shooting. But there's a million options
that could have happened. And like you said, especially two people,

(34:03):
there wouldn't have had to be such a violent struggle
or movement of the bodies to incapacitate them or to
kill them.

Speaker 2 (34:13):
So now we have to go back and explore the
second unsolved missing person's case in this story, and that's
the disappearance of David King. This case has gotten nowhere
near as much publicity as the disappearances of Michael and Camden,
and there's even less evidence to suggest what happened. All
we know is that King left his house in January
of nineteen ninety one to go to work and subsequently disappeared,

(34:35):
but no one even attempted to file a missing person's
report until July the seventeenth of that year, when King's mother,
Emma Toppin, learned from his wife and children that they
had not seen him in nearly six months. Back in
nineteen ninety one, the New York Police Department had a
policy that unless there was strong evidence that foul play
had taken place where the victim had a serious medical

(34:55):
or mental condition, they cannot accept missing persons reports for
anyone between the ages of seventeen and sixty five. This
policy has since changed, but I think it was likely
in place because New York City had an insanely high
crime rate in nineteen ninety one, so the police just
did not have the resources to search for every missing person.
And besides, since King was a co defendant and a

(35:18):
thirteen million dollars civil lawsuit, it wasn't hard to imagine
him running off on his own to escape his legal troubles,
so his disappearance got zero media coverage at that time.
Of course, once Robert Rodriguez got linked to another missing
person's case, six years later, King's case finally got a
proper investigation, but Emma Toppin did not hesitate to publicly

(35:39):
express or frustration that it took the disappearance of two
white people for the disappearance of her African American son
to finally receive any attention.

Speaker 3 (35:49):
What is so sad is we've talked about this before.
She is not alone in her frustration that we know
families of color that missing people of color that you
often do not have a media attention sometimes, you know,
depending on where you are, the police attention is also
very limited. And so you look at poor Emma and

(36:11):
she's saying, okay, now you're paying attention now that these
two white kids are this white couple got has also disappeared.
Now my son matters. It's very, very heartbreaking because a
human being is a human being. And I do believe
when you start looking at homicide investigations, homicide coverage that

(36:35):
things like wealth, race, gender, those things significantly matter in
the energy that is sometimes put forth. And it's horrific.
But for Emma, she's saying, you know, at least someone's looking,
but why did it take so long? Incredibly complex grief there.
It makes me very very sad.

Speaker 2 (36:55):
And it's also sad to think that if Rodriguez did
have something to do with King's disappearance they had investigated
from the start, would things have turned out differently from
Michael and Canden, Like, would Rodriguez possibly have been arrested,
have gone to prison before they went missing, and the
course of their lives would have been completely different exactly.

Speaker 3 (37:12):
And when you look at the way the media and
law enforcement and the community also puts value or a
lack of value on the victim, they aren't thinking that
a victim also means there's an offender. And so whether
you value that victim or not, when you start to
look at the bigger picture of what it means to
not put the energy towards, not put media coverage towards

(37:36):
every homicide, then you also say, oh, well, this offender
maybe isn't as important. There's someone who's capable of killing. So,
like you said, Robin, if there is someone who is
killed and their case is not viewed as a place
to place resources, then there's also a community at risk
because an offender's living amongst them. So it's a very

(37:59):
small mind reality that we live with in the criminal
justice field.

Speaker 1 (38:04):
The information about King's disappearance is fairly limited, but it
sounds like Rodriguez had promised him a partnership in his
business after luring him away from his previous employer, and
this failed to materialize. The two men were reportedly seen
having an argument a short time before King went missing,
so it's easy to assume that Rodriguez might have been

(38:25):
involved in what happened. In the long run. I guess
King's disappearance did benefit Rodriguez and his potential culpability in
the civil lawsuit, because even though King wound up being
ordered to pay ninety thousand dollars in damages, Rodriguez pretty
much got off scot free by pinky swearing that he
would not use any of the confidential information that King

(38:45):
gave him for his own personal gain. I guess technically
they could not prove that Rodriguez new King was providing
him with material that was stolen, But if King had
been around to provide testimony, things might have turned out differently.
Perhaps Rodriguez would have had more liability. So this gave
Rodriguez a potential motive to make King disappear. But since

(39:07):
no investigation was performed until after Rodriguez hired an attorney,
he was never formally interviewed about his potential role in
this case. Now, there have been some confusion about an
unidentified John Doe who was found in the East River
in nineteen ninety one. He supposedly bore a striking resemblance
to King, but it's unclear if DNA testing was ever performed.

(39:30):
It's been reported that King's family refused to provide blood
samples for DNA testing, but since his mother has always
been an outspoken advocate for him, I find it hard
to imagine her not cooperating with this. The last media
coverage I've seen about King is in an article from
Newsday in August of two thousand and four, and since
it makes no mention of the John Doe, I can

(39:52):
only assume that he was.

Speaker 3 (39:54):
Not a match.

Speaker 1 (39:55):
It sounds like they were unable to determine the exact
cause of death for the decedent. So even so, even
if it was so, even if it was King, that
doesn't necessarily mean he was murdered. For all we know,
King may have been overcome by the stress of the
civil lawsuit and decided to take his own life by
jumping off the bridge. Into the East River. With so

(40:17):
little information, it's tough to make a conclusive determination about
what happened to King.

Speaker 3 (40:23):
So this is the DNA testing that we were talking
about last time, that they were hoping it would match King,
but it resulted in an inconclusive result. Is that correct?

Speaker 2 (40:33):
Yeah? Like, there are differing sources, one that says that
the results were inconclusive, and other sources say that his
family refused to provide their own blood for a comparison.
But like I said, I find that hard to believe.
Given how outspoken his mother was for him, I think
she would have been more than happy to provide her DNA.

Speaker 3 (40:50):
Yeah, no way. If she's if she's strong enough to
stand there and say, hey, you didn't investigate my son's
investigation or my son's disappearance until these two other people
went missing, and she's willing to be vocal, she's desperate
to know what happened to her son. I will move mountains,
and I guarantee you everyone else in that family looked
at her and said she deserved to know what happened

(41:11):
to him, And so I cannot imagine that everyone in
his lineage would have said no way. And so it
is very interesting when you look at the idea that
there was a deceased individual that they thought possibly could
be King, there's inconclusive evidence of who this person is,
so there if that's true, and that is the ultimate outcome,

(41:33):
there is a small percentage that he could be King,
but we just don't know that. It's also possible it's
not King, and that his body it has never been discovered,
And so is it possibly he took his own life? Absolutely?
Is it possible he was murdyreed? Absolutely? Is it possible
something else happened. Anything's possible when you don't have an answer.

(41:55):
So while it looks like King needed to disappear, either
for Rodriguez or to avoid his own criminal charges in
those kinds of things, I think this is a very
very difficult case to look at because we simply have
zero information. There's a motive for him to disappear on

(42:18):
his own and there's a motive to get rid of him,
but we have no evidence of which way that went.
So again, for Rodriguez, looks like neon signs pointing to him,
But is her responsible? Is it possible for someone to
have that bad of luck that you are a criminal,
but you're not a murderer. You seem to be associated

(42:38):
with these people that go missing. It's so illogical to
think that someone could have that bad of luck, But
that is a possible outcome.

Speaker 2 (42:48):
I mean, that's the thing. I mean, he looks awfully suspicious,
but they just don't have any hard evidence of foul play.
And well, it seems unlikely that three separate people at
different time periods could go missing under his wall. They've
just never been able to prove that he actually was
personally involved. All that being said, it still seems like
quite a coincidence that Rodriguez would be linked to otherwise

(43:11):
completely unrelated missing persons cases. I think the key difference
between them is that we know for a fact that
Rodriguez and King colluded together to do unethical things, so
King might have known some incriminating information which put his
life in danger. And what we also know for a
fact that Rodriguez was doing a ton of illegal things
at the time Michael and Camden went missing. We don't

(43:32):
know if they knew anything about that. But if the
couple did learn something incriminating and Rodriguez decided to get
rid of them, how would these events have unfolded? Well,
One detail about this case which I've always found interesting
is this cash of licensed guns, which Rodriguez supposedly owned
and could not be accounted for. As you recall, Rodriguez

(43:53):
was originally going to be paroled two years before his
scheduled release date, but the parole Board changed their minds
when the question Rodriguez about these guns, and he was
unable to provide conclusive answers about what happened to them.
In fact, it's been reported that Rodriguez could have received
a lighter sense than two to six years if he
had turned in these guns at the time he pled guilty,

(44:13):
but he never did. Now, I think the only reason
this questioning even took place was because the Board's decision
to parole Rodriguez was met with considerable backlash, and they
probably were looking for any loophole they could find to
reverse their decision without admitting me had screwed up. Given
that a number of years had passed, I guess it's
possible that Rodriguez legitimately had no idea where the guns were,

(44:36):
but he was apparently quite a vasive with his answers,
and to me, the biggest red flag is that he
invoked his fifth Amendment privilege to avoid self incrimination. I mean,
pleading the fifth can be a necessary tactic when you're
questioned under oath in a courtroom. But this is honestly
the first time I've ever heard of anyone pleading the
fifth at a parole hearing. Parole boards expect inmates to

(44:59):
be on honest and take accountability for their actions. But
if you decline to answer questions on the grounds of
self incrimination, that comes across like you have something to
add and pretty much guarantees you're not getting out of prison.

Speaker 3 (45:12):
Absolutely. This is why when we talk about cases of
wrongful convictions and there's people who are in prison who
are here, I didn't do it, I didn't do it,
and they are up for parole and they say, guys,
I didn't do this, like I need my name cleared
because I didn't do it. A parole board says, if
you can't take accountability for why you're here, then clearly
you're not remorseful, and clearly you can't be released. So

(45:35):
then not only do you have an offender sitting there
saying you know, I didn't do this, or well that's
not how it happened. No, this man is saying I
will not answer your questions because I might incriminate myself.
If you're worried about incriminating yourself, you clearly have other
issues going on and you need to stay behind bars.
Very very fascinating that this person would have a collection

(45:59):
of guns, cannot account for them, cannot provide information about them,
and there's a possibility that three people are missing as
a result of your actions. Very very interesting. I've never heard,
like you said, I've never heard of a parole board
interviewing someone that they're planning to release back into the
community who says, ah, I can't answer your questions, I
plead the fifth. Normally, you're begging for them to see

(46:20):
you as a human, to see you as someone who's thoughtful,
who's going to be an excellent, contributing member of society,
who is no longer a risk. He again is making
horrific decisions as far as drawing attention to the type
of man that he is.

Speaker 1 (46:37):
So this makes me wonder why did Rodriguez want to
avoid talking about this cash of guns. So in spite
of his financial crimes, it doesn't sound like he had
any known history of violence in his background, So could
one of these guns have been used as a murder weapon.
If he shot someone and disposed of the gun, then
it would be very difficult for him to explain what

(46:58):
happened to it and could account for why he elected
to plead the fifth Even if this ruined his chance
as a parole and meant that he would have to
serve two more years in prison for fraud, that's still
preferable to spending the rest of your life in prison
for murder. But I must provide a disclaimer about this
detail about the guns, that it is nothing more than

(47:18):
speculation on Robin's part when he initially did his trail
and Cold episode. And we both still have issues with
the idea that Rodriguez could have shot Michael and Camden
inside the apartment building without anybody hearing anything. So we
know that all of Rodriguez's financial crimes were eventually uncovered
because he got himself in way over his head. So

(47:39):
that's why you have to wonder if he was capable
of getting away with the perfect murder without leaving any
incriminating evidence behind. Anyway, as far as we can tell,
Robert Rodriguez is still alive today at the age of
eighty four, so if he really was responsible for these crimes,
then the clock is ticking to uncover evidence against him.

(48:00):
There's my chance. Rodriguez's main motivation for not cooperating with
the investigation into Michael and Camden's disappearances was because he
was afraid of his financial crimes being uncovered. Well, that
wound up happening anyway, and he served his time in prison.
If he truly has nothing left to hide, then I
wish that he would finally cooperate and speak to the

(48:20):
police about what he knows. But then again, even if
he's innocent in this case, there may still be things
about the disappearance of David King which he does not
want to discuss absolutely.

Speaker 3 (48:31):
And what's really interesting is how would they prove otherwise
if you said, you know, I honestly wasn't the most
responsible gun owner. Yes, I have a collection of guns.
Because I have a collection of guns, I don't really
keep track of where they are and what I'm doing
with them. So I remember that I have a couple
that are in a safe, I have a couple that

(48:52):
are under the bed. But for some reason I remember
that there's several that I just can't account for. And
I was your responsible. I mean, like, they already know
you have them and where are they? So what if
you were just you know, oh, I recognized a couple
of them were missing. I used to loan him out
to friends, and I have zero idea who borrowed that

(49:13):
weapon from me? I lost them. I don't know, Like,
why would you plead the fifth? Why not just make
up a story? How could they disprove that?

Speaker 2 (49:23):
Yeah, that is just what's so weird to me that
he didn't even attempt to make up a lie or
just say that he lost him or he had no idea.
He flat up pleads the fifth, which is the most
suspicious looking thing you could do, which kind of indicates
to me that there's some sort of desperation at play
there and he really really doesn't want anyone finding out
where those guns could be. So. As for Laurie Sylvia,

(49:45):
at the time her daughter went missing, she was an
advocate for the disabled and would pretty much become the
official advocate for Camden and Michael. This is not the
only family tragedy that Laurie has experienced, as two of
her uncles vanished and were lost at sea during the
nineteen fifties and in January of twenty fourteen, she lost
her forty eight year old son, Matthew, when he passed
away after a long battle with pancreatis. While Laurie is

(50:08):
still with us today, she is also in her mid eighties,
so it would be nice if she finally received some
answers about what happened to her daughter. So, if you
happen to have any information on the disappearances of Michael
Sullivan and Camden Sylvia, as well as the unsolved disappearance
of David King, please call the New York Police Department
at six four six six one zero six nine one four.

(50:30):
That's six four six six one zero six nine one four,
Jules Ashley, any final thoughts in this case.

Speaker 3 (50:37):
Disappearances and missing people are some of the most interesting
and heartbreaking cases to me because it's as if someone
just disappeared into thin air and no one knows what
happened to them. And yet you can't just have a
body evaporate that those three people, at some point their

(50:58):
body should surface, should be found, they somebody should know
what happened to them. Right. It just doesn't really cognitively
make sense to me that David King up had disappeared
never to be seen again. Camden and Michael up A disappeared,
never to be seen again. So in these cases, it's
this constant prayer of mine that like, Okay, one day,

(51:20):
remains are going to be discovered. These families are going
to get answers, and while they might not ever know
who the perpetrator was, they would at least have their
loved one's remains back to kind of close the idea
that my loved one matters and I want to know
that they are now safely in a single location and
I know where they are, like that just peace of mind.

(51:40):
Are these likely to be solved and prosecuted. Probably not.
But again, if there was just this ability to have
the remains back where people like Glory and these families
would say, my baby is is, I know where she
is now. I have control over the location of her
body and I don't have to wonder what else is happening.

(52:01):
I have her back to me as a mother. That's
something that would be incredibly important. That the idea of
her just disappearing into thin air is one of the
most harmful possibilities. I just need her back, no matter
what form that's in. And so again, how does a
body just disappear. It can happen. I mean, there are

(52:21):
methods to make a body disintegrate and disappear, but is
that likely, Like we said, to what extent in the
middle of Manhattan can you just get rid of things?
How easy is it to eliminate one, two, or maybe
even three people and no one knows, there's no evidence,
there's no trail left behind. So missing persons just so tragic,

(52:44):
and I'm my prayer would be at the minimum that
these families would be able to one day have their
loved ones and have the control over their remains.

Speaker 1 (52:54):
I totally agree, and I personally think that Rodriguez holds
the key to where where the bodies are. And I
think that this is like the case of a hidden
variable homicide, and that there's so many variables that we
just aren't aware of, Like was there another person? It
could have been a family member, because like Robin said,
the family members weren't cooperative, and so you've got to

(53:17):
wonder why when you've got two missing people and they're
not trying to help. It's like either they know that
he's doing all the fraud stuff and they're just trying
not to get involved, or they are scared of him
in some capacity, or they're complicit in some way. And
I think that because Manhattan is this, you know, small island,

(53:39):
and it's so populated, everybody's basically on top of each other,
that it's so hard to envision how somebody could carry
this out. But if there was a second person, and
if he did have a van from his locksmith's shop,
there would And Ashley had mentioned like what if there
was an area rug on the ground, what if he
put their bodies in this van, had the help of somebody,

(54:00):
and he drove them to New Jersey. I just think
of Rex Hureman, the Long Island serial killer, and how
long the bodies of those women are. All those individuals
were there. They were only discovered because of Shannon Gilbert's
disappearance and her call to nine one one, which was
very troubling, and so that kicked off a search which

(54:20):
then those bodies were discovered. So it is my hope
that Michael and Camden will be discovered at some point
and King as well, and that perhaps there is a
dumping ground or an area where Rodriguez is disposed of
these bodies, because in my gut, I truly believe that
he's the one that holds the key to the answers

(54:43):
that the families deserve at this point. And the fact
that he's like eighty five, now that is so wild
to me, because he's gone his whole life with as
far as we know, not confessing to anybody, or at
least nobody that would come forward, and so we're running
out a time. I'm here, this is like a Tommy
Zeger thing, not in that he's innocent, just in that

(55:03):
he's at an advanced age, and so if we want
a resolution, it's going to need to be soon.

Speaker 2 (55:10):
Yeah. I actually talked about these missing persons cases in
which it seems like the victim has just vanished into
thin air, and this is definitely an example of one
of them. And it's particularly frustrating in the cases where
you have a very compelling suspect, but you just don't
have any evidence of foul play or any indication what
happened to the victims at all. I mean, it would
be one thing if Michael and Cannon were last seen

(55:32):
going to a meeting with Robert Rodriguez and then they
just disappeared, But we don't even have a real pinpoint
moment of the last time they were seen to be alive.
We know they return to their apartment left at some point,
but they don't know where they were going or what
happened to them. And no one reported seeing or hearing
anything unusual, no gunshots, no suspicious actions of like Rodriguez
carrying something into a vehicle. So even though it is

(55:55):
compelling to think that Rodriguez killed them because of this dispute,
there's just no hard evidence that, and under normal circumstances,
I might have been willing to give Rodriguez a break
and think that, well, maybe he's acting this way because
he was committing fraud on the side, that he had
nothing to do with what happened to Michael and Camden.
But then you learn the background with David King and
how he conveniently went missing in the middle of a dispute,

(56:17):
and you're thinking, Wow, I don't think anyone is that unlucky, Like,
it's be quite a coincidence if three people connected to
this guy all happened to go missing under unrelated circumstances.
So he asked to be involved somehow. But if he was,
he covered his tracks very well. And like we talked
about how does he get rid of two people in
downtown Manhattan from an apartment building in the middle of

(56:39):
the day without attracting any attention. And this is why
it's easy to believe that he might have had accomplices,
maybe business associates or family members who helped him dispose
of the crime. And like you mentioned, he's now in
his eighties, he doesn't have much time left. So I
really hope that if he did do something, they can
finally uncover some evidence and maybe finally find the victims'

(57:01):
bodies and finally get a conclusive resolution, because, like we
talked about, Lori, Sylvia has gone without answers for far
too long.

Speaker 4 (57:09):
Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?

Speaker 2 (57:13):
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

(57:36):
The Trail Went Cold's original feed. So they're exclusive to
Patreon and if you join our highest tier, Tier three,
the ten dollars tier. One of the features we offer
is a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsawved 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

(57:59):
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 (58:18):
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 1 (58:36):
We'll link them in the show notes.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
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 appreciated.
You can email us at the Pathwentchili 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 1 (58:57):
Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Michael Sullivan and Camden Sylvia Pt. Two

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

The Breakfast Club

All Episodes

Michael Sullivan and Camden Sylvia Pt. Two

Dateline NBC