Latest / The Path Went Chilly / Charlie Anderson & Carol Montecalvo Pt. One

Transcript

Charlie Anderson & Carol Montecalvo Pt. One · The Path Went Chilly

0:31
Speaker 1: Welcome to our latest series of The Pathway Chili. I'm
0:34
Speaker 1: Robin and Ashley is still on a break. So Jules
0:36
Speaker 1: and I will be discussing a case where I will
0:38
Speaker 1: share all the details with her and she will give
0:40
Speaker 1: off her live reaction. This is a case that I
0:43
Speaker 1: covered on The Trail Went Cold many years ago and
0:45
Speaker 1: was also featured on Unsaw Mysteries. So, Jewles, are you
0:48
Speaker 1: familiar with the murder of Charlie Anderson.
0:51
Speaker 2: I don't think so. But the name Charlie Anderson is
0:54
Speaker 2: kind of like a common sounding, like John Smith type
0:57
Speaker 2: of a name, so I might have heard it before
0:59
Speaker 2: and and then it just didn't really register. So it's
1:02
Speaker 2: not like a case like Lars Mtonk or something like
1:05
Speaker 2: that it really sticks with you. So I'm excited to
1:09
Speaker 2: hear the details.
1:11
Speaker 1: Well, this is kind of like two cases rolled into one,
1:13
Speaker 1: except the second case is officially considered to be solved.
1:17
Speaker 1: But for starters, Charlie Anderson was a sheriff's deputy with
1:20
Speaker 1: the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office who wound up getting
1:24
Speaker 1: shot to death in his own home, and it was
1:26
Speaker 1: suspected at first that it was a burglary gone wrong,
1:29
Speaker 1: that he may have stumbled on to intruders into his
1:31
Speaker 1: house before he got shot to death, But then they
1:34
Speaker 1: uncovered some discrepancies to make them think that Charlie may
1:37
Speaker 1: have been killed by someone he knew. And if we
1:40
Speaker 1: were just talking about this case alone, it would probably
1:42
Speaker 1: be in minisod because there's not a lot of information
1:44
Speaker 1: out there. But it turned out that one year after
1:48
Speaker 1: Charlie was killed, there would be a second murder in
1:50
Speaker 1: the same neighborhood, just four blocks away, where a woman
1:54
Speaker 1: named Carol Monte Calvill was shot to death inside her
1:57
Speaker 1: home in what initially looked like was a burglar gone wrong,
2:00
Speaker 1: but then police began to think that it was staged
2:04
Speaker 1: and that her husband was responsible. So her husband actually
2:07
Speaker 1: wound up being charged, convicted, and sent to prison, even
2:10
Speaker 1: though he maintained his innocence, and one of his big
2:13
Speaker 1: talking points was the murder of Charlie Anderson because there
2:16
Speaker 1: were so many similarities between these two crimes. He was
2:19
Speaker 1: trying to say that, hey, look at this other murder
2:22
Speaker 1: that took place a year earlier. I have a feeling
2:24
Speaker 1: that the same person who killed Charlie Anderson may have
2:27
Speaker 1: also killed my wife and I'm completely innocent, and also
2:31
Speaker 1: there would be a woman who came out after he
2:33
Speaker 1: was convicted and confessed to a role in the crime.
2:35
Speaker 1: But there has always been a lot of controversy surrounding
2:38
Speaker 1: both these cases and a lot of speculation about whether
2:41
Speaker 1: they are connected.
2:43
Speaker 2: That's really interesting. Gives me like a Bardsville type of
2:47
Speaker 2: a vibe where there was the murder of Crystal Rogers
2:50
Speaker 2: and her father, Tommy was also murdered, and then I
2:54
Speaker 2: can't remember all the different cases that were connected. There
2:58
Speaker 2: was one law enforcement and individual. He was shot while
3:03
Speaker 2: moving a piece of brush, and then there was I
3:05
Speaker 2: believe a mother and a daughter which they thought might
3:08
Speaker 2: be a gang initiation. So it was all these different connections.
3:12
Speaker 2: But anytime there's a police officer, sheriff's deputy, a prosecutor
3:17
Speaker 2: who is murdered, it's very interesting to try to dig
3:20
Speaker 2: into who would have had the motivation to try to
3:24
Speaker 2: end this person's life at great risk to themselves. Because
3:27
Speaker 2: if you kill somebody in law enforcement, they're coming for
3:31
Speaker 2: you and it's not going to be pretty. So what
3:35
Speaker 2: would be the impetus to want to take such a
3:39
Speaker 2: drastic action to kill him? So I'm very interested to
3:43
Speaker 2: hear what you have to share with me about these
3:45
Speaker 2: two cases that are potentially related.
3:48
Speaker 1: It was crazy is that there's nothing to indicate that
3:50
Speaker 1: Charlie Anderson and Carol Monte Calvo knew each other. They
3:53
Speaker 1: had no connection to each other other than the fact
3:56
Speaker 1: that they lived four blocks apart, and both these cases
3:59
Speaker 1: were featured on Unsolved Mysteries. Technically, the Charlie Anderson case
4:04
Speaker 1: was on the main show, but the Caralmont to Calvil
4:06
Speaker 1: case was on the short lived spinoff show called Final
4:09
Speaker 1: Appeal from the Files of Unsolved Mysteries, which would specifically
4:13
Speaker 1: look at potential wrongful conviction cases, but it only lasted
4:17
Speaker 1: six episodes before it was canceled due to low ratings.
4:20
Speaker 1: But what's interesting is that neither of the respective segments
4:23
Speaker 1: mentioned the other case, like Unsolved Mysteries, never gave off
4:26
Speaker 1: any connection that they might be connected, because I don't
4:29
Speaker 1: think they had put two and two together at that point.
4:31
Speaker 1: I think it was only many years after the fact
4:33
Speaker 1: that they figured, hey, there's a lot of similarities between
4:36
Speaker 1: these two cases. And another funny detail is that they
4:39
Speaker 1: both took place in Burbank, California, which was actually the
4:42
Speaker 1: home office of Unsolved Mysteries when they aired, So I
4:45
Speaker 1: can see why they were kind of intrigued by both
4:47
Speaker 1: these cases.
4:48
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely, the fact that they're both in Burbank, that
4:52
Speaker 2: it feels home grown to them. But I agree with you,
4:55
Speaker 2: I think they must not have known that detail that
4:59
Speaker 2: the cases could have been connected, because I think we
5:02
Speaker 2: know at this point that unsolved Mysteries, if they could
5:04
Speaker 2: add salacious details, or if they could make a case
5:08
Speaker 2: more layered, more nuanced, more compelling, that they absolutely would
5:12
Speaker 2: do that. And so if you could connect two cases
5:15
Speaker 2: within a small area with incredible similarities, you're going to
5:19
Speaker 2: do just that. So I'm curious as to when the
5:23
Speaker 2: first connections between the cases were made.
5:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, because that's why I decided to cover both these
5:28
Speaker 1: on a Trail in Cold episode several years ago, because
5:31
Speaker 1: you can't really talk about one without the other, even
5:33
Speaker 1: though one of them was officially considered to be solved.
5:38
Speaker 1: So Charlie Anderson's murder took place in Burbank, California, in
5:41
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty seven. At the time, he was thirty five
5:44
Speaker 1: years old and a deputy with the Los Angeles County
5:46
Speaker 1: Sheriff's Department. I had a wife named Beth and two sons,
5:50
Speaker 1: a five year old Michael and eleven month old Richard,
5:54
Speaker 1: And shortly after midnight on January twenty fourth, Charlie, Beth,
5:58
Speaker 1: and their children returned to their home after visiting best parents,
6:02
Speaker 1: and at the time, Beth was suffering from a back injury,
6:04
Speaker 1: so she would tell the police that Charlie offered to
6:07
Speaker 1: go inside and put Michael to bed while she waited
6:10
Speaker 1: in the car with Richard because it sounds like the
6:13
Speaker 1: baby was sleeping and she did not want to wake
6:15
Speaker 1: him up, so she was just going to cuddle with him. Well,
6:18
Speaker 1: Charlie put their other son to bed, so and after
6:22
Speaker 1: Charlie put Michael to bed, he was going to return
6:24
Speaker 1: in with Carrie Richard inside as well, because it would
6:27
Speaker 1: still be kind of a burden for Beth to do
6:28
Speaker 1: it because of her back injury. However, best version of
6:31
Speaker 1: events is that after Charlie and Michael went inside, she
6:34
Speaker 1: heard noises from the house, which she described as sounding
6:37
Speaker 1: like backfires, so she walked into the house called out
6:40
Speaker 1: for Charlie, received no answer, and when she went upstairs,
6:44
Speaker 1: she discovered Charlie's body on the hallway floor. It turned
6:47
Speaker 1: out he had been shot to death, so Beth instantly
6:50
Speaker 1: ran over to a next door neighbor's house to call
6:52
Speaker 1: the police. Thankfully, Michael was left unharmed, as apparently Charlie
6:56
Speaker 1: had tucked him into bed before he was shot by
6:58
Speaker 1: an unknown assailant.
7:01
Speaker 2: So it must have been one of those situations where
7:03
Speaker 2: the person who committed this murder maybe they were watching,
7:08
Speaker 2: maybe they saw that Charlie had put Michael to bed,
7:12
Speaker 2: because the fact that she's there hearing what sounds like
7:15
Speaker 2: a car backfiring, which we can assume would be the gunshots,
7:20
Speaker 2: would mean that there was a pretty tight timeline and
7:23
Speaker 2: that the murderer could have been exposed pretty easily. So
7:28
Speaker 2: it sounds like we discussed earlier, this is a great
7:31
Speaker 2: risk to any individual who's going to go into a
7:34
Speaker 2: home of somebody who is in law enforcement when you
7:37
Speaker 2: don't know the comings and goings. And I suppose this
7:40
Speaker 2: person could have watched the home and they could have
7:43
Speaker 2: looked for routines, any kind of regularity, trying to see
7:47
Speaker 2: what would be a good time to go in and
7:50
Speaker 2: attack Charlie and end his life. And maybe because he
7:55
Speaker 2: was in law enforcement, he didn't have a routine like
7:58
Speaker 2: somebody who works at nine to five, maybe more difficult
8:00
Speaker 2: to predict, and also difficult to predict who else would
8:04
Speaker 2: be coming and going from the home. Perhaps that's what
8:07
Speaker 2: happened here.
8:08
Speaker 1: Yeah, because there is still ambiguity about whether or not
8:11
Speaker 1: Charlie was intentionally targeted or if this was a burglary
8:15
Speaker 1: gone wrong, because they were returning home pretty late, so
8:18
Speaker 1: it's fairly plausible that if someone wanted to rob the
8:21
Speaker 1: house showed up maybe at around eleven thirty and saw
8:23
Speaker 1: that the lights were off and nobody appeared to be home,
8:26
Speaker 1: that they could have broken in and were taken by
8:28
Speaker 1: complete surprise when Charlie arrived home. And when the police
8:31
Speaker 1: first arrived, they thought this was exactly what happened because
8:35
Speaker 1: they found a slit in the rear screen door, and
8:37
Speaker 1: they figured that Charlie had unexpectedly walked in on an
8:41
Speaker 1: intruder because there had been a recent string of burglaries
8:44
Speaker 1: in that neighborhood, and another resident would later say that
8:47
Speaker 1: she had a similar situation where she returned home, walked in,
8:50
Speaker 1: saw burglar in her house, but thankfully she was unharmed
8:54
Speaker 1: because the burglar just fled out the back door. But
8:56
Speaker 1: there were no witnesses who including Beth, who reported seeing
8:59
Speaker 1: any one flee the Andersen residents after the gunshots, and
9:03
Speaker 1: the only fingerprints that were found belong to members of
9:06
Speaker 1: the family. But after a while, police began to wonder
9:09
Speaker 1: if the burglary might have been staged, because even though
9:12
Speaker 1: some of the items from the home appeared to be missing,
9:15
Speaker 1: there were other valuables lying around in plain sight that
9:18
Speaker 1: had not even been touched. And there were some drawers
9:21
Speaker 1: which were partially open, which only had an item or
9:24
Speaker 1: two removed. And you'd think that if someone was just
9:27
Speaker 1: trying to ransack the place, they would just pull the
9:29
Speaker 1: drawers out and search through them without worrying about like
9:32
Speaker 1: leaving a mess or anything. But because they said, burglars
9:36
Speaker 1: will just like empty out a drawer and dump all
9:37
Speaker 1: the contents out. But here you're finding ones that are
9:39
Speaker 1: partially open, a few items gone, and they were beginning
9:43
Speaker 1: to think that, hmm, this might have been done by
9:44
Speaker 1: someone who was trying to create the false impression that
9:47
Speaker 1: it was a burglary.
9:49
Speaker 2: This is very true, and we're looking at what year.
9:52
Speaker 1: Was this, nineteen eighty seven, So I don't.
9:56
Speaker 2: Feel like the knowledge of forensic countermeasures would have been.
10:00
Speaker 2: It is widely available obviously as it is today because
10:03
Speaker 2: of the Internet and the explosion and true crime and
10:05
Speaker 2: the fact that like it's in the public consciousness and
10:09
Speaker 2: we think about things like offenders who are going to
10:14
Speaker 2: you know, use friends of countermeasures or subterfuge in order
10:17
Speaker 2: to try to distract. It's like a red herring. And
10:21
Speaker 2: so I mean, I just think of like the John
10:23
Speaker 2: Viney case. They gets so widely debated whether or not
10:26
Speaker 2: somebody broke into that home, and I mean, we don't
10:29
Speaker 2: need to go into that in detail, but it just
10:31
Speaker 2: like with the screen and like whether or not somebody
10:34
Speaker 2: went through we see a slit in the screen here,
10:38
Speaker 2: is this just somebody going what would a break in
10:41
Speaker 2: look like? And the fact that they didn't empty out
10:44
Speaker 2: the drawers, they didn't really ransacked properly, valuables were left behind.
10:50
Speaker 2: It makes me wonder, is it somebody who has a
10:52
Speaker 2: knowledge of at least basic friends of countermeasures so that
10:56
Speaker 2: they're trying they know enough to know that, Like we
10:59
Speaker 2: want to make law enforcement look elsewhere, then look at me,
11:03
Speaker 2: whoever that me is? And is it somebody else in
11:08
Speaker 2: law enforcement? Is it somebody who's well versed in police investigations,
11:13
Speaker 2: the sheriff's investigations. There's so many questions that this that
11:19
Speaker 2: arise when you hear that this is potentially a faked burglary.
11:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, And because there had been a lot of
11:26
Speaker 1: burglaries in the area, I think police were able to
11:30
Speaker 1: tell that this looks different than the other ones we've handled,
11:32
Speaker 1: like this looks like it could be staged, whereas most
11:35
Speaker 1: of the other ones we looked at are authentic, because
11:37
Speaker 1: it doesn't feel like someone is trying to make it
11:39
Speaker 1: look like a burglary. They're just emptying out the drawers
11:42
Speaker 1: and trying to find whatever valuables they can. And this
11:45
Speaker 1: is a detail that's always been up for debate because
11:47
Speaker 1: Charlie's sister was interviewed on Unsaw Mysteries years later, and
11:51
Speaker 1: she said that when she was summoned to the scene
11:53
Speaker 1: and saw her brother's body, she was disturbed by the
11:55
Speaker 1: look on his face. Because she described Charlie as having
11:58
Speaker 1: a shocked, white eyed looked at suggests that he had
12:00
Speaker 1: been surprised or betrayed by someone. I mean, I don't
12:04
Speaker 1: know if I would read too much into that, because
12:06
Speaker 1: even if he saw a stranger that he didn't recognize,
12:08
Speaker 1: it's still natural that he's going to have a shocked
12:10
Speaker 1: look on his face, particularly if he shot immediately thereafter.
12:15
Speaker 2: He Yeah, I don't know. It's difficult to really know
12:19
Speaker 2: one way or the other. I think when you're in
12:21
Speaker 2: a situation like that, it would be pretty easy to
12:24
Speaker 2: read in to detail such as that. And I don't
12:27
Speaker 2: know what expression you would expect to see on his
12:29
Speaker 2: face given the circumstances, but a shocked expression wouldn't feel
12:34
Speaker 2: so outside the realm of like what would be typical
12:39
Speaker 2: in a situation such as that when somebody is surprised.
12:43
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. I mean I know that. I'm guessing that
12:46
Speaker 1: Charlie's sister has her own suspicions about who committed this crime.
12:49
Speaker 1: So that's why she's got you specifically used the word betrayed,
12:53
Speaker 1: because she figured that Charlie was taken by surprise by
12:55
Speaker 1: someone he trusted and that's why he was killed. And this,
12:59
Speaker 1: I guess this is our first opportunity to talk about
13:02
Speaker 1: the possibility of his wife, Beth, being the perpetrator, because
13:06
Speaker 1: she has never been named as a suspect or or
13:08
Speaker 1: person of interest from law enforcement, but they have implied
13:11
Speaker 1: things because even though law enforcement has never said this themselves,
13:15
Speaker 1: I know that there are a lot of online sluics
13:17
Speaker 1: who have found some odd details about best story, about
13:20
Speaker 1: the way that she said that her husband went into
13:23
Speaker 1: the house while she remained in the car with a
13:25
Speaker 1: so called back injury. But they find it weird that
13:28
Speaker 1: she says that when she walked inside and discovered Charlie
13:30
Speaker 1: was dead, that she ran outside to the neighbors, even
13:34
Speaker 1: though she supposedly had an injury that made it very
13:36
Speaker 1: difficult for her to even walk up steps. And I
13:39
Speaker 1: know there are some conflicting details on there because Unsow mysteries.
13:43
Speaker 1: The way they did the reenactment make it look like
13:45
Speaker 1: Beth just instantly ran to the neighbors and didn't even
13:48
Speaker 1: check on her son, Michael to make sure that he
13:50
Speaker 1: was okay, which she would do if she's faking the
13:53
Speaker 1: whole thing and staging the whole thing. But I did
13:55
Speaker 1: read an old article in the Los Angeles Times that
13:58
Speaker 1: says that Beth did grab Michael from his bedroom before
14:01
Speaker 1: she ran out to the neighbors, So obviously she did
14:04
Speaker 1: that it looks less suspicious, But even if she forgot
14:07
Speaker 1: about him, it could be a thing where it was
14:09
Speaker 1: just such terror that she instantly felt she needed to
14:11
Speaker 1: get to the neighbors and forgot that her son was
14:13
Speaker 1: in bed.
14:15
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't want to read too much into
14:17
Speaker 2: this either, because we know trauma affects everybody differently, and
14:21
Speaker 2: we also have, like you said, people judging Beth based
14:24
Speaker 2: on a reenactment on unsolved mysteries, and then when you
14:28
Speaker 2: dive deeper into the research, you find out that, oh,
14:30
Speaker 2: that is likely inaccurate, that she did go and grab Michael,
14:35
Speaker 2: and if she did indeed have this back injury and
14:38
Speaker 2: she discovered that Charlie was dead. I think that it
14:44
Speaker 2: is in these situations not uncommon for people to feel
14:48
Speaker 2: a surge of adrenaline, especially if you think that you
14:51
Speaker 2: could be in danger or your child could still be
14:53
Speaker 2: in danger. So it would be possible in that moment
14:57
Speaker 2: that Beth may have found the strength to be able
15:00
Speaker 2: to run jog. I don't know what she did or
15:05
Speaker 2: did not do, but it's not aside the realm of
15:08
Speaker 2: comprehension for me that a mother and a wife in
15:12
Speaker 2: a similar situation would find strength where typically she would
15:17
Speaker 2: have none. Because it's a life or death situation, you
15:21
Speaker 2: hear of mothers lifting up full cars to free their children.
15:25
Speaker 2: So I don't know, running with a back injury, I
15:28
Speaker 2: think it's possible.
15:29
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've heard that I was thinking that same thing
15:31
Speaker 1: as well, that she could just get a surge of
15:33
Speaker 1: adrenaline just from the fear of the whole thing, and
15:35
Speaker 1: that it made her run to the next door neighbor,
15:38
Speaker 1: even though she ordinarily wouldn't have been able to do that.
15:41
Speaker 1: And that's kind of the thing with Beth is that
15:43
Speaker 1: she was also not interviewed on Unsolved Mysteries when it
15:46
Speaker 1: featured the case, which some people found unusual because a
15:48
Speaker 1: lot of the time, when someone is seeking justice for
15:51
Speaker 1: a murdered spouse or a murdered loved one, they often
15:54
Speaker 1: will appear on the true crime shows about it. But
15:57
Speaker 1: I can also understand her logic for not doing it
15:59
Speaker 1: because she wants to protect herself and her children, because
16:02
Speaker 1: she was technically there when the murder occurred, and she
16:05
Speaker 1: could feel that if I put my face on TV,
16:08
Speaker 1: my family could be in danger. So that's the big
16:11
Speaker 1: problem with kind of pointing at Beth as a potential suspect,
16:14
Speaker 1: is that we know nothing about the couple's background. I
16:17
Speaker 1: have not heard anything about them having any problems at
16:20
Speaker 1: that time. I haven't heard anything about her collecting an
16:23
Speaker 1: insurance policy any money from Charlie's death. So I know
16:26
Speaker 1: that she's r on suspicion because she's kind of stayed
16:29
Speaker 1: out of the spotlight and not spoken all that much
16:31
Speaker 1: with law enforcement or the media. But it's like I
16:34
Speaker 1: don't really feel comfortable pointing the finger at her without
16:36
Speaker 1: knowing like what motive she would have had to do this.
16:40
Speaker 2: It's almost like it's Beth is like tabula rossa. She's
16:45
Speaker 2: a blank slate or like a roorshot test where we
16:49
Speaker 2: can like superimpose or project our own ideas about what
16:53
Speaker 2: a typical wife in this situation would do, and then
16:57
Speaker 2: we put it on Beth and we have no other
16:59
Speaker 2: information about them or about their relationship dynamics specifically not
17:03
Speaker 2: at this point anyways. So it's easy if you are
17:07
Speaker 2: inherently suspicious, because statistically speaking, spouses are often involved when
17:12
Speaker 2: it comes to a murder, So it wouldn't be outside
17:15
Speaker 2: bounds of what would typically happen if we were to
17:18
Speaker 2: look at the statistics. So I think some suspicion death's way.
17:22
Speaker 2: I get it, But also what you're saying, is I
17:24
Speaker 2: understand why Beth wouldn't want to speak to the media.
17:27
Speaker 2: Why she might want to hold back and say that
17:30
Speaker 2: she suspected that the murderers still out there and could
17:34
Speaker 2: potentially target her. Maybe she had a suspected mind and
17:38
Speaker 2: she wanted to protect herself and protect Michael. I think
17:41
Speaker 2: that the instinct to protect what is left, especially after
17:44
Speaker 2: such a huge trauma and a huge loss, would be very,
17:48
Speaker 2: very strong. So I hesitate when it comes to judging
17:53
Speaker 2: Beth's actions, especially without more information.
17:57
Speaker 1: Exactly Like in a lot of the cases we discussed,
17:59
Speaker 1: where the spouse is under suspicion, we know so much
18:02
Speaker 1: about their background, their potential motive, and why they would
18:05
Speaker 1: want to do this. But here, she's married to what
18:07
Speaker 1: seems like a good man with a good job, and
18:09
Speaker 1: she has a five year old and eleven month old.
18:11
Speaker 1: So why would she want to leave herself a widow
18:13
Speaker 1: and watch two children on her own if there's no
18:16
Speaker 1: apparent motive for her to do this. So when the
18:19
Speaker 1: case was featured on Unsolved Mysteries, they focused on one
18:22
Speaker 1: particular lead. The day after Charlie's murder, a dispatcher at
18:26
Speaker 1: the Burbank police department received a phone call from a
18:30
Speaker 1: nervous founding man who claimed that he knew who was
18:32
Speaker 1: responsible for the murder of Charlie Anderson. The lead detective
18:36
Speaker 1: was someone to take the call, but the caller told
18:38
Speaker 1: him that he did not want the call to be
18:40
Speaker 1: traced or recorded. But since all incoming calls to dispatch
18:44
Speaker 1: were automatically recorded, the detective gave the caller his office
18:47
Speaker 1: number and assured him that this is a secure, unrecorded line,
18:51
Speaker 1: so if you have something you want to talk to
18:53
Speaker 1: me about, call me back in two minutes. So the
18:56
Speaker 1: detective went to his office, but of course the caller
18:58
Speaker 1: never called back. And what I find interesting is that
19:01
Speaker 1: this took place in nineteen eighty seven. The Unsolved Mysteries
19:04
Speaker 1: episode aired in nineteen ninety four. But they were putting
19:07
Speaker 1: so much focus on this one call. And I know
19:10
Speaker 1: that with every unsolved murder you're going to get a
19:12
Speaker 1: whole bunch of tips that turn out to be nothing,
19:14
Speaker 1: where a lot of people say that they know who
19:16
Speaker 1: did it, but then don't share the information. So it
19:19
Speaker 1: makes me wonder why they were so focused on this
19:21
Speaker 1: one seven years after the fact. I wonder if there
19:23
Speaker 1: was a detail they weren't revealing that maybe the caller
19:27
Speaker 1: revealed something about the crime which was not public knowledge
19:30
Speaker 1: to make them think that he legitimately had information. So
19:33
Speaker 1: when they put this on the TV on the show,
19:35
Speaker 1: they said, we want whoever made this call to call
19:37
Speaker 1: the Unsolved Mysteries Telecenter and get in touch again, but
19:40
Speaker 1: unfortunately he never did.
19:43
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that your instincts are probably correct. There
19:46
Speaker 2: must have been some type of holdback information that that
19:49
Speaker 2: caller revealed that they weren't going to then reveal because
19:53
Speaker 2: whomever is responsible for committing this crime would have had
19:57
Speaker 2: that information, and they want to verify that that person
20:00
Speaker 2: is indeed responsible by getting that person to disclose that information.
20:05
Speaker 2: So I think you probably nailed it with that in
20:09
Speaker 2: that there's more to this call than what they're letting
20:13
Speaker 2: on because, like you said, why would they focus on
20:16
Speaker 2: this one call and focus so intensely when there were
20:21
Speaker 2: other calls, there were other tips. Why was this one
20:25
Speaker 2: so believable or so valid Because they're not giving us
20:30
Speaker 2: any information to let us know why, So it has
20:33
Speaker 2: to be hold back.
20:34
Speaker 1: That's what I'm thinking. Yeah, and they were really hoping
20:36
Speaker 1: this guy was going to call back, because I think
20:38
Speaker 1: at that point they were at a major standstill. They
20:40
Speaker 1: didn't really have anywhere else to go, and we're figuring
20:43
Speaker 1: whatever was said during this call is the best chance
20:45
Speaker 1: we have at finally solving this one. So at Charlie's
20:49
Speaker 1: the investigation into Charlie's murder hit a standstill. But now
20:53
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about her second crime, which took
20:55
Speaker 1: place in Burbank on March the thirty first, nineteen eighty eight,
21:00
Speaker 1: fourteen months after Charlie's murder and four blocks away from
21:04
Speaker 1: the Anderson residents. The victim was a forty three year
21:07
Speaker 1: old woman named Carol Monte Calvo, and they found out
21:10
Speaker 1: about it when her forty six year old husband, Dan
21:12
Speaker 1: Monte Calvo, called nine to one one to say that
21:15
Speaker 1: they had both been shot by intruders inside their house,
21:19
Speaker 1: and when the police arrived at the scene, Dan came
21:21
Speaker 1: stumbling out because he had a gunshot wound in his
21:23
Speaker 1: lower back just above his right hip bone, and he
21:26
Speaker 1: soon received emergency surgery in which a twenty five caliber
21:30
Speaker 1: bullet was removed from his body near a small intestines.
21:33
Speaker 1: Because none of his vital organs were hit, there was
21:35
Speaker 1: very little bleeding, but Carol was killed instantly they found
21:39
Speaker 1: her inside the house. She had been shot twice in
21:41
Speaker 1: the neck with a thirty eight caliber weapon and was
21:44
Speaker 1: pronounced dead at the scene. So when Dan was questioned
21:47
Speaker 1: about what happened, his story is that Carol worked a
21:50
Speaker 1: job at Pacific Bell. Yellow Pages added one of sales
21:54
Speaker 1: contest in which the prize was an all expenses paid
21:57
Speaker 1: trip to Hawaii, and that they were planning to leave
22:00
Speaker 1: a day after her murder. So they had been packing
22:02
Speaker 1: the night before, but decided to go out for a
22:05
Speaker 1: late night walk through the neighborhood at around ten thirty pm,
22:08
Speaker 1: which sounds unusual, but apparently this was something that the
22:11
Speaker 1: couple liked to do together, and when they returned, Dan
22:15
Speaker 1: noticed that the expiration tag on Carol's car was going
22:18
Speaker 1: to expire at midnight and thought they should change it
22:21
Speaker 1: before they left for the airport. So when Dan removed
22:24
Speaker 1: the old tag, Carol went into the house to grab
22:26
Speaker 1: a new tag and a paper towel, but Dan said
22:29
Speaker 1: that he soon heard Carol say what are you doing here,
22:32
Speaker 1: followed by the sound of a gunshot, and when Dan
22:35
Speaker 1: ran inside, he claimed he was grabbed by a man
22:37
Speaker 1: with a mustache, and after they got into a struggle.
22:40
Speaker 1: This man shot Dan in the lower back and he
22:42
Speaker 1: fell to the floor, and he thought he heard a
22:44
Speaker 1: voice say, let's get out of here, followed by the
22:47
Speaker 1: sound of multiple people fleeing the house. But because Dan survived,
22:50
Speaker 1: he managed to go into the hallway to discover Carol's
22:53
Speaker 1: body and knelt down beside her once he realized she
22:56
Speaker 1: had been shot in the neck, and that's when he
22:58
Speaker 1: ran to the phone to call nine one.
23:00
Speaker 2: That is so horrific and to think just this little
23:04
Speaker 2: detail that their lives could have been so different. It's
23:07
Speaker 2: like a sliding doors moment where he notices that expired
23:11
Speaker 2: tag and Carol goes inside, and it was a fateful
23:16
Speaker 2: decision where her life was then ended because she confronted burglars.
23:21
Speaker 2: And it seems as though there had to have been
23:23
Speaker 2: multiple people. They saw the mustache man, but Dan heard
23:27
Speaker 2: multiple individuals running away. And I think that's a pretty
23:32
Speaker 2: unmistakable sound when you hear the footsteps of not just one,
23:36
Speaker 2: but like more than one person. So I can't imagine
23:39
Speaker 2: what he was feeling at that moment. Carol's been shot
23:42
Speaker 2: in the neck, She's killed instantly, He's shot wondering what
23:46
Speaker 2: is going on and calling nine to one one and
23:48
Speaker 2: trying to make heads and tails of it, and also
23:51
Speaker 2: trying to survive.
23:53
Speaker 1: Yes, as we're going to talk about, there's going to
23:55
Speaker 1: be a lot of debate about whether this version of
23:58
Speaker 1: events actually happened or of Dan completely fabricated the story.
24:01
Speaker 1: But at the outset it sounded pretty believable because when
24:05
Speaker 1: the police checked inside the house, they found that there
24:08
Speaker 1: was a slit in the house's screen door, and he
24:11
Speaker 1: filing cabinet had been jimmy open, and ordinarily there was
24:14
Speaker 1: a cash box inside, but it had been ripped open
24:17
Speaker 1: as well, and Dan claimed that it contained eight hundred
24:20
Speaker 1: dollars which Carol had saved up for their trip to
24:22
Speaker 1: Hawaii and was now missing. So on the surface, it
24:26
Speaker 1: appeared that while they went out for their walk, someone
24:28
Speaker 1: used this opportunity to break into the house and were
24:31
Speaker 1: in the middle of a burglary when Carol walked inside
24:34
Speaker 1: and was killed. They did find the registration papers for
24:37
Speaker 1: Carol's car and a paper towel in her hand, which
24:40
Speaker 1: seemed to support Dan's story about changing the registration tags.
24:44
Speaker 1: They also found fingerprints and partial footprints on the kitchen floor,
24:47
Speaker 1: which did not match Dan or Carol. I know. Some
24:50
Speaker 1: neighbors also said that they heard what sounded like people
24:53
Speaker 1: running away from the residents, and one neighbor even reported
24:56
Speaker 1: that the latter in his backyard had been knocked over.
24:59
Speaker 1: They also said the house and failed to turn up
25:01
Speaker 1: any trace of a thirty eight that was used to
25:03
Speaker 1: shoot Carol or the twenty five that was used to
25:06
Speaker 1: shoot Dan, And when Dan's hands were tested for gunshot resnued,
25:09
Speaker 1: the results came back negative. So I'm sure you're thinking
25:12
Speaker 1: right now, how can they possibly think this guy was responsible?
25:17
Speaker 2: Well, I think if they were looking at his injury
25:20
Speaker 2: and the odd probably trajectory of the gun, and the
25:24
Speaker 2: fact that if these burglars were very serious and they
25:27
Speaker 2: were serious enough to shoot him that did they just
25:31
Speaker 2: want him to be injured enough so that he couldn't
25:34
Speaker 2: chase after them, or did they not want to be identified.
25:38
Speaker 2: So it's very lucky that he got shot in the
25:41
Speaker 2: lower back and it was close to the small intestine,
25:43
Speaker 2: but no vital organs were hit. Was it luck or
25:47
Speaker 2: was that by design? And then for Carol to be
25:51
Speaker 2: shot in the neck, it seems like two very different objectives.
25:55
Speaker 2: Seems like you're trying to kill Carol, because you shoot
25:58
Speaker 2: somebody in the neck, chances of you getting an artery
26:02
Speaker 2: are pretty high and that person will bleed out. Whereas
26:07
Speaker 2: you're going to shoot the other individual, the person who
26:10
Speaker 2: would be more dangerous to you or have more of
26:12
Speaker 2: a chance to get up and then pursue you the
26:16
Speaker 2: man than in this case, you're going to shoot him
26:19
Speaker 2: in the lower back and then not shoot him again
26:21
Speaker 2: in the chest, neck, or head. So I could see
26:25
Speaker 2: why law enforcement would side eye this.
26:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, because the detail about him being shot in the
26:31
Speaker 1: back is very unusual. Because when I first heard about
26:34
Speaker 1: this case, I think, how could they think that this
26:36
Speaker 1: guy staged it himself, Because I've seen multiple cases where
26:40
Speaker 1: people have killed their spouse and then decided to stage
26:43
Speaker 1: things by shooting themselves or inflicting a wound to make
26:45
Speaker 1: it look like they were attacked by an intruder and survived.
26:49
Speaker 1: But this is the only case I can think of
26:50
Speaker 1: where a victim has been accused of shooting themselves in
26:54
Speaker 1: the lower back, and that just seems like an insanely
26:56
Speaker 1: dangerous thing to do, where even if you survive, you
26:59
Speaker 1: could want up paralyzed. So I was thinking that would
27:03
Speaker 1: someone really have the wherewithal to like put a gun
27:05
Speaker 1: to their back and shoot themselves to make it look
27:08
Speaker 1: like they were shot by an intruder. But as we're
27:10
Speaker 1: going to find out, Dan Monte Calvil did not sound
27:12
Speaker 1: like a very bright guy, so he could be someone
27:15
Speaker 1: who would be stupid enough to try to put a
27:17
Speaker 1: gunshot wound to his back and was just very lucky
27:20
Speaker 1: that he didn't cause like a fatal wound or wound
27:22
Speaker 1: up paralyzing himself. So the Burbank PD initially couldnot overlook
27:27
Speaker 1: the similarities between this crime and the murder of Charlie
27:30
Speaker 1: Anderson because it had taken place only a few blocks away.
27:34
Speaker 1: But even though they thought that the cases might be connected,
27:37
Speaker 1: ironically enough, it was the Charlie Anderson case which first
27:40
Speaker 1: caused them to become suspicious of Dan because a police
27:43
Speaker 1: sergeant who was friends with them came forward and claimed
27:46
Speaker 1: that in the previous year they had gone out drinking
27:49
Speaker 1: a few times together, and Dan started asking him questions
27:52
Speaker 1: about the Charlie Anderson murder and seemed interested in learning
27:56
Speaker 1: specific details about how the crime was carried out, So
27:59
Speaker 1: they started thinking that maybe he decided to kill his
28:02
Speaker 1: wife and stage it to kind of look like the
28:05
Speaker 1: Charlie Anderson murder because he wanted the police to believe
28:08
Speaker 1: that the same perpetrator was responsible for both crimes. And
28:12
Speaker 1: then they started thinking about the odd discrepancies in this case,
28:15
Speaker 1: such as the fact that Carol's purse was left out
28:17
Speaker 1: in the open, untouched, even though there was supposedly a
28:20
Speaker 1: burglary taking place. And they also found it odd that
28:22
Speaker 1: they would have chosen to even hit the Monte Calvo
28:25
Speaker 1: residents because when Dan and Carol went out for their walk,
28:28
Speaker 1: they left the lights on and both their cars were
28:31
Speaker 1: still parked in the driveway. So, if you're a burglar
28:33
Speaker 1: and you're going through the neighborhood, are you really going
28:35
Speaker 1: to hit this house because you're probably going to be
28:38
Speaker 1: under the impression there are people still at home.
28:41
Speaker 2: Yeah, that seems pretty suspect. And I also have to wonder,
28:45
Speaker 2: and I wonder this with Charlie as well, with either couple.
28:50
Speaker 2: So was their life insurance on either Charlie or Carol?
28:55
Speaker 2: And is it possible that Beth or Dan even not together,
29:01
Speaker 2: but that either of them was having an affair.
29:05
Speaker 1: It sounds like Dan he had cheated on Carol throughout
29:08
Speaker 1: the course of the marriage, though I don't believe he
29:10
Speaker 1: was having an affair at this time. And yes, Carol
29:13
Speaker 1: did have a life insurance policy that he profited on,
29:15
Speaker 1: but unfortunately we don't have any of that information about Beth,
29:18
Speaker 1: whether she was having an affair or if Charlie had
29:21
Speaker 1: any life insurance policies. So investigators finally decided to start
29:26
Speaker 1: delving into Dan's background, and surprise, surprise, they found out
29:29
Speaker 1: that he was a pretty shady character who had a
29:32
Speaker 1: criminal history and had done time in prison and had
29:35
Speaker 1: actually met Carol while he was serving time in prison
29:38
Speaker 1: for bank robbery at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin.
29:42
Speaker 1: And believe it or not, the reason he wound up
29:44
Speaker 1: being caught is because he went to rob a bank.
29:46
Speaker 1: He gave the note to a teller which says I
29:49
Speaker 1: have a gun, hand over all the money, and then
29:51
Speaker 1: he left it to behind the scene, even though it
29:53
Speaker 1: was a deposit slip which had his name, address and
29:55
Speaker 1: phone number on the back. So that's why he was caught.
30:00
Speaker 2: Wo like world's dumbest criminals. That is quite the move there.
30:05
Speaker 2: But I have to wonder too, like if you have
30:08
Speaker 2: spent time in prison, you're a bank robber. He said
30:11
Speaker 2: that he went out at these for these walks with
30:14
Speaker 2: Carol around like ten thirty. It's possible that he could
30:17
Speaker 2: have just hired some of his friends to go in
30:19
Speaker 2: and stage a burglary, and he could have ended Carroll's
30:23
Speaker 2: life himself and done the shooting so as not to
30:26
Speaker 2: end up having to complicate it too much or end
30:28
Speaker 2: up having to pay too much money to anyone else.
30:31
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a scenario we'll talk about later, because I
30:34
Speaker 1: do think there is evidence to suggest that other people
30:36
Speaker 1: were in the house that night, even though there is
30:39
Speaker 1: some evidence implicating Dan. And I think though that, like
30:42
Speaker 1: if that gunshot wound was staged, I have a feeling
30:45
Speaker 1: that Dan probably didn't fire it himself, that he might
30:47
Speaker 1: have just asked an accomplice to fire a shot into
30:50
Speaker 1: his back, because, like I said, they found no gunshot
30:53
Speaker 1: residue on his hands, and they didn't find any guns
30:55
Speaker 1: inside the house. So this whole scenario about Dan and
30:59
Speaker 1: Carol meeting while he was in prison might ring a
31:01
Speaker 1: bell for you. Do you remember a couple months ago
31:03
Speaker 1: when we did an episode on the murder of k Hall,
31:06
Speaker 1: who met her husband Bob Hall while he was serving
31:08
Speaker 1: time in prison for drug charges.
31:11
Speaker 2: Oh yes, I remember that case.
31:13
Speaker 1: And yeah, this one has a number of similarities because
31:15
Speaker 1: she was involved with a church group in a prison
31:18
Speaker 1: ministry program and she found herself corresponding with Dan while
31:22
Speaker 1: he was incarcerated, and they became pen pals and then
31:25
Speaker 1: wound up falling in love and they actually got married
31:28
Speaker 1: while Dan was still in prison in the prison chapel
31:31
Speaker 1: in nineteen eighty and it sounded like he convinced the
31:34
Speaker 1: parole board that he had sincerely embraced religion and was
31:38
Speaker 1: going to be like a new man once he got
31:40
Speaker 1: out of prison with his new wife, because they actually
31:43
Speaker 1: gave him his parole only three weeks after the wedding,
31:46
Speaker 1: and that's when he moved to Burbank with Carol. But
31:49
Speaker 1: the marriage started going downhill because he had issues with
31:52
Speaker 1: a bleeding ulcer which prevented him from being able to
31:54
Speaker 1: work and he was forced to go on disability, so
31:57
Speaker 1: he became very depressed, developed drinking proper prob and as
32:00
Speaker 1: well as a serious gambling addiction, and he constantly cheated
32:04
Speaker 1: on Carol with other women and at the time Carol
32:07
Speaker 1: was murdered Dan's gambling issues had escalated into him racking
32:11
Speaker 1: up around sixty seven thousand dollars in debts at multiple
32:14
Speaker 1: casinos in Las Vegas. And what was hilarious is that
32:17
Speaker 1: apparently he was solo on money that he convinced a
32:20
Speaker 1: wealthy high roller to give him money to gamble on
32:25
Speaker 1: his behalf. I think Dan conn this person into believing
32:27
Speaker 1: that I'm an expert gamble and if you give me
32:29
Speaker 1: your money, you'll wind up getting like a lot much
32:33
Speaker 1: more money that I'll win for you, but then you
32:35
Speaker 1: wind up losing it all. So he not only owned
32:37
Speaker 1: money to the casinos, but he owed it to this
32:39
Speaker 1: rich guy as well.
32:41
Speaker 2: Wow, poor Carol. She meets this guy and I'm sure
32:44
Speaker 2: she thinks life is going to be great, that he's changed,
32:47
Speaker 2: he's found religion, he gets out of prison. The man
32:51
Speaker 2: has a bleeding ulcer. So, like, what is the best
32:53
Speaker 2: thing you could do when you have a bleeding ulcer
32:55
Speaker 2: is develop an alcohol used disorder and then also a
32:59
Speaker 2: gambling addiction and where you run up a tab with
33:02
Speaker 2: probably some dangerous people if you're dealing with Las Vegas
33:06
Speaker 2: and you're cheating on her non stop. So like, this
33:11
Speaker 2: man is just take take taking from Carol. I can't
33:15
Speaker 2: imagine the level of frustration that she must have been experiencing,
33:19
Speaker 2: Like she must have just wanted him to be gone,
33:21
Speaker 2: because I can't imagine what would be good in that
33:24
Speaker 2: relationship when you can't trust him on any level. And
33:29
Speaker 2: I would think that it could feel like things are
33:33
Speaker 2: getting to a desperate place for Dan. If he owed
33:36
Speaker 2: people in Vegas money like that is the type of
33:38
Speaker 2: money back then that like they would maybe more than
33:41
Speaker 2: break your legs over, It could be something where they
33:44
Speaker 2: could end his life. And if he thought that he
33:47
Speaker 2: could somehow get his hands on a life insurance policy
33:50
Speaker 2: for Carol, then maybe he could erase his debts.
33:54
Speaker 1: Yeah, because at this point the casinos had set Dan
33:57
Speaker 1: up on a repayment plan where he only had to
33:59
Speaker 1: pay a little bit of this time, but apparently at
34:01
Speaker 1: this point they started pressuring him to speed his payments up.
34:04
Speaker 1: And he didn't have a job, he didn't have any income,
34:06
Speaker 1: and Carol was only making so much money. So I
34:09
Speaker 1: could definitely see him being desperate enough to try to
34:12
Speaker 1: kill his wife if he thought he could cash in
34:14
Speaker 1: on her death. And it did turn out that she
34:16
Speaker 1: had taken out numerous life insurance policies, totally over six
34:20
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars, though to be fair, that had been
34:22
Speaker 1: Carol's idea, but I'm sure Dan was more than happy
34:25
Speaker 1: to take advantage of it, and the police would also
34:29
Speaker 1: learn that two acquaintances of Dance had some disturbing stories
34:32
Speaker 1: to share. One of them was a friend of his
34:35
Speaker 1: who said that one night he was hanging out with
34:37
Speaker 1: Dan in a bar and had been complaining about problems
34:40
Speaker 1: he was having with his wife when Dan suddenly proposed
34:42
Speaker 1: the idea of hiring him to kill his wife and
34:46
Speaker 1: splitting the insurance money after he collected it. And also
34:50
Speaker 1: a former cellmate of Dance who had served time with
34:52
Speaker 1: them at the Oxford Prison came forward and said that
34:55
Speaker 1: years earlier, Dan had once shared a potential scenario where
34:59
Speaker 1: he said, one of these I'm going to marry a
35:01
Speaker 1: shy woman after I'm released from prison, insure for a
35:04
Speaker 1: lot of money, and then kill her, And sounds exactly
35:07
Speaker 1: what happened, because Carol was described as a very nice,
35:10
Speaker 1: good hearted person, but also a very naive one who
35:13
Speaker 1: was probably susceptible to con artists, and I think probably
35:16
Speaker 1: fit to Dan's m that if you wanted to marry
35:19
Speaker 1: someone for her money and then kill her for it,
35:21
Speaker 1: Carol would be an ideal target.
35:24
Speaker 2: Okay, And here's the question. You said that it was
35:26
Speaker 2: Carol's idea to get this insurance on her. How do
35:30
Speaker 2: we know that.
35:31
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know if they actually looked into that.
35:33
Speaker 1: Maybe like she was the one who actually went to
35:36
Speaker 1: the insurance place and purchased the policies because Dan had
35:40
Speaker 1: no money. But how do we know that Dan didn't
35:42
Speaker 1: convince her to do that privately?
35:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can't convince me that Dan wasn't the one
35:49
Speaker 2: who was driving this idea that like, you need to
35:52
Speaker 2: be insured for this amount of money. Because with what
35:55
Speaker 2: Carol was making, I don't think like a six hundred
35:57
Speaker 2: thousand dollars insurance policy in the A eight that would
36:01
Speaker 2: be like double that now, like one point two million,
36:04
Speaker 2: like that would be a fairly expensive insurance policy. And
36:07
Speaker 2: so why so much? I mean, if it was like
36:10
Speaker 2: two hundred thousand, I wouldn't really bat an eye. But
36:14
Speaker 2: that is a lot of money. You know, she isn't
36:16
Speaker 2: like a CEO or like a president of a bank
36:19
Speaker 2: or something like that where she's bringing in huge amounts
36:21
Speaker 2: of money, and then if she died that he would,
36:24
Speaker 2: you know, need to have certain amounts to settle the
36:27
Speaker 2: affairs and to live for X amount of years or whatever.
36:31
Speaker 2: So it does make me raise an eyebrow at the amount,
36:35
Speaker 2: and I have a hard time believing that Dan had
36:37
Speaker 2: nothing to do with it, especially when we factor in
36:41
Speaker 2: that he talks to his cellmate about marrying a shy
36:44
Speaker 2: woman and insuring her for a bunch of money. It
36:47
Speaker 2: isn't a coincidence that Carol had all that insurance.
36:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I know, it's jailhouse informants. You sometimes
36:53
Speaker 1: have to take them with a grain of salt because
36:54
Speaker 1: they will sometimes like give false stories to help their
36:57
Speaker 1: own legal situation. But Dan had been incarcerat with this
37:00
Speaker 1: person like eight nine years earlier, and he's coming for
37:03
Speaker 1: her with this story, and I have a feeling he
37:05
Speaker 1: wasn't still in prison, so there's no reason for him
37:07
Speaker 1: to lie about it. And here's the physical evidence which
37:11
Speaker 1: made Dan look really bad because they checked his pants
37:14
Speaker 1: and found that he had about fifty tiny circular spots
37:17
Speaker 1: of Carol's blood on it on the lower pant legs,
37:20
Speaker 1: and the expert concluded that this spatter only would have
37:23
Speaker 1: occurred if Dan was a few feet away from Carol
37:25
Speaker 1: when she was shot, even though his story was he
37:28
Speaker 1: heard the gun shot while he was outside checking the
37:30
Speaker 1: registration tag on the license plate, so he should not
37:34
Speaker 1: have been present according to his own story when she
37:36
Speaker 1: was shot. Dan's excuse is that because he kneeled down
37:40
Speaker 1: next to Carroll's body while she was bleeding and checked her,
37:42
Speaker 1: that's how the blood probably got in her pants. But
37:45
Speaker 1: if that was the case, it would have been a
37:46
Speaker 1: pool of blood where you would have had like large
37:49
Speaker 1: spots on there and smears. You wouldn't have had like
37:52
Speaker 1: tiny circular spots that look like blood spatter. So this
37:55
Speaker 1: really did look like he was present at the time
37:58
Speaker 1: Carol was shot.
38:00
Speaker 2: This reminds me of the Kathleen Peterson Michael Peterson staircase
38:05
Speaker 2: where he had those microscopic, like not even microscopic, just
38:09
Speaker 2: like teeny tiny pin head spots of what appeared to
38:13
Speaker 2: be blood spatter on his shorts and it was like,
38:15
Speaker 2: how did that get there? So there doesn't seem to
38:19
Speaker 2: be a lot of explanations for how it could have
38:22
Speaker 2: got there, unless say, somebody has the blood spatter and
38:27
Speaker 2: it's closer to they're trying to resuscitate somebody or they're
38:30
Speaker 2: comforting them in those last moments where they're dying, and
38:34
Speaker 2: if they've been shot in the chest or something and
38:36
Speaker 2: they're spitting up blood like that is a scenario where
38:39
Speaker 2: you could see a potential where if your face is
38:42
Speaker 2: close to theirs, you could end up with blood spatter
38:44
Speaker 2: on your upper area because they're spitting up blood. There
38:48
Speaker 2: could be tiny droplets of blood. But the difference I
38:52
Speaker 2: think in those scenarios would be is it would be
38:54
Speaker 2: mixed with saliva. Yeah, exactly, so they would probably be
38:58
Speaker 2: able to tell the difference, whereas this blood likely wasn't
39:02
Speaker 2: mixed with saliva. And I don't think that the explanation
39:06
Speaker 2: that Dan is giving is sufficient.
39:08
Speaker 1: Yeah, And like I said, this case was featured on
39:11
Speaker 1: the Unsolved Mysteries spinoff series Final Appeal from the Files
39:15
Speaker 1: of Unsolved Mysteries, and he conveniently didn't mention this piece
39:18
Speaker 1: of evidence. So while watching and you're thinking, maybe this
39:21
Speaker 1: guy was wrongly convicted. And it was only after doing
39:23
Speaker 1: further research when I learned this detail. So I'm thinking
39:27
Speaker 1: hm unsaw Mysteries leading out key information to add more
39:30
Speaker 1: mystery to the story. Where have I seen that before?
39:33
Speaker 2: Not unsolved mysteries. They would never, No, never.
39:35
Speaker 1: They would never do something like that. So Dan was
39:39
Speaker 1: pretty much his own worst enemy because even though they
39:41
Speaker 1: had a compelling, circumstantial case against them, the police still
39:45
Speaker 1: felt that they lacked the evidence to make an arrest.
39:47
Speaker 1: But Dan kept antagonizing them because he got really angry
39:51
Speaker 1: that they were investigating him and following them. So his
39:54
Speaker 1: next step was to piss them off even more by
39:56
Speaker 1: filing a wrong andful death lawsuit against the Birdbank Police depart,
40:00
Speaker 1: claiming that they negligently allowed Carol to bleed to death
40:04
Speaker 1: and could have saved her if they'd responded more quickly.
40:06
Speaker 1: So he's completely blaming them for her dying, even though
40:10
Speaker 1: he is the prime suspect. So yeah, that's not going
40:12
Speaker 1: to motivate them to arrest you even more.
40:15
Speaker 2: Yeah, that pretty much checks out, though, Like it just
40:18
Speaker 2: seems like he's going to blame everybody else and he
40:21
Speaker 2: wants to do whatever he can to direct attention elsewhere
40:26
Speaker 2: because it's not looking good for him. I mean, like
40:30
Speaker 2: you said earlier, the one thing that he had going
40:32
Speaker 2: for him was the fact that it seems very likely,
40:36
Speaker 2: given the evidence given the like ear witness testimony that
40:41
Speaker 2: sounded like there was people running away from the home.
40:43
Speaker 2: There was footprints in the home that were neither Dan
40:48
Speaker 2: nor Carrol's shoes. There obviously was other people there, but
40:51
Speaker 2: Dan is looking so suspicious. So at this point, it's
40:56
Speaker 2: like he's just going to throw like a hail Mary
40:59
Speaker 2: and he's going to try to get attention onto the
41:02
Speaker 2: police department. Hey, they might have had something to do
41:05
Speaker 2: with it. Better look over there.
41:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. So if he had just moved away and
41:11
Speaker 1: kept his mouth shut, he might have been able to
41:12
Speaker 1: get away with it. But he needed another stupid mistake, surprise, surprise,
41:16
Speaker 1: which eventually led to his downfall, because he was pulled
41:19
Speaker 1: over for a DUI and attempted to flee the scene
41:22
Speaker 1: on foot, and when he was arrested, police found that
41:25
Speaker 1: he was carrying a handgun, which he was not supposed
41:27
Speaker 1: to be caring since he was a convicted felon. So
41:30
Speaker 1: that was enough for them to put him under arrest
41:32
Speaker 1: and put him in jail. And that also was a
41:35
Speaker 1: big opening for them because he had since moved out
41:37
Speaker 1: of his old house and somehow had found a new girlfriend.
41:41
Speaker 1: The charming guy that he was and had placed a
41:43
Speaker 1: number of his items in his storage unit, and because
41:46
Speaker 1: he was being held in jail on the weapons charge,
41:48
Speaker 1: they decided to take advantage of the situation by searching
41:51
Speaker 1: the unit and found a number of incriminating items, including
41:54
Speaker 1: some ammunition, some surgical gloves, and most interestingly, hollowed out
42:00
Speaker 1: with a secret compartment. This is pretty crazy. It just
42:03
Speaker 1: feels like something from a murder mystery here because I
42:06
Speaker 1: often see them in works of fiction, but this is
42:09
Speaker 1: one of the only cases I know of in real
42:11
Speaker 1: life where someone has had a halo it out book
42:13
Speaker 1: and when they looked at it, they realize this is
42:15
Speaker 1: large enough to conceal both a thirty eight and a
42:18
Speaker 1: twenty five caliber gun. And that was one of their
42:21
Speaker 1: biggest obstacles is that they could not find the murder weapon.
42:24
Speaker 1: They searched all over the house and thought, if Dan
42:26
Speaker 1: did this, how could he have gotten rid of these guns?
42:29
Speaker 1: But suddenly a light bulb went over their head, saying,
42:31
Speaker 1: if he put it inside this HaLow out book put
42:34
Speaker 1: it on the shelf, then no one is going to
42:36
Speaker 1: search that. And then after he recovered and left the hospital,
42:40
Speaker 1: he got rid of the guns and then put the
42:42
Speaker 1: book in the storage units. So this was pretty much
42:44
Speaker 1: their big ah hal moment where they said, well, we
42:46
Speaker 1: can't find the murder weapon, but we think we can
42:49
Speaker 1: use this as proof that he had guns in his
42:51
Speaker 1: house at some point. That about brings an in to
42:54
Speaker 1: part one of our series about the murders of Charlie
42:56
Speaker 1: Anderson and Carol Monte Calvo. Join us next week for
42:59
Speaker 1: part two.
43:01
Speaker 3: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
43:02
Speaker 3: about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
43:04
Speaker 1: Yes, The Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
43:07
Speaker 1: years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
43:11
Speaker 1: early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
43:14
Speaker 1: and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
43:17
Speaker 1: with us on Patreon. If you join our five dollars
43:20
Speaker 1: tier Tier two, we also offer monthly bonus episodes in
43:24
Speaker 1: which I talk about cases which are not featured on
43:27
Speaker 1: the Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon,
43:30
Speaker 1: and if you join our highest tier tier three, the
43:33
Speaker 1: ten dollar tier. One of the features we offer is
43:36
Speaker 1: a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsaved Mysteries,
43:41
Speaker 1: where you can download an audio file and then boot
43:44
Speaker 1: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
43:47
Speaker 1: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
43:50
Speaker 1: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
43:53
Speaker 1: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
43:57
Speaker 1: first episode that I did a commentary track over was
44:00
Speaker 1: the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
44:03
Speaker 1: download a commentary track at which I make more smart
44:05
Speaker 1: ass remarks about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join
44:08
Speaker 1: Tier three.
44:09
Speaker 3: So I want to let you know a little bit
44:11
Speaker 3: about the Jeweles and Nashty patreons. So there's early ad
44:14
Speaker 3: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
44:17
Speaker 3: Pathwent Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so
44:20
Speaker 3: they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
44:22
Speaker 3: turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those.
44:25
Speaker 3: So we hope you'll check out those patreons.
44:27
Speaker 2: We'll link them in the show notes.
44:29
Speaker 1: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
44:31
Speaker 1: any chance you have to share us on social media
44:34
Speaker 1: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly
44:36
Speaker 1: appreciate it. You can email us at The Pathwent Chili
44:38
Speaker 1: at gmail dot com. You can reach us on Twitter
44:41
Speaker 1: at the Pathwin. So until next time, be sure to
44:44
Speaker 1: bundle up, because cold trails and chili pass call for
44:47
Speaker 1: warm clothing.
44:48
Speaker 2: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy