Latest / Kat Has Questions: True Crime and Unsolved Mysteries / The Candy Man: Ronald O’Bryan and the Halloween Candy Panic

Transcript

The Candy Man: Ronald O’Bryan and the Halloween Candy Panic · Kat Has Questions: True Crime and Unsolved Mysteries

0:07
Speaker 1: Welcome to Kat Has Questions. Curiosity, stories, and the strange
0:12
Speaker 1: corners of everyday life. Hello, hello. I'm Kat. And welcome
0:22
Speaker 1: back to Kat Has Questions. Okay, so today's episode is
0:26
Speaker 1: airing just a few days before Halloween. So today we're
0:30
Speaker 1: talking about The Candyman. But I have to ask a question.
0:34
Speaker 1: So before you could eat your Halloween candy, did somebody
0:38
Speaker 1: have to check it for you? Maybe you dumped your
0:41
Speaker 1: bag onto the kitchen table. Your parents spread everything out,
0:44
Speaker 1: looking for torn wrappers, anything homemade, anything that seemed a
0:49
Speaker 1: little off. And you stood there, still wearing half your costume,
0:54
Speaker 1: waiting for permission to eat a mini Snickers. For some
0:57
Speaker 1: of us, that inspection was as much a part of
1:00
Speaker 1: Halloween as carving a pumpkin. You went out you collected candy,
1:05
Speaker 1: you came home, an adult examined the evidence. But if
1:09
Speaker 1: you asked what everyone was looking for, the answer might
1:12
Speaker 1: have been something like, you never know what somebody could
1:15
Speaker 1: put in there, a needle, a razor blade, poison. Sometimes
1:20
Speaker 1: there was a story attached. A little boy in Texas
1:23
Speaker 1: had gone trick-or-treating, he came home, ate some candy, and died.
1:28
Speaker 1: But that part was true. His name was Timothy O'Brien.
1:32
Speaker 1: He was eight years old And on Halloween night in 1974,
1:37
Speaker 1: he died after eating candy contaminated with cyanide. But the
1:42
Speaker 1: detail that changes the entire story is the one that
1:45
Speaker 1: can disappear when it gets passed along as a warning.
1:48
Speaker 1: The person convicted of poisoning Timothy wasn't a stranger handing
1:52
Speaker 1: out treats. So today we're talking about Ronald Clark O'Brien,
1:58
Speaker 1: often called the Candyman. and how a real murder became
2:01
Speaker 1: tangled up with one of the most persistent Halloween legends.
2:06
Speaker 1: A quick content note, this episode does involve the death
2:09
Speaker 1: of a child and the deliberate endangerment of other children.
2:14
Speaker 1: And before we begin, this is not an episode about
2:17
Speaker 1: why you should cancel trick-or-treating. It's about what actually happened
2:21
Speaker 1: in a case many people remember only as a frightening sentence.
2:25
Speaker 1: A child died after eating Halloween candy. The full story, though,
2:29
Speaker 1: explains why that sentence by itself can be misleading. It
2:34
Speaker 1: also helps answer a question, how did checking candy become
2:37
Speaker 1: such a familiar part of the holiday? There isn't one
2:41
Speaker 1: event that explains every family's tradition. The warnings existed before
2:45
Speaker 1: Timothy died. This crime, though, gave people a real tragedy
2:50
Speaker 1: they could attach to an existing fear. To follow that connection,
2:55
Speaker 1: we need to understand both the murder and the story
2:58
Speaker 1: already circulating around it. So before we arrive in Texas
3:02
Speaker 1: in 1974, let's briefly rewind to an earlier version of Halloween.
3:08
Speaker 1: So the candy-filled holiday we recognize today didn't emerge fully formed.
3:14
Speaker 1: In an interview with Smithsonian, candy historian, which also, how
3:18
Speaker 1: do you get that job? Samira Kawash described how door-to-door
3:22
Speaker 1: treats once included a much wider assortment. Homemade cookies, cake, nuts, coins,
3:29
Speaker 1: and small toys. Packaged candy became increasingly prominent during the
3:34
Speaker 1: middle of the 20th century. Advertising helped, and so did convenience.
3:39
Speaker 1: A bag of individually portioned sweets was easier to distribute
3:43
Speaker 1: than something you had to bake and wrap yourself. By
3:47
Speaker 1: the 1970s, suspicion of homemade treats was helping make factory-sealed
3:52
Speaker 1: candy seem like an acceptable choice. And that's a useful
3:55
Speaker 1: piece of this history. The wrapper became associated with trust.
4:00
Speaker 1: The fear wasn't simply about sweets. It was about whose
4:03
Speaker 1: hands the sweets had passed through. And you can picture
4:08
Speaker 1: how that would change a conversation at the kitchen table.
4:12
Speaker 1: A recognizable chocolate bar looks familiar. An unmarked bag of
4:15
Speaker 1: homemade cookies looks raised questions. The way people judged a
4:20
Speaker 1: treat could depend on its packaging before anyone knew anything
4:23
Speaker 1: about the person who supplied it. And some earlier incidents
4:27
Speaker 1: gave those worries something concrete to attach to. So in 1964,
4:32
Speaker 1: so this was about 10 years before Timothy's death, a
4:36
Speaker 1: Long Island woman named Helen Fjell handed out packages containing
4:40
Speaker 1: inedible items, including dog biscuits, steel wool, and ant poison.
4:47
Speaker 1: She said she was targeting trick-or-treaters she considered too old
4:51
Speaker 1: and presented what she had done as a joke. The
4:54
Speaker 1: poison was labeled and no one was reported injured, but
4:59
Speaker 1: she was prosecuted with child endangerment, which you should have
5:02
Speaker 1: been if you're giving literally children rat poison. So this
5:06
Speaker 1: was a real reckless incident. It also differed from the
5:10
Speaker 1: image of someone secretly poisoning ordinary candy to just murder
5:14
Speaker 1: random children, although that doesn't make it better, I don't think.
5:17
Speaker 1: It doesn't make it okay. But by the 1970s, warnings
5:22
Speaker 1: about dangerous treats were appearing in major newspapers. A New
5:26
Speaker 1: York Times article discussed possible tampering, including sharp objects and drugs.
5:31
Speaker 1: So the idea was already available. Somewhere, someone might use
5:36
Speaker 1: Halloween generosity as a disguise for harm. Four years later,
5:40
Speaker 1: an eight-year-old boy would die in Texas, and the first
5:44
Speaker 1: explanation would sound terribly familiar. In 1974, Ronald Clark O'Brien
5:50
Speaker 1: lived with his wife, Danini, and their children, Timothy and Elizabeth,
5:54
Speaker 1: in Deer Park, outside of Houston. Timothy was eight, Elizabeth
5:59
Speaker 1: was five. Ronald worked as an optician at Texas State Optical.
6:05
Speaker 1: Earlier in his career, he worked in insurance. and also
6:09
Speaker 1: for a chemical company. Those details would later connect to
6:14
Speaker 1: different parts of the investigation, but at the time, his
6:17
Speaker 1: immediate problem was money. The family was renting a townhouse,
6:22
Speaker 1: and Ronald's take-home pay was about $ 150 a week, and
6:28
Speaker 1: basic expenses consumed almost all of it. Before moving there,
6:32
Speaker 1: he had sold the family home and used roughly $ 6, 000
6:35
Speaker 1: in proceeds to to cover pressing obligations, and it hadn't
6:39
Speaker 1: resolved everything. He still owed about $ 2, 000 on a delinquent
6:44
Speaker 1: loan and another $ 800 to the government. Keep in mind,
6:48
Speaker 1: this was the 70s, so with inflation, that would be more,
6:53
Speaker 1: but still. His car payment was eight months overdue, and
6:58
Speaker 1: he had received a repossession warning. He tried to borrow money.
7:02
Speaker 1: He had an application for a loan that was rejected.
7:06
Speaker 1: he also asked an associate to lend him $ 100. So
7:09
Speaker 1: he definitely had some financial pressure that he was feeling
7:13
Speaker 1: that was real and documented. But debt alone does not
7:17
Speaker 1: explain a murder. Plenty of families face overdue bills without
7:21
Speaker 1: anyone deciding a child's death could solve the problem. What
7:26
Speaker 1: made Ronald's situation relevant was what he was doing at
7:29
Speaker 1: the same time. He was purchasing life insurance on his children.
7:36
Speaker 1: In January, he joined a bank program called the New
7:40
Speaker 1: Outlooks Club. It included life insurance paid through small automatic withdrawals.
7:46
Speaker 1: The court's account describes $ 10, 000 in coverage for each family
7:50
Speaker 1: member under that arrangement. Okay, so I also just did
7:55
Speaker 1: a conversion. So these life insurance policies were $ 10, 000 or
8:00
Speaker 1: this account. And so for a $ 10, 000 account in 1974,
8:07
Speaker 1: that would be equivalent to about $ 68, 000 today. Danini objected.
8:13
Speaker 1: Even small premiums were another expense and she didn't consider
8:17
Speaker 1: insurance on the children to be necessary. She's like, hey,
8:20
Speaker 1: we're already short on cash. Why are we taking out
8:23
Speaker 1: hundreds of dollars in life insurance policies for our kids
8:26
Speaker 1: when we could be putting that money elsewhere? Like they're
8:28
Speaker 1: not in immediate danger. And it's not like one of
8:31
Speaker 1: them was sick or something like that. Then in late
8:34
Speaker 1: September or early October, Ronald purchased an additional policy providing $ 20, 000
8:40
Speaker 1: in coverage on each child. So an additional basically $ 120, 000
8:46
Speaker 1: per child. His insurance agent even advised against the purchase.
8:51
Speaker 1: And Danini did not know about that one. So everyone's
8:54
Speaker 1: basically telling him, why are you doing this? This is
8:57
Speaker 1: a terrible idea. You're making terrible financial decisions. Also doesn't
9:01
Speaker 1: sound like he was making great financial decisions before that
9:04
Speaker 1: if he was in a bunch of debt. By mid-October,
9:07
Speaker 1: both children had substantial life insurance coverage, while Ronald himself
9:11
Speaker 1: comparatively had little to no coverage. So it's not like, oh, hey,
9:15
Speaker 1: I'm just being really extra cautious for the whole family.
9:17
Speaker 1: It was literally just the kids. So it wasn't simply
9:20
Speaker 1: that an insurance policy existed on his child when they died.
9:24
Speaker 1: Investigators would also examine when the coverage was increased, who
9:28
Speaker 1: knew about it, and how it fit with Ronald's other activities.
9:32
Speaker 1: Because unfortunately, during the same period of time, he had
9:36
Speaker 1: also been asking a lot of questions about cyanide, which
9:39
Speaker 1: we've heard all about cyanide in the Chicago Tylenol murders
9:43
Speaker 1: that I did a few weeks ago. In August, Ronald
9:47
Speaker 1: asked his manager at Texas State Optical to obtain some cyanide,
9:50
Speaker 1: saying it could be used to clean gold eyeglass frames.
9:54
Speaker 1: But this request stood out, and according to the testimony
9:57
Speaker 1: summarized by the court, Cyanide has... been used in that
10:01
Speaker 1: business for more than 20 years. About three weeks later,
10:04
Speaker 1: Ronald asked again. He was referred to people with more
10:07
Speaker 1: authority than the branch manager. Then in early September, he
10:12
Speaker 1: called Bobby Terry, a friend who worked at Arco Chemical Company,
10:16
Speaker 1: And they had previously worked together there. So when he
10:19
Speaker 1: worked at that chemical company, he worked with this guy.
10:22
Speaker 1: Ronald said he was taking a chemistry course and suggested
10:26
Speaker 1: his instructor wasn't familiar with the different varieties of cyanide.
10:30
Speaker 1: That gave the conversation an educational explanation as to why
10:33
Speaker 1: he was talking about it, asking questions. He asked, though,
10:37
Speaker 1: where the chemical could be obtained, about how lethal it is,
10:41
Speaker 1: and about detecting chemicals in a person who had died.
10:45
Speaker 1: Coworkers also remembered him discussing cyanide, like he's talking to
10:48
Speaker 1: everybody about cyanide. Before Halloween, he visited a scientific supply
10:53
Speaker 1: business in Houston. A salesperson, David Lee Jackson, said Ronald
10:57
Speaker 1: wanted to purchase a smaller amount than the company sold,
11:01
Speaker 1: and he ended up leaving without buying it there. That
11:04
Speaker 1: visit also established an attempt to obtain the chemical. It
11:09
Speaker 1: did not establish that this business supplied the poison used
11:11
Speaker 1: in the murder. Meanwhile, Ronald was speaking as though his
11:15
Speaker 1: financial circumstances were about to change. He kept talking to
11:18
Speaker 1: his friend Jimmy Bates about buying a house, then asked
11:22
Speaker 1: Jimmy not to mention their discussion to Danny Mee. On
11:25
Speaker 1: October 23rd, he told a credit union he expected a
11:29
Speaker 1: large amount of money before the end of the year.
11:32
Speaker 1: An agreement extended overdue payments into January. He also told
11:36
Speaker 1: a co-worker he intended to leave his job in November.
11:40
Speaker 1: Danini would later testify that she knew of no reason
11:43
Speaker 1: that they should be expecting a large payment. So you
11:47
Speaker 1: have to consider what each person knew at the time.
11:48
Speaker 1: A lender heard that money was coming. A co-worker heard
11:52
Speaker 1: about a possible resignation. A friend heard about a house.
11:56
Speaker 1: Other people are hearing him asking about cyanide. Nobody necessarily
11:59
Speaker 1: had a reason to connect those conversations to life insurance
12:02
Speaker 1: on two children. The significance emerged when investigators put the
12:06
Speaker 1: separate accounts beside each other. As October moved toward its
12:10
Speaker 1: final night, Ronald was also making plans for Halloween. About
12:14
Speaker 1: two weeks beforehand, he brought home costumes for Timothy and Elizabeth.
12:18
Speaker 1: People later described him as unusually enthusiastic about taking them trick-or-treating.
12:25
Speaker 1: About a week before the holiday, he and Jimmy agreed
12:27
Speaker 1: their families would spend the evening together. Dinner at the
12:30
Speaker 1: Bates home in Pasadena, then a walk around the neighborhood
12:33
Speaker 1: with the children. That year, Halloween fell on a Thursday.
12:38
Speaker 1: Earlier in the day, a customer saw Ronald in the
12:41
Speaker 1: shopping center parking lot near his workplace. He was carrying
12:44
Speaker 1: a stapler and a bag with unknown contents. Later, while
12:49
Speaker 1: Ronald serviced the customer's glasses, their conversation included cyanide. He
12:54
Speaker 1: literally can't stop talking about cyanide to anybody that will listen.
12:57
Speaker 1: The witness had not seen him tamper with anything, but
13:02
Speaker 1: both the conversation and the stapler would become relevant after
13:05
Speaker 1: the events that followed. Danini and the children arrived at
13:09
Speaker 1: the Bates' home before Ronald. He joined them after work,
13:12
Speaker 1: and the families sat down to dinner. Outside, the weather
13:16
Speaker 1: was deteriorating. By the time they finished eating, it was raining.
13:20
Speaker 1: One of the Bates' children decided not to go out.
13:23
Speaker 1: That left two adults and three children on the walk.
13:27
Speaker 1: Jimmy and one of his children, along with Ronald, Timothy,
13:30
Speaker 1: and Elizabeth. Because of the rain, they limited the outing
13:35
Speaker 1: to two streets— Citation in Dunrail. They skipped some houses
13:41
Speaker 1: along the way, too. The adults had an arrangement. Jimmy
13:44
Speaker 1: would remain on the sidewalk while Ronald went up to
13:47
Speaker 1: the doors with the children. Eventually, they approached the home
13:50
Speaker 1: of Courtney and Carolyn Melvin. The lights were out. Ronald
13:54
Speaker 1: went to the door with the kids. They waited, but
13:56
Speaker 1: nobody answered. The children headed to the next house. Ronald
14:01
Speaker 1: stayed behind, though. According to Jimmy, Ronald lingered near that
14:05
Speaker 1: house for about 30 seconds. Then he caught up with
14:08
Speaker 1: the group. Now he had giant pixie sticks. And if
14:13
Speaker 1: you don't know what a pixie stick is, they're those
14:15
Speaker 1: oversized plastic tubes filled with powdered candy. Ronald waved them
14:21
Speaker 1: as he approached and said the rich neighbors were giving
14:24
Speaker 1: out the expensive treats. Jimmy had not seen anyone answer
14:28
Speaker 1: the door. At that moment, though, he had no obvious
14:31
Speaker 1: reason to think anything unusual was happening. He was further
14:36
Speaker 1: away on the sidewalk. Ronald had been on the porch.
14:39
Speaker 1: Perhaps someone opened the door after the children moved on,
14:42
Speaker 1: and it's possible that Jimmy just thought he missed the exchange.
14:45
Speaker 1: He briefly handed a tube to each child, then took
14:48
Speaker 1: them back. Once they returned to the Bates' house, he
14:51
Speaker 1: distributed them again. Timothy received one, Elizabeth received one, and
14:56
Speaker 1: both Bates' children received one, including the child who had
15:00
Speaker 1: stayed home. Then another child came to the door to trick-or-treat.
15:06
Speaker 1: When the child mentioned attending Ronald's church, Ronald gave him
15:10
Speaker 1: a fifth tube. And this is where the number of
15:13
Speaker 1: children can become confusing in shorter accounts of the story.
15:16
Speaker 1: Three children went on the walk, but five children received
15:20
Speaker 1: the candy. They had not all visited the same homes,
15:24
Speaker 1: but all five had received a giant pixie stick from Ronald.
15:28
Speaker 1: And that would become one of the most important connections
15:31
Speaker 1: in this case. At the end of the evening, Ronald
15:34
Speaker 1: took Timothy and Elizabeth home while Danini stopped to visit
15:38
Speaker 1: a friend. He got the children ready for bed, they
15:41
Speaker 1: asked for some Halloween candy, and Timothy chose his giant
15:44
Speaker 1: pixie stick. He swallowed some of the powder, then had
15:48
Speaker 1: trouble getting more out. Ronald took the tube, rolled it
15:52
Speaker 1: between his hands to loosen the contents. Timothy swallowed again,
15:57
Speaker 1: and then he complained that it tasted bad, so Ronald
16:00
Speaker 1: gave him Kool-Aid to wash the taste away. Timothy became sick,
16:04
Speaker 1: and he went into the bathroom and began vomiting. His
16:07
Speaker 1: condition worsened and he went into convulsions. Ronald called for
16:11
Speaker 1: an ambulance and Timothy was taken to a local hospital
16:15
Speaker 1: where he unfortunately died within an hour. Testing found cyanide
16:20
Speaker 1: in his body. The medical examiner determined that cyanide poisoning
16:24
Speaker 1: had caused his death. The death created an immediate problem
16:28
Speaker 1: beyond finding out what happened to Timothy. Because they knew,
16:32
Speaker 1: once they determined what caused it, They knew four other
16:36
Speaker 1: kids had those tubes, and investigators needed to locate the
16:39
Speaker 1: candy before another child ate it. All five giant pixie
16:44
Speaker 1: sticks were recovered, including Timothy's. At least, luckily, the other
16:49
Speaker 1: four children did survive. When the remaining four tubes were tested,
16:54
Speaker 1: every one contained a fatal amount of cyanide, and the
16:58
Speaker 1: scope of the crime was now clearer. This wasn't simply
17:01
Speaker 1: a question of one contaminated sweet. Multiple children had been
17:05
Speaker 1: given candy capable of killing them. And investigators had to
17:09
Speaker 1: take seriously the possibility that Ronald described, that the treats
17:13
Speaker 1: came from someone along the trick-or-treating route. They couldn't dismiss
17:17
Speaker 1: the possibility because it sounded like a familiar Halloween warning.
17:22
Speaker 1: But they also couldn't accept it because it sounded familiar,
17:24
Speaker 1: but they needed to check it. The rain had limited
17:27
Speaker 1: the outing to only two streets, which gave them a
17:30
Speaker 1: pretty relatively small route to retrace. Who had answered the doors?
17:35
Speaker 1: What house distributed what? And had anyone else received the
17:39
Speaker 1: same kind of candy? Ronald, of course, also had an
17:43
Speaker 1: inconsistent account. The court summary describes conflicting stories about where
17:48
Speaker 1: the giant pixie sticks originated. Eventually, he directed police toward
17:52
Speaker 1: the Melvin house on Dunrail. He gave a description that
17:56
Speaker 1: fit Courtney Melvin's Later seeing him in a group of people,
18:01
Speaker 1: Ronald indicated that he was almost certain this was the
18:03
Speaker 1: man who had supplied the candy. It was a specific
18:06
Speaker 1: accusation against someone investigators could interview. And Courtney Melvin had
18:11
Speaker 1: a schedule they could verify. He left home for work
18:14
Speaker 1: around 1.30 that afternoon, and he worked until 10.30 at
18:17
Speaker 1: night and arrived home around 10.45. If you remember, nobody
18:22
Speaker 1: was at their home when they rang the doorbell for trick-or-treating,
18:25
Speaker 1: so he was literally at work. He had not been
18:28
Speaker 1: there when Ronald and the children approached the house. Carolyn
18:31
Speaker 1: and the Melvin children had been giving out treats earlier,
18:34
Speaker 1: but they ran out around 6.45 and stopped answering the door.
18:38
Speaker 1: And they definitely had not given out giant pixie sticks.
18:42
Speaker 1: So investigators went door to door. They could not find
18:46
Speaker 1: anybody giving out these giant pixie sticks. And the household
18:49
Speaker 1: Ronald identified could not explain the candy. What they could
18:53
Speaker 1: establish was that Ronald had appeared carrying it and had
18:56
Speaker 1: distributed it himself. And the Melvin home is an important
19:01
Speaker 1: part of the story because initially, it seems to be
19:03
Speaker 1: the place where the answer must be waiting. A dark porch,
19:06
Speaker 1: an unseen person. But the darkness doesn't hide evidence of
19:10
Speaker 1: a dangerous resident. The family had just run out of treats,
19:14
Speaker 1: and the man Ronald identified as the person who gave
19:16
Speaker 1: out the candy wasn't even home. Now police had reason
19:19
Speaker 1: to look much more closely at the person making the accusations.
19:24
Speaker 1: They also had the recovered candy. A representative from the
19:28
Speaker 1: manufacturer explained that the giant pixie sticks were heat sealed.
19:32
Speaker 1: They did not leave the factory closed with staples. And
19:36
Speaker 1: the recovered tubes had a normal seal at one end
19:39
Speaker 1: and a staple at the other. Someone had clearly altered them.
19:44
Speaker 1: And that brought the investigators back to the customer who
19:48
Speaker 1: had seen Ronald carrying a staple earlier that day while
19:51
Speaker 1: he was working at the optical place. It wasn't conclusive
19:55
Speaker 1: by itself. Many people own staplers and the witness hadn't
20:00
Speaker 1: watched him use it on the tubes. But in combination
20:04
Speaker 1: with the altered packaging and his possession of the candy,
20:07
Speaker 1: The observation had significance it hadn't earlier that afternoon. The
20:12
Speaker 1: laboratory results required another careful comparison. The powder remaining in
20:17
Speaker 1: Timothy's tube tested negative for cyanide. The four other tubes, though,
20:22
Speaker 1: tested positive. And at first, that sounds like an inconsistency.
20:26
Speaker 1: But the test done on Timothy's candy was a test
20:30
Speaker 1: of what remained after he had eaten some. Cyanide had
20:33
Speaker 1: been found in his body. So basically that's saying that
20:37
Speaker 1: in the tubes that were unopened, the poison concentration was
20:41
Speaker 1: near the opening where a child would encounter it first.
20:45
Speaker 1: Police also found a knife and scissors while searching in
20:48
Speaker 1: Ronald's home. There was plastic-like material on the blades and
20:53
Speaker 1: residue that included sugar. Some of it appeared to be
20:57
Speaker 1: similar material associated with those giant pixie sticks. So investigators
21:02
Speaker 1: had found some potentially relevant items, but they hadn't scientifically
21:06
Speaker 1: identified them as the tools used to alter the candy.
21:09
Speaker 1: So this case would rest on the combined evidence, including
21:13
Speaker 1: parts they were certain about and parts that kind of
21:16
Speaker 1: remained inconclusive. The investigation also took police beyond the events
21:21
Speaker 1: of Halloween night. They examined Ronald's destitute finances and spoke
21:27
Speaker 1: with people around him. The earlier conversations begin to acquire
21:30
Speaker 1: a different meaning. The interest in cyanide He couldn't shut
21:34
Speaker 1: up about the cyanide, the new insurance policies he'd taken
21:37
Speaker 1: out on his kids, the expected money he was telling
21:39
Speaker 1: people about. Then there were also calls he made after
21:44
Speaker 1: Timothy died. Around nine in the morning on November 1st,
21:49
Speaker 1: Ronald contacted an insurance agent about collecting the proceeds of
21:53
Speaker 1: a policy. About half an hour later, he asked at
21:57
Speaker 1: the bank about collecting on another. While arranging the funeral,
22:01
Speaker 1: he learned that separate death certificates were needed for insurance claims.
22:06
Speaker 1: He ordered six. Witnesses described him discussing how he might
22:11
Speaker 1: use the money, including taking an extended vacation. These actions
22:16
Speaker 1: were relevant because of the timeline surrounding them. Families, of course,
22:20
Speaker 1: have to make practical arrangements after a death. Funerals are expensive.
22:25
Speaker 1: Burying people is expensive. dealing with the paperwork isn't proof
22:29
Speaker 1: of guilt. Here, however, the financial conversations began before the death.
22:37
Speaker 1: Ronald had already expected money, he'd already been discussing a
22:41
Speaker 1: house and leaving his job, and he had quietly increased
22:45
Speaker 1: the amount payable if his children died. Witnesses also testified
22:49
Speaker 1: about his behavior, whether he appeared grief-stricken, whether his demeanor
22:53
Speaker 1: changed in private, and what he said about the investigation.
22:57
Speaker 1: And some accounts are conflicted, and I know we've said
22:59
Speaker 1: it before, like you can't judge how people are going
23:01
Speaker 1: to grieve or react in certain traumatic situations. But one
23:07
Speaker 1: statement to Jimmy nevertheless became part of the record. Ronald
23:11
Speaker 1: expressed doubt that anyone could be held responsible for Timothy's death.
23:16
Speaker 1: A remark like that could sound like a parent's despair
23:19
Speaker 1: about catching an unknown killer and getting justice. But placed
23:23
Speaker 1: alongside the rest of the evidence, it could also be
23:26
Speaker 1: interpreted as confidence that the apparent randomness of the crime
23:31
Speaker 1: would prevent it from being traced. Needless to say, Ronald
23:36
Speaker 1: was an idiot and was prosecuted for capital murder. The
23:39
Speaker 1: state alleged that he had killed Timothy for the proceeds
23:42
Speaker 1: of life insurance policies. That financial motive was central to
23:46
Speaker 1: the charge. They were basically arguing that the death had
23:50
Speaker 1: been planned as a way to obtain money. But the
23:53
Speaker 1: other children were part of the explanation too. Why hand
23:56
Speaker 1: out four additional poison tubes? According to the prosecution, it
24:01
Speaker 1: helped make a targeted killing look like a broader neighborhood poisoning.
24:05
Speaker 1: If several kids became ill from Halloween candy, the illnesses
24:08
Speaker 1: could appear to be pointed towards the person who's giving
24:11
Speaker 1: out contaminated treats. But Ronald's daughter was among those endangered,
24:16
Speaker 1: and there was substantial insurance on her life as well.
24:20
Speaker 1: The courts later accepted that the additional distribution was an
24:23
Speaker 1: effort just to conceal his crime, to make it look
24:25
Speaker 1: more random. And that's the part of the case that
24:29
Speaker 1: most clearly connects the real murder to the existing legend.
24:33
Speaker 1: The stranger handing out poison candy was not just a
24:37
Speaker 1: theory that appeared afterward. A supposed neighborhood source was part
24:41
Speaker 1: of the explanation Ronald gave police. So the jury at
24:45
Speaker 1: his trial agreed. heard from people who had witnessed different
24:50
Speaker 1: parts of this sequence. Coworkers were describing the poison inquiries.
24:56
Speaker 1: Financial evidence was established that he had money problems and
24:59
Speaker 1: insurance was being purchased for his kids. Jimmy described the
25:03
Speaker 1: outing and the candy appearing in Ronald's hand after nobody
25:06
Speaker 1: answered the door. In the Melvin's account that they didn't
25:10
Speaker 1: answer the door and that Courtney wasn't even there. Medical
25:14
Speaker 1: and laboratory evidence established that Timothy and four other children
25:17
Speaker 1: had received dangerous candy. Danini could explain which financial decisions
25:22
Speaker 1: she knew about and which Ronald had done secretly. Ronald
25:26
Speaker 1: took the stand and denied responsibility. His defense challenged parts
25:31
Speaker 1: of the evidence, including that the employee who was supposed
25:36
Speaker 1: to identify him at the scientific supply place That employee
25:40
Speaker 1: initially failed to identify him from a photo lineup, but
25:45
Speaker 1: he did later identify him in person. So there were,
25:49
Speaker 1: you know, it was a real issue for the court
25:50
Speaker 1: to consider. And so it was debated whether that could
25:53
Speaker 1: be used in court, but they did eventually allow that
25:56
Speaker 1: into court and the appellate court upheld that decision. But
26:01
Speaker 1: for Danini, those proceedings involved the loss of her son,
26:05
Speaker 1: the danger to her daughter and and the accusation against
26:09
Speaker 1: her husband all at once. Elizabeth had survived, luckily, but
26:14
Speaker 1: the recovery of her candy meant that there was no
26:16
Speaker 1: need to speculate about whether she was supposed to be
26:18
Speaker 1: endangered to or not. On June 3rd, 1975, the jury
26:24
Speaker 1: found Ronald Clark O'Brien guilty, and he was sentenced to death.
26:29
Speaker 1: The conviction was followed by years of appeals, and there
26:33
Speaker 1: was a lot of back and forth about whether he
26:35
Speaker 1: should get life in prison or whether they should pursued
26:37
Speaker 1: the death penalty like he was supposed to be. But
26:41
Speaker 1: the entire time, Ronald continued to maintain his innocence. But
26:45
Speaker 1: on March 31st, 1984, he was executed by lethal injection
26:48
Speaker 1: in Texas, almost a decade after Timothy had died. His
26:53
Speaker 1: final statement contained no confession. He described the execution as wrong,
26:59
Speaker 1: offered forgiveness to those involved, asked forgiveness in general terms,
27:04
Speaker 1: and expressed love for the people close to him. which
27:07
Speaker 1: is horrible. You killed your son and then you can't
27:11
Speaker 1: even say you're sorry for it. There was no final
27:13
Speaker 1: explanation that resolved every unanswered question about his thinking. The
27:18
Speaker 1: evidence and the verdict remained the basis for the account
27:20
Speaker 1: of what he had done. And with that, the court
27:23
Speaker 1: case ended. But by then, the Candyman story had become
27:28
Speaker 1: something that could be retold every October. And a second,
27:33
Speaker 1: very different poisoning case had intensified Americans' worries about everyday products.
27:39
Speaker 1: And that brings us to the 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders
27:43
Speaker 1: with the cyanide poisoning. So that was only about eight
27:47
Speaker 1: years after Timothy's poisoning. So if you listened to my
27:50
Speaker 1: episode on those murders, you know how scary that was.
27:55
Speaker 1: But this timing did matter for Halloween. The deaths occurred
27:58
Speaker 1: shortly before the holiday season. And the fear spread from
28:01
Speaker 1: medicine bottles to trick-or-treat bags. Chicago began encouraging alternatives such
28:06
Speaker 1: as money or small toys. Some communities elsewhere canceled trick-or-treating entirely.
28:12
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of other things that happened before this.
28:15
Speaker 1: So there isn't one separate crime or answer as to
28:21
Speaker 1: when parents started checking candy. There were earlier warning signs.
28:26
Speaker 1: There were disturbing incidents. There were Timothy's murders. Then another
28:30
Speaker 1: highly publicized poisoning renewed the anxiety years later. But one
28:35
Speaker 1: person specifically decided to examine the Halloween claim more systematically.
28:39
Speaker 1: Sociologist Joel Best, working with Gerald Hirushi, studied newspaper reports
28:46
Speaker 1: covering the years 1958 through 1984. They examined major papers
28:51
Speaker 1: in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, along with the
28:55
Speaker 1: Fresno Bee. The question was straightforward. What evidence supported the
29:00
Speaker 1: story of people seriously harming children through treats collected on Halloween?
29:05
Speaker 1: Best's published overview says he did not find a substantiated
29:10
Speaker 1: report of a child killed or seriously injured by a
29:14
Speaker 1: contaminated treat picked up while trick-or-treating. He distinguishes Timothy's murder
29:19
Speaker 1: because that came from his father and it wasn't necessarily
29:23
Speaker 1: like from trick-or-treating. Best also separates a reported discovery from
29:28
Speaker 1: a verified incident and from an actual injury. Many reports
29:33
Speaker 1: he discusses involved no injury, and follow-up investigations often change
29:38
Speaker 1: the initial account. And that's a narrow, more useful finding
29:42
Speaker 1: than saying nothing bad could ever happen again. It just
29:45
Speaker 1: tells us that the widespread belief in a recurring threat
29:49
Speaker 1: was not actually matched by the evidence he examined. In
29:53
Speaker 1: a later essay, Best described how this research became a
29:56
Speaker 1: seasonal part of his life. Every October, reporters called, and
30:01
Speaker 1: he would explain his findings again. And year after year,
30:05
Speaker 1: the same cycle would happen. He also noted the appearance
30:09
Speaker 1: of programs such as hospital candy x-rays and organized alternatives
30:14
Speaker 1: to neighborhood trick-or-treating, like a trunk-or-treat, for example, if you've
30:17
Speaker 1: ever heard of that. His accounts illustrate how a belief
30:21
Speaker 1: could remain remarkably durable despite repeated efforts to examine it
30:25
Speaker 1: and to prove that it really hadn't happened before. And
30:28
Speaker 1: it really, aside from Timothy's situation, no one really has
30:33
Speaker 1: ever died from this threat of candy being contaminated. But
30:39
Speaker 1: there is a difference between precaution and conclusion. A parent
30:43
Speaker 1: can check a bag of candy without believing the neighborhood
30:46
Speaker 1: is dangerous. Looking through what a child brought home does
30:49
Speaker 1: not require accepting every frightening story attached to Halloween. The
30:54
Speaker 1: conclusion that strangers routinely poison children through trick-or-treating is really
30:59
Speaker 1: a false claim. Timothy's death cannot stand in for that
31:03
Speaker 1: evidence without changing the facts of his case. So saying
31:07
Speaker 1: a boy was killed after eating Halloween candy is pretty incomplete.
31:11
Speaker 1: Because really what happened, unfortunately, a father murdered his child
31:15
Speaker 1: for insurance money and tried to attribute the poisoned candy
31:19
Speaker 1: to a neighborhood household. And that's why I don't want
31:22
Speaker 1: this episode... to leave you with a vague sense that
31:26
Speaker 1: the neighborhood's candy is sinister. This is about a shitty
31:31
Speaker 1: dad who poisoned his kids for money. The nickname The
31:35
Speaker 1: Candyman can make Ronald sound like a character who belongs
31:38
Speaker 1: to Halloween. And that part is what makes it memorable.
31:43
Speaker 1: It packages the crime in two words and gives every
31:46
Speaker 1: October retelling an instantly recognizable title. But it can also
31:50
Speaker 1: draw attention away from the people affected. Timothy becomes the
31:54
Speaker 1: boy in the poisoned candy story, rather than a child
31:58
Speaker 1: whose family lost him. The surviving children become supporting details,
32:03
Speaker 1: even though they also received something that could have killed them.
32:06
Speaker 1: They were just lucky enough not to open it. I
32:09
Speaker 1: also want to return to the candy on the kitchen table.
32:12
Speaker 1: For a child, that pile represents a successful evening. The
32:16
Speaker 1: favorite pieces get separated first. Negotiations begin over who will
32:20
Speaker 1: trade what, how many they can have. For adults, looking
32:24
Speaker 1: through the pile can be a familiar part of bringing
32:27
Speaker 1: the evening to a close. This episode doesn't need to
32:30
Speaker 1: take that ritual away from anyone. It simply gives the
32:33
Speaker 1: story attached to it a fuller ending. We aren't required
32:37
Speaker 1: to choose between ignoring a real tragedy and treating every
32:40
Speaker 1: Halloween bag as a proof of a hidden threat. We
32:44
Speaker 1: can know what happened and still enjoy the holiday. Halloween
32:48
Speaker 1: offers a kind of community interaction that can be surprisingly rare.
32:53
Speaker 1: Children approach a door, say their line, and hold out
32:56
Speaker 1: a bag. Someone who might ordinarily be a passing wave
32:59
Speaker 1: from the driveway becomes part of the evening. They admire
33:03
Speaker 1: a costume, offer a treat, and send them on their way.
33:06
Speaker 1: Ronald O'Brien's crime occurring within that setting shouldn't define what
33:11
Speaker 1: everyone else thinks or does on that night. And the
33:15
Speaker 1: nickname the man who killed on Halloween should not become
33:18
Speaker 1: more important than the person he killed. His son's name
33:22
Speaker 1: was Timothy O'Brien, and he was eight years old. The
33:24
Speaker 1: case records tell us much more about his death than
33:27
Speaker 1: his life. And I'm not going to invent favorite hobbies
33:30
Speaker 1: or conversations to fill that absence. But we can remember
33:33
Speaker 1: that there was a whole child beyond the evidence. Elizabeth survived,
33:38
Speaker 1: the Bates children survived, and that fifth child survived as well.
33:42
Speaker 1: And their survival belongs in the story too. So did
33:45
Speaker 1: one crime cause everyone to begin inspecting Halloween candy? No.
33:49
Speaker 1: the fears and warnings were already there. But this crime
33:53
Speaker 1: became a powerful example people could repeat, sometimes without all
33:57
Speaker 1: the details that really explained it. And those details are
34:00
Speaker 1: the reason I wanted to tell the story. Thanks for
34:04
Speaker 1: listening to Cat Has Questions. The sources are in the
34:07
Speaker 1: show notes. And I also want to know what your
34:11
Speaker 1: favorite Halloween candy is. And I'm also curious if someone
34:14
Speaker 1: checked your candy when you were growing up. and if
34:17
Speaker 1: they told you a particular story about why. But I
34:20
Speaker 1: hope you all have a very fun and safe Halloween.
34:24
Speaker 1: And as always, I'll see you next week. Stay curious.
34:34
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to Cat Has Questions. If you liked
34:36
Speaker 1: this episode, follow the show and share it with someone
34:39
Speaker 1: who loves a good spiral. See you next week.