Latest / Wicked and Grim: A True Crime Podcast / Killer Twins - The Spahalski Brothers - Part 1

Transcript

Killer Twins - The Spahalski Brothers - Part 1 · Wicked and Grim: A True Crime Podcast

0:06
Speaker 1: They were identical twins, raised the same and living nearly
0:11
Speaker 1: identical lives, but how they differ from other twins is
0:15
Speaker 1: that both of them would become killers. The first murder
0:19
Speaker 1: came in nineteen seventy one, and then nearly twenty years
0:23
Speaker 1: later another series of murders would leave four victims dead
0:27
Speaker 1: and investigators without answers. Between the two of them, there
0:32
Speaker 1: would be five victims total who lost their lives. But
0:35
Speaker 1: the fact that they didn't operate and kill together left
0:39
Speaker 1: behind a very interesting question about how they both became murderers,
0:44
Speaker 1: and the age old topic of nature versus nurture suddenly
0:48
Speaker 1: found itself at the center of the story with a
0:52
Speaker 1: whole new perspective. This is the story of the Spahalski Brothers,
0:58
Speaker 1: a k a. The Killer Twins.
1:03
Speaker 2: My name's Ben, I'm Nicole, and you're listening to Wicked Ingram.
1:07
Speaker 1: A true crime podcasting. The following material in more maturial
1:16
Speaker 1: audience listener discretion. Okay, so last week I said I
1:39
Speaker 1: was in a bit of a funk. I'm doing a
1:41
Speaker 1: lot better, I want to say that, but there's still
1:44
Speaker 1: a clear separation between Nicole's energy levels and mine. Oh
1:49
Speaker 1: my god, you need to tone it down.
1:52
Speaker 2: I know, we probably this is where we would have
1:55
Speaker 2: benefited from recording this because I was just unhinged. You
2:00
Speaker 2: what you mean camera Yeah yeah, yeah, oh yes, with
2:03
Speaker 2: a video.
2:04
Speaker 1: You were unhinged for the last ten minutes for sure.
2:08
Speaker 1: For the record. When I say tone it down, I
2:10
Speaker 1: mean live your life. But I just I'm not there
2:13
Speaker 1: with you.
2:13
Speaker 2: I know we're at very different levels lately, very different,
2:16
Speaker 2: which is actually usually opposite typically because usually yeah, it's
2:20
Speaker 2: very much so reversed. But yeah, I don't know I'm
2:25
Speaker 2: doing I'm doing good over here.
2:26
Speaker 1: I guess you guys should have seen her hit the
2:28
Speaker 1: record on on her soundboard. She like did a like
2:32
Speaker 1: raise her arm up above her shoulder and like did
2:34
Speaker 1: a bunch of circles like she was winding up, and
2:35
Speaker 1: then came raining down on the record button. It was
2:38
Speaker 1: it was something to see.
2:39
Speaker 2: It was a lot. It was a lot, I'll admit
2:41
Speaker 2: it was a lot, but it felt really like natural.
2:45
Speaker 2: It just felt like I had to get it out
2:48
Speaker 2: fair enough.
2:48
Speaker 1: I mean, if it's natural, do it, just like if
2:51
Speaker 1: it feels natural to sign up over on Patreon. So
2:55
Speaker 1: a big shout out to our patrons who signed up
2:57
Speaker 1: this week Jennifer Sarus, Natalie Smith, David g Hattie, Dustman,
3:02
Speaker 1: Elaine l Beverly Boher Elle, and Brand Dizzle. They all
3:07
Speaker 1: signed up over on Patreon, and it just felt natural
3:09
Speaker 1: for them too to look at that exclusive content behind
3:12
Speaker 1: the scenes.
3:12
Speaker 2: You're welcome. I just set you up, so damn good there.
3:16
Speaker 1: No, I'm just good at taking a setup and figuring
3:19
Speaker 1: it out from there. It's all on me, not you.
3:21
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's all you.
3:22
Speaker 1: It's all me.
3:23
Speaker 2: It's all you. I'm just here, You're just here. I'm
3:27
Speaker 2: just here, as I was being completely not spend just
3:30
Speaker 2: like sat there staring at me so pretty much. Maybe
3:34
Speaker 2: I need a better audience for my shenanigans. Yeah, whatever
3:38
Speaker 2: that was.
3:40
Speaker 1: I do have to say, though, before we get any further,
3:43
Speaker 1: this is another two parter. We're having back to back
3:46
Speaker 1: two parters. My bad. I'm sorry. That's totally on me.
3:50
Speaker 1: I found this case and I'm like, oh, I got
3:52
Speaker 1: to do this story. So I started researching, and by
3:55
Speaker 1: the time I was like deep into the research and
3:58
Speaker 1: it was too late to switch cases, I realized it
4:00
Speaker 1: was going to be a two parter. So I did
4:02
Speaker 1: not plan back to back two parters.
4:04
Speaker 2: It all happens, and we hadn't had one for quite
4:07
Speaker 2: some time. That's true. I think you're okay.
4:10
Speaker 1: I think you think so.
4:11
Speaker 2: I do.
4:11
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I appreciate that. I'll try not to do
4:13
Speaker 1: two partters here for in the next few episodes, but
4:15
Speaker 1: we got to get through this one, and ding dang,
4:18
Speaker 1: it is a story and a half. I gotta say that.
4:20
Speaker 2: Well, I just also have to say, some people really
4:22
Speaker 2: like two parters. That's that's true, and there isn't a
4:25
Speaker 2: crazy wait in between, so we can do it.
4:28
Speaker 1: That's true. I mean, when we first started this podcast,
4:30
Speaker 1: we were only releasing one episode a week, and you
4:33
Speaker 1: had it to wait. You had to wait a whole
4:34
Speaker 1: week for the second part. So the fact that you know,
4:38
Speaker 1: two episodes a week, it's it's a lot better for that.
4:40
Speaker 2: Regard now totally. But yeah, this does sound like a.
4:43
Speaker 1: Doozy, it does. Are you ready for it?
4:45
Speaker 2: I am okay.
4:46
Speaker 1: Well, let's dive right into the story, shall we. There
4:50
Speaker 1: is something inherently strange about growing up alongside someone who
4:53
Speaker 1: has lived the exact same life as you, not in
4:56
Speaker 1: the general sense of siblings sharing a household, but in
4:58
Speaker 1: the much rare case of twins, two people who arrive
5:02
Speaker 1: in the world at the same moment, raised under the
5:05
Speaker 1: same roof and shape by the same parents, the same routines,
5:08
Speaker 1: and the same expectations within the same environment. From the outside,
5:13
Speaker 1: it can seem almost like a controlled experiment. If two
5:17
Speaker 1: people are given nearly identical starting points, how different can
5:20
Speaker 1: their lives really become? No, of course it's not an
5:23
Speaker 1: experiment their children, we understand that, But for most families
5:26
Speaker 1: the answer is simple. Even identical twins grow into their
5:30
Speaker 1: own person. They develop different interests, different personalities, different ways
5:35
Speaker 1: of seeing the world, different tastes. They might look the same,
5:39
Speaker 1: but over time their similarities begin to fade beneath everything
5:43
Speaker 1: that makes them individuals. One might settle into something stable
5:47
Speaker 1: and predictable, while the other drifts into a completely different direction.
5:51
Speaker 1: There is usually a point where their paths begin to
5:54
Speaker 1: split clearly enough that no one would confuse their lives
5:57
Speaker 1: ever again. But on the other hand, sometimes that separation
6:02
Speaker 1: never really happens. Now, when people look back on stories
6:06
Speaker 1: like this, they often search for a clear explanation, something
6:10
Speaker 1: in the upbringing, sometimes in the environment, sometimes in the
6:15
Speaker 1: psychology that makes sense of everything that happened, But the
6:19
Speaker 1: truth is rarely that clean. More often, what you find
6:23
Speaker 1: is a collection of ordinary details taken on their own,
6:27
Speaker 1: They don't seem like they should lead anywhere significant. It
6:30
Speaker 1: is only when those details are placed in order, when
6:33
Speaker 1: the full timeline is laid out, that the weight of
6:36
Speaker 1: it all starts to become clear. And even then, though
6:41
Speaker 1: it doesn't always answer the question people keep coming back to,
6:44
Speaker 1: how can two people begin in the same place and
6:48
Speaker 1: end up leaving behind something so difficult to explain? Now,
6:53
Speaker 1: this is a story that unfolds in two different pieces.
6:57
Speaker 1: At first, it looks like one life going off course
7:00
Speaker 1: path that leads into violence, into prison, into futures that
7:03
Speaker 1: seem contained within consequences of one single act. But as
7:07
Speaker 1: time goes on, another story begins to take shape right
7:11
Speaker 1: alongside the other one. Robert and Stephen Spahalski were born
7:16
Speaker 1: on December twelfth, nineteen fifty four, in Elmira, New York,
7:21
Speaker 1: a small city in the southern part of the state
7:24
Speaker 1: that at the time offered a fairly ordinary kind of upbringing.
7:27
Speaker 1: Elmira was not a place that people typically associated with
7:31
Speaker 1: extreme violence or high profile crimes. It was the kind
7:35
Speaker 1: of community where families stayed rooted, where their lives and
7:38
Speaker 1: routines were rather predictable, and where most followed a linear
7:42
Speaker 1: path forward from school to work to family. It was
7:47
Speaker 1: in many ways the American dream kind of life, you know,
7:51
Speaker 1: the happy family life. Now. Right from the beginning, Robert
7:55
Speaker 1: and Stephen shared everything. See. They were in fact identical twins,
8:00
Speaker 1: the only children of Bernard and Anita Spihalski, and their
8:03
Speaker 1: early lives unfolded side by side in a way that
8:06
Speaker 1: few people ever experienced. They grew up in West Elmira,
8:10
Speaker 1: attending Elmira Free Academy, moving through the same classrooms and neighborhoods,
8:15
Speaker 1: and having the same social circles. People who knew them
8:19
Speaker 1: during those years often saw them as a pair two
8:23
Speaker 1: boys who were closely connected, not just by appearance, though,
8:27
Speaker 1: but by the way they moved through the world together.
8:30
Speaker 1: They were both athletic, both involved in gymnastics, and Robert
8:33
Speaker 1: in particular also spent time competing in track. They were social, outgoing,
8:38
Speaker 1: and didn't stand apart from other teenagers in any dramatic
8:41
Speaker 1: way outside of being twins. If anything, they just blended in.
8:46
Speaker 1: There was nothing in those early years that clearly pointed
8:49
Speaker 1: towards but their lives would eventually become no obvious signs
8:52
Speaker 1: that would have stood out to teachers, neighbors, or even
8:55
Speaker 1: people close to them as something deeply concerning teenagers. They
9:01
Speaker 1: were energetic, restless, and at times unpredictable, but nothing hinting
9:04
Speaker 1: towards you know this darkness. It was honestly just regular
9:09
Speaker 1: behaviors that adults often expect young people to grow out
9:13
Speaker 1: of as they move into adulthood. But there were changes
9:16
Speaker 1: happening beneath that surface. When the twins were around twelve
9:20
Speaker 1: years old, their parents divorced, and from that point forward
9:24
Speaker 1: they were raised primarily by their mother. It is difficult
9:28
Speaker 1: to measure exactly how much that shift affected the two,
9:31
Speaker 1: but it marked a very clear turning point in the
9:33
Speaker 1: structure of their home life. The stability that had been
9:37
Speaker 1: there in the early years was now altered, and like
9:39
Speaker 1: in many family situations, that change carried some very quiet consequences.
9:45
Speaker 1: The routines they once had became a lot less consistent,
9:48
Speaker 1: boundaries were less defined, and the sense of order began
9:52
Speaker 1: to loosen. As they moved into their teenage years, the
9:56
Speaker 1: lack of structure started to show. Now that shift wasn't
9:59
Speaker 1: some that was immediate or dramatic enough to draw any
10:02
Speaker 1: sort of concern, But it was steady things regarding the
10:06
Speaker 1: kinds of decisions that they were making, the environments they
10:09
Speaker 1: were moving through, and the way that they responded to authorities.
10:13
Speaker 1: It all pointed to a direction that at the time
10:17
Speaker 1: may not have seemed extraordinary, but in hindsight it clearly
10:20
Speaker 1: marked the beginning of something much deeper now. Robert in particular,
10:26
Speaker 1: began attracting attention from law enforcement in July of nineteen
10:30
Speaker 1: seventy one, at just sixteen years old, he was arrested
10:33
Speaker 1: for driving a stolen vehicle. This was, of course, no
10:37
Speaker 1: minor incident by any means, certainly not something that could
10:40
Speaker 1: be brushed off as a misunderstanding. For example, the theft
10:44
Speaker 1: itself required, you know, intent, taking something that didn't belong
10:48
Speaker 1: to him, then using it and getting caught in the process.
10:53
Speaker 1: It was an offense that placed him firmly on the
10:55
Speaker 1: radar of local authorities, even if the consequences at that
10:58
Speaker 1: stage were still relatively limited, being the fact that he
11:01
Speaker 1: was a juvenile.
11:02
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, but I wasn't expecting that crime to be
11:05
Speaker 2: so intense. I was thinking it would have been something
11:07
Speaker 2: a little bit more minor, you know, but right boom.
11:10
Speaker 1: Bang, right into the theft of a vehicle.
11:13
Speaker 2: That's a big deal.
11:14
Speaker 1: It is, It definitely is. It's not something that should
11:16
Speaker 1: be downplayed. I mean, it's certainly not murder or anything,
11:20
Speaker 1: but it's definitely more than stealing a chocolate bar or
11:22
Speaker 1: a couple.
11:23
Speaker 2: Dollars from someone you know exactly.
11:25
Speaker 1: Now, what made this more concerning was how quickly it
11:29
Speaker 1: was followed by something else.
11:30
Speaker 2: Though.
11:30
Speaker 1: That's the thing here, because only weeks after that arrest,
11:34
Speaker 1: Robert was charged once again, this time for setting fire
11:37
Speaker 1: to part of his high school. Oh now, this arson
11:41
Speaker 1: introduced a different kind of behavior into the mix, something
11:44
Speaker 1: more destructive, far less impulsive than taking a car for
11:48
Speaker 1: a drive, but still escalating. It showed that there was
11:52
Speaker 1: a willingness to cause damage without a concern for the
11:55
Speaker 1: broader consequences, a mindset that was beginning to move beyond
11:59
Speaker 1: simple teen rebellion. He was suddenly no longer concerned for infrastructure,
12:04
Speaker 1: for jobs, for people's safety, that sort of thing. And
12:08
Speaker 1: by October of that year, he had pleaded guilty to
12:10
Speaker 1: the earlier charge and was sentenced to serve time in
12:13
Speaker 1: jail on weekends. The fact that he was a juvenile, right.
12:17
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, yeah, I mean that's super minor, but it
12:21
Speaker 2: could have a big impact.
12:22
Speaker 1: I see. Yeah, So this sentence was meant mostly to
12:25
Speaker 1: be like a corrective behavior rather than being like, you know,
12:29
Speaker 1: you're just going straight to jail, and it's being purely punitive.
12:32
Speaker 1: That way, it allowed him to still remain in school,
12:35
Speaker 1: have an education, and be home during the week while
12:37
Speaker 1: still experiencing consequences of his actions and being behind bars
12:41
Speaker 1: on the weekend when typically kids his age are out
12:44
Speaker 1: with freedom.
12:44
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that's what I was going to say, was
12:47
Speaker 2: that would be when he has a bit more free
12:48
Speaker 2: time to get in trouble exactly.
12:50
Speaker 1: So it's kind of a rehabilitation, serve some time, and
12:55
Speaker 1: still don't miss a beat.
12:57
Speaker 2: In your life, which I don't hate.
12:59
Speaker 1: I don't hate it either, to be fair, I don't,
13:02
Speaker 1: but maybe I don't. I think that's there should be
13:06
Speaker 1: a little bit more to it than just oh, go
13:08
Speaker 1: home for the week. You know, maybe you should have
13:12
Speaker 1: counselors following you through school or something like that, or
13:15
Speaker 1: maybe you're still getting your schooling while behind bars. You know,
13:18
Speaker 1: there's a classroom and a juvenile facility something like that, yeah,
13:23
Speaker 1: because there's still a lot of freedom that comes with that,
13:26
Speaker 1: and it gives a sense of are you really serving
13:30
Speaker 1: the full consequence for your actions? You know, almost kind
13:34
Speaker 1: of like, well, I set fire to this and I
13:37
Speaker 1: stole a freaking car, and now I only have to
13:39
Speaker 1: serve two out of seven days in jail for a
13:42
Speaker 1: little while. What kind of consequences are those really?
13:45
Speaker 2: I mean, it's something, but yeah, you can still get
13:47
Speaker 2: in a lot of trouble during the week. But I
13:51
Speaker 2: don't know. But he is in an age that he
13:53
Speaker 2: can definitely be reformed, right, So it's difficult. I'm kind
13:58
Speaker 2: of in the middle of it.
13:59
Speaker 1: Well, there's a point I want to make here, but
14:02
Speaker 1: I do have it written in this next few sentences
14:04
Speaker 1: in paragraphs, so I'm just going to continue here. Okay. So,
14:07
Speaker 1: for many teenagers, the kind of intervention often serves as
14:11
Speaker 1: a massive turning point, you know, a moment where the
14:13
Speaker 1: reality of the legal system becomes tangible enough to shift
14:16
Speaker 1: the behavior moving forward. However, in that moment, it didn't
14:20
Speaker 1: seem to have the intended effect on him. Instead of
14:23
Speaker 1: acting as a warning, the experience appeared to reinforce something
14:27
Speaker 1: else entirely the idea that he could engage in criminal behavior,
14:32
Speaker 1: face consequences, and still return to mostly his normal life
14:37
Speaker 1: without lasting consequences. So that fact, did it really do
14:42
Speaker 1: serve its purpose the jail time he's out still doing
14:46
Speaker 1: his regular thing. Yeah, just slightly reduced.
14:50
Speaker 2: I think for some kids it could probably really work,
14:54
Speaker 2: but for some it really wouldn't. And it's kind of
14:59
Speaker 2: a catch to one to where you find out later
15:02
Speaker 2: whatever dinner work.
15:03
Speaker 1: I think you're right on that. Actually, it's a good
15:04
Speaker 1: point now. Stephen during this time was also known to police,
15:08
Speaker 1: though his interactions definitely were not in the same degree
15:12
Speaker 1: as his brother Roberts were. However, on the night of
15:14
Speaker 1: November twenty third, nineteen seventy one, a man by the
15:17
Speaker 1: name of Ronald Ripley was going about what should have
15:21
Speaker 1: been a routine evening. He was forty eight years old
15:24
Speaker 1: and managed a local business in Elmira Heights called the
15:28
Speaker 1: Salad Master Kitchen. Witnesses would later place him inside the
15:32
Speaker 1: store around eleven thirty pm, moving through the closing process,
15:36
Speaker 1: you know, finishing up all the tasks of the day
15:38
Speaker 1: before heading home. For someone in this position, it was
15:42
Speaker 1: likely a very familiar routine. You know, locking up, checking
15:45
Speaker 1: everything one last time, turning off lights, preparing for another
15:49
Speaker 1: ordinary shift close and at that same point, shortly after that,
15:52
Speaker 1: he was seen again. A witness reported seeing Ripley driving
15:56
Speaker 1: at approximately eleven forty five, his car moving through the
16:00
Speaker 1: area without anyone or anything appearing at a place. There
16:04
Speaker 1: was no identification of distress in the situation, no sign
16:08
Speaker 1: that anything was wrong. It looked like the end of
16:10
Speaker 1: a normal day. But some time after that moment, something
16:13
Speaker 1: had changed, because in the following day, November twenty fourth,
16:18
Speaker 1: concern began to build when Ripley did not return home. Now,
16:24
Speaker 1: because Ripley was nowhere to be found the next morning,
16:27
Speaker 1: it was enough to prompt someone close to him, his
16:29
Speaker 1: mother in law, to go looking for him, and when
16:32
Speaker 1: she arrived at the store, she didn't find anything at first,
16:35
Speaker 1: but when she made her way to the basement, that's
16:38
Speaker 1: when she made a horrific discovery. The scene there was
16:42
Speaker 1: violent in a way that left little room for any
16:45
Speaker 1: sort of interpretation. Ronald Ripley had been killed. Investigators were
16:51
Speaker 1: soon called to the scene and quickly determined that the
16:53
Speaker 1: attack had happened inside the building, in a space that
16:57
Speaker 1: Ripley would have felt comfortable with a place where he
17:00
Speaker 1: had control of his surroundings, and that detail alone suggested
17:03
Speaker 1: something very important that whoever was responsible had either been
17:08
Speaker 1: allowed inside or had entered without raising any sort of suspicion.
17:13
Speaker 1: Investigators believed that Ripley had been approached from behind, but
17:17
Speaker 1: there were no signs of a struggle, so this likely
17:20
Speaker 1: indicated that he didn't see this coming, and from there
17:24
Speaker 1: he was struck on the head with a hammer, a
17:27
Speaker 1: forceful impact that would have immediately either disoriented him or
17:31
Speaker 1: at the very least rendered him unable to defend himself.
17:35
Speaker 1: But however, the attack didn't end there. After the initial blow,
17:39
Speaker 1: the assailants switched and used a knife. Ripley was then
17:43
Speaker 1: stabbed over and over repeatedly, and the sheer number of
17:47
Speaker 1: wounds made it clear that this was not a momentary
17:50
Speaker 1: act of panic. It was sustained and carried out with
17:53
Speaker 1: a level of intensity that went beyond what would have
17:56
Speaker 1: been necessary to incapacitate someone. The violence continued, and it
18:01
Speaker 1: was clear that this attack was about ensuring he would
18:05
Speaker 1: not survive, and so Ripley died right there in the
18:09
Speaker 1: basement of his own workplace, right where he was found.
18:12
Speaker 2: I just hate that, Like when someone is in an
18:16
Speaker 2: area that they're comfortable in and you know they're not
18:20
Speaker 2: really checking behind them and they're just doing their day
18:23
Speaker 2: to day and something like this terrible happen. Something this
18:26
Speaker 2: terrible happens. I don't know. It makes you just question
18:29
Speaker 2: life a little bit.
18:30
Speaker 1: Well, that's supposed to be when you're the most safe,
18:32
Speaker 1: right bail your surroundings, a place where you oh, nor
18:35
Speaker 1: you operate. And yeah, it can make things feel so
18:40
Speaker 1: dark because.
18:41
Speaker 2: He's probably was doing what he's done thousands of times. Yeah,
18:45
Speaker 2: and then but this night it just and.
18:48
Speaker 1: Then all it took was for some fucked up individual
18:51
Speaker 1: to enter that space and he's no longer safe now.
18:55
Speaker 1: There were there were no clear signs of fourth century
18:58
Speaker 1: I want to make that clear. There was no obvious
19:00
Speaker 1: indication that there was a robbery that had gone wrong
19:03
Speaker 1: or anything, no immediate suspect who could be tied directly
19:06
Speaker 1: to the scene through any physical evidence either. Early theories
19:10
Speaker 1: explored the possibility that Ripley had encountered someone early that night,
19:14
Speaker 1: perhaps offering a ride or coming into contact with someone
19:18
Speaker 1: outside the store, but the evidence inside it suggested otherwise
19:23
Speaker 1: this had been a controlled environment, and whoever was responsible
19:27
Speaker 1: had been close enough to strike from behind without alerting him,
19:31
Speaker 1: and that implied a level of familiarity, or at least
19:34
Speaker 1: a calculated approach that allowed them to move without being noticed. Now,
19:39
Speaker 1: as investigators began working through potential leads, they turned their
19:43
Speaker 1: attention towards individuals already known to local law enforcement. Elmira
19:48
Speaker 1: was not a large city, and police were familiar with
19:51
Speaker 1: those who had a history of criminal activity, particularly younger
19:55
Speaker 1: offenders who had recently come into contact with the system,
19:58
Speaker 1: and one of the names that surface during that process
20:01
Speaker 1: was one of the brothers, Stephen Spahalski. Now, he was
20:05
Speaker 1: known to police, but not in a way that immediately
20:08
Speaker 1: placed him at the center of a crime like this.
20:11
Speaker 1: He was brought in for questioning like others were, and
20:14
Speaker 1: initially denied any involvement. At that stage, there was nothing
20:18
Speaker 1: concrete that forced investigators to press harder. There was no
20:21
Speaker 1: physical evidence that even tied him to the scene. There
20:24
Speaker 1: was no witnesses that placed him in the building at
20:26
Speaker 1: the time of the attack. There was nothing. But as
20:28
Speaker 1: the investigation continued, something shifted, and during a subsequent round
20:34
Speaker 1: of questioning, Stephen changed his account and he admitted that
20:39
Speaker 1: he was the one responsible for the attack, telling investigators
20:43
Speaker 1: that he had killed Ronald Ripley.
20:46
Speaker 2: Damn and he's still a teenager at this point, sixteen.
20:50
Speaker 2: Did he freaking work there or something new? Did he
20:54
Speaker 2: know this guy?
20:55
Speaker 1: Not that I'm really aware of.
20:57
Speaker 2: Holy Hannah, Okay, that is, I don't know. For someone
21:02
Speaker 2: that didn't really get into trouble much, I guess, well
21:05
Speaker 2: a little bit, and is that young and then does
21:07
Speaker 2: a crime like this. It's kind of just I'm freaking hinged.
21:11
Speaker 1: Now. I do have to be clear, I don't know
21:15
Speaker 1: if he knew him or not. There definitely has to
21:17
Speaker 1: be some level of connection, whether it's a short term
21:21
Speaker 1: they met that night or what, because being in that
21:25
Speaker 1: store with him shows that they knew each other to
21:29
Speaker 1: some degree, right, Yes, And according to Stephen, the encounter
21:33
Speaker 1: that happened inside it escalated after Ripley actually made an
21:37
Speaker 1: unwonted sexual advance towards him. Now, whether true or not,
21:42
Speaker 1: that account also has some level of familiarity because they
21:46
Speaker 1: are inside the store together at least having a conversation
21:49
Speaker 1: when this alleged sexual advance occurred. Huh, okay, so they
21:54
Speaker 1: must have known each other to some degree the extent,
21:58
Speaker 1: I have no clue. Now, he framed this violence as
22:01
Speaker 1: a reaction something that had been triggered in that moment
22:04
Speaker 1: with that sexual advance, But even within his own version
22:07
Speaker 1: of events, the nature of the attack raised a lot
22:09
Speaker 1: of difficult questions. The level of force that was used,
22:12
Speaker 1: for example, went far beyond what would be expected in
22:15
Speaker 1: a brief confrontation. You know, maybe you're offended by the advance. Sure,
22:19
Speaker 1: maybe you might hit and punch someone quickly. You're not
22:22
Speaker 1: going to all of a sudden go to that.
22:24
Speaker 2: Level of murder unless you're almost mentally unstable in a way.
22:29
Speaker 1: For sure, or extremely homophobic or whatever. Right, but you've
22:32
Speaker 1: got to have something deep in you to start that
22:34
Speaker 1: and ignite that to begin with. Also, the initial strike
22:37
Speaker 1: with the hammer was delivered from behind, suggesting that whatever
22:41
Speaker 1: had happened, Ripley had not been in a position to
22:44
Speaker 1: defend himself when the attack began. So that would mean
22:48
Speaker 1: if there was an advance, the advance had occurred the
22:51
Speaker 1: situation was de escalated. Ripley then turned his back. Then
22:55
Speaker 1: he was attacked after.
22:57
Speaker 2: The fact, Yeah, he had kind of moved on and
22:59
Speaker 2: thought everything was.
23:01
Speaker 1: Okay, exactly so the repeated stabbing that followed also extended
23:05
Speaker 1: the violence well beyond a single impulsive reaction. So these
23:09
Speaker 1: details did not disappear simply because there was an explanation
23:12
Speaker 1: attached to them, and they remained part of the reality
23:15
Speaker 1: of what had taken place. But still, even if the
23:18
Speaker 1: details didn't quite match the story, they had their man.
23:22
Speaker 1: Now at that time of the killings, Stephen was just
23:25
Speaker 1: sixteen years old. That alone shaped the legal strategy that followed.
23:30
Speaker 1: Rather than pushing the case through a full trial on
23:32
Speaker 1: a murder charge, which would have carried the possibility of
23:36
Speaker 1: far more severe sense than what he got, the defense
23:39
Speaker 1: moved towards a plea agreement and ultimately Stephen pled guilty
23:43
Speaker 1: to an extremely lenient charge of manslaughter, and instead of
23:48
Speaker 1: facing you know, life in prison, he was given only
23:52
Speaker 1: up to eight years behind bars.
23:54
Speaker 2: Oooh okay, that is not enough time for taking someone's
23:58
Speaker 2: life like that.
23:59
Speaker 1: Abcinitly not now. It was a resolution that brought the
24:03
Speaker 1: case to a close, at least in illegal sense. Stephen
24:06
Speaker 1: was sent to prison, and what stood out in the
24:08
Speaker 1: years behind bars that followed was interesting because the way
24:13
Speaker 1: Stephen spoke about what he had done. Yeah, you'll like this,
24:18
Speaker 1: and I'm being sarcastic. Clearly, there was little indication of
24:22
Speaker 1: remorse regarding any of his actions. When he addressed the killings,
24:26
Speaker 1: he continued to frame it as something that had a
24:28
Speaker 1: reason behind it, something like something he could justify. Rather
24:32
Speaker 1: than distancing himself from the violence. It seemed like he
24:35
Speaker 1: was just accepting it as something that made sense, something that,
24:40
Speaker 1: you know what, just happened.
24:43
Speaker 2: Hmmm, Okay, yeah, I really don't like that, know meither, and.
24:47
Speaker 1: That perspective of his didn't soften or quiet over time either.
24:52
Speaker 1: After his conviction, Steven Spahalski's life did not diverge from
24:55
Speaker 1: his criminal behavior. Instead, it became the beginning of a
24:58
Speaker 1: longer and more entrenched cycle, and it would keep bringing
25:02
Speaker 1: him back to the criminal justice system again and again.
25:06
Speaker 1: He was eventually released from prison, there was an opportunity,
25:10
Speaker 1: at least in theory, for him to rebuild some kind
25:12
Speaker 1: of stable life outside of it, but that opportunity never
25:15
Speaker 1: seemed to take hold in any lasting way. Within a
25:17
Speaker 1: relatively short time, he found himself right back into trouble again.
25:21
Speaker 1: The offenses vary between things like robberies, parole violations, and
25:25
Speaker 1: a bunch of other small stuff, but a pattern kept hold.
25:29
Speaker 1: Each time he was released, it followed by another incident
25:32
Speaker 1: that led to his return behind bars. The periods of
25:35
Speaker 1: freedom between incarceration just grew shorter, while the time spent
25:40
Speaker 1: inside became more familiar, and prison became a defining feature
25:43
Speaker 1: of his life. But what made this pattern more unsettling
25:47
Speaker 1: was not just the repetition of his arrests, but the
25:51
Speaker 1: way he continued to frame the violence that had first
25:53
Speaker 1: put him in prison in the very beginning. When he
25:56
Speaker 1: spoke about killing Ronald Ripley. Over the years, he didn't
26:00
Speaker 1: describe it as a mistake or anything he wished he
26:02
Speaker 1: could undo. He maintained that there was a reason behind it,
26:06
Speaker 1: and he justified his actions every single time.
26:11
Speaker 2: I wonder if he's doing that because the sentencing was
26:14
Speaker 2: so lenient. Do you think?
26:17
Speaker 1: I don't know, But there is that sense in this
26:21
Speaker 1: story between both brothers of actions and the lenient consequences,
26:28
Speaker 1: And it seems like those lenient consequences build up and
26:31
Speaker 1: give them that sense of I don't know, entitlement, of
26:35
Speaker 1: sense of power, sense of untouchability, all these sort of
26:38
Speaker 1: things like well, I'll just get away with it, it
26:40
Speaker 1: doesn't matter I can brag. I can do what I want,
26:42
Speaker 1: because hey, I don't really serve much time anyways.
26:46
Speaker 2: But it's pretty fucked up to take someone's life and
26:49
Speaker 2: brag and to think that that was okay or justified
26:53
Speaker 2: or to have no remorse whatsoever.
26:55
Speaker 1: But that's exactly what he did.
26:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, So what was he doing for those eight years
27:00
Speaker 2: when he was serving that time? Just counting down the
27:03
Speaker 2: time and tell freedom and he's here because he has to.
27:06
Speaker 1: Be basically and just talking about it like it was
27:09
Speaker 1: something that had to happen in the meantime.
27:10
Speaker 2: Damn. Yeah, that's that's pretty gross.
27:13
Speaker 1: It is. Now, as time went on, Stephen's presence in
27:16
Speaker 1: the public eye began to diminish, his case faded into
27:20
Speaker 1: the background, and if the story had ended there, it
27:23
Speaker 1: would have followed a pattern that was mal disturbing, was
27:26
Speaker 1: not entirely uncommon, a violent crime committed at a young age,
27:30
Speaker 1: with a confession and a conviction. But that was only
27:34
Speaker 1: part of what had begun within that family, because while
27:37
Speaker 1: Stephen's life continued along that path, moving between prisons and
27:41
Speaker 1: brief periods of release, his brother was still living outside
27:44
Speaker 1: of it all, and for a long time, no one
27:47
Speaker 1: realized that his story was beginning to take a very
27:50
Speaker 1: dark shape as well, because it didn't look that way
27:53
Speaker 1: at first. Now, Robert had shared the same beginnings as Stephen,
27:58
Speaker 1: the same house, the same upbringing the same early drift
28:01
Speaker 1: into trouble during his teenage years. He had already accumulated
28:04
Speaker 1: his own criminal record by that time, and his arrests
28:08
Speaker 1: for theft and arson had suggested a similar disregard for
28:11
Speaker 1: boundaries and consequences, But there was no step into murder.
28:16
Speaker 1: For a while, it appeared that though the two brothers
28:18
Speaker 1: were moving along parallel tracks, each testing its own limits
28:21
Speaker 1: and similar ways. But as the years passed, their lives
28:24
Speaker 1: began to separate in a very specific way. Stephen's world
28:29
Speaker 1: became increasingly contained behind bars, while Robert, on the other hand,
28:33
Speaker 1: remained outside of that structure. He was spending time in
28:37
Speaker 1: and out of jail for various offenses, mind you, but
28:40
Speaker 1: he was never becoming anchored in the system in quite
28:43
Speaker 1: the same way that his brother was. In nineteen seventy three,
28:47
Speaker 1: Robert was convicted of breaking into a music store and
28:49
Speaker 1: stealing thousands of dollars in cash and equipment. When he
28:52
Speaker 1: was caught, he was sentenced to several years in prison,
28:55
Speaker 1: but like many of his later sentences, he didn't serve
28:57
Speaker 1: the full term, and when he was released, the pattern
29:01
Speaker 1: resumed almost immediately. By nineteen seventy six, he had returned
29:06
Speaker 1: to custody, this time for breaking into a high school.
29:08
Speaker 1: Another conviction followed, another sentence, and another stretch behind bars.
29:12
Speaker 1: Now there were moments during this period where his life
29:15
Speaker 1: intersected with his brothers. At one point, both Robert and
29:20
Speaker 1: Stephen were even held in the same correctional facility. Despite
29:24
Speaker 1: the years that had passed and the different directions of
29:26
Speaker 1: their lives, they found themselves in the same environment once again.
29:31
Speaker 2: Okay, just a second, I just have to say something here.
29:34
Speaker 2: Why the hell is he getting released early when he's
29:40
Speaker 2: already been in and out. I feel like, if you're
29:42
Speaker 2: in there repeatedly, there should just be no way that
29:47
Speaker 2: you can get out early.
29:49
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, that's the justice system even today.
29:52
Speaker 2: It is. But I just think that's wrong. If you
29:54
Speaker 2: say this is your second or third or fourth whatever,
29:57
Speaker 2: like you need to, it's no that you then serve
30:02
Speaker 2: your whole term, like there's no chance for good behavior
30:05
Speaker 2: to get out early or anything.
30:07
Speaker 1: I agree, but there's also more than just good behavior there.
30:10
Speaker 1: I mean today we're dealing with facilities that have way
30:13
Speaker 1: too high capacity of prisoners in them. Yeah, they should
30:15
Speaker 1: only have like one hundred and twenty, and they got
30:17
Speaker 1: like one hundred and fifty, or they got more coming
30:19
Speaker 1: in than they can handle, and they need to move
30:21
Speaker 1: people out so they can fit these higher risk individuals
30:25
Speaker 1: who are coming in.
30:26
Speaker 2: Gosh, which is just if you sidn't think about that,
30:30
Speaker 2: that's even more messed up. Really, it really is. Okay,
30:33
Speaker 2: this guy only broke into a music store and stole
30:36
Speaker 2: thousands of dollars, but this guy murdered someone. Okay, so
30:38
Speaker 2: we have to release this person so this other person
30:41
Speaker 2: can be in jail.
30:42
Speaker 1: Lesser of two evils. I don't mind whether an individual's
30:45
Speaker 1: rehabilitated or not. Guess what, well, we got to push
30:48
Speaker 1: them out so we can.
30:49
Speaker 2: Make room yike swhich is just terrifying.
30:52
Speaker 1: Yeah, now back on track a bit though, So the
30:56
Speaker 1: two brothers are put back into prison together. It was
30:59
Speaker 1: like a converted that it wasn't particularly significant, but it
31:03
Speaker 1: really did reflect how closely their paths continued to align
31:07
Speaker 1: even as the circumstances around them shifted. Now, one incident
31:11
Speaker 1: from that time actually stands out in a way that
31:13
Speaker 1: illustrated how those two connections between the two twins could blur.
31:18
Speaker 1: In nineteen seventy eight, there was an attempt to escape
31:21
Speaker 1: from the facility. The plan involved hiding inside a compartment
31:25
Speaker 1: of a vehicle that was being worked on by inmates,
31:29
Speaker 1: using it as a way to bypass security and leave
31:32
Speaker 1: the grounds without any sort of detection. It was a
31:34
Speaker 1: very calculated approach, one that required coordination and timing. However,
31:41
Speaker 1: before it could be carried out, it was exposed someone
31:46
Speaker 1: had informed the authorities, and the attempt was stopped before
31:49
Speaker 1: it could go any further. Now, what made the situation
31:52
Speaker 1: even more unusual was what happened afterwards. Because Robert and
31:56
Speaker 1: Stephen were identical twins, and because neither of them admitted
31:59
Speaker 1: to being responsible for the attempt, authorities were unable to
32:02
Speaker 1: determine which one for certain was actually trying to escape.
32:07
Speaker 2: Well, that's bizarre.
32:08
Speaker 1: So rather than isolating them, as you know, trying to
32:12
Speaker 1: find the primary individual, they were both punished and both
32:16
Speaker 1: placed in solitary confinement, each serving time. Well, if we
32:20
Speaker 1: don't know which one of you it was, you both
32:21
Speaker 1: get it sort of thing.
32:22
Speaker 2: Which is fair enough. But gosh, that's so, I'm sure
32:25
Speaker 2: that's such a unique situation.
32:27
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, after his release in nineteen seventy nine, Robert
32:30
Speaker 1: found work as a mechanic helper in Rochester. It was
32:34
Speaker 1: a structured and legitimate work situation, and it was removed
32:38
Speaker 1: from the pattern of criminal activity he had defined much
32:41
Speaker 1: of his early adulthood. For a time, it suggested the
32:44
Speaker 1: possibility that his life might begin to shift in a
32:46
Speaker 1: more conventional direction, but that possibility it didn't hold. By
32:52
Speaker 1: July of nineteen eighty one, he was involved in another
32:56
Speaker 1: major theft, this time targeting a coin collection value at
33:00
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of dollars. At the end of his arrest,
33:04
Speaker 1: although he was sentenced to several years in prison, he
33:07
Speaker 1: served only a short portion of that time before being
33:09
Speaker 1: released once again, and the cycle continued through the early
33:14
Speaker 1: and mid nineteen eighties. Robert moved in and out of custody,
33:18
Speaker 1: accumulating charges and sentences. When he was released again in
33:21
Speaker 1: February of nineteen eighty nine, it was simply another return
33:25
Speaker 1: to the same freedom. Following a period of confinement, he
33:28
Speaker 1: settled in Rochester, a city larger and more complex than
33:30
Speaker 1: the environment he'd grown up in the neighborhoods he moved
33:34
Speaker 1: and went through were not uniform. Some were quieter, some
33:37
Speaker 1: were more stable, but others had a constant flow of
33:40
Speaker 1: activity that made it easier to blend in without any
33:43
Speaker 1: sort of attention being drawn. It was in those spaces
33:46
Speaker 1: that Robert seemed to find his footing, places where anonymity
33:50
Speaker 1: was possible, where people came and went without much scrutiny,
33:54
Speaker 1: and where interactions were often brief and transactional. He also
33:59
Speaker 1: became heavily involved in drug use, particularly crack cocaine, which
34:04
Speaker 1: at the time was spreading rapidly through many urban areas. Now,
34:07
Speaker 1: the addiction became central to the way he lived, influencing
34:11
Speaker 1: his decisions, his relationships, and the way he navigated each
34:14
Speaker 1: and every day. Now, supporting a habit like that requires money,
34:18
Speaker 1: and without a stable or consistent source of income, Robert
34:22
Speaker 1: turned to whatever means were available to him. That included
34:25
Speaker 1: petty crime, small scale drug dealings, and working as a
34:29
Speaker 1: sex worker. The people he met and encountered in those
34:32
Speaker 1: spaces often moved through similar cycles too. Within that context,
34:36
Speaker 1: his behavior didn't necessarily stand out. In fact, it became
34:40
Speaker 1: part of the background a pattern that was just not
34:43
Speaker 1: uncommon in the areas he frequented. Unlike his brother, whose
34:47
Speaker 1: life had been defined early on by a single violent
34:50
Speaker 1: act that changed everything, Robert had not yet crossed that line,
34:55
Speaker 1: that same threshold that Stephen had, but that would change.
35:00
Speaker 1: By the final weeks of nineteen ninety, Robert's life had
35:03
Speaker 1: settled into survival in the moment. Rochester, in particular, the
35:08
Speaker 1: neighborhoods surrounding the Lake Avenue area where he spent much
35:11
Speaker 1: of his time provided the kind of environment where that
35:13
Speaker 1: lifestyle could continue without drawing much attention, and it was
35:17
Speaker 1: within that environment that Robert met Moraine Armstrong. She was
35:22
Speaker 1: twenty four years old, and like many others in the area,
35:25
Speaker 1: her life was not extensively documented beyond the circumstances that
35:29
Speaker 1: connected her to part of the city. What is known, though,
35:33
Speaker 1: is that she was working as a sex worker, navigating
35:36
Speaker 1: the same conditions that Robert was moving through. At some
35:39
Speaker 1: point in the final days of December nineteen ninety, their
35:44
Speaker 1: interactions turned into something other than typical. The exact sequence
35:48
Speaker 1: of events inside Moraine's apartment cannot be reconstructed with complete certainty,
35:53
Speaker 1: but the outcome is clear. There was an argument, likely
35:57
Speaker 1: over money, drugs, or possibly both, but something had shifted
36:02
Speaker 1: the tone of the encounter from transactional to confrontational, and
36:06
Speaker 1: at some point Robert turned violent. He used what was
36:11
Speaker 1: immediately available to him in the apartment, taking an electrical
36:14
Speaker 1: cord from an iron and wrapping it around Moraine's neck,
36:18
Speaker 1: and he pulled tight, draining every ounce of oxygen from
36:22
Speaker 1: her body. Ultimately, on December thirty first, nineteen thirty, Moraine
36:28
Speaker 1: Armstrong was found dead in her home on Lake Avenue.
36:32
Speaker 1: When investigators arrived, the scene was treated immediately as a homicide.
36:36
Speaker 1: The cause of death strangulation was very clear, and the
36:39
Speaker 1: use of the electrical chord stood out too. It indicated
36:43
Speaker 1: that the person responsible had not come prepared with a
36:45
Speaker 1: weapon but instead used what was present. That suggested spontaneity,
36:52
Speaker 1: or at least lack of premeditation in the traditional sense.
36:55
Speaker 1: But there was another detail that noted that was noted
36:58
Speaker 1: on the scene too. When Moraine's bought bo he was
37:00
Speaker 1: discovered she was wearing only one sock. It was odd
37:04
Speaker 1: and they didn't really know what to make of it.
37:06
Speaker 1: So for now they just recorded it like everything else,
37:09
Speaker 1: and they began working through standard process. They canvassed the area,
37:13
Speaker 1: spoke with neighbors, and attempted to identify anyone who had
37:16
Speaker 1: seen or interacted with Moraine in the days leading up
37:18
Speaker 1: to her death. In a neighborhood where people moved in
37:22
Speaker 1: and out very frequently, gathering consistent information was extremely difficult,
37:26
Speaker 1: to say the least, not everyone was willing to speak,
37:29
Speaker 1: and even when they were, the details were often incomplete.
37:33
Speaker 1: It was during this process that Robert Spahalsky inserted himself
37:37
Speaker 1: right into the investigation. While officers were outside the apartment
37:41
Speaker 1: building speaking with residents and potential witnesses, Robert approached them.
37:46
Speaker 1: He asked what had happened to what was going on?
37:49
Speaker 1: It was a natural enough question given the circumstances. I mean,
37:52
Speaker 1: police presence tends to draw attention, but it also placed
37:56
Speaker 1: him directly in contact with investigators at a very early state.
38:01
Speaker 1: When they explained that a woman had been killed and
38:03
Speaker 1: gave Moraine's name, they asked him if he knew her.
38:07
Speaker 1: He told him they didn't. He said he never met her,
38:10
Speaker 1: He had never seen her and had no connection to
38:12
Speaker 1: her whatsoever. Now the officers weren't exactly suspicious, Remember he
38:17
Speaker 1: had approached them and people in the same building don't
38:21
Speaker 1: necessarily know each other. It was entirely plausible that he
38:25
Speaker 1: was simply just another residence who had no involvement, and
38:29
Speaker 1: at that moment there was nothing to contradict what he said,
38:32
Speaker 1: No physical evidence tying him directly to the scene or
38:35
Speaker 1: the act, no one placing him inside the apartment at
38:37
Speaker 1: the time of the killing, no immediate reason to press further,
38:42
Speaker 1: and without that, the conversation ended and Robert walked away.
38:46
Speaker 1: For investigators, though the case remained open, but without any
38:49
Speaker 1: sort of direction. They had a victim, a clear cause
38:52
Speaker 1: of death, and an understanding that the environment in which
38:54
Speaker 1: the crime had taken place, and all that sort of stuff,
38:57
Speaker 1: but no suspect they could build a case against. For Robert,
39:01
Speaker 1: the situation meant something else. Entirely. He had just committed
39:04
Speaker 1: a murder, and for the first time, just like his
39:08
Speaker 1: twin brother had, he had spoken directly to the police
39:11
Speaker 1: during the investigation, even and nothing had come back to him.
39:16
Speaker 1: He had crossed the line, one that could not be undone,
39:21
Speaker 1: and so far as he could see, no one had noticed,
39:25
Speaker 1: which meant no consequences. Once again, now roughly seven months
39:30
Speaker 1: after the death of Moraine Armstrong. Robert was still living
39:33
Speaker 1: in Rochester, moving between apartments, maintaining unstable relationships, and continuing
39:38
Speaker 1: his dependence on crack cocaine, which dictated much of his
39:42
Speaker 1: day to day existence. The neighborhoods in which he spent
39:45
Speaker 1: his time were the same place, the same people were
39:48
Speaker 1: all drifting around, and the connections were often very temporary.
39:52
Speaker 1: It was during this period that he became involved with
39:55
Speaker 1: a woman named Adrian Berger. Now, Adrian was thirty five
39:59
Speaker 1: years old. Unlike Moraine, she was not simply a brief
40:03
Speaker 1: encounter where they kind of knew each other and there
40:05
Speaker 1: was only transactional interactions. This relationship between her and Robert
40:09
Speaker 1: had some level of continuity. They spent time together and
40:13
Speaker 1: he was known to be in and out of her
40:15
Speaker 1: apartment regularly. Now that familiarity would later become a central
40:20
Speaker 1: part of how he explained his presence there. But it
40:23
Speaker 1: was some point in July of nineteen ninety one when
40:26
Speaker 1: Adrian was killed inside her apartment on Emerson Street. The
40:31
Speaker 1: circumstances surrounding her death were not immediately clear in a
40:34
Speaker 1: way that Moraines had been. There was no prompt discovery
40:37
Speaker 1: of her body or anything Instead, what drew attention to
40:40
Speaker 1: the apartment was that neighbors began to notice a smell.
40:45
Speaker 1: At first, it may have been a faint enough odor
40:48
Speaker 1: to dismiss something that could be explained away or overlooked simply,
40:51
Speaker 1: but as the days passed and the summer heat intensified,
40:55
Speaker 1: the odor became stronger, more persistent, and impossible to shake off.
41:01
Speaker 1: Eventually it reached a point where someone had contacted police
41:03
Speaker 1: to report it, prompting officers to respond and investigate the source.
41:08
Speaker 1: When they arrived, the condition of the apartment made it
41:11
Speaker 1: clear that something was wrong. Before they even entered, flies
41:16
Speaker 1: had gathered around the window, which was a very common
41:19
Speaker 1: indicator in situations where decomposition has begun, and once officers
41:23
Speaker 1: gained access to the apartment, they found Adrian's body in
41:26
Speaker 1: an advanced state of decay. The heat inside the space
41:30
Speaker 1: had accelerated the process, breaking down much of the physical
41:33
Speaker 1: evidence that might have otherwise provided clarity about what had happened.
41:38
Speaker 1: That was the main problem investigators were facing Because of
41:41
Speaker 1: the condition of the body, determining the exact cause of
41:44
Speaker 1: death was not immediately possible. There were no clear signs
41:48
Speaker 1: that could be definitively identified as the source of the
41:51
Speaker 1: fatal injury, and without that the case lacked a crucial
41:55
Speaker 1: piece of information. It was difficult to establish not only
41:59
Speaker 1: how she dies, but also whether the death was the
42:02
Speaker 1: result of natural causes, an accident, or even murder. Despite that, though,
42:08
Speaker 1: investigators began working through the case as they would with
42:11
Speaker 1: any suspicious death. Investigators did their due diligence and canvassed
42:17
Speaker 1: the building and surrounding area, speaking with neighbors and anyone
42:21
Speaker 1: who might have had contact with Adrian in the days
42:23
Speaker 1: leading up to her death, and it didn't take long
42:26
Speaker 1: for Robert's name to surface. He'd been seen at the apartment.
42:31
Speaker 1: People recognized him as someone who had spent a decent
42:33
Speaker 1: amount of time with her and was someone who had
42:37
Speaker 1: been inside her place on multiple occasions. At least one witness,
42:42
Speaker 1: in fact, was able to place him there with enough
42:44
Speaker 1: certainty that a warrant for further investigation was gathered. So police,
42:50
Speaker 1: with that warrant brought Robert in for questioning, and they
42:53
Speaker 1: already had a starting point. His connection with Adrian was
42:56
Speaker 1: not a dispute, and when confronted with that, he didn't
42:59
Speaker 1: attempt to deny it either. Instead, he leaned right into it.
43:03
Speaker 1: He explained that he and Adrian had a relationship, and
43:05
Speaker 1: he told investigators that he'd been in her apartment frequently,
43:09
Speaker 1: so his presence was normal, and that there was nothing
43:12
Speaker 1: unusual about finding things like his fingerprints inside.
43:15
Speaker 2: Now.
43:16
Speaker 1: As for when he had last seen her, he claimed
43:18
Speaker 1: it had been several days prior to the discovery of
43:21
Speaker 1: her body, and that she'd been alive and well at
43:23
Speaker 1: the time, but without a confirmed cause of death, there
43:27
Speaker 1: was little direction to challenge any sort of version of
43:30
Speaker 1: events that he explained. There was no forensic evidence tying
43:34
Speaker 1: him to the scene outside of the obvious of being
43:36
Speaker 1: in the apartment, and no clear indication that the death
43:39
Speaker 1: had even been the result of violence, so he was released.
43:44
Speaker 2: That's crazy that there was so much decomposition there that
43:48
Speaker 2: they can tell Hey, yeah, it's really gross, but it's
43:51
Speaker 2: also really sad that she was just like that for
43:56
Speaker 2: so long before being discovered.
43:57
Speaker 1: I know now. The thing is, though, for Robert, like
44:01
Speaker 1: this again reinforced that same sort of thing that had
44:05
Speaker 1: begun Like with earlier situations, and in the death of
44:08
Speaker 1: Moraine as well, he'd been connected to He'd been connected
44:11
Speaker 1: to someone who died, he'd been connected to a death.
44:14
Speaker 1: He'd been questioned by police, and again he just walked
44:16
Speaker 1: away without being charged. So you have that same repetition
44:20
Speaker 1: of committing a crime with either minimal or no consequences.
44:25
Speaker 1: And since killing two people now there have been no
44:28
Speaker 1: consequences in murder.
44:30
Speaker 2: Yeah, which is just wild. And if it's something I
44:33
Speaker 2: guess you want to do, I can only imagine what
44:35
Speaker 2: it does for your ego or your confidence or whatever.
44:39
Speaker 1: Yeah.
44:40
Speaker 2: Really it's twisted, yucky to say.
44:42
Speaker 1: Now, there was a very clear pattern that was forming,
44:45
Speaker 1: and with each instance, the distance between what had been
44:48
Speaker 1: done in any of those consequences just seemed to widen.
44:51
Speaker 1: And then, on the night of October second, nineteen ninety one,
44:54
Speaker 1: a police officer on patrol in Rochester observed a vehicle
44:57
Speaker 1: moving in a way that seemed like something was off.
45:01
Speaker 1: The car had drifted slightly within its lane and then
45:03
Speaker 1: corrected itself, and then it did it again, just enough
45:07
Speaker 1: to catch the officer's attention and justify a closer inspection. Now,
45:12
Speaker 1: situations like this or routine, you know, drivers who might
45:14
Speaker 1: be under the influence, or might be distracted, or people
45:17
Speaker 1: simply having a moment of inattentiveness while all, this is
45:21
Speaker 1: very common. It's enough to have a stop that's not
45:24
Speaker 1: going to carry much weight. Possibly something illegal, yes, and
45:28
Speaker 1: definitely needing to be checked, but it's not something of
45:30
Speaker 1: high profile by any means. So the officer activated his
45:33
Speaker 1: lights and pulled the vehicle over. It was as simple
45:35
Speaker 1: as that, another stop. When the officer approached the driver's
45:39
Speaker 1: side window, the man behind the wheel appeared very calm
45:41
Speaker 1: and cooperative. There was no visible panic, no attempt to flee,
45:45
Speaker 1: no signs of intoxication that would immediately escalate the situation.
45:49
Speaker 1: When asked for his name, he provided it without hesitation.
45:52
Speaker 1: The man identified himself as Charles Grand. He went on
45:56
Speaker 1: to explain that he owned a landscaping business and apologized
45:59
Speaker 1: for his driving, often offering a casual explanation that didn't
46:02
Speaker 1: seem out of place. And based on what he observed,
46:05
Speaker 1: the officer made a decision that there wasn't going to
46:08
Speaker 1: be anything concerning that night. He gave the man a warning,
46:11
Speaker 1: told him to watch his driving, and he simply let
46:13
Speaker 1: him go. The man smiled, drove away, and the encounter
46:17
Speaker 1: ended there. It was filed away mentally, alongside countless other
46:21
Speaker 1: stops the officer had done in his mind that ended
46:24
Speaker 1: much the same way, But by the following day, though,
46:27
Speaker 1: that brief interaction took an entirely different meaning. On October fourth,
46:32
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety one, police were called to a residence in Webster,
46:35
Speaker 1: a town located just outside of Rochester. Inside the home,
46:41
Speaker 1: in a bedroom, they discovered the body of a man
46:43
Speaker 1: laying face down. The victim was soon identified as Charles Grand,
46:48
Speaker 1: the same name that had been given during the traffic stop.
46:52
Speaker 1: The timeline, however, created an immediate and serious problem. Based
46:58
Speaker 1: on the condition of the body and the circumstances at
47:01
Speaker 1: the scene, investigators determined that Charles Grand had been dead
47:04
Speaker 1: for more than twenty four hours at that point, which
47:08
Speaker 1: meant that at the time of the traffic stop, when
47:10
Speaker 1: the officer had been speaking with a man who identified
47:13
Speaker 1: himself as Charles Grand, the real Charles Grand was already dead.
47:17
Speaker 2: Oh it wasn't him, Okay, Yeah.
47:19
Speaker 1: So the man behind the wheel was not who he
47:21
Speaker 1: claimed to be, and he had stolen a dead man's identity.
47:25
Speaker 2: Damn. I don't know why I didn't see that coming
47:28
Speaker 2: at all.
47:29
Speaker 1: But okay, and that's where we're going to stop part
47:32
Speaker 1: one today.
47:34
Speaker 2: Of course, it is, of course it is huh okay,
47:37
Speaker 2: but this is freaking wild.
47:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is.
47:40
Speaker 2: This story just following these two brothers. It's just I
47:44
Speaker 2: don't even know how to feel about it because it
47:46
Speaker 2: doesn't seem well, it's very rare, right, oh well, it's
47:51
Speaker 2: just so terrifying that these two twins are ending up
47:55
Speaker 2: like this terrible.
47:56
Speaker 1: Doing the same thing. Now, there is also a lot
47:59
Speaker 1: of discussions online and in psychology and stuff about connections
48:03
Speaker 1: between twins, and I'm sure we'll talk about some of
48:06
Speaker 1: that and at the end of part two and everything,
48:08
Speaker 1: but it's very fascinating to see the timeline between these two.
48:12
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, it differs. One committed a murder very
48:15
Speaker 1: early and then was back into like the petty crime
48:18
Speaker 1: and one was petty crime at first and then starting
48:20
Speaker 1: into the bigger like murders and stuff. But they're essentially
48:24
Speaker 1: living the same committing the same sort of shit, and
48:28
Speaker 1: it's it blows my mind that you have these two individuals,
48:32
Speaker 1: same upbringing, same sort of kind of DNA. They're not
48:36
Speaker 1: the same person, you know, but I'm getting at but
48:39
Speaker 1: they're just doing the same thing. They're committing this.
48:41
Speaker 2: Both a menace to freaking society.
48:43
Speaker 1: And that's the light way of putting it.
48:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we have no idea this Charles is the
48:50
Speaker 2: next victim here, right, Charles Grimt, And we honestly are
48:53
Speaker 2: leaving it where we have no idea who necessarily killed him?
48:57
Speaker 2: Is that correct?
48:58
Speaker 1: Correct? We'll talk about that in the next episode.
49:01
Speaker 2: Okay, you really said.
49:03
Speaker 1: That's where we're ending double.
49:04
Speaker 2: Checks, like did I miss which brother killed this man?
49:08
Speaker 1: And technically, technically we don't even know if one of
49:11
Speaker 1: these brothers killed him yet. All we know is that
49:13
Speaker 1: he's found dead and someone was using his identity. I
49:16
Speaker 1: haven't said anything in regards to these brothers connections to
49:19
Speaker 1: it yet.
49:19
Speaker 2: Okay, well, we better stop here because you're gonna just
49:22
Speaker 2: dig yourself in a hope.
49:24
Speaker 1: I might also, I don't know if anyone's heard yet
49:26
Speaker 1: in the recording of this episode, our rooster outside is
49:29
Speaker 1: going a little bit nuts today. So he's crowing away
49:31
Speaker 1: right now. Yeah, so we should probably go give him
49:33
Speaker 1: some treats or something, make him.
49:34
Speaker 2: A little haspill treats after this performance.
49:38
Speaker 1: Not really, but he's definitely crawling and Cohen for some reason, well,
49:42
Speaker 1: maybe calm him down. Maybe we'll go give him some
49:43
Speaker 1: pets or something. He needs something, he needs something. Anyways,
49:48
Speaker 1: thank you for being here. We appreciate you, looking forward
49:51
Speaker 1: to doing part two with you. If you want to
49:52
Speaker 1: give us a review or anything of the like, all
49:55
Speaker 1: of our links and descriptions are well. It's in the
49:58
Speaker 1: description of this podcast. We're an independent podcast, so your
50:01
Speaker 1: reviews go a long way in helping others find our show.
50:05
Speaker 1: Seeing the positive reviews, you're leaving and thinking, hey, I
50:08
Speaker 1: want to support that show too. So thank you for
50:10
Speaker 1: what you have done for us and what you're continuing
50:12
Speaker 1: to do because we get to do this because of that.
50:15
Speaker 2: And until part two, stay wicked a bo