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

Transcript

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

• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Welcome back to part two of our series about the
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: murders of Charlie Anderson and Carol Monte Calvo. Let's dive
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: right back into the case. If Dan did this, how
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: could he have gotten rid of these guns? But suddenly
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: a light bulb went over their head, saying, if he
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: put it inside this haul it out book, put it
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: on the shelf, then no one is going to search that.
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: And then after he recovered and left the hospital, he
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: got rid of the guns and then put the book
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: in the storage units. So this was pretty much their
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: big ah ha moment where they said, well, we can't
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: find the murder weapon, but we think we can use
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: this as proof that he had guns in his house
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: at some point.
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: There are so many moments in this where I think
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: Dan is literally the most unintelligent person, the worst criminal,
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: and then there's moments where he almost redeems himself in
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: his ability to be able to commit the crime. But
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: it's just a series of like the worst decisions and
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: the best decisions, but overwhelmingly he makes the worst decisions.
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: So I'm not going to crown him as being some
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: kind of like great criminal or anything like that. But
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: we covered and I cannot think of it for the
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: life of me. But you are the crime encyclopedia.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: You.
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: Me and Ashley covered a case where where there was
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: a hollowed out book, and I remember we talked about
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: it with like maybe in detective magazines this person had
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: read about it or spycraft that type of a thing.
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: Do you remember what case that was?
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: I can't really know, because this is the only one
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: I can think of. I get a real life example
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: of like a criminal having a hollowed out book.
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember we talked about it in some case
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: in relation to something, but it's not if you can't
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: remember which one it is. I'm certainly not.
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: Yea, but yes, Like it is kind of a weird
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: contradiction here where it's like Dan has done so many
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: stupid mistakes, yet this haul it up book sounds remarkably
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: clever and it did work if he hadn't made these
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: other mistakes, because if you're searching a house, you're not
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: going to like go through like every single book and
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: assume that it's hidden in there. It kind of reminds me.
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Have you ever seen the Ryan Gosling Anthony Hopkins movie Fracture?
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: It's been a long time.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: But yes, it was kind of a similar twist where
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: they knew that he shot his wife inside the house,
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: but they just could not find the gun and that
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: was the reason they couldn't charge him. But it turned
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: out that when the hostage negotiator came into the house,
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: he punched him out and then so he had stolen
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: on a previous occasion the lead detective's gun, used it
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: to kill his wife, and then when he got into
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: a fight with the detective when he went into the house,
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: he put it back into his holster, so he assumed
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: he had it the whole time, so they couldn't figure
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: out where the gun was. So that's what it kind
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: of reminds me of.
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: You know what it reminds me of is did you
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: ever watch the show Luther?
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah? I did, Yes, I remember that.
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: Do you remember? And like Alice Morgan in the beginning,
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: it was, you know, thought that she killed her parents
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: and they show up there, but they cannot find the
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: murder weapon and whomever it. Well, at first it was
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: like somebody broke in and they killed the parents, killed
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: the dog, and she hid the gun in the dead dog,
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: and then we got the dog cremated and then had
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: the bits of the gun in the urn.
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that was amazing. I love it when they come
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: with clever ideas like this. But yeah, also, the surgical
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: gloves were a pretty important discovery because, like we said,
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: Dan didn't have any gunshot residue on his hands, and
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: we looked at the idea of him having an accomplice,
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: but because they couldn't prove that at the time, they
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: kind of ran with the theory that he put these
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: gloves on when he killed Carol and then put them
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: back into the hollowed out book next to the guns,
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: and that's why no one found them when they originally
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: searched the house. So this was pretty much their big moment.
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: So they finally decided to make an arrest and he
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: was finally charged with first degree murder. So when Dan
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: went on trial in November of nineteen ninety, the theory
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: that they pushed forward is that Dan may have actually
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: stolen the missing eight hundred dollars from Carol's cash box
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: that was found missing. Because one thing I've always found
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: weird is that they had just won a free vacation
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: to Hawaii and all expenses paid one So I'm thinking
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: to myself, if you're Dan once you want to enjoy
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: the vacation and commit the murder after you come back
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: because you're getting a free trip to Hawaii on your
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: wife's dimes, so why not take advantage of that. But
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: the theory pushed forward by the prosecution is that Carol
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: had been planning to use this money on their trip,
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: and when she noticed that it was missing, she figured
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: out that Dan probably stole it and gambled away, and
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: then they got into a confrontation and this is what
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: led to things escalating where Dan decided to shoot her
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: on the night before they left on vacation.
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's very possible, But the one issue that I
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: have with that is how did he organize all of
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: these other people coming by the home on that night?
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: If it was an impulsive decision.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. If he did this alone,
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: I could totally believe this scenario that he killed her
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: in like a heat of rage. But if this involves
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: some accomplices, this definitely points to something being premeditated here.
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: So I guess it just depends on which version you
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: believe happened. So big surprise, Dan wound up causing a
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: lot of troubles for himself at the trial because he
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: insisted on acting as his own co counsel. So when
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: his first defense attorney wouldn't go along with this, Dan
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: decided to fire him. So he got a second attorney
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: who did allow him to function as co counsel at
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: the trial. But of course this caused a lot of
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: damage to the credibility of their case because the prosecution
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: constantly objected to Dan saying and doing stupid things, and
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: most of the time the judge sustained them. So you
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: can only imagine what kind of impression is left on
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: the jury. And in the end, they did find him
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: guilty of murder and he was given a sentence of
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: twenty seven years to life in prison.
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: Well that isn't really surprising to me, But what really
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: does surprise me is just we so rarely see a
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: criminal who makes some of the stupidest decisions. They just
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: they look dumb, like it's not the most intelligent person.
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: And then Tan goes and surprises us with the hollowed
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: out book. And I really wonder about the shooting, like
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: if he shot himself in the back or if he
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: had somebody else do that, and if he did any
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: research on areas of the body to shoot. I mean,
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: if he did, I would think that like he would
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: have picked a fleshier area like a calf or something,
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: where like a through and through is pretty much guaranteed
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: and you could get up and walk like right away.
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: It seems to do your back like that, like what
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: if you nicked a nerve, what if you paralyzed yourself?
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: It seems rather precarious, but you could have been right.
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: Like what you raised earlier is if he had somebody
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: help him and just like shoot him in the lower back.
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: But it is an odd location, and he's gone on
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: to really like confound me with these very well thought out,
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: organized decisions and then these other impulsive, messy ones.
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why it is compelling to believe that he
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: worked with someone. And I will acknowledge that the big
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: hole in the Hollow Book theory is that it was
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: not just the murder weapon, the thirty eight, but also
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: the twenty five that he was shot with, Like there
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: were two different guns. So I'm thinking to myself, if
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: he shot himself in the back, he would still have
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: to go over and put the guns in the Hollow Book,
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: which would be very difficult to do. And would also
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: leave a blood trail. But the alternative is that he
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: had an accomplice. That person put the guns inside the book,
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: or maybe they didn't even use the hollow book. Maybe
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: the accomplice just took the guns out of the house
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: and got rid of them on their own time. But yeah,
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: like that's the thing, is that the scenario they presented
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: at trial was Dan doing this himself. But I do
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: have to acknowledge that there are some holes in that
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: theory about him being able to pull this off single handedly.
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it feels like there had you been Dan and
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: somebody else involved. And because he was a shady guy
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: and had a lot of different criminal associates and spent
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: time behind bars, he probably had a I mean, I
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: don't know like how Dan was when it came to
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: making friends. Was he friendly with his cellmates? Did he
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: form a lot of relationships while he was behind bars?
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: Is he the type of person that like other people
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: liked Do you know the answer to that?
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: I'm not really sure. I mean, he was originally from Boston,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: and he spent time in prison Wisconsin before he moved
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: to California with Carol, But I think they had been
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: there for a few years at that point, so he
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: maybe got the opportunity to make friends. But this is
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: another detail that'll blow your mind that after Dan went
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: to prison, he wound up getting remarried to another friend
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: of Carol's from her church group. So it's like, he
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: obviously has a way of charming people because he seems
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: like such an unlikable jerk, yet he seems to find
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: all these new girlfriends and wives who are willing to
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: marry him. So I guess he could be charming enough
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: that he could convince people to be his accomplice on
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: a murder.
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: That is pretty wild to think that he's not only
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: married Carol after he was behind bars and Carols like
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: a seemingly sweet, nice naive, like I hate to say
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: the word normal, but like, you know, just typical women.
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: There was nothing that would have been like, oh, this
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: is somebody who's going to marry somebody behind bars, And
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: then to think, with all the drama surrounding all of this,
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: he goes on to marry one of her friends. Like
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: how close to friends were they? It's shocking.
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: I mean they said she was from Carol's church group.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: So I'm wondering if this is like a very sheltered
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: church group or something like that where it has a
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: lot of naive women who don't have a lot of
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: experience with men, or maybe just are convinced that, oh,
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: he's a bad boy who's done some bad things, but
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: I can change him.
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that's valid. And I also think
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: that he likely used religion as a tool for manipulation
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: with these women.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I'm thinking as well. So here's where
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: it gets complicated because after Dan went to prison, I
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: court appointed private investigator named Jane Briscoe who worked for Dan,
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: wound up interviewing a woman named Susan Brown, who was
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: a neighbor of the Monte Calvos who lived just fifty
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: yards down the street from them, and she had actually
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: testified at trial as a defense witness because she claimed
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: that someone had knocked over a woodpile jumping over the
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: fence in her backyard on the night of the murder,
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: which once again seemed to support that there was an
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: intruder at the Monte Calvo residence. And Susan Brown was
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: known for being a very eccentric character who her biggest
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: hobby was making lampshades out of popsicle sticks, and even
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: though she was not disabled and was perfectly capable of walking,
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: she often liked to use a wheelchair to get around
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: even though she didn't need to.
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: Well, that's wild, the popsicle sticks lambshade. As soon as
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: you said lamb shades, I started thinking of like Ed Gain,
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: and I'm like, oh, no, oh no, what kind of
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: lambshades are we going to see here? But popsicle sticks
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: are pretty wholesome, so nothing to fear there. But it
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: is definitely a curious move to choose to get around
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: in a wheelchair. And you got to wonder, why is
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: this a conversation starter? Is it something that I mean,
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: does she just not like to walk but she doesn't
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: mind wheeling herself around? I have so many questions.
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: It reminds me did you ever watch SCTV, the comedy
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: series The head of the network, guy Cabuolero, would often
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: go around in a wheelchair, but then we just get
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: up at random moments and says that I just use
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: the wheelchair to earn respect. So that's pretty much maybe
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: the same thing.
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: Or I never watched that, but it made me think
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: of George Costanza on one of those Scooters on the
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: episode of Seinfeld.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah, pretty much the same thing, just a way to
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: get sympathy. But as you can see, Susan Brown was
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: an eccentric character, so that's why her credibility as a
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: witness in this case has this seriously come under question.
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: She was known for having a documented history of mental
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: illness and having serious issues with drugs, and she claimed
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: that she would break into houses and commit burglaries in
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: order to help support her habit. So when she was
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: first interviewed by the private investigator Gene Briscoe, Brown started
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: telling stories about how she often had flashbacks to being
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: in the Monte Calvo home well the murder was taking place,
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: but she could not be certain if it was a
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: dream or a drug aduced hallucination, or if she had
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: actually been there. But after numerous more interviews, she finally
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: did say that she yes, she was there and was
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: convinced this was a reality and that she was involved
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: in Carol's murder. And then she gave a story about
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: how it was both her and a male friend who
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: broke into the residence because Susan had a side job
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: selling Avon products, and claimed that a couple of days earlier,
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: she had stopped by the house to deliver an order
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: to Carol, and when Carol paid for it, Susan noticed
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: that she got the money from a cash box inside
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: a filing cabinet, so that's where she and accomplice got
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: the idea to break in and steal the money. She
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: said she was under the mistaken impression that the Monte
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: Calbos had already left on their trip to Hawaii when
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: they broke into the house, but were taken by complete
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: surprise when Carol walked inside, and that her male accomplice
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: responded by shooting Carol twice in the neck. And when
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: Dan entered the house, Susan intercepted him and they got
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: into a struggle, which led to her shooting Dan in
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: the back. But obviously the main hole in this story
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: is you might remember that Dan said when he ran
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: into the house, he struggled with a man with a mustache,
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: But here Susan Brown saying that she is the one
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: who struggled with Dan. And Dan's defense to this is
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: that he believed that Susan was lying that she was
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: the one who actually shot Carol, but she was trying
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: to blame her accomplice with the mustache for doing it
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: and say that she struggled with Dan in order to
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: avoid admit culpability in shooting Carol herself.
• 13:52
  Speaker 2: This is all founding very weird, Like I'm really questioning
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: whether or not she was actually there or had anything
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: to do with it. It's sounding fabricated, especially when we
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: factor in this is somebody who was dealing with mental
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: illness and substance use disorder and just seemed like really
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: quirky overall. Is she just looking for attention? Because if
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: we're going to look at a certain type of personality
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: who's going to wheel around in a wheelchair potentially looking
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: for attention and sympathy, is she going to insert herself
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: into a case like this in order to do the same.
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's convenient that she only started doing it
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: after Dan was already convicted, because maybe she's thinking herself,
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: I can share this wild story, but because the police
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: are convinced they have the right guy, I'm not going
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: to get arrested for it. But Jeane Briscoe became convinced
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: that she was telling the truth because apparently she did
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: share some accurate details which had never been released publicly,
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: like the correct color of Carol's cash box, and she
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: also said that Carol had lost one of her flip
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: flops after she was shot, which was a detail that
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: was never released publicly. So Briscoe became convinced that our
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: Can confession was believable enough that he passed it on
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: to the District Attorney's office, and they even promised Susan
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: immunity from prosecution if her story checked out and an
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: alternate suspect was arrested for the crime. But the problem
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: was she had her issues with substance abuse disorder and
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: mental illness, and she often changed her story because at
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: one point she said she had two mail accomplices, and
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: then she said she only had one. She even named
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: two specific other men as being involved in the crime,
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: but they both denied it, and none of the unidentified
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: fingerprints that were found in the house matched them or Susan,
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: so there was no evidence to show that her story
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: was true. And she did lead investigators to a twenty
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: five caliber gun which she said had been used to
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: shoot Dan, but ballistic tests showed that it was not
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: the same gun, so the District Attorney's office ultimately dismissed
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: her confession and Dan's conviction was upheld.
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm trying to recall which cases is reminding me of.
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: He was a family annihilator and he was also a doctor.
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: Do you remember, Yes, this is the Jeffrey McDonald case
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: which I was going to bring out next. Do you
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: recall Helena Stokely, the woman in that case?
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: Yes, I do, And that's exactly what this is reminding
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: me of.
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Like, this is the main reason that the Jeffrey
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: McDonald family annihilation murders are still controversial to this day,
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: even fifty years later, because there was another woman named
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: Helena Stokely who confessed that she and her drug addicted
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: hippie friends broke into McDonald residence and killed the entire
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: family and wounded McDonald himself. And she kept confessing this
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: for years and years and years. But I know that
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: the law enforcements said that she was not credible, that
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: she had a history also of drug use and mental illness,
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: and that she may have legitimately believed at one point
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: that she was involved in the murders, but it's because
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: she lost her grip on reality and they didn't find
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: her to be credible. But she just reminds me so
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: much of Susan Brown's. They're both the same type of people,
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: where after someone is convicted of a murder, they're just
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: out in the open confessing to law enforcement and private
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: investigators that they were the real perpetrator, yet the district
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: attorney does not find them to be credible.
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, as soon as you started talking about her and
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: talking about how quirky she was and her breaking into
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: the houses and the substance used disorder and all the things,
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: and especially coming forward after jam was convicted, it was
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: totally giving me those Helena Stokely vibes. But I could
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: not remember the name of the case, but I knew
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: you would know. Yeah, as soon as I said family
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: annihilator who was a doctor, and then you're like, go, wait,
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: we're going to talk about it. So that's really interesting.
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: We did an episode about that a couple of years ago,
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: so I've wanted to see if you remembered it. But
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: I think the same thing might have happened here because
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: I know that Helena Stokely also gave accurate details about
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: the crime scene. But it's been suspected that Jeffrey McDonald's
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: attorneys and his private investigators might have coached her because
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: they interviewed her so often, And I wonder if the
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: same thing happened with brisk where he shared details which
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: had not been released publicly with Susan Brown and then said,
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: oh my god, she knew this, so she had to
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: have been there. About how convenience. It was just kind
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: of a way of trying to get his client out
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: of the prison.
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: I think that that happens, especially in older cases, that somehow,
• 18:16
  Speaker 2: either the attorneys or the detectives, they let information slip,
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: and somehow that slipped information gets integrated into the story
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: of the person who is confessing, and then it's like,
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: oh my gosh, look what they knew. They must have
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: been there, and it's like, no, somebody shared this information.
• 18:34
  Speaker 2: That's how they know it. And then sometimes I think
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: that it is sheer coincidence that somebody knows a piece
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: of information, like they might put forth a bunch of
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: incorrect information which nobody is clocking. But then as soon
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: as one thing is right, they're like, oh see they knew,
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: like the color of the cash box, like maybe she knew,
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: maybe she didn't, maybe she guessed. They're like, what color
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: was the cash box? And then she'll say the color
• 18:59
  Speaker 2: and then maybe it's the wrong color, and so she'll
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: get a look or a gesture and she'll correct it
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: and be like, oh no, no, it was this color.
• 19:07
  Speaker 2: Like I don't know exactly how the interview went, but
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: she just doesn't seem credible, so I can understand why
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: they upheld Dan's conviction.
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: And speaking of the cash box, she even said when
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: she was selling Avon products, she came to the Monte
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: Calvo residence and saw Carol get cash from there, and
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: that part of the story might be true, that perhaps
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: she saw the cash box legitimately on a prior occasion
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: and remembered the color, and then they decided to twist
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: that and use that as evidence that she was involved
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: in the murder. But even though a law enforcement did
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: not find Susan Brown to be credible, this still led
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: to a lot of controversy surrounding the case about whether
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: or not Dan was wrongly convicted. Like I said, it
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: was featured on Unsolved Mysteries as a final appeal case,
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: and they also published a book about it titled Final Vowels, Murder,
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: Madness and Twisted Justice in California, written by an author
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: named Karen Kingsbury, and this book is a bit controversial
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: on his own because of some of the judgmental stuff
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: that this author says about Carol's appearance, even though she's
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: a woman herself. This is one of the most cringe
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: inducing passages that she wrote. Quote those who knew her
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: agreed that Carol's eyes were by far her best feature,
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: sparkling brown eyes that were every bit as full of
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: compassion as they were full of life. In fact, she
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: would have been quite pretty if not for the extra
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: seventy pounds she carried. End quote.
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: Ooh no, that was a product of its time. There's
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: a subreddit it's like our slash like why were we
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: okay with this? I think? And it just goes back to, like,
• 20:38
  Speaker 2: you know, nineties two thousand's media spin, especially on women's
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: appearances and the way that like women are viewed, and
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: this is a product of that, because why are we
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: speaking about a woman who's deceased and how they could
• 20:53
  Speaker 2: have been pretty and we're bringing up their weight, Like
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: why is that even a factor? Talk about her sparkling
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: eyes or how she lit up a room or whatever
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: you want to say, but please, please don't mention that
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: somebody should or imply that somebody should have lost seventy
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: pounds and then they would have been pretty Yep, that's rough.
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: Yeah. You should have seen all our listeners. Should have
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: seen Jules's face when I said that passage. She literally
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: did a face pop. I knew she was going to
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: cringe about that whole part. So now let's get back
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: to the Charlie Anderson case, because these were the connections
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: came in because when Jeene Briscoe was interviewing Susan, he
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: wanted to explore the possibility that she might have also
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: been involved in Charlie's murder, and she initially denied it,
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: but later admitted that she had been inside the Anderson
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: home when Charlie was shot and saw what happened, though
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: she never actually admitted to killing him herself, and according
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: to Briscoe, Brown provided a number of specific details about
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: the crime which did check out, and the most compelling
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: detail was that she mentioned that one of the people
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: she was with had lost a green jacket when they
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: were fleeing the scene, and when Briscoe reviewed the original
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: police reports, he learned that a forest green windbreaker had
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: been found near the fence in the Anderson's backyard. Even
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: though this detail was never released to the public, so
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: he claimed he took this information about the Charlie Anderson's
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: murder of the Burbank Police Department, but they had little
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: interest in this lead and practically laughed at the idea
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: of Susan Brown being the perfect trainer, which I do
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: find is a bit weird because with Dan Monte Calvo,
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: you think he's guilty. He's already in prison and the
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: case is closed, so I can understand why they would
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: reject that. But Charlie Anderson's murder was still unsolved, so
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: I'm not sure why they're not taking this more seriously.
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: I suppose that it has something to do with the
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: fact that maybe she was like looked at as being
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: somebody who was unstable or giving false confessions, so she
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: wasn't responsible, that she wasn't responsible for Carol's murder, and
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: she claimed that she was there and present, and it
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: was believed that she wasn't that she was fabricating this
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: whether she believed it or not, as a whole other issue,
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: and then she comes up with this information and it
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: seems like really valid information, but it becomes like the
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: boy who Cried Wolf, right, if you're giving incorrect information
• 23:10
  Speaker 2: the one time, your credibility is kind of shot, and
• 23:13
  Speaker 2: so I think sometimes it's almost like that tunnel vision
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: in that this person can't have any valid information because
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: the information that they provided on a prior occasion was invalid.
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: So we're not going to listen and they put ear
• 23:26
  Speaker 2: muss on and go la la la la la. But
• 23:29
  Speaker 2: it seems odd to me because she did say that
• 23:33
  Speaker 2: she would fuel her drug habit by breaking into homes.
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: So Yes said that she was at the Monte Calvo home.
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: She likely wasn't, but it's very possible that she was
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: correct and that she would break into homes and she
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: had in the past in order to fuel her addictions.
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: So I just think to dismiss her entirely and to
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: think that she couldn't potentially have either herself or no
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: somebody who was involved, it just it feels reckless. With
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: an open case.
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it is kind of weird. It makes me think
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: wonder if they had information that made them think that
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: Susan Brown didn't do it. Because I mentioned earlier that
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: there had been a series of burglaries in that neighborhood
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: prior to Charlie's murders. So I could theoretically believe that
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: she did that, because she would have been desperate enough
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: to break into other people's houses to fuel her habit.
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: But part of me does wonder if maybe at that
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: point law enforcement had their own ideas about who killed
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: Charlie and maybe had dismissed the whole boch burglary theory.
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: So that's why they dismissed Brown immediately, because in nineteen
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: ninety nine, investigators apparently presented a case against potential suspect
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, who determined
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: that there was insufficient evidence to file charges. But to
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: this day, they have not revealed which suspect this is,
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: and it makes me wonder, is this like an outsider
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: like professional criminal like Susan Brown, or did they have
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: suspicions about Beth and decide to file charges to this
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: they're still tight lipped, and I find that so frustrating.
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: But maybe if they were so convinced there was someone
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: else besides Susan Brown who did it, that's why they
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: dismissed her.
• 25:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you gotta wonder if they thought that it could
• 25:11
  Speaker 2: be Beth, because we see so many cases where whether
• 25:14
  Speaker 2: Beth was involved, or she wasn't. We don't know about
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: the life insurance policy there, or if there wasn't affair
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: that Beth was having. Maybe they know more information than
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: they're letting on, which led them to believe that she
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: could have been responsible. But then when they raised her
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: as a suspect or bringing charges against her, there just
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: wasn't enough evidence to go forward with it, and it
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: would be a case where we don't hear about who
• 25:38
  Speaker 2: that suspect is, which it makes sense where in certain countries,
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: like in Australia, we often see that before somebody is
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: charged or they're a suspect, before they've been convicted, identity
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: is protected, but you don't typically see that in American cases,
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: where if somebody is raised as a potential suspect or
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: they even a interest, likely the media has heard something.
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: So the fact that Beth's name hasn't been leaked by
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: somebody or hinted at it seems odd to me. But
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: like who else?
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, That's what I'm thinking is that if it was
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: a professional criminal or a burglar, then why wouldn't you
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: just say their name? If it was someone who didn't
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: really have a reputation to maintain, but the only thing
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: police have said is that they now lean away from
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: the theory that Charlie was shot in a burglary gone wrong,
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: and now suspect he was killed by someone close to him,
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: but they haven't said who. They have never named Beth
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: as a suspect or person of interest, but they have
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: given some statements implying that they might be suspicious of her.
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: We found out that she got remarried and divorced again
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: following the husband's murder, but pretty much stayed out of
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: the spotlight, didn't do many interviews, and according to one investigator,
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: it was difficult to clarify certain details about the night
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: of the crime because Beth would not allow the police
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: to reinterview her after the first time. Back in nineteen
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: eighty seven, they published a fifteenth anniversary article about the
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: case in the Burbank Leader newspaper, where Beth was asked
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: if she was frustrated in the investigation, and her only
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: statement was, quote, I'm frustrated that my husband is not
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: here with me to raise his children. End quote. But that,
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: as far as I can tell, that's the only time
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: she's ever talked publicly about the case, and she passed
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: away herself in January of twenty nineteen, at the age
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: of sixty four, and we haven't heard of any developments
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: in the investigation. So I wonder if police now have
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: the feeling that, well, our only suspect is now deceased.
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: There's nothing you can do, so we've essentially closed the investigation.
• 27:33
  Speaker 2: Can you read me one more time what she was asked?
• 27:36
  Speaker 2: Because she said, I'm frustrated my husband is not there
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: to help me raise the kids. Can you just repeat
• 27:40
  Speaker 2: the question to me one more time?
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: The newspaper just asked if she was frustrated in the investigation.
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: Okay, so it's not really asking anything about how she
• 27:50
  Speaker 2: feels emotionally or if she's sad or if she misses him.
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: That would have been a lot more telling. I mean,
• 27:57
  Speaker 2: how many years later was this asked.
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: I think it was, yeah, fifteen years after the fact.
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah. So I think that, like, whatever raw emotions were there,
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: I wouldn't read too much into it. And I think
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: that like her frustration is valid. But I also just
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: we know so little here about who else could have
• 28:14
  Speaker 2: had a potential motivation to kill Charlie, And with the setup,
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: with how everything was at the home, it seems like
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: if it was somebody close to him, that it would
• 28:26
  Speaker 2: most likely have been Beth. I mean, it could have
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: been somebody else, but Beth would be the most likely suspect.
• 28:34
  Speaker 2: And the whole story about like Beth being in the
• 28:37
  Speaker 2: car because of this back injury. I mean, it could
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: be looked at it's convenient, but it does depend on
• 28:43
  Speaker 2: your perspective and the way that you look at her
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: and you look at the case. So I just wish
• 28:49
  Speaker 2: we had more information. This is just so rare that,
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: like we don't know who the suspect is.
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: It's true, Yeah, I mean it's kind of crazy that
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: this was featured on a national television show like Unsolved Mysteries,
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: But it was just so little information and exposure about
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: the case out there. As for Dan monte Calvo, he
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: never stopped maintaining his innocence, but his conviction was never overturned,
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: and he died of sepsis in prison in September of
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: twenty thirteen. And what's funny is that three years later,
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: the investigation discovery series The Perfect Murder did a full
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: one hour long episode about this case, but it presented
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: a one hundred percent pro guilt narrative because it never
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: even mentioned the Susan Brown confession and left zero ambiguity
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: about whether Dan was the perpetrator, so it seemed like
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: by that point they had completely discounted it. But what
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: was particularly interesting about this episode is that they talked
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: about the potential connections with Charlie Anderson's murderer, and for
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: the first time released a new piece of information which
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: I had never heard before, where they said that Charlie
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: was actually shot to death with his own service weapon.
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: And I thought that was a bizarre because Charlie was
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: not getting back from being on duty. He had gone
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: to visit best parents with his family, So I'm thinking,
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: I don't think he would be carrying a service weapon
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: when he arrived home and walked into the house, So
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: that implies that someone picked it up, maybe in the
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: bedroom or something, and shot him with it. But unfortunately,
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: we don't have information of where the service weapon was kept,
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: so would it be someone where You're thinking that if
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: it was a stranger who broke into the house, that
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: unless they ransacked the place, they wouldn't know where this
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: gun was. But if Charlie was killed by someone who
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: was close to him, may they even know where the
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: service weapon was and then decided to use it to
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: shoot him.
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know how typical it is for sheriff's
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: deputies to carry their service weapon with them while they're
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: not at work. I mean, I would think it would
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: they wouldn't do it, but I don't know, And it's
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: possible that he could have had it on him. But
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: it also would bring up the question if you're going
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: to have it at home, would you just have it
• 30:52
  Speaker 2: lying around or would you put it into a lock box,
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: Because that would seem like that would be the protocol,
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: especially if it's something important like a service weapon. If
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: your home was going to get burglarized, you wouldn't want
• 31:03
  Speaker 2: to put it in a lock box and have you
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: know where the key was, because to steal a gun
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: that is tied to your job at the Sheriff's department
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: or if you're a police officer, that's a big deal.
• 31:13
  Speaker 2: So you would think you would either have it on
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: your person or you would have it locked in a
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: lock box. You wouldn't be careless about just like leaving
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: it lying about, which then would mean whomever gained access
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: to it either knew where the key to the lock
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: box was or they got it off his person, which
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: meant that he was incredibly comfortable with them that this
• 31:36
  Speaker 2: person was around him, that he didn't have his guard up.
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: So either of those scenarios, it would have had to
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: have been somebody that he trusted. And I'm just less
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: likely to believe the third scenario that just anybody could
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: have found it laying around in the home.
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah, there are pretty much two possibilities here. If Beth
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: was the perpetrator, that either because it was verified that
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: they went to see your parents that night and ride
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: to home Lane, so either they walked into the house,
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: had some sort of confrontation, Beth grabbed the gun and
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: decided to shoot him, or if this was an elaborate setup,
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: maybe she arranged things can you saying that my back hurts?
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: Can you take Michael inside? But she already knew that
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: someone she had hired to kill her husband was still
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: already in the house, and maybe told them ahead of
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: time where the service weapon was and if there was
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: a key for it where it was kept, and this
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: person just ambushed Charlie. It would be interesting to know
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: like how really legitimately bad her back injury was because
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: it was such a thing where she could barely walk,
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: then it seems less likely that she could have done it.
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: But if she was legitimately injured, she could have arranged
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: for someone to kill Charlie and she set him up
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: by having him walk into the house alone.
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: There's a lot of possibilities, And because they're releasing no
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: information really about Beth except for the fact that she
• 32:49
  Speaker 2: had this back injury and ran to the neighbors, so
• 32:52
  Speaker 2: we just don't know that much. But it opens up
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: a lot of possibilities that, yes, there could have been
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: somebody else involved, especially if she was having an affair.
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: Like we know that if she did indeed kill Charlie,
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: that there has to be a reason for it. There
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: has to be an underlying motivation, and love and money
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: are typically the top two motivators. So is there a
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: big life insurance or is there somebody else in her
• 33:17
  Speaker 2: life that she sees a brighter future with? And for
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: whatever reason, it feels like the best option to get
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: out of her marriage to end Charlie's life rather than
• 33:27
  Speaker 2: go through a divorce.
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah, because it was established that she did get remarried,
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: but unfortunately don't know when it happened, if it happened
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: like a short time later, or if it was a
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: couple of years later. And the people I'd really like
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: to hear about are the two sons, Michael and Richard.
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: I know Richard was eleven months old, so he won't
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: have any memory of the night. But according to Beth,
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: Charlie put Michael into the house and tucked him in
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: right before he was killed, and he was five years old,
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: so we would still have some memories. So I would
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: like to know, like his version of events, if he
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: recalls anything going into the house that night.
• 33:59
  Speaker 2: I mean, just because you're five doesn't mean you're going
• 34:01
  Speaker 2: to have any recollection of a very traumatic event. The
• 34:05
  Speaker 2: way we lay down memories, some people their brains are
• 34:08
  Speaker 2: going to try to protect them and so they might
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: block something like that out. So Michael may have absolutely
• 34:15
  Speaker 2: zero memory unless he's spoken publicly and says that he
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: does remember something. But I don't think that, like we
• 34:21
  Speaker 2: want to one hundred percent assume that he does. I
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: would still be interested in his perspective because he grew
• 34:27
  Speaker 2: up with his mother and he would have had memories
• 34:29
  Speaker 2: of his father prior to Charlie's death, So hearing what
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: the relationship dynamics were between Beth and Charlie would be
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: incredibly interesting from his perspective, even though we know the
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: memories of a young child aren't our well, memories in
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: general are fallible. We talk about this with eyewitness identifications
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: all the time, and so it would just be more
• 34:51
  Speaker 2: his perspective or more his feeling about what the dynamic
• 34:55
  Speaker 2: was like and what the vibes were in that house.
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I do think there's a good chance
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: maybe he slept through the whole thing, because I know
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: it was reported that Charlie tucked him in, So maybe
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: he was sleeping in the car, Charlie took him into
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: bed and he didn't wake up until his mother did.
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: So if that's what happened, then obviously he's not going
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: to have much memory. But I would like to know
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: his recollection about what it was like growing up in
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: that household and if he witnessed any altercations between his
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: mother and his father during that time period. So, getting
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: back to the Dan Monty Calvil case, I mentioned earlier
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: that one of his friends had claimed that Dan was
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: like asking a lot of questions about Charlie's murder, which
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: led to speculation that he was planning to kill his
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: wife and hope that it would be blamed on the
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: so called burglars who killed Charlie Anderson, so that the
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: police would automatically assume that both crimes were committed by
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: the same person. But if this theory is true, then
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: it's a huge irony if Beth was responsible, because Dan
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: may have actually been caughtying another stage burglary which was
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: actually committed by the victim's spouse, though in that case
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: the spouse actually got away with it.
• 36:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, like you're modeling yourself after somebody who was
• 36:05
  Speaker 2: successful and you're failing, and what you're doing, and the
• 36:09
  Speaker 2: asking of those questions and just some of the things
• 36:11
  Speaker 2: that he suggested to his friend, like suggesting when his
• 36:14
  Speaker 2: friend was complaining about his wife that he could he
• 36:16
  Speaker 2: could hire him to kill his wife. Like who says that,
• 36:20
  Speaker 2: especially if you are responsible for killing Carol, Like why
• 36:24
  Speaker 2: would you be putting stuff like that out there. It's
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: like he wants some kind of recognition. He wanted to
• 36:29
  Speaker 2: get caught on some level because he's so flagrant with
• 36:33
  Speaker 2: certain things and loose lipped.
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: Yeah, pretty much like Beth. If she did it, then
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: she's obviously kept her mouth shut and not done any mistakes,
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: and that's why she was never charged or convicted, whereas
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: Dan was pretty much his own worst enemy. So what
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: are your thoughts on the case overall? Do you think
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: there's any connection between them, because I do agree with
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: the theory that even though Dan was guilty, I think
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: there were other people in the house that night, So
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: I'm thinking that he hired someone to maybe shoot him
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: in the back, and they were the ones who probably
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: left the unidentified fingerprints and footprints, and they were the
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: people who knocked over the woodpile and the ladder, and
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: why the neighbors heard other people who were in the house.
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: But do you think, just by chance, he might have
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: actually hired people who may have been involved in Charlie
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: Anderson's murder.
• 37:18
  Speaker 2: I think it's possible. Do I think it's likely. I
• 37:21
  Speaker 2: don't know. I'm more inclined just because law enforcement thinks
• 37:25
  Speaker 2: that it's somebody close, I'm more inclined to believe that
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: it is too, not just because law enforcement thinks that,
• 37:32
  Speaker 2: just because how quiet meth has been about everything. And
• 37:38
  Speaker 2: I think that that if she is indeed responsible, that
• 37:41
  Speaker 2: is a smart move. The less that you say the better,
• 37:43
  Speaker 2: the less that we can analyze what you've said, the
• 37:46
  Speaker 2: less that law enforcement can read into your words and
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: your actions. So if she did it, she had the
• 37:52
  Speaker 2: right strategy. But the green jacket does stand out to
• 37:56
  Speaker 2: me like it's one of those things where it's like,
• 37:58
  Speaker 2: it's possible that there was connection, and the law enforcement
• 38:01
  Speaker 2: didn't look into this because they were already attached to
• 38:05
  Speaker 2: the idea that it was somebody close to Charlie and
• 38:09
  Speaker 2: potentially Beth, so they weren't going to do their due diligence.
• 38:13
  Speaker 2: They had blinders on, and unfortunately, because of that, we're
• 38:18
  Speaker 2: never truly going to get to the crux of if
• 38:23
  Speaker 2: there was if there was any troop to this green jacket,
• 38:26
  Speaker 2: like did this have any relevance in the case, did
• 38:29
  Speaker 2: somebody share this information? Or who were the people that
• 38:34
  Speaker 2: left behind this jacket? There were so many more questions
• 38:37
  Speaker 2: that begged to be answered, but it seemed like they'd
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: already drawn their conclusions, so there was nothing else to
• 38:43
  Speaker 2: be learned for them. But for me, it's a distinct possibility.
• 38:48
  Speaker 2: I leaned slightly more towards somebody close to Charlie, but
• 38:52
  Speaker 2: I do think there's a possibility. The cases are connected,
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: what about you.
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, just because of the green jacket thing. That gives
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: me pause here. And I know that Susan, like she
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: claimed that she wasn't the one who shot Charlie, that
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: it was a male accomplice. But theoretically, if Beth hired
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: someone to murder her husband, they all lived in the
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: same neighborhood, only a couple blocks apart, So who's to
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: say she didn't hire, like Susan Brown in a male
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: accomplice and they were responsible for killing Charlie. And then
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: a year later, Dan Monte Calvo does the same thing,
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: like he says, I'm going to hire you, Susan and
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: Mone of your mail accomplices to kill my wife, stage
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: burglary and also shoot me in the back. And maybe
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: after doing this for so long, Susan Brown just wanted
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: to get it off her chest and start confessing her
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: involvement in it. I mean, she doesn't seem like a
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: particularly bright person who could get away with multiple murders
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: at the same time, But it is just interesting that
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: she suddenly plants herself at the center of both murders,
• 39:46
  Speaker 1: and at least one of them is able to provide
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: information about the crime. Scene, which she should not have known.
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: So yeah, a very interesting case here. It's like two
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: murders rolled into one, even though one is officially considered
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: to be solved. And I do believe that Dan monte
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: Calvo was the right guy and deserved to die in prisons,
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: but I still can't rule out the possibility that there
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: were others involved in Carol's murder who managed to escape justice.
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: But as for Charlie Anderson's murder, I am just a
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: lot more ambiguous here about what happened because so little
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: information has been released public. But if they are not connected,
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: then it's just pretty quite a crazy coincidence that we
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: had two crimes that were very similar take place only
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: about a year apart, four blocks apart in Unsolved Mysteries,
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: hometown of Burbank, California.
• 40:31
  Speaker 2: Or was it a coincidence because if Dan was asking
• 40:34
  Speaker 2: all of these questions, he could have just copycated the
• 40:37
  Speaker 2: whole thing.
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, So any final thoughts on either of these cases.
• 40:43
  Speaker 2: This was a wild ride. What I really wish is
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: that we had a lot more information on Beth and
• 40:48
  Speaker 2: the dynamics between her and Charlie, what their relationship was like,
• 40:52
  Speaker 2: what their home life was like how quickly Beth got
• 40:54
  Speaker 2: married after the fact, because if there was a man
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: in her life prior, then that could have been the
• 41:00
  Speaker 2: underlying motivation if she was indeed responsible. And yeah, that
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: green jacket, it's caused for pause for me, like it
• 41:08
  Speaker 2: really that is what stops me from saying, oh, I'm
• 41:12
  Speaker 2: like ninety percent believing that it's somebody close to Charlie
• 41:15
  Speaker 2: or believing that it could be Beth. I think there's
• 41:18
  Speaker 2: a possibility that somebody could have been hired, But just
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: because the jacket was there doesn't mean that Beth wasn't involved,
• 41:24
  Speaker 2: like you said, and hired somebody and then that person
• 41:27
  Speaker 2: left behind the jacket. Although, yeah, no, that's that's pretty
• 41:32
  Speaker 2: much it.
• 41:33
  Speaker 1: And I guess our last lesson of the day, if
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: you're going to rob a bank, don't use a deposit
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: slip with your name, address and phone number on it. Yes,
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: that's a good lesson to go out on. So that
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: about brings an end to our series on the murders
• 41:45
  Speaker 1: of Charlie Anderson and Carol Monty Calbo. Thank you so
• 41:48
  Speaker 1: much for joining us, and we'll be back next week
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: with another series.
• 41:52
  Speaker 3: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
• 41:54
  Speaker 3: about the trail like Cold Patreon.
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: Uh yes, the Trail Cold Patreon has been around for
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: three years now, and we offer the standard bonus features
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: like early ad free episodes, and I also send out
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: stickers and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: up with us on Patreon. If you join our five
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: dollars tier tier two, we also offer monthly bonus episodes
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: in which I talk about cases which are not featured
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: on the Trail went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive
• 42:21
  Speaker 1: to Patreon, and if you join our highest tier tier three,
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: the ten dollar tier. One of the features we offer
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: is a audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsawved Mysteries,
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: where you can download an audio file and then boot
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
• 42:42
  Speaker 1: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
• 42:45
  Speaker 1: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
• 42:48
  Speaker 1: first episode that I did a commentary track over was
• 42:51
  Speaker 1: the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: download a commentary track in which I make more smart
• 42:57
  Speaker 1: ass remarks about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to three so.
• 43:01
  Speaker 4: I want to let you know a little bit about
• 43:03
  Speaker 4: the Jules and Ashley patreons. So there's early ad free
• 43:05
  Speaker 4: episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our Pathwent
• 43:09
  Speaker 4: Chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so they're
• 43:11
  Speaker 4: not very mini, but they're just too short to turn
• 43:14
  Speaker 4: into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those, so
• 43:17
  Speaker 4: we hope you'll check out those patreons.
• 43:19
  Speaker 3: We'll link them in the show notes.
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: any chance you have to share us on social media
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: appreciate it. You can email us at The Pathwentchili at
• 43:30
  Speaker 1: gmail dot com. You can reach us on Twitter at
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: the Pathwin. So until next time, be sure to bundle
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: up because cold trails and Chili pass call for warm clothing.
• 43:39
  Speaker 3: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy