Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Season Five Home for the Holidays 15
138 Plays4 days ago
In Today’s Episode, we put together our Home for the Holiday cases.
This podcast was made possible by www.labrottiecreations.com Check out their merchandise and specifically their fun pop pet art custom pieces made from photos of your very own pets. Use the promo code CRIMEXS for 20% off a fun, brightly colored, happy piece of art of your own pet at their site.
Music in this episode was licensed for True Crime XS by slip.fm. The song is “No Scars”.
You can reach us at our website truecrimexs.com and you can leave us a voice message at 252-365-5593. Find us most anywhere with @truecrimexs
Thanks for listening. Please like and subscribe if you want to hear more and you can come over to patreon.com/truecrimexs and check out what we’ve got going on there if you’d like to donate to fund future True Crime XS road trip investigations and FOIA requests. We also have some merchandise up at Teepublic http://tee.pub/lic/mZUXW1MOYxM
Sources:
Various News Sources Mentioned by Name
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction and Content Warning
00:00:00
Speaker
The content you're about to hear may be graphic in nature. Listener discretion is advised.
00:00:22
Speaker
This is True Crime XS.
The Case: Crimes Against Children in Prison
00:00:29
Speaker
This case touches on a number of things as we move into sort of the back half of our holiday series for 2024. The first thing is, there's this sort of known idea that if you're accused of hurting a child in prison, ah it's not going to be Easy for you. If you're accused of this type of crime against a child, it's going to be even worse. And I guess people should consider that their trigger warning. This is a confusing case and when I say the geography here because it's out of Indiana County, which is from Pennsylvania.
Timeline and Geography of the 1976 Indiana County Case
00:01:10
Speaker
Now we pulled sources for this one from the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, the big main US Innocence Project, and from the National Registry of Exonerations. There's some interviews I may pull here where I think i'm I may drop one of the men where he he kind of talks about what happened. His case is over.
00:01:34
Speaker
If you go on the National Registry of Exonerations, you'll find this case related to a crime from 1976. And then a conviction in this case comes in 1982 and an exoneration comes in 2015. The original sentence was life without parole. And this is a white male who was 24 at the time of the reported crime.
00:02:01
Speaker
The contributing factors here are perjury or false accusations and official misconduct. And when we point out whether or not DNA had something to do with ah contributing to this exoneration, the answer in this case is yes. Had you ever heard of this case before we started talking about No, I'd never heard of it. This is an interesting one, and it does have a wrap-up. Not everything that we've talked about this season has had like a wrap-up, but here's how it starts off.
Discovery of DeAnn Catherine Long's Body
00:02:33
Speaker
On July 31st, 1976, a man picking Blackberries discovered the partially clad body of a 15-year-old named DeAnn Catherine Long in the woods near her home in Indiana County, Pennsylvania. An autopsy revealed that
00:02:51
Speaker
DeAnn had been raped and shot once in the back of the head and not at close range, which was suggestive of the possibility that she may have been trying to flee when she was killed. DeAnn had last been seen the previous afternoon. As she was walking home, a blue car stopped. Someone inside spoke to her and she got inside. DeAnn's sister, Lola, told police that DeAnn got in the car after the driver said,
00:03:20
Speaker
that their brother had been in a car wreck nearby. Now, Deanne has an older sister named Patty, and Patty has a friend named Patty. So we've got Patty Long and then Patty Lydic. They tell police that they were out, and by the time they got to the house, Deanne was missing. The driver of the car was described by Lola as a white man with black hair, a heavy mustache,
00:03:49
Speaker
and straight side burdens that came down just below his ears.
Suspects and Inconsistencies in Statements
00:03:53
Speaker
She thought he would have been somewhere between 20 and 30 years old. If you go back through newspapers dot.com and and some of the other archives that the internet has for us, you can see a composite sketch of of who they're describing here.
00:04:08
Speaker
On August 3rd of 1976, so just a couple days later, a man told police that a man named Earl Elderkin, who lived nearby, all of the crime scene in the house where she goes missing from, he resembled the composite sketch. And the police questioned Earl, but he denied any involvement in the crime. A week later, the police go back to question him.
00:04:36
Speaker
And he gives police the name of a suspect that he believes resembles the composite sketch. But the investigation stalls and no one is arrested. About a year later, in July of 1977, police question Earl a third time. This time, he said that he went to a party on the day of the murder and he was high.
00:05:01
Speaker
But he remembered parts of the evening, including a girl being in the backseat of a car that he was riding in. He said he remembered that at some point he looked out of the windshield and he saw a girl running. And then he heard a shot and he saw the girl fall to the ground. For Earl's part, he identifies the person who shot this young girl as Larry Woliver.
00:05:27
Speaker
Police don't believe Earl's story, so they don't end up charging Larry at that time. This case goes unsolved for about four years. And then in February of 1981, police learned that Earl had been attempting to admit himself to a psychiatric facility. He had told the admitting staff that he was experiencing recurring dreams about the murder. On February 22nd, 1981, Earl gives yet another another statement about the crime. This time, he says that a man named John Lynch had held DeAnn down, while another man named Joe Risesky had raped her. Earl also says that Joe Risesky had grabbed the rifle from the car and fired three times at DeAnn as she was running away, hitting her in the head with his final shot.
00:06:27
Speaker
Okay, you followed me so far here? Yep. So we've got a couple different people involved at this point.
Forensic Hypnosis and Its Role in the Case
00:06:34
Speaker
We have DeAnn is our victim. We have Patty and Patty, who is the victim's sister and her friend. And then we have a younger sister named Lola, who actually saw the guy. Now Earl Elderkin has, it's been decided that like he resembles the composite sketch.
00:06:54
Speaker
And he has given us a couple different stories here, where Larry Wolover is the shooter, and Joe Risesky is the shooter, and a guy named John Lynch is holding her down, all while he's trying to get himself locked away in a psychiatric facility.
00:07:13
Speaker
Do we have any idea why he wasn't a suspect? They talked to him three times, so he's clearly an uncleared suspect and they keep coming back to him. they just There's something missing in terms of why they don't consider him to be the main suspect. Okay. My guess is his stories are unreliable, but it's a weird one. Where we get to with this is in March of 1981, a college professor who is an amateur hypnotist with no formal training hypnotizes Earl. And during the session, Earl says, and now his fifth different statement about DeAnn's murder,
00:07:54
Speaker
He says that he left a party in a car with 28-year-old Lewis Fogel and Fogel's brother, Dennis. Earl says that he was feeling ill from the effects of a day-long drinking binge, and he recalled that the Fogel brothers drove to the victim's house, they picked her up, and they drove to the woods.
00:08:19
Speaker
Earl then tells the hypnotist that Lewis Fogel raped the victim on the front seat of the car, and then his brother raped the victim as well. Earl said that after the victim said she would report the rapes to police, Lewis Fogel got a rifle from under the front seat and fired three times, and he strikes DeAnn in the back of the head.
00:08:43
Speaker
I gotta say that like we're we're on story number five here, and I don't know if I believe any of this. Are you familiar with hypnotism or hypnosis or the use of it? yeah I mean, I'm familiar with it. Well, I had to go hunting. That's why I'm asking. like i like In my mind, I was like, that's not allowed in court. Then I was like, is it?
00:09:06
Speaker
It's basically, well, I don't believe like in hypnosis where you like can snap your fingers and get somebody to do a backflip or something like that. Like magic act his hypnosis. I don't believe that. I do believe that you can direct someone's concentration and it might help them slightly remember things. That's the extent that I would, that's my thought on it.
00:09:29
Speaker
Okay, so there's a thing called forensic hypnosis, and I think I knew it existed, but I didn't know what it was. So forensic hypnosis is when investigators in the investigative process, they use hypnosis as evidence gathering, and it can actually be brought into court. Now, it was really popular from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s, but its use has gone by the wayside. and by the nineteen ninety s the popular use of hypnosis has mostly diminished in terms of forensic hypnosis. Forensic hypnosis is one of those things that falls into the category of potential junk science. There are all sorts of things hindered about it by not being able to reproduce reliable results, and there's concerns about whether it's even reliable or accurate to begin with. But according to the United States Department of Justice, you are allowed to use hypnosis in an investigation. The method itself varies and it faces serious objections and that information from hypnosis can be deemed in most jurisdictions to be inadmissible.
00:10:38
Speaker
Now forensic hypnosis has been considered for a couple of different uses. The most popular uses are hypnotic memory enhancement, evaluating a defendant's mental state, determining if a subject is telling the truth, preparing a witness for trial, determining if a witness or victim is feigning trauma or a mental injury, and supporting the defense in a criminal case.
00:11:02
Speaker
These uses have found more support than others as people have tried to write about it and explain it and basically do studies on whether or not it's reliable at all. Now, academic psychologists have reviewed hypnosis and come to differing opinions. Psychologists might find that the most appropriate use for ah forensic hypnosis would be memory enhancement to help in finding leads in the investigative process. But the idea there is that it should only be used to uncover more director circumstantial evidence than it's not supposed to be like
00:11:46
Speaker
seeing the future or like reliably seeing the past, it's more about using it to develop investigative leads when all other leads have been exhausted. But its use in determining if a subject is potentially telling the truth or not has been widely criticized.
00:12:01
Speaker
And it gets categorized and ah in a bunch of different ways. I had to go through this because I was like, how would this work? One of the first big cases in terms of forensic hypnosis in the courts is called State versus Hardy. And in this case, ah this is from 1968, a woman named Mildred Coley was raped and left wounded on the side of a road. She could not recall what had happened during the attack that had left her there.
00:12:29
Speaker
But she was able to rehearse a detailed account of the events, and she was able to identify what had happened to her after a psychiatrist put her into a state of deep hypnosis. So this state ah becomes as sort of a counterpoint for courts not being able to to just rule that hypnosis is inadmissible.
00:12:55
Speaker
I feel like it goes more to the weight of the evidence that's being presented as opposed to just general admissibility. The problem is sometimes if you're being, a doctor of psychology did it, right? The doctor did this and there is a little like woo woo factor to it. You know, if you're talking about somebody predicting something or coming across knowledge they didn't previously have, right? Right. But I would say that, you know, let's say, for example, in the case you were just talking about a similar case where the woman suddenly remembers details about something and then the investigators take that information and they're actually able to line it up with somebody whose DNA then matches her attackers, right? Right. This case was a little confusing. I pulled it up and read about it. The general idea was they were able to call Coley as a witness.
00:13:48
Speaker
And she was able to, this is my opinion on on what I'm reading, she was able to overcome her anxiety about testifying. So part of it was they claimed she had been able to see things that had happened that she had originally blacked out. I don't think that's what it was. I think she was so traumatized by it that like she was having panic attacks when she was trying to repeat what had happened to her.
00:14:09
Speaker
Well, not to mention when you're being asked questions, when you're you've you're the victim of a crime and you're the only one that was there and you're being asked questions, your brain goes to a place and you're remembering certain things. And maybe the stuff that you need to remember is not what you're focusing on.
00:14:25
Speaker
right and if a hypnotist and i do that with air quotes like everybody can see me if a hypnotist helps you like get over the overall event and focus that can be hypnosis and there's nothing magical about it right right So the court at the time declared that forensic hypnosis would satisfy the Frye standard and that led to it gaining acceptance in the appropriate psychological fields and practices. They allowed Mildred Coley to be called to the stand as a witness to repeat what hypnosis had allowed her to recall under the condition that the jurors at the time give less weight to the fact that it was hypnotic testimony and more weight that she was recalling something that had happened to her and she was using an aid to overcome
00:15:11
Speaker
the trauma and anxiety that like you know might have prevented her from talking about it at all. is that Did they have to present it that way and so that because it contradicted a previous statement or something? so The idea was the early medical records in that case basically said she had a version of short-term amnesia from the attack. and In order to get the prosecution to get it past all the hurdles that the defense would shred,
00:15:41
Speaker
they had to hypnotize her and while she's under hypnosis they like have her make a statement and then she comes into the jury box and basically repeats that statement like they're saying yes she didn't remember anything but this is what we did to get there. I see, okay. And the the court allowed it from the perspective of she's allowed to tell her story and this is how she got to this story notwithstanding the accuracy of it all but basically for them to get it in they had to say we had her hypnotized and that's how she knows what happened. I think I had a good neutral person to help a victim recall what occurred to them. It probably gets the short end of the stick if it's called hypnosis, right? Yeah. Honestly, it was very similar to like a very advanced, relaxed, cognitive behavioral therapy, the process they used here. I looked at it and it was technically hypnosis, but it's not the hypnosis that you see in magic acts.
00:16:44
Speaker
Right, that's and that's what gives it sort of like a ah taboo effect when you think of it as evidence. I do think that people can exploit it. I think that it can be a useful tool that's to some extent factual, especially victims of crimes or witnesses to violent acts because your brain goes all over the place and it's you can actually sit And you could do it yourself if you could focus, right? But usually you're traumatized, right? Right. But, you know, like sometimes when I lose something and I can't find it and I've looked everywhere that it's supposed to be, I stop myself and I think back to the last place I had it. And then I think about what I did after I had it.
00:17:27
Speaker
Nine times out of ten, I find the thing I lost doing that. And it's just me focusing on what happened. Right. I'm not doing anything magical. I'm not summoning the object. Right. I just remember finally where it went. And that's that's the part of hypnosis that should basically be allowed if you even call that hypnosis. But the court making this ruling, this becomes a landmark case in terms of forensic hypnosis and Anytime something is new, we like in our lifetime, we've been able to look at the evolution of DNA use in courtrooms going back to the late 80s, early 90s.
Hypnosis in Legal Contexts: Challenges and Rulings
00:18:06
Speaker
Anytime something is new, you have this sort of explosion that happens and then everybody's doing it for a little while. One of those things ah as an example of the expanding use was the fact that they would have these hypnosis training facilities where
00:18:20
Speaker
police officers, social workers, different clinicians were training, you know, thousands of people trained in the 1970s to use this quote, brand new, amazing tool called forensic hypnosis. And anytime you have that going on, you have good things come out of it where likely what happens is a lot of these people learn how to do exactly what you just described. Yeah, just focusing on it. Right.
00:18:45
Speaker
They learn that they can walk somebody through focusing on a time and place and making it more information out of them. But you also have this sort of truth telling, seance kind of side of hypnosis that explodes in sensationalism and makes the popularity even bigger.
00:19:05
Speaker
Now, a lot of psychologists came out in the 70s and they started challenging it. It was going to keep going until 1982, and it's going to suffer its like worst legal challenges in the 80s. But a case that kind of levels everything out, sort of, is People vs. Shirley. It's a California rape case where the victim at the time went to the police while she was intoxicated, and she's reporting like this sort of vague sexual assault. They bring in a hypnosis who did not have a formal psychology background and he's able to walk her through retrieving a story from her memory. And the story that she tells is that she woke up in her apartment and she finds the defendant in that case yielding a ah ah large knife.
00:19:56
Speaker
and it said that he had forced her to have sex with him. But there were multiple inconsistencies in the story that came out during hypnosis and what had been previously reported. So the court in that case, People vs. Shirley, they declared her testimony in total to be inadmissible. The court declared that witnesses could not testify if they had used forensic hypnosis as they could alter existing memories in unpredictable ways and potentially create false memories.
00:20:25
Speaker
There are some other things that that happen around the same time, relatively so. So a court said a victim of a crime could not testify as a witness? If they had undergone forensic hypnosis? At the behest of the police? i At the behest of anyone. I see where that could be like really exploited. It could be. like let's sit Let's send you to the forensic hypnotist. Oh, can't use your testimony anymore. So this case doesn't end forensic hypnosis as evidence. In Rock versus Arkansas in 1987, a woman had been in a fight with her husband.
00:21:01
Speaker
and the gun in her hand went off, firing, and it killed her husband. She could not initially remember the details of the incident, but through hypnosis, she claimed to remember that the gun had misfired because her husband had grabbed her arm. It goes to the Arkansas courts, and the lower court and the Arkansas Supreme Court, they end up corroborating the decision in People v. Shirley regarding hypnotic testimonies. So they say, yep, that's right, she's undergone hypnosis, that can't be used. However,
00:21:31
Speaker
The Supreme Court of the United States overturned these decisions, and they declared that a total ban on hypnotic testimonies was unconstitutional and would have, at the time, been in violation of Mrs. Rock, the woman who had been in a fight with her husband's right to due process, which falls under the 14th Amendment, and the right to call a witness, which would fall under the 6th Amendment. I bring all this up because it's part of this case, but my point is,
00:21:57
Speaker
forensic hypnosis is a new rabbit hole to go down. If you're looking for a holiday rabbit hole, it is quite interesting. There are several books out there about it, multiple journal articles about its rise and fall. And ah even the Journal of Law and Criminal Justice has a recent rather large summary called forensic hypnosis and the courts. You'll have to hunt a little bit and find it because I saw him it had gone inactive between the time that I read it.
00:22:24
Speaker
and now when we're recording. But I believe ah the writer's name that I wrote down was Brent Patterline, P-A-T-E-R-L-I-N-E. So you might be able to find it. It's a December 2016 edition. Do you have any idea if it discussed how it should be the weight? What weight you give to it?
00:22:43
Speaker
Right, like it's it's a question of the for the jury, right? Yeah, the final results of hypnosis as it's used today is quite different than it was in the cases that I just talked about from 40, 50 years ago. The way that it's used today is... Essentially, it has to be done in a professional environment and it can't be at the behest of just the police. It really has to be that the prosecutors are trying to get to the bottom of something and they've instructed it down the the line. and Or it could be the opposite, it could be that the defense.
00:23:14
Speaker
is trying to get to the bottom of something and it and it frequently happens in competency issues and in issues with witnesses who give a statement and later a statement is contradicted. But it is completely transparent at this point and that is the recommendation of that particular article that it is useful in cases where people have short-term amnesia or contradictory statements that seem to have a reason for being contradictory.
00:23:38
Speaker
Right, and and a jury could could very well decide how much they believe it, if they believe it, how appropriate it was, right? Right. They're all questions of fact, right? Correct. Basically, it would be like it's supposed to be. It's a toss-up, right? Because if you present a hypnotic ah hypnotized witness and their account doesn't hold water for the jury, they're not going to believe it, right?
00:24:06
Speaker
Right. That's how it should go. I think it's fascinating, though, that it had to go
Arrests Based on Hypnotized Statements
00:24:10
Speaker
through all that. And it ties back into Louis Fogel's case here that we were talking about. So we've got Earl Elderkin. He's been hypnotized. And now he's given a statement that Dennis and Louis Fogel were responsible for the rape and murder of Deanna Long. So police, after this hypnotized statement occurs, they re-interview the victim's sisters, and the other Patty. So they re-interview Lola, Patty, and Patty. Lola holds on to her original story. She saw DeAnn get in the car with the man. But Patty and Patty, they changed their statements, and they sort of tied their statements in with what Earl had said. Now, they say that they were home,
00:24:56
Speaker
Whereas before, they said they get home and she was missing. When DeAnn goes missing, they say they saw her get picked up by three men. So this is in contrast to their statements from five years ago, when they said that DeAnn was gone when they got home and Lola told them about it. So the sister, Patty,
00:25:19
Speaker
now says that Diane came home and she had a dinner and there was spaghetti and meatballs and salad, and she left with these three men. That's going to be important later because the autopsy shows that there was no no relation between what she's saying and the food that was actually in the victim's stomach. On March 19th, 1981, so three days after Earl talks to this amateur hypnotist that has no training,
00:25:48
Speaker
please go and pick up Dennis Fogle and they question him. And they eventually obtained a confession that roughly matches Earl's statement, like almost exactly that they were all at a party and Earl wasn't feeling well. And they all left and Lewis, Dennis and Earl took the end with them that Earl Dennis and Louis left the house. They drive to the longhouse and they pick Diane up and they drive to the woods with her. Okay. As a result of this, Louis Fogle is arrested and then they go back and they arrest everybody that Earl has ever talked about. They charge everyone with murder and rape. And when I am saying everybody, they pick up John Lynch,
00:26:39
Speaker
They pick up Joe Risewski. So they're taking these four guys in saying that they are responsible for the death of D.M. Long. Now, when they do this, there's some important things to note. Lewis Fogle's physical appearance at the time of the crime which they're able to verify through different types of photographs, including his identification. They differed greatly from the original description that Lola had given to the police just hours after DeAnn went missing. He had red hair and he had a full beard. So he didn't have black hair and he didn't have a big mustache with sideburns. By the time Louis Fogel goes to trial,
00:27:25
Speaker
In the Indiana County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania, it's February 1982. Three different men who were in jail at the time with Louis Fogel, they came forward to testify as jailhouse informants or snitches that Louis Fogel had been confessing to the rape and murder.
00:27:42
Speaker
At the time of this trial, there is no forensic or physical evidence that links Lewis Fogle to the crime, and a lot of time has passed. We are six years almost five five and a half years, almost six years, from the time that D.M. Long is raped and murdered. The trial judge excludes Earl's statement from evidence because the hypnosis who obtained it was untrained.
00:28:08
Speaker
So the reason all these people got arrested is thrown out. There was no written record made of information given to him by the police prior to the session. There was no record of what Earl remembered before he was hypnotized and the hip noses session itself was not recorded. So I think those are four important things to talk about, if that makes sense. The judge is throwing out Earl's statement. How do you feel about that?
00:28:34
Speaker
I don't really feel anything about it with regard to like Earl and the statement, but it does leave me wondering why we're sitting here talking about this. Right. Cause if you throw out his statement, really, is there any reason to even have a trial? Well, I mean, that's what I'm thinking that there wouldn't be because everything came from the statement that not, they were literally stuck for five or six years beforehand. Yeah. That's how we get here. Yeah. Okay.
00:28:59
Speaker
And what do you think about making sure the hypnotist is trained? I don't really, I don't see how it is really relevant. I don't see how they, this is one of those cases. There was something about Elderton for whatever reason. He matched the composite, but because they had seen three people or whatever, it was like, okay, so who's your buddy, right? Okay, we're not quite there. It could be, but like originally it's just one person.
00:29:27
Speaker
Well, didn't the girls, did they say that there were three to begin with or just one? In 1981, they said there were three. In 1970, like right after it happened. in Okay, so it was just one. Correct. Obviously, when you're pushing somebody, right, which is what's happening here,
00:29:46
Speaker
Elder Ken kept getting questioned for whatever reason. It's never really disclosed why his resemblance to the composite outweighed being hypnotized and arresting a man who looked nothing like the composite. Right. Okay. It's a story. I imagine the case changed hands, right? Yes. Okay. And somebody came in and they were going to solve it.
00:30:09
Speaker
Oh yeah. I don't know why Earl Elderkin was put to the test of a witness as opposed to the perpetrator, right? Right. But he is. And so he implicates both Lewis and his brother Dennis. Right.
00:30:29
Speaker
And once that has happened, they get to trial and it doesn't the hypnosis statement is tossed. Right, but Dennis has confessed at that point. When they pick up Dennis, Dennis confesses. They get a confession from him. Okay, but Dennis is not who we're talking about. I know.
00:30:48
Speaker
But I'm just pointing out, as we're throwing Earl's statement out, we do have Dennis's confession. Dennis's confession is a backstop to Earl's statement that is thrown out. And the reason that this judge is throwing it out is there's no written record of information that the police had given him. That would be helpful. But there's also no record of what Earl remembered before he was hypnotized and the session wasn't recorded. But I would argue we have all of Earl's other statements.
00:31:17
Speaker
that he's made. Well, not to mention the fact that like after he does this hypnosis session, the arrests are made. Correct. That gives you some inclination right there of what happened, right? Yeah. Oh yeah. but My point is like, so Dennis confesses and he implicates his brother. Yeah. This is after Elder Ken's hypnosis session. Correct. Okay. They allow Dennis's confession to stand. Right. Implicating his brother. Right.
00:31:46
Speaker
OK, but the charges are dismissed against Dennis. Well, we haven't got there yet. So the judge basically says, look, Earl is not reliable. He has given inconsistent statements over the years of who is involved in this. He has been a patient multiple times in a psychiatric ward.
00:32:03
Speaker
The judge also noted that Earl's hypnotic statement and statements by other witnesses would shift to support Earl's new version. And in the judge's opinion, he this is pre-trial, so it's not all happening at you know, the time of the trial. But in his opinion, he felt like the police and the prosecution were reaching out to these other witnesses and making these statements fit what they wanted out of Earl, which gave them the probable calls for the arrest. And the whole reason that we're here in the first, which is Earl said, I did it with these guys. Louis Fogel, for his part, he denies having anything to do with this crime. He said that he had spent the day with his parents and his brother, Dennis, and around 10 p.m. they went to a bar.
00:32:50
Speaker
They bring in the Fogels, they testify, and all their stories seem to line up to some degree. Patty, not the sister, but the friend, Patty Lydick, she admits that she changed her version of events so that it would match up with Earl's hypnotized statement. She said that she changed the statement because the Pennsylvania State Police had pressured her and she wanted to go home. They told her that that's the way it was supposed to be.
00:33:21
Speaker
You would think all of this would get a jury's attention, but on February 26th of 1982, the jury convicts Louis Fogel of secondary murder and rape. So Louis Fogel had been married for three months at the time he got arrested in 1991. He gets sentenced to life in prison without parole. But like you just mentioned, the charges against everyone else are dismissed for insufficient evidence.
00:33:48
Speaker
Well, what was the evidence against Lewis?
Insufficient Evidence and DNA Testing in Fogel Case
00:33:51
Speaker
Well, the only thing that corroborates what is happening here in terms of Lewis Fogle's prosecution is the fact that Dennis tells a story after he's interrogated by the local and state police that matches up with Earl's statement. and So if we go back to Earl's statement, that means that... So Dennis's statement that he and his brother We're involved in this. Wasn't enough evidence against Dennis, but it was enough against Lewis? Correct. Yeah. Okay. This is stupid. Well, it is stupid. This whole thing is stupid. Earl's clearly not reliable, but yet here we are. And Lewis Fogle is convicted in sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
00:34:41
Speaker
And he literally had nothing to do with that. He didn't know that it was even a thing that he should be worried about. Lewis Fogel's attorneys, as he's kind of passed along, they file appeal after appeal. ah Numerous appeals are denied, as were numerous state and federal petitions for writ of habeas. but In 2003, they file a different kind of motion, and that motion is for DNA testing. The prosecution ends up opposing it, and in 2006, it's finally denied. So that's just to throw that out there.
00:35:16
Speaker
That is a long time to wait on a single motion to be heard where all you're asking to happen and is for DNA testing of the evidence from the crime that you're spending the rest of your life in prison for. Like now you got three years that you sat here and it's denied. I think that it's the time.
00:35:33
Speaker
Yeah, it's actually really interesting though, because we recently did um a case where there was like 1988 DNA testing done, right? Correct. And so I don't really know what what difference, I guess it's time and space, but This was a time, because pre-DNA testing, right, and I mean like widespread, not just like, you know, wherever did it in 1988. But once a case is adjudicated, it has some appeals processes, but for the most part, once DNA became a thing, it became like this whole new right to people who didn't have the luxury of having DNA testing done to have their trials open back up and have it tested, right?
00:36:21
Speaker
Yeah, we'll never see anything like this again in history. i don't I don't think so either. I can't imagine what, of course we're not through it yet, right? No, we're still in it. We're still in that time period. But yeah, you're right. I can't imagine what it would be. But I feel like that could be part of the three years here, right?
00:36:39
Speaker
Yeah, it could be. And the fact that like you have to there was ah there was this early time, which you and I have talked about, where first of all, the testing was very expensive and there were only a few specialized labs that could do it. Secondly, there was this time where certain types of testing would use up entire samples. And there was also a time where, just from the overall perspective, that
00:37:09
Speaker
The last 30, 40 years, the courts, like in a lot of places, a lot of jurisdictions, their policy and procedure that they had set in place a long time ago was to destroy the evidence.
00:37:21
Speaker
so You're hoping like it's it's interesting to me. And I think we've covered more this year than we've ever covered. I don't know if they all make it into the holiday series, but I know we at least talked about more cases where the evidence have been destroyed. And what saves the person is some random piece of evidence that like somebody really wasn't supposed to have. We talked about a lot of those.
00:37:43
Speaker
which comes with its own nuances, but yeah DNA exonerations are a whole new beast. I get the adversariness of the process and perhaps it's a cost benefit analysis or something that goes into their head. I just, I have trouble with, especially cases that didn't have the opportunity. right They didn't have the opportunity for DNA testing. the The people were convicted before it was a thing. There is evidence left. I don't understand why prosecutors would even object to that. right yeah Well, this case like it still has some twists and turns on it, but yeah, objecting to it in 2006 was a ah big deal. It takes until 2008 before Lewis's case is taken seriously again, so it's two more years passing. The Innocence Project on a national level and the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, they began investigating this case and they request some specific DNA testing of the physical evidence.
00:38:42
Speaker
Couple years later, so now we're like seven years out from where the first motion is filed in February of 2010. But the the Indiana County District Attorney's Office and Lewis Hogle's appellate attorneys who have come to him through the Innocence Project and Pennsylvania Innocence Project They all get together and they say, okay, well, now we're going to do DNA testing. And guess what happens? Tests on vaginal, anal and oral slides that were kind of collected from the victim at the time are inconclusive. So he has to wait even longer. So he waited seven years. He gets testing that is not great. But in 2014,
00:39:19
Speaker
Everybody sort of comes together and they do a search for new evidence for possible DNA testing that is located in 12 additional items. One of those things is the victim's pubic hair comings, which used to be a thing. It's still a thing to a degree. We've talked about this. In the spring of 2015,
00:39:41
Speaker
In these items, sperm cells are identified and testing reveals that the DNA profile is of an unknown male that is not Louis Fogel's on these sperm cells. In August of 2015, the prosecution joins with lawyers for Louis Fogel in a motion to go ahead and vacate Louis Fogel's convictions.
Exoneration and Aftermath for Louis Fogel
00:40:07
Speaker
On August 13, 2015, that motion is granted and Louis Fogel is released on bond. He's greeted by his wife, Deb, who had been by his side for 34 years.
00:40:21
Speaker
On September 14th, 2015, the prosecution finally dismisses the charges. And in February, 2017, Lewis Fogle files a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking damages. And that lawsuit gets settled in 2023, receiving $13 million dollars in compensation for for Lewis. I just realized something. I said at the beginning that this would wrap up. I don't think it has.
00:40:50
Speaker
I didn't find anybody. Oh, did you look? Okay. Yeah, I looked because so the way that we end up with all these exonerations, right? Usually, especially the DNA ones that are the result of the change in technology that basically I'm pretty sure every single state in the United States at this point has a statute that allows for anybody incarcerated to have evidence tested for DNA.
00:41:19
Speaker
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure if it's not every state, it's almost every state. You would think in those situations, it's just as important it to find out who the DNA belongs to as it is to determine it doesn't belong to the person that was convicted for the crime. Yeah. That does not seem to be whatever happened. So it seems like You have a crime that occurs most of the time with a violent crime against a woman. I mean, I'm just saying. And they put a guy away as the perpetrator and then more resources than ever went into the investigation of the initial criminal act go into getting the innocent person out of jail. Okay. And then the crime is never solved. Right.
00:42:15
Speaker
Now, in this case, what were they thinking? i I don't know. I actually think it's still Earl, because remember Earl says he has nightmares about the murderer. And I went through and I read, there's a couple of articles, like Law and Crime did an interview with him, that I'm still considering like playing that at some point. It is interesting. With Earl? No, with um Dennis. I mean, with Louis Fogel. Oh, yeah. Well, see, to me, the very first, and and in to that,
00:42:45
Speaker
um point, they do have a very good prime suspect, not to mention going off the theory that's been debunked that Lewis did this, you know, other possibilities. So it's not like they would even have to do genetic genealogy, right? They could literally just do a comparison to Earl.
00:43:08
Speaker
Yeah, so one of the interesting things was in the lawsuit, Earl was known colloquially in the town that everybody's in here as Spaceman because he would tell stories about how he and his kids were from outer space and how he fit the look of the person that they were talking about.
00:43:30
Speaker
But I don't think they could ever link him to a gun. I think that's ultimately like what the deal was with Earl Eldre can. But he should never have been considered credible because of his known like extreme drug and alcohol use that everybody talked about on all sides of it.
00:43:50
Speaker
I saw a picture of Lewis and I can't find it now. I was trying to find it and send it to you. So at the time, Lola, who I think is probably the most accurate, she describes a blue car and a guy with dark hair that has mutton chops and a mustache, but she doesn't know who he is.
00:44:08
Speaker
But she recognizes him. And the thing about Lewis Fogle at the time in the picture that I saw, he has a long red ponytail hanging all the way down his back and his beard goes all the way down his front like ZZ Top. So there's no way she's mistaking dark hair for Lewis Fogle. You know what I mean? Well, I realize that, but I also don't see how the leap was made from the Hypnosis statement that was thrown out with all the guys involved to just one dude who didn't match the composite.
00:44:46
Speaker
Yeah, I read this one article about how Pennsylvania came to the attention of the Innocence Project in the early 2000s. Laura Bazalon wrote for SLEET.com back in October 2016. She wrote an article called Pennsylvania Shame, and it kind of delved into details with how Pennsylvania didn't know what it was doing in the criminal justice system at the time. It was just interesting because we've talked about a couple of different cases that come out of pennsylvania over the years i think this is just one more well pennsylvania is not alone
00:45:18
Speaker
no i know i know this is just where they focused in for a minute because i think what it really was was a lot of the evidence was still available in the cases, so they were able to look at it. Well, when you have investigators, and I do feel like we come at this from an interesting angle, um you and I and other people, probably our listeners, they come at it from an interesting angle because when you have a job and your job, like for example, in this case was to determine who had raped and murdered this young girl, this 15 year old, right? Yeah.
00:45:52
Speaker
And the case had gone cold for the most part. Again, perhaps it was his lack of ability to get a gun. I don't know. Perhaps it has nothing to do with Earl, which would make it even more ironic, wouldn't it? Yeah, it would. If nobody that was named was involved. But when at the end of the day, if you are an investigator and you can't solve your cases,
00:46:21
Speaker
I presume you would feel pressure and perhaps lose your job. Oh, yeah. So solving it incorrectly would be better than not solving it at all. That has to be what's being thought of here. But when you don't have that on you, right, like because we don't lose anything by saying, oh, it wasn't him or whatever.
00:46:43
Speaker
no Nothing we say matters. If you had a better perspective on something, it would be very clear, even in 1981 or 82 or whenever it was happening, they would say, well, Spaceman said that under hypnosis, but that doesn't really make good sense, does it? Yeah. And then they'd say,
00:47:08
Speaker
Oh, well, how could it possibly be this redheaded guy? Except they didn't care. They were like, oh, we've got to solve this case because that's our job. That's the ah that's the only thing I can see happening there. And that's not getting anybody justice. That's delaying justice. And it's ruining other people's lives. Yeah, I'd say that's been one of the most shocking things about all of this is that ultimately it is ruining people's lives.
00:47:38
Speaker
Would it be easier to swallow if like Lewis had looked like the composite and he had made some sort of confession statement or not denied it or something? Possibly. It might be easier to swallow that way.
00:47:52
Speaker
but When you have these blake, because don't you, without having done any investigation on any cases, don't you presume, oh, even the worst of the worst, they have to be mistakes, right? Yeah. It can't possibly be that they ignored all the actual evidence and just made up what they could.
00:48:13
Speaker
you know i I don't know how we end up here. I don't know how we end up with Louis Fogel convicted of all of this. I can see the series of unfortunate events happen. I can see the pattern here. and i'm sure that if you like It's interesting because I think if you follow cops like this, like the state police involved here and the local police involved here, because I don't think the local police are going to have that many murder cases just based on what I know about that area at that time.
00:48:36
Speaker
But I think if you follow the state police that came in to quote assist with the homicide cases because they're spread out over different districts in Pennsylvania, I think you would find crappy tactics attached to people and they attach to commands like in terms of like ah a boss that lets it happen and colleagues that don't call them out on it.
00:48:57
Speaker
I think that becomes part of the pattern how we get these cases where. Right, but I don't think they see it and they are like, oh, I'm not going to come out on it. I'm like, I think that they think, oh, good work. You know, you're right. Everything that I'm saying is basically hindsight.
00:49:13
Speaker
Right. And so my point, I just feel like a different perspective, like where you aren't saying to yourself, no matter what, I have to get this solved, right? Because literally, like you can do subpar work to get a job done, right? yeah When the objective is to get a job done, you can apply it to anything, any kind of job.
00:49:38
Speaker
if and And sometimes it's okay. I can't even think of anybody in any position without a very narrow perspective thinking like, oh, well, I solved the case in this particular situation, felt like they did a good job. Yeah.
00:49:57
Speaker
Well, I mean, if you're a Walmart cashier and your job is, you know, your objective is your job, whatever, is to check people out and make sure that they get all their groceries in the bags and you take their money for the corporation and send them home.
00:50:13
Speaker
That's one thing, but if your job is the same mentality as that can potentially result in one of your customers for the day going to prison and being given the death sentence or never getting out of prison, maybe you should do your job differently.
00:50:32
Speaker
so Exactly. That's exactly what I'm saying. I feel like there's so much at stake here and I get where like you don't want it to be so but such a high bar that nobody will do the job, right? yeah But at the same time, like this is not a high bar. No. There was nothing pointing to this guy. Nope.
00:50:55
Speaker
Well, that's all I got on Louis Fogelman. um I may drop his interview in here. I haven't decided on that yet. Special consideration was given to True Crime XS by LabratiCreations.com. If you have a moment in your favorite app, please go on and give us a review or a five-star rating. It helps us get noticed in the crowd. This is True Crime XS.
00:53:07
Speaker
One day it will be my baby and me
00:54:00
Speaker
True Crime XS is brought to you by John and Meg. It's written produced, edited, and posted by John and Meg. You can always support True Crime Access through patreon.com or if you have a story you'd like them to cover, you can reach them at truecrimeaccess.com. Thank you for joining us.
00:54:24
Speaker
This is just a reminder that we are part of the Zincaster Creator Network. And I've put a link in the show notes if you guys want to check it out for your own podcasting needs. um I've always enjoyed using Zincaster. Their quality is great. And we we were able to join their Creator Network at kind of a key time in in their history. um I have enjoyed it. You know, I've considered a lot of other ah places to record and a lot of other ways to put together and host and distribute our podcasts. But I've stuck with Zincaster the longest. We've been with them for hundreds of episodes now. And I'm putting a link in the show notes where you can check out ah what they have to offer and see if it's something you would want to use. Yeah, I must admit 300 people.
00:55:18
Speaker
to want to shake my hand after I was released. And every one of them said they never thought I was guilty. yeah And it that really amazed me because it let me know that there was a lot of people out there who are as innocent. I haven't had anyone yet to come up to me and say or that I should be back in prison. Everybody was glad to see me out yeah and hoping that the the truth will finally come out.
00:55:46
Speaker
And I made promises to some relations of Kathy's, you know, that I'm going to do whatever I can to do just that. And whenever I make a promise, I don't go back on it. I'll keep that promise to them. One way or another, I'm going to see the truth come out. You know, I don't owe it to them. I think we all owe it to Kathy, you know.
00:56:14
Speaker
There was no reason at all for what happened her. yeah
00:56:21
Speaker
i and yeah be That's something that I never could understand. yeah Why? you know It's meaningless. you know But sooner or later, maybe we'll find out why.
00:56:43
Speaker
you know i i mean I actually wish I would have known the girl. I never met the girl. you But sitting in prison, I learned a lot about her. yeah Not only from Jim, but quite a few other people. Reading the state police investigative report and you know talking to people that knew her, writing to them.
00:57:11
Speaker
You know, I got to know a lot about her. You know, she seemed like a nice girl.
00:57:21
Speaker
Lewis Fogel served 34 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. He was convicted of murdering Deanna Catherine Long, who was 15 years old when she was found raped and murdered in 1976 in Cherry Tree.
00:57:36
Speaker
Fogle and three others were arrested in 1981, but Lewis Fogle was the only one put on trial. He is maintained that he was never present during the crime. In 2008, he convinced the Innocence Project in New York to take his case, which eventually led to his release in August 2015 based on DNA evidence. But it was the very case that put him away that kept him alive and motivated him since the day he walked into prison.
00:58:03
Speaker
It was upon the foundation of his decades of legal work that he was freed and the knowledge of his innocence that kept him focused. Though he is technically a free man, Long's case, his case, is still what occupies his attention. If you could pick up your timeline right after your conviction in 1982 and um tell us, you know, basically about your first years in prison.
00:58:31
Speaker
That's pretty difficult. When I was convicted, it took it it took ah quite a long time for it actually sunk in that know it I was going to end up with doing spending my life in prison for something I didn't do. And I said, well, got to do something about it. That's when I started going to the law library at at the county jail. But the books was outdated.
00:58:59
Speaker
So I raised a little cane about it, you know, and I actually threatened to sue. And about that time they had a flood over the courthouse. A lot of books got damaged, a lot of records got damaged. So there they they were going to replace all the books at the law library.
00:59:21
Speaker
which helped out to the county jail. The bottom of it was the county jail. That gave me some good books to read. So that's where I actually started getting into the legal work. You know, I went to the county jail. I would have been, I'd been 1983. Okay. Okay. So this was right away. So you began basically working in legal work right away. Right. Yeah, I had to.
00:59:49
Speaker
But when you started working on it in 1983, what angle were you researching to try to help your case? At that point, DNA wasn't the way it is today. you But I was trying to get them to run the test that they ran to see if a person followed their child or not. yeah Because I figured I would work, but then they told me you know during my trial and everything, they said that there's no pubic Arizona victim other than our own.
01:00:18
Speaker
There was no DNA other than her own. Now we know there were pubic hairs that had semen on them. yeah you We also know there was semen itself, yeah not only on the pubic hairs, but on the zipper, on the jeans, and the waistband on the jeans. yeah And that DNA showed that all three tests in the three different areas showed that the same three men were involved.
01:00:47
Speaker
yeah And he's one of those men, it was me. Yeah, according to Lola and Rose Long, back then, Kathy was picked up around four o'clock in the evening. I didn't leave my mother's place until seven o'clock. I got up around that area that area at eight o'clock, you know, which was four hours after she was abducted, you know, publicly already killed, you know.
01:01:15
Speaker
And it then took, you know, It took them, I think, four years to take something like that before they even took that and sentenced me, because I traded one attorney into it for another one. So we took care of the pill and stuff before I even went to prison, which is unusual.
01:01:41
Speaker
god Once we got down to Pittsburgh, I knew I had to make money, so I hurried up and made arrangements to take out and start to work down to CI, where I could make the most money. And what's the CI? Yeah. ah they make They made furniture and beds and stuff for the other institutions, steel beds and stuff. yeah So you could take out and really make some good money down there. I worked at the tag plant for a while too down there. That was good money too.
01:02:13
Speaker
And so Pittsburgh was the first place that you were housed? Yes. Yes. You had a few problems there, but not really that many. You know, yeah one thing about prison, once they find out you fight back, they don't want to mess with you, you know, because they don't want to end up in trouble. You know, people, they go after the weak ones that will not fight back. So I...
01:02:37
Speaker
lucked out there because i know I don't back down. So it worked out. Had a riot down there. Made it through that pretty good too. Yeah. Where were you taken after Pittsburgh? or Do you remember how long you were there for? I was done in Pittsburgh from What the heck was it? 1984 to 2004.
01:03:05
Speaker
2004, they moved me up to Avion. And then that was where you had been all the way up until sort of the Innocence Project era? All except except for a year. In 2008, they took out and moved a bunch of inmates up to Michigan. And I ah i actually was one of them.
01:03:26
Speaker
It was supposed to be for five years, but only lasted a year. And nearly brought us back. They supposed to give us the same job back or another job making the same money, but they didn't do it. So I was lucky because I used my money and took out and invested it. yeah And I gave me some money to live on. Since when I came back, I had never had a job.
01:03:55
Speaker
so I had to live off of what I had saved up. Can you tell me a little bit about occupying your time while you were in prison other than working? I know you took up painting at some point. Well, I've actually been doing painting all my life. Okay. You know, I taught myself when I was very young. And, you know, other things I did, I spent most of my time working on the case, doing research, typing, whatever.
01:04:24
Speaker
When other things got a little bit too rough and things started caing caving in on me, I just know I'd turn to my art. yeah One thing about art, you take it and start a painting. Six or seven hours go by and it seems like 15 minutes. So it calms you down. yeah And then you can get yeah get back into the art or whatever I wanted to get into or reading. you know I had a happy reading reading treasure books.
01:04:50
Speaker
yeah
01:04:53
Speaker
I was wanting to take, I was wanting to go out to pirate tracer and stuff. So i I saw an opportunity to buy some books. So if you go to heck, I'll buy the books and read them. You said before we started rolling that and kind of stuck with it because you were kind of mad about it and you knew that you had been wrongfully convicted. Does that feeling ever go away? No, never.
01:05:21
Speaker
you It all does aggravate you two years ago by, especially if you have nobody on the outside working for you. If you wanna have family that stop by a courthouse or make phone calls for you or even write to you you know on a regular basis or something. yeah That's the only thing you got to look forward to in there, plus visits. you know
01:05:49
Speaker
Like being in Pittsburgh, you know, that's a long ways to drive. I didn't mind not having visits, but I expected to, you know, letters, you know, you know, at least maybe once a week, once every two weeks, but it didn't always turn out that way. It's every, every time the car comes around the mail and he stops at this cell, hands out mail, passes your cell, goes to the next one, hands out mail, you die just a little bit every time. You know,
01:06:21
Speaker
And I was away for quite a few years, not getting no letters from my people.
01:06:28
Speaker
So the only thing I could do is ah know and try to find other people to write to. I think it was 2003, 2004 I took out and started trying to get the Innocence Project in Pennsylvania interested, well, anyone interested. So I tried doing it on my own to get DNA because, you know, jason't because I got a copy of the state police investigative report, which was something a lot of people think that you can't get. And they told me you can't get it, but I got it anyways. But I noticed in there that there were indications of yeah different DNA that was found.
01:07:06
Speaker
so i i decided yeah i just I decided, instead of just sending my paperwork yeah to the Innocence Project and say, here it is, you know I decided to sort of use a different tactic. I wrote it up as if I was writing a brief. And everything I said, I made sure I added some kind of a record to show that I was telling the truth on it, in order to support it. And at that time,
01:07:37
Speaker
In New York, there was an attorney in the Innocence Project, Greg Cooley, and he he read he read my paperwork. And he took the case, he told me, he says, you yeah even if your case did not have DNA in it, he said, I would have had to take your case because he put you pooed to me, not only that you're innocent, but you that you were set up.
01:08:03
Speaker
You made contact with the Innocence Project and things are things are starting to look good. what are you What are you feeling? Are you feeling optimism? Are you trying to check your hopes? Well, that was strange because i I have seen light at the end of the tunnel ah quite a few times. I i was glad nobody called my attorney. She says, I've got some good news for you. yeah You know, Roger Nax, my attorney, I talked to, was one of the law students, you know, and she she told me that they found some DNA and they're searching for more. And they were going to test it, you know. And she said, I've got to ask you, is there any way this DNA can match up to you? And I said, absolutely not. You know, I wasn't even in the area whenever the crime was committed, you know. So he he ran and showed him exactly what I told him.
01:09:00
Speaker
yeah you know It was the first time I had attorneys in the case where what they were doing and planning to do was in harmony with what I was doing and trying to do. yeah And that helped out a heck of a lot.
01:09:17
Speaker
yeah
01:09:20
Speaker
i I really owe my life to them. It did me justice anyways.
01:09:30
Speaker
You know, there's so many guys and in prison that, you know, get to you get to the point where they have nowhere to turn. And a lot of them commit suicide. You know, I thought about it myself. You know, quite a few times, but every time, yeah um you every time I'd get a letter from Barbara or somebody, you know, and you know,
01:10:02
Speaker
once Once I get the letter, I'd i' snap back to reality again. You know, and realize that if I did something like that, it's over. You know, it's completely over. I lost the one. And there was no way I could let them win. You know, for all the illegal things that led to my arrest and conviction, I couldn't let them win. I had to win this one. So I kept on fighting.
01:10:32
Speaker
So would it be fair to say that perhaps your very innocence is what saved your life when you were in prison? Definitely. If I was guilty, I would have done myself in.
01:10:54
Speaker
this so this ah This whole case just never made sense from the start. yeah
01:11:02
Speaker
It was crazy, but whenever they told, you know, start telling them about, well, we found this, we found that, you know, and they were, they were, they were surprised about my attitude on it. I didn't show any emotion. I didn't show any excitement. And the reason I didn't is because, you know, I've seen light at the end of the tunnel so many times it was yanked away, you know, and then finally,
01:11:31
Speaker
You know, it came, you know, the final results came back. You know, then I knew once they came back that this time I'm gonna make it. There's no way no one could yank the rope out from underneath me. That was the time to take out and get excited. But I really, I still never really showed emotion or anything until the day of the last hearing.
01:12:01
Speaker
Oh, man.
01:12:05
Speaker
i know i know i know i owe my I owe my thanks to not not only to yeah not only the attorney. yeah yeah Karen Thompson's a great lady. yeah yeah She pulled what I had with what what they had, put it together and stuff. But the students that I've worked with you know over all these years, we have come so close. So close together.
01:12:35
Speaker
Like a family. yeah yeah We not only kicked this case around, we kicked the law itself around. yeah know And these are large students. yeah A few things they even had to go and ask the professors to find out if I was right on, find out if I was.
01:12:55
Speaker
yeah I had one of them to him to told me that yeah a she didn't think she'd pass some of her finals if it wasn't for me kicking things around with her. yeah shes very you know the um They seemed amazed at my knowledge yeah whenever it comes to law and stuff. yeah But you i don't you um I don't think, you
01:13:27
Speaker
You know, they keep on taking and telling me that, you know, if it wasn't for what I did, you know, you know, in the case, you know, well, if it wasn't for what they did in the case, of wouldn it wouldn't have came together either. You know, they're good people, you know. You know, I like working with the law, you know. And I like to have it in my life somehow.
01:13:54
Speaker
But I'd also like to get up into the mountains so well, too. And my and attorney says, well, that's running away. It's not running away. you know You find serenity out there in those mountains. It's a good place to go to just to get your head back together and get to know yourself again. And that's what I wanted to do. I didn't even want to stay here in Pennsylvania. That's how bad I hate this state.
01:14:21
Speaker
You know, if I had the money to where I could go somewhere else and be whatever I want to be, I wouldn't be here now. I'd be gone. But with being here, I'm bound to determine. I'm gonna find out what really happened to Kathy. You know, I'm gonna find out who's responsible and I'm gonna see him in prison. You know, and I'm gonna set through the trial. I want to see them convicted.