Dark Downeast - The Murder of John E. Volungis Jr. (Massachusetts)

Episode Date: December 11, 2025

On a winter night in early February of 1992, John E. Volungis Jr. was standing on the edge of a brand-new life. After years of working toward a career in law enforcement, John was about to take off for his next step in that pursuit.It was supposed to be a fresh start after navigating a complicated past and an equally complicated marriage. But before he could take that next step, something happened inside the Worcester duplex he shared with his wife. Something no one has ever fully explained.If you have information relating to the murder of John E. Volungis Jr. please call the Worcester Police Department Unsolved Homicide Unit at [phone]. To submit an anonymous tip, text “CRIMES” (274637), then type the keyword “TIPWPD” followed by a space and your message.View source material and photos for this episode at: darkdowneast.com/johnvolungisjr Dark Downeast is an Audiochuck and Kylie Media production hosted by Kylie Low.Follow @darkdowneast on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTokTo suggest a case visit darkdowneast.com/submit-case Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On a winter night in early February of 1992, John E. Volungus Jr. was standing on the edge of a brand new life. After years of working toward a career in law enforcement, John was about to take off for his next step in that pursuit. It was supposed to be a fresh start, after navigating a complicated past and an equally complicated marriage. But before he could take that next step, something happened. inside the Worcester duplex he shared with his wife, something no one has ever fully explained. I'm Kylie Lowe, and this is the case of John E. Volungus Jr. On Dark Down East.

It was the night of February 3, 1992, and for 21-year-old John E. Valungus Jr., it was the night before the rest of his life. John was scheduled to leave the next morning to begin six months of active military duty. According to reporting by Diane Williamson, who covered this case extensively for the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, John would be reporting to a U.S. Army military entrance processing station in Springfield, after having enlisted the previous October. He'd be heading to California and was classified for military intelligence with foreign language training. John had always kept his sights on a decorated law enforcement and military career.

Lee Hamill writes for the telegram and Gazette that John was working towards becoming an FBI agent and had even once told a friend he'd like to be president one day. He was committed to these massive goals, even when events in his past threatened to derail his dreams in a major way. But he was past all of that now. His future was about to begin. John and his wife, of 14 months, Bridget Dioreo Volungis had an up-and-down relationship. She was about 12 years his senior, something his parents didn't necessarily approve of, and during the frequent off-periods in their marriage, Bridget sometimes saw other people. John had just moved back into their shared duplex, had five Porter Street in Worcester a few weeks earlier, after staying with his parents

for several months while he and Bridget were separated. According to court filings, despite their past relationship woes, Bridget said that they planned to spend the last night before John left town for a year and a half together, eating John's favorite garlic pizza at the Wonder Bar. Before they could get to the pizza part of the evening, though, Bridget had mom duties to attend to. She had two children from a previous relationship, and her son had a basketball game that evening. Bridget left work at five for the game and planned to pick John up later from his parents' house. He'd sold his car in preparation for deployment, and he had been borrowing one from his parents, so he was going to return it to them that night. Sometime between

7 and 7.30 that night, Bridget picked John up from his mother and father's home in Auburn. She still had to get her kids over to their aunt's place for babysitting, so Bridget dropped John off at home and went to retrieve the kids from a friend's house where she'd left them to play after the basketball game. According to reporting by Winston W. Wiley for the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, about 45 minutes later, Bridget returned home to Porter Street. She walked through the garage and into the house,

but was stopped cold at the site on the hallway floor. Around 8.30 p.m., a neighbor on nearby Onset Street was startled from a crime drama on TV by the sound of urgent pounding on his door. It was Bridget. She told her neighbor that John Wurton, was on the floor and there was blood everywhere. She asked him to call 911 before he and Bridget ran back to where John lay just inside the door to the house from the garage, hoping it wasn't

too late. But when the neighbor saw the state of John, he knew the young man was beyond saving. A later autopsy found that John suffered multiple stab wounds, upwards of 18 stab wounds, according to one source. Police did not recover a murder weapon from the scene, but it was believed to be a survival-type knife. A large black knife sheath was found next to John's leg. There was no sign of forced entry, nothing taken from the house. Police believed that whoever killed John had followed him inside before ambushing him, or had been lying in wait for him to walk through that door. Bridget went with police to the station to give a full statement that same evening. She told investigators that on the afternoon and evening of February 3rd, she left work around 5 p.m. to watch her son's

basketball game, but she left the game shortly after. She said she had to stop home quickly to change her clothes and grab a tampon, and she checked the phone while she was there but didn't make any calls before heading back out through the garage to return to the game. Bridget couldn't remember if she locked the door leading from the garage into the house, but she remembered watching as the automatic garage door closed before pulling away. After the game, Bridget said that she drove a relative home before bringing her kids and a friend to the friend's house for a quick visit, while she went to pick John up at his parents' house. Returning to Worcester, she dropped John off at the duplex on Porter Street sometime between

7 and 7.30 p.m. and opened the garage door so he could get inside. From there, Bridget said she picked up her kids from the friend's house and then brought them to her sister's house where her nephew was going to babysit. She arranged for them to spend the night there too, so she and John could spend the evening alone together before he left the next day. Bridget said that about 45 minutes had passed between dropping John off at her house, transporting the kids to her sister's house, and returning home. When she walked in, she found John lying in a pool of blood. She said she tried running to three different houses,

including her brother's place on the other side of the duplex next door, but only the neighbor at the third house answered. Bridget walked out of the police station at 4 a.m. the next morning after giving her statement. When she returned home, she realized all the phones in her house were inexplicably missing. Police found that, in fact, someone, presumably the killer, unplugged the kitchen telephone, and took a phone off the hook in the living room. In the early days of this case, detectives moved quickly, sending several items to a well-known forensic laboratory in Connecticut,

including the leather jacket John had been wearing when he was stabbed. For a brief moment, it appeared that scientific test, testing might break the case open, but as time passed, no new information emerged. If the analyses revealed anything of value, those findings were never released to the public. The forensic trail, at least outwardly, seemed to vanish. Police also conducted interviews, including one with Bridget's brother, who was reportedly home in the adjacent duplex on the night John was killed. He told investigators he hadn't heard a thing, no knocking from Bridget, no commotion, nothing to suggest his brother-in-law was in danger just a few feet away.

His account offered neither clarity nor contradiction. It simply added to the growing list of dead ends. With little progress from authorities to conclusively answer any questions in the case, John's parents took their own steps to keep the case alive. They offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of his killer. Despite their public plea, no one came forward with anything that closed the case. But all the while, another thread in John's story began to draw scrutiny. According to court documents, Bridget stopped talking to police after her initial interview. She hired a lawyer and reportedly never again asked about the status of the investigation. In the absence of any further interviews with John's widow, her actions began to

raise some eyebrows, because Bridget filed a claim. for the proceeds of John's very newly minted term life insurance policy. As investigators learned in early January of 1992, John and Bridget each took out matching $150,000 term life insurance policies with Continental Assurance Company. Both policies were issued on January 9th, and the first premiums were paid that same month for coverage that would extend through July of that year.

Bridget was listed as the sole beneficiary of John's policy. John was murdered less than four weeks after the policies were issued, 25 days, to be precise. John's mother, Linda Volungis, harbored a quiet suspicion against her daughter-in-law. Those suspicions weren't plucked from thin air either, and they didn't rest solely on the brand-new life insurance policy that seemed conveniently purchased within weeks of John's untimely According to John's sister, Bridget had phoned their parents' home four separate times on the day of the murder looking for him. As far as the family understood, the plan was for John's sister to drive him back to Worcester, yet Bridget insisted on picking him up herself. That detail raised some serious questions. Did she have some knowledge about what was going to happen to John that

night? Why did it matter so much that Bridget be the one to drive John when there was supposedly already a plan for his sister to bring him back to Worcester? Gary V. Murray reports for the Worcester Telegram and Gazette that John's sister also claimed that less than a month before he was murdered, John told her if anything happened to him, she should tell police that Bridget had him killed. His sister also said that she tried to talk John out of signing that life insurance policy, but he told her that it would be safer if he signed it and went away. Linda had a similar conversation with John on January 9th. Linda said John told her that he had to sign the policy

or he wouldn't be able to see Bridget and that there would be a contract put out on him. Soon, these quiet suspicions held by the Volungus family became a very loud and public story that played out in courtrooms for years to come. According to a representative at the insurance company, because the policies John and Bridget held were so new, any claim against them would be contested. So while the criminal investigation sputtered and stalled, more than a year later in April of 1993, Continental Assurance filed a complaint in Worcester Superior Court, asking the court to decide who should receive the proceeds of the policy,

either the listed beneficiary John's widow, Bridget Dioreo Valungis, or John's mother, Linda Valungis, who filed a claim as the administrator of John's estate. Linda has said that she had no actual interest in the money. John's family simply didn't want Bridget to benefit from the policy if she was involved in the murder somehow, and they had every reason to suspect her in all of this. Law enforcement even backed up their suspicions. An affidavit submitted as part of the civil case by Detective Lieutenant John E. McCarinen, Jr., who was the lead investigator on John's case at the time, stated that Bridgett, quote, has been and continues to be, end quote, a suspect in her late husband's murder. John also had a second life insurance policy with a different company in the amount of $100,000.

According to an affidavit filed in that case, Worcester Police had advised the second company that Bridget was underinvest. as an accessory before the fact to the murder. Five years after John's murder, the issue of the life insurance policy finally went to trial in June of 1997. It was the first legal proceeding to publicly examine whether Bridget had any involvement in what happened to John. But the judge added a layer of complexity. He banned the use of the word suspect in reference to Bridget. He also quashed a subpoena for the lead investigator on John's case.

case, the same investigator who had filed an affidavit calling Bridget a suspect, barring him from testifying in the civil trial. Now, because it was a civil trial, the standard wasn't guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the jury had to determine whether it was more likely than not that Bridget was an accessory before the fact to John's murder. If they found that she was, a judge would then decide whether she could still benefit from the policy. No criminal charges could result from this verdict, but the stakes were still enormous. Now, to be clear, Bridget has always maintained her innocence in John's case, and she testified that, yes, she and John had purchased life insurance policies for each other, naming one another as beneficiaries just 25 days before

his death. Linda's attorney questioned her about an alleged ultimatum that John had disclosed to his mother that he had to sign for the policy or he wouldn't be allowed back into Bridget's house. However, Bridget denied ever giving such an ultimatum. Another witness, a woman who worked for an insurance company that shared a building and a switchboard with the brokerage where John and Bridget got their policies, she recalled a striking encounter. She testified that on January 31st, 1992, she received a call from someone who identified herself as Bridget Volungis, and she wanted to know whether her and her husband's life insurance policies had taken effect. The witness may have answered the call, but she didn't actually work for that particular brokerage so she couldn't

provide Bridget with an answer and told her she'd need to contact the brokerage directly for that kind of information. Bridget, however, denied that's how the conversation went. She said that when she called, it was on an earlier date, and it was only to ask about small refund checks she'd received in the mail from the insurance company. Those checks did exist because they were entered into evidence for the case. But the witness from the insurance company insisted she didn't recall Bridget asking about refunds, only whether the policies were active. John's family testified too about his behavior and statements in the weeks before he was killed, how he told his sister that if anything happened to him, they should tell the police that Bridget had him killed.

On June 9, 1997, the jury reached its decision. They found that Bridgett, was an accessory before the fact to the murder of her husband. Now, legally, the ruling only controlled who could collect an insurance payout. But practically, it did something far more consequential. It put into the public record that a jury believed Bridget helped orchestrate her husband's murder. In the absence of criminal charges for John's family, this civil verdict became the closest thing to an answer about what happened to him. But the ruling didn't settle the matter, and any relief the Volunga's family felt was brief.

Bridget's attorney immediately filed a motion to set aside the jury's decision, arguing it was inconsistent with the evidence. In June of 1998, a judge agreed with the defense motion and set aside the earlier finding. The judge ruled that the jury's verdict was based on impermissible speculation and not evidence. From the decision by Judge Stephen E. Neill directly, quote. The court concludes that there was no basis in the evidence upon which the jury could have found that Dioreo Volungis even knew that a crime was going to be committed, let alone hired or procured someone to commit murder, end quote. Basically, the judge found that even if Bridget knew of a plan to murder John and accepted that plan, any involvement she allegedly had

did not satisfy the requirements that would make her an accessory. John's mother filed an appeal, to the ruling and asked once again that the insurance proceeds be paid to John's estate. During mediation, Linda proposed that neither of them should get the insurance money. Instead, she suggested it should be used to offer a greater reward for information in John's case. Bridget initially agreed to this, but then backed out after the parties couldn't agree on certain stipulation. When you break down the civil case and appeal, Linda basically needed to prove three things. that someone else killed John, that Bridget somehow helped or encouraged that killer,

and that she did it with the intent for John to be murdered. And while there was plenty of evidence showing the marriage was rocky and plenty of behavior that looked suspicious on the surface, the court ultimately found that suspicion isn't the same as proof. A motive alone isn't enough. And you can't stack one shaky inference on top of another just to fill in the gaps. Finally, in 2001, the appeals court found that Linda's entire theory required too much speculation. The court ruled that there was no solid evidence of complicity, and that meant Bridget was legally

entitled to collect her late husband's life insurance benefits. One jury, once upon a time, may have been convinced that it was more likely than not Bridget allegedly participated or aided in the murder of John Volungus Jr., but that had little bearing on actual justice almost 10 years later. While the lead investigator on John's case at the time may have identified Bridget as a suspect, she has never been charged with any crimes connected to his death. No one has. So the question remains, who killed John and why? Both investigators and John's family have spent years trying to make sense of that, picking apart the circumstances of his life and the people closest to him. Because when it comes to motive in this case, there isn't just

one. There are several. And some of them reach back to the years before his murder to when John himself was suspected in a violent crime. On March 15, 1990, 25-year-old James Morone was shot outside his home on Harrington Way in Worcester. According to reporting by George B. Griffin, and additional reporting by Gary V. Murray for the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, after an extended hospital stay, James survived shotgun wounds to his chest and arms. Police quickly focused on then-19-year-old John Volungus Jr. They accused John of hiding in the bushes and firing at least four rounds from a 12-gauge shotgun before fleeing on foot.

John was charged with assault with intent to murder. John's attorney insisted from day one, that police had the wrong guy, pointing to John's alibi. But there was also evidence pointing the other way. James reportedly told his father while bleeding out on the kitchen floor that John was the one who shot him. Police also seized firearms from John's home, including a shotgun they suspected was used in the attack. Ballistics testing later suggested that the shell casings found near the scene had been fired from a shotgun belonging to John's father. But it wasn't a simple case. At the probable cause hearing, witnesses painted conflicting timelines. Timothy J. Connolly

reports for the telegram and gazette that John's father testified John was home between 1010 and 1115 p.m. squarely covering the time frame of the shooting, which occurred at 10.25 p.m. Another witness said she received a phone call from John around 1020, though her recollection of the timing wasn't airtight. And a friend said he spoke to John between 10-10 and 10-20, and could hear family in the background suggesting John was still home. But testimony by the victim himself challenged these time frames. James Morone told the court that he'd never forget the shooter's face. He also said he saw John drive by him twice on the night of March 15, once when he was standing on East Central Street outside a market around 9 p.m. and again after he got home around 9.15, when he went to

leave the house again just before 1030, he heard two gunshots and realized he'd been shot. But what could possibly be the motive behind John allegedly shooting James? Well, James said he had dated Bridget on and off for years and described her as volatile. Bridget told a different story that James had been the abusive one. Both agreed that they met at the Greendale Mall on the afternoon of the shooting. But their descriptions of the encounter were opposite. Bridget claimed James threatened her, grabbed her by the neck, and said she'd never have to worry about marrying John because he'd make sure John would never see her again. She also said he called her multiple times that day, including a final call sometime before the shooting where James supposedly told her,

it'll be over after tonight. According to her testimony, she and John were in fact dating at the time, but she never told John about any of this. A grand jury eventually indicted John, and he pleaded not guilty to three counts of armed assault with intent to murder, and one count of assault in battery with a dangerous weapon. As the charges stacked up against him, John found himself fighting for his freedom in a case where the truth seemed to shift with every witness. At the 1990 trial, the victim James Morone identified John as the shooter, and James' grandmother described seeing a tall, fair-haired young man fleeing the scene an account that loosely matched John, though she hadn't initially told police about the hair details.

Police testified that they recreated the nighttime lighting conditions and found that while a person could be seen from the distance James described, the shooter's facial features would have been hard to distinguish in the low light. Ballistics evidence centered on two family firearms. Investigators first ruled out John Jr. shotgun, though they said the recovered shell casings had been loaded and ejected from it. They then linked the casing to John's father's 12-cage, despite the father's testimony that the gun didn't appear to have been recently fired,

and that its bolt position had mysteriously changed after their home was found unlocked. A later report showed unusual damage to the gun's bolt face and firing pin, damage that produced markings not found on the recovered casings, yet the examiner still maintained the shells came from that weapon. Meanwhile, John's alibi placed him at home in Auburn at the time of the shooting, making it nearly impossible for him to have answered a call that a witness said he did and still arrive at the scene of the shooting by 10.25 p.m. The night before the trial came to a close, with John's future uncertain, that's when John and Bridget got married.

The following day, the jury deliberated just over two hours before finding John Volungus Jr. not guilty on all charges. Several jurors later said they believed it was possible John had been set up for the crime, and they found James to be immature, erratic, and lacking credibility. But they also struggled with the ballistics evidence. and were unsure what to make of its inconsistencies. Ultimately, though, it wasn't enough to convict. Returning to John's murder case, this is an obvious thread to follow. There was more than a whisper that James Marone could have been motivated to allegedly frame John

and theoretically motivated to retaliate after the acquittal. Also worth mentioning that two weeks later, a judge granted Bridget a restraining order against James, based on her affidavit that he had caused her bodily harm and threatened to kill her and her children. Despite the obvious tension between James and John and Bridget, police have said that James Morone is not a suspect in John's murder. However, just three months before John was murdered, another violent and deeply strange incident unfolded,

one that also appeared to circle back to Bridget. On November 2, 1991, two pipe bombs detonated in a driveway of a home on Bluebell Road in Worcester. The explosions damaged the garage and two vehicles, and it didn't take long before federal authorities got involved. the house belonged to the father of Patrick Patsy Santa Maria Jr., who Bridget was reportedly seeing while she and John were married but separated. Bridget herself was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the bombing, and she wasn't the only one connected to John who found themselves pulled into the case. John's parents and his sister were also listed as potential witnesses. Back in 1991, right after the bombs went off, police actually came looking for John,

According to his father, there had been a volatile incident just days earlier. John had shown up at the duplex he shared with Bridget and found her in a towel and Patsy there with her. He was furious and trashed part of the house. Bridget called the police and John was served with a restraining order. Years later, and after John's death in 1997, federal prosecutors indicted Mark A. Dion and Larry E. Howerton on explosives and conspiracy charges. charges tied to the bombing. Interestingly, both men previously worked with John at UPS. In fact, Mark

and John were described as close friends. The state never formally alleged a motive, but a retired federal agent later said there was suspicion that the bombing was connected to an affair between Bridget and Patsy. Nothing was ever proven, but it's clear investigators at least considered whether the personal drama around Bridget could have played a role. According to the court records, Larry admitted to being the lookout while Mark was alleged to have built and placed the bombs. A search of Mark's home turned up materials suggesting he knew how to construct such devices. But despite that, a jury ultimately found Mark Dion not guilty on all major charges, including possession of an infernal machine and maliciously causing an

explosion. Prosecutors chose not to retry him on conspiracy. Larry, meanwhile, cooperated with the case against Mark, and later pleaded guilty and received probation, which was an unusually light sentence for admitted involvement in a bombing. But here's where things get even murkier from where I'm standing. There's no direct line between these two men and John or Bridget or Patsy, nothing I've found beyond the fact that Mark, Larry, and John all worked together at UPS at the time. Yes, Mark and John were reportedly close, but does that really mean a man built and detonated pipe bombs as a favor because someone was allegedly having an affair with John's wife? It's a stretch. But it's also one more chaotic, violent event orbiting John and Bridget's marriage

in the months before he was killed. And while no one ever connected the bombing to John's murder, the timing and the people involved make it impossible to ignore. There's one more thing we need to talk about when it comes to John's case. Because in the history of the investigation, only one person, Bridget, has been publicly named a suspect in any official capacity. The other is Mateo Trotto. In the fall of 1994, Worcester police were quietly watching an individual they considered a, quote, significant drug dealer named Mateo Trotto. One night, Vice Squad officers heard from an informant that Mateo might be involved in a drug deal at the College Square gym, so they spent hours staking the place out. But in a twist that would later fuel courtroom questions, the

officers left, one to do surveillance at Mateo's house, the other because his undercover van broke down, just 20 minutes before Mateo was shot inside that gym. Prosecutor said the shooting wasn't random. It was part of a renegate effort by certain mob-linked figures to send a message and seize control of New England organized crime. According to federal prosecutors, you Gene, Gino, Rita, Jr. and his crew wanted to make an example of Mateo. A feud, internal tensions, and a broader plan to intimidate drug dealers and bookmakers all came to a head on the night Mateo was shot. But Mateo wasn't painted a squeaky clean, even if he was the victim of a shooting. Police testified they considered Mateo a possible suspect in two unsolved cases,

the murder of John Volungus Jr., as well as the disappearance and presumed murder of another person, Kevin Harkins. In January of 1999, as these allegations came out in court, Mateo's lawyer stated that his client was never charged and never questioned in either of those cases, and he called the suggestion outrageous. But open mouth, insert foot, because in 2014 Mateo was indicted, tried, and convicted for the murder of Kevin Harkins. The investigation found that the murder stemmed from Kevin going back on a promise to give false testimony in a criminal trial. Here's the thing, though, although police named Matteo Trotto as a possible suspect

in the stabbing death of John Volungus Jr., there's virtually no public detail explaining any connection between the two men, no clear relationship, no stated motive, and nothing that clarifies why Matteo would have wanted John dead. In previous reporting on John's case, there's mention of one other possible suspect, though no name is ever given. It came out during the life insurance civil trial that four days before he was killed, John testified in a criminal case against a co-worker, someone Bridget described as an enemy of John's. While my first instinct says this could have had something to do with the bombing incident, because remember, the defendants in that case were John's co-workers,

I haven't been able to establish a direct link here. When you zoom out on all of this, you're left with a landscape full of shadows, but very few solid shapes. The truth is, for every lead investigators once explored, there's a dead end. For every name that surfaced over the years, there's almost nothing tying that person meaningfully to John's murder. The noise around John's life, all the conflicts, the danger, the people with tempers and weapons and grudges, can make it feel like there had to be an answer hiding somewhere in the chaos. But if there is, it has yet to be found. After she hugged her son goodbye on February 3, 1992, John's mother Linda just couldn't shake

the feeling that she needed to tell him she loved him one more time. So later that evening, she left a message on his answering machine, just a simple reminder from a mother to her son. John never got the chance to hear it. John wasn't perfect. His parents never pretended he was. But he was their son and he was trying, trying to get his life on track,

trying to pull away from the turmoil that seemed to find him no matter which direction he turned. And he was so close, so close to getting out of Worcester, out of the chaos, and on to the future he'd been building for years. John graduated from St. John's High School in St. John's High School in 19,

Then he earned an associate's degree in law enforcement from a local community college in December of 1991. He'd been in ROTC. He'd worked security jobs. At the time of his death, he was attending the University of Lowell, continuing along the path he hoped would lead him into federal law enforcement. Every step was intentional. Each one aimed towards his ultimate goal of becoming an FBI agent. And for John, that wasn't just a career plan. It was tied to something deeper.

John loved his country. He hung a six-foot American flag on the wall of his bedroom as a constant reminder of the direction he wanted his life to go. He never missed a parade, never missed a chance to celebrate the red, white, and blue. When you strip away the noise, the accusations, the conflict, people pulling him in opposite directions, you see a young man who wanted a big future, a young man who was working hard step by step to get there.

His life was complicated, but it was also full of hope, ambition, and the kind of determination his family still talks about today. And for them, John's story will always be more than the investigation that stalled, or the trial they have yet to see. It will be the story of the son they love, the boy they raised, and the man he was on the cusp of becoming when his life was stolen. And maybe that's the hardest part of all, knowing who he might have become, if he'd been given the chance.

If you have information relating to the murder of John E. Volungus Jr., please call the Worcester Police Department Unsolved Homicide Unit at 508-799-8688. Details for submitting an anonymous tip are listed in the description and show notes for this episode. Thank you for listening to Dark Down East. You can find all source material for this case at Darkdowneast.com. Be sure to follow the show on Instagram at Darkdowneast. This platform is for the families and friends who have lost their loved ones and for those who are still searching for answers.

I'm not about to let those names or their stories get lost with time. time. I'm Kylie Lowe, and this is Dark Down East. Dark Down East is a production of Kylie Media and Audio Check. I think Chuck would approve.