Dateline Originals - The Thing About Pam - Ep. 4: Say Hi to Cathy

Episode Date: December 18, 2023

The greeting seemed innocuous, but not for long.This episode was originally published on September 24, 2019. 

So, here you are. Have you ever imagined you'd be in a situation like this in your life? Never. The first time I sat down with Russ Faria, he had just been convicted of killing his wife, Betsy. It was February 2014. How long have you been here now? I've been here

at Fulton since the day after Christmas, December 26th. But I was locked up. You were in county jail. In county for two years. He had been sentenced to life in prison, and his future was looking rather bleak.

Is one better than the other? The conditions here are a lot better. The food's a lot better. The guards and stuff, I think, treat you better here. Well, that's something. But the amazing thing was, Russ was not resentful. He was not bitter. Russ's attorney, Joel, was preparing an appeal just then.

He thought Russ's case had a shot. But appeals take years, and they rarely succeed. By the first time I talked to Russ, we'd been asking around about him, about Betsy, about the murder, the investigation, for a couple of months. We'd heard so many conflicting stories. What was the truth? But Russ, his version of events never changed. It never strayed. Even when pressured by the police, the man did not waver. Russ's story, his only story, was that he was innocent. He loved Betsy. She loved him.

He would never have killed her. Oh, by the way, lots of people say that sort of thing. I've heard it quite a bit. But Russ? Russ was different. What was it like to hear the guilty verdict? Your heart just kind of drops. But I was trying my best to hold it together Because my family's behind me there And I can hear them crying

I've often wondered what that's like Walking out of a courtroom Being led out of a courtroom by the bailiffs And handcuffed Walking through that door to God knows what Being there two years And going back and forth to court I had a relationship

with the bailiffs and the main bailiff, Mr. Darter, he took his job very seriously and his job was to protect and serve and to protect me as much as everybody else. To get me back over to the jail, we had to walk across the parking lot. So him and another bailiff on either side of me kind of grabbed me by the arms and held me up. And I think if it wasn't for them holding me up, I probably would have broke down because I was just devastated. I couldn't understand where things went wrong,

what happened, and why things happened the way they did. Not mad, broken. A man holding on to a leaky life preserver. Not mad, broken. A man holding on to a leaky life preserver. You really think you're going to get out of here someday? Yeah. What are the chances? Have they told you? Have they given you any idea?

My lawyer thinks there's a pretty good chance. That is, of course, Joel, his defense attorney. Who, by the way, let us conduct this interview without him even being present? There's nothing that Russ can say that's going to hurt him. Everything he's telling is the truth. There's nothing that you can ask Russ that wasn't brought up in those two days of interviews with the police. I have interviewed other prisoners without lawyers, but this is like years later when the appeals have run out. That's our producer, Kathy Singer. Usually when it's fresh like this and there's an appeal possibility,

they don't want the client to say anything without them there because they could say something that would just, you know, be a mistake somehow later in the appellate process. So what was different about this case? Joel was emphatic that Russ Freer was completely innocent. And if we've learned one thing from this story so far, it was that if Joel Schwartz is emphatic about something, it was probably best to let him do his thing. Unless you're Pam, of course.

Because as emphatic as Joel was about his client's innocence, he was equally determined to point the finger elsewhere. I'm Keith Morrison. This is The Thing About Pam, a new podcast from Dateline NBC. May 2015. We're listening to Pam Hupp and prosecuting attorney Leah Askey, a week before the hearing for Joel's Mooney motion. The two were seated in, yet again, a nondescript interview room. Askey was clarifying a few things about the trust Pam had set up for Betsy's daughters.

She didn't seem worried. It's common sense. Actually, both women were calm, chummy even. It's $150,000. It's not a lot of money. It's not going to make anybody rich. I get stuff, personal stuff. We watched, slack-jawed. Why would they even record this? The dynamic was so odd as they complained about Joel Schwartz. Askey began. I wouldn't call it just blind ignorance, but I just believe that the good Lord takes care of it. I do too. Well, I believe in the system. The problem is it's so tainted now. Yeah. And I don't believe in the system when there's lawyers that are allowed to behave the way that this lawyer has. That troubles me a great deal.

Askey didn't like the way Joel was handling things. And then the conversation got a little personal. Askey insinuated that Joel's reasons for filing the appeal were juvenile. Right. Just because somebody's got their, you know, feelings hurt because they lost. Because he used to lose. Right. And so that's really what it's about. In my opinion, that's what it's about. So to me, it's doing a disservice to the taxpayers and citizens here.

From the video, you got the impression the whole situation was just one big eye roll to Askey. And airing those opinions? She wasn't Pam Up's lawyer. She wasn't Pam Up's friend, as far as we knew. She was the elected prosecuting attorney in Lincoln County, Missouri, gossiping about a case on videotape. Videotape that would be made public. But in the end, none of Askey's speculations with Pam mattered, because Joel still came out on top after filing this motion. Russ's conviction was thrown out, and new trial was ordered. For now, he was released, and preparations for the new trial began. As part of that, Lincoln County Sheriff's detectives conducted new interviews with Pam Hopp, recorded naturally, and she made a

claim that no one saw coming. Pam told detectives she and Betsy had a sexual relationship, that she replaced what a husband would be for her friend. I love Betsy. I'm not in love with her. Never was in love with her. She loved me. More than just, I love you because you're whatever. She was in love. It's honestly a relationship with two women who really aren't attracted to women. I don't know how to explain that. It's not like she was a lesbian or anything. I'm attracted to women. I don't know how to explain that. It's not like she was a lesbian or anything. I'm attracted to men. Love everything about them. Can't wait till Magic Mike XL comes out. But it was such an evolution of emotional trauma for her. It's hard to know what to make of

what Pam said here. She seemed to be implying that they weren't attracted to each other but became intimate anyway. Puzzling. By now, Joel had successfully gotten Russ's conviction overturned. He was working again with his colleague, Nathan Swanson. Though neither one of them had

any idea what was coming. In 27 years of doing this, I've never tried a case where I had no idea what the state's theory was going to be. There wasn't a hole in our defense. Again, in other words, it was impossible for us to have done this. We didn't know when she would allege he did it, how he would have done it, what he would have done with the evidence, what he would have done with the clothing.

But she was pretty good at arguing. Frankly, she was excellent at arguing. However, there was no basis to support her argument, and the way we tend to operate is we like to operate on evidence, and that simply wasn't there. Well, not quite. Askey did have some evidence. She had new witnesses.

And to top it off, she had an important letter. A letter that supposedly incriminated Ross. A letter that centered around, who else? Pam Hupp. But would all her excellent arguing be good enough for her to win this case a second time. When the trial started, everybody was a bit on edge. It was November 2015, five months after Russ's conviction was overturned. Kathy went to the trial to cover it for Dateline. Just like Joel and his colleague Nathan, she had no idea what to expect. We knew this time Joel would be able to get all his points out.

We were curious, is Pam going to take the stand? Is Joel going to be able to cross-examine her? We thought that the state was going to put on the same case they put in before. Leah Askey presented the case again as a crime of passion. She reviewed all the old evidence, the 56 stab wounds, the bloody slippers, Russ's alleged abusive behavior.

Joel took a different tack. He started to point out just how many far-fetched details Pam conveniently remembered. Pam's story became, let's call it, supercharged. As she continued to speak with the detectives, the stories became more outlandish. I think in their view, their case got better. However, the lies upon lies continued to, at least in our view, enhance our defense, number one,

and show that the basis of their theory had nothing, had no stability whatsoever. Joel's colleague, Nathan Swanson, agreed. And it wasn't even that she would tell a story and then a week or a month later tell a different story. The story she would tell in a single interview would be inconsistent. Like, they wouldn't match up. She couldn't maintain consistency over the course of an hour, much less a week. That intimate relationship?

Now, Pam claimed that Russ was so jealous of her, he physically attacked her. Here she is again, being interviewed by a detective. Pushed me up against the wall. He was all red-faced. Kind of like a gritted teeth. physically attacked her. Here she is again being interviewed by a detective. Pushed me up against the wall. He was all red-faced. Kind of like a gritted teeth. Oh, he's like, talk about this far away from the face. Yeah, he was right there.

I could feel his spit. Nasty. And he said, you two muffed thumpers, something to that effect. If I ever catch you together again, I'll bury you out in the backyard. Just a few weeks prior to her being killed? Yes.

Joel thought it was all nonsense, Russ's alleged violence, and certainly the affair. I don't believe it, nor did anybody else who knows Betsy, and frankly the people we spoke to who knew Pam Hupp. Nobody bought it. It just was an excuse for Betsy to have given her the money, an excuse created by Pam Hupp, again, three and a half years later. When Joel brought up that story about the affair at trial, it was the first time Kathy and many others in the courtroom had ever heard about it.

She called me soon after. I was like, oh my God. I never could have predicted Pam would say something like that. Rita Wolf, a close friend of Betsy's, was actually a witness for the prosecution during this trial. But even she was skeptical when they first brought this up to her. Well, they asked me if I had any knowledge of Betsy having lesbian affairs. Of course,

my answer was no, and I actually thought it was a little humorous. Betsy and I talked about sex a lot because she shared her sex life with me a lot. Never did it involve a female. And what about Ross? I mean, it had been Pam's word against his for four years at that point. Yeah, I think that's just more of her trying to add fuel to the fire because it makes me look bad, you know, and makes her look good. Pam had things to gain by spreading that rumor. If they were lovers, it made more sense that Betsy would give Pam the money. It simply made Russ look bad, like a jilted husband. All that aside, Nathan Swanson thought Pam's story was missing one important element.

Logic. She says this three and a half years later. I mean, the morning after Betsy is found dead, please come to talk to her. And how does that escape memory? I mean, you might claim, well, she didn't want to reveal the lesbian affair, but why wouldn't you mention that Mr. Freya had threatened to chop you up?

You could mention that without bringing up the affair. But she chose to only come up with it years later. And it seemed that the more time that went by, the more wild stuff she seemed to remember, all of it incriminating Russ, but none of it consistent with previous statements. Luckily for the defense, though, they had proof of these inconsistencies. Most of Pam's interviews were recorded, and side by side, the conflicting stories stood out. The defense found that the police, they weren't just enabling these stories.

In one case, they seemed to instigate it. The police, in an effort to enhance Ms. Hupp's story as well as bolster their case, suggested a theory to Ms. Hupp that she may have seen Russell Faria at the house that night, after she, for the last three and a half years, was clear that she didn't see him there that night. But don't take it from Joel. Listen for yourself. What we believe may have happened is that you were present, that Russell was not there when you and Betsy got there,

and that prior to you leaving, somehow or another, Russ knew that you were there, that he walked in and saw you there. Was it that particular moment motivating, fact, or futilely was him coming into the house? That is what we have discussed amongst ourselves. Then he asked her straight out. Is any part of that correct? And it is, in fact. Did you see Russ that night?

No. But wait. Because in another interview with detectives a few months later, Pam said the opposite. When I was driving up the street, I remember looking over and seeing a car parked on that street with two men in it, but it was down farther. It wasn't next to Betsy's house. And you think you recognized one of those men? I do, yes.

And who do you believe that person was? I believe it was Russ. I've never seen something like that. It's so brazen to not just be suggesting to a witness, this is what we think happened, but be doing it on a recording so that everyone can hear it. This didn't look good. But the defense still had one big problem. Because investigators had recently found a computer document addressed to Pam on Betsy's laptop, but never sent.

And the contents? Well, I'll let my colleague Barbara Rabb read them. Pam, I know we talked about this yesterday, but I feel I really need you to believe me. I really do feel that Russ is going to do something to me. When you got it, what did you think? I would say initial reaction was, this is troubling. Troubling because it backed up Pam's version of events. He continued to tell me how much money he would make after I die.

He's been talking like this for months. In fact, she even told the detectives about that letter the morning after I die. He's been talking like this for months. In fact, she even told the detectives about that letter the morning after the murder. She said she typed me an email about something Russ was saying to her that was really disturbing to her. I never got the email. I would like to see maybe if you guys can find that letter she was going to send me, if she really has it or if she deleted it or whatever. Pam's voice was almost quivering. But whether they looked for the letter or not, they didn't find it.

Not then. But just before the second trial, a police cyber expert was able to find that letter. And a copy of it was turned over to the defense. Once we looked at the letter and had our computer expert analyze

it, it turns out that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for Betsy to have written this the way it came up in her computer. It was the only document in that computer that said author unknown. Joel was convinced that meant the document had been composed on a different computer and then transferred to Betsy's laptop. It was written at a time when Betsy was playing tennis and Ms. Hupp was allegedly with her.

Ms. Hupp knew what computer it was in, where on the computer it was, the entire contents of the letter, as well as when it was created. I find that suspicious at least. Both sides concluded their arguments. Russ had opted for a bench trial this time around, meaning there wouldn't be a jury. It was solely up to a judge to reach a verdict. He felt that if a jury had found him guilty once, what's to say they wouldn't a second time around? So he and Joel put all their eggs in one basket and waited. But not for long. Three hours later, a verdict. I'm sure I was holding my breath,

just standing as straight as I could, focused in on the judge, and finally it seemed like an eternity. And he says, on account of murder in the first degree, I find you not guilty. And for the second time in court, Russ's legs gave out. Though this time, nice as Mr. Daughter had been, it wasn't a bailiff propping him up.

I turned around and the first person there was Nathan. And I kind of melted into him and we gave each other a big embrace. And he was holding me up because my legs melted beneath me. And then I turned around and Joel was there and the three of us were just elated. This is why people become lawyers and specifically why people become criminal defense attorneys. They want to be the person who has the chance to represent an innocent man wrongfully accused and it's an honor to have that chance. I mean, and to have the right result finally come about. I've been told by

several, let's call them seasoned attorneys at this point, that now I can retire. What I was told is everybody has to do one good deed, one extraordinary good deed. I was told that this is it. You're done. Unfortunately, I'm not done.

Hopefully there's a few good deeds left to be. I guess maybe I could liken it to driving out to the mountains in Colorado. When you get to Colorado, the first half isn't that interesting. And you see the mountains a long time before you get there. But the payoff is worth it. Joel may have moved on to more good deeds. Russ may have reached his metaphorical mountains. But there was still no justice for Betsy Faria.

Yeah, there's still a lot to be done that's going to go on because now you have an unsolved case. There's still somebody out there that is walking around that killed my wife. Regardless of who that person is, I know that it wasn't me. I've known that it wasn't me from day one. But was Pam charged with anything in this case? No. After the trial, Prosecutor Leah Askey refused to reopen the investigation.

She considered it closed. In a written statement to Dateline, she said, in part, there was probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime. A jury was firmly convinced of his guilt. A judge was not. What she didn't mention was what the judge said about the police investigation as a whole. In open court, he said this, the investigation into the facts and theories of this case by law enforcement is rather disturbing and frankly, raised more questions than answers. We agreed.

So we kept asking questions. Questions like, What about Pam? How long could she stay flying under the radar? Not very long. It was two months after Russ's second trial when she had to face Betsy's daughters in civil court over the long-disputed insurance money.

As soon as Pam got on the stand, she seemed incredibly confident and almost like she was in control. That's one of our producers, Christine Fillmore. Christine sat through the entire civil trial. And like everything involving Pam, it was completely bizarre. State your full name, ma'am, and spell your last name. Pamela Marie Hupp, H-U-P-P.

Right off the bat, she was kind of giving him trouble and not answering the questions or answering more than was actually asked of her. And so the attorney asked for Pam to be considered as a hostile witness. And you're a defendant in the instant lawsuit, is that correct? I'm sorry? You're the defendant, the party that's being sued in the instant lawsuit? I can hardly hear you. Is that correct?

Yes. Did you hear the question okay? I did. Okay. Judge, I'd like permission to examine the witness as a hostile witness at this time. She was clearly ready for battle. You recall talking to Detective McCarrick on June 25, 2012, correct? Yes.

However, you now have this money, and if that turned into this money, you owe it to the family and the kids. You were nodding your head in that video, is that correct? I'm sorry? You were nodding your head affirmatively in that video, is that correct? I'm sorry? You were nodding your head affirmatively in that video, is that correct? I don't know what you're saying. Were you nodding your head affirmatively? You know what that means, correct? No, I'm not nodding my head affirmatively. You're not? Okay.

Can you play the video again? Oh, I'm nodding my head. I'm sorry, I thought you said something else. I can't understand what you're saying. If you don't hear me or you misunderstand, just tell me. Okay, I know what you're saying because I'm acknowledging. But I'm not saying, yes, yes, you're right. I'm acknowledging as a person speaking with me.

I'm in sales. Practically her whole testimony was like this. Verbal gymnastics. Leading up to the first criminal case for Russell Faria, did you ever mention to those investigators that you were having an intimate relationship with Betsy Faria? No. Man, when I say intimate relationship, I'm talking about a sexual relationship. Did you have a sexual relationship with Betsy Faria? Sexual on what basis? What's sexual to you? She couldn't seem to give a straight answer.

Have you ever made a phone call to Leah today about the insurance proceeds? No. Have you ever made a phone call to Mariah today about the insurance proceeds? No. You have no present intention of giving them any of those proceeds, do you? That's not true. So you do have an intention to give them some money? It's not true. So you do have an intention to give them some money? It's a possibility.

There was one question in particular that Pam got pretty wound up about. All right, so this was an easy way for her to keep the money from going to the defendant, and her purpose was to try to assure that it got to her girls. She was trying to clarify what the attorney was asking her and wound up sort of speaking over him and saying like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. What was your answer? I direct the court. I don't know what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with me drawing up a trust. And, you know, waving her hand in the air almost to say like, stop, no, that's not correct. There was a local news reporter in the courtroom as well. And I can remember looking over at him and, you know, thinking I've never seen someone behave

like this on the witness stand. Her stories about the insurance were just as inconsistent as all the other stories she had told for years. But she decided to make one more bold move during her testimony and completely own up to them. Did you lie to anybody else

that you've spoken to, Ms. Hopp, about what you were going to do with these life insurance proceeds? Possibly. Okay. Who else might you were going to do with these life insurance proceeds? Possibly. Okay. Who else might you have lied to? Anybody that would bug me and bug me and bug me and bug me. And her lawyer, Michael Cruz, he backed that up. In his closing statement, Cruz described his client

this way. I'm not going to argue about her credibility. She's not a credible witness, but that's not the issue. So, did Pam lose the civil trial? Did the judge order her to turn over the money to Betsy's daughters? No. All the paperwork was in order. Despite what Pam had said, there was no hard proof that Betsy wanted her girls to get the money. Her defense, they made some pretty good arguments.

Both Betsy and Pam were very familiar with life insurance. They both worked for State Farm. And so if Betsy wanted her life insurance proceeds to go to her daughters, she could have written that in. Pam was all smiles as she left the court. Back, straight, head high. Christine and our camera guy were outside, of course. And as she walked past our crew, she said something curious.

Say hi to Kathy. Say hi to Kathy? You mean Kathy Singer, our producer? The cameraman started packing up his camera, and I immediately called Kathy. And I said, Kathy, you're not going to believe this and I thought well it's kind of friendly kind of weird but okay you know that's fine I think she felt good you know it's a pleasant greeting okay didn't think anything of it didn't make me nervous Didn't think another thing about it.

Until months later, something else happened that made me think, hmm, say hi to Kathy. Did that really mean something sinister? Was she already planning about using me in some way? Pam, use Kathy? No. Impossible. Well, a few months later, a steamy August afternoon in the St. Louis suburbs, Russ Faria was enjoying his freedom

when he got a call. It was his dad. He had news. Pam helped and shot somebody. Next time on The Thing About Pam. Her exact words is, I advanced on the man and fired until I heard click, click, click. The Thing About Pam is brought to you by Dateline NBC. From Dateline NBC, Kathy Singer and Christine Fillmore are producers.

Jackie Montalvo is the associate producer. Susan Nall oversees our digital programming. Adam Gorfain is our the associate producer. Susan Nall oversees our digital programming. Adam Gorfain is our senior broadcast producer. Liz Cole is our executive producer. David Corvo is our senior executive producer. At NBC News, Steve Lickdie is the executive producer of podcasts, and Barbara Rabb is the senior producer of podcasts. From Neon Hum Media, Mary Knopf is the producer. Natalie Wren is the associate producer. Catherine St. Louis is the editor. Jonathan Hirsch is the executive producer.

Sound design and mixing by Scott Somerville. Additional mixing by Meneka Wilhelm. Original music by Andrew Epin. Additional production support from Tanner Robbins, Natalie Bader, and Betty Marquez Rosales.