National Park After Dark - The Devil’s in the Details: Starved Rock State Park (Part 2)

Episode Date: November 27, 2023

*Warning: This episode involves graphic discussion of violent acts and sexual assault*In part 2 of the Starved Rock murders we delve further into the questions posed as the investigation continued including eyewitness statements,  physical evidence and other possible suspects. Be sure to listen to part 1 before hitting play on this one.For the latest NPAD updates, group travel details, merch and more, follow us on npadpodcast.com and our socials:Instagram: @‌nationalparkafterdarkTikTok: @‌nationalparkafterdarkSupport the show by becoming an Outsider and receive ad free listening, bonus content and more on Patreon or Apple Podcasts. Want to see our faces? Catch full episodes on our YouTube Page!Thank you to this week’s partners!SkyLight Frames: Use our link and get $15 off a Skylight Frame. Aeropress: Use our link to save up to 20%.Miracle Made: Use our link and code NPAD to save over 40% and get 3 free towels.MasterClass: Use our link to gift a membership and get one free.For a full list of our sources, visit http://npadpodcast.com/episodes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Close your eyes. Listen to Monday.com. Feel the sensation of an AI work platform. So flexible and intuitive, it feels like it was built just for you. Now open your eyes, go to Monday.com. Start for free and finally, breathe. Girl, winter is so last season. And now Springs got you looking at pictures of tank tops with hungry eyes. Your algorithm is feeding you cutoffs. You're thirsty for the sun on your shoulders. That perfect hang on the patio sundress. Those sandals you can wear all day and all night. And you've had enough of shopping from your couch. Done hoping it looks anything like the picture when you tear open that envelope. It's time for a little in-person spring treat. It's time for a trip to Ross. Work your magic.

Hello, everyone, and welcome back to part two of the Starved Rock murder case. How are you doing, Cassie? We've been waiting seven whole days. I'm ready to hear how this sends. Last time, you left us on a bit of a cliffhanging. or because you set up the entire episode to make us think that this one person did it. And then at the end, you kind of made a second guess everything we had just learned. So I'm excited to figure out what's going on.

Yeah, well, that's definitely going to be a resounding theme. So if you have just tuned in to this episode and haven't listened to part one, stop right here. This is going to make no sense to you. So don't listen. Turn around. Yeah, turn around. Go back. Don't listen if you haven't listened to part one.

just because it's going to be a lot of information you don't have context for. So once you're done listening to Part 1, let's get into it. Just to give a very brief synopsis, I know for most people it's been at the minimum a week. If you're listening in real time, Cassie had the luxury of hearing this yesterday. So it's pretty fresh in your mind, I hope. But to give everyone else a refresher of the case itself, in March of 1960, three women, Lillian Oding, Francis Murphy, and Mildred Lindquist were brutally murdered in Illinois's Starved Rock State Park.

After months of investigation and immense public pressure to find the person responsible, 21-year-old Chester Weiger, a former Starved Rock employee, was arrested and convicted for the crime the following year. He spent over 60 decades in prison until he was released in February of 2020 on parole. For years since his incarceration, he has remained adamant that he is innocent of the charges brought against him. While there has always been those who believed that, In recent years, doubt of Weiger's guilt is seeping into more and more minds as more evidence

and details regarding the original case and trial are starting to come to light and on a bigger scale. More people than ever are hearing about these details. As of this recording, which is in early November of 2023, Chester Weeger remains guilty of murder and is known as the starved rock killer. He and his supporters have worked for years trying to clear his name and that effort has only ramped up. So this episode is going to take a look at what evidence they offer, kind of like the team Chester side, gives in support to that belief that Chester Weeger is innocent or at the very least didn't act alone. So let's start with the day that the women left their Chicago suburb homes and arrived at Starb Rock Lodge. According to the official timeline and version of events, which is what I outlined pretty much in part one, the three women arrived on March 14th of 19th. This, we know for a fact.

Then the story is they dropped their bags, had lunch in the dining room of the lodge, and then left to explore the park. They never returned and were found two days later on March 16th. And there are two things here that raise questions. First has to do with the timeline that diverges from the official sequence of events. According to the testimony of a gentleman named Terry Martin, who was the state park custodian at the time, he was standing near the front desk on the same. 16th, when George, who was Lillian's husband, had called for now the third time checking in of

where she was, still hadn't talked to her or whatever. And according to Terry, he witnessed Esther, the woman who originally checked the women in when they first arrived, pulled the hotel record and said that the women had eaten breakfast on Tuesday the 15th, which was the day before. Right. I remember that. But then none of their stuff was moved a day later, so that seems unlikely. Right. And at this point, George had insisted that, remember, the lodge staff check in on the trio, that's when they went to the rooms, saw that their beds were made, the suit cases were packed, didn't look like they spent any significant time in the room. And there's some contradiction here because some of the housekeepers who had entered the room initially

when that search was requested, who said that the bags were packed and the beds were made. But yet some of their testimony says that there was hiking clothes laid out in the gym. drawers. So that is a slight detail, but then it's like, okay, so their bags more entirely packed. That also, it's a slight detail. But what we were kind of talking about before is that if they had never moved their clothes, then they could have been missing a day earlier than what was reported. But if all their clothes are like messed up, if they're, I don't know if it said like their bed was moved. But if there's evidence that they were there for that breakfast time, then it could change the whole timeline. Yeah. So the official timeline is that they checked in on the 14th and also

went missing on the 14th. But now with this testimony or this little bit of information, it may suggest that they actually then had breakfast the next day and had stayed in the room. Which would mean they weren't missing yet. Exactly. So it's hard to say because there's no photographs of the room that were ever taken. There's no photographic evidence. It's just kind of what different people. Memory, which is so fallible, which is a big point throughout this entire case, a big thread. But anyways, so next up, kind of on the same, in the same vein of clothing, is kind of a big one. There is testimony from several different witnesses who said they saw the women on the 14th heading out into the park, and one of them was wearing slacks. At least four

different people from a truck driver that was making deliveries to and from the lodge that day, two lodge guests and a member of the lodge staff all remember seeing this trio of women and one of them was definitely wearing slacks. Definitely according to them and their memory, of course. Definitely maybe. Definitely maybe, perhaps. But there's four different people who all said this, dark colored slacks. And this is important because in their autopsy report, none of the women were wearing slacks. They were all wearing long skirts. And these two points may suggest one glaring thing that the women were not in fact killed on Monday the 14th, as previously thought. Perhaps it could have been the following morning after breakfast, like we kind of already touched upon.

And this is further supported, perhaps, by something I didn't mention at all in part one. The women were taking photos of each other out in the park on their walk. And you can look them up online. It's really eerie. And we don't know for sure. But the leading theory is that these are the photos that they were taking of each other moments before they were attacked and killed. So it's like kind of their last moments alive.

And they're all smiling. They're posing, like in the park, just having a great time. it's really unsettling to look at knowing what happened shortly after. But there's a detail about their clothing in these photos that is cause for some pause. According to the photos, Mrs. Lindquist is wearing a white scarf, yet the autopsy report notes she's wearing a dark brown colored scarf. And the photos that show Mrs. Murphy wearing a dark colored scarf, then also in her autopsy report doesn't make mention of her wearing a scarf at all.

So could have these been errors in the reports or a mixup maybe like humans are flawed? It's hard to say. But it is kind of like, uh-huh, maybe they weren't wearing what those, you know, at the time they were killed. Maybe they were wearing something completely different. So those photos then wasn't moments before they died. Do you know what I'm trying to say? Okay.

I see what you're saying. Like those photos we have thought in the past are the photos that they took right before they died, but they weren't wearing the same clothing. in those, they weren't, they weren't wearing the same clothing in their autopsy reports that they were in those photos. Correct. Unless there was a mistake made. Correct. But it's also now with that information and then the four people who testified saying, yeah, one of the women was wearing slacks when we saw them on the 14th, which is the day they arrived at the lodge. But in their autopsy, they're all wearing skirts. So did someone change in the middle of the trail?

Were they, like, you know what I'm saying? Yeah. I don't know. It's hard to think about. memory though in that way because if you could think someone's wearing slacks but if they're wearing a skirt and their legs are just touching they might think their pants and it might just be a skirt with a fold in it that's true you know it's definitely could just be an error I mean I personally am not very observant so if someone asked me oh what was that person wearing and they were wearing like a blue top and black jeans I might be like oh they were wearing jeans in a black top you know I just I'm I would maybe get some details correct, but I wouldn't be paying enough attention to actually know in detail. Of course. And that's the thing. I mean, a lot of this is eyewitness testimony, which we all know.

Any true crime fan knows is not very reliable. Like, you know, especially when emotions are involved in stuff, it alters your memory of things. And time alters your memory and influence of other people can alter your memory. There's just, memory is not a reliable source. Even if you're like, I 100% remember. that this is what happened, it could very well be that you're totally wrong, even though you are super confident. Which makes a lot of this case really frustrating because a lot of it comes from memories of what people saw or didn't see, and we'll get into that a little more. But basically what I'm trying to say is that for the sake of argument, if the women were killed the next day, which is what these two theories are kind of alluding to, is that now all the people who,

who were questioned extensively and provided alibis and passed questioning for their whereabouts on Monday the 14th, now all of a sudden could potentially be suspects again. Because it doesn't matter what they were doing on Monday. If it happened on Tuesday. Correct. Oh. Oof. This episode is brought to you by Prime.

Obsession is in session. And this summer, Prime originals have everything you want. Steamy romances, irresistible love stories, and the book to screen favorites you've already read twice. Off campus, L, every year after, the love hypothesis, Sterling Point, and more. Slow burns, second chances, chemistry you can feel through the screen. Your next obsession is waiting. Watch only on Prime. So to exemplify this, let's talk briefly about Gerald Nemke.

He went by Jerry, and he was 17 years old at the time of the murders, and he was known as a, quote-unquote, juvenile delinquent, and he was staying at the nearby Marseille's youth camp. And I have to read a portion of the newspaper article from the 60s describing this camp. It's titled, quote, words of the state who found bodies work as part of rehabilitation. Because if you remember, the search party that found the women's bodies found it pretty quickly. And they were a group of quote unquote juvenile delinquents from nearby youth camps. Okay. I do remember you saying that. Yep. And Jerry was a part of this. this camp. Okay. It goes on to say, the boys who discovered the bodies of the three murdered Chicago Women Wednesday at Starved Rock State Park are part of a unique and relatively new rehabilitation

program. The Illinois Youth Commission has jurisdiction over all boys under 17 years of age and girls under 18 who run afoul of the law and is also in charge of the state's three institutions for juvenile offenders. A select group of boys whose crimes are less serious and whose conduct is good are placed in the state's seven forestry camps after several months. The forestry camps, one of which is located at Marseilles, have a relatively relaxed atmosphere. Located in a fairly isolated area, there are no fences and no armed guards at the camps.

The boys stationed there perform manual labor of conservation nature, which includes building roads, bridges, and clear areas at both Starved Rock and Alini State Park. Pledge to honor, trustworthiness, and loyalty, the boys have participated in many civic and service activities such as Wednesday's search. So basically they're like, they're troubled youth, but they have good behavior, their crimes aren't too bad. So it's a pretty relaxed atmosphere and they participate in a lot of conservation efforts in the Starbrook area. One of these loyal, trustworthy boys was Jerry.

He was born in Chicago in 1943 and was arrested for the first time at the age of seven for a curfew, violation. By the time he was 11, he had been arrested several more times for truancy, larceny, streaking, and selling oral sex to older men. So he is having a very rough childhood. This poor child. Because of his age, he is never charged and he runs away at the age of 12. By the age of 14, he was arrested again for auto theft and finally was placed in the custody of the state of Illinois and sent to several different state facilities. He's paroled and immediately robs and assaults a young woman and steals from a local liquor store. He's placed back into a state school for troubled boys and was given a psychiatric evaluation and at 16 years old was deemed

not a sexually dangerous person and no longer a threat to society and was granted parole. So he's out on parole and immediately gets arrested again and is sent to a maximum security youth detention Center near Starved Rock. In mid-April, Jerry charmed the guards from this youth center and was like, hey, I would love a weekend pass to go home to take my mother to church. And they were like, okay, you've been great. So he goes and he never comes back. He's AWOL. No one knows where he is until he is picked up driving a stolen car in Chicago. He is found near the scene of a horrific crime. He had gone on a date with a 16-year-old girl named Marilyn Duncan, who, warning. A warning for the whole episode.

Just also forgot about that to say that. This is awful. Okay. She was later found beaten on train tracks nearby. He was picked up by Chicago police for questioning in the starved rock murders and this fatal beating of Marilyn Duncan. So it came out that he had went on a date with Marilyn, who he later beat to death with a brick. Her head was completely smashed in and her clothes. was torn. She was discovered on the train tracks still alive, but passed away in the hospital two

days later, never regaining any consciousness. And Jerry was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in her murder, though less than two years later, the conviction was overturned. He was found guilty a second time and sentenced to 75 years in prison. However, he wound up serving less than 20. He was questioned by police regarding the triple murder in the starved rock cases, especially after and eerie drawing outlining three shapes with all these different lines. It kind of looks like a map, like with three blocks and little arrows. And we know that the women, there was three, and they had been dragged and moved. So it was kind of creepy, kind of a creepy coincidence.

Why is everyone in this creepy people? There is no polygraph on file for him, but his hair was collected. And during the initial questioning, Jerry provided an alibi for Monday, the 14th, saying that he was sitting around camp with other group members. And remember, this camp is very close to Starved Rock. And he made an odd remark to law enforcement. He said, you know, one person could have done it, but it wasn't me. So it's kind of like very, it's very eerie and a little bit of a weird coincidence. So again, he had an alibi. He was with other people on Monday the 14th. But again, if this happened on the 15th, his alibi is null and void.

At the window. Yeah. And speaking of alibis, Chester changed his a couple of times. This episode isn't all about how Chester Weger is likely innocent. It's just posing different pieces of testimony and evidence that makes you question. Oh, yeah. What are his alibis? So his original alibi, he began by saying, at the time of the murders, which were officially

placed to be sometime in the afternoon between 1 and 4 p.m. on Monday the 14th, he was at the lodge, alone and writing a letter to a woman. He later changed his story saying, oh, actually, I was in another nearby town called Oglesby getting a haircut, and I actually hitched a ride back to town with my good friend named Stanley Tucker. And when Stanley was questioned about this in trial, he denied that happening, saying he couldn't even recall if he saw Chester that day at all, let alone giving him a ride from town to town. Why would you use someone for an alibi that you didn't see, just hoping that they would lie for you? Well, Stanley Tucker was one of Chester's really good friends. He wasn't just a random person. He was his, like, one of his best friends. Okay. I guess for like, I don't know,

if you murdered someone and you were like, hey, I was in your car yesterday, I'd be like, yeah, you were. Well, I think that's what he was hinging on with changing this story. But we'll get, again, we'll get into it a little bit. And originally, when asked about, he found out that Stanley was like, no, I wasn't with Chester. He was kind of a taken aback and he was like, I don't know why he would lie about that. Like, I was definitely with him. And decades later, there's a woman. She comes forward. Her name is Sandra Hussby. She was 15 years old at the time of the trial. And she was friends with Stanley and Chester. And she said that Stanley approached her on the night that he testified, like after he testified in trial, he ran into her. And it was known at that point that he testified against Chester.

And he told Sandra he had to lie because he was threatened. He didn't want to spend the rest of his life in prison and said that she shouldn't and can't say anything about what he just told her because something bad would happen to her and her family and Stanley and everyone else involved. And then they never talked about it again. This seems fishy, but okay, I'll bite or what's going on with this? Not much because not much happened. So Stanley, it comes up a couple other times. We'll get into it. But he's never charged with anything.

Nothing ever comes of that. The barber that Chester said he went to go get a haircut at can't confirm that he was there that day. Like it's kind of just a loose end, but it's something to consider. Consider. Yeah, and his first alibi, his first alibi that he gave, he was alone, which is convenient because no one can vouch for him. And then his second alibi he gives neither of the two people he's using in the circumstances can or will vouch for his alibi. So both are not looking good. Which is kind of, it's hard because if someone came up to me and was like, I mean, now it's a little different

with like security cameras and cameras all over the place. But if someone's like, where were you, Monday between one and four. I'm like, alone in my office. Like a murderer. You are a murderer. It's, you know, it's like, you are guilty. I'm sorry, there's no one here to confirm that, but I was. Yeah. Like, people spend time alone all the time. That's true. I'm alone all the time. Yeah. In an age where there was no, you know, not everyone had a camera. There's no way, you know, everybody on my street has a ring doorbell. Like, I'm sure two doors down, someone could pull footage and see me going to get my Starbucks and coming back and not leaving between one and four. You know what I mean?

Yeah. Back to Stanley Tucker, he comes up in a different way. George Spiros, the lodge owner's son that we kind of talked to a little bit about in part one, he came forward with information in April that he had forgotten to mention originally. Perk the court documents, quote, Spiros had been interviewed previously but had not given any information pertinent to this investigation. but on April 4th, 1960, he came in and gave the following information. And now this is what George said.

Quote, I had completely forgotten about the matter, but since having talking to the men earlier and giving the matter a great deal of thought, I finally recalled something that may be important. As I was leaving the lodge on Monday, March 14th, at around 2 p.m. in route to visit my mother, I noticed a couple of cars parked. One seemed to be an older model Cadillac, I believe it was black. The only thing I can remember about the other car was that it was gray in color. There were three women standing alongside the Cadillac talking to someone in the car, end quote.

Five days later, George calls law enforcement saying he has more important information. And he goes on about how deer were being killed in the park and that, quote, unquote, they had gotten away with it. And when the investigators were like, what are you talking about? Like, who is they? And what does this have to do with anything? Mm-hmm. He went on to say that, quote, unquote, Indians had been seen in the park and they were killing deer and stuff.

And they're like, okay, first of all, Native Americans haven't been seen in Starved Rock State Park in, at this point, hundreds of years. And what does this have to do with the murder case? You know, so it was kind of like, it made them pause to be like, is he okay? Yeah. Four days later, he's interviewed again concerning that original piece of information that was actually pertinent to the case. And in the report, the law enforcement wrote, quote, he was very confused about everything before going on to say what George said. And he goes, the more I think about it, the more confused I have become about the whole thing. I'm not sure of anything that I've seen on that day. The more I think about it, the more I'm not sure of what I saw, of when I saw the cars parked there. And the more I think about it, the more I put Stanley Tucker and Chester Weeger in that car. I don't know why I put them there, but it just seems like they were the ones in the black Cadillac. So it's like, okay, so... That's not reliable either. I can't say why I think it was them, but I'm just going to go with that. It's like, okay, that doesn't help at all. Well, it helps if you're

trying to pin something on Chester Weger. That's, that's true. And here's another interesting thing. So it was during this string of interviews, when he keeps inserting himself, he's like, oh, I remember this and this and this, that law enforcement noticed a little something about George, what he was wearing. It was a particular kind of red jacket, which isn't a super big deal at face value, but when you combine that with the fact that red Orlin fibers, a type of artificial fiber, was found on the victims. And Chester was wearing blue jeans and a buckskin jacket. No red fibers on him at all on the day of the alleged murders. So it's like, where is this red fiber coming from? So law enforcement notices this about George and questions him about it. And George says, oh, actually,

I have three red jackets. So they requested to see them. And he allowed them. And in the report, it states that the first red jacket was kind of a shinier material and had like a fuzzy mutton collar. And while an attempt was made to remove fibers from that jacket, none could be obtained. All right, move on. They're like, meh.

So it's probably not that jacket if they can't actively try and get anything off of it. Right. So they kind of dismissed that one. The second jacket was a mix of different red jacket. and black colors, and samples were obtained and sent off for testing to be compared to what was found in the cave. And that later came back as not a match. But the third jacket, George said, oh, actually the third one is not here. It's in a different town, but don't worry because it's the same exact jacket as the second one. And they never followed up on it. So yes, it later came out that that second

jacket was not a match. So if he was telling the truth, then it doesn't matter. But if it is different and he was lying and it could potentially be a match, they never followed up on it. Oh, yeah. You're just taking his word for it that he's telling the truth. But also, why would you mention a third jacket if that was the jacket? Right. I don't, so many questions. So many questions. I don't know. That's just like weird too. I mean, if I had just committed a crime that someone was looking for evidence for and they were like, we're looking for a red jacket. And I was like, yeah, I have a red jacket. You're like, I don't have a red jacket. Yeah, exactly. It's kind of just like, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Yeah, it's just like, it feels like a weird thing to offer up as evidence.

If you know that that's what you were wearing during the, you know, it's just, it seems weird. He also was making statements that didn't really make too much sense to them either. So, but I have a little bit more on him. Yeah. Is he sketchy too? I feel like every person in this area is just sketchy in some way or another. I'm going to say yes. I'm sketchy. But, yo, I want you to make up your own mind about that. Okay. So he was born in 1932 and grew up in Starved Rock State Park, as, again, his father, Nick, was the owner and operator of the lodge for years.

Growing up, George was described as being, quote, unquote, difficult and had several, quote, unquote, behavioral difficulties, but spent the majority of his childhood running through and exploring the park. By the time he was in his preteens, his mom. mother and father had separated and his social difficulties prompted his father to send George to an elite prep school called the Culver Military Academy, where he channeled a lot of his emotions into boxing and physical fitness, actually earning himself a championship spot in his boxing division. He went on to study at Northwestern before returning to Starved Rock to work as his father's assistant. He quickly earned a reputation for being a little odd. He would stare at people working through windows. He had a really difficult time with social interactions.

Like he couldn't maintain eye contact. He had a really difficult time speaking to people. He also had a history of harassing women and was seen sneaking around and lurking around the property. And there was even a rumor that his father paid people to be nice to him and to be his friends. Oh, that's kind of sad. Yeah. It's clear that he's exhibiting some odd behavior, but that doesn't make him a murderer by any stretch of the imagination. No, not at all. And even some of the things that you're saying kind of sound like he could be on the spectrum in some way. If he's having difficulty with social interactions, he's having difficulty with eye contact. He is like doing these odd behaviors. It just seems like it's possible that maybe he's just misunderstood and he's actually undiagnosed with like Asperger's autism, something like that, that people are just assuming that he's just this weird, strange person when he's actually not.

And in 1960, there is no room for any conversation about that. So I totally 100% agree with that, but I have a couple pieces of information to share. That might change our minds. Well, I don't think it will change your mind about what you just mentioned about him potentially being on the spectrum in some way. But there's just a couple other things that make your eyebrows kind of raise a little bit and be like, huh. Okay. That's a little weird. A housekeeper doing cleaning work for the Spiro's at the time of the murders, who,

also happened to be Chester's mom, because remember, she worked at the lodge as well, allegedly found bloody clothing in George's room at the time of the- Chester's mom? Yes. Found bloody clothing? Mm-hmm. So... My already is Chester's mom is ride or die for Chester.

But please, I will continue. She reports it, but by the time police came to investigate, the clothing was gone. So there is no official report of this. It's just what she had to say. George also had some inconsistencies in his alibi for Monday the 14th. He said that he was driving to Evanstown, Evanston, to visit his mother and two sisters, because remember his parents were separated. And he said he left the park around 1 p.m.

But he didn't arrive until 4 p.m., which is pretty late for what would usually take about two hours. So when he was pressed for where those missing hours were, like what he was doing, he changed his story a couple times, changed the order of then, what he was doing, not doing. It was a little fishy. So we're missing two hours of time, basically. Right. And remember, the original report is that the woman were killed between 1 and 4 p.m. on Monday the 14th. And between 1 and 4 p.m. on Monday the 14th, his alibi is a little sketch. So they're like kind of leaning into it, kind of investigating him a little more. But he falls off the suspect list once focus is starting to shift onto Chester. And once that happens, it's like the pressure's kind of off of him. He is sent immediately to Greece by his father. Because they're Greek. They do have, you know, Spiros. They're a Greek family. They do have family over there. But he's sent off there and he doesn't come back for seven years. And I don't know much about his life in Greece and then following that until it's the very end,

where he kind of pops up again. So we're jumping now to 2005. A woman named Donna Kelly was Chester's appeals attorney at this time. She came on board into this whole case in the early 2000s, and she filed a clemency petition on behalf of Chester. So basically, a request for a hearing to petition for some sort of clemency or mercy, such as a pardon. And this is a criminal justice tool that officials can use to correct unjust sentences. And at this hearing in 2005, she states that Chester's confession had been involuntary and was only given due to physical and psychological abuse. And she went on to say that Chester's innocent and instead started casting suspicion on to someone else. And that was George Spiros. So she makes this big public statement that she's like,

I have information that is going to lead you to someone else. She names George Spiros. Like something's coming. You know, she has information. Three days later, George is found deceased in his home. And while the official record rules out foul play, the scene was a little odd. He had just gone grocery shopping. He had bags of food. There was ice cream. They were like an ice cream that just placed on the counter like he had just arrived home ready to put them away. He had gotten his dog a huge bag of new dog food. The faucet was on. There was coffee that was out, kind of spilled on the counter. And George was found naked from the waist down. He was sitting by his computer and he was deceased from an apparent self-inflicted gun wound to the mouth. And his dog was also shot to death. So this is really odd as far

as timing goes. And the scene's a little weird, unless he just abruptly decided to end his own life. And that can be considered as well when you know that he was struggling with a cancer diagnosis. So some people who are like pro Chester being innocent is like, okay, so how convenient that three days after he's publicly named he ends his life. But the other half of the argument is he just got dealt with a really horrific cancer diagnosis and he wanted to end his own life so he didn't suffer with cancer. So it's just odd. Yeah. I'm just saying. I don't know.

I don't know. I'm still, I also, I mean, I don't know these people or anything like that. But if you were to be just diagnosed, I don't know if it was a fatal cancer diagnosis. You know, there's a lot of cancers that can be treated. But if it was a fatal cancer diagnosis, why wouldn't you just come clean? If you're going to complete suicide, why not leave a note that says, by the way, I did this. This person's innocent. and then do it?

You know, it's just, it seems, was there no? Was there anything? No. And why would you take your dog with you? Why would you take your dog with you? Why would you have just gone grocery shopping for food and supplies that you don't need? Like, it's just, it's odd. And that's why this is brought up in a lot of different articles and different, you know,

publications about maybe George had something to do with it because this is odd. Diedra Fox, who worked for the lodge for a time, was one of the people who stated George would verbally sexually assault her and some of her coworkers and would watch them oddly while they worked. And Diedra is part of a community-based group called the Committee to Free Chester Weeger. And this is a small group of dedicated community members that are committed to clearing his name. And they come up a lot in the docu series. But Chester's family is very clear that they are not a part of this group at all. and that maybe it started with some good intentions, but it's kind of gone off the rails a little bit.

Like they kind of have gone too far a little bit. So just take that with a grain of salt. But she said that when she saw the crime scene photos and noticed that there were dog paw prints in the snow, it clicked for her because she believes that George, who was notorious for having dogs, keeping dogs that followed him everywhere, used them in some sort of way to keep the women at bay, intimidate them, or at the very least,

there were dogs present with George in St. Louis Canyon at the time that the women were murdered. So I know that is so many unknowns. It's so much speculation. So much. It's really hard. Were his dogs trained in a, like, a vicious way? I don't think they were trained in a vicious way, but they were definitely like his dogs. Like, you know. I mean, my dog follows me. round, but I couldn't, there's nothing I could do that would keep a bunch of women at bay. I mean,

he would just go up and lick them and wag his tail at them. You know, like, he's not trained to like bark and ward them off and corner them or something. Like, it's just. Right. And that's kind of where the information ends. You know, it's kind of like, okay. And there was another witness, I will say, and I've been doing so much research, all these names are kind of bleeding together and the timelines are in my mind a little scrambled unless I actually wrote it down in my notes, which I didn't. But there was another person who witnessed dogs running from St. Louis Canyon on that day. Like they were around on that day. So, right, a lot of speculation. But let's talk about something that we know for sure. And that is what the autopsy's revealed. So Lily and Oding

had two strands of hair in her hand. One was light brown and the other was coarse and dark. And they know that these strands of hair did not match herself or the other two women. And this would indicate, just based off of common sense, that at least two other people were involved. Because there's two different types of hair. They don't belong to any one, any of the bodies at the scene. That means two other people were involved, not just one. So already kind of like, why is there only one person who was prosecuted for this? The light colored hair was sent to the Washington University Medical Center to be analyzed. And the written report that came back after several months was released within weeks of Chester's confession. And it said that the hair was

dissimilar to Chester Weeger and the three victims. So automatically, Chester's hair does not match at least one of the strands. And he has fine, light colored hair. So the coarse dark hair is another story altogether. And like couldn't be him. Well, at least at service value, like couldn't be him. And I have to ask because I know that sexual assault is part of this too, is these are confirmed to be head hair. Yes. Right? Yes. Okay. And it's kind of, so sexual assault, which we will get into a tiny bit. Originally, it said that they were not, they were posed, obviously sexually suggestive, but they indicated that sexual assault was not part of the crime. Okay. There was no semen found at the area, but there is a slight thing that we'll get into just in a couple minutes, actually, to clarify that a little more.

So the report about that hair did not surface in trial because at the time, by law, it did not have to be. This trial took place before two really big landmark cases. The first was Brady v. Maryland that essentially says the state has to turn over all potential exculpatory information, which means information that would clear someone's name from alleged fault or guilt. So they could have all this information that would say, ooh, this kind of indicates that Chester isn't the person, but we don't have to tell anybody about it. So we're not going to.

That's messed up. So that's how the legal system worked for years before this Brady v. Maryland case. And the other one, which comes up a lot, is this took place before Miranda v. Arizona. that resulted in what everyone knows today as the Miranda rights. So prior to any questioning, it's, you know, you have the right to remain silent. Any statement that you make may use as evidence against you, et cetera, et cetera. Ken and will be used against you in a court law. I just remember Law and Order SVU.

If anyone watches that, I just remember the Miranda rights because it would be like they would arrest someone. And every time they would read the rights. I don't know. It's just instilled in my brain now. Anything you can and will be used against you in a court of law. That's the one, right? Yeah. Like it has that abrupt. It does, but that's the intro. Like, these crimes are especially heinous. Well, okay. So that, now you know, because of this Lamar case, that happened after the Starved Rock murder case. the report regarding testing the coarse dark colored hair cannot be located. So there's question as to if it was ever tested at all. No one knows if it was ever tested.

The thought process, and again, before I say that, you have to remember, I feel like a lot of times throughout this episode and the previous one, it's like, we don't know, we don't know. And it's because almost every single person, except for Chester Weeger, who is involved in the original case, it's dead. Oh, yep. So we have no one to talk to anymore. We have no one to talk to that was directly involved in the investigation and the ins and outs of the case, like on the legal teams and all of that. So we're relying on paperwork in file cabinets and records and all of that. So anyway, the thought process about why the coarse dark hair was never tested or at least the report can't be located is because Chester had light colored hair. So of course they wanted to get the light-colored one off to the lab to prove that, you know, hopefully prove that he was involved.

But guess who had dark-colored hair? George. George Spiroz and Gerald Nemke, the other guy, the youth group guy. But a lot of people have coarse dark hair, so it's a lot more speculation. But law enforcement officials actually collected and analyzed many different hair and fiber pieces of evidence. But the hairs fibers and analytical reports regarding them were never introduced into Chester's trial at all for the reasons we just talked about. They didn't have to be. Despite the way that the bodies were found, the clothing pulled down and positioned spread eagle like we talked about earlier. The autopsy also indicated there were no signs of sexual assault as there was no detectable semen noted.

But like I said, I kind of have to specify something. Mrs. Murphy had bruising. In the report, it says bruising to her vagina. I do not know if they meant, like, her vulva area, if we're going to get particular on anatomy here, or if it was her actual vagina. Because they asked Chester, in one of his rounds of questioning, if he ever kicked anyone in the crotch. So indicating they knew about the bruising,

and I'm just having a hard time picturing, like, I just have a hard time picturing if you kick someone in the crotch, there's going to be bruising in their actual vagina. Was this the autopsy report that said vagina? Yes. Then I imagine that's what it was because a medical technician isn't going to write in 1960. Like the blanket term vagina. I mean, I don't know.

I guess I don't know. A man in the 1960. You know what I mean? It's just, it's confusing. I guess. But it didn't indicate any further like sexual trauma. But that's sad. If that's.

I know. I know. But I had to ask. As soon as I read that, I was like, is that actually what they mean? Or do they mean like she got kicked like between the legs and there's bruising on her pubic bone or something like, you know what I'm saying? Yeah. So anyways, that's just a detail that I had questions about. But either way, there was something really, really different about Mrs. Murphy's body aside from just the bruising that they found.

One of her fingertips was missing. The report states, quote, about one half of the distal phalanx of the left index finger is missing. apparently post-mortem, end quote. So this begs questions of, first of all, why? Second of all, how? With a knife? With a sharp, what sharp object? There was no sharp objects noted at the scene at all.

None of the victims were stabbed with a sharp object. And also, where is it? It's never been found. Like this part of her finger has never been found. Also, even more kind of like, what the fuck. She had soil marks, urination and defecation marks on her clothes. Like someone did that to her? Yes. So someone kicked her, literally defecated and urinated on her, and cut part of her finger off and took it. Just her. Jesus. Just her. And did they investigate

any links to someone who would be personally invested in hurting her in particular? Well, that's the big question. Yes, kind of is the answer. And we'll get into that also. But that, just at face value, is kind of like, without even getting specifically into her just yet, it's kind of a bigger blanket question of, well, what the fuck is the motive? Because originally it was the official story, and according to Chester's original confession, is that the motive was robbery, like robbery gone wrong. Yet nothing of value was missing from the victims. Their wedding rings were still there. So clearly they weren't being robbed. Right. And you have to think, so time was taken to bludgeon three people brutally drag their bodies to a different location from when they were originally struck down

into that cave. Then they were staged. A finger was cut off. Time was taken to urinate and defecate on one of them, yet not take anything from them, which was allegedly the entire point to begin with. I think whoever this person is, whether it's Chester or one of these other people that you're talking to, I think a key part in this is that whoever did it has a severely negative relationship with women. Oh, yeah. Like there is something in there to be able to do such horrific crimes to a woman and then you're talking about defecating and all this other like horrific things. There's something about women in this that is pissing this person off. And there might be some other things as well. But we'll get there. But yes, I agree. It's it's reading that, anybody can be like, that seems extremely personal. Like not only was the original like what we described in part one is, how they were killed. I mean, over 100 blows to their faces. It's very, very personal. Yeah. So let's move on a little bit to the murder weapon. Chester admitted to initially picking up a log that was used in the beating, but also alluded to the fact that he also utilized the camera

and the binoculars because they also had blood on them. So a couple things with this. First, that's a lot of moving parts. So if we're going off the original story that Chester, acted alone, which he didn't even plan on killing them. He just tried to rob them. It went awry. He ended up picking up a log, striking someone with it, killing them. And now he's going to switch to two other objects and kill two other people. It's just, I've never heard of one person using three different murder weapons like that in such a spur of the moment crime. Like, it seems very weird. Yeah. And there was also the fact that almost immediately, the theory of the log being the murder weapon was dismissed.

If you remember, on March 17th, the day after the bodies were discovered, Warren Harding, made a big public announcement that the log was the murder weapon. Remember, he like stepped on it, found it under the snow, there was blood on it. He's like, this must be it. And he made this big public statement. Yeah, he's like, I'm solving everything. Yeah, I remember him. Well, on March 24th, so what, a week later, the state police crime laboratory released a report and the Chicago Tribune actually wrote about it. And in that article, it says, quote, another startling development in the murder inquiry is the report from the state police crime laboratory that has convinced state police that a three-foot 10-pound tree limb found near the murder scene was not used to bludgeon the women.

The blood-covered limb is so rotten in some places that it probably would have cracked under the impact had it been used to beat the women, authorities said, end quote. So literally a week later, the crime lab is saying the same. is this ain't it. True. Yeah. Like, yes, it was involved in some point to have, it was in close proximity or maybe was used in some capacity because there is blood on it. It was definitely involved. But rotten logs fall apart. You're telling me you're going to beat someone, three people, two death, a hundred times with a rotten log. Like, it's going to fall apart in the first. It's going to fall apart when you pick it up. Enough to decapitate them. Like, I just, again, again, a lot of questions. So not only does this give pause to believing anything that

Mr. Harding is kind of like proclaiming, especially right away, kind of just jumping to statement. He just wanted to like solve it and to get recognition it feels like. But it also implies that, okay, so if it's not the log, then what else could it be? And that also leads to the question, well, if it's not any of the things that were at the scene, there's another murder weapon. What did someone intentionally bring something? Was this premeditated? Even if it wasn't where the hell is the murder weapon and what is it like did we miss it has it been here the whole time especially with nature weather especially after a long period of time if it was a rock or anything like that i mean weather would wash away and it snowed so it's just kind of like oh my god

you answer one thing and it's like a hundred more questions pop up it's whackamol it's like okay you think you have one thing down and then 10 other things pop up another thing about the log before we move on John Shake, the supervisor for the State Bureau of Criminal Identification that made those remarks that the Chicago Tribune reported on, was called to testify in the trial, which is interesting because he was called by the state. So the state knew that he was like, hey, this probably wasn't the murder weapon, yet they called him to testify. Interesting choice. So during the trial, they show him the log. He identifies it. and then he testifies how he examined the log at the funeral home on March 16th.

And during questioning by Chester's attorney, John McNamara, he asks, what were you asked to examine it for? What did you find? And he answers, I was not asked specifically to examine it for anything in particular. This exhibit was submitted to me for examination. At the time I received the exhibit, it had already thawed. I measured the exhibit and made notations as to its description. examined it visually and found on the end opposite, the forked end, a number of hairs.

And then the attorney asks, was that the extent of your examination? And John responds, yes. And that was it. So he didn't disclose during trial any of the other information in his original report. Like it was old, rotten, likely would have fell apart if it was used for striking. Like none of that was discussed at all. Was it just because he wasn't questioned on that? Yes.

So he didn't say it? And he wasn't by law legally bound to giving that information unless he was directly, you know what I'm saying? Like, it's just kind of like, oh, my God. Yeah, so we're missing huge major pieces of this case. Yeah. Yeah. So the law, tons of questions.

We get that. But something we do know is that we talked a little bit about in part one was the twine. It was all about the twine. He counted the number of twine. It was a whole thing. Yeah. As a refresher, the binding used to tie up the victims consisted of two types of twine. And the 20 ply was that particular type of twine used in food packaging

and tying parcels that they originally traced back to the kitchen of the lodge. And that was like their aha moment that really kind of put everything into motion. That's someone connected to the lodge. Yep. However, it comes out that, yeah, the lodge did order 20 ply twine. They used it all the time. It was a very, very common type of industrial twine. So it's not like it's this very specific type type of thing. Like theoretically it could come from anywhere. Right, right. And then the other type of twine that was allegedly found on Chester in his home that Harlan Warren announced,

okay, now we know for sure it was Chester because he's linked to the kitchen and he's linked to other type of twine that was used to tie up the women. The crime laboratory director who examined the twine at the crime seat, wrote a report about it, discussed the report during a briefing in March that Harlan Warren was in attendance to, and that report concludes that the two type of twine found on the victims was not consistent with what was found at Chester's house. Despite this, they moved forward with this whole schick that Chester and the twine were one and the same and it was him. So it's just going on with this case. I don't know. It's so frustrating. And I am telling you right now, I know this is already long.

We have a little bit more to go. There is, there's a reason that there is a podcast completely dedicated to this to this case, that's like 15 episodes long and counting. So I just don't understand how the ball was dropped in so many places and so much stuff was like miss either not focused on at all or focused on and then dropped or there's just so many weird things happening. Or intentionally left out because by law they were able to do that. Like they were playing by the book at the time, the book that they had at the time. You know what I mean? Which is sketchy as fuck to us. The book that allowed them to do whatever they wanted. Right, exactly.

The other last thing about the twine, and it's just a little tidbit because I have to move on. Okay. Is that in that same report from the crime lab, it showed that the twine had been cut with a sharp object. It was cut, sliced. And in Chester's confession, if you remember, he said that the woman wriggled through and broke away. So in that case, wouldn't you have thought that the twine would have been ripped or torn? None of the women had scissors or a knife on them, but Mrs. Murphy's finger was cut with a sharp object. And now all of a sudden the twine is also cut, but we don't know with what.

It's just some... There's huge missing pieces to this case. Yeah. All right. So I know that was a lot, but we did a lot here. We went through a lot of the physical evidence, how it doesn't really jive with kind of some of the details in his original confession. there's a lot to go over here. And that's why I am just so, so sorry.

I have to make this three parts. You know in episode, the first part of this where we're like, this is a two-parter, not a three-parter, surprise, it's a three-parter. To be fair, I went into this thinking it was going to be two parts and sat down an hour ago thinking it was going to be. And then I realized my notes keep going and going and going. So instead of subjecting everyone to a three-and-a-half-hour episode, we're going to break it up into one more part, I swear, that's the end as far as what I have to offer.

So in the next part, please come back for part three because there's a lot going on in part three. A lot of things come to a head. More questions are posed, but what we're really going to get into is the confession, because that is really ultimately what sent Chester to prison in the first place. Yes, this is what I've been waiting for because I know we talked about it a little bit before in the first episode, but it kind of sounds like there's some weird stuff going on with his confession. And we see all the time now that there are these coerced confessions that are happening where people are stuck in rooms for really long periods of time. And they are basically told, if you tell us you did this, we'll let you go. After being stuck somewhere for like

12 hours interrogated incessantly and people are just trying to get home, go to their families, their promised things. And I just have a feeling that Chester's confession was coerced in some capacity. Well, you're hitting on a lot of things that I am really eager to talk about because, in short, yes, that is what Chester claims and a lot of his attorneys now that represent him claim as well. And that is their whole argument that Chester essentially is innocent and that the entire reason he went to prison is because he basically had a forced confession. And there's just so much. This is why it's three parts.

I'm shutting up right now because I'm going to start getting into it again. But we still have a lot to go. And I'll also give updates because, like I said, this case is still in a way ongoing. There are developments that are happening all the time. A lot has happened this year. and I want to catch everyone up and get into more detail of why Chester may or may not be guilty. So we will see you all fourth part three. Swear to God the end.

I don't want to do it another three-parter again. This is too stressful. I don't like it. I personally hate it. I hate it. Okay. All right. I'm going to take that back.

I like hearing it. I just don't like giving it because I am somebody that just wants to. wants to give all the information at once. Sure. And knowing that it's broken up is a little hard. But, okay, we will see you guys next time. In the meantime, enjoy the view. But watch you're back.

Bye. Bye. Thank you so much for joining us again this week. If you have a trail tale or story suggestion, send us an email at Stories at NPAD podcast.com. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook at National Park After Dark and on Twitter at NPAD podcast. Join our outsiders only community. community on Patreon or Apple subscriptions to listen ad-free, unlock monthly bonus episodes, and exclusive

content. And remember, when you support our sponsors, you are supporting our show. For our exclusive discount codes and source information from today's episode, check out the show notes. For more information on our show, our book recommendations, merch updates, and more, visit our website at npaddpodcast.com. And please rate, review, and subscribe from wherever you listen to podcasts. You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you may not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressives save over $900 on average. Pop over to Progressive.com, answer some questions, and you'll get a quick quote with discounts

that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit Progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. National average 12-month savings of $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.