National Park After Dark - The Devil’s in the Details: Starved Rock State Park (Part 3)

Episode Date: December 4, 2023

*Warning: This episode involves graphic discussion of violent acts and sexual assault*We wrap up our series on the Starved Rock murders by discussing Chester’s confession, physical evidence reports, explore additional possible suspects, hear from an original juror and get up to speed with where Chester Weger’s case stands now. Be sure to listen to part 1 & 2 before diving in.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!Quince: Use our link to get free shipping and 365-day returns.Reel: Use our link and code NPAD to sign up for a subscription to automatically get 30% off of your first order and free shipping.StoryWorth: Use our link to save $10 on your first purchase.BetterHelp: National Park After Dark is sponsored by BetterHelp. Get 10% off.For a full list of our sources, visit http://npadpodcast.com/episodes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello, everyone, and welcome back to National Park After Dark, part three of the Starved Rock State Park murders. Danielle's first three-parter, and we're here. We're at the finish line. We're going to learn the rest about this case. I'm so sorry to have put you guys through a three-parter. Like I said in- We like three-parters. Do we like?

Yes, we like three-parters. Okay. Well, I'm still on the fence, much like I'm on the fence to what the hell is going on with this case. And I think a lot of people would agree with that. So where we left off, again, if you haven't listened to part one and part two, stop listening now. Turn around. Do not pass go. You got some homework. You have homework. You have listening to do. We'll wait. Okay. You're back. So you listen to part one and part two, but just as a refresher, where we left off at the end of part two, is we were going over a lot of physical evidence that was found at the scene of the crime

that didn't exactly jive with Chester's original confession and a lot of the information about that physical evidence that was disclosed in various reports that the jury never had access to. So there's a lot of information that we have knowledge of now that sways maybe our minds one way or another, but the jury had no idea that any jury had no idea that, any of this physical evidence had been either analyzed or what the results of those findings were. So there's a lot going on. We also met a lot of potential people who could have committed the crimes that we hadn't heard of in the first part. Yeah, we introduced some new characters, not just Chester Weeger, who we really discussed heavily in part one.

So there's a lot of moving parts. There's a lot of things happening. Obviously, part two did it's duty, but now we're in part three and we are finally getting into, I don't want to say the meat of the story because everything is pertinent, but the thing that really ended up sending Chester to prison in the first place, and that was his confession. This is really what got him. This is what I've been waiting for because I know, and we haven't talked about it yet, but I know that in so many cases, especially when someone is being hammered for hours and hours and they're being fed information. There are finally a lot of times we've seen all the time in cases.

Police are like, just tell us what happened. We'll help you out. We'll get you out of here. Just tell us what happened. You won't have to be here anymore. So eventually, after hours and hours of interrogation, people snap. And they're like, okay, I did it. This is what happened.

Can I go home now? And that's kind of what I feel like is about to happen with Chester. Yeah. So we've already mentioned a bit about how some of the physical evidence isn't quite jiving with the confession. It's not very cohesive. But according to interviews with some of the jurors after they handed down the verdict, they said that the confession was really what swayed their final decision. Because in the original trial, there was no physical evidence definitively linking Chester to this crime. It was mainly his confession that really were like, okay, well,

he admitted to it. And he reenacted it. So there's also that. You can't make someone reenact a crime. I mean, it clearly can, but no matter if you're innocent or not, if someone's going to make you act out murdering someone and then show a jury that, everyone now can literally picture you murdering someone. Right. It's all over. It's over. Publish the pictures in the fucking paper. Yeah. And he's like, if you look it up, like it, he's in this, like, it's not a stray jacket, but it looks like kind of like a white straight jacket type of thing. His hands are in front of him. he's shackled and he's on, it looks like a leash, like a metal-chained leash. And he's being dragged around the scene of the crime, reenacting how he brutally be people

to death and like where he positioned him and what he did. How can you not think he's guilty? And I know. And seeing something like that, that is literally presenting someone as this person is guilty. Here's a visual to show you. And we're not going to tell you the little things that we know that would cast out on that assumption. Because look at him murdering.

Look at him. Look at him. Yeah. He clearly. And he clearly did it. And they actually, this is a complete side note, but remember he had two young children and a wife at the time. Yeah.

His daughter was, I think she was three at the time because John Wayne, which was his son, was like an infant. But she was like a toddler. And they would go, his family would go support him in trial. And they eventually banned them from coming to support because the kid was really cute and he was being like really loving towards his daughter. And they're like, they're like, we don't want the jury to. see that. Like that he's a person and that he has a family. Yeah. So anyway, okay.

Fair. So back to this whole thing. As we've discussed, the jury didn't have the knowledge of many of the reports and details that we have been going over. So to them, this confession was super key. It was a huge part of their final decision. And one of the biggest parts to that was the detail of the red and white plane. So according to his confession, Chester said the entire reason that, that he dragged the bodies into that small cave was to avoid any witnesses from that low-flying red and white plane that was kind of in the area that day. After mentioning that detail, originally when being questioned, law enforcement went to the local airfield to check the fly logs. And sure enough, a pilot who flew a small red and white striped aircraft did fly over

starved Rock State Park on March 14th. So if Chester was not there, how would he have known that? That seems pretty damning. But you said in the first episode that the police fed him that information. Potentially, yes. And it also, so turns out Bill Dummett was part of the air club and was very friendly with this particular pilot and often attended events together. They were part of this club. They were friends. So this might not have even happened? No, it definitely happened. But the whole caveat to this is there's a really big possibility that the investigator Dummit had knowledge of the plane flight path that day flying over the crime scene. And during various questioning, maybe slipped in these details to Chester and kind of fed him this information and it got

weaseled into the confession. Like there was a plane that saw you and we're going to ask them or something like that in questioning. We're going to ask him if they saw anything happening that day. And then him being like, oh, I saw a plane. And I, and that's why I went undercover. So they wouldn't see me. Right. So there's questions as to how this information got introduced. Because at face value, it's like, yeah, you saw a red and white plane. He had this very specific detail. How would he know that if he wasn't physically there? Yeah. But it also, you know, Dummit had a very questionable reputation regarding investigations. He wasn't exactly the straight to shooter. And in an interview, one of his former colleagues, co-workers, said that he was as crooked

as the day was long. So he's basically saying he's a dirty cop, you know what I mean? It's like, you can't trust him. You can't trust him. He is a fugly slut. Slut. Just kidding. I'm sorry. I don't know. I'm just basing off what people say. The amount of time. Sometimes mean girls enters our podcast is actually pretty funny. You can make it relevant in almost any conversation. Which side note, you saw what I sent you there remaking it and I am physically upset. Is it a musical? Yeah, it's supposed to be a musical and it's like slightly different.

And it's like I saw a commercial and it's like our moms, we're not your mom's mean girls. Like we're a new generation and it's like, I'm sorry, but no one who was a child in high school when mean girls came out has a child old enough to be a mean girl in high school, a senior in high school right now. Like that is such a good point. The movie's not that old. It's like I couldn't have a teenager right now. It's like I don't have an, I, if I had an 18 year old right now, then I would have been what, like 13 or 14 when I had a kid. Like, I mean, I guess it's not, it's not impossible, but like, come on. Moms at our age right now have elementary. school kindergartners and younger.

Like, they're not, I mean, there's some that are like maybe or, I don't know. They're just, they're not 19, 18 year old mean girls, okay? We're not old enough for that yet. It's, don't age. I feel insulted. Especially that it's a musical. I didn't know that and I do not like musicals, so that it's upsetting. Okay.

I like musicals. I know watch it just because, but I don't know if I'll enjoy it. We'll see. There's a lot of pressure, which I'm sure that the producers of that, of that, of that, movie, no. You can report back before I make a decision. Yeah, well. All right, back to Bill Dummett. Clearly, this is very concerning, especially given the fact that he was so heavily involved in the investigation. And that according to Chester, he was one of the main people responsible for coercing and forcing his confession. So here we are

in the false confession world. False confessions are a concept that many of us are aware of today. The public in general has a pretty good idea of what they are and that they happen. more often than one would think. And a lot of people know kind of the general factors that go into a false confession. And the Innocence Project out of New York and the confession tapes on Netflix are kind of household names to those of us who are really into true crime. And they focus on exonerating people who are innocent of the crimes that they were convicted of. With many of those verdicts that convicted someone of a crime relying heavily on this false confession. So at this point in time, though, the Star of Rock murders. This was something that people didn't really think much about.

It was more cut and dry. Like, you confessed. You did it, period. It's like, well, a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their mind around. Why would someone confess to something that they didn't do? Especially something so brutal. Horrific. Yeah. But we're learning more and more that a lot of this is intimidation tactics and a lot of it is that people are being promised things or they're being warrant, they're mentally being broken before these confessions are coming out, which is why it's now becoming illegal and there's counsel and things that are getting involved that are like, you cannot question someone for 12 hours straight with no food or water and turn the AC up to 40 degrees in the room or turn the heat up to 105 and then try and get a confession out of someone

because, I mean, more or less likely you're going to get some type of confession eventually if you're wearing someone down so much, whether they did it or not. Physically, emotionally, mentally, all of the above. If you're telling someone, if you don't tell me what you did right now, then you're going to be going to jail for a really long time. If you tell me right now, you can go home. And after like 15 hours of that, especially some of these people are really young. I mean, we're hearing this from like 18, 19 year old kids are getting interrogated like this by full grown adults.

And then we're like, why would they confess? And it's like because they were terrified and stuck in a really scary situation for a long time. And that is exactly what Chester and his team are saying happened back in 1960. So factors that you just pretty much laid out that go into a false confession are centering around intimidation factors and fear-based factors and false promises. So all of these, Chester claimed happened to him during his 24-hour. interrogation. Lack of education is also something that goes into that. You have no idea what your rights are, how the legal system works. He dropped out of school as a sophomore in high school. He doesn't know how this is, and all of a sudden now he's being pressed for months about something.

Yeah, he doesn't have a full education. There's stress, exhaustion, fear factors. All of these are typically seen in false or forced confessions, all of which Chester had. going on according to him. He said that he was scared for him and his family's life, that he was physically assaulted and pushed around, and his family was threatened. He was allegedly threatened with the electric chair if he didn't sign the confession. Instead, they were like, hey, so if you don't sign this, you're going to be put to death. But if you do confess, you will stay alive in prison, like you'll just get life in prison. So that's a big driving factor. Obviously, he doesn't want to die. And then he also went on to say that he was physically abused with a flashlight while he was handcuffed and couldn't fight back during his interrogations.

But that part, the physical part, came out later like in the early 2000s. He originally didn't say that. Okay. Which also makes you seem like, who can we believe? No one. I know. I know like we're learning more about Chester's confession and stuff, but I still think he's a little sketchy. But I feel like there's probably a valid point in his confession and interrogation.

Well, the state dismissed Chester's claims saying that none of that ever happened. He was never threatened. He was never physically assaulted. He was never promised life in jail versus being executed. They basically just said none of that ever happened. They only treated him well and Chester confessed on his own volition. Dummett even testified under oath during the trial that he never threatened Chester during the course of the investigation in response to those claims. But then Detective Armstrong is questioned. And he was the

other detective in the car with Dummett and Chester during that incident we described in part one when they were driving back from one of his questioning sessions. And Dummit threatened Chester with, when we remember he was laughing, he's like, you're going to ride a thunderbolt, like, you're going to get the electric chair, like threatening him over and over. Chester was like, he was doing that to me. And Dummet, under oath, said, no, that never happened. But Armstrong, who was also in the car, said, actually Chester's telling the truth. And Dummett actually threatened him at least five times. So under oath, this guy's lying about something that Chester's ultimately telling the truth about.

Well, we did learn he was a crooked cop. Right. So that gives another, like, pause. That doesn't mean that Chester was beaten with a flashlight, but it also means that he was telling the truth about being threatened. Which means we have to investigate the other things that he's saying. Exactly. And the other thing about the confession, according to the state, when Chester confessed, they were immediately just like transcribing it, immediately writing down his whole confession,

and then they printed it out and he signed it. Yet Chester claims that the detectives already had a typed out and written confession and presented it to him and then went over the details with him and then he signed it. So that order of events is a little. sketch as well. Oof. That would explain all the details he has if the police wrote it for him and then they're like, is this right?

Yes or no? And he's like, yeah, yeah. And that also goes into the fact that like it's okay. So if that happened, I mean, his confession happened before the reenactment regardless. But if that happened and they went over it like line by line and they were like, all right, get up. Let's go reenact it immediately within like three hours. And then he was reenacting everything that they just went over in this nine page

confession. Chester's claims was that he was, the reenactment was completely choreographed. He was fed information by police detectives who, according to him, framed him. So that could explain why he knew those details, like when he was reenacting it, how he knew all those things. And the reason he said, I mean, a lot of people have questioned him from the beginning up until now, you know, why would you agree to confessing and reenacting a crime you didn't commit? And he responded that he thought he was saving his life and keeping his family safe because he was repeatedly threatened. If he didn't confess and if he didn't show them what happened that bad things would come to him and his family.

So there's that. And then the other part that is interesting is that in part one, remember, there was the case of the 1959 rape that the woman and her boyfriend identified him as the perpetrator. So there was two instances of that lineup thing. So the first was a physical lineup that the boyfriend identified him. Or, well, technically that was the second. And then the first was a series of mugshots that the young woman identified him in. And that seems extremely damning.

I mean, she screamed when she saw him. The guy pointed him out right away until you see the photo of the lineup. So, which is on Google, you can, I'll post it. But Chester was the only young guy in this lineup. He was 21 at the time. And the three of the four other men were clearly middle-aged and the other one was an elderly man. Oh. So he wasn't even put in a lineup with people who physically looked like a young person.

So if you see that and they're like, hey, we have your guy. We're pretty sure check out this lineup. And then these are your other options you might be. Because they described their attacker as a young man, a young male and described him. And then so instead of putting him in a lineup with other young men, they put him in a line. It's like in one of the descriptions when somebody, I think it was Andy Hale was talking about it. He was like, it's like putting a tomato in a lineup of bananas. You know what I mean?

It's kind of like, of course he's different. One of these guys doesn't even look like he has teeth. The elderly one? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they're all elderly. And then there's Chester. And he's like 21-year-old kid.

And there's Chester, yeah. And he's like a young kid. Yeah. So there's also that. Just to exemplify that there are some shady dealings going on here, kind of just like pushing people's minds one way or the other. Yeah. And during the initial investigation, when it was at its standstill,

because remember for a while, it wasn't going anywhere, law enforcement brought on outside help in the form of a guy named Bill Jansen in hopes of getting some fresh eyes on the case, maybe picking up on stuff they didn't see. This is before they started to really hone in on chest. And Bill Jansen was a recent college graduate from Michigan State, and he had a degree in criminology, and he was just starting law school. But he ended up going on to having a very successful career in the FBI, and he later became a judge. So he was very, very smart.

And before the trial, Bill Jansen had reviewed all of the documents that they had, spent months at the lodge. He ended up issuing a 40-page report of his own independent of the investigation, just like what he has gathered from what is known. And he presented it in September of 1960 before Chester went on trial. And obviously, I'm not going to go over everything in the 40-page report, but I have three bullet points from it. Number one, he thinks that the crime was one of revenge, not a robbery gone wrong. Number two, he believed that family, friends, and business associates who knew the victims

should all be more extensively questioned, specifically those who had ties to, or were associated with the city of, I think you say it, Maline, which is a city in Illinois where Mr. Murphy once served as an attorney. And remember, Mrs. Murphy was the one with the bruising, the fingertip missing, the injuries, and the soil stains. So he's like, something is, and he, the husband was an attorney. Is there somebody out to get him? Yeah.

To get back at him in some way. And focused on his wife and the other two women, maybe we're just. just for, I hate saying this, but like collateral damage, just wrong place, wrong time type of thing. Like what was that about? Just opportunistic not to get caught kind of thing. Yeah. And then the third thing was he believed that although there is blood evidence on the log, the camera and the binoculars, they were clearly used in some way. He believes that there was something else used as the primary murder weapon, which we kind of talked about before. But it was his opinion that it was either a tire iron or a steel bar of some kind because the injuries were so, so significant. And that's really interesting because there's

also reports, autopsy reports, that noted there were traces of chrome metal flakes on the bottom of Mrs. Murphy's shoes. So if a murder weapon, a tire iron or steel bar or something that had pieces of chrome on it, that flipped off and it was in the bottom of her shoe. But yet there was nothing at the scene that matched that could indicate that there was a different murder weapon entirely that was brought to and then from away from the scene. And it would also prove that this was very premeditated. Exactly. So this seems to be in the same vein of something that the media initially just kind of speculated about. It was in the headlines and then was kind of dropped, was that it was some sort of mob hit. And this is where our last kind of like potential suspect comes into play. And I say the

last potential suspect, there are many more. But we're not, we're not doing it. I tried to narrow it down to just like really big names that you'll see a lot when it comes to this case. Sure. His name was Harold Smokey Rona. Back in the 60s, Smoky had a huge reputation. He was tied to a ton of criminal activity in the area and was reportedly always in trouble in one way, shape, or form. Like if something went wrong, someone was doing something bad, Smoky. was kind of involved in it. And he was allegedly part of the Chicago area's organized crime syndicate and linked to over 11 burglaries and at least 13 different murders.

And this is all according to the docu series. I personally didn't come by any documentation that verifies that, but it was in the documentary. He went on to change his tune later in life, becoming an informant in the 1980s. And the bombshell tying him to this particular murder came from, his deathbed confession. According to testimony from Alice Bome, his sister, in 2005, Smoky confessed to her that he was involved in the Starved Rock murders. According to her, based off of what Smokey told her, the women were allegedly killed in a separate nearby location, which promptly burned to the ground immediately after Chester was sent to prison, which is

sus. And then the bodies were placed and staged in the St. Louis Canyon. Allegedly, $25,000 was given to Smokey for his involvement in the murders, said his sister, although the source of that money is unknown. And in a June of 2023 hearing, so just a couple months ago, Andy Hale, who is Chester's new attorney, stated that the Illinois State Police considered the possibility that the murders could have been a Chicago mob hit. Like, this is not something that is totally out of left field. This is something that they had already considered. And he pointed as evidence, it's like, okay, so why? Why is the mob hitting a middle-aged housewife?

Like what is that about? What's the motivation here? Yeah. So he pointed to an alleged affair of her husband, Robert Murphy, and the birth of a baby boy two months prior before the murders as a probable cause for a murder for hire plot. So Murphy, the husband, Robert, married the woman following his wife's death. And that infant son, the two-month-old boy, who obviously was no longer two months old by the time they got married, took the Murphy's last name, like they were all a family now. So basically he's saying Mrs. Murphy's husband was cheating on his wife, having an affair.

He had connections as an attorney to different types of people in organized crime. He wanted his wife out of the picture. they hired, he hired some people from the mob, including Smokey, to kill his wife, especially after he realized that he may have a child with someone else. That is in a nutshell what they are alleging. But there's no proof of this. And just, I mean, yes, he did marry the woman that there's questions surrounding, but you're allowed to get remarried after your spouse is dead. Yeah. It wasn't immediately. It was years after. But it's just kind of like, like a, it seems a little weird.

And it's kind of a stretch. Like if there's no evidence that points to it and people cheat and remarry and have children with other people and divorce. Like I hired the mob to kill her. Like I just, it seems like a stretch. I agree. Like was there any financial benefit doing it that way? I guess would be my question.

Because I mean, of course we do hear of people murdering their wives because of similar situations. But usually there's like some type of benefit that comes. out of it. So. Yeah. And if he's offering people thousands and thousands of dollars to, like, he's not in a financial pinch that he needs the money from her death. Like that seems like. And why kill her friends, too? That was basically like, well, they just happened to be there. But if he was hiring someone, they could have planned it for another time, you know? But the whole plan was they were going out away from the city. They were going to an isolated state park. This whole theory rides on the fact that They were watching them and waiting.

And then he gave information like, hey, this is the perfect time. They're going away on a vacation. This is when you strike type of deal. And I just shoot her from afar. I don't know. I don't know. Be defecate and urinate on it. Like, that just doesn't.

It feels too personal to be like a paid, unless he really hated her and paid for them to like be extra brutal. But I don't know. There was talk of them, like, him trying to file for divorce. Like, they were, they weren't divorced, but there was definitely talks of like, it kept saying there was a lot of referral to like a bitter divorce argument. Like, she didn't want to get divorced. He wanted to get divorced. So he was like, I'm just going to kill her.

So. Yeah. I guess I need to know more about their relationship to decide whether I believe that's plausible or not. But I don't know. I mean, we do see all the time. Spouse is trying to kill their wives or killing their wives. or killing their wives, but usually they do it themselves.

Well, he didn't want to get his hands dirty in it. Yeah. And just as a side note that the son that is potentially hit Mr. Murphy's, the one that was born two months before Mrs. Murphy was killed, he will not agree to a DNA test as of now. As of now, he has not agreed to any sort of DNA testing to prove that he is or is not related to Mr. Murphy. Oh, okay. Even though he's his stepdad.

know what I'm saying? It's like, it's his stepdad, but... Yeah, maybe he doesn't want to do anything damning to him. Right. Or potentially damming. Exactly. Exactly. Because even if he is, even if he is his biological father, it doesn't mean that he killed, he hired someone to kill his first wife. Yeah. You know, it's just, so I can understand him, like, being like, I am not doing that and getting involved. And then the last thing that Alice has to say about her brother's confession or regarding that, is she said that her brother never mentioned the log as a murder weapon, but does recall an unidentified man, so someone she had no idea who they were, wanting to buy his hammer back from an auction of her brother's belongings after he died in 2006.

So she and a couple other people have suspected that that could potentially be the murder weapon. Like after all of these years, this guy, she has no idea who he is. is he comes to the auction of her brother's belongings after he has passed away. And he's like, I want that hammer back. Like, that was my hammer. And he was very insistent on getting it back. And he got it back? Yeah, he got it back.

So anyways, that was just a little kind of other odd thing. And then the last piece of information about Smokey is it's not just his sister who has pointed to the fact that Smokey could have been involved. Andy Hale spoke to one of Smokey's old friends who claims that Smokey's. who was 25 years old at the time of the murders, confessed to him in detail about his involvement. This man was Smokey's son's friend. So it's kind of like, like he wasn't his direct friend.

He was friends with Smokey's son. He was just kind of like the dad that he knew. He grew up around. It was his friend's dad. Sure. And this apparent confession came from the mid-1990s. And according to this guy, Smokey received a call from someone,

who claimed that they had a mutual friend. And the caller was hoping for his help with a murder for hire. So Smokey gets this call. The guy on the other line is like, hey, we both know the same guy. And that guy is requesting our help in this murder. He went on to say that there was a Chicago businessman that wanted his wife killed.

And that this businessman didn't want to be directly involved, but he wanted to orchestrate it and organize it. And he was willing to pay Smokey up to 30. thousand dollars, which also tracks with what his sister originally said. And he goes on to explain that three men were hired to follow the women from Chicago to Starved Rock State Park to kill the women, but Smokey wasn't one of the three that were involved in the direct murder. He said that him and one other guy were assigned to man the getaway vehicles. So they put down blankets in the car so that nobody, none of the three men involved directly in the murder,

would get any blood inside of their vehicles. After the deed was done, they drove to a nearby motel where all of the guys stripped down, changed all their clothes, took showers, and then Smokey put all the bloody clothes and even things they used in the motel, like towels and anything that would have any blood evidence on it, into a bag, put it in the trunk of his car, and said that they burned it.

And that was what this person is saying. in the 1990s, Smokey spilled all of this story to him. And at the time, he didn't take it super seriously. Number one, he was a young kid. It was his friend's dad, like, telling him all this stuff. And he wasn't even alive at the time of the murders. He's like, I don't know. Obviously, everyone knew about the murders.

It's especially in that local community. But he's like, I'm not getting involved in this. Like, I wasn't even born when this was, this happened. Like, who would I even go to for this? Right. Yeah. Like what? And the only reason.

he came forward with this information is because, like, he had no idea there was a docu series. He didn't know, like, anything, any forward motion was really going on with this case. He just thought Chester was in jail and that was that until he heard Andy Hill's interview kind of promoting his podcast project that he was doing regarding the case. And he's like, I might have some information. Oh, okay. And now this ties into yet another piece of information that comes from, a police report dated April 20th of 1960 regarding a police interview with a telephone operator

named Ms. Lois Zelensk. According to this report, she had overheard a conversation between two parties on March 21st of 1960, so just days after the women's bodies were found. And she says in her report, quote, Somewhere between 6 and 8 p.m. on March 21, 1960, When I opened my monitor key to notify the parties that their time was up, I heard the Aurora, which an Aurora, just so you know, is a town kind of close by the park. The Aurora parties say that they sure have a big ride up on the murder case in tonight's paper. You know, the kid has bloodstained overalls in the trunk of the car, and he's getting a little anxious to know what he's going to do with them.

He's afraid he's going to get caught. And then the LaSalle party says, well, tell him to get rid of them, just burn them, end quote. And I know. I know. And then she goes on to say, quote, I was uncertain what to do after hearing the conversation, the rules of communication prohibit revealing anything overheard. Yet I felt very strongly that I had just overheard something extremely important.

I feel this is a definite regarding being related to the murders. I have lost much sleep trying to determine the right thing to do. end quote. So this operator who accidentally overheard this really damning conversation. Yeah. And I feel so bad because she's like, okay, well, according to the rules, I'm not supposed to, like, disclose anything that I work. Can we make an exception? Because this sounds really bad. So bad. I know. And now knowing what we know about what Smokey allegedly said to his friend and his sister, this ties it all. It goes all the way to the top. what I'm saying? Like it ties it together. It's like, this makes sense. So that is kind of where I'm going to end with Smokey because he's obviously deceased. He was never charged with anything. But I'm just going to say right now, I'm not going to go into more detail about who those parties on the call were,

although they do involve a pair of brothers. And the phone call is verified. Like, obviously, there's record, their phone records. And it's confirmed that that happened that night. They know where it was coming from, who it was going to, et cetera. Chester was not involved in the phone call. And there's just so many details here. And there's more players that kind of get involved. And for the sake of how I'm covering this, I'm just trying to give like the very basic information.

Am I? I mean, we're three parts in. Are you? We're three parts into this. I don't know how basic it is. But kind of just a general overview. And if you want to get like very, very specific. with all of the different people involved and or potentially involved.

The Andy Hale podcast, I'm telling you, it's just like your source. Because even though he is Chester's attorney right now, he's basically just going over all the court documents. That's what he's doing. Like he's not. So it doesn't feel like a bias opinion? I feel like he definitely thinks that Chester is innocent. However, what he's presenting to argue that case is documentation.

like this. I mean, this report was from 1960. He's not making it up. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. And then the testimony about Smoky came from his family and friends, even before Andy Hale was involved. So it's just the information that I'm talking about that he presents is hard to deny because it's fact. Those people did report those things. Sure. So anyways, so if you want to know, like, the really nitty-gritty detail, that's definitely a good place to start. And then there's the fact that the jury, at least some members of the jury, the original jury that put Chester away, have also come forward with some unsettling information of their own. According to one juror, her name was Nancy Porter. She says, quote, I don't think that any one of us was 100% sure.

That's... But they 100% convicted him. They 100% convicted him. And she went on to say that, you know, the reason they thought that he was guilty is because he, signed the confession and there was nothing to prove he did it besides that. So that was also, then it was kind of like, but there was nothing else. It was just the confession. And then she went on to explain, I was the holdout. Everyone else wanted to go home. And I finally said, oh, okay. And I didn't change my mind. But I was getting pretty dirty looks. So I just gave in. And I've been sorry ever since. So she didn't think he was guilty. Yeah. She basically was saying everyone kind of had their doubts, like no one was 100% sure, but she was the one

that was really like giving everyone some pause and being like, well, hold on a minute. And finally, she was just worn down and she was like, okay, well, whatever. Yeah. And then she also goes on to say that a sheriff deputy in charge of the sequestered female jurors broke the rules in sharing incriminating information about Uyghurs past and other details that were not allowed as evidence in the trial. So she's saying that they were given information that wasn't allowed in the trial, yet they now know because law enforcement let them in on it. Yeah.

Oh. Yeah. There's so many things in this case that is like, why? Why is all this happening? The jury convicted Uyghur, but voted against the death penalty because remember they were arguing for the death penalty as well. Well, I would hope so if you don't even know if you don't even know if you think you did it, but you're going to ask for the death penalty. that's not right. Well, that's the reason. She said she was like, you know, we did convict him, but they were all in agreeance that, hey, we probably should hold off on that in case we're wrong.

So that's the reason that they didn't go forward with the death penalty. And then she ended her interview basically saying she said, quote, all I can say is that if they held that same trial today with the same evidence they had, Chester Weeger would be a free man. So she's not saying he's innocent. She's just saying if the same exact trial happened in present day, based on how it went down, they wouldn't have been able to convict him. Yeah, because it's not enough what they convicted him on. Right. But something that could prove once and for all that Chester is either guilty or innocent is, of course, DNA evidence. And several pieces of evidence still exist, and there have been pushes over the years to have them sent in for analysis hoping that modern forensic advancements would give the Oding, Murphy, Linguist, and Uyghur families definitive answers. And I do want to pause a little

bit and just say that the victim's families believe that they already have the right person. They're not like, yeah, let's really get this in. Like, we need to know. They're like, okay. They think Chester did it. Yeah. And Diane Oding, who is Lillian's granddaughter, who actually never met Lillian because she wasn't born yet, she is one of the people from the Oding family that is at like all of these hearings and trials and just advocating on behalf of her grandmother. And she said that her family supports the efforts for DNA testing and believe that the old evidence aided by modern day science would prove Uyghur's guilt to those who remain unconvinced. So she's kind of like, yeah, send it in so we can prove once and for all that we did get the right

person. Kind of like end this conversation. Like why are we bringing this up again? He's guilty. sure. Do a DNA test? Let's all see that he really is guilty. So my question, why haven't they done a DNA test yet? Well, they have, I'll tell you. I'll tell you. Tell them. Tell me. So prior to Weeger's parole hearing, that ultimately resulted in his freedom, the one in February of 2020, Diane said that she does not doubt that Weager is guilty, but she would be at peace with whatever decision comes from the parole board. So even back then,

she was like, okay, this is now the, what is it, the 24th time that he's up for parole. If he does happen to get out, so be it. She said, quote, we are not a vengeful family. If he gets out, it is our hope that he has been given the tools to succeed outside of prison and lives out the rest of his life in peace. Like how big of her to say that? Because she is convinced that he did it. And yet she's like, well, if he gets out, so be it.

And I hope that he has been reformed and he can, I mean, because he's elderly in his 80s. Yeah, there is something to say for that. But just because your elderly doesn't give you a pass, I mean, you took the ability for these other people to become elderly. And it's kind of like it's totally different circumstance, of course. But with the Holocaust, a lot of people, when they were finally arresting and trying a lot of these people, I mean, it's still going on today. and some people who were Nazis are being convicted and now they're in their 90s or early 100s, people are like, come on, they're just an old man now. It's like they murdered thousands of people and were completely ruthless in their youth. And that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held responsible for that just because they look old and are more weak and feeble now.

They need to pay the price for what they did. And you bring up such an excellent point because before I really dove into all the the very first thing I did was watch the docu series with no other information yet. And just based on like a first time person with no prior knowledge to this case watching that series, it's like you feel bad in this weird way. Who's not going to feel bad for an old grandma, a grandpa? And he's crying. He's like they took everything away from me.

Like I have always bet stood by that I am innocent and like my whole family's died. Like I don't even really know my kids. and I've been put away for decades. And like he's this old, feeble guy and you're just like, oh, God. But then you like hear all this other evidence of like, especially some of the things that he's been accused of in his past. Like, remember raping that little girl. And then also being maybe involved in another rape case in another state park.

And then it's just like. Yeah. If he was raping women, like, and that other person seemed like pretty confident that it was him too and we have some questions about it but honestly I think that if you rape a woman you should go to jail forever and not be released anyway so I mean despite and now he's murdered three women and put them in sexually suggestive positions and it was brutal if he did if he did if he did do it then I it's you can say like it's big of her to be like I hope he's reformed and better but there's another part where it's like you know he deserved

what he's gotten because he's taken away people's lives. And if he did rape these other women, he destroyed lives of people who lived with that for a long time. So it's hard. It's tough. It's just because all of this aside as to like whether or not he was guilty of these crimes, even just I'm all I'm trying to say is in that documentary watching him, it's like your human, it's like yes, your brain has this knowledge. Like this could be a vicious, ruthless murderer. rapist. But he's not anymore. But he's visually. Like it's like visually you can't like it's hard to marry those two ideas together at this visual of this old man that's crying in jail, has been in jail for 60 years to these alleged acts. And it's like even if you know,

even for sure you know that he had done that, it's still bizarre to look at. It elicits this like weird compassion within it's it's bizarre. No, I totally get it. Yeah. Okay, so going back to the DNA, because this could, this could be it. This could be the whole thing. Yes. Yes. Tell us the DNA. All right. So Weir's request for DNA testing led to a dead end for the defense originally. So inconclusive. I know. Sorry. Perfect. Well, no, not quite. So after his conviction and his appeals were all exhausted, the, this is so frustrating. The LaSalle County prosecutors over the years. So after like originally, he was convicted. His appeals were exhausted. They're like, all right, kind of like wipe their hands. They're like, that's done.

So they allowed for years school groups, civic clubs, student journalists, Girl Scout troops to all come and handle the evidence. Put on his jacket. Touch this. Look at this. What do you mean handle the evidence? That's insane. That's destroying the evidence.

That's not handling it. I know. But in their minds, they're like, we're done. Like he's gone, he's in prison. All his appeals are exhausted. Like, this case isn't going to go anywhere. And they're, like, in their minds, they're like, it would, fine, have at it. Like, we're not going to need this. So that's obviously a huge, huge problem. And the other part of this whole thing, another like, shake your head moment is, remember, Weeger was wearing a buckskin, like, fringed leather jacket. Yeah. And it had blood on it that couldn't be typed to the women at the time, but also. though it was found to be human blood, which another thing I didn't really touch upon in that, it was like little droplets of blood, which I probably should have clarified. It's not like this soaked in blood. Like they had to really look for it. Like people would see him and be like, what the hell happened? I mean, he went back to work and worked in the same clothes. He didn't just

show up blood soaked in clothing. Yeah. There was human blood on it. That is for sure. But just to give people a visual of like it wasn't like this massacre scene on his jacket, which also begs the question of if you dealt three women over 100 blows to their face, which is extremely vascular, you're going to have a little sprinkle of blood on your jacket. Like nothing, almost nothing. Yeah. Yeah. So back to the jacket, it was stored in a bag with the victim's clothes, meaning that their

DNA has likely already been transferred onto the coat. And before Mr. Rukuglia's death in 2019, remember he was one of the prosecutors, original prosecutors, he said that the state attorney's office, quote, allowed numerous groups of individuals, including many high school classes, to view the physical evidence as part of class trips and citizen tours, end quote. The evidence would be put on display, and any individual within the group that wanted to pick up the evidence, look at the evidence, or examine it in some fashion, were allowed to do so without the presence of gloves or any other protection against contamination.

And then he goes on to clarify saying that he estimates hundreds of people have come into contact with the evidence over the years. So it's completely destroyed. Well, that is what you would think because it's definitely contaminated. Yes, it is. It is. It's not destroyed per se, but it's definitely compromised. And Andy Hale, who is Chester's attorney at present, is undaunted by this. I mean, he's probably a little daunted, but he's not letting it stop him completely.

To show the evidence in Uyghur's case could still yield information if tested, that could be usable, he needed to find a laboratory that would be undeterred by the challenge of reviewing items that were, number one, more than a half a century old and had been stored improperly for decades. and handled by hundreds of people, perhaps. He did find that. And it was in the form of micro-trace, which is a company that specializes in the analysis of trace evidence. So tiny, like either hair, fiber, dust, pieces of paint, glass,

like tiny things that can be examined underneath a microscope. And the lab has a really good reputation for doing a lot with a little bit of information, which at this point, I think, is all we have left. and they have been known to come up with some fresh approaches to cases that have kind of come to a standstill. And they've been involved in a lot of high profile cases, just to name a few, the Jean-Beney Ramsey case, the Greenville River Killer, the Unabomber, Oklahoma City bombing. Like, they've been involved in a lot of high-profile cases. In August of 2020, six months after Uyghur was released on parole, Hale filed a petition to the county

circuit court pushing for forensic testing. And this was not the first time that this happened. Years earlier in the early 2000s, Donna Kelly, who formerly represented Mr. Weeger, had pushed for forensic testing. And it's at this point that all that came out. They're like, it's completely unusable. Okay. So now Hale is kind of like, oh shit. Like, well, it's already been proven that it's not really usable. So I'm going to try and find a lab that can test it. So when he's, presented this, he's like, hey, we want to do forensic testing again. The judge had concerns based on that earlier bid to forensic test. And then it came out that it's super contaminated. He's like, what's the point, essentially? I'm like putting this in very layman's terms,

but he's basically like, you know, what's the point? We already tried to do this a decade ago. And it's been proven that hundreds of people have touched it. But technology has also changed a lot in a decade as well. Exactly. And to answer those concerns, micro-trace point. pointed to other cases where they were able to recover evidence from really rough looking items in some different types of cases. And they also pointed to the fact that you just highlighted that in the 16 years, that followed the first effort to do some DNA testing, forensic techniques have evolved leaps and bounds. So they're like, there could still be something here. So the judge finally agreed to let Micotrace take a look. And there was a caveat. Basically,

they said, you can take a look, but you're not. not to do a full-on DNA analysis because if you look at it and determine that there are some usable pieces here, we are going to go to a different company specializing in genetic testing that will do the full DNA analysis. Basically, microchrace's job was to determine if there was any usable evidence to even perform testing on. Sure. That makes sense. But even that was a huge, that was huge. They're granting us the ability to do this. So Wagers' team, and microtrace spent days cataloging every piece of evidence

in a file cabinet from an evidence room that included over 300 different exhibits. And just as like an example, there was in the top drawer, they found four pairs of Uyghur's jeans that he had submitted for testing way back when. The bottom drawer contained a sack with his jacket, commingled with Lillian's clothing,

which were still brownish with her bloodstains, like literally just, in a sack together, his jacket, her clothes, like in the bottom drawer of a file cabinet. There's no regard for... Yeah. Okay. And there was some key evidence that was missing, including some of Francis and Mildred's clothing, as well as all of the suspected murder weapons, the OG ones, so like the log,

the camera and the binoculars. The trace evidence, such as hair and fiber samples, were in good condition, though. They were preserved and mounted under labeled glass slides, and they were set in separate boxes. So that is extremely useful. It was properly stored and mounted on slides. Like, it's not jumbled up in a bunch of stuff. It's a good sign. So that's a really good sign. And Weeger team eventually narrowed down its request for DNA analysis to nine different items out of that 300 or so. And among them are the hairs from Lillian's left hand and her right glove. There was a string that was found in the cave that they're going to ask for analysis for

and four different cigarette butts from the scene. And that's kind of where we end. Because this has all been unfolding in 2021. Like we're starting to really get momentum going now in 2021. We got approval to go forward with DNA testing. But that has been delayed for several different reasons, different motions and petitions and things like that. So as of right now, we are literally waiting for the results. of this DNA testing. So we have no idea still. This is currently happening. What's the hold up?

The last episode of the Andy Hale podcast gave an update. Actually, it was, the last episode was released a few weeks ago in September. Well, I have no idea when this has kind of come out now that it's three parts. But it was in September of 2023, where he was giving this update of the different things that was going on in the case. But basically, there's just been different motions of like having people involved. not involved, having people remove from the case or added to the case. So it's nothing to do with the actual genetic analysis. It's more of like logistical things that have to do with, you know, like different attorneys and things like that. So it's not like the evidence isn't usable or the lab isn't cooperating.

It has nothing to do with that. It's other things that are happening. So he's very, very hopeful that they're going to have results. He says by the end of this year or early next year. Wow, that's coming up really soon. And that's really exciting for a lot of reasons because one, it could finally give us answers of whether or not Chester did it. But it could also, if the DNA is linked to anyone else whose DNA is in the system, it could tell us who did it. And if there were multiple people. A thousand percent. And I mean, this whole, this whole case that has spread over decades has like, I've mentioned before really, really divided the small town community around Starved Rock, State Park, and beyond. It did garner national attention back when everything first started

happening in the 60s, but then it kind of fizzled out. But now, especially with the new docu-series, obviously different podcasts bringing attention to it. Yeah. It's really starting to capture a lot of the public attention again. And with that comes people who have opinions on it, whether or not not they believe that Chester was or is innocent or guilty. And sometimes it's not as simple as that. Like maybe he was involved in some way. Maybe he was there. He has information. He just didn't act alone. Like just because, you know, like it's not as simple as yes, he did it or no, he didn't. I think it gets a little more complicated. But I mean, after the first episode, I definitely had opinions about him and if he did it. And I still have opinions that I think it's definitely

possible that he did it. But I'm also, I'm also questioning a lot of things. I mean, this case feels like it was mishandled in several different directions. It seems like there were a lot of leads that were never followed up on. And now we have DNA evidence that's going to be more, I mean, this is going to tell us, really, as long as it's conclusive and they don't come back and find it inconclusive. I know, because that's also something that could happen, you know? It's possible. Yeah. I mean, I don't think I have a strong feeling either way. I think he definitely could have done it, but also my opinion is that it's very possible that someone else did and that he was serving time. And I do think it's telling for someone to have the opportunity to get parole and to be out and to still say that they're innocent,

knowing that that will keep them in prison. I think that there is something to be said about that as well. So I guess we'll just find out what happens because at the end of the day, the only person who knows for real, if it happened, if he was the one who did it or not is Chester himself, that's still living. And that's so hard. I mean, taking his word for it is hard either way for a couple different reasons. And I'm going to end this whole story with just a few bullet points of things that make you kind of raise your eyebrow a little bit, but I didn't get super deep into them because it just, I can't. My eyebrows have been raised for three episodes straight. So tell me some more things. Okay, I'm just going to rattle them off. I'm not even

going to wait for you to respond. Okay. I'm ready. I'm just rattling them off. Let's go. Okay. It's like flash trivia. I know it is. Like get ready. I just saw you like straightened up in your chair. Okay. Okay. All right. Number one, Harlan Warren's daughter. So Harlan Warren, Warren, we all know who he is. He's the attorney that remember he was doing his own investigation, kind of and all that. Yes. Sketchy dude. Yes. So his daughter found a handwritten note in his office after he passed away in 2006. It is unclear if he was actually the author of it, if he physically wrote it, but it was in his belongings, in his office. And it apparently details how to frame Chester. It says, quote, a plan to frame CW. How do you prove he was in Canyon? Demand

confession, commence psychological warfare. Put a tale on him day and night, visible, no, he is being followed. That's the end of the first bullet point. Okay. The second one, that also has to do with him. So him and the two sheriff investigators remember the trio. Yes, I remember them. They shared the $35,000 reward money that was put up originally by the lodge owner, five grand from the lodge owner, Nick Spiros, and the 30 grand that was put up from the three husbands of the three victims. So they split that. They're like, thank you for, I know, I deserve a reward. Yeah, for doing my literal job. Yep. Okay. And the next thing, we already just kind of talked about the amount or lack of blood on his jacket, Chester's jacket, and then he just like went back to work.

So that little piece of information. Next, way back when he was accused of raping that eight-year-old girl, when he said that he just happened upon her and actually helped her and all of that, it came out. later that he actually was probably sitting there waiting for her because he knew the pattern of his sister and her sister's friend walking home from school because they usually did that together. And when his sister went off a different direction, he attacked this young woman, sexually assaulted her. And then when he got home, he had blood all over his pants.

Because remember, in his story, he's like, I actually, I gave her a piece of cloth because she was bleeding. And she put it in her underwear. He had blood all over his pants and he lied and told his family that he had killed a snake and it was snake blood on him. And then it comes out later that he was involved somehow in this alter kitchen. He was 12 years old. He was 12 years old. She was 8.

Yeah. That makes me very sad for a lot of reasons because one a child is being raped and another is raping a child. But also because I think that in a lot of circumstances when you see stuff like that, it's coming from abuse. Children learn abuse from being abused. So I just, that is really, really upsetting, especially that it's coming out that it's most likely that he did do this. And either way, once again, if he did or didn't, he's still changing his story. And it's showing.

Not looking good, Chester. It's not looking good, man. I think Chester deserved to be in jail, even if he didn't murder those women. If he was, like, raping and assaulting these other women, I just think that the penalty for that is not strong enough. And, you know, if he had to spend his life in prison after raping women, then, you know, maybe there was karma coming at you either way. If he did that, we're still not 100% sure. But yes, I agree with what you're saying. Yeah.

If he did it, which it kind of feels like you might have. It feels like, yeah, I know. I'm just trying to be careful because it is so much unknown. And I don't want to say definitively one way or another because I don't know. But it's not looking good. Just saying if one of those women came forward today and was like, it was just or I wouldn't question for a second. I'd be like, you know, I believe you. The next thing is his claim, which I think we talked about at some point.

I don't know when. But just to reiterate, his claims of physical abuse by law enforcement came later. Remember he originally. Years later. Yeah. Originally, he said on record that he was never physically harmed and he was actually given cigarettes and sandwiches and they treated him well. And then later on, it came out that, okay, actually, I was abused. So once again, exemplifying that he changes his story a lot. Yeah. Last two. Chester wrote a letter to his father in December of 1960 when he was at county jail awaiting trial. So he wasn't imprisoned yet, but he had been arrested in charge and he was waiting trial. And the last. letter seemed to be pretty cryptic, but it seemed to allude to the fact that he didn't do the murders, but he was harboring information pertaining to who did. And he would never tell about

what he knows because he was fearful and wanted to keep everyone in his family safe. Like, he was just kind of like, I'm going to take the fall kind of thing. I'm not going to say anything. But then in March of 2021, when Chester was literally read the letter that he wrote back to him, he denied ever writing it at all. He said that he never had any knowledge of anyone who was involved in the murders and nor would he ever protect someone who committed a murder, even though he literally someone was reading. Yeah, so he can't be trusted. He can't be trusted.

He can't be trusted. There's something weird going on. I don't know what it is. If it is because he committed these murders or because he does other sketchy shit, I don't know, but he can't be trusted. Yep. And then the last thing I wrote is just basically harping on that. It was a little last note I wrote to myself.

It said, you know, Chester has claimed certain things throughout the years pertaining to details of the case, recanted them, changed the story multiple times, or just flat out denying that he ever said them at all. So this leads to a lot of back and forth with a ton of different details, which, obviously begs more questions. And at this point, regardless of him changing his story back and forth, it kind of changes from like maybe 30 years ago him doing this. Like, okay, we feel like you're covering something up and you're lying to now that he's an elderly man. Can you even be, not saying that elderly people can't be trusted to recall stories accurately. But at this point, after six decades of

mulling this case around back and forth at being twisted and yes, no, this direction, that direction. It's like, can we even really rely on him anymore at this point? Like, is he coloring this case with different details and is he remembering things correctly? Is he flying? Memory changes over years, yeah. Is he confused? Like, it's just at this point, it's turned into kind of different questions of like, are you

lying or are you just not are you not all there anymore type of thing and we could go on and on about that because it's just I mean there's so many questions and yeah I mean a DNA DNA doesn't lie so it's going to come out at some point or another hopefully and hopefully very soon and we can all we can all know yeah I hope that he didn't spend his entire life in prison for you know if he did yeah I don't know. We'll see. We'll see what happens. We'll see what the DNA says and whether or not he was guilty. Yeah. Based on the starved rock murders, regardless of anything else that I know is now swirling in your mind, based on those murders for what he was convicted for because he wasn't convicted for anything else. So based specifically on these murders, I would hope that if he is innocent of that, he will get his justice. Like he will be able to finally say, I told you so.

I was never involved if science shows that. Like, I hope that he lives long enough to be able to see that if that is the case. But if not, like, I would, how, like, imagine, just imagine the DNA comes back and, like, I don't know. He did it. And now all these people have been like, like, shit. Fighting for him. And it just turns out, flat out he did it.

It's just there's no question. Such a long con, though, if you think about it, for him to be like, that. That's like a really, you're committed to be like, I'm taking this all the way to forensic testing after 60 plus years, like, knowing that you're guilty. Maybe what do you have to lose at that point? Yes. But it's just, yeah, crazy. But anyway, so thank you everyone for hanging in there and following along with at least what we know up to this point. And I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it.

Obviously, now it's on my radar and I'm very interested and invested now just as like, Everyone has their case, I think, you know, like the great mystery cases, even though this one is technically solved, quote unquote, like the Jean-Beney Ramsey case, like everyone, like that's like their great white whale or whatever of true crime cases. And I just, now I just really, really want to know. I guess I don't have a feeling either way because just like you, I don't know. Like if some, if it came back as he was guilty or he came back as he's innocent, I think I would have the equal. Like I could either way. Neither would shock you.

It could go either away at this point. Yeah. So anyway, that's it. And I'm never doing a three-part episode again. Right. I'm sure. I'm not. Bark my words.

I'm not doing it. Well, it'll be my episode next week, and it's not a three-parter. But I enjoy three-parters. I think they're fun. And I think that there's a lot of information and they're interesting stories, which is what makes it so long. So thank you for doing all this research and for putting it out here and for doing a three-parter, because I think that I can speak for the majority of us when I say three-parters are cool and we like them.

I'm not even going to look at our comments because people are going to be like, hey, three-parters, this is awful. Be like, stop, please. Okay. Anyways, love you guys. Enjoy the view. But watch you back. 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 N-P-A-D-P. podcast.com. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook at National Park After Dark and on Twitter at NPAD podcast. Join our Outsiders only 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.