True Crime All The Time - The Blue-Eyed Six

Episode Date: April 3, 2023

In 1878 a group of six men conspired to kill another man for insurance money. Some of the group were beneficiaries of the insurance policies, and instead of waiting for the man to die naturally, they planned his murder. They got their infamous nickname, the “Blue-Eyed Six,” because all of them happened to have blue eyes. Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss the "Blue-Eyed Six" and the murder of Joseph Raber. It seems as though many people in the area of Union Township, Pennsylvania, took out life insurance policies on Joseph Raber. According to reports, he knew about the policies and agreed to them in exchange for food and money to live. What he didn't realize is that a group of these individuals didn't want to wait on his demise, they were going to cause it.You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 327 of the True Crime All the Time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson and with me as always is my partner in True Crime, Mike Gibson. How are you? Hey, I'm doing good. How about you? I'm doing very well. It's interesting because you and I are taping in the morning. We are.

Early in the morning, something we don't normally do, but we're bright-eyed, bushy-tailed. I don't really understand where that saying comes from, but... A bright-eyed part, the bushy-tell. I'm bright-eyed, you're bushy-tailed. I don't know. Bushy tell. I don't know. That's kind of how it works. Yeah. Let's go ahead and give our Patreon shout-outs. We had Hope Vanderstelt. Hey, Hope. Tom. Hey, Tom. Jeff Boyle. What's going on, Jeff? Christina. Hey, Christina. Ashley Erwiller. Well, thank you, Ashley. Donna Davis. What's going on, Donna? Robin Gregory. Hey, there's Robin. Arizona Carly.

Really? Arizona. Stevie Fascenda. What's going on? Fessenda? Charles Davis. What's up, Davis? Melanie Wetzel. Hey, there's a Wetzel. Earl. Good old Earl. Yep. M.T. What's happening, M.T. Jocelyn Swenson. Thank you, Jocelyn. Chelsea Sharp. Hey, Chelsea. Rachel Mores.

Hey, Rachel. Robert. Well, thank you so much, Robert. Rachel Beringer jumped out of our highest level. Sounds like that fancy wine, Beringer. Yeah, and it could be Beringer, too. Yeah. Brandy Smikchowski jumped out at our highest level.

Well, there's Smikowski. See how I did that? Yeah, that was actually good. Timothy McKinney. Hey, Timothy. And last but not least, Elizabeth. say law. I appreciate that. Saylaw. And then we head out into the vault. This week we selected Tim Haywood. Actually, last week I messed it up. Oh. I said Tim Marsh. There is no Tim Marsh.

I took Tim's first name and put it with somebody else's last name. Oh, so. It was actually supposed to be Tim Haywood. Well, thank you, Tim so much. Yeah, we definitely appreciate it. And we had great PayPal donations from David McMullen. Hey, David. And Laura Krieger. Hey, there's Laura. So we appreciate everyone that helps the show. Gibbs right now we have an episode out on Unsolved where we're headed to Canada to talk about Tammy Leaky. Yeah, this is a 12 year old girl that ends up going to the grocery store to help out her mom and a friend and goes missing and then ultimately, you know, it's murdered.

And we'll follow the trail and try to figure out what happened. All right. So that's out. Make sure you check that. All right, buddy, are you ready to get into this episode of True Crime All This Time? I am. We are talking about the blue-eyed six. And, you know, this is a very different type of episode for us.

First of all, we're going back to the 1800s. And I was surprised when you showed up this morning and, and we're in full Rex West regalia. Yeah. I say I was surprised, but really I wasn't because this is the perfect type of episode for Rex to, you know, kind of put his sleuthing skills to the test. And a lot of times in the morning, I dress like this too. Yeah, and I don't,

I don't see you as much in the mornings. And you didn't, when we used to work together, you dressed pretty business casual. There wasn't a lot of, um, costumes involved in what we did. It's what I fell asleep in last night.

So I just, you just rolled out of bed. Absolutely. In the Rex West. Yeah. In 1878, a group of six men conspired. conspired to kill another man for insurance money.

Some of the group were beneficiaries of the insurance policies. And instead of waiting for the man to die naturally, they planned his murder. They got their infamous nickname the Blue Eyed Six because all six of these men happen to have blue eyes. So, you know, obviously that's an interesting part of, of the story.

Yeah. Because percentage wise, I think it's a small percentage of, of people that, have blue eyes. When I say small, I mean, not super small, but obviously it's not the majority of people, right, that have blue eyes. I know you do. I do have blue eyes. Because I have to sit here and stare into them as we discuss these cases. Deep. Almost mesmerizing. That's right. Pool. Hypnotic. It's a pool. The six men conspired to kill Joseph Raper, a man from Union Township,

Pennsylvania in order to get money from life insurance policies they had taken out on him. Joseph Raber was born on January 14th, 1819, according to news outlet Lebtown. So he was born just a few years before you were. Yeah, just a youngster. Yeah. His occupation was listed as laborer according to the Lebanon Daily News. Raver was a poor mountain man who survived by doing occasional odd jobs and receiving handouts from neighbors. He was 59 when he died. So, you know, obviously, we're going back here, what, 150 years or so. Sure. Yeah. Part of the, the reason why I enjoy researching these types of cases is finding the news articles from back then. Of course. And reading through them and we'll be talking about a lot of news articles and quotes. And it's just the way.

that you can see by researching cases of different decades and reading articles from throughout these all these different decades how they wrote the words they use oh for sure the writing style so much different yeah yeah i mean it kind of is like a snapshot right of where we were as a society the paper also reported in a december 1878 article he passed his time time in going around from one to another of those who held policies on him for means of subsistence, as they all had promised to contribute to his living. So, you know, when I break this down, it's kind of like this guy, Joseph Raber, according to the paper, knew that a number of people had life insurance policies on him. It wasn't a secret. Right. And in exchange,

change for these life insurance policies, they were helping him out, helping him to live, giving him food or money or whatever. Just a strange thing, right? Back then to say, hey, I'd like to take a policy out on you because you're at that age that you may or may not make it soon. I'm going to wage my bet, but in return, I'll keep you busy, make sure you get money for food. It just seems strange.

Well, and you said make a bet. It's almost like that. Like you would bet on a sports team. Yeah. Today, they were betting with their money that this man was going to die. Now, obviously, we've already set up front. We're going to find out that they didn't want to wait around. Yeah.

For him to die. They're going to cause him to die. But to me, it's fascinating that this guy was like, yeah, I'm good. I'm good with that. As long as you help me out, you can take out whatever life. insurance policies you want. Yeah. And eventually you get your money back for helping me out.

Joseph Raber had a wife and children, but his family didn't learn about his death until early 1879. Joseph's wife had left him. And his daughter was, according to papers, bound out and married. Now, I never did actually find out what that meant. It kind of seems as though maybe arranged, maybe a dowry. I don't know. I'm going to bound you out.

Yeah. I don't know. That's not a term that, that I've heard before. On December 7th, 1878, Joseph Raber drowned in Indian Town Creek in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. He was found in about 19 inches of water,

a few feet below some planks that were used as a footbridge, according to the Lebanon Daily News. So 19 inches of water, we're not talking a deep body. here. No, but enough to call somebody to drown if if they're unconscious and they're laying face down. Face down. Well, you've heard that old saying, right? You can drown in two inches of water. Yeah. And actually, you probably, if you're laying on your back, you know, depend on how big your head is, you know. How big your head is. Well, yeah. I mean,

19 inches of water. Okay. It's going to probably cover most people's face. Yeah. So you're, You're talking from front to back, not like how bulbous it is. No, or like the circumference. Yeah. Okay. I got you. The death. Death?

On December 8th, the coroner convened a jury to examine Joseph's body. Locals refused to allow his body into their homes. So his body was taken to the stable of a man named Israel Brandt. And again, so something a little different, right? We're talking to 1800s. There's no funeral home. You don't go visit a funeral home to pay your respects or I think it was customary for, you know, people who passed to be kind of held in their house for a period of time.

People could come there and still can happen today in some areas. Oh, maybe. Yeah. I was not aware of that. I don't know what areas you're, you're in. I plan on being on display and you're, Front room. You know, you might be on display on my curb. You're going to come, come and see Gibby.

According to the Lebanon Daily News, all the witnesses testified about Joseph being, quote, subject to spells of giddiness. And it is supposed he had an attack of one of these spells whilst on the plank crossing the creek. So, you know, this is what I was talking about when you get into these quotes from the papers back in the day. So spells of giddiness. So he just broke out in laughter and just slipped and fell and died and drowned. The jury noted that there were no bruises or marks on Joseph's body. A man named Charles Drews testified that he saw Raber fall on the bridge and that

Joseph was dead when he got there. The Lebanon Daily News reported on December 9th, the chief witness in the case was Charles Drews, who testified as follows. Knows Joseph Raber was a sober man. He was at my house in the neighborhood of 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon. Said he was going to Peter Kreitzers to get some flour, saw him from the window going down the path in the direction of the creek, saw him at the creek, saw him on the first bridge. He suddenly disappeared. I saw him fall, told my wife the creek was low, and old raver could get out, did not see him get up and went down and found him dead in the creek. About 10 minutes after I saw him fall before I left the house to go down.

I found him in the position, the jury found him, could see distinctly if any person was near him when he fell. There was no person near. He came to my house and asked for flower. had none but gave him some tobacco. He complained of having a headache and being very giddy. Do not know how long a person should lay in the water before being drowned. I stood and looked at him and seeing he was not breathing, knew he was dead.

I made no effort to take the body out of the water, was too much scared, went for help to Israel Brand. It's about 100 yards from my house to where he fell into the creek. So this is a synopsis of, you know, this guy's testimony. It's not the way that the people would write it today. Right. It's kind of short and choppy and hard to read. But you get the picture.

Oh, for sure. Of at least what Charles Drew is testifying to at trial. And there were additional witnesses who corroborated Charles Drew's accounts of events. It also came out that Joseph Raber. had $10,000 worth of life insurance. A lot of money back then. That is a boatload of money in 1878. And I hate to do this to you, but I'm going to have to.

What do you think $10,000 back then would be today? People, people, people, boop. I think that's going to be pretty much like almost a million dollar policy today. I would think it millions. Yeah. I mean, $10,000 in 1878. had to have been a pretty obscene amount of money, I would think. Yeah.

Lebtown reported that the jury reached the following verdict. Raber fell from a plank while crossing Indian Town Creek and was overcome by an attack of vertigo. So, you know, obviously we didn't go in depth, in depth into this trial. The jury was hearing testimony and then at the end, rendering, rendering. their decision of what happened to this guy. And they said, well, we think based on what we've heard that, you know, he got vertigo or something like that. And he fell into the creek and drowned. Oh, you know, vertigo, I've had temporary vertigo. And I know people live with vertigo.

And yeah, it can be pretty nasty. Yeah, sure can. So initially, it seemed like the public accepted the story that Joseph Raber accidentally drowned in Indian Town Creek. But people soon began voicing their suspicions. On December 8th, 1878, the Philadelphia Inquirer released a short article titled Accidental Drowning. They read Lebanon, December 8th, Joseph Raber of Union Township, while laboring under an attack of vertigo last evening, fell into Indiantown River and was drowned. But then on the 9th, the Lebanon Daily News reported yesterday morning about 2 o'clock. Israel Brandt arrived in town from Indian Town Gap in search of the corner, stating that a man named Joseph Raber had fallen into Indian Town Creek and was drowned.

This neighborhood not being celebrated for the moral character of its inhabitants or its acts of charity caused a great deal of common when it was understood that Raber was heavily insured and the chief amounts held on his policies were residents of the neighborhood. Oh, so there you go. So it's like, uh, okay, they're reading, people are reading about this accidental drowning. And I could see where people would say, yeah, that could happen. Yeah. Now all of a sudden, the paper is divulging or releasing this information that, yes, he had

drowned in this creek, but he was also heavily insured. heard. And on top of that, the people who held those policies all lived here in this area. And are known to be kind of shady. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And it sounds like from what they were writing, the whole neighborhood was not of great moral character. In the following days, newspapers in the area reported on Rayber's death and brought up more questions about his life insurance. It was written that, you know, this guy lived in a mountain hut. That's the way it was described, he didn't have a lot of money, meaning it would be very difficult for him to pay for these insurance premiums. And then I think one of the big questions is, why would this guy even

need $10,000 in life insurance in the first place? I think if I was the insurance underwriter, I would be asking that question all day long. Well, we've already heard, you know, one paper describe him as a mountain man. Now they said that he lived in a mountain hut. Yeah. You know, he didn't have much money. He was basically going around to different people, asking for things in order to live, is the way that it sounded. So I think all these questions come up and are very valid. The Reading Times reported peculiar interests attaches to this case because a number of

neighbors had Rayber's life insured for $10,000, of which $2,000 was in an Allentown company, 1,000 in the mutual of Reading, 1,000 in the home of Lebanon, and the balance in Connecticut and Philadelphia companies. The insurance on Rayber's life at one time amounted to $30,000, but at some point, 20,000 of that was dropped. So, you know, I don't know how many different people at one time were in on this guy's life. it's just to me it's so strange you know it's like it's like the whole town got together and said here's this scheme and if you want in on it jump in yeah now i don't know this but when they say it was

dropped i don't know if it was dropped by you know the six or if there were a lot more people involved who eventually dropped out and didn't want to pay the premiums and wait around for this guy to die to you know collect their money but i'd be nervous if the people came to me and said hey i want to policy out on you. Mm-hmm. You know, one person, you might say, okay. Would you? Because I would say, hell no.

But would you get six people or more taking policy? Would I, I'd be worried. What about the whole town? What if the whole town has a life insurance policy on you? Yeah. I'd just be worried, man. I wouldn't want to eat anything. I wouldn't leave my house.

Yeah. I just. Or my hut as it was described. I'd be nervous. Another paper, the intelligence. Jenser Journal out of Lancaster reported on December 10th. There are ugly rumors that the parties who held the policies for $10,000 on the life of Joseph Raber saw him drown and made no effort to rescue or resuscitate him.

Okay, yeah, that's an ugly rumor. But you can see where this thing is going. The suspicion is going to fall on these people who have these life insurance policy. Of course. You know, these are, these are not family members. And I think anytime you have that situation and you have a questionable death, even in 1878, it came up. And it's one of the things that kind of drew me to this case.

You know, we cover a lot of cases that are more current. Right. Where, you know, spouses or somebody connected to an individual kills them for life insurance money. And obviously we see here, it's not a new thing. It's been going around for a long time. For as long as there's been life insurance. Sure. There's been people killing to get it. And obviously, it was a lot easier to get life insurance back then than it is today. Because let anybody get a policy out on you. It sounds like. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if this guy had to sign off on it. I don't know all the details of that,

but, you know, it does seem like from the reporting that he was very, well aware of these policies out on him. In February 1879, Joseph F. Peters, the son-in-law of Charles Drews entered information against six men about the death of Joseph Raber. On February 3rd, a group of constables received a warrant for the arrest of the six men and the constables arrested them on February 4th. So let's talk about these six men. They were all charged. Frank Stickler, Charles Drews, Israel Brandt, Henry Wise, Josiah Hummel, and George Zekman. Now, Charles Drews, we've talked about, right? He testified that he saw this guy fall,

Joseph Raber, and by the time he got to him, he was dead, he had drowned. I also thought it was interesting that it was his son-in-law that turned him in. That turned him in. it's going to be a very strange holiday get together after that. Yeah, I don't think they'll be sitting at the same table for a while. So it was written that, you know, all six of these guys seemed like, you know, just ordinary, everyday type of guys. Israel Brandt was born in 1834 in North Lebanon Township. He worked as a Taylor, Farmer, and Tavern Hotel Manager.

Franklin Stickler was born in 1859 in Union Township. he was a laborer. Josiah Hummel was born in 1849 in Union Township. He was also a laborer. Henry Wiles was born in 1845 in Monroe Valley. He was a minor. Charles Drews was born in 1820 in Holstein, Germany. Drews was a butcher, carpenter, mason, and iron worker.

Okay, that's a lot of different things. But I guess a lot of people wore many different hats back then. Oh, yeah. It had to be a jack of all trades. Because that's pretty expansive, right? Butcher, carpenter, mason, ironwork. Whatever you got to do to make some money. That's what it sounds like.

George Zackman was born in 1849 in Berks County, Pennsylvania. So, you know, a lot of these guys were around the same age. Charles Drews was quite a bit older than most. And it seems like Franklin Stickler was the youngest by far, by at least the 10 years. The six men lived in the northern part of Lebanon County in an area called Joseph's Spring. Drew's Wise and Zekman were married. The other three were not. Four of the six men had shares in Raber's life insurance policies and were named beneficiaries. Henry Wise was present during the discussions about killing Joseph Raber. Josiah Hummel had knowledge.

about the plans to kill Raber. While Drew's and Stickler were found to be involved in the actual murder, many sources painted Israel Brandt as the mastermind. According to the Lebanon Daily News, it was written that the men convinced Joseph Raber to sign the policies under the promise that they would give him food. So it's kind of like what we talked about earlier. Here's a guy described as a mountain man living in a mountain

in the hut. He doesn't have money. He needs help to, you know, live and he signed up for this. Yeah, I'm guessing, you know,

he's like, hey, I don't have any money. I need some food. And they said, hey, look, we're helping you out.

We know you can't pay us back now. So what we're due is we're taking a little life insurance policy out on you and if and whenever you die. You know, probably not if, but when you die. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. then we're we're good our money back that we that we spend on you for your food. And more. And more. But we may get it way down the line. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he probably said, you know, I'm hungry.

Yeah, I'll sign that. I think that's exactly what happened. Now, at this time, it was not illegal to take out insurance on another person. Israel Brandt arranged Raber's insurance through a man named George W. Schweinhardt who had offices in Lebanon. So it's interesting that only four. of the six were actual beneficiaries of the life insurance policies. And it was these four beneficiaries who were anxious to collect the money.

You know, like you kind of just laid out the plan or the agreement. Okay, at some point when you're doling out food or you're doling out money on a weekly basis with this notion that you're going to collect life insurance at some point way down the line, it seems like these guys said, I don't really want to wait that long. They'd like to have that money now. Maybe I can buy a farm next door. Maybe I can do this or that. Well, and also then I can stop giving this guy money as well, right? Because he'll no longer be around. They decided that Charles Drews would be the one to kill Joseph Raber for $1,200. dollars. Drew's had Frank Stickler help him. The men discussed staging a boating accident and also

poisoning raver with chloroform, but they ultimately decided to drown him instead. So one of the things that you and I have talked about ever since we started, T-CAT, is, you know, killing people for money. How do you come to that decision that, yes, I'm willing to take a life for X amount of whatever that amount is. And sometimes it's very little and sometimes it's a lot, but there really is no price, right, on a person's life. But I want to think about $1,200 in 1878. That's a good chunk of change. People kill people today for that much. For that much. Or less. Or less. And that's kind of what jumped out at me during the research. I do think we're talking about quite a bit of money here.

Yeah, I mean, he's going to get paid that plus whatever he gets from the life insurance. I also thought it was kind of fascinating that they talked about staging a boating accident. This guy obviously is not driving around in a yacht. We're not talking about a motorized boat. So what are we talking about, a wooden boat that you would paddle out into a lake and they were going to sabotage it or, you know, make it look like some type of accident. Actually, I think that was probably a better plan if they would have stuck with it. Yeah, you might be right.

But again, you know, I draw parallels from 1878 to today. If someone was thinking about killing someone, would they maybe think about a boating accident, making it look like that? Yeah, they might. So, you know, was it all that different back then? Now, you're not going to have a car accident because they didn't have cars in 1878, but you could have a horse accident, a boating accident, a slip and fall, which is ultimately what they went with.

Right. Joseph Peters claimed he witnessed the murder from the window of his father-in-law's home. Joseph Raber was passing over the creek with Stickler and Drews. The two men tripped him into the water. This is what Joseph Peters ultimately divulged. The Daily News criticized Peters, an army soldier. for not helping Joseph Raber, if he saw him fall into the water, and for not coming forward sooner. And I think that might be a little bit of a difference. You know, I don't know if a paper

today would come out that strongly. Maybe they would, but, you know, back then, you know, based on the articles that I've researched, papers kind of came out with pretty strong positions. and it didn't seem like they were afraid to really call people out. No, I think back then the papers were really the voice of the community. Well, because what else was there? Yeah, exactly. I mean, we're not even talking radio. Obviously, we're not talking television.

So if you wanted to get some news, you either got it from the newspaper or you got it secondhand from somebody at the pub or tavern. Tavern. Yeah. Whatever you called it. Saloon. But they're also not wrong. You know, and that, and that's the kind of thing that, you know, passes through my mind.

If this guy saw what he later claimed that he saw and then did nothing to help Joseph Raber and didn't come forward right away, came forward later, okay, you can make an argument that, it was his father-in-law, maybe he was scared, whatever it was. Intervene at that point. Didn't want to intervene, but you could also make the argument that, you know, it was wrong not to do something or come forward sooner. Yeah, I can definitely see the argument for not coming forward sooner. Like, you knew it was wrong.

Maybe you were scared at that moment, but why didn't you go seek the authorities out as soon as possible? Take protection underneath them. On February 12, 1879, the men attended a court hearing. 32 witnesses were subpoenaed by the Commonwealth. The Daily News reported that, one important witness was Joseph Peters, which makes sense, right? He's the guy who came forward who said he was upstairs in Charles Drew's house and heard Rayber talking below.

Don't mind exactly about what they were talking, but heard Drew ask Rayber whether he had any tobacco. They then left the house, saw Frank Stickler, Drew and Rayber leave the house. They went through the cornfield towards Brant's house. Stickler went first. They went on the plank. And when Raber was about in the middle of the plank, Stickler turned around,

knocked the feet from under Raber, and threw him in the creek. Couldn't see whether he got in after him on account of the brushes. So Peters is giving his testimony. I mean, it's pretty damning. It is. It's,

I saw these two guys. One of the guys kicked the feet out from under Raber and essentially pushed him in the creek. I don't know what. happened from there. Joseph told his wife, though, that the men had drowned Rayburn. He said he saw Stickler and Drews coming towards the house. Stickler's clothes were wet and Drews gave him some dry clothes. Stickler said he was going to get a horse and wagon to take Israel Brandt to Zekmans. Israel Brant then came to the house and asked Peters to go to Zekmans. Peters saw why he set

Brant's home after the drowning, but none of them talked about anything. According to the Daily News, he did hear Stickler and Drew's talk about the drowning in Drew's home. And they said Rayber was so strong that they could hardly hold him under the water. It's just as damning. Yeah, but it also really paints a vivid picture, right? You trip this guy. He falls into what was not a lot of water, 19 inches of water. And then it's very apparent based on the testimony. that at least some of the men got down in the water and forcibly had to hold him down until he drowned. Yeah, it sounds like it was a violent struggle.

Yes. Peters also said in court, Drews came to me when I was chopping wood in the mountain. And he said he knew away how to make a pile of money in that we wouldn't have to steal it either. Okay, well, you don't have to steal it, but you have to kill a man to get it. So that makes it okay.

That makes it better. I mean, I'm not saying stealing is right either, but between the two, stealing versus taking a life, it's kind of hard to compare. According to Peters, Israel Brandt told him that Hummel, Zachman, and Weiss offered Drew's $200 to drown Raber. But Israel didn't offer him anything because he didn't want Raber to be drowned. And I think this goes back maybe to the method of murder. I think they all wanted this guy dead.

Right. But there was some conflicts about the best way to do it. According to the daily news, when questioned by the defense, Joseph testified that he was on furlough from the army to visit family. He spent a week with family before he went to Charles Drew's home. And it was while at Drew's house that he witnessed the murder. He said he could see this because he was on the side of the house that faced the creek. It was about 100 to 200 yards.

from the house to the creek. So, I mean, it's not a short distance, but it's a distance that you could pretty easily see. Oh, yeah. Depending on what was in your way. Joseph testified, I didn't dare go out to help Raver. Or they might have done the same with me.

And I get that. I mean, I'm sure, you know, people said, well, why didn't he go help right there? Well,

we talked about the paper kind of calling him out. Yeah. Yeah. And whether it was because, because of what the paper said or, you know, he was trying to really give an honest answer to why he didn't do something. It was fear-based, according to him. Now, he stayed at Drew's home for three to four weeks. He said he was afraid to say anything because the men said they would shoot any man that would say anything about it. They didn't care who he was. You know, and one of the

things that, you know, I think sometimes is that we discount this fear notion. Yeah. I think many people think, well, if I witnessed something wrong, I would come forward and do the right thing. And I would like to think that too. Sure. But if you witness something in the presence of people who you knew and those people said, hey, if anybody talks about this, we'll kill them. Okay. Is that going to give you public? And I would say, yeah, definitely. Yeah, you know, especially if they said, you know, one, you just saw them do what they did. So you know they're capable of it.

Yes. And then they come to you and say, you know what? You're going to be like, I'm not sure because you're going to have fear for yourself. And maybe if you have family members, like, maybe they'll go after my family members. Sure. Yeah, I try to look at multiple sides of an issue. And yeah, you can look down on this guy for not helping, for not going to the, the police right away, but you can also see why maybe he did or why in his mind he thought he needed

to wait. He left Drew's house with his wife and told her he would tell everything once he got the chance. He told Israel Brand of his plans to leave. That day, Israel asked him if Drews told him what they had offered him to drown Joseph Raber. He heard that they had offered him $15,000. But Brandt said they offered him 200. Okay, well, $15,000 doesn't make any sense if you're only getting $10,000. It went from the rumors added, what, at $1,200,000, $1,000 back to $200. So the murder trial started on April 17, 1879. The counsel for the defense moved to quash the indictments against the men,

but the court overruled that motion. The jury was impaneled that same day. The district attorney detailed the circumstances of the case, calling it one of the highest crimes known to the law. He noted that Joseph Raber had life insurance policies taken out by the defendants, and Drew's and Stickler were offered large sums of money by the other defendants to kill Raber. He said that the prosecution could trace Joseph Raber to Drew's home, and from Drew's home to the creek where he was killed,

the defendants thought no one saw them, but there were actually two eyewitnesses. one of which we've already talked about, the DA told the court that from the time the policies were taken out on Joseph Raber, the defendants met almost daily. Before Joseph was killed, one of the defendants remarked that he would die soon. The prosecution plan to prove that Drew's and Stickler were the killers, but that the others were equally guilty. And that's something that you see today as well.

Yes, you can have someone who pulls the trigger. or who commits the murder, but other people who are involved, or someone who pays for it, or, you know, there are a number of different circumstances. Sure,

there is. Are found to be just as equally guilty. You can't be sitting around the table why someone's murder is being planned and then not actually commit the murder and sit there later and say, well, I didn't murder them.

Yeah. You know, but take money for it or get something out of it, be involved in the planning. Witnesses testified at trial that they saw the men meeting at Brant's Tavern near the footpath and conspiring about the plan. They seemed like they were probably cocky guys. Well, yeah, I was getting this notion that they weren't taking great care in hiding what they were trying to do. If they're out in the open kind of discussing their plans where someone could overhear them.

Okay. Not real smart. On April 24th, 1879, all six men were found guilty of first degree murder. The jury deliberated a little more than four hours before they reached a verdict. I think four hours in 1879's pretty long time for a jury. Yeah, you know, I think they probably just wanted to make sure they did their due diligence. Well, like I said, we're not going in. into too much detail about the trial.

I just know that, you know, comparing it to cases that we've done that are much more recent, you know, juries deliberate for a couple of hours, sometimes 30 minutes, sometimes seven days, but you just think back to like 1879

and four hours to me of deliberation seems like a pretty good amount of time. I kind of would have thought that they would just go in and vote right away and everybody would have their minds made up and be done and go on home five minutes and we're back to the to the farm or the saloon or whatever it is on july 7th 1979 the defendant's attorneys presented arguments for a new trial however wise drew's stickler brant and hummel all eventually confessed to the murder in their own way on august 31st 1879 Charles drews gave a confession He claimed he spoke to Israel Brandt the previous summer.

Brandt told him a way they could make money. He and others would ensure Joseph Raber and then, quote, work him out of the way. Kind of a strange way of saying, we'll kill him. Right. Work him out of the way. And Brandt told him how they would do it. And Drew said he would consider it. Brandt said there were three others working with him.

Drews told him he didn't know those men. and Brandt offered to arrange a meeting. Drew's realized he knew Henry Wise, but not the others. But he agreed to the plan and they insured Joseph Rayber. So, I mean, just think about this for a minute. You and I are talking and you say to me, you know what? I know a way we can make some money. We'll ensure this guy with whom we have really no connection.

Yeah. And then ultimately we'll kill him and we'll all collect a bunch of money. You know, I always have a hard time understanding how these conversations go. I don't know why because we've been doing this for so long, but it always, you know, strikes me as is so strange that people would be sitting around talking about these types of things. I mean, you really have to know that probably think you'd have to know that person pretty well to approach and have that conversation because if they say no.

Where do you go from there? Yeah. Because they know the whole plan. But here you have, you know, this guy, Drew's who's going to get involved in this plan with a bunch of other people. He doesn't know. Okay. How do you trust these people?

Yeah. It just seems like you're really taking a big chance, knowing that the final outcome is going to be murder. Yeah. I mean, the more people you bring in, the exposure is greater. And if you don't know those people, how do you know that you can trust them? Right. I mean, there's just.

it just all seems so strange to me. Drew's claim that when he expressed uncertainty about killing Raber, the group threatened to shoot him. So he promised to do it to save his life. He asked Frank Stickler to do it. Stickler said he didn't care and could kill anyone, but insisted that Drew's go along with him. So here's the confession from Charles Drew's.

And just like people do today, you know, whether it's true or not, I don't know. But he's saying, you know what, I had to do it. They threatened to kill me. Right. I didn't want to die. I didn't. So I had, you know, I had to do it to save my life.

Is that true or is that him just kind of justifying or trying to to soften his look, his role in this whole thing? Well, probably, probably is that. Yeah, then he's throwing Stickler into the mix as the guy that can kill anybody. Yeah, he said he didn't care. I'll kill anyone. but you got to go along with me. You know, so did it really go down that way?

Or were they all kind of equally into it? And now they're just trying to make themselves not look as bad as the others. That's what I always believe. I think there's some of that going on. Yeah, I think so. He said that Stickler threw Raber into the water, then jumped on top of him. Drew's claimed he went back to the fence.

He confessed that the original plan, was to drown Joseph in a dam while he was fishing. He, Brandt, and Peters went to this dam. But Drews decided he couldn't do it. So this must be the boating accident. The guy's out fishing. He falls into the water. He drowns.

But they don't go with that plan. Can't follow through. Israel Brandt promised him $300 to kill Raver. And then Drews convinced Frank Stickler to help him for $300. So, you know, we got this amount of money that's all over the map. Also, Drew's is getting 300, but he doesn't want to do it. So he's going to turn around and give the 300 to Stickler, who has no problem to it. What you're getting $300 back then?

It's a lot of money. A lot of money. Yeah. A lot of money. But drop in the bucket to what they're ultimately going to get. Drew's claim that the group tried to swindle him out of his money and kill him after the murder of Joseph Rayburn. Well, he's going to try to distance himself from the group for sure.

Yeah, because he doesn't want to be as bad as they are. Whether they were all in it, you know, the exact way or some of what he said was true, it really doesn't matter because his point or his intention is to try to say, yeah, I'm bad, but I'm not as bad as they are. I had to do it. I had no choice. They were going to kill me, man. He's trying to save his life.

On September 2nd, Stickler gave a confession, but Brant and Hummel denied all knowledge of the murder. The Daily News also reported that Brandt, Drews, and Stickler were sentenced to hang on November 14th, 1879. So again, something that we see from cases, you know, back in the day, you go on trial quickly. Yeah. You're found guilty. You're going to die quickly. They're not going to house you for a long period of time. No, there is no death row.

There is no, you know, three meals a day and a cot for 60 years back then. Yeah, I think back then, if you were found guilty of murder, you just, that was it, right? You're guilty of murder and off you went to. Sometimes it's the same day. I think they just walked you out of the courtroom to the, the gallows. Why, they had an audience. And hanged you. Because back then, they like that.

audiences. Which I always thought was strange that people, you know, even going farther back in time would line up to watch people being killed. But the more I think about it, I don't know. I feel like people would do it today, if given the opportunity. I think so. I think maybe back in the day, maybe started out with let's round all the town people up and have them here to watch this, because I want them to see. When you'd do something wrong, this is what's going to happen to you. Try to scare them, like, oh, like a deterrent. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, I get that. Yeah, and I think over time it turned into more of, uh, hey, there's a hanging on the square today. Let's all go down and. Like an event. Event. Yeah, that's what I thought it was. And today, that's what it would be. I think if it were allowed, they would do record pay-per-view numbers.

I really do. It's scary. People would watch it. It's scary, but I kind of think you're right, you know, that they would be, I think we all would be surprised how the viewership would be on that. I do. Now, the following information comes from Stickler's statement. He said that he first heard of the plan when Wise met him at his grandmother's home

and asked him to go with them to Israel Brands. According to the Daily News, he and Henry Wise sat together and Brandt sat on the porch. Wise told him, we intend to ensure. sure an old man and you must put him out of the way. So now, now we're hearing it from Stickler's side. And it's not, yeah, I'll kill anyone. They're saying you have to do this. Stickler asked who the man was and learned he was Joseph Raber. He didn't hear anything else until December 5th, 1878. He stopped at Charles Drew's house. Charles Drews asked if he would help put Raber out of the way. Stickler said he wasn't sure. Peters approached him and said that they had both been to a local dam and intended to drown

Raber but decided not to. The next day, Peters procured chloroform or ether. Stickler couldn't remember which. They were going to use this to drug Joseph Raber. Stickler returned to the house the next day at the invitation of Drews and Peters. So again, what you're getting is a much different point of view. It's not even matching up to Drew's account. No, because Drew's was, Stickler said he had no problem killing anyone. And he would gladly do it. Stickler's not coming out and saying that. He's saying, oh, I didn't really want to do this. I didn't know what's going on. And now Henry Wise is more involved in this account. Well, and he also has Peters in the mix, which nobody else so far had and Peters was the one who ultimately turned him in.

So it does get a little confusing. Maybe he's just trying to cast doubt on the testimony that Peters gave. Stickler said that Charles Drews went to fetch Joseph Raber twice on the day of the murder. The first time he wasn't home, but he was there in the afternoon. Raber asked Drews for some tobacco. Drews left on his own, followed by Raber. than Peters. They had whiskey together except for Joseph Raber because he was in another room and didn't know they had any. So, I mean, again, this is a completely different story. The Daily News reported that

Stickler, Drews, and Raber sat in the room together, then left the house. Drew said he needed help fetching some meat. They walked to the footbridge with Raber in between. According to the confession, Stickler said, I then took hold of Raber's legs. leg and tripped him and he fell into the water. I jumped in on him, taking hold of his hair, and Drew's remained on the plank, pushing me on the back and pressing me down on him. Raber made no noise or any kind of exclamation. I held him there probably five minutes and then dragged him a short distance down the creek. I had him with the face down, made no alteration in his clothes. So now this part is much more similar.

but there is one big difference, Drew said he backed off. He went back to the fence. Right. Now Stickler says, Drew's is pushing me on the back. Helping me. Helping me. And this kind of lines up with the one quote that said, this guy was so strong.

It took multiple people to hold him down. Israel, Brandt made a statement that he had no knowledge of the conspiracy and didn't even know about Raber's death until Drew's told. told him about it. Brand said he had an insurance policy because an acquaintance owed him $16 and offered him a policy worth that amount. He refused the policy and said he would take one with a different company. His friend left the policy with him for security and the company refused to accept the assignment after Raber's death. So you have Brandt saying, I didn't even

take out the policy. I just got it because somebody owed me. Oh, me. Yeah. Hummel also denied knowing anything about the murders. He said he was working in a coal mine and that although he did have an insurance policy, he didn't know about the conspiracy and that he had only had one conversation with Drew's.

So I get it. You're trying to say you don't know anything about this. Sure. You're going to deflect. But you have the insurance policy. How do you explain why you've taken out an insurance policy on a man who then later died?

a man who you don't really have much of a connection with. It's a tough sell. Yeah, I think most people are going to have hard time believing you didn't know anything about this. And that you weren't involved in any way. George Zackman was granted a retrial and was found not guilty of murder on November 13, 1879. Zachman convinced the courts that he was only an investor, citing the fact that he had an insurance policy on his mother as well. And what?

She didn't die? Yeah. You know, I can see where you can say, look, I've got a policy out on my spouse or my parent to help with the funeral costs. Or even a child. Or a child. But on a stranger. A mountain man.

A mountain man. It's a hard sell. Now, he's saying, I'm an investor. So, I mean, was this common? Was this a known practice that people. People speculated on others' deaths and tried to figure out, again, much like you would a sporting event or who's going to win the Kentucky Derby or, you know, a baby pool. When a baby's going to be born?

It'd be like what are they going to start? Vegas. They're going to start having a death pool. Like, hey, these, we got this amount of people going in for surgery today. What's the odds? You know, that the guy's going to come out on the, on the good side. of it. Yeah, I don't know. I didn't look into it enough to see whether this was routine or, or, you know, it sounded so odd to me, but he's calling himself an investor in, you know,

his retrial and, and somebody bought it because they found him not guilty. Charles Drews and Frank Stickler were hanged on November 14th, 1879. On May 13th, 1880, Israel Brandt, Josiah Hummel, and Henry Wise were hanged. Brant and Hummel tried to escape before their execution, but they were unsuccessful. And I don't know why more people wouldn't try to escape.

If you are found guilty and you know you're going to be hanged later, I'd be trying to escape all day long. There's no reason not to. What else they're going to do? Yeah, they're not like going to hang you twice? Yeah. So why not?

Wise was allowed to address the onlookers and declared that all six minutes, were guilty. This is what Lebtown wrote in an article. And I found that to be very interesting. Because you have, you know, all of these individuals making kind of their own case for why they either weren't involved or were involved to a lesser degree than others. Well, I'm sure he's pissed too, right? Because he's up there. He's going to die. And he said, hey, all six of us are guilty, but only five of us are hanging. So you're saying he was very upset with Zekman,

who managed to get himself out of it completely. Yeah, I think so. Not just that he wasn't going to hang. He wasn't even going to do time. Yeah. Hummel and Brandt made secret confessions that weren't released until after their execution. On April 26th, 1880,

they confessed to their involvement in the murder and gave statements to a reverend, but requested they not be released until one year after their execution. Both confessed to knowing about the conspiracy and participating in obtaining insurance policies on Joseph Raber's life. Brand admitted that he knew the men intended to kill Raber,

but he still considered himself innocent because he had no interest in Raber and there was no motive for him to desire his death. I mean, an interesting statement, but not a shocking statement. No, but, It doesn't, for me, it doesn't line up. You're confessing to knowing about it and participating in obtaining insurance policies.

But then at the same time, you're saying, I'm really innocent because I had no interest. There was no motive. Well, there was a motive and you did have an interest if you went with the group and purchased an insurance policy. So I don't know. I'm not, I'm not buying that one. George Zackman died on March 19, 1887 in Union Township. He was 39 years old.

It was written that he died of natural causes. It was reported that after the trial, he developed what was called coughing seizures. So he lasted seven years longer than the guys that got hanged. Yeah. Wayne H. Onspa, a descendant of Charles Drews, wrote a book about the blue-eyed six. Wayne is the grandson of Jenny Stickler-onspaw, the granddaughter of Charles Drew's. Her uncle, Frank, was also one of the conspirators.

Jenny's husband, Harvey Anspaul, Wayne's grandfather took him on a tour of locations related to the blue-eyed six. According to the Lebanon Daily News, Frank Stickler was just 20 years old when he was hanged. No cemetery would accept his body. And the church where the family were buried didn't allow criminals. criminals in their cemetery, Frank's mother picked up his body from the jail and dug his grave in her garden. Well, she had to bury him somewhere, but it's strange, though, because, you know, it's her garden. I hope it's not like a fruit or veggie garden. Well, what kind of garden do you think it is?

It's like a flower garden, hopefully. Oh, well. Because you imagine being the neighbor, and I'm bringing you, like, tomatoes from my garden that's been feeding and fertilizing off of my kids' kid's body. Yeah. No, when I hear garden and I think the 1800s,

I think food. Yeah. Because people had, I mean, there was no Kroger's. You know, Whole Foods was not going to deliver you a bunch of stuff through Amazon. Well,

no, not at all. So you had to provide your own. Yeah, produce. Everything. Well, that's true.

Yeah. I mean, I guess you could go in and buy certain things, but, you know, for the most part, what you ate, you had to provide. So when I think garden, I don't think decoration. I think food. And it is kind of a macabre thought to think that you're growing all these vegetables or whatever that are going to end up on your plate in the ground where you buried your son. I remember that movie with Johnny Depp. He played like a writer. And he was in this cabin and he was,

he had a multi-personality or something like that. At the end of the movie, the person that he killed, he buried and planted corn on top. And then they show him eating the corn on the cob, you know, and has this big plate of corn on the cob. And people were coming over and he's offering the corn on the cob

where the body was buried. Yeah, so he's not quite Hannibal Lecter. No, but it's still a little. But it was like freaky, you know. if you think about it. Today, the bridge where Joseph Raber died is located on a dirt road off McLean Road.

Charles Drew's house was located straight ahead of the bridge and Israel Brant's Tavern was located to the left. Joseph Raber is buried in moonshine cemetery. His grave says victim of the blue-eyed six. So, you know, as we wrap this one up, Gibbs, I really enjoyed researching this case. It's very different from some of the other ones that we do. And sometimes I like to go back many, many years. And, you know, like I said, read these articles and you see the quotes and, you know, it doesn't always make sense because of the way things were reported. And it is a little harder to

cobble together the story sometimes. Sure. But, you know, what I found fascinating was you had this group of people. We'll say the six, but it sounds like at one point, maybe there was a lot more people in it, but you had six people who seemed to conspire to take out life insurance policies on an individual with the notion or the forethought that they were going to not wait for this guy to die, but to cause his death. Right. So that they could benefit. And then you have this whole kind of difference in accounts from each person, right? Some parts are similar. Many of the aspects are completely different,

but a lot of them have like what you said, deflection. Yeah. You know, how do I make myself not look so bad, cast maybe a little more culpability on another person? You had one guy who got off completely. and then you had a couple of individuals who said before they were hanged that all six were involved

you had a couple of individuals who confessed but that confession wasn't released until you know a year after they were executed i mean i think when you look at it in totality it really does seem as though all of these six individuals participated in in some aspect it seems to me as though Drews and Stickler were the ones to actually kill Raver. Yes. That part is kind of corroborated by multiple, multiple people. But these other individuals, although they didn't hold him down in the water, it does seem to me that they knew exactly what the plan was and that they were going to benefit

from his death. And they're guilty. They're just as guilty to me as, um, any of them. This true crime stuff, man, it goes back. Well, and that's the thing. It's not a new phenomenon. Right.

It's always been there. Maybe the interest has exploded, right? Over the last five to ten years, I don't think there's any doubt about that. But the crimes themselves are as old as time. Yeah. And really, the reasons behind murders haven't changed all that much, right? Love. greed yeah so here we have greed insurance scams we could be talking about a case that happened

last year and have that and have maybe not the exact same scenario but the same motive and people conspiring to to kill someone for life insurance money and we did not too long ago yeah so um you know the the the thing that really stood out to me was these six guys all conspiring together to take advantage of a man who really was not only less fortunate than them, but didn't have hardly anything. And so they thought, okay,

here's an easy target. They really valued money more than this guy's life. I think that part is evident, clear, very clear. And I don't know. I'll never understand it. as many cases as we do that involve people killing people for money.

Right. I'm never going to understand it. I get it. People want money. Sure. I understand that. Yeah, yeah. Everybody does.

Right. But to weigh X amount of dollars versus a human being's life. Yeah. Now, there are a lot of different types of murders. Some of them I can understand more than others. It doesn't mean I condone any of them. Right. But if a person walks in on their spouse, you know, having sex with someone else and in the heat

of the moment, they lose control. I understand in my mind how that can happen. It doesn't make it right at all. No. You know, if you're in a bar and someone accosts your wife. Yeah. And you hit that person and they die. I understand that.

Sure. I understand how that could happen. Yeah, yeah. Like the con air situation. Conair. Good. That landed Nick. Nick in prison.

Yeah. I understand how some of that stuff goes down. But the people sitting around the table talking about how they're going to, you know, formulate a plan to kill someone, whether it's a stranger or a family member, whoever it is, to get some money. You're never going to get me to understand that. No. Same here.

But that's it for our. episode on the blue-eyed six. We've got some voicemails. You want to check those out? I love hearing those voicemails. Hi, guys. My name is Danica. I'm actually a native of Ohio. I live in Cleveland. And I found you guys far back years ago. But I haven't had the courage to leave a voicemail until now. And I just wanted to say thank you guys for helping me pass the time at work. I work for FedEx. Sorry, Gibby. I delivered a purple promise. So, yeah, I listen to you guys' podcasts the entire time I'm at work and helps me pass the time, helps me get through the day. And then I also listen to you guys when I go grocery shopping and cleaning the house.

I have caught completely up on true crime all the time. I'm working my way through unsolved and criminology right now. So, yeah, thanks, guys, for everything that you do, and I appreciate it. You have no idea. And I love all of your shows. You guys are wonderful. I'm not team giddy or team. I know I love you guys as banter back and forth.

You guys are amazing. So thanks again. And you guys are wonderful. And don't forget to keep your own time. Take it. All right. Well, appreciate the voicemail very much.

I thought she did an excellent job. I don't know why she waited. She had to get that courage up. I mean, she did throw the FedEx thing in there, but you know. Yeah. It's all right.

I never heard of that. Delivering the purple promise? Is that there slow? Purple promise. Is that like what can Brown do for you? Maybe. Which I always thought was one of the dumbest slogans ever. Easy.

Easy. What can Brown do for you? Yeah, we can deliver. I mean, they literally probably paid like a company millions of dollars to come up with that. I'm sure they did back then. Yeah. But you know,

you imagine the, I'm seeing her pushing her cart through the grocery store. Mm-hmm. And I'm thinking, I'm hoping she doesn't have like, uh, earbuds in or earbuds or whatever they're called. Uh-huh.

and that she's got it on her speaker phone. Oh, and just jamming it. Yeah, walking down the aisles and they're hearing us talk about, you know, these cases. This person killing that person. Yeah. But we appreciate the voice, man. Hey, Mike, hey, Gibby. Kevin Harris at Oklahoma.

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the podcast. It keeps me busy in the day. I drive a semi-so. I don't know, I guess it makes me feel like I have someone in here talking to me. But, hey, I really enjoy your humor, sense of humor. really enjoyed the podcast. Y'all have a good day and keep your own time kicking. All right.

Thanks for the great voicemail. We're getting a lot of kudos today, which is awesome. I love this idea that people think we're there with them. We're talking with them. Sure. I just love that idea. Yeah. And it's never, and it's not something that I ever thought about when we started the podcast.

Of course, you and I didn't think about much. Right. We didn't think any of this would happen. But the thought that people would kind of, what is, what's the, what am I trying to say? Cs as friends just talking to them. I just love that idea. I'm going to start hanging out of truck stops again. Okay.

Yeah. All right. I think people. Truck buddies could take that a couple of different ways, but I'll just leave that one alone. Breaker. Breaker, breaker one. Bricker one nine, good buddy. Come on.

Oh, you're just digging yourself deeper. Hi, Mike and Gibby. My name's C.C. from North Carolina. I was wondering if you could do a case on John Leonard Orr. He was a serial arsonist, and he was also a fire captain and arson investigator for the Gwendole Fire Department. And he originally wanted to be a police officer but had failed his exam. So he became a fire investigator. And he killed four people.

in his fires. And he was charged with a few other things, too. But I love your show and thank you guys so much. And I listen to you at work all day. I listen to about three or four episodes a day. But keep doing what you're doing. And thank you so much. Love you guys.

Bye. All right. Awesome. Thanks for the voicemail. Yeah. That case sounds very familiar. I mean, I think I've seen it.

I've heard of it. But it sounds like it could make for a very good episode. I feel like it's something like Robert De Niro. Well, I know you're thinking backdraft. Yeah. Because that's, you know, he wasn't the killer, but he was an arson investigator. So we had no mailbag this week. No.

So that's it for another episode of true crime all the time. So for Mike and give me, stay safe and keep your own time ticking.