Episode Eight: Your Greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat Grandma
Host: Hi. Hi. Hi. How are you?
Lawyer: I am covered in pollen from head to toe.
Host: Welcome to me like, three weeks, two weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago?
Lawyer: It's funny. Because when I saw you three weeks ago, I was like, man, I'm so glad I'm not like that during this season anymore. and then my life was like, haha, bitch.
Host: Wrong again.
Oh no. I think that's thank you, come again. Isn't that? From Aladdin?
Lawyer: Wrong again. I think is from Lion King.
Host: What part?
Lawyer: It's Rafiki.
Host: Oooooh.
Lawyer: When he's like lecturing Simba. I'm so disappointed in you.
Host: Well, I would automatically go Aladdin because Aladdins my favorite.
Lawyer: Same. Lion Kings my favorite.
Host: Exactly. That's why you knew and I was just like, please let it be from my favorite
Lawyer: Only a true classic have such timeless lines.
Host: Speaking of true classics, you don't remember Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers?
No. I don't think I watched that.
Host: Well, honestly it predates both of us.
Lawyer: So yeah, no.
Host: But it was on reruns I guess when I was a kid, because I remember watching it. You don't remember Chi-chi-chi-chip and Dale – Rescue Rangers! Wow. Sad, sad life.
Lawyer: I muted so that the listeners wouldn't hear me blow my nose.
Host: That's good.
Lawyer: What you couldn't see was me pantomiming, “nah bitch, I have no idea what you're talking about”.
Host: I could see that's why I was like-
Lawyer: I'm catching listeners up
Host: Sad life. Well, for anyone out there who was a Chip and Dales fan, you should watch the new movie, because it's really cute. And especially if you're like a millennial, it references like, every single thing that we grew up with, basically, I recommend it. It’s enjoyable.
Lawyer: I’ll have to check it out.
Host: So last week there was a vote - bunny donuts or crime. Remember?
Lawyer: No. Yeah. Oh yeah.
Host: You said you wanted to talk about bunny donuts this week. So I said people could cast their vote and the people casted their vote and the people voted for crime. So-
Lawyer: The people. Give the people what they want.
Host: I mean, I thought we would, I thought we would kick it a little old school. Cause I thought sometimes like a vintage crime is a little fun
Lawyer: We’re going back to Cali Cali - I mean Canada, Canada, Canada, Canada.
Host: So we're going to talk about my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother. Who was-
Lawyer: How many greats was that?
Host: I won't say this part yet because I don't want to, I don't want to reveal too much, but I'll tell you something later about - I'll tell you later. What I was going to say is, that was nine greats. Nine.
So this was, this woman, Gillette. That's pretty much how you pronounce the razor company.
Lawyer: Gillette. Gill - I'm not going to say it. You say it.
Host: Gillette: the best a man can get. Isn't that their commercial?
Lawyer: I don't have commercials, so I don't know what you’re talking about.
Host: I don’t either, but I kind of remember that commercial. So my ninth grade, grandma, Gillette she was born in 1636 in Normandy. So we're really going back and listen - so many things from this story are just like my God stuff has really changed in what? Like… 350, 370 years?
Lawyer: Damn, I'm so trash at math. My first guess was 500. Move on. Cut that part out.
Host: So in 1649, she was sent to Quebec, which is in Canada, with over 200 other young women from France. And these girls and young women were called filles a marier. And I'm not French. So I apologize in advance and probably a thousand times more for how I can't pronounce any of these things, but essentially it means marriageable women.
And these women basically signed contracts and they were promised to marry certain French men when they arrived in the colony in Canada. And this was all set up by the French king at the time who was Louis the 14th. So Gillette was contracted to marry a man named again, don't know, Marin Chauvin, upon arrival. And she did marry him in 1650.
Now he was 24. And if you're keeping up with the math at all, and you're not trash at math she was 13.
Lawyer: Okay. Okay. Shade. Okay. Shade .
Host: She was 13 about to be 14.
Lawyer: So what you weren't paying attention to, is the faces I've been making for the past 9 - it feels like 90 years that you started telling this story. You said we were gonna talk about something niceeeeeeee.
This is gross.
You used the word marriageable.
That’s not a worddddd.
Host: I said, I thought it would fun. I don’t know if said it would nice.
They, they had their first child in that same year, 1650. And that child, that little girl, was my eighth great grandma. So that's the, the line that my family descends from. And then unfortunately her husband died in 1651 leaving her widowed and a single mother at 15.
Can you, I mean, can you even, can you even imagine? I mean, being 15 in a new country, you have no family, no friends, you don't know anyone. You're a mom and the only person you even know, like a little bit dies. I can't. I can't imagine!
Lawyer: Crazy that she even managed to pass on a line and that you're even here.
Host: That's a good point. That's a really good point. But I think part of it was that apparently since these women were sent over to increase the population of the new colony, she knew she was going to have to marry someone again.
So she was granted a small piece of land about a quarter acre in this town called I think it's called Trois-Riveries, which means three rivers, and she settled there. She was able, allowed to keep the land as long as she built a house and enclosed the land with a fence. And at the time this place Trois-Riveries, which is still a town, was a small settlement about, of about 500 people. But today over a hundred thousand people live there.
Lawyer: Dang.
Host: Yeah so it's definitely changed a lot too in addition to a lot of the other things from this story. So in 1653 she married again. She married a locksmith from the town who was about 10 years older than her. And they went on to have six kids together.
Four of the children they had together were girls and in the French culture at the time, it was the father's responsibility to arrange suitable marriages. And this guy seemed to be in an overwhelming hurry to arrange these suitable marriages. And I don't - not French, not can't speak French, also, not a historian - I don't know what the average marriage age was in the 1650s, but he married his daughters…
The oldest one, he married her to someone at 14. His next daughter was married four years later at 13. Three years later, he married his middle daughter and his second youngest daughter who were 12 and 14. And then he still had, at that time, a boy and a girl living at home, and they had another son who died very young in 1666. So this guy was said to be a pretty strict father. And he, I guess, did some things, including marrying all these girls off super young that his wife didn't agree with.
So the, the person that we are, that our story's going to send her around is their second youngest daughter Isabelle. And she was the one married at 12. So he agreed to marry her to a 30 year old man. He was a former soldier who decided to stay when his term was over and settled there so he was now a colonist. And the dad of 12-year-old Isabelle, he knew his wife didn't like this man or this match, so he arranged the final details while she was gone, helping a neighbor who had just given birth. So he sounds like a … cool …
Lawyer: Stand up shit going on around here.
Host: He sounds like a cool guy. So after her, her dad's name was Jacques. So after Jacques, husband of Gillette married her, his, their 12-year-old daughter off to this 30 year old man, pretty quickly all the members of the, of the family, including Isabelle's dad, Jacques, quickly came to regret making this match.
Lawyer: Now, lemme ask you a question: What is it that he thought the result was going to be when he married his 12 year old to a grown ass man?
Host: Well, I think that he married all of his daughters to grown men. And like I said, I don't know how normal that was at the time, or if he was just like in a rush, because he had so many like damn children to support, but I guess he thought that the result was going to be that this guy would provide for her and take care of her? I mean, it seems like most of the other marriages worked out to at least some extent. Other than this one.
So, but the thing is, and we're going to talk a little bit about this guy and I guess he was just, I mean, you know, how people be, they always hide their, their true selves in the beginning of a relationship. They're trying to like lure you in and trap you with if fancy words and presents, but this guy didn't have a job. So I'm not sure. And he didn't have his own property, his own house, which sounds like it was kind of unusual. So I don't know why the dad landed on this guy, right? Yeah. Like this will be the guy that's going to be able to take care of my daughter.
Lawyer: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Not only are you 30, but you ain't done shit in 30 of the years. So here's my baby. Yeah. Yeah.
I mean the 16 hundreds, I guess that kind of stuff was happening all the time. Isn't that when like all the kings named Henry had 72 wives and stuff?
Host: I don't know when that was.
Lawyer: You should have called your mom. It's like, you don't even prepare for these things.
Host: No, that was –
Lawyer: Way earlier?
Host: -14 and 15 hundreds.
Lawyer: But still it's like coming out of that era.
Host: Yeah.
Lawyer: Gross.
Host: Yeah.
Can you ever imagine how horrible it would've been to be born back then?
Host: Yea and people romanticize it and they're like, oh, all the fancy dresses and-
Lawyer: All the guillotine and women's suppression.
Host: Guillotine…that's kind of a little bit of for foreshadowing there.
Lawyer: Is it?
Host: I mean to a certain extent.
So back to this 30-year-old man with the 12-year-old wife. He went by Latouche. That was his, it was part of his name. So I guess it just became like a little nickname.
Lawyer: I'm already not sure about this. I'm – Latouche?
Host: His name's Latouche.
Lawyer: Trash name, trash name. That's some foreshadowing right there.
Host: So although the couple did have one child together, a little girl about a year after they were married, Isabelle's husband quickly proved himself to be an absolute fucking nightmare. He was violent. He was jealous. He was a lazy alcoholic who often beat his young wife bloody.
And he could rarely provide food for her. She had to ask her parents for food a lot, and they had to take food over to her. Or she spent a lot of her time dining with her parents at their house. Like I mentioned, he didn't have a farm of his own. So apparently around the time they got married, he worked at two farms near Trois-Riveries.
But he ended up leaving both of them, which left his very young family with pretty much no income. And Isabelle later said that he drank so much he physically could no longer even move and wasn't able to work because of that. So sounds like he was really putting ‘em back.
Lawyer: Upstanding guy, upstanding.
Host: Yeah.
Lawyer: Minus the up and the standing.
Host: So according to later testimony and hearsay, Isabelle frequently complained that she wished her husband were dead when she visited her parents. A couple of times Isabelle's father, and that's Jacques again, he tried to talk to Latouche and tell him, you really need to straighten up, get a job, stop drinking, stop mistreating my daughter. And Latouche it’s said would even agree, but he never really stuck to it. He always kind of slid back into his old slimy ways.
Lawyer: Like, ah, maybe, maybe I'm going to get it right.
Host: Just kidding!
Lawyer: JK, JK JK.
Host: So both parents, and that's as a reminder, Gillette, who is the ninth great grandma in the story here, and her husband Jacques, they tried to help their young daughter, but all of their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. I couldn't find many details about how exactly they tried to help other than that, they thought about going to court but since Gillette couldn't read or write, she didn't think she would've been taken seriously.
They also considered moving her home, but they knew that Latouche would, you know, come for her and that the effort would ultimately also be a failure.
Lawyer: I wonder what the divorce process was in the 16, whatever.
Host: There must have been one because that same king that you were referencing, he got divorced to be, that's why he basically restructured the church of England. And I guess granted, these people may or may not have been Protestants. I mean, we don't really, we don't know anything about their religion. But he made it so that you could get a divorce because before that, if you were a Catholic, you literally could not, there was nothing pretty much you could do other than like accuse your wife of treason and behead her. And that was if you were the king. So, I mean, I don't know what regular ass people did
Lawyer: It was only available for the king probably. Otherwise, you stuck with your-
Host: Special privileges.
Lawyer: Shitty Latouche husband.
Host: So this brings us to ‘72 in the story. It's been a pretty crummy year of verbal and physical abuse barely a year into the couple's marriage. And one day that year, Latouche beat Isabelle nearly to death. And since efforts to separate their daughter from her husband were not progressing, Gillette and her husband decided that they needed to take more drastic action.
Lawyer: Do do do do do do do doooooooo. So the ninth grade grandma is the murderer? I thought it was the eighth earlier when you was talking about her.
Host: No, I just wanted to kind of explain, how I was related to this interesting family. So, yeah, that was Isabelle's half sister and her name was Marie. She's not really, she's not really involved in the story at all.
Lawyer: Crazy that she's not involved in the story.
Host: I know. And there's, well, I don't want to say this yet either, really. Cause it gives too much away, but alright, yeah. She was a little older and if you remember, she was also married at 14, so apparently, she was living a few towns away with her husband. So she had her own life.
Lawyer: She dodged a bullet there, the whole line, the whole kinship.
Host: Yeah. So the family, Gillette, Jacques and their six kids, well, I guess seven kids technically, had a farm across the river from their home. And on May 15th Isabelle and her parents crossed the river to work on the farm. And when they were crossing the river, they happened to see Latouche.
He was helping a friend get cows across the river, and they told him that they wanted to meet tomorrow you know, at the family home for dinner. And he said he would meet them. And it's unclear there wasn't anything that came out in the testimony or interrogations that indicated when they decided that they were going to do this, but at some point in time, they had decided they were going to try to poison him.
Lawyer: Snapped.
Host: So when he came and met them the next day for dinner, Gillette prepared a soup and it was kind of, I don't know what kind of soup it was. Obviously I wasn't there, but apparently it had a lot-
Lawyer: Poison.
Host: Going on.
Lawyer: Poison, poison.
Host: All kinds of vegetables and beans and whatever, so she figured there were these this weed out on the farm that people noticed killed pigs if pigs ate some of it. So they figured they would put four or five of these leaves in his soup. They were about half as wide and half as long as a finger. So they figured Latouche probably wouldn't notice them.
So they put these leaves in his bowl and he's eating and apparently he's really chowing down. And the family's kind of like slurping their soup, watching nervously. And they were apparently wondering if he would double over, if he would change colors, if he would get cramps, if he would throw up, but to their complete astonishment, he finished the bowl of soup and was 100% completely fine. The poisoning attempt was a complete failure.
Lawyer: Not scientists, these folks, huh?
Host: Apparently not. And I mean, I don't know. Did they ever observe how much it took to kill a pig? Because I feel like they needed to double or triple that up for a human, right? I don't know how, how many, you know, different observations they took of these pigs dying from eating this thing. sounds like
Lawyer: Sounds like this was a very poorly thought out murder plan.
Host: Half hatched.
After their poisoning attempt failed on the next night which was the 17th… Let's, let's approach it from this angle - Gillette says that Latouche and Isabelle are in the barn and Latouche is beating Isabelle. So Gillette goes out there and a fight breaks out because Gillette is trying to separate Latouche from her daughter.
He's obviously much stronger than her and overpowers her. He, according to her testimony later, he was pulling her around by her hair and actually ripped clumps of her hair out. He apparently also was biting her fingers trying to get her off of him. And eventually in self-defense, to protect herself and her daughter, Gillette picked up a hoe that was leaning against a barrel and hit him in the head with it. After hitting him in the head with the hoe he kind of fell to the ground.
Lawyer: Ahhhhh so self defense claim?
Host: Yeah. He fell on the ground and the family crossed the river back to their home. And they said they expected, he would just be back home in an hour or half an hour or so. He would kind of wake up and come to and come back to the house.
I mean, I don't know, just, is that what you would want? An angry person who you just beat in the head to show up at your house?
Lawyer: And also, if you were afraid for your life of this man, then you was like, ah, this is a little smack and he’s gonna be, he’s gonna be, he’s gonna feel better. He’s not going, he’s gonna stop trying to kill me and my daughter. Yeah he can come on home when he wakes up.
What? Come on home when he wakes up? What is this? Botched ass murderers. What is up with these people?
Host: They're waiting around for Latouche to show back up at the house.
Lawyer: Allegedy, allegedly.
Host: Yes, allegedly. And when he didn't return, they went back across the river to their barn and they found him there dead.
Lawyer: SHOCK. Shocking, shocking. They found his, they found his dead body where they had killed him. What a shock.
Host: Very shocking.
Lawyer: Can't believe it.
Host: I'm sure they were very shocked, and in their shock, they decided that they had to get rid of the body. So all three of them dragged him down to the river and pushed him in.
They were thinking, I guess, that if he was found in the river - apparently this was a really strong river - so their first hope was that he wouldn't be found because he would be swept away out into the ocean or something. But they also hoped that if he was found in the river, that the river would've concealed the actual cause of death and made that a little bit unclear.
Apparently after dumping his body Jacques, the father went home and eventually his wife and daughter fled into the woods to hide. Then on the 19th, which was two days later, Jacques, Isabelle's father, was arrested and his properties were seized.
During the interrogation Jacques said that he was innocent. And this was where the problem really started because there were actually several witnesses to the crime.
Lawyer: Oh, okay. So they continue to be really shit murderers. Okay.
Host: Yeah.
Lawyer: Mm-hmm yeah.
Host: So flashback to that family barn on the night of the 17th. Turns out that,
Lawyer: So yeah, what had really happened was…
Host: What had actually happened, was that Gillette was mad about the poisoning attempt failing. So she went out in the barn to confront her son-in-law while he was working in the barn.
Lawyer: And what was it? She was going to say…
Host: And he was not beating Isabelle for once. He was just out in the barn.
Lawyer: And she was going to say, “how dare you not die, mother?” Like, what does that mean? Confront him?
Host: What she actually said to him was, “now there's a nice son-in-law” and he became very irritated and retorted. “Why aren't I very nice?”.
And apparently these comments devolved into a screaming match of insults until Gillette could no longer stand to look at Latouche. She just had such a burning hatred for him. At that point after hurling, insults back and forth for a little while, Gillette picked up a garden hoe - so that part was consistent - and she hit Latouche with it, but the strike had no effect on him at all and he lunged forward and attacked her. So again, this part's kind of consistent. He's apparently dragging her by her hair. He rips out clumps of it. He's biting her fingers. He completely overpowered her.
So she shouted to her 12 year old daughter for help, as one does. She might be 13 by this time. So very strong and mature at 13. Isabelle came out into the barn and she wanted to help her mom, but she was completely paralyzed with fear and apparently could do absolutely nothing.
So Isabelle's dad, Gillette's husband Jacques, heard the commotion and ran out into the barn. He saw his wife and Latouche and he struggled to separate them. As Latouche tried to fight him, Gillette managed to grab the hoe again and swing it at Latouche for a second time. This time she hit him on the head, and he actually fell to the ground with blood streaming down his face.
After that Jacques took the hoe from his wife because he didn't believe she was strong enough to do any damage with it. And once Jacques had the hoe, he raised it over his head to hit Latouche, and Latouche started screaming. And apparently according to witnesses, he was saying, saying a lot of stuff like “help you're killing me, stop”. And just screaming, shouting out for an extended period of time.
Jacques struck him and blood splattered everywhere. Latouche grabbed his father-in-law kind of tried to get him to stop, but he was pretty weak at this point. And Jacques was easily able to just shrug him off and keep going. As Latouche continued to scream for help, Gillette became concerned that her husband was, a wuss basically, and was going to change his mind. So she started screaming at her husband to kill him just shouting, “kill him, finish the job”, over and over, apparently. Jacques hit Latouche with the hoe over and over again.
Apparently the barn was, as you can imagine, I don't even know it looked like the scene of, what's that movie?
Lawyer: I blacked out there for a while because you had promised me a lighter episode and then you chopped a man up with a hoe in a barn in front of a 12-year-old.
Host: It looked like a scene from Psycho. That's what it looked like. The prom one? Isn't that it? Blood everywhere.
Lawyer: Right. You missed my whole, I'm already blacked out
Host: I heard you.
Lawyer: I can't hear.
Host: I heard you.
Lawyer: I can't process any of this.
Host: It's fun. It's 1650s. It's light. It's airy. It's easy breezy,
Lawyer: You have a strange definition of all of these phrases that you're using.
Host: After the hoe incident, the family decided it was time to go home. They exited their barn and they went on across the, they started to go across the river. But unbeknownst to them, and apparently thanks to the very, still silent night air which allowed sound to travel very easily, two brothers-in-law, who were friends of Latouche and were on the other side of the river, heard the entire thing happening from start to finish.
Lawyer: And now let me ask you another question.
Host: I think I know what you're going to ask, but go for it. What?
Lawyer: They just sat there and listened to the whole thing? Like they didn't?
Host: Mm-hmm yeah.
I knew that's where you're going to ask. And I've been thinking about this and I can only assume - it's not a little like stream, you need a boat to cross. And so I can only imagine that they didn't have a way to cross is what I was thinking.
Lawyer: Hmm.
Host: Obviously, I don't know, but apparent it's like a pretty significant river with very fast flow. So I imagine they just didn't have a way to get across.
Lawyer: Alright. Maybe we'll give them a pass.
Host: These two guys also later stated when they gave statements to the police, that they could identify individual voices such as the voice of Latouche screaming things like, “Oh my God. I am dead. You're killing me”.
They could also pick out Gillette's voice screaming at her husband to kill Latouche and they could also hear the individual blows of the hoe. They said they listened to these sounds for over an hour and half. Which is, a really long time. I kind of agree with you. In that time y'all, couldn't borrow a boat from somebody?! We were going to give you a pass!
Lawyer: So, we're back torturing people here on the Murderer You Know.
Host: When the family came out of the barn, these two guys shouted across the river to Jacques that they knew he killed his son-in-law and that there were plenty of witnesses so he would be hanged and Jacques shouted something to his wife about what a bad idea this was and how he knew this was going to happen. And they all went back home in complete shock.
They did return to the barn as they stated when they were interrogated. But apparently, they hoped when they went back that Latouche, they thought there was some slim chance that Latouche might be alive because that would get them out of the complicated situation they had just placed themselves in.
Lawyer: They covered the brain, the, the, the barn in his brain matter.
Host: Yeah.
Lawyer: And they thought he was just going to, regenerate?
Host: I mean, they thought he might be okay.
Lawyer: Mm mm-hmm.
Host: Maybe, just maybe.
Lawyer: These people are not scientists. Definitely not medical doctors.
Host: Well, remember the, the poisoning part, we already knew that about them.
Lawyer: Yeah. That's what I'm saying. They're falling short here, time after time.
Host: As soon as they entered the barn they immediately knew there was absolutely no chance that this guy was alive and eventually they did decide to throw his body into the river. And although Isabelle hadn't participated in the murder at all, she did help her parents drag her husband's body to the river and toss it in. On the next day-
Lawyer: They couldn't, they couldn't leave the 12-year-old at home to get some rest?
Host: No, apparently not.
Lawyer: Mm, okay.
Host: Yeah. I mean this whole thing was her fault. She did complain that she wanted her husband dead you know what I'm saying? So you know, those 12-year-olds, they mean everything they say.
Lawyer: I'm blacked out again. Lack of oxygen.
Host: On the next day, the 18th Latouche's friends, the two that heard him being murdered from across the river, they decided to look for their friend, or they feared more likely his body, at Isabelle's parents' home.
Lawyer: So they got a boat?
Host: No, because the home is on the side of the river where they were. On the opposite side of the barn.
Lawyer: Gotcha.
Host: So they didn't need a boat yet. And they brought two friends with them who, either just came along because they were upset because they learned their friend had potentially been murdered or they might have come along because the two witnesses were scared.
Either way the group of guys didn't find anything but they did see Jacques entering his house and they decided to go and talk to him. And when they got there, Jacques apparently came back out of his house with a musket and confronted them. And he checked if his gun was loaded and then cocked the little, what is that, hammer thing or whatever it's called back.
And when they asked about Latouche, she said they wouldn't find him. And when they said “that's because you murdered him”. He said, “No, I haven't seen him since Monday. He went on a trip to new England.”
Lawyer: Yeah. So he went on a trip right after shouting repeatedly that he was being murdered.
Host: Well, you'll see. They have an explanation for who is shouting things that will come up soon.
So on the 19th -
Lawyer: Interesting. Okay.
Host: - the next day, the two witnesses without their other friends did go to the barn to see what they could find there. And obviously as soon as they looked in the barn, they were absolutely horrified. Like I said, there was just a mess. A horrible, horrifying, life ruining mess everywhere.
They also found some stockings and some human teeth in the mess, which they presumed belonged to their friend and any doubts they might have had about what they heard two nights ago, completely vanished when they…
They hoped maybe, you know, they just misheard - they didn't see it for themselves. So they kind of had convinced themselves maybe anything could be going on. But as soon as they saw the barn, they just knew that they were right. They felt really sick so they had to leave the barn for fresh air and reality hit them that their friend really was murdered. They went to the police and they gave statements about what they saw in the barn and what they heard two nights before and that's when police went to the family home and they arrested Jacques. But his wife and daughter could not be found.
Lawyer: I mean, yeah, again, just poorly thought out like no cleanup. No-
Host: Well, don't worry this family, this family, while they might not be doctors or scientists, they did come up with an explanation for everything.
Lawyer: Alright. I'm ready.
Host: So well, and unfortunately, part of their shortcoming was that the dad was arrested first and they also hadn't come up with a cohesive story to all tell. So the dad told a different story.
Lawyer: Problematic, problematic.
Host: Than his wife and daughter which created, yeah, a little bit of a problem in terms of the outcome for them when it came to the sentencing. So in addition to-
Lawyer: Oh yeah bevause, what's her name? Gillette already said that it was self-defense.
Host: Correct.
Lawyer: Alright. Okay.
Host: In addition to the barn and the witnesses there was also more damaging evidence against the family. One of the four men who spent the day after the murder, looking for Latouche's body testified that Jacques, the dad, said to him that Latouche would die by no other hand than his own.
And the couple's 10-year-old son - remember I said they married all of their very young daughters off, but they still had one that I guess was too young even for her dad too young to marry off. And they also had a 10-year-old son, Nicholas - and when he was questioned by an attorney the day after his father's arrest, he said that on the night of the murder, his parents and sister had gone to the barn and then returned home after which doesn't sound that suspicious to me. What were they just going to stay at the barn forever? But apparently it was suspicious for whatever reason.
And he also told, told the officers that his mother and sister fled into the woods the day before the father was arrested.
Lawyer: Thaaaaaat's suspicious.
Host: And he also heard his mom say that she would kill Latouche and heard his sister say that she wanted her husband dead. So he kind of spilled the beans on all of that. Poor 10-year-old little kid, because now he's going to be like parentless, everythingless. He didn't know.
Lawyer: Yep.
Host: He didn't think it through poor guy.
So while Jacques is in custody and his 10 year old son is, ruining his life, before his wife and daughter were found he denied that Latouche was murdered. And he said that the blood in the barn was from cleaning a sturgeon and that all of the neighbors made false claims against him because they didn't like him.
And if you're wondering what a sturgeon is-
Lawyer: I was just about to ask you that because I, I was thinking like surgeon. Like a surgeon, how that it's how's that any better that you murdered a surgeon?
Host: It's a fish.
Lawyer: Ah.
Host: It's a big fish. I was looking up and they can be up to 16 feet long and 800 pounds. So I guess, I mean, as far as, what else might I have killed in my barn that could create such a mess? I guess that would be a good choice.
Lawyer: So that was, and he had a, he chopped the sturgeon. He chopped the sturgeon to death with a hoe becauseeeeeee…
Host: I don't know. I don't have anything on that.
Lawyer: Alright.
Host: I don't have anything on that. I don't know if he brought the hoe up. I don't know if he said he used it on the sturgeon.
Lawyer: Okay. Just checking.
Host: So the day after Jacques was arrested, Gillette and Isabelle were found in the forest and brought into custody. And this is when they tell their story about self-defense which I already went through a little bit earlier, and their stories are super consistent and they're almost exactly the same as each other.
The only discrepancy is that Gillette claimed that Latouche died in the barn and Isabelle claimed that he died outside of the barn. But other than that, the mom and daughter were right on the same page.
Lawyer: They've probably been out in the woods like, what's our fucking story going to be, bro? We’ve got to come up with something good.
Host: Yeah. Most likely.
So they maintained that self-defense story as their official story. But the report, which was compiled by the scribe in Trois Rivieres included witness testimony as well to create a more thorough version of events from all sides. So after Gillette and Isabelle gave that statement about the self-defense, the officers confronted Jacques again, and they asked him why his statement was so different compared to the statement that his wife and daughter gave. And he said that he didn't want to say anything until his wife was questioned for that exact reason. And he also continued to state that the witness testimony was false and he changed his story to say that he absolutely swore his wife's testimony was true instead of the sturgeon story.
Lawyer: He didn't want to give his story before his wife was questioned because he didn't have a chance to get his story straight? That's literally what he told the police?
Host: That's literally apparently what he said. Yeah. So he's really, he's really stumbling over all of the place.
Lawyer: Buddy, Jacques, buddy. You really dropped the ball here.
Host: Poor guy.
So Gillette, in support of her story offered her bitten fingers up as proof of the self-defense theory. But after the preliminary investigation and interrogations in Trois-Riveries, the family was then sent to Quebec for a fair and equitable trial and the case was turned over to the intendant.
And I didn't know who the intendant was, so I looked it up and apparently it was a position second in command to the governor of the colony. And the intendant was responsible for the colony civil administration and gave particular attention to economic development and the administration of justice so I thought that was interesting.
And the intendant received the copies of the interrogations done in Trois-Riveries from the public prosecutor who apparently did the interrogations in the absence of a judge. And there was nothing in the records about why they didn't have a judge at the time. Like if he was just out of town or if there wasn't one appointed but for whatever reason, the public prosecutor did all of the work in Trois-Riveries.
I actually have part of the questioning that the intendant went through with each member of the family.
He started with the wife and he asked her things like when you were married, did you love your husband? To which she responded “not at all” so he asked her why she didn't love him. And she said that her father made her marry him that she didn't consent and that it was an arranged marriage and she didn't want to disobey her dad.
He also asked things like, are you happy your husband is dead? To which she said, no and that she wished she was dead instead of him. And they asked her if she hit her husband, if she helped her parents. And she said she did not help.
They also asked her, “Wasn't your husband's voice heard in Trois-Riveries while he was being murdered?”. And she said, because you asked this earlier, she said it was her father who was screaming like that because Latouche was killing all of them.
Lawyer: Aaah, okay. With the self-defense.
Host: So it gets back into the self-defense theory.
Lawyer: I got it.
Host: They asked her pointedly, why was your husband screaming? Was he being murdered? And she was like, no, that was my dad because this guy was killing us.
Lawyer: Mmmmmm.
Host: So next they question the dad. And I just want to talk about this part because this guy fully, threw his wife under the fucking bus to be backed up and driven over and backed up and driven over thousands of times.
Apparently, his resolve was weakening and he was really scared that the story of self-defense wasn't going to hold. And he was also very aware of the punishment for murder. So he basically, and he was also, I will say a lot of the documents described him as a weak and spineless man. So he told the intendant,
Lawyer: And that's probably why he beat a man to death because his wife told him to
Host: That's his story.
He told the intendant that his wife tried to poison Latouche and that when that failed, she hit him with the hoe the next day. And so the intendant asked, “how did you plan to kill your son-in-law?”. And he says, “My wife said to me, let's go to the farm. Once we were there, she implored me many times until we killed our son-in-law.
“Our daughter never spoke to me about her problems, but spoke to her mother about getting rid of her husband. Sometimes I was even forced to leave the house because my wife was so relentless about getting rid of our son-in-law. I delayed hoping she would change her mind.”.
Lawyer: He said, guess what Gillette? Your ass is going to prison.
Host: At the end, he apparently also said that he never meant his son-in-law any harm and that what he did was in obedience to his wife. So he's really like, maybe they didn't believe me that it was my wife, let me just hammer that home one more time.
Lawyer: Hey, by the way, in case you were wondering if I was a spineless git or a spineless git, I am in fact it spineless git.
Host: As a reminder, Gillette, ninth great grandma. Poor Gillette.
Lawyer: Don't love these – Gillette - what are you doing with this man? Oh yeah, I guess she was forced.
Host: You're right. She had no choice this poor child. At this time, by the way, she still is like 35. So she's still a baby.
Lawyer: Yeah. It is a really messed up situation.
Host: It's awful.
Lawyer: But like you said, I mean, what is, but what you were saying, the part that I think we kind of talked over top of a little bit is the fact that she's like all of 30. I guess felt like she had no other way out of this situation.
Host: Yeah. She felt like she was in a desperate situation, and she just wanted to help. I mean, can you imagine? She just wanted to help her literal 13-year-old daughter and he was abusive. I mean she was in an abusive situation and was scared for her life.
Lawyer: Not that, that makes what happened okay. Right.
Host: No.
Lawyer: That's the difficulty though. Like, yeah, there's got to be another way.
Host: Yeah. Yeah.
And obviously we don't live in 1670s Canada. We don't know what that other way might have been, but yeah. I mean, there's no justifying - you don't get to take justice into your own hands and be a vigilante.
Lawyer: Vigilante justice.
Host: So finally Gillette was questioned and she basically, she kind of admitted to everything. I think she was still maintaining that it was done in self-defense and that her daughter was abused, you know, the entirety of the marriage. But they asked her things that the husband had called her out on.
So the intendant said, “What kind of plant did you try to use to try to poison your son-in-law?”. She said she didn't know and described it. And then they asked her, “Did you go into the barn to see your son-in-law one hour after sunset where you said to him ‘Now there's a nice son-in-law.’?”.
And she said, “Yes and he answered me, ‘Why aren't I very nice?’”. They asked her, “Did you not take a hoe that was next to the barrel and use it to strike your son-in-law?”. She said, “That is true.”. They asked if her husband came out at the same time to take the hoe and finish killing the son-in-law. She also said that was true.
They asked her if she called Isabelle out to help kill Latouche and she said, “Yes, but I don't know if my daughter struck him.”. And they asked her, “How many times did you strike the deceased?”. Which I didn't mention, but they'd also asked Jacques that. And Jacques said that it was less than 10 times before he died and she said, “I gave the first blow, but it did not draw blood. Then I hit him again on the head and he fell to the ground. My husband came in at the same time. I don't know how many times he struck him, but after many blows he died.”.
Then they asked her, “After you killed your son-in-law, what did you do?” and she said, “When we knew he was dead, the three of us threw him into the river.”. She also admitted that they maliciously killed Latouche and that they thought about it for a really long time, because they never had any peace after Isabelle married him.
So she's kind of just, I mean, obviously don't know about 1670s Canada, but it sounds like she's incriminating herself. I mean, now it would be going from second degree murder to, or manslaughter to first degree murder. Right? She has intent, a plan?
Lawyer: Yeah well, I mean, I don't think we're ever in a manslaughter situation. I mean, this is murder, but yeah.
Host: Yeah.
Lawyer: It takes you from second to first degree or in that premeditated, like this is something I sat and hatched before I came and did.
Host: Yeah.
Lawyer: But the thing that I was going to say is, I definitely don't think the truth is going to set you three under these circumstances Gillette.
Host: Yeah.
Lawyer: I think in 16th century France or whatever. We're in Quebec. I think they're going to probably guillotine you. It's coming.
Host: Yes. Another thing that struck me was how quickly all of this happened.
I know I said the 17th, the 18th, the 19th, I don't think I said what month it was. It was may. And so on June 8th, so much more quickly, it seems to me…
Lawyer: Wow. Yeah.
Host: …than things happen nowadays. The public prosecutor and Quebec rendered his verdict, which was that all three assailants should be executed. And he did not recommend any exceptions for Isabelle because of her age, which was, reminder, 13.
Lawyer: For the 13-year-old? Looooord.
Host: Yeah. He thought she should be executed just like her parents, even though she didn't even know…
Lawyer: She didn't kill him. Ooh.
Host: So when - apparently after the public prosecutor and again, not a lawyer, not Canadian, not living in the 1600s .I don't know how many of this works now or then, or otherwise - apparently at the time the public prosecutor rendered a verdict and then it was given to the intendant and the intendant had a small court, which was made up of five men and they basically gave the sentence based on the verdict from the public prosecutor.
They agreed with the verdict and the punishment for Isabelle's parents, but they did take mercy on her because of her young age and they decided she should not be executed. The family appealed their sentence that day. Actually it was the next day, on the ninth they appealed their sentence, but the verdict was upheld and the only small change that was made was that Gillette and Jacques had to pay a 60 livres instead of a hundred livres fine.
So their fine was reduced. But they were then convicted of the same, both of them, of the same crime of imprisonment and murder committed against their son-in-law Latouche. And later that afternoon at four o'clock, the sentences were carried out as recommended by the public prosecutor.
Lawyer: I have a feeling they're not going to be able to pay that fine.
Host: I guess it came, their assets were seized on the day that Jacques was arrested. So I guess they could just take it from their seized assets, presumably?
So for reparation, all three were led by ropes around their neck, from the prison in Quebec, with torches in their hands to the door of the church in the city, Jacques was bareheaded and in a shirt and the woman were dressed in shirts to their waists. Once they arrived at the church, they had to kneel and ask for forgiveness from God and the king. And after that, they were led to a scaffold erected for their executions in the public square.
So Jacques he was executed on something it it's called the wheel. It's in the shape of the cross of St. Andrew, which is basically a cross with an elaborate decorated wheel around like the cross section. And it's erected on the scaffolding, up on a post parallel to the ground, so he can basically lay on it and look up at the sky. He was attached to that and his right arm was broken with two blows from a one and a half inch metal pipe after which, because check this out, after which he was strangled because the-
Lawyer: What, bro, what is wrong with you?
Host: Me?
Lawyer: How is this lighter? I can't get over. You. I gotta go. I'm signing off. Turn the, play, this, the theme music it's over.
Host: Just listen, just listen.
Lawyer: Uh uh.
Host: Because this is very interesting. He was strangled because the intendant’s court, who got to decide, you know, agree basically with the public prosecutor, they were considered merciful. So he was strangled instead of the typical punishment on the wheel, which was that all of his limbs would've been broken with 11 blows and then he would've been wrapped around the wheel so that his hands and feet were touching the back of his head. Then he would be put on a small carriage, like in the town square and left there for people to throw stuff at
Lawyer: I've blacked out again.
Host: I'm not laughing at this situation. I’m laughing at you.
Lawyer: Who, who are at you now?
Host: I think this is very interesting.
I don't know if you remember, but there's a torture museum in Germany. I want to say it's in Dresden, but I could be completely, completely wrong. And I was just fascinated by that museum as a kid. Fascinated to the point that when we went back to Germany in 2018, we went again. All of us were like, we have to go here again and they have iron maidens and the wheel and these like awful masks that they make you wear if you're like a town gossip and stuff.
And I just think it's so fascinating.
Lawyer: I mean, sure. That's a word that you could use to describe your, I mean, strange fascination…
Host: Obviously I'm not alone. There's a whole museum about it. That's been there for at least..
Lawyer: Count me out bruh.
Host: …20 years? You went.
Lawyer: Count me out.
Host: You went too.
Lawyer: I didn't purposefully go back.
Host: I just thought it was very - I mean, granted, it is way, way better. I would imagine to just get the two blows and then be taken out compared to all of that other stuff he would have to go through. But I just thought it was amazing that that was what was considered mercy.
Lawyer: But also like, who in the actual literal, ooooh. I can hear dad telling me not to say the, the F word so I'm trying like, oh,
Host: Just, who thought of that? We'll just beat you twice and then we'll have a secret rope to strangle you so that you don't have to go through all the rest of the torture, but we're still going to put you up on the little carriage on your wheel, in the town square as a lesson to other people. They still put him up there and they said that part of the punishment was carried out symbolically as a warning to other criminals.
That was their course of action. And what I wanted to know is when was torture like this made illegal? Because now if someone's executed, whether or not we think they should be, whether or not I agree with that, it has to be quick and painless, right? It can't be like, let's come up with the most insanely painful over the top thing that we can possibly imagine and do that.
Lawyer: Yeah, no, uh uh. We aren’t doing none of that.
Host: I want to know when torture was made illegal.
Lawyer: It depends on where you are.
Host: Well, it says in 1940.
Lawyer: Torture was never legal here.
Host: The universal declaration of human rights. 1948. Yeah. That's what it says.
Lawyer: Jesus.
Host: It's also listed as one of the crimes that constitute a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva convention of the treatment of victims of war. That's very recent in 1948, following the horrific abuses of World War II -
Lawyer: I want to say World War II, yea.
Host: The general assembly of the United Nations inserted their prohibition against torture in the landmark universal declaration of human rights.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they were still putting criminals to death in this way. That was more associated with prisoners of war.
Lawyer: Right.
Host: I wonder because somewhat recently I read a date of like the last person who was guillotined, and it shocked me. It was in the 1900s sometime. I guess that wasn't really torture though. That's pretty quick.
Lawyer: Which part? Being guillotined? Yeah. I mean, I guess unless they botched it.
Host: 1977. They were still guillotining in 1977.
Lawyer: Yeah. But they weren't doing that here, that's the point. Look up when it, when it stopped in Canada, I think that's more relevant to our story. They don't even have the death penalty anymore in Canada.
Host: When I was talking about this to my mom, I was saying that it's just crazy to me. I know the 1600s was a long time ago, but it was just crazy to me because this seems so like dark ages, medieval, you know what I mean? And it just seemed really crazy to me that this kind of thing was happening in the late 1600s.
And she was saying, yeah, how you pointed out that Canada doesn't even have the death penalty now, because we were talking about Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. Do you know who they are?
Lawyer: No.
Host: This was a guy and his girlfriend, and he basically was into raping and killing young girls. And he, I mean, according to the girlfriend, he brainwashed her into helping and they raped and killed her younger sister together. And they filmed it.
And this woman is out of jail now, currently. Quickly got out of jail. So it's just, I don't know, it's completely unrelated, but it's just very interesting that they went from, let's tie a person's legs and wrap them around a wheel and then throw stuff at them in the town square to a person who did that, like getting out of jail.
Lawyer: Pretty crazy. It's hard. What's the balance, right? I mean, definitely the balance is not wrapping people's legs around the wheel.
Host: No, I'm glad they don't do that anymore.
Lawyer: So what happened to Gillette? Did they wrap her ass around the wheel too?
Host: No. Let me tell you. I wanna see how long Karla was in jail for…
12 years. That's kind of a long time, but probably not for what she, for raping and murdering…
Lawyer: Your sister on camera?
Host: She said that she was a victim too, and that he forced her and brainwashed her and all that.
Lawyer: Here on this light episode of the Murderer You Know.
Host: What happened to Gillette? Now see, Gillette's lucky. One time it paid off to be a woman in history. The punishment of the wheel was never applied to women due to the decency of their sex. So she was hanged. And right after her husband, at the same time, basically she was hanged and Isabelle, as part of her punishment was required to watch.
Lawyer: Ooooooghhhh.
Host: As both of her parents were executed.
Lawyer: I was wondering why she was there.
Host: Yeah, I know. And apparently, she, I mean, as you can imagine was absolutely hysterical. She said later that she wished she was dead and that her husband was not. She cried out to her mom, begging her not to leave her. But ultimately she was left all alone without her -
And now the, now all the documents I was reading, changed it up. They were like, oh, her kind father. Like, oh, he was a real shit guy, but he did love her. Like, oh cool.
Lawyer: Oooooh.
Host: - best friend, her fiercely protective mother who had always been her listening ear and her guardian.
Lawyer: So how did you find articles in English anyways?
Host: I mean, you can translate them, but it's crazy. Cuz if you, it's also very interesting to me, there's just a lot of interesting things to me about this. Cause it's also very interesting to me that Quebec has public record going back that far. Well-maintained public record and they're these ripped, handwritten in fucking cursive, documents that you can barely, barely read.
Lawyer: That's cool.
Host: But it's amazing. I mean, the organization that requires to have all that documentation, like, I feel like there are more details about this crime than, stuff that happened in like the eighties in the US.
Lawyer: Right! That's what I was going to say. I was shocked that you found this level of stuff. I thought this was going to be a little light, easy breezy, 20 minute. Oops. They killed him.
Host: I will say in my defense.
Lawyer: You had to chop his ass up all over the barn.
Host: In my defense. I don't ever think I said this was going to be light. I think I said it was a little bit of like a fun twist because it's the 1600s. I don't think I said light.
Lawyer: I feel MIS. LEAD.
Host: We'll here's something light in 1673, Isabelle remarried. So I still somewhat, don't like this, a 26 year old soldier who was also a widower with no children and they eventually had six children together starting in 1676 when Isabelle turned 17.
Lawyer: So wait, how long did she?... She remarried like the year after her parents got murdered?
Host: Yeah.
Lawyer: Or, death penaltied?
Host: But I mean, imagine the, similar to her mom, imagine the situation she was in. She's a 13-year-old single mother. Her parents are gone. I don't know who, who had to care for her two youngest siblings. Was it her? I don't know. I mean, she was probably in a really desperate situation.
Lawyer: Sad.
Host: Yeah. But I thought that part was nice, because it seems like they had more happiness than she had experienced with her first marriage.
Lawyer: Seems like a low bar, but alright.
Host: Yeah, I guess it is a pretty low bar. Also. He, he could have been shit. I don't know anything about this second husband. We're-
Lawyer: We're going to just put it into the air that he was fine. We got to, we got to take a win out of it.
Host: We have to hope, we have to hope so. Yeah. That's the story of…
Lawyer: Explains a lot about you kid .
Host: I mean, I asked my husband yesterday, I was like, what do you think the punishment should be for two parents who kill their daughter's abuser?
Well, first I said, for two people who kill someone and he was like, it depends. And I was like, what if it's two people who kill their daughter's abuser? And he was like, that seems fine to me.
Lawyer: Jury nullification at its finest.
Host: So I just, I don't know. I feel, I don't know them. I wasn't there, but I feel like they thought they were doing their best.
Lawyer: Yeah. It's definitely not a thing. I mean, in the law, at least it's hard though, because it is a jury of your peers and people are going to, that's the definition of jury nullification that you make a juror feel so bad that they find the person not guilty, even though they clearly are guilty in the law.
Host: Well, did you catch the part that they're definitely, and again, I don't live in Canada, so I don't know. But did you catch the part that at least at that time there wasn't a jury?
Lawyer: Yeah. All that was weird.
Host: It was just this-
Lawyer: All that was super weird. Just the guy and his court.
Host: Yeah.
That's what I wanted you to look into. How is it now? Do they have jury trials now? How have those things changed? Cause I thought it was really interesting that it was just all just government officials that got to decide what the outcome was going to be.
Lawyer: Yeah. I mean, I don't really know anything about Canada obviously, but yeah, I'm sure that they, I think that they have a constitution similar to ours and that they have very similar, constitutional rights to ours: right to a jury, probably right to remain silent, all that stuff. I mean, I'm sure it's not identical.
Host: It says most civil cases in Canada- Would a murder be considered a civil case?
Lawyer: No.
Host: It's a criminal case. Right?
Lawyer: Under Canadian law, a person has the constitutional right to a jury trial for all crimes punishable by five years of imprisonment or more. But that's Wikipedia. So
Host: This is justice.gc.ca, which is an actual government website from Canada. And it says most civil cases in Canada are tried by judges without a jury, however, anyone charged with a criminal offense for which there can be a prison sentence of five years or more has the right to a trial by jury.
Lawyer: Now that's interesting because in America you have right to a jury trial if it's punishable by any amount of time in jail.
Host: Even if it's a civil case or no? Would that just be a speeding ticket and stuff? What is, what would be a civil case?
Lawyer: Civil is different. Civil is suing each other. Civil is not actually the government being involved.
Host: Gotcha.
Lawyer: It's you suing your neighbor for… I mean, there's some, that's the confusion. There's lots of criminal acts that can be sued civilly.
Host: Mmmm.
Lawyer: If you recklessly run into me with your car, that's probably a crime and I can also sue you civilly for whatever recompense I believe I deserve. You can call the cops when somebody trespasses, but if they trespass and mess your stuff up, you can also sue them.
So yeah. I mean, it's, it's parallel in a lot of ways, but you don't usually go to jail, civil cases. There's only, you know, fines available and other things of that nature, injunctions and things like that. So your Liberty is only typically at issue in criminal cases and I think you have a right to a jury trial in every criminal case and you have a right to a jury in some civil cases. I don't know what sort of civil cases, but I know you have a right to a jury trial in some civil cases as well. So, yeah, it's interesting that you have to be facing more than five years to get a jury in Canada.
Host: Well, it did say in the next paragraph that in some cases, a person charged with a criminal offense, for which there can be a prison sentence of less than five years may have the right to choose a trial by jury.
But I guess you're only guaranteed that, right if it's a prison sentence of five years or more. But I mean, like I said, I'm just reading off of this government of Canada website.
Lawyer: Well, I definitely don't think it's the interner or whatever his name is deciding who gets executed on the wheel anymore.
Host: I think they're pretty progressive there. You know, maybe he decides with his friends now instead of just-
Lawyer: He decided with his friends back then.
Host: That's true. He did you're right. I mean, we don't know for sure if he was friends with those people.
Lawyer: Poor little Isabelle.
Host: Yeah. I feel bad for her. I feel very bad for her. I feel bad for Gillette too, but yeah-
Lawyer: Bunny donuts.
We’ve gotten to another wonderful, happy ending here on the Murderer You Know.
Host: Listen. I don't know if this is coming as a shock to you. But I don't-
Lawyer: No, they keep getting murdered.
Host: I don't think there are going to be any happy, really happy… Isabelle, remarrying, maybe a nice guy is about- as happy of an ending as there's ever going to be
Lawyer: A glimmer of hope.
Host: I don't know if this is news to you.
Lawyer: It's fine. I'll be okay.
Host: I'm glad to hear it. So what do I always ask you? Do you, do you have anything to contribute?
I don't think we said at all - this is The Murderer You Know, thanks for listening. You can, if you are enjoying the podcast rate, review and subscribe wherever you listen. You can also check us out on Instagram: Murderer You Know Podcast, Facebook: Murderer You Know Podcast (@MYKpod). You can always email us at murdereryouknow@gmail.com... get all that important stuff out there. Do you have anything to contribute to add?
Lawyer: I mean, y'all really let me down when you wouldn't vote for bunny donuts. So , I'm going to take a couple weeks off. Get my mind right. Do some yoga, meditate on why people viciously kill one another.
Host: Does it make you feel better or worse to know? Does it make you feel better or worse to know that stuff like that was happening in the 1600s? Like in my mind, I feel like the world is getting worse and worse and worse and worse, but maybe it's not.
Lawyer: Okay. I see what you mean.
Host: Maybe it's always been shit. Is that better? That feels better. The world always having been shit, or not the world, because the world is a beautiful, amazing place, but human nature that humans have always done garbage things to each other makes me feel a little better than that it's not a new thing. You know what I mean?
Lawyer: I mean it's hard for me to conceptualize a government wrapping someone's body around a wheel as a form of execution. That's a little tough. But yeah, I mean maybe better?
Host: Yeah that's awful.
Lawyer: Maybe better to be like, all right, well, at least we're not doing shit like that anymore. You know?
Host: That's true. That's true.
Lawyer: But like I said, it explains a whole lot about you torture museum, torture museum, yearly membership
Host: I’ve been twice. Did you, did you have any contributions? Nothing? Just that…
Lawyer: Just talking shit.
Host: Well, my contribution is that next week. I wanted to switch it up a little this week, go a little old school, just for something-
Lawyer: Airy, fun, fresh…
Host: But next week we're going to talk about, I think what we, we teased last week. So it's going to come a little closer to home again, which was your childhood friend from the county up.
Lawyer: Yeah.
Host: So do you want to do, I, I usually do the teaser. If I knew someone, do you want to just-
Lawyer: So sad.
Host: Is that it? That it’s sad?
Lawyer: I'm interested to see if you got, because you did research on this one, right? I'm interested to see if you're going to be able to get kind of to the bottom of it. Cause I don't think I ever understood why it happened cause it really came out of left field. They were friends. I can't really remember if it had bridged into romantic.
I can't remember that, but the fact that it happened, like really took everyone out of left field. Yeah. They were like, who? Did what? Hmm. So yeah. I'm curious to see if you're gonna find out more details than even I knew.
Host: Yeah. Well, I guess we'll see.
Lawyer: I think, I think honestly, like a lot of our stories, it may be another, the path is lined with drugs and mistakes in small counties.
Host: Yeah. Ugh. That's so sad.
Lawyer: Yeah. Super sad. Like everything here on the Murderer You Know.
I'll see you
Host: I'll see you next week.
Lawyer: I guess until next time. Bye
