SERIAL KILLER: The Monster of Florence Pt. 2 with Alexis Linkletter from Crimes of Reddit

For this episode, Vanessa and Dr. Engels are joined again by Alexis Linkletter, co-hose of Crime House's newest show Crimes of Reddit. Between 1968 and 1985, a killer known as the Monster of Florence murdered eight couples on remote roads outside Florence, Italy, leaving behind chilling physical evidence and no clear culprit. Despite decades of investigation, multiple arrests, and shocking courtroom twists, no one was ever conclusively identified as the sole perpetrator. Forensic analysts are still examining DNA evidence today, and the case remains officially unsolved. Follow Crimes of Reddit wherever you listen to podcasts. If you’re new here, don’t forget to follow Serial Killers & Murderous Minds to never miss a case! Want all 2 parts of every case all at once? Join Crime House+ and get both parts of each case dropped together on Monday ad-free. Join atcrimehouseplus.com http://crimehouseplus.com or if you’re listening on Apple Podcasts, tap “Try Free” at the top of this show’s page. Serial Killers & Murderous Minds is a Crime House Original Podcast, powered by PAVE Studios. 🎧 Need More to Binge? Listen to other Crime House Originals Clues, Crimes Of Reddit, Murder True Crime Stories, Crime House 24/7, and more wherever you get your podcasts! Follow me on Social Instagram: @Crimehouse https://www.instagram.com/crimehouse/TikTok: @Crimehouse https://www.tiktok.com/@crimehouseFacebook: @crimehousestudios https://www.facebook.com/crimehousestudiosYouTube: @crimehousestudios https://www.youtube.com/@crimehousestudios

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Vanessa Richardson?

  Hi, everyone. Before today's episode, there's another show I want to tell you about. It's called What the Fact with Connor Tomlinson from Netflix's Love on the Spectrum and Carter Roy. Every week, they take three unbelievable true facts from history and tell you the full story behind them. Plus Connor's infectious energy that'll make you realize history is the most fascinating thing on earth. Follow What the Fact wherever you listen or subscribe on YouTube at What the Fact Pod.

• 0:36Speaker 01

  This is Crime House.

• 0:41Tristin Engels?

  Most of us would do anything for our closest friends. We support them through their toughest moments and keep all of their biggest secrets. Usually, that level of friendship is a beautiful thing. But such a tight bond between friends may have fueled unparalleled terror in Florence, Italy for over two decades. Between the 1960s and 1980s, authorities fought to track down a ruthless killer known as the Monster of Florence. And as they became more convinced that the crimes were being carried out by not just one killer, but multiple people working together, the web of lies, deceit, and past tragedies became harder to entangle. To this day, the full truth of the monstrous crimes remains shrouded in mystery.

• 1:36Vanessa Richardson?

  The human mind is powerful. It shapes how we think, feel, love, and hate. But sometimes it drives people to commit the unthinkable. This is Serial Killers and Murderous Minds, a Crime House original. I'm Vanessa Richardson.

• 1:51Tristin Engels?

  And I'm forensic psychologist Dr. Tristin Engels. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest minds in history, analyzing what makes a killer. And once again, Vanessa and I are thrilled to welcome Alexis Linkletter, the co-host of Crime House's newest show Crimes of Reddit. I am so excited to be back for part two.

• 2:10Vanessa Richardson?

  We are so happy to have you. And if you haven't checked out Crimes of Reddit yet, make sure to do it now. Every Tuesday, Alexis and Sabrina Deanna Roga are diving into the darkest crimes on Reddit, bringing you real stories, real reactions, and a dynamic you won't want to miss. You can subscribe on YouTube for full video episodes and follow wherever you get your podcasts. Trust me, you won't regret it.

• 2:33Tristin Engels?

  Yes, and for today, Alexis will introduce the case, just like she did in part one. And then be sure to stick around at the end of this episode for an extended sit-down as I talk to her about all things Crimes of Reddit, along with a special preview. And before we get started, be advised that this episode contains discussion of sexual assault, murder, mutilation, and dismemberment. So please, listen with care. Today, Vanessa and Dr. Engels conclude their deep dive into the Monster of Florence, a gruesome killer—or killers— who terrorized couples in Italy for over two decades. The monster's sheer level of violence wasn't heard of at the time. And with each crime, the same haunting clues were left behind.

• 3:17Tristin Engels?

  As Vanessa goes through the story, Dr. Engels will be talking about things like why some offenders commit gender-based violence, what a shifting MO can suggest about a sexually motivated killer, and how a suspect's past can come back and haunt them. And as always, they'll be asking the question, what makes a killer?

• 3:42Vanessa Richardson?

  By July of 1982, five couples had been brutally murdered in Florence, Italy over the last 14 years. Their names were Barbara Locci and Antonio Lobbianco, Stefania Petini and Pasquale Gentilcor, Carmela Di Nuccio and Giovanni Fogai, Susanna Combi and Stefano Baldi, and Antonella Meliorini and Paolo Minardi. The first set of double murders, Barbara and Antonio, occurred in 1968, several years before the next set kicked off a string of violence. And in each case, the couples had been killed in their cars while parked on remote roads, which were popular among young unmarried lovers

• 4:27Vanessa Richardson?

  who wanted somewhere private to be intimate together. In addition, the killer, who'd been dubbed the Monster of Florence, had mutilated most of the female victims' bodies in highly sexualized ways once they were dead. But there was no evidence he'd sexually assaulted them with his own body. Investigators had long believed they were likely dealing with a serial killer. But when they revisited the original case from 1968, they realized a team of killers may have been working together all along. Then they uncovered some highly suspicious behavior from one of the men connected to that case, Francesco Vinci. Both Francesco and his brother Salvatore had affairs with Barbara Locci before she was killed.

• 5:11Vanessa Richardson?

  And Barbara's husband, Stefano Mele, had tried to accuse Francesco of being present at the crime scene. Ultimately, only Stefano had been charged and convicted. But now, in the summer of 1982, Francesco's name had resurfaced. Florentine authorities had recently planted a bogus news story in an effort to draw out the killer. Shortly after, they learned that Francesco had abandoned his car in the woods. Investigators dug into Francesco's record. They discovered he had a past history of robbery and domestic violence charges. Not only was he capable of violence, but he seemed to be keeping close tabs on the Monster of Florence case and trying to avoid detection.

• 5:57Tristin Engels?

  Francesco is a compelling suspect on paper. His name kept resurfacing. The abandoned car is also significant. People don't normally leave a vehicle hidden in the woods without a reason. Is he trying to avoid being seen or destroying evidence or distancing himself from something like a crime? It's suspicious, but on their own, they don't make him guilty of anything. They certainly deserve further investigation, though, especially when you consider that he was closely following this investigation. That wouldn't be surprising on its own because many people follow active cases. We have podcasts, channels, TV stations dedicated to that very thing. But some offenders do monitor their own crimes to see how the investigation is unfolding. That's what these officers were hoping that the offender would be doing.

• 6:42Tristin Engels?

  And this isn't the only suspicious aspect about Francesco. There are quite a few things here that raise the suspicion, but that's not enough to make him guilty, though.

• 6:52Vanessa Richardson?

  Okay, hypothetically speaking, if Francesco was involved in all the murders, what would that suggest about how Barbara and Antonio's 1968 murder impacted him psychologically? If he'd been present for that murder, do you think he was maybe trying to relive it?

• 7:06Tristin Engels?

  I'm so glad you asked this because I've actually been thinking about this myself. Let's walk through it. Barbara and Antonio's murder was in 1968. It's now 1982. That was approximately 14 years ago. We don't know how old Francesco is now, but that would be useful information because we would know how old he was back then. We know from research on violent offending that highly emotional or traumatic experiences can become part of their fantasy life, like their template. Their later crimes can be an attempt to recreate certain aspects of that experience, and they make gradual modifications to fit their own evolving psychological needs. It's not that they would be trying to relive that night specifically.

• 7:51Tristin Engels?

  He'd be trying to relive the emotional state he had, the power, control, excitement, secrecy, et cetera. Of course, assuming that it's him.

• 8:02Vanessa Richardson?

  Investigators seem to believe that a monster may have been born that fateful day in 1968 and that his name was Francesco Vinci. However, they'd looked into so many suspects already just to be proven wrong about them, so they had to be thorough. They dug more into Francesco's whereabouts over the years and learned that he'd been near the scene each time a murder occurred. During the most recent set of murders, Francesco had been visiting his nephew, who lived about four miles from the scene. It was all adding up for investigators. This had to be at least one of their guys. And they felt that by questioning Francesco first, he might rat on potential accomplices, so they brought him into the station. They started by asking Francesco

• 8:47Vanessa Richardson?

  why he'd abandoned his car. He responded with a long, convoluted story about a woman and her jealous husband. Investigators were skeptical. Francesco's story didn't seem to have anything to do with why he ditched his car in the woods. He was clearly avoiding their question. So they pressed him further, but he still wouldn't crack. This only made them feel more sure they had their guy. So even without a confession, on August 17, 1982, they officially arrested Francesco and charged him with all 10 murders. While he awaited trial behind bars, police repeatedly questioned Francesco and tried to get him to name others. But still, they got nothing.

• 9:34Tristin Engels?

  Silence is one of the hardest behaviors to interpret in an investigation because it can mean a lot of different things. An innocent person could be silent because they're frightened, or they don't trust the investigators, or they're worried that anything they say might incriminate them or make them look worse to the investigators. And a guilty person could remain silent to protect themselves or protect someone else, or simply because they know anything they say is evidence. Also, they could have been advised to stay silent. Everyone should be silent because they know not to incriminate themselves. It's not evidence on its own of guilt or innocence, but an interrogation like this creates a lot of pressure.

• 10:15Tristin Engels?

  And we generally have a strong desire to escape anything that feels uncomfortable or distressing. And continuing to deny allegations is one way of escaping that for some people, like Francesco. For others, especially if they're exhausted, frightened, or suggestible, or convinced that no one's going to believe them anyway, confessing might feel like the easiest way to end the discomfort or to end the pressure that they're under, even if the confession isn't true. And the circumstances in how a confession is gained are critical for how valid and reliable it is later to be determined in court.

• 10:55Vanessa Richardson?

  When a suspect refuses to name other potential suspects, are they motivated by more loyalty to a group or by fear of being the rat?

• 11:04Tristin Engels?

  So my experience with this is very limited to a subset of the population who is housed in an environment where their immediate safety would be at risk. So it's very limited. It's prison, and in-prison infractions in particular. So I'm not a part of civil investigations, or never were. That said, it was a bit of both. I'd say they frequently refuse the label of a snitch or a rat for safety reasons. Their gang or their group would not tolerate that label because how it reflected on the group as a whole. It's not the only reason, though. I would say it's survival as well. When they did snitch, it was because of the perceived benefit outweighed the risk. It did happen every so often. Or conversely, it was false information designed to create problems for the person they snitched on.

• 11:49Tristin Engels?

  So there's a number of reasons, but overall, I would say it's a bit of both.

• 11:54Vanessa Richardson?

  Francesco's silence only seemed to add to the public's fear because people didn't think he was capable of the murders. Based on the precise stab wounds and removal of some of the female victim's genitalia, people felt the real killer must be a doctor, specifically a gynecologist. Francesco didn't meet that criteria. Still, he remained in prison. And as the months passed without another murder, people started to wonder if authorities had caught the killer after all. Unfortunately, they were wrong, and the monster's next murder would be the most puzzling one yet. In September of 1983, two male college students from Germany parked their Volkswagen camper

• 12:37Vanessa Richardson?

  on a secluded, narrow lane in the hills just south of Florence. Their names were Horst Meyer and Uwe Rush. The two men were road tripping through Italy, and the Florentine hills dotted with ancient castles and churches were the perfect place to stop and rest their heads. However, Horst and Uwe had no idea that a serial killer had been terrorizing Florence for the past 15 years, and that he targeted areas exactly like the one they just chose. On the night of September 9, 1983, the two men put a tape into their sound system and set it on loop so they could fall asleep to the moody, synth-heavy score from the movie Blade Runner.

• 13:19Vanessa Richardson?

  While they slept, a shadowy figure approached the van, carrying a gun. He fired into the window and side of the van, killing Horst as he lay on the van's mattress. Uwe, likely terrified and confused, crouched in the back corner of the van, but unfortunately, nothing could protect him. And soon, the gunman killed him, too. The next night, around 7:00 PM, local residents drove by and noticed the VW camper with its windows shot out. They approached the van, which was still playing the Blade Runner soundtrack. When they peeked in, they saw two dead bodies and immediately called the police. Officers arrived on scene, filled with dread.

• 14:03Vanessa Richardson?

  The monster hadn't struck in over a year, but now it seemed like he'd woken from his slumber, and the evidence seemed to confirm that fear. Specifically, police found the same types of bullet shells that had been left behind at all the other crime scenes, belonging to a specific 22-caliber Beretta. The main difference was that neither victim had been mutilated. Investigators wondered if the killer had initially mistaken Uwe for a woman because he had long hair, then only discovered he was a man after killing him. They thought this may have angered the killer because they found something else at the scene they'd never encountered before. A short distance from the van, they found a pornographic magazine called Golden Gay.

• 14:48Vanessa Richardson?

  The pages were ripped out and strewn around the area. Police immediately assumed the magazine had belonged to the men and thought they may have been a couple and not just two friends on a trip. Investigators wondered what to make of this. Since the magazine was found away from the van, it could have had nothing to do with the crime. It was even possible that the killer had planted the magazine to leave a misleading clue. Or the magazine could have belonged to the two men, and once the killer realized he had killed a gay couple rather than a man and a woman, he tore up the magazine in anger.

• 15:22Tristin Engels?

  There was virtually no postmortem mutilation at all on these men, which reflects the pattern, for the most part, that we have seen throughout this case. His interest, at least psychologically, is targeting unsuspecting couples in remote areas where they're isolated, and then mutilating the women's body. The killings are necessary to accomplish the real goal, which is the ritualized postmortem behavior, but that requires a female victim. Female sexual anatomy carried a particular symbolic or psychological significance for his fantasy, and I think the men just seem like obstacles. They are there because they need to be there for him to get to his target in these particular

• 16:06Tristin Engels?

  lover's lane locations.

• 16:08Vanessa Richardson?

  Why do you think the killer might have been angry that he'd actually killed two men and not a man and a woman? Do you think this might indicate anything about who his true targets were?

• 16:18Tristin Engels?

  I'm inclined to believe that he thought, or rather assumed, that he was targeting a heterosexual couple. And because he had been waiting for eight months, and they are in his hunting territory, according to him, and he's needing to kill, he's not only angry that this did not happen as expected, he may feel humiliated by this because it's as if he may have felt he was outsmarted or made a fool of. And because of that, he decided, I think, to humiliate them in death by exposing their, what we suspect is their pornographic magazine, and the fact that they were potentially not just friends, to everyone who had come across the scene of the crime, and to the investigators, and then subsequently their families.

• 17:03Tristin Engels?

  Because remember, couples are going here to be in secret, to avoid shame and judgment. Killing them there exposes them to those very things. He's ensuring that he exposes their secret, too, that they may not be friends. There may be more there. It's almost spiteful.

• 17:24Vanessa Richardson?

  Despite these lingering questions, the authorities felt they had a good chance at getting the killer's fingerprints from the magazine. But when the results came back, there were no prints on any of the pages. Only one thing was certain: Francesco Vinci did not commit this crime. But that didn't mean there weren't accomplices acting on his behalf. Detectives needed someone to start talking, and fast. So in January of 1984, they decided to speak to Stefano Mele again. And this time, they'd uncover a crucial piece of evidence.

• 18:08Vanessa Richardson?

  In September of 1983, the Monster of Florence committed his sixth double murder. This time, he killed two young men from Germany who'd been camping together on a remote road. The authorities were shocked. Not only was it a notable departure from the monster's usual MO, but it confirmed their belief that Francesco Vinci, who was in prison awaiting trial for the murders, had likely been working with a team of accomplices. They hadn't been able to get any information from Francesco about who those people might be, so they went back to someone they felt might be more willing to talk: Stefano Mele. A few months after the recent double murder, on January 16, 1984, investigators paid Stefano

• 18:53Vanessa Richardson?

  a visit at the halfway house where he lived. They started by asking him if Francesco was with him for the 1968 murders. Stefano said no. So they asked him, who was there? Stefano said he didn't remember. The investigators felt defeated, and they ended the interrogation. But before leaving, they asked to see Stefano's wallet. It's not clear why they did this, but it paid off, because inside, they found a crumpled, handwritten note dated two years earlier. It was from Stefano's brother, Giovanni. Based on the date, it seemed like Stefano had received the note around the same time they'd last spoken to him, which was also when the police had first connected the 1968

• 19:38Vanessa Richardson?

  murders to the later ones. Giovanni must have known authorities would be visiting Stefano, because the note laid out various pieces of evidence that had been made public, like the ballistics tests. Not only that, but it included talking points that aimed to divert attention away from Giovanni, as well as Stefano's brother-in-law, Piero Muccarini. Back in 1968, Natalino had told investigators he'd seen his uncle Piero at the scene, and the details he gave pointed to Piero, a local baker. Police hadn't taken the boy seriously at the time, but the note tried to recast that uncle as Barbara's brother Pietro, a different man entirely, in order to steer suspicion away from Piero.

• 20:22Vanessa Richardson?

  To investigators, that very attempt at misdirection was telling. Now they wondered if Natalino had been right all along, and if Piero and Giovanni had been behind the murders. So about a week later, the police arrested both men, which meant they now had all three suspects: Francesco Vinci, Giovanni Mele, and Piero Muccarini in custody. Detectives believed this group of men included everyone involved in the Monster of Florence murders, and they planned to pit each suspect against each other to prove it. Unfortunately, those plans were derailed six months later, when yet another tragedy unfolded, and it was one of the most gruesome ones yet.

• 21:07Vanessa Richardson?

  On the night of July 29, 1984, 19-year-old Pia Rontini and her fiance, 20-year-old Claudio Stefannacci, went for a romantic drive about 25 miles outside Florence. The couple parked in a wooded area, and around 10:00 PM, a shadowy figure approached the car. The man raised a gun and fired into the rear window, shooting Claudio, then Pia, and killing them both. At this point, the killer did something out of the ordinary. He turned his attention to Claudio by pulling out a knife and stabbing him in the ribs multiple times. After that, the killer then pulled Pia's body from the car to carry out his usual ritual.

• 21:52Vanessa Richardson?

  But at the same time, he did some more unexpected things. First, he dragged her body into an open field several yards from the car, in plain view of a nearby farmhouse. He then removed her genitals, and he also removed her left breast, which was a step he'd never taken before. Finally, the killer left Pia's body out in the open.

• 22:16Tristin Engels?

  So there are two forms of escalation here: behavioral and psychological. Behaviorally, his postmortem ritual is evolving, clearly. Now he's removed both genitalia and a breast. He once again stabbed Claudio after killing him. He's becoming more elaborate, and he's doing more to get the same psychological gratification. But now, there's also like a boldness to this behavior that wasn't there before. In the past, he had been minimizing his time at the scene. Now he's doing this in an open field, in view of a farmhouse, and taking more time because of additional postmortem acts that he's doing, and then he leaves her exposed.

• 22:57Tristin Engels?

  He's become less risk averse and increasingly confident. Could it be because there are three men behind bars right now, and he still hasn't been caught, that he's feeling more confident? He's probably feeling smarter than investigators? This does show us, his behavior is continuing to evolve.

• 23:17Vanessa Richardson?

  What message do you think the killer might be trying to send to the police? Is he taunting them about being on the wrong track?

• 23:23Tristin Engels?

  Yes, he could be. That's definitely a possible hypothesis. Or, if it's a group of them, like they're suspecting, and I'm not necessarily convinced that's the case, then it's a way to throw them off that theory and get back to a singular killer theory. Because if you think about it, they think they have the entire group behind bars, and now there's another murder, one that's more bold and brutal than all the previous ones, then this would be a way to get all three of those men released, and it directly threatens our theory and their evidence.

• 23:57Vanessa Richardson?

  When investigators soon found the same bullet shells at the scene, they knew the monster was either getting bolder, more careless, or both. That was a horrifying thought for the people of Florence. Up until this point, everyone had thought the three men in custody were surely the ones at fault. It was starting to feel like the nightmare would never end. Then, the case took an even more baffling turn. While Florence was reeling from the latest monster murder, six sex workers were killed in quick succession, right in the center of the city. Based on the sexual undertones of the crimes, police wondered if these murders could be connected to the Monster of Florence. But they didn't want to jump to any conclusions.

• 24:39Vanessa Richardson?

  Instead, they tried to collect as much evidence as possible in the sex worker murders before making any real comparison. The recent murders had occurred in each woman's apartment, and investigators searched each one. Before they knew it, they found a shocking link to the monster murders. When officers searched one of the sex workers' apartments, they discovered that her water heater had recently been fixed by a company called Quick House Repair. The company name rang a bell to investigators, so they looked into it, and they realized it was owned by none other than Salvatore Vinci, Francesco Vinci's brother, and the man Stefano Mele had initially named as an accomplice during the 1968 investigation

• 25:23Vanessa Richardson?

  before taking full blame. The discovery couldn't have come at a better time, because investigators didn't have enough evidence to keep Francesco Vinci, Giovanni Mele, and Piero Muccarini in custody. The three men were released in the fall of 1984. Then, investigators turned their focus to Salvatore. Police searched his home, where they found a suspicious clue. In the bedroom, they found a woman's straw purse with something strange sticking out of it. Investigators took a closer look. It was a rag covered in a powdery substance and 38 spots of blood. It was an alarming discovery.

• 26:05Vanessa Richardson?

  However, for unknown reasons, investigators never sent the rag for analysis. But now that Salvatore was on their radar, they watched him like a hawk over the next year. Ultimately, their surveillance didn't get them any information, and they stopped watching him in early September of 1985. Shortly after, the authorities realized that halting said surveillance may have been a huge mistake. On September 7, a French couple, 36-year-old Nadine Moria and 25-year-old Jean-Michel Cravachvili, were camping about nine miles south of Florence. Sometime after nightfall, Nadine and Jean-Michel were having an intimate moment in their tent

• 26:49Vanessa Richardson?

  when they suddenly noticed a foot-long cut in the fabric. Puzzled, they unzipped the tent and peeked outside. As soon as they did this, someone shot them both. Nadine died immediately, but Jean-Michel was alive and able to run. He sprinted toward the woods, but the killer caught up and stabbed him in the back, chest, and stomach before slicing his throat. The killer left Jean-Michel where he'd fallen, then returned to the campsite and pulled Nadine's body from the tent. And just like with Pia the year before, he removed her vagina and left breast. Then, he dragged Nadine's body back into the tent and zipped it up.

• 27:33Vanessa Richardson?

  Finally, he picked up the trash from the campsite and used it to cover Jean-Michel's body.

• 27:41Tristin Engels?

  He has been varied in how he disposes of his victims' bodies. In some cases, he leaves them at the scene. Pia was dragged, like you said, to an open field where she was left exposed. Then Nadine was brought back to her tent and zipped up. And Jean-Michel was covered with trash. It seems like, in some cases, he exposed his victims and in others, he attempted to conceal them. And if you really think about it, though, was this really concealment? When we think about concealment, true concealment in the sense that they want to make identification or discovery difficult, this is not what you would find. You would expect to see victims being buried, dismembered, disposed of in bodies of water or miles away from the crime scene.

• 28:26Tristin Engels?

  You don't tend to see them left in or at the crime scene itself or covered partially. What's more compelling to me is that he appears to be spending progressively more time interacting with the female victims after death, even the male victims with the stabbing. That postmortem ritual is consistent despite changes in location, despite the victims' behaviors and their ability to nearly get away, and the environment. How he leaves these bodies or why, I think, is more circumstantial. It's on a case-by-case basis. His ritual is very gruesome and it's graphic. He may need specific terrain to carry it out.

• 29:07Tristin Engels?

  So in Pia's case, for example, dragging her where he did may have been practical and circumstantial because of lighting or the terrain or needing more room. And that mattered more than the threat of exposure itself. That's just a theory, though, obviously. We don't know that for sure. And I'm basing that on how important this ritual is to him, based on what we know and what we've seen in this pattern of behavior and how willing he was to risk that, just in that particular crime itself.

• 29:39Vanessa Richardson?

  Despite the killer's effort to hide Nadine and Jean-Michel's bodies, they were found two days later, on the morning of September 9, 1985. When the police arrived on scene, they found the usual bullet shells. They knew this was the work of the Monster of Florence. But they noted the diversion from the killer's usual MO. He never tried to hide or conceal his victims before, and they weren't sure what this new move meant. And then they realized, this couple just happened to be killed on the exact weekend they'd ceased surveillance on Salvatore Vinci. They had no concrete evidence to tie Salvatore to this crime scene, but they were certain

• 30:19Vanessa Richardson?

  he was the killer and that if they didn't get him into custody, the murders would continue. Little did they know, the truth was still out of reach, but it would soon come to light and shock everyone.

• 30:42Vanessa Richardson?

  By September 1985, the Monster of Florence had committed eight double murders. Florentine authorities had been eyeing Salvatore Vinci as their latest suspect, and their suspicion reached new heights when the Monster's most recent crime occurred right after they lifted surveillance on Salvatore. Investigators worked to establish grounds to get Salvatore into custody. However, the case soon took an unexpected turn when police received an anonymous letter that pointed the finger at a different man, someone who hadn't come up in the investigation yet, a 60-year-old local farmer named Pietro Pacchiani. On paper, Pacchiani was a compelling suspect.

• 31:25Vanessa Richardson?

  He lived just under four miles from the most recent crime scene. And according to the letter, he'd killed his fiancee back in 1951. In the interest of due diligence, investigators looked into it. It turned out Pacchiani hadn't actually killed his fiancee, but he had killed a man who'd made a move on her and served time for that murder. Investigators wondered if Pacchiani's violent streak had fueled him all these years. But at the time, his name was just one of thousands in the tip pile, and nothing came of it right away. With that, investigators turned their attention back to Salvatore Vinci, the only other possible suspect they had.

• 32:06Vanessa Richardson?

  Although it seems like the stories about Pacchiani's past got them thinking, because this time, they dug deeper into Salvatore's past and they found something. Last time, I mentioned that Salvatore first met Stefano Meili in 1961, right after Salvatore's wife, Barberina, had died. At the time, Barberina's death had been ruled a suicide by gas poisoning. But now, investigators wondered if there was more to the story.

• 32:36Vanessa Richardson?

  They pored through old records and learned that while married to Salvatore, Barberina had had an affair. When Salvatore found out, he was humiliated and told his wife to get out of his house. Barberina planned to leave, but she never had the chance. One week before her scheduled move, on January 14, 1961, Barberina was at home with her infant son. Salvatore was out at the time, so when Barberina needed to use the stove but realized the propane tank was empty, she went to a neighbor's house to use theirs. But according to Salvatore, when he returned home that evening, he smelled gas. He went into the bedroom and found Barberina unresponsive on the bed.

• 33:21Vanessa Richardson?

  Not only that, but the propane tank had been moved into the bedroom and the tube from the tank was resting next to Barberina's head. Salvatore called the police, and when they arrived at the scene, they deduced that Barberina had used the gas tank to take her own life. However, they completely overlooked the fact that the gas tank was empty. In addition, the medical examiner noted bruising around Barberina's neck, which seemed consistent with strangulation. If investigators had looked into the matter, they may have reconsidered Barberina's cause of death, but no one did. However, 15 years later, Florentine investigators now felt Salvatore may have staged his wife's

• 34:06Vanessa Richardson?

  suicide to prevent anyone from discovering that he'd murdered her.

• 34:12Tristin Engels?

  This is potentially staging, which is making a crime scene look like a suicide. It's an attempt to redirect the investigation and avoid suspicion. When the victim is an intimate partner, investigators often view staging differently because offenders who commit domestic homicide frequently know they'll be among the first people that police scrutinize. And a suicide that doesn't quite add up makes it all the more suspicious, and it should have been questioned back then. It's also meant to control the narrative, staging, when they want to influence what the investigators think happened. Now, this behavior differs more than it resembles the Monster's MO, if that's what we're trying to establish here.

• 34:56Tristin Engels?

  The Monster spent considerable time at the scene because he was engaging in postmortem mutilation that takes a lot of time, which put him at risk of being detected. His postmortem mutilations were expressive, and they fulfilled a psychological need beyond simply killing his victims. And sometime, that need outweighed the risks of getting caught. He would be willing to engage in these behaviors in an open field in front of plain view of a farmhouse. Staging a suicide is the opposite. It's practical and its purpose is deception. It's to avoid detection. I think the similarity that's here, if anything, is that the scenes were both manipulated after death, and it involved a woman.

• 35:43Vanessa Richardson?

  Now that they had evidence to suggest Salvatore's possible violent past, investigators had grounds to arrest him. On June 11, 1986, they charged Salvatore with Barberina's murder, hoping this would help them build their case against him as the Monster of Florence. From there, the case took its most shocking turn yet, because once Salvatore Vinci was in custody, the Monster of Florence never struck again. It seemed like the authorities finally had their man. Unfortunately, Salvatore's trial didn't go the way they'd hoped. The trial began two years later, in 1988. Over two decades had passed since Barberina's murder, which meant prosecutors didn't have

• 36:28Vanessa Richardson?

  strong evidence to build their case on. Original witnesses had died or were unable to recall key details, and physical evidence had deteriorated or been lost. In the end, Salvatore was acquitted. And that's where his story ended, because after his acquittal, Salvatore said he was traveling to his hometown, located in the mountains. He left and was never seen or heard from again.

• 36:56Tristin Engels?

  If, as you're listening, you felt let down by the news that Salvatore was not the monster, then you're not alone. We all can fall into the trap of that need for cognitive closure. Once we've built a coherent explanation around something, losing that forces us back into ambiguity, and that's not something we're comfortable with. No one likes that. And the investigators and the people of Florence certainly didn't either. For investigators, it's equally frustrating, but for a different reason. And acquittal doesn't necessarily answer the question of what happened. It just means the prosecution couldn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So investigators are now left with the same unresolved question

• 37:37Tristin Engels?

  they've been trying to answer for decades. And when we really think about it, what evidence did they have against Salvatore? What was concrete? The murder stopped? That's definitely suggestive, but it's not proof. The monster's gone up to seven years without killing before. There are other explanations, too. The monster could have died, could have moved, or been incarcerated on something else, or became sick. Salvatore likely killed his first wife, so he's certainly capable of that. But there's no history of mutilation, and there was no direct forensic proof or eyewitnesses connecting him to any of these murders. He was acquitted because the prosecution's case failed to establish him as a murderer. That's pretty

• 38:20Tristin Engels?

  significant. They had circumstantial evidence at best.

• 38:25Vanessa Richardson?

  So we've talked in past episodes about how lack of closure can affect people, but do you notice any unique impacts in this case? Like, the fact that the monster Florence murders went on for so long, or that suspects were continually apprehended and released again and again?

• 38:40Tristin Engels?

  Yes. I think in this case, there were repeated instances where people were led to believe that they had found the answer, only for that to turn out to be false. Every time the evidence took them in a different direction, it pulled us somewhere else, even as we were listening. It was emotional whiplash for the people of Florence. And you know what it reminded me of? It reminded me of the case that we covered on the Midnight Assassin, or the Servant Girl Annihilator. They rounded up every black man, regardless of cause. Every time they did that, the community became more and more uncertain. It's very similar, only that was, you know, to the nth degree.

• 39:22Vanessa Richardson?

  Despite all their disappointment and frustration, the Florentine authorities refused to give up. In 1989, they turned to the American FBI for help, hoping that the FBI's more modern resources might lead to a breakthrough. The FBI started by creating a behavioral profile of their likely killer, which identified him as a lone wolf who used murder to get sexual gratification that he didn't get otherwise. Using this guidance, investigators went back to the idea of the killer being one person acting alone. And they didn't think Salvatore Vinci was the prime suspect. Instead, they revisited their next best lead, Pietro Pacchiani,

• 40:03Vanessa Richardson?

  the farmer from the anonymous tip years earlier. Over the course of 12 days in 1992, the police performed an exhaustive search of Pacchiani's home. This time, they were much more thorough than before. They knocked on walls, trying to find hidden cubby spaces, and used ultrasound to comb every square inch of his house and property. In doing so, they found a treasure trove of evidence. They found a sketchpad made in Germany, which linked Pacchiani to the murder of the German tourists. They found a soap dish, which another victim's mother said looked like one they used to own. They also found maps with locations close to the

• 40:44Vanessa Richardson?

  murders marked on them, and a postcard from the closest town to one of the crime scenes. But it was in the garden where investigators found the most damning clue. There, investigators found a cartridge for a 22 caliber pistol, the type of gun used in every single murder. But because it had never been fired, it carried none of the gun's telltale firing pin marks, so ballistics experts would only go so far as to say it was not incompatible with the monster's Beretta.

• 41:19Vanessa Richardson?

  It was enough to place Pacchiani under arrest and charge him with all eight double murders, 16 people total, including the initial 1968 murders. Over the next two years, the prosecution carefully built an airtight case. In addition to the mountains of physical evidence, they gathered numerous witnesses. When the trial began in April of 1994, one witness even placed Pacchiani within a mile of the final murder in 1985. However, other witnesses were less helpful. One of Pacchiani's friends, a man named Mario Vani, acted strangely from the start. He repeatedly downplayed his friendship with Pacchiani, even when he was asked about

• 42:03Vanessa Richardson?

  completely unrelated topics.

• 42:07Tristin Engels?

  Yeah, minimizing his relationship with Pacchiani, especially if their line of questioning wasn't even about their relationship, would tell me where his attention was focused. And that it's something that he's particularly concerned about investigators knowing. This is behavior that suggests he's worried that they will infer guilt by association, or expect him to have knowledge that he does or doesn't have, but is not comfortable talking either way, and is possibly even afraid of becoming a suspect just because of that association. So he's attempting to distance himself. That's impression management. He wants to influence the conclusions that the investigators draw about him. This is an evidence of guilt, though, because we all engage in impression management. But it's clear that them believing that he's

• 42:52Tristin Engels?

  not close to Pacchiani is very psychologically important to Mario.

• 42:59Vanessa Richardson?

  If he was trying to distance himself from Pacchiani, how might the court interpret his testimony?

• 43:04Tristin Engels?

  Every juror is different, and they will perceive things differently. Some jurors might wonder whether he was minimizing the friendship because he had something to hide, or if he knew more than he was willing to admit. Others might see it as a perfectly understandable attempt to avoid being associated with a man accused of being a serial killer, one who's been terrorizing Florence for decades. That's why behavior alone is just not enough. It can tell us what someone appears concerned about, but it doesn't always tell us what they're concerned about. Ultimately, that's up to the evidence.

• 43:43Vanessa Richardson?

  The trial continued, but investigators made a mental note of Vani's behavior during his questioning. Then, on November 1, 1994, Pacchiani was convicted of all but the two 1968 murders, on the grounds that the gun was the only thing connecting him to those murders, whereas there was more evidence tying him to the other crimes. Ultimately, Pacchiani was sentenced to life in prison. But the story still wasn't over, because two years later, in 1996, an appeals judge acquitted Pacchiani of all charges based on weak evidence. So the prosecution got to work building a new case. This time, they

• 44:24Vanessa Richardson?

  leaned heavily on a theory that predated Pacchiani as a suspect, the idea that the monster of Florence wasn't just one person, but a team of killers. This time, they believed Mario Vani, the shady witness from Pacchiani's first trial, may have also been involved. Vani's behavior had always raised red flags, and as the authorities dug deeper into his connection to Pacchiani, they realized the two men were not only closer than Vani had let on, but that they were also extremely close with a third man, 56-year-old Giancarlo Lotti. And when they questioned Lotti, he admitted to helping Pacchiani commit at least

• 45:04Vanessa Richardson?

  one of the double murders. From there, officers arrested Lotti, as well as Vani and Pacchiani, under the belief that Pacchiani was the ringleader, and the other two men were his accomplices. But then, in February of 1998, their plans were derailed when Pacchiani died before he could be tried again.

• 45:27Vanessa Richardson?

  It was a huge blow, but it didn't stop the authorities from moving forward with Vani and Lotti's cases. The two men were accused of being involved in four of the double murders, and in the end, they were both found guilty. Vani was sentenced to life in prison. He died in 2009. Lotti was sentenced to 26 years and died in 2002. It was the most justice the people of Florence would ever see. To this day, questions remain as to whether Pietro Pacchiani was the true ringleader, and if Salvatore Vinci had been involved in some way as well. Or, the most terrifying thought of all, if the true monster of Florence was

• 46:10Vanessa Richardson?

  someone who was never charged, and if they still lurked in the shadows. As of 2024, forensic analysts have begun DNA tests on some of the bullets found at various crime scenes in search of any patterns. So far, no definitive results have been released to the public. We may never know the true identity of the monster of Florence, but what we do know is what drove at least six of these eight couples into a dangerous situation in the first place: the stigma attached to sex. Without the shame that forced them into the shadows, or the fear that pushed them to take risks, those couples could have gone on to have happy, loving futures.

• 47:08Vanessa Richardson?

  Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time for a deep dive into the mind of another murderer. But first, check out this extended conversation between Dr. Engels and Alexis Linkletter. And be sure to stick around after that for a special preview of Crimes of Reddit.

• 47:24Speaker 03

  Okay, let's do it. And actually, before we get into anything else, Dr. Engels, I'd love to get your take on something that came up for me, especially when talking about this case. So something that really stuck up to me was how the people of Florence were pretty much crowdsourcing their favorite theories as far as who the monster was. It's kind of like another version of people upvoting and sort of this whole town square element that Reddit really seems to have. And how one opinion basically becomes a consensus. And that can really happen on Reddit with the upvoting and all the things like that. So I'm curious, what drives that kind of group think? And is there any merit to it? Like, what's your take about how those opinions sort of funnel into one and one kind of takes over?

• 48:10Tristin Engels?

  I actually love that comparison, because in a way, people have always kind of been doing this. And like even well before Reddit, or even when computers didn't even exist, communities like Florence came together around horrific crimes, just like the Monster of Florence, that were unsolved like that. And they shared theories with one another, and they challenged each other's ideas. And they tried to make sense of what seemed impossible to explain, especially when law enforcement couldn't even explain it. And one thing I think is really interesting is that collective discussion can work in two very different directions. In the Monster of Florence case, we saw rumors that were spread through the community until eventually everyone heard the same story. And then it made it feel

• 48:55Tristin Engels?

  true, even if it wasn't. So next thing you know, they're all gathering in front of the house of a physician who had already been cleared by the police. And they're accusing people when there's no credible evidence. And that's one of the dangers of that. And hearing the same theories over and over by people you know in tight knit communities like that can make an idea seem more credible than it actually is. But the flip side is what make communities like Reddit so interesting, because you have people from completely different backgrounds talking about the same thing. So you've got one person who might be an expert on a case that involves firearms, and they are an expert in firearms. And then you've got another person who's an expert in like, say, genealogy, or another who's

• 49:36Tristin Engels?

  an expert like myself in psychology, or anatomy even. And someone notices maybe a detail in a case that everyone else might have overlooked. And then suddenly, the conversation changes. And you can upvote, like you said, or downvote helpful or unhelpful dialogues. And that's the benefit of collective intelligence in a community. The key is to keep testing the ideas, though. A good theory should continue to fit the evidence, not just because it's the most popular one. And the healthiest communities are the ones that are willing to challenge what's necessary, change their minds, and follow the evidence, even if it leads somewhere that they don't really want it to lead. And I think that's one of the things I enjoy most about true crime discussions and even Reddit. Because when people are genuinely

• 50:21Tristin Engels?

  curious, rather than trying to win an argument, you end up with better questions, or sometimes a better understanding of the case. And people can, you know, weigh in on whether or not that information is actually factual or not in in communities like Reddit. And, you know, I learn a lot more this way from other experts and non-experts alike. And that's how much Reddit, I think, really brings people together.

• 50:46Speaker 03

  Yeah, and just the subjectivity of so many things that you see originally as concrete, like how people on Reddit, for example, even people who aren't experts, but who have experienced certain things in their life, like you, you see things in such a subjective way, where originally you might have understood something as just very rigid.

• 51:05Tristin Engels?

  Exactly. Which is amazing, because in a tight knit community, you don't necessarily always get that. But on Reddit, you're actually broadening that even more. Right? Because it's, it's more, you can expand beyond that. And I love that so much. Okay, so now, let's get into your work more. You're known as a person who gets interviews that nobody else can. And I'm talking about people like BTK's daughter, or Jim Jones's son, and Lorena Bobbitt, I remember that case when it happened. What's your approach to true crime? And how is it informing what you're doing on Crimes of Reddit?

• 51:41Speaker 03

  I always just have approached the genre of true crime with empathy and understanding. And when interviewing people for my show, The First Degree, I just have always tried to just be a really good listener and let the subject guide, the subject that they want to talk about, because usually that's what they're the most open about. And how it's informing my work on Crimes of Reddit is really interesting, because we're finding that people who come to Reddit, who want to discuss an experience, because often it's a situation where it's like, I fear that my roommate's poisoning me, or I fear I'm being stalked, they're usually coming to Reddit first, when they don't really know whether or not they're experiencing something that is considered a crime. And they're really

• 52:26Speaker 03

  open to hearing other people's opinions. Like, it's so fascinating how open the original posters typically are, because they're looking for feedback. So I think with the cases we're covering on Crimes of Reddit, I like to start at the beginning and just see the feedback that they get right off the bat, and how it sort of transforms. And I'm so fascinated by the fact that usually the original posters come back with updates. They really are applying what this Reddit community is suggesting to them, and like, just seeing how that unfolds. And just the vulnerability that a lot of them, and the candor a lot of them are willing to have, when just divulging about their life, I find so fascinating, too.

• 53:05Tristin Engels?

  I find it fascinating that they're going to Reddit first with this information, because that implies that they have more implicit trust in their community than they do anything else. And that they are even following up and checking back in with the community, with the feedback the community is giving them. I find that to be the fascinating part from a psychological perspective. What do you think that implies? Or what kind of feedback have you gotten or seen from that at all, if any?

• 53:29Speaker 03

  Well, I think Reddit has that power that really hasn't been harnessed anywhere else on the internet. Because even in my personal life, whenever anyone has a question about anything, they go to Reddit first. That's before they're going somewhere like Google or ChatGPT, because there's this distrust of just manipulated information that we're receiving, you know, whether it's like SEO optimization, or, you know, ads, you know, like, being paid for ChatGPT to suggest certain results, like, that stuff is happening. So I think we're seeing in places like Reddit, like, this is a community, real people that you can trust. And I hope that remains the case, because my fear is that, you know, bots

• 54:11Speaker 03

  will take over, or we won't be able to trust that either. But I feel like this crowdsourced sources of information are really where people are turning to. And it's why TikTok's so popular as well. Like, people aren't trusting the news. They're rather, they'd rather go to TikTok to get news, which is fascinating.

• 54:26Tristin Engels?

  Exactly. But I love that internal sort of like quality assurance of the community with the upvote, downvote, I think helps to maximize, you know, what you were just talking about, the trust that's going on in the community itself. I love that.

• 54:40Speaker 03

  But what we were talking about with this group think, though, that does happen on Reddit. I've been involved in Reddit communities where there are leaders. And people do get bullied out of either standing up to them. You know, you see this, like, it's interesting, and I'd love to get your take about how perhaps this applies to the Monster of Florence as well. It's like, what is the line between group think and mob mentality? And how do certain people sort of get those leadership positions in these groups and really just sort of like dominate the conversation and opinions?

• 55:12Tristin Engels?

  Well, group think usually involves like more close knit cohesive thinking. So if these are leaders in certain, like, and I'm not, admittedly, I'm not a huge poster on Reddit. I do go to Reddit, so I don't really follow like subreddits, like, as much as most people do. But I understand that, like, if there, if there are people that consistently post, and people trust those posters, and they follow them specifically, then there could be some group think happening with those particular, I don't know, posters or those users, exactly. So, so that's, that's something that I can see absolutely happening. Like I said, this group think has been occurring long before computers, hundreds of years

• 55:55Tristin Engels?

  ago. It happens when there needs, when people are looking for cohesiveness and certainty, and they follow when there's more of a tight knit sort of group that occurs. And it can occur, you know, obviously in person. And it certainly is occurring now as we like advance more digitally. And so I can see why that's occurring on Reddit. And especially if people start to find particular users that they follow, or that they seem to trust when they post, or they like the content that they're posting. So I can see how that's developing right there on, on Reddit.

• 56:27Speaker 03

  Absolutely.

• 56:27Tristin Engels?

  Last thing before we get out of here. I want to hear more about Crimes of Reddit. Can you tell me a little bit more about it?

• 56:33Speaker 03

  Yes. So every week, myself and my co-host Sabrina Dianna Roga, we basically trade weeks, where I'm covering The story one week and she has no idea what it's going to be. And I basically walk her through sort of the drama that's unfolded through this Reddit post. And I kind of touched on some of the things we're talking about where it can be just like a family secret that's emerged, or someone found out that their mother-in-law was their stalker for years. And it's really seeing just in unpacking people's reactions. And a few of these cases that we've covered on Crimes of Reddit already resulted in real life crimes where a real crime involving the police, involving, you know, a real investigation unfolds from there

• 57:17Speaker 03

  too. So it's interesting to see how these crimes and cases can start as just like your intuition, something that you're not sure of that you bring to Reddit, and how people's advice in these Reddit communities really prompt, like, the original poster might not realize they're in real danger. They are just coming with a couple of red flags. And then people who've experienced serious things, like, these are just examples, like, domestic violence, or, you know, had been a target of stalking, they can really give the original poster the perspective to realize that they're in real danger.

• 57:51Speaker 04

  Wow. So these are individuals who are posting about their own personal experiences. And they're, like you said, they're coming to the community to see what they think about what they're experiencing. It's not a crime that's occurring in the community, or that's necessarily on mainstream media. It's something that they're personally experiencing. So something that is well known.

• 58:13Speaker 03

  Absolutely. And it's really a glimpse into the mind of the original poster, because this is just an example, you know, there are cases that come to Reddit that are like, I believe possibly, somebody is breaking into my apartment and moving things, or changing things. And you start to be like, it's like that movie, Shutter Island, Leonardo DiCaprio, where it's like, are they experiencing-

• 58:35Speaker 04

  Is this real?

• 58:36Speaker 03

  Yeah. Are they experiencing a psychological issue?

• 58:39Speaker 04

  Mm hmm.

• 58:39Speaker 03

  Or is this real? And it's sort of like, trying to prompt the original poster to answer certain questions, because people in the comments, these people following these stories, are asking these questions, you know, because some of them are mental health professionals. Some of them have been stalked. And it's hard to discern, it's not a game, but you're asking the original poster enough probing questions to try to get to the bottom of this with them. And it is really like, a community effort to help them. And it's really fascinating.

• 59:05Speaker 04

  So where can people find this? Is it the subreddit Crimes of Reddit?

• 59:08Speaker 03

  Yeah. So we have a subreddit where we're encouraging our listeners to come share their own stories and experiences, especially if they have a story that they'd like us to cover, that, you know, has been on Reddit. So people can post the links to these other subreddits where these, these stories exist.

• 59:23Speaker 04

  Great.

• 59:24Speaker 03

  But we're really trying to foster community too, and just bring some discussions about the stories we're bringing to the podcast.

• 59:30Speaker 04

  I love that. Not with the group think, though.

• 59:32Speaker 03

  Right.

• 59:33Speaker 04

  Let's leave the group think out of it.

• 59:35Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 59:35Speaker 04

  Oh, my gosh. Alexis, thank you so much for joining us today. It's always great to have you. And it's always great to talk with you. And I hope we can have you again.

• 59:42Speaker 03

  Yes, thank you so much for having me. I always love coming on.

• 59:46Vanessa Richardson?

  Remember, you can check out Crimes of Reddit every Tuesday. Be sure to subscribe on YouTube and follow wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget to stick around after this for a special preview of Crimes of Reddit.

• 1:00:00Speaker 04

  Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is a Crime House original powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on all social media at Crime House. Don't forget to rate, review, and follow Serial Killers and Murderous Minds wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference.

• 1:00:22Vanessa Richardson?

  And to enhance your listening experience, join Crime House Plus and get both parts of every story dropped on the same Monday, completely ad-free. No waiting three days for part two, plus Crime House bonus episodes every month. To join, go to crimehouseplus.com. Or if you listen on Apple Podcasts, tap Try Free at the top of the Serial Killers and Murderous Minds page.

• 1:00:47Vanessa Richardson?

  Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, and forensic psychologist Dr. Tristin Engels, and is a Crime House original powered by Pave Studios. This episode was brought to life by the Serial Killers and Murderous Minds team, Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benedon, Lori Marinelli, Natalie Pritzowski, Sarah Camp, Alyssa Fox, Dana Rossi, Sarah Bachelor, Mara De La Rosa, Claire Swartzlander, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening.

• 1:01:24Speaker 03

  My mother-in-law suddenly passed away in a car accident last month, at the same time my stalker disappeared.

• 1:01:32Speaker 04

  Coincidence? Probably not.

• 1:01:34Speaker 03

  Probably not. So-

• 1:01:34Speaker 04

  Oh, that's so sad.

• 1:01:36Speaker 03

  Messed up. So my mother-in-law and I have never had a good relationship. She has tried to sabotage my relationship with my husband since the day she met me. I wasn't good enough for her handsome and successful boy.

• 1:01:49Speaker 04

  Which is a crime on its own, of like, women protecting their sons like this, and being obsessive with their children.

• 1:01:55Speaker 03

  My handsome, successful boy. Give me a break. Anyways, so-

• 1:02:00Speaker 04

  You can think your child is successful without being obsessed with them.

• 1:02:03Speaker 03

  And you can think they're handsome without babying an adult man.

• 1:02:05Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:02:06Speaker 03

  I contemplated ending, I contemplated ending my relationship several times, but my husband always showed that he is on my side, and I love him.

• 1:02:14Speaker 04

  Okay, that's good.

• 1:02:15Speaker 03

  A few years ago, I started getting very threatening and scary emails and texts from a PAX. So PAX is the name of the texter emailer. This PAX knew everything about me. It didn't matter how many emails and phone numbers I changed. They, or he, always found me. I made several reports, but nothing happened. My husband tried everything to trace these emails. Nothing came out of it.

• 1:02:40Speaker 04

  Okay, so this is going in the direction of, what's that documentary where like, the mom was-

• 1:02:46Speaker 03

  That documentary, Unknown Number.

• 1:02:48Speaker 04

  Yeah. Okay, so this is the direction it's going in. Because I, when you read that, like, subreddit, or the title of the, the post, I thought it was gonna be like, the stalker accidentally killed the mother-in-law. But now we're like, oh, okay, okay.

• 1:03:03Speaker 03

  Well, yeah. And to torment your own high school daughter is so deranged.

• 1:03:09Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:03:10Speaker 03

  It's like, that is a dangerous, dangerous woman. And we'll talk about how tangled relationships are when you even find out your parent is doing something like this, how hard it would be to accept.

• 1:03:24Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:03:25Speaker 03

  But the husband in this situation was really helpful in trying to get to the bottom-

• 1:03:30Speaker 04

  Which I appreciate. Great, great husband. Green flag there.

• 1:03:33Speaker 03

  Totally. So no matter what, PAX always found her. And she was under the impression that PAX was a guy, based on the language that was being used. And the original poster says, I made several reports, but nothing happened. And this past year, I basically never left the apartment alone. So saying that she got so scared of this, that it was, she was afraid to leave the house.

• 1:03:59Speaker 04

  To be alone, yeah.

• 1:04:00Speaker 03

  So she says, I haven't received a single threatening text or email from PAX in a month. After a few days, I wasn't surprised. I felt like I always knew it was my mother-in-law deep down. My husband hasn't reacted yet. He's consumed with his grief, and I don't want to bother him, especially when he bitterly told me, you must be very pleased now, when we heard the news and I tried to comfort him. He apologized later and said he was just feeling guilty that he loved and chose me more than he loved her.

• 1:04:31Speaker 04

  Oh, that's so complicated.

• 1:04:32Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:04:33Speaker 04

  That's so complicated. And also, it's, it would be one thing to find out your mom was this, like, PAX person while she's still alive. But to be dealing with the grief of losing your mom, regardless of how complicated your relationship is, like, you could hate your parent, and if they die, people still have so much grief, and that, like, feeling of loss.

• 1:04:57Speaker 03

  It's primal. I mean, they're the most foundational relationships human beings can have. I mean, they mold who we are, and we feel totally intertwined with them. So it makes total sense, like, it's impossible to let go.

• 1:05:11Speaker 04

  Oh, that's so sad.

• 1:05:12Speaker 03

  So, she continues.

• 1:05:14Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 1:05:14Speaker 03

  Now I'm waiting for my husband to connect the dots. Will he get it? If he does, will he talk to me about it? I don't know if I will ever bring it up to him. Also, I won't relax and go back to my normal life just yet. But I know in my heart that it's over, and I can't be happier about my life.

• 1:05:31Speaker 04

  Well, yeah. And she's entitled to feel that relief, because she was being tormented by this woman. Also, I'm curious if, and maybe this will be in updates, but when, like, you lose someone, and you, like, start to go through their things, do they find anything that proves?

• 1:05:52Speaker 03

  I've actually heard a lot of stories like that.

• 1:05:54Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:05:54Speaker 03

  Where, you know, one story I heard was this woman was dealing with, like, constant, people stealing her identity constantly. And like, basically, her financial life was in ruins. And when her mom died, she found all the documents that it was her mom. And then it's like, you can't do anything with the anger.

• 1:06:08Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:06:09Speaker 03

  Because they're gone.

• 1:06:09Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:06:10Speaker 03

  Crazy.

• 1:06:11Speaker 04

  Oh.

• 1:06:12Speaker 03

  So, do you think you'd tell the husband? Or do you think you'd wait?

• 1:06:16Speaker 04

  I would wait, because I would empathize so much with their processing the grief. And then I would be able to, like, sit with my relief of it being over. But I wouldn't want to throw that on them.

• 1:06:26Speaker 03

  Right.

• 1:06:27Speaker 04

  What about you?

• 1:06:28Speaker 03

  I think I would have started accusing the mother-in-law the second I suspected it. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of, like-

• 1:06:35Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:06:36Speaker 03

  I'm not, I can't be calculating like that.

• 1:06:38Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:06:38Speaker 03

  So my husband, at the time of her death, would have already known that I thought it was her.

• 1:06:41Speaker 04

  I do agree with that. But I think if you didn't put it together until after, I wouldn't-

• 1:06:46Speaker 03

  Yes. Choose then.

• 1:06:48Speaker 04

  Yeah, I wouldn't choose then.

• 1:06:48Speaker 03

  To bring it up for the first time.

• 1:06:49Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:06:50Vanessa Richardson?

  If you're looking for your next podcast, check out What the Fact with Connor Tomlinson from Netflix's Love on the Spectrum and Carter Roy. Every week, they take three unbelievable true facts from history and tell you the full story behind them. Follow What the Fact wherever you listen, or subscribe on YouTube at What the Fact Pod.