Marc Maron (19:37)

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

iHerb/Gab Advertiser (19:56)

Let's be real. When it comes to your health, authenticity matters. For nearly 30 years Iherb has quietly built one of the world's leading online wellness destinations trusted by millions of customers in 180 countries. At iHerb, every product comes from verified top rated brands stored, handled and shipped directly from our own climate controlled state of the art facilities. No third party sellers, no shortcuts, just the highest standards of quality and transparency from cart to doorstep. That's why more and more people are turning to IHERB where wellness and integrity meet. Visit iherb.com trusted wellness delivered worldwide.

Casey from Casefile Podcast (20:41)

Foreign.

Hannah Berner (20:52)

Thanks for supporting Canadian True Crime by listening to these messages from our sponsors. We appreciate it. Scott Franz reached a plea deal with the prosecution. He was going to plead guilty to first degree murder and had agreed to testify against David Curtis. There would no longer be a joint trial or a joint defence. In exchange, prosecutors would recommend a lighter sentence for Scott with earlier parole. This was obviously a devastating turn for David Curtis. So why did Scott Franz suddenly turn on him? It was largely on the advice of his own defence lawyer. Behind the scenes, Scott's lawyer was struggling to put together an airtight defence. The version of events that Scott originally gave to investigators included several key details that were not consistent with the police investigation. There was of course that bullet lodged in the bedroom door jamba that Scott said was the result of Alfred Podgers shooting at him the day before the killings. And missing. He claimed this convinced him that his stepfather was actively trying to kill him. And that's why he and David broke into Alfred's locked mail truck that Evening to get two 30 caliber rifles for protection. But the bullet found in the door jamb came from one of those two rifles, not the.22 caliber rifle Alfred had been holding. This led investigators to wonder if Scott shot the door jamb himself to set up a claim of self defence. There was also the fact that just days before the killings Scott had purchased a box of 30 caliber ammunition. He told investigators that his mother had asked him to buy it for his stepfather father. But that seemed unlikely. These pieces of circumstantial evidence suggested planning and intent. And there was more. Scott had told investigators that he shot his stepfather from across the room and that Alfred was sitting up in bed with the pillows behind him. But according to the prosecution, the Philadelphia medical examiner who conducted the autopsies was ready to testify that the rifle's muzzle was in direct contact with Alfred Podgess head and shot brain blood and bone debris down into the pillow. It suggested Alfred was lying down at the time. This was new. Scott's lawyer checked the medical examiner's original autopsy report. It didn't mention anything about a direct contact wound or or even an opinion on the possible distance between the rifle and Alfred's head. By this point it had been more than six months since the killings and the bodies had already been buried. Scott's lawyer requested to have them exhumed for a second autopsy opinion, but it was denied. He realised it was going to be very difficult to prove that his client was acting in self defence with this new testimony that Alfred Podgess may have been shot when he was asleep. That's the definition of in cold blood. Scott's lawyer was aware that the county prosecutors pretty much decided all evidence pointed to premeditated murder. They were building a case that Scott was the one who planned it and his weird Canadian friend helped him. It would be an uphill battle for the defence. Scott Franz would confirm that he took the deal to plead guilty to first degree murder because his lawyer advised him to. He was still facing jail time, of course, but he might be out on parole in 10 years instead of rotting in prison for the rest of his life. But another factor that motivated Scott was was money. His sister Barbara, the one who supervised Alfred and Rosemary Podgess at the post office and called the police when they didn't show up for work, told him she did not have the resources to pay for his defence through a lengthy murder trial. No one else did either. So Scott folded and pleaded guilty to first degree murder. Now he was going to be the prosecution's star witness against his friend David Curtis. Because the county prosecutors no longer had to prove that Scott Franz killed his stepfather Alfred Podges, they could narrow their focus on building the case that David Curtis did not shoot Rosemary Podgess by accident. Top of mind was those stories from King's Edge Hill School School in Nova Scotia involving the lab thefts and the alleged poisonings. It was only circumstantial evidence and both Scott and David denied any involvement at the time. But when prosecutors questioned Scott Franz about it in the lead up to the trial, he suddenly changed his story. Now he stated that David was the one who stole chemicals from the lab and it was David's idea to prank a teacher and other students by slipping a noxious substance in their drinks. In this latest version of the story, Scott was just the follower and David the mastermind. The county prosecutors decided the same would go for the murders of Alfred and Rosemary Podgess. They were confident they could convict David Curtis based on Scott's testimony. They also hoped that David would be put on the stand to testify in his own defence so they could question him about those diary entries. The prosecution's case would be that David Curtis had a diary of dark thoughts and bad intentions that he brought to the United States and offloaded on the Podges house in New Jersey with catastrophic consequences. Right before David Curtis's trial was about to begin, the original judge assigned to the case had to pull out with health problems. Their new judge was the Honourable John P. Arnone. His nickname was Never Come Home Again Unknown. And he was known to be as tough on crime as judges get. This was not good news for David Curtis. His defence lawyer Michael Shotland's strategy was to paint Scott Franz as a habitual liar who chose a plea bargain to save his own skin. And because Scott's story had changed several times, whatever he was going to testify to on the stand could not be trusted either. And Shotland was worried about his client. All those months in jail had turned David Curtis into a shadow of his former self, paler, even more withdrawn and nervous. And if he put him on the stand, testifying would be difficult enough. But David would also face a tough cross examination, especially if the prosecutor was able to have those diary entries admitted as evidence. Shotland believed David when he said those entries were written in the shadow of grief and that he was mirroring the same dark philosophical style as his own favourite authors. But in the context of a murder trial those entries might be gravely misperceived. The lawyer was keen to keep David Curtis off the stand, although he wouldn't advise the prosecution about this until later. The trial began In March of 1983, eight months after the killings. Every major newspaper in New Jersey followed the crime and the subsequent investigation and reporters showed up in droves to cover the trial. The Star Ledger, the Daily Patriot, the Asbury Park Press, not to mention all the big Canadian papers and local Nova Scotia papers as well. In his opening remarks, David Curtis's defence lawyer, Michael Shotland described his client as an unassuming small town Canadian kid who grew up on a farm in placid rural Nova Scotia. The filth and chaos of the Podgis home in New Jersey had been completely disorienting to him. David had never experienced experienced that kind of environment before. Shotland described it as a house of violence. The court would hear testimony from multiple witnesses corroborating the stories of regular arguments and violence at the Podges household. How they heard screaming regularly and the sounds of physical fighting. A few times a month, neighbours would testify they saw the two teenagers, terrified, hiding in the bushes next to the house. That same week, as they were trying to avoid Alfred, Michael Shotland reminded the jury that they would be relying on the testimony of Scott Franz, who agreed to plead guilty and discredit his own friend. In exchange for the promise of a lighter sentence, he described Scott as a liar. He has never told the truth and he is not telling the truth now because he doesn't know the difference between what is true and what is not true. All he is doing is trying to save his own neck. The prosecution's case was that Rosemary Podgess was not shot by accident. Paul Shayet, first assistant prosecutor for Monmouth county, suggested that David Curtis was resentful of the treatment he'd witnessed and experienced while during his stay at the Podges home that week. David was described as being, quote, filled with red revenge when he shot Rosemary Podgess. His actions afterwards were described as cold and calculated. On day two of the trial, police officers testified and the jury was shown graphic photos of the bodies of Alfred and Rosemary Podgess and distressing videotape of the crime scene, including blood spattered walls. Although Scott France had already pleaded guilty to shooting Alfred Podgess in the head, the prosecutor arranged for the jury to also see close up photos of Alfred's shattered face. David Curtis lawyer Michael Shotland repeatedly objected. His client had nothing to do with Alfred's murder. This trial was about Rosemary Podgers and whether David Curtis shot her in the lower abdomen intentionally or by accident. But it was to no avail. Judge Arnone denied his objections. On day three of the trial, a ballistics expert took the stand. He demonstrated how the.30 caliber rifle that killed Rosemary Podgess and had a tricky safety lever. At one point. When the lever was moved during the demonstration, the gun accidentally fired in the courtroom. It obviously wasn't loaded, but the misfire was entered as evidence of an accidental firing. David Curtis's defence lawyer could not have scripted a better moment when the prosecution's star witness, Scott Franz, took to the stand. The next day, the courtroom was full, the upstairs gallery at capacity. As he entered the courtroom, he avoided eye contact with his former friend David Curtis. In fact, Scott barely raised his head or his voice while reiterating the litany of abuse he and David had experienced that week. How Alfred Podgess yelled at him when David's plane was late and how it only got worse from there. Scott testified that the abuse escalated all week leading up to his claim that Alfred took a shot at him from the bedroom in a fit of rage. But then Scott's testimony took a sharp detour. From his original statement to police. He'd originally said that when he and David broke into Alfred Podgess mail truck to get the two 30 caliber rifles Scott he had taken some ammunition out of one and loaded it into the other because David had no clue how to load a rifle. But now on the stand, Scott Franz claimed he had nothing to do with any of it. He testified that a few days earlier David was the one who took the two rifles and hid them under a mattress in the guest room. Alfred Podgers found them and that's why he locked them up in the mail truck. Scott Frantz claimed that David Curtis was the mastermind behind the murder of his mother and stepfather. And while in his original police statement Scott said it was his idea to get rid of the bodies, now it was his testimony that it was David's idea, that it was David who didn't want to call the police and that it was David's idea to scrub the crime scene and flee. Scott also claimed that David was enjoying himself during the clean up and was actually grinning at one stage as he reportedly played with Alfred Podgess. Congealed blood like it was jello. Scott also testified that David joked about a piece of gum possibly being Alfred's pituitary gland. To all of this, David furiously scribbled not true on his lawyer's legal pad. Scott was asked about a part of his police statement where he said that he warned David that morning that quote, if you have to go out of the house shooting, go ahead. He clarified that the warning was not meant as encouragement to shoot his mother. He was referring to his stepfather Alfred. And when he ran downstairs and saw that his mother was dead, he almost shot David himself. But quote, I just couldn't kill a person for no reason. This was the defences in during his cross examination. If Scott believed that the act of shooting and killing his own mother was no reason to to kill David Curtis, didn't that mean he also believed it was an accident all along? Michael Shotland reminded Scott that that's what he originally told investigators in Texas and that's what he told his own siblings again and again, that David shot their mother by accident. He put it to Scott again it isn't it a fact that the reason you didn't shoot David Curtis right there was that you were satisfied from his attitude, from his mental condition, from his emotional condition and from the physical facts that he had accidentally shot your mother? Scott replied, I believe so. Scott Franz had backed himself into a corner. This was good news for David Curtis and his defence. The last witness for the prosecution was Dr. Halbert Fillinger, the medical examiner from Philadelphia who performed the autopsies on Alfred and Rosemary Podgess. He testified that Rosemary had been shot from a distance of about 2 to 3ft. The 30 caliber bullet had entered her lower abdomen from the right and travelled down and across her body at an odd angle, lodging in her left hip. It was not the kind of wound made by someone who intended murder. Defence lawyer Michael Shotland would argue that this evidence, combined with the testimony of the ballistics expert and of course, his examination of Scott Franz, was consistent with an accidental shooting. It was evidence that supported David's defence. But then, at the prosecution's urging, Dr. Fillinger also pulled the jurors deep into the bloody murder scene upstairs involving Scott Franz and Alfred Podgess. It had nothing to do with David Curtis and the shooting death of Rosemary Podges, the crime he was on trial for. But there was certainly a strategy behind it. As expected, Dr. Fillinger testified that it was his conclusion that Alfred Podgess died of a contact wound and the muzzle of the rifle was likely placed directly against his head before the trigger was pulled. Dr. Fillinger said he reached this conclusion because of the nature of the wound to Alfred's head and the way it shattered most of the bones in his skin gull. He said a contact wound was the only way to account for the extent of Alfred's injuries. On cross examination, David's defence lawyer, Michael Shotland, argued with the medical examiner on this part of his testimony and why there was no mention of it in his original report. Dr. Fillinger said that the autopsy report was just observations, what he saw, not how he interpreted it. The cross examination did not go well and at certain points it veered into ridiculous territory with a defence lawyer bringing up John F Kennedy's extensive wounds on the day he was assassinated. The former President clearly wasn't shot at close range, so how was the doctor able to conclude that Alfred podgess had been. Dr. Fillinger didn't back down and the two sparred for a while. But according to author David Hayes in his book Blood not, the only possible outcome from this would have been a very confused jury. In closing arguments, Michael Shotland would remind them that this trial had nothing to do with Alfred Podgess. And the reason the prosecutor seemed to be pushing the narrative that Scott Franz had killed his stepfather father in cold blood as he was sleeping was very simple. The county prosecutor wants you to believe that it is an assassination upstairs, therefore it's an assassination downstairs. That was the last of the prosecution's witnesses. It was time for the defence. Michael Shotland called his own expert forensic witness to counter the medical examiner's opinion on the autopsy. Dr. Dominic DeMaio was the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York and a highly respected forensic pathologist. He confirmed he'd read Dr. Fillinger's observations as outlined in his autopsy report, and testified that, in his opinion, it did not show that Alfred Podgis died of a direct contact wound, in fact, the opposite. Dr. DeMaio testified there was no evidence of soot powder and burning which would be present if it was a contact wound. And when shown an autopsy photo of that head wound, he testified that the shape of it was, quote, more typical of a distant shot. This is not a contact wound. End quote. It was more positive testimony for David Curtis case. But bad news was once again on the horizon. County Prosecutor Paul Shayet had hoped David Curtis would take the stand in his own defence so he could question him about those diary entries. The prosecutor felt strongly that if the jurors could hear testimony from this weird Canadian outsider, they too would be convinced that he was the mastermind of the killings. But it was only after he'd rested his case that Prosecutor Shayet learned the defence would not be calling David to testify. That meant there was no one to question about his diary entries. Shayat realised he made a mistake. So the following morning, he made the unusual decision to ask the judge if he could reopen it so. So he could call his star witness, Scott Franz, back to the stand. Prosecutor Shayet argued that, according to Scott, he and David had discussed those diary entries when they were in prison together, before they were separated, and he had a right to ask Scott about that conversation. But really, his goal was for the jury to hear about David's disturbing diary entries. The questioning didn't much matter. Of course, David's lawyer objected. What did Scott's interpretation of what David may have told him about his diary entries have to do with the matter at trial? The judge decided to hold a voir dire, a trial within a trial, to test the potential evidence without the jury present before deciding if they should hear it or not. Scott Franz was put back on the stand and Prosecutor Shayette asked him to read a passage from David's private diary. So Scott read the following passage. I am mad, insane, as I always wanted to be. I want power. I do not want to die. I want to do it. But the thought becomes more frightening by the hour. However, it makes sense. Freedom, money, a start on my life. I must carry it through. Scott Franz was also asked to read other entries with cryptic references to school pranks and more dark thoughts. After David's friend's suicide, which included references to getting sweet revenge. Later, David Curtis would tell author David Hayes that these and other writings were his attempt to imitate the stark nihilism of one of his own favourite writers, Franz Kafka. But in the absence of the jury, when Scott Franz was asked what he thought David meant by that diary entry, he offered up the darkest interpretation possible. He said it meant David wanted total control and he wanted to kill everyone on earth, including his own parents. David frantically scribbled on the legal pad, he's lying. This is totally ludicrous. His lawyer, Michael Shotland, pressed the judge to discard the diary evidence, arguing that Scott Franz was a convicted murderer who was not present when David wrote those entries. He moved for an absolute acquittal, arguing that the prosecution hadn't produced any evidence proving that David Curtis had shot Rosemary Podgess with intent. There was no case against his client. He said this was outrageous. The judge denied the request to acquit David, but he did agree that the jury would not be allowed to hear about the diary entries or Scott Franz's opinion of them. David Curtis and his family were, of course, greatly relieved about this. But that relief would last exactly one day, because this wasn't Canada with its publication bans, it was the United States. And a hungry media were preparing to go to press. During the voir dire, where the judge decided David Curtis's diary entries would not be admitted into evidence. It's important to note that the jurors may have been dismissed, but the press and the public were not. And if the trial were in Canada, a publication ban would have been imposed to prevent the media from reporting on what happened with the diary entries, because it could obviously influence the jury before they decide on a verdict. But in the us, the media are allowed to report on voir dire proceedings. In addition, juries in New Jersey are rarely sequestered. This particular jury went home every night. The judge gave them strict orders to ignore the press and not read any articles about the case until after the verdict. But they would have found it very difficult to avoid the merciless headlines. The next morning, one from the Asbury Park Press read, Diary Tells of Accused Slayer Thinking of Killing His Own parents. New Jersey's Daily Register read, Killer Diary. I am Mad. It was devastating, and not just for David's defence. David himself was distraught over the idea that his own parents might believe he wanted to kill them. He asked for permission to phone them at the hotel where they'd stayed throughout the trial, a request that was commonly denied, but this time permitted. David's aunt Lorraine would tell author David Hayes that, quote, by some miracle, David's call was put through to our room. Each of us was able to reassure him. We didn't believe a word Scott said, least of all that David would ever have thought of killing his parents. We told him we loved him. In his closing arguments, county prosecutor Paul Shayet reiterated his argument that David Curtis purposely and knowingly shot Mrs. Podgess to get revenge for the way he'd been treated that week as Scott's guest. And regardless of the reason, the prosecutor argued, there was no doubt that David Curtis brought a loaded gun into that house and no doubt he pulled the trigger. That, he said, is the definition of murder. Shayet added, quote, this was no panic. The scrubbing of the wall, the dark blue trunk, and then they go to Pennsylvania and dump these bodies. David Curtis should be found guilty of murder. Because of the evidence in this case, David Curtis is guilty of murder. David's lawyer, Michael Shotland, closed by stating there was no reason for David to kill Rosemary Podgess. She was nice and everyone liked her. He had no motive whatsoever. And the nature of the bullet wound in her lower abdomen, the way it travelled down and across her body, was in line with a faulty gun going off in a panicky collision. Shotland reminded the jurors that the rifle even went off again in court. They were there. As for why the two teenagers fled, Shotland referred to the concept of fight or flight and urged the jury not to jump to the conclusion that running from something in a panic equals a guilty conscience. He reminded them that Scott's police statement and his testimony specified the reason they drove to Texas. Scott wanted to tell his sister Rosie everything before going to the police. Shotland added, maybe David is stupid or negligent, but that is the extent of his culpability. What has the state proven? They haven't proven that Mrs. Podgess died from a rifle wound inflicted under circumstances that you don't know about. And that a couple of stupid kids, or at least one stupid kid and one kid who says he committed murder, put the bodies in a van and left the scene. They made a bad judgement there, left the body somewhere in Pennsylvania and went scarce, scooting around the country, ending up in Texas, hoping to get to the sisters. That's what the prosecutors proved. Michael Shotland asked the jury to acquit David Curtis and, quote, send him back to Canada from whence he came. Before the jury retired to deliberate, the judge reminded them of three guilty verdicts they could consider. They could find David Curtis guilty of first degree murder, which required planning and intent, but needed no motive. If that verdict went too far, the judge gave the jury two other options. They could find David guilty of reckless manslaughter if they believed he knew there was a risk he could kill Rosemary Podgess and took that risk anyway when he carried that loaded gun in the house. Or they could find him guilty of the more serious crime of aggravated manslaughter, which carries a harsher penalty because it also includes extreme indifference to human life. The judge reminded the jury that although Scott Franz agreed to testify against David Curtis in exchange for promises of a reduced sentence, they still still had a right to convict David on Scott's testimony alone if they believed it to be credible. The only thing they had to make sure of was that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of David's guilt. After the judge dismissed the jury, David's lawyer, Michael Shotland, asked him to consider making a clearer distinction between reckless and and aggravated manslaughter. He also asked that the jury be offered one more verdict option, accidental homicide, which would effectively result in David's acquittal. But tough on crime, Judge Arnon denied all these requests. Hours later, just as Shotland suspected, the jury asked for clarification on the difference between recognition reckless and aggravated manslaughter. Judge Arnon explained that both included the same level of recklessness, but aggravated manslaughter is more serious because it also includes extreme indifference to human life. A few hours later, the jury asked, what does extreme indifference to human life mean? The judge gave them an example. Imagine a man pushing a piano off a building onto Times Square just to see what would happen. He might not have had intent to cause grievous harm to anyone on the ground below, but he simply didn't care if he did. That is extreme indifference to human life. Michael Shotland wondered if these questions were an indication that the jury was wrestling with the possibility that David was not a stone cold murderer. He certainly hoped so.

Casey from Casefile Podcast (54:28)

Hi, this is Casey from the casefile podcast, and today I want to talk to you about Boost Mobile. The holidays can be overwhelming. With shopping lists, budgets, and the clock ticking down. Boost Mobile takes the mystery out of saving Money. With the $25 Unlimited plan, you get unlimited talk, text and data for just $25 a month with no trade ins and no hidden fees. It's simple, affordable, and keeps you connected to what matters most. Keep the phone you already love, pay less every month, and take one more problem off your list. That's one case I can officially close stress free. Visit boostmobile.com to start saving. After 30 gigabytes, customers may experience slower speeds. Customers will pay $25 per month as long as they remain active on the Boost Unlimited plan.

Hannah Berner (55:28)

Hannah Berner Are those the cozy Tommy John pajamas you're buying?

Paige de Sorbo (55:32)

Paige desorbo they are Tommy John and yes, I'm stocking up because they make the best holiday gifts so generous. Well, I'm a generous girly, especially when it comes to me. So I'm grabbing the softest sleepwear, comfiest underwear and best fitting loungewear.

Hannah Berner (55:49)

So nothing for your bestie?

Paige de Sorbo (55:51)

Of course I'm getting my dad Tommy John.

Hannah Berner (55:53)

Oh, and you of course it's giving holiday gifting made. Easy.

Paige de Sorbo (55:57)

Exactly. Cozy, comfy, everyone's happy gift everyone on your list, including yourself with Tommy john and get 40% off site wide right now@tommyjohn.com comfort.

Hannah Berner (56:22)

After deliberating for almost 12 hours over two days, the jury found David Curtis not guilty of the first degree murder of Rosemary Podgess. But once again, for the Curtis family, their relief was short lived because David was found guilty of aggravated manslaughter, the harshest of the two manslaughter options. His shoulders visibly sagged. This meant the jury believed that he didn't intend on killing Rosemary Podgess when he carried a loaded gun into the house. But he knew there was a risk and simply didn't care. David Curtis's parents sat gutted. They weren't allowed to talk to David, who was soon taken away in handcuffs. After thanking lawyer Michael Shotland for defending their son and calling the rest of the family to deliver the bad news, Jim and Alice Curtis left New Jersey in their station wagon. In the back was an unused sleeping bag they had thought their son might need, and in case he got tired on the long drive back to Nova Scotia, they were of course, devastated to instead be leaving without him. There was no way to know if the jurors saw those headlines about David Curtis's diary entries, but amidst the drama of the trial, it was easy to forget that David was a Canadian teenager called court in the American court system. After the verdict, his lawyer wrote a furious letter to the New Jersey court administrator describing the media's reporting on the diary entries as a shocking disregard of his client's rights. But it was too late. The damage had been done. The Curtis family felt steamrolled by the American justice system, but they also felt they had been ill served by the Canadian government. It was reported that after David's arrest in Texas, no one from the Canadian consulate ever contacted him. And even though his father Jim Curtis had spoken to consulate officials in New Jersey, no one contacted them after David's arraignment either. One of the chief purposes of a consulate is to help citizens who have been detained outside of Canada. Yet David was ignored and his family's anger only increased weeks later when the judge sentenced David Curtis to the maximum for aggravated manslaughter, 20 years in prison with no chance at parole for 10. It was expected for the judge known as never come home again unknown with that he, he could then sentence Scott Franz for pleading guilty to first degree murder. Scott's defence lawyer had argued that, quote, if David Curtis faces a maximum of 20 years with a minimum parole of 10, then certainly the less influential of the two, the less evil of the two, the one who came under the spell of David Curtis, the one who saved the state the time and expense of a trial, the one who cooperated in the presentation of the case against the co defendant shouldn't get the same numbers. Jar Jar known sentenced Scott Franz to 20 years in prison with no chance of parole for 10. It appeared to be the exact same sentence as he'd given David Curtis, but there was a big difference. David had received the maximum for aggravated manslaughter, yet Scott, who pleaded guilty to the much more serious crime of first degree murder, received the minimum sentence. It was his reward for testifying against his friend. In addition, Scott was sent to a youth detention centre in New Jersey to serve his sentence, a modern facility where he was given a clerical job and was allowed to have a stereo in his cell cell. But David remained at the overcrowded Monmouth County Jail where he continued to sleep on a mat on a corridor floor and shared quarters with about 40 other inmates. David's Aunt Lorraine had come from Canada to support the family through the trial and told the Toronto Star that the injustice done to her nephew was shocking. How is it that a Canadian youth can be invited into an American home where he is terrorised half out of his mind and then gets slapped with a 20 year sentence? She added, quote, we as a family are wondering why Scott invited David into that home. Always an avid writer, David had continued to write short stories, poems and letters to family members while he was was in prison. Aunt Lorraine was one of the recipients. In one letter to her he provided an update about how he was feeling. He wrote, quote, perhaps you in Canada have been wondering about my emotional health with the trial, conviction and sentencing. Actually I've been quite fine and not affected too deeply. About a week before the trial, I was overwrought. But one night while I was sleeping in the isolation cell, I resolved several things. That if I got time, I would use it to advance my mind and not waste away or feel excessively depressed or do nothing. That when I emerged, I would have gained something. This whole experience has seemed unreal. Only once during the trial, when Scott testified, did it feel like I was personally involved and not simply simply an observer. I still have not accepted the reality and probably never will, though I continue to function within the context of the unreality. It is an extended dream that will one day end and my life, so incredibly different from that of the dream, will resume. A few months after the trial, David was transferred to Bordentown Youth Correctional center in New Jersey, an older institution that used to be a prison farm before becoming a medium security reformatory. It was better than the Monmouth County Jail, but not by much. A flurry of appeals followed David Curtis's sentencing. The Curtis family began inundating the Canadian government with pleas to intervene in his case or at least help get David transferred to a prison in Canada. It was difficult for them to visit him in New Jersey, and by some accounts they drained their retirement savings to help David, spending more than $100,000. Soon the story of David Curtis began to go the equivalent of viral for the 1980s. Every major newspaper in Canada began to take a close a closer look at the story and investigative TV shows soon followed. In 1984, the local CBC current affairs show out of Halifax called Inquire, did a feature documentary on the story. Soon after, the local chapter of Amnesty International got involved and began to advise the Curtis family. CBC's the Fifth Estate and the Journal devoted segments to the case, focusing on the unfairness of the trial and how it was loaded against David Curtis, the shady plea bargain, and how Scott France had changed his story to presumably get a lesser prison sentence. Many of the stories examined the circumstances leading up to the crime and questioned why local police had ever allowed Alfred Podgess to accord acquire all those guns in the first place, in light of the dozens and dozens of visits they made to that home to break up domestic disputes. David Curtis also finally began to speak for himself from prison, but only briefly. In a feature article by Michael Hanlon for the Toronto Stars Saturday magazine, he was quoted saying, I made the biggest mistake of my life. I got in over my head in that weird, violent house. And when it got as bad as it did, I should have come home immediately. David received an outpouring of letters and support From Canada, hundreds of Canadians wrote letters to the New Jersey government. Fundraisers and candlelight vigils were held across the country. People wore special T shirts that read Free David Curtis. The first appeal was based on the judge's errors in instructing the jury and his failure to outline other verdict options. That appeal failed. So Jim and Alice Curtis took their case all the way to the New Jersey Supreme Court with a new lawyer who put together a fresh argument. It was chiefly focused on the fact that the grisly murder of Alfred Podgess should never have been brought up at David's trial in the first place because it only further conflated the two crimes and prejudiced the jury. They were effectively left with the impression that if Scott was a murderer, then surely David was as well. Once again, the appeal failed. The New Jersey Supreme Court declined to hear the case. And the Canadian government wasn't much help either. The newly elected Conservative Party, led by Brian Mulroney, didn't think it was their place to intervene. After all the public uproar, External Affairs Minister Joe Clark had to give a statement to the media about it. In fear. February of 1985, he said, it is the view of this government that those court proceedings fully followed American law. It would be inappropriate for us to interfere in the judicial proceedings as it would be for Canada to accept interference by the United States. The Curtis family turned again to the Governor of New Jersey Jersey begging for clemency. Again, they were denied. Their only hope now was a new state law that allowed for the international transfer of foreign prisoners. In 1986, New Jersey became a signatory to a treaty between the U.S. and Canada that allowed for prisoner exchanges. But the prosecutors in Monmouth County, New Jersey vowed to fight any requests for David's transfer. They still saw him as the murderous mastermind behind the killings. And they knew that once he was back in Canada, he'd be eligible for parole much sooner than he would have been in the U.S. the sticking point for the prosecutors was always the fact that after Scott shot Alfred Podgess and David shot Rosemary, the teenagers fled the state together, dumped the bodies and ran. Fight, flight or freeze was one thing, but David's own supporters couldn't quite understand his actions either. In April of 1988, five years into his prison term, David Curtis gave another brief prison interview to a Canadian reporter for Southam News, where he finally explained what he and Scott had been thinking when they took all this action. By this point, 24 years old, David described that day as a very traumatic situation. He was out of his depth and didn't know how to react. We were trying in some way to make things the way they were, to put the bodies away and make things right in the house. We were trying to put it in our minds that it didn't happen. It's just that it didn't seem like flight. What I thought we were doing is that I was upset. His mother was lying on the floor and Scott wanted to remove her. I liked her. She was a pleasant woman. When David was asked about the prosecution's case that he was the leader and meticulously planned out the events that of that day, he scoffed some mastermind. It wasn't really well planned out the way it turned out. He was asked to comment on speculation that Scott Franz had an alternative motive for inviting him to New Jersey to stay, that Scott effectively used him as part of his plan to rid himself of a family problem. David said he didn't bother buy it and he also didn't blame Scott for turning against him and taking that plea deal because quote, he was in a very difficult situation. He was facing 30 years and by doing what he did he got 10 years. He made a realistic choice. I don't see any point in saying I've been done wrong. David said he was still bothered about what happened that day. He believed he deserved to go to prison for it, although he felt he was only guilty of reckless manslaughter, not aggravated. I'm going to eventually get out of jail, but Mrs. Podgess is dead. What happened to her is much more horrible than what has happened and can happen to me. In May of 1988 podcast one month after that interview, the Governor of New Jersey finally approved David Curtis prison transfer. He was sent back to Canada to a medium security prison in Nova Scotia where he'd be closer to his parents by fall of 1989. The following year he was out on full parole after spending almost seven years in prison. He was now 25 years old at the time. David told the Toronto Star he'd been the victim of a vindictive state justice system and his own stupid mistakes. But in prison he realised what was important in life and held no bitterness. He'd made good on the promises he made to his Aunt Lorraine in that letter. When he was in prison in both the US and and Canada, he had taken courses in psychology, philosophy and English literature and he was now studying for a degree at a major university majoring in physics. Two years after David Curtis was released from prison, a TV drama was broadcast about the case called Deadly Betrayal, filmed In Halifax by a Canadian production company. The story was told from the perspective of the Curtiss family, of David being invited to the Podges home to stay and finding himself in the middle of an American horror story. The prosecutors and defence lawyers involved with the case in New Jersey described the movie as a great piece of entertainment that wasn't rooted in fact and many complained about the way they had been portrayed in it. As for Scott Franz, he hit the headlines in spring of 1992, almost 10 years after the killings, Scott had escaped from prison, although escape wasn't really the right way to describe it. By that point, the 28 year old was living in a halfway house in New Jersey, very close to being released on full parole. But for some inexplicable reason, he and a fellow resident of the halfway house, a convicted burglar, walked off one day and they didn't come back. Two weeks later, an anonymous tip placed them all the way across the country in California, where once again Scott Franz was captured in a hotel room. There were never any answers about why Scott would take a risk like that when he was so close to having his freedom back. But a spokesperson with the correctional system insisted the two men would be returned to a secure facility, some place with walls or a fence. They would also be facing escape charges with the possibility of additional years being added to their sentences. After that, there were only two more public updates about Scott Franz. According to one article, Scott was released on full parole four years later in 1996 and it appears he was dead within a year, aged 33 years old. His cause of death is unknown and there is no obituary to be found in the news archives. Just a lone entry on Ancestry.com after David Curtis graduated from university, he went on to become a scientific researcher in academia. By all accounts, he faded away into a normal life, away from the headlines and the cameras. It appears that the last time time he was quoted in the media was in 2002. By that point, it was 20 years after the horrific incident in New Jersey that set his life on a new course. David Curtis told the reporter that he'd moved on. I just prefer to remain off the radar. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, some names have been changed and if you happen to know or know of anyone involved with this story, please respect their privacy. This series was pieced together from extensive news archives from both Canada and the U.S. a court document and the book titled Blood not by journalist David Hayes. Originally published in Canada under the title no Easy Answers. For the full list of resources and anything you want to know about the podcast, visit canadiantruechrime CA as always, we'll be posting some of the clippings and photos mentioned in this series on the Canadian True Crime, Facebook and Instagram pages. Canadian True Crime donates monthly to those facing injustice. This month we have donated to the Canadian Mental Health association, who advocates and provides resources for the 1 in 5 people in Canada who have a mental illness. For more info, visit CMHA ca Lisa Gabriel researched and wrote this episode. Additional research and writing was by me. Audio editing was by Crosby Audio and Eric Crosby voiced the disclosure. Disclaimer Our senior producer is Lindsay Eldridge and Carol Weinberg is our script consultant. Narration and sound design was by me, and the theme song was composed by we talk of dreams. I'll be back soon with another Canadian True Crime episode. See you then.

iHerb/Gab Advertiser (77:25)

This holiday season, connection with the kids we love is the best gift of all. Right now, kids on average are spending between five to nine hours a day on screens and studies link heavy use to rising anxiety and depression with social media being at the center of it all. That's why Gab makes kids safe. Phones and watches. No Internet, no social media. Just the right features for their age. With Gab's Tech in Steps approach, kids get the right tech at the right time. So if a phone is on your child's wish list, make it a gab. The gift of Safe Connection. For an exclusive holiday offer, visit gab.com getgab and use code getgab that's G-A B B.com getgab Gab Tech insteps independence for them. Peace of mind for you.

Marc Maron (78:12)

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.