S04E17: THE PICKERING LOST BOYS

In the early morning hours of March 17, 1995 in Pickering, Ontario, six teenage boys go missing seemingly without a trace.

At 12:50am, they leave a house party and head to a local marina to "goof around".
At 1:48am, three of the boys are spotted on surveillance footage at the marina.
Between 2:30 and 3:00am, locals hear the sound of a motor boat near the docks.

Then, the trail goes cold with no concrete information surfacing about the whereabouts of the six boys nearly 30 years later. Police come to the logical conclusion that the six boys drowned in the lake that night after a joyride gone wrong. However, the stolen boat was allegedly "unsinkable" but has never been recovered in the lake despite an extensive search by police. So many questions remain in this case, with the biggest being: how can a boat and all six boys vanish without a trace?

FIND US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: @crimefamilypodcast
Twitter: @crimefamilypod1
Facebook: Crime Family Podcast
Email: crimefamilypodcast@gmail.com

Become a patron here:
https://www.patreon.com/Crimefamilypodcast

Get your Crime Family Merch here: https://www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/123775076

EPISODE RESOURCES:

Main Case website (with detailed timeline, photos, police documents, etc.):
https://www.lostboysofpickering.com

"New book delves deeper into the mystery of the Lost Boys of Pickering" (Durham) https://www.insauga.com/new-book-delves-deeper-into-the-mystery-of-the-lost-boys-of-pickering/

"UNSOLVED: The Lost Boys of Pickering" (YouTube):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmrPy43Ine8

The mystery of the Lost Boys: Part 3" (DurhamRegion.com):
https://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/8566676-the-mystery-of-the-lost-boys-part-3/

The Lost Pickering Boys Interview with Investigator Bruce Ricketts (YouTube):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS_eQOM_qiA

Transcript

AJ: Coming up on this episode of Crime Family. 

This is the story of the Pickering Lost Boys, a group of 16 boys who went missing after a house party on March 17th, 1995 in Pickering, Ontario, Canada. 

So however, the girls, even though they reported the boys missing, the police did not consider the call important or a priority at all. They just told the girls to have the boys' mothers call the station the next day to make a report if they still weren't back by that time.

A body of a male was recovered from the Niagara River by Niagara Regional Police. And so according to reports by the Ontario Coroner, the following details about these remains were noted.

Stephanie: It's very odd to me that all six of them just drowned, nobody found any evidence of anything, that's just weird to me. 

So, I think this whole thing just revolves around the boat. I think if you find the boat, you find the people, and that's what I'm sticking to.

AJ: Hi everyone. Welcome back to Crime Family. This week it's just Stephanie and I, for this episode. Katie, unfortunately has the flu, so she is not able to be with us. I feel like it's been a few weeks since we've all been together. I was out the last episode, for technical issues, which have thankfully been resolved. Now Katie's sick, so just Stephanie and I tonight. We'll get started. This week I'm gonna be telling the story of an unsolved mystery that happened in Ontario, Canada back in the 1990s. Despite the very mysterious circumstances of the case and the media attention that it has attracted, it still remains unsolved to this day.

This is the story of the Pickering Lost Boys, a group of six teenage boys who went missing after a house party on March 17th, 1995 in Pickering, Ontario, Canada. Have you ever heard of this case before? 

Stephanie: No, I've never heard of it. 

AJ: It did receive some media attention, of course, when it first happened, and there's been podcasts and stuff that have done episodes on it, but it hasn't been well known, so not surprising that you haven't heard of it. I think I heard of it maybe a couple of years ago, but didn't really look too far into it. It is actually quite an interesting and weird case. I'm excited to get into it. So, Pickering Ontario is a part of the greater Toronto area and it's located on Lake Ontario, so it has a population of about a hundred thousand people. The population back in 1995 though was only about 78,000, and it is located about 40 kilometers east of Toronto. On March 16, the day before St. Patrick's Day in 1995, six teenage boys, Chad Smith, aged 18, Jay Boyle, age 17, Jamie Lefebvre, age 17. Michael Cummins, age 17, Danny Higgins, age 16, and Robbie Rumboldt, age 18, attended a party being held in town. I don't really know much about these six boys and their lives before this night, other than the fact that Jay had a young child with his girlfriend at the time that this case began. For the rest of the boys, unfortunately we don't know much about any of them. We don't know anything about them before they went missing and this case started. In this case, there's not a lot of information out there. Like I said, there are some podcasts. There is a couple of websites and news articles, but you know, there isn't a documentary or anything like that, so it's really hard to find a lot of information or consistent information. A lot of the sources have conflicting dates and conflicting information so I'm gonna try to present it in a non-confusing way, but sometimes it does get a little confusing with the change of information among sources. Like I said, these six boys, went out to a party on the night of March 16th into the early morning hours of March 17th, and including the six of them, there were about 50 people at this party. At about 12:50 AM the six boys decided to leave the party together and head to Frenchman's Bay, and this was an area in a marina where many teenagers would go to hang out and party and drink late at night. So it was kind of known among teenagers anyway as being a place to do that. A specific reason that they left the party to go to Frenchman's Bay is not known. They didn't say, you know, that they were gonna be meeting anyone or that they were going to be doing something specific. Other teenagers at the party told investigators that the boys said they would be back before sunrise and that they were going to quote, "goof around," but as to what "goof around" entails specifically, that information wasn't known to the people at the party, or at least not that they said to investigators. 

Stephanie: Were these six people, were they friends? Or were they not known to each other? They were just at the same party. 

AJ: They were all friends with each other.

Stephanie: Okay. Sorry, I don't know if you said that or not. 

AJ: Oh, no. Yeah, I don't think I did. But yeah, they were all friends. So there was a group of six friends. 

Stephanie: Okay. 

AJ: They were all at this party together. Although there is, that is one of the pieces with a little bit conflicting is that there is some sources that say that there was an argument between two of the boys that night and one of them left the party early, so it was only five of them that were there that left. But other sources say it was all six that were there, so I'm just gonna go with that there were six people. From my understanding, they were close friends. All six of them were pretty close, from the information that I could see anyway. The next event in the timeline was at about 1:30 AM when Jay Boyle called his girlfriend Monique Vavala. In this call, Jay told Monique that he and two of the boys were planning on going for a joy ride on a water tricycle. So if you don't know what that is or you've never seen one, it's just this big watercraft. It has huge big wheels like a tricycle that you ride in the water, I guess, of some description. So he called her and said that he and his friends were planning on going for a joy ride on one of these water tricycles but Monique was able to talk him out of that. She convinced him that that wasn't a good idea. So Jay then said that he, Robbie and Michael would come over to her apartment. But the three boys never showed up. At about 1:48 AM, Michael, Robbie and Jamie can be seen on surveillance footage. A water tricycle and a four meter motorboat, known as a Boston Whaler, along with a case of beer, were stolen from the marina by the boys, but the boat being stolen was not captured on the tape. So, they've just put the pieces together that based on, you know, a report of a missing boat and the fact that the three boys were seen on surveillance footage near the boat at the marina, that the boys did take that boat, even though it's not physically seen on the camera. On the camera, what they see, or what you can see is three of the boys walking in a straight line past, through the view of the camera. No other specific information or anything of note at that part of the tape. So to my knowledge, the three other boys were not seen on surveillance footage at all. The only information that we have that Jay was actually there, cuz he wasn't one of the boys that was seen on the footage, it was only Michael, Robbie and Jamie, so the only reason we know that Jay was also there was, because remember he called his girlfriend Monique and he said that he was there and that they were gonna take the joy ride. 

Stephanie: So, was the party close to the marina? Could they walk there or do they have to drive? 

AJ: I don't really know. I think it was, you know, probably within walking distance. It's not a very big place I don't believe. I don't really know actually if they walked it or drove it. 

Stephanie: I'm just curious cuz I thought maybe someone saw the boys there, if it was close to the party and they just happened to leave the party and walk there. I don't know. 

AJ: Yeah, so they left the party at 12:50 AM or roughly around 12:50, and they're seen on the surveillance footage, the three of them at 1:48 AM so it is an hour later. So, you know, they were at the marina within an hour. So even if they did walk it, it was, you know, an hour at the most of a walk. But probably less than that. I don't have any information about if they drove to the party or if they drove to the marina or anything like that, or if they got a ride. All I know is that an hour after they left the party, they were at the marina and seen on that footage. So Bruce Ricketts is a private investigator who began looking into this case back in 2010, and he was able to retrieve a copy of the surveillance footage during his investigation, and he says that he watched all of the hours of the footage that were available to him from the marina that night. So aside from the event at 1: 48 of the three boys at the marina, he also saw two other things on the footage from that night. So one is from 12:15 AM where Ricketts says, "at 0:15 a car is seen driving into the marina. You can see it enter on camera one. It then drives towards the surface area and makes a right turn to park next to a pickup truck. This is seen on camera two. Two persons get out of the car, move around the outside a couple of times, then pick up a large bag, which one tosses over his shoulder. Both persons then walk to the left across the camera view. That car remained for almost one hour before driving out." Nothing necessarily suspicious, but just that there were other people. Now this is at 12:15, so that would've been before the boys were there, obviously, because they didn't leave the party till 12:50. There were other people at the marina that night, whether they were still there by the time that the boys were there, we don't know. Another event is, "the most troubling clip from the video. The clip starts at 2:09. At 2: 10, three persons are seen walking into the service area from the left. They walk most of the way across the yard and stop. One person has separated away from the other two and appears to be pointing something at them. About 30 seconds after they enter the yard, they disappear. Who were they? It appears to be one male and two females. This activity occurs 20 minutes after the three boys march into the yard. Did this second trio see or hear anything? Were they identified and questioned by police?" So that's all from the main website on this case that is managed by Bruce Ricketts himself. So he does have a website on this case, lostboysofpickering.com and he outlines the timeline of the case. So a lot of this information is from that. That was a direct quote, what his thoughts were after seeing the event from the surveillance footage at around 2:10. This could be completely unrelated. There is a chance that these three people witnessed something. Maybe they saw the other boys there, maybe, they were involved in something that happened. We may never know though, because we do not know at this time if these three people were ever identified or if they were questioned by police. So all we know is that there were other people there throughout the night who may or may not have seen anything or heard anything. So we just don't know. That's the theme with much about this case is that there's just so much that we don't really know. There also were other people walking about, you know, that night. There was also another event that was on the footage and this one was very insignificant. It was just a person walking in the view of the camera, which I believe was around these same times. So at some point, just to show that there were other people in the area that night. Who... 

Stephanie: They never identified what was in that bag? What could have been in that bag that the people took? 

AJ: No, I mean, nothing that's out there. We don't really know to what extent the police really looked into anything. My guess is probably not much based on, you know...

Stephanie: Yeah, I was just wondering, it may seem insignificant to the crime or the mystery, but I was just trying to piece everything together, there's a lot of events that went on during this time. I was just trying to figure out if that thing had any significance, but it probably didn't.

AJ: There's a lot of, you know, it's a marina, there's lots of boats there, so a lot of people own these boats. There could just be people, you know, at all hours of the day. Who knows what people are doing at this hour. The boys definitely weren't the only ones there, but obviously there's nothing to say that any of these other people were involved in anything. But, you know, they would be people that should be followed up with by the police, you know, at the very least. We just don't know if that happened or not. We don't know a ton about this case, but obviously nothing ever came out that led to anything. I can just assume that they probably, maybe they did question these people, but my sense is probably not just based on the lack of care in this case, just overall. So all of those people are moving around the marina and they're spotted on these cameras at different times. The other three boys, like I said, there's only three boys that were captured on the surveillance footage, so the other three were not captured at all. There were two cameras at the marina, so the other three could have just walked along routes that just didn't happen to be in the path of any of the cameras. Nothing really to make of the fact that the other three weren't on camera, but just noting that it was only the three of them that were seen. There were residents who lived near Frenchman's Bay who also spoke with the police during the investigation. They say they could hear the sound of an engine from a boat starting up between 2:30 and 3:00 AM that morning at the marina. But again, nothing really conclusive about that either. We can just put the pieces together, based on the little bit of information we have. Monique and the girlfriend of another one of the boys ended up calling the police at around 3:30 AM when they grew concerned that the boys didn't return and hadn't been heard from. However, the girls, even though they reported the boys missing, the police did not consider the call important or a priority at all. They just told the girls to have the boys' mothers call the station the next day to make a report if they still weren't back by that time. So for whatever reason, the police did not seem to believe the girls. Didn't think that the girls were being completely truthful with them about aspects of the disappearance. I don't really know the details of that, but the police were just sketched out for whatever reason about the nature of the call or about the details of it. The report that was done on this initial call, cause of course there has to be reports written from every, you know, police interaction or call, so the report about this call was only written about a week after it happened, and that was only when Officer Gillum was requested to do so by his supervisor. So if it wasn't even for that, he wouldn't have even written a report. So it is extremely problematic for a report to be written a week after an initial call. Significant details could be forgotten. You know, one week after the fact, you know, you have a lot of calls, you have a lot of interactions, you could be mixing up information in your mind, right? So your memory's never gonna be completely 100% accurate. It is just problematic that there was a week span between when he took the call and when he wrote the report. That's a little bit odd. 

Stephanie: Yeah, cuz I was gonna say, you think if you took the call and you make the report simultaneously. You know, you write down what the person's saying on the phone. 

AJ: Yeah.

Stephanie: You know what I mean? You don't talk to the person and then hang up and then an hour later write down what that person said cuz you're gonna forget. 

AJ: Well, I mean sometimes you can do it after you're talking. I mean... 

Stephanie: I guess.

AJ: Sometimes you can take notes like right after an incident. Obviously... 

Stephanie: True.

AJ: If you don't have a chance during the time, if you're responding to something, you can't take time away from that to write notes.

Stephanie: No.

AJ: But you're encouraged to do it as soon as possible after. 

Stephanie: Yeah. 

AJ: A week is not an acceptable amount of time. 

Stephanie: No.

AJ: Of course. It was just kind of odd that it would've gone on a week with it before he wrote a report. Like I said, it was only because his superior and his supervisor asked him to do that that he even did it. If it wasn't for that, he wouldn't have even written one at all. But for whatever reason, if maybe he was remembering it wrong or maybe when he wrote this report, he didn't really believe what the girls were saying or some aspects of it he just found kind of sketchy or odd because he just thought that there was something that they were telling him or something like that. Again, I don't really know the details of what that was, but based on the reports it seems that way. I think too because Jay had made contact with Monique just two hours before the 911 call was made, cuz she called at 3:30 and it was at 1:30 that he had called her saying that, "oh, you know, we're going for a joy ride" and all of that stuff. So because it had only been two hours, the boys weren't considered missing at that time. You know, it's only been two hours. Who knows, they could have just drank too much. They're somewhere else at another party. I mean, we see that all the time. The police say you have to wait a certain amount of time before you file a report. You can't just go two hours before filing it. So I understand why it wouldn't have been filed. It wasn't even until the middle of the following day. So it was actually March 18th at 2:00 PM when the search for the boys even started. So by this time it would've been, you know, 36 hours after they had been last seen on that surveillance footage and you know, a lot can happen in 36 hours. By this time, by 2:00 PM on the 18th, the boat that the boys allegedly had taken had been reported stolen and so the police were looking for the boys in connection with that report. It wasn't even necessarily for the boys' wellbeing, it was the fact that they had stolen this boat from the marina and they were looking for that boat. During her conversations with the police, so I'm not sure if it was during the initial 9 1 1 call, or maybe it was later on in the investigation, if they spoke to her again, but Monique had shared with the police that the night before the boys went missing, Jay, Chad and Robbie had taken a water tricycle for a joy ride. Then when they were done, they quote, "returned the tricycle to the marina, but did not tie it up properly to its post." So by the sounds of it, you know, going to this marina, taking some of the boats out on a joy ride was a common activity for them. They had done it before at least once in the past, including the night before they had went missing. That information about returning the tricycle that they had taken and not tying it up properly does tie in a little bit later with something else that comes up in the investigation. So initially it looks like a simple case, you know, three of the boys are seen on surveillance footage and steal a boat and some beer from the marina and maybe a water tricycle as well. They had told Monique that they had stolen that same water tricycle the night before. Then a motorboat can be heard starting its engine about an hour later, and the boys have not been seen since then. So just based on those very logical and simple pieces, it's a logical conclusion that the boys stole the boat, went for the joyride, but then the question is why didn't they return and where are they now? So the working theory, I think at this time was that the boys had taken the boat and the police thought maybe they were just hiding out in fear of the consequences of their actions. You know, maybe they thought they would be in trouble, maybe if they knew the police were out looking, they were just afraid to come clean, I guess. So I don't really know if that was just the police after the fact saying that or if that really was what they were thinking at the time. The Durham Regional Police were joined by the Metro Toronto Marine Unit and the Coast Guards among other resources in search for the boys. But probably more important to them was the search for this missing boat. Like I said, they didn't really take this disappearance of the boys that seriously, at the beginning, at least. An extensive search of the area came up empty handed. There was no sign of the missing boat or the six teenage boys. The coastline was searched extensively, you know, by sea and by helicopter. During this initial search, there was a aqua cycle or water tricycle that was seen in the water about 20 meters from the shore. The choppy water conditions prevented searchers from retrieving the cycle from the water, and it was never recovered or seen again after that. So whether this water tricycle that they saw was relevant to the disappearance or not has been debated because some theorized that this could have been a different water tricycle that was stolen by the boys the night before they went missing. Remember Monique said that the boys had told her that they returned it, but may not have tied it up to its post, so that could have then washed away or floated away so that the one that they were seeing during this search was just the one from the previous night that had floated away. So it could have been completely irrelevant to the night that the boys went missing. 

Stephanie: I don't know if this is relevant or just me being super techy or whatever, but do they have like serial numbers on their water tricycles to identify if that was the one that the boys took, or that was just a random one that floated away? 

AJ: Well, like I said, they weren't able to retrieve it from the water because I think they ...

Stephanie: Oh, okay. Yeah. Sorry.

AJ: The choppy waters, they just weren't able to retrieve it, I guess, because of the choppy water. So they couldn't even check it for a serial number. So maybe it probably does have something on it, but they could just see it looks like something, like a water tricycle, but they were never confirmed that this is the one that's related to this or if it's a completely different one?

Stephanie: So this water tricycle, it fits six people on it? When I think of a tricycle I think it's small. 

AJ: Well it's like... 

Stephanie: I don't think of it like a boat. 

AJ: I think if you look up a water tricycle they're not fitting six people. One person or two maybe, but not six for sure. If they also had the boat too, you know, they could have had two on that. Also like I said, there was only three that were seen on the surveillance footage, so maybe three of them took the boat, three of them took the water tricycle. They could have split up, they could have been separated by this point. It could have been two groups of three, you know. 

Stephanie: They never found the boat either? 

AJ: I'll get into that. 

Stephanie: Oh, okay. 

AJ: Well, the answer is no, they never found the boat, but there's more information about that. So, yeah. I guess the question here was, was this water tricycle that the searchers had seen, was it the one that they stole the night before that just floated away? Or was this maybe one that was stolen by them that night that they disappeared? And so the fact that it is floating away, that's relevant, that could lead to a theory about what happened to the boys, but we don't really know because they didn't retrieve the water tricycle, so they don't know which one it was. Maybe it could be a completely separate one that's not even related to the boys at all. So we don't really know. There's also information, I watched, like I said, there's the main website that Bruce Ricketts, the PI, he manages and has a lot of the timeline information and some of the documents from the case. He also did an interview, I think for another podcast, I watched the video. He does talk a little bit more about the details. There was also an alleged sighting of one of the boys in the beaches area of Toronto, the day after they went missing. One of the boys actually lived near that area. So that's a little bit strange. Nothing really came of that, but there was also alleged sightings of the boys in New York shortly after the disappearance. But to my knowledge, nothing ever came from this either. There was probably, you know, reports about the clothes that they were last seen wearing and maybe someone put it together based on the clothes they saw someone wearing and they looked like the boys, so they reported that they did see at least one of them in New York and also in Toronto. But those had never been confirmed or led to anything substantial. Just a little bit something to note. And so authorities eventually call off the search only days later, so I think it was like 48 hours later. There's no evidence or clues that are found. After that water tricycle, there's nothing really that is found. No sign of the boys, nothing from the motorboat or anything else that leads to any more information in the case. However, on March 29th, a gas can was spotted near Wilson, New York, which is 60 kilometers from Frenchman's Bay. So Pickering and Wilson are both located along the coast of Lake Ontario, but they're just on opposite ends, 60 kilometers apart. Lake Ontario is split down the middle. Half of it's on the US side, half of it's on the Canadian side, so this would've floated pretty much if you look on a map, which I did look on Google maps, Wilson and Pickering are literally just right across the lake from each other, 60 kilometers apart. Once this gas can was found, it led investigators down another path and maybe some more concrete evidence that the boys may have capsized or sunk in the boat and then drowned the night they disappeared. It has been alleged that it is the same gas can that belonged to that Boston Whaler boat that the boys are thought to have stolen. The can actually had ID markings that were bilingual and that suggests that it did come from Canada because it was marked in both English and French. Normally something, if it came from the US it wouldn't have French on it. It would probably just be in English. So the fact that it was English and French, they say, okay, this came from the Canadian side.

Stephanie: Really, things that come from the States don't have French on them?

AJ: Well, French isn't one of their national languages. Obviously here we're used to having everything in English and French, cuz we have two national languages, but for the US it would probably just be in English. That's how they were able to say it probably came from the Canadian side versus it being from the US side. There was an identical dent that was on this can, as the one that was described to be on the can that was attached to the missing boat or associated with the missing boat. So it was a dent of the same size and location. That's also something interesting and would be kind of a coincidence if they were two separate cans, but they just happened to have a dent of the same size on the same place. That's kind of weird. Also the can was found floating in the water without a cap. There was no lid on it, but it was empty so it had no water in it or anything. The question is, "how did the gas can get separated from the boat and where is the boat?" You know, you could just think that the boat sunk after a crash or something, but the boat that was stolen by the boys, was actually a model known to be quote, "unsinkable", so the unique features of this boat, so Boston Whaler is the model, but it's alleged that the one that was stolen wasn't exactly a Boston Whaler, it was a replica model, but it was something very similar. The Boston Whaler is an unsinkable boat. That's how it was marketed. It has unique features that allows it to remain afloat despite damage to its external or internal walls. Also if it's filled up with water, the outer layer of the boat is actually made out of styrofoam. So this allows it to remain afloat despite being filled with water. The Nightime Podcast did an episode on this case and Jordan, the host of that show is describing it. You could cut this boat down the middle, and it would just be two floating pieces and it wouldn't really sink very easily. Maybe eventually it would sink, but it would probably take some time because it would just end up being like styrofoam floating. So even if the boy boys did take the boat out, they crashed it, for the boat to have completely sunk or not be found is also very odd. Investigators find it odd that the boat would never be recovered during their search. If the boat was unsinkable, then you'd think it would just be found floating above the water surface. So the questions just kept coming. How did the gas can get separated from the boat and find its way to Wilson, New York, but the boat was never found at the bottom of the lake or even seen floating on the surface. I guess my defense for that is like, "well they also said that the Titanic was unsinkable and we all know how that happened. "

Stephanie: I was just gonna say that. 

AJ: Yeah. 

Stephanie: I was like, they said the Titanic was unsinkable and look what happened there. The whole freaking thing sunk. 

AJ: Yeah. On its maiden voyage too. 

Stephanie: I feel like if you fill up a boat full of water eventually it's gonna sink, it can't just be floating in the ocean forever. It would have to sink. It would deteriorate. 

AJ: Yeah, it would deteriorate, but it's also styrofoam and that would take a long time to deteriorate, you would think. They started searching 36 hours after the boys went missing. You'd think if they searched the whole lake thoroughly, they would have found it in their search. It wouldn't have sunk. Well, apparently it wouldn't have sunk in that short amount of time. Even if it would eventually sink, it wouldn't have been in the first couple of days. It could probably still remain afloat for at least a couple of days, despite being damaged. If there was water in it, you would still see it. Or even if it were starting to sink, you might see the top of it or see it right below the surface. You know what I mean? And also, you could think, with the currents and stuff, it could have floated away to different locations. I'll also get a little bit into that as well too. So, like I said, just because they said that this model of boat was unthinkable, doesn't mean it actually was. Maybe it did sink and their search was just not thorough enough at the bottom of the lake to find it. According to marina staff, the gas can that was on the boat had about three gallons of fuel in it, which would've been enough to travel about 25 miles. So if the boys had taken the boat, 25 miles would've been the furthest they would've been able to get on the boat. 25 miles would've taken them close to Toronto if they were to travel west, it would've taken them, you know, further down the Ontario coast and then, 25 miles would've taken them halfway across the lake. Wilson is about 60 kilometers from Pickering and they're both right on the coast on opposite ends, so it would've been about 60 kilometers. If they only were able to travel 25, you know, they would've gotten halfway through. So if they ran outta gas and they got stuck and stranded in the middle of the ocean or in the middle of the lake, that's a possibility. But then how come there's no sign of the boat or anything like that. Also, another question that Bruce Ricketts has is how the can could have got tossed overboard and then it floats around with the cap off in the choppy waters for nearly two weeks and then doesn't get any water inside of it. Like I said, it was found empty, but there was no cap on it. So you'd think, how did that not get filled with water and sink to the bottom? You think that surely would've happened? So for that two weeks later to be recovered above the surface empty with no water in it is very weird. 

Stephanie: Yeah, that is weird. You would think water would get inside of it. It's floating in the ocean. 

AJ: Yeah, it's just an empty can with no lid on it, that's rolling. 

Stephanie: Anything you put in the water, even if you put something in like an open cup in the sink, it gets water in it.

AJ: Yeah. 

Stephanie: That's weird. 

AJ: I mean, you know, an empty can, it could be light enough that it would float, but if it's choppy waters, apparently if they saw that water tricycle but couldn't retrieve it cuz of the choppy waters, so obviously the water was choppy so it would've been rolling around and like how does it not get filled with water? For it to be found empty is very strange. In order for the can to float to the location that it was found in Wilson, New York, which is on the opposite side of the lake, there would've had to be winds and water currents in a particular direction, but there were no winds or currents in those directions, in the two week period of time between the boys disappearing and the recovery of the gas can, that would've led to it floating to that location. So it is assumed by some that for the gas can, to have ended up there where it was found, would've had to be dropped at that location either with or without the boat. So very, very odd. The main website on this case says, quote, "another marina worker stated that given the currents and conditions, the boat should have ended up in Rochester, New York," cuz Rochester, that's about 70 miles east of Wilson, where it was actually found, where the gas can was found right in Wilson. So if it was currents it should have ended up in Rochester, which would've been 70 miles from where it actually was. And if the boat's gonna float in that direction too, it would have been in Rochester as well. There was never any boat or wreckage of a boat that was ever reported to be found. A very weird set of circumstances. Either the boys did go that far in the boat on their joy ride, or it got stuck in the middle, like I said, after getting halfway across, or the can was placed there after the fact. It's just very, very weird. Then after the recovery of the gas can, just weeks after the disappearance, the case goes cold, basically. There were no additional leads. There were no signs of the boys and no sign of the boat that they stole. So for three years there was nothing else to go on, and there was no action in the investigation because there was just nothing to go on. But then in 1998, there were actually human remains that were found. On April 10th, 1998, "a body of a male was recovered from the Niagara River near the water intake channel for Sir Adam Beck Hydro Generating Station by Niagara Regional Police." And so, according to reports by the Ontario coroner, the following details about these remains were noted and I took this right from this main website so I'm just gonna read the list of identifying information about the remains. So age was estimated to be between 25 to 60 years of age, so a big range. Race was Caucasian. Height was 172 to 180 centimeters, which would be five 5'8 to 5'11, clothing there was red Levi Strauss jean pants, 32 inch at the waist, and a 31 inch in seam with a dark brown belt, white athletic socks with a red, white, and blue stripe. Then there was a black wallet empty of contents that was also found. So they didn't find any cards or anything in the wallet that would identify this person, but that was the information they were able to gather from the coroner's office. According to family members, this description does describe that of Jay Boyle. He was just 17, but was apparently quite strapping for his age. He was 6' tall and 150 pounds. Part of the remains, there was a long bone that was actually found in a pair of red denim jeans, and these were jeans that were identical to a pair that Jay Boyle's mother bought for him prior to his disappearance and jeans that he was photographed wearing the night that he disappeared. So that's odd. These were brightly colored red pants, which wouldn't have been, I mean, maybe they were in style or maybe they were in fashion in the nineties, but how many people would go missing wearing red pants? So the fact that they're finding human remains partially encased in red Levi pants is significant, but the significance of the pants or the jeans was not known to be relevant until 15 years later because that's when Jay's family actually was made aware of the discovery of the remains and the pants in 2013. So why were they not notified at the time of the retrieval of the remains, still remains a mystery. Why weren't the remains tested to confirm the identity? So to this day, no DNA has been extracted from the remains to determine who they belong to despite being sent to a coroner's office in 2014. So, private investigator Bruce Ricketts says that he was informed by the coroner in 2014 that the quote "pants studied by the forensic anthropologist had a waterproof coating and cannot be a red Levi pair of jeans from the 1990s," so this led Ricketts to ask questions such as, you know, "why was there a contradiction in description? So why was it they said that they were red pants that were Levi Straus pants and then in 2014 the coroner's telling him that no, there was a waterproof coating, it couldn't have been a red Levi pair of jeans." So there's two different pieces of information there. So who's right who is wrong? Are the remains that were recovered in 1998, the same ones that were viewed by the anthropologist in 2014. So just a lot of inconsistencies in this case. How could you get something wrong? It's either that or it isn't, right? Are they red pants, are they not? So the fact that, you know, you could have two different experts years apart looking at it. I mean, I guess they could have different opinions, but the pants were either red or they're not, which is to me weird. It's also weird too that the family wasn't notified that they found these remains. I mean at the time though, they didn't know who the remains belonged to. So they had no reason to contact Jay's family. They aren't tying it necessarily to Jay's disappearance and it's also Niagara, which is a different region of Ontario. So they might not have been communicating with all the other jurisdictions and you know, they were reported missing in Durham region. Right? So, you know, the two counties could be not communicating with each other. They find the pants and the body remains in Niagara, but they're not tying it to these missing boys from another jurisdiction. That's possible. But in any event, the family didn't even find out that there were these remains that were found until 15 years after they were found. Which is also crazy. 

Stephanie: What? Really? 

AJ: Yeah. 

Stephanie: Crazy! 

AJ: Yeah, they didn't find out until 2013 that they...

Stephanie: My God!

AJ: Were found in 1998. 

Stephanie: Why wait? Why hold that information that long?

AJ: I mean, like I said, at the time that they were found, they didn't know who they belonged to, so they didn't have a reason to think, "oh, it could be this missing boy from another region." They're two different jurisdictions, so they might not have been communicating with each other. But also, yeah, just the fact that it was 15 years is crazy to me. That's a super long time, and so you can imagine the family, you know, 15 years later there's this huge piece of information that could be relevant and we just were never told about it. It was just shocking to even think that that would happen. But in 2014, just before the 19th anniversary of the disappearances, Jay's family started a change.org petition fighting for police to finally test the D N A of the remains. Bruce Ricketts, the PI, met with investigators during the course of his private investigation and was told in this meeting that one of the reasons for the delay in D N A testing is because the coroner's office did not receive the evidence box from the Niagara Regional Police Service, and even said that, "they could not find the box" until a long time after the initial discovery of the remains. So the Niagara Region Police Service even stated in a memo to investigators that the box was actually in the custody of the Hamilton Hospital Pathology Department, but that hospital's chief pathologist says that it was never there. It was never in their possession, and there's no way that a box would be kept in this department for 16 years without a secured lockbox location to keep it in. So it seems like the evidence discovered in the lake was handed from person to person, from region to region until eventually got lost, and therefore no one really knows where it went or you know, if it could have been tampered with in any fashion during that time. Because of this, it's hard to believe anything that the police say as they seem completely incompetent, even transferring over evidence properly. So the investigator also noticed a discrepancy in the age range of the human remains. The initial report said between 25 and 60 years, and then in 2014 it was changed to 29 to 47 years. It's weird that that would also be different. Also, keep in mind these all are ages that are outside of Jay Boyle's age range or any of the boys. The boys are all 16 to 18. Even if it's 29 to 47, that's still above the age group of these boys, so it wouldn't really fit. But I think the point is, is that there's two different jurisdictions coming to different conclusions about the age range of these remains, which just seems weird, and then they're losing evidence along the way and don't seem even interested in a lot of it throughout the initial investigation. Just a lot of really weird dropping the ball along the way by many different people it seems. This is just the beginning in a series of police misconducts throughout the course in this investigation. Like I said, there was the initial apathy by police after receiving the call. Then the fact that they called off the search after only 48 hours. Then there's the lack of communication. There's lots of miscommunication and the apparent loss of some of the key pieces of evidence, like the remains that were found in 1998. Bruce Ricketts has been met with resistance throughout the course of his investigation by the police as well, and this includes having to submit three separate access to information requests before finally being sent the surveillance footage of the marina that night that the boys went missing. Remember I said that he actually received a copy of the surveillance footage where he saw all these events that were happening at the marina that night. Even that took him a long time to actually get that footage and it took him three attempts. You're supposed to be, you know, the Freedom of Information Act, you should be able to request these public documents and they should be sent to you relatively quickly. But it took him three attempts, which is crazy. Then the first time he requested it, he was told that there was no footage from the marina that night. Then on his third request, he was successful in getting it. So, was the first person he spoke to just misinformed or were they lying? Why would he be resistant to sending that video? Doesn't really make sense unless the police had something that they wanted to hide or something. The only reason he knew that the video did exist was because the boys' families were all shown the video shortly after they went missing in 1995. So if it wasn't for that, he wouldn't have even known that there was video footage of that night and may have never gotten to see it for himself. So you can tell they're being kind of hush hush and very weird about the situation. We don't really know why. We don't have any reason to think that the police are trying to hide something or that they're lying purposely. But it just seems like, you know, and especially as the years go on, you know, people retire, it's different police officers. They're not aware of the case or the initial reports and it takes a lot of digging, so it might just be easier for them to avoid it than trying to drudge it all up again.

Stephanie: I feel like we always see this in a lot of cases that we've done or just cases in general that police, they always seem that they're hiding something or they're not being fully truthful in the information that they're letting people know. I always find when someone retires and someone new comes into the mix, it's hard to know what information was told to them or what evidence was given to them. It's so hard when so many different people are in and out of this investigation to get the actual story straight of what actually is going on or being investigated. Which is frustrating because you wanna know what's going on and the families wanna know. But I always feel like they always seem to be hiding something, but sometimes it's just miscommunication. Or, maybe they're hiding something. Who knows? We have seen a lot of shoddy police work in the cases we've done in the past, so it's hard to say. 

AJ: Yeah. Like I said, I don't really have anything conclusive to say the police are lying. But you know, initially, like I was talking, that initial officer didn't even make a report until a week later of the initial call. There's probably a lot of times throughout this when reports weren't filed properly or there was a delay. So even people, later on, 15, 20 years later, when it's all new people who weren't there initially, they can't even go back and necessarily find records of it because they're probably missing or they're not complete or something. Right? Even if people wanted to go and take a look retrospectively, it's hard to even do that when you don't have information. Not saying that that happened, but I mean, we saw that that one officer didn't even do the report until a week later, so who knows how many other times that happened throughout the course. Overall, many questions still remain in this case. Why were there no bodies of any of the boys that were recovered from the lake? I mean, those remains that were found, you know, Jay Boyle, one of the missing boys, did have red jeans on reportedly the night he went missing. Then these remains do turn up, you know, three years later with the red pair of jeans on, and the dark belt that matched the description of Jay's belt as well. So that's very odd. But there were no other bodies or any parts of other bodies or anything that were ever recovered from the lake. Why has the boat never been recovered? Any searches of the lake have never come up with any pieces of the boat. So even if the boat did break apart, even if, you know, there'd still be pieces of it, you'd think somewhere that would wash up. How did the gas can get to Wilson, New York? We still don't know that. Why were the remains that were discovered never tested for years? It's also crazy that the family also had to put up a change.org petition to get the DNA tested, which is crazy. Like they just sat in a lab for 14 years or 15 years without being tested. And also the inconsistency of information. They first said it was Red Levi Straus pants and then later on they said that that was just waterproof coating. That it wasn't red jeans, it was just... 

Stephanie: I was gonna say either red or it's not red. You can't get those mixed up. I mean, maybe it was faded cuz of being in the water for so long, but red is red. You can't really make those things up, really.

AJ: Yeah, exactly. And also, like I was saying, red pants aren't necessarily super popular. I mean, maybe they were in the nineties, I don't know, but I'm just saying how many people wearing red pants also go missing? So the fact that you have a body turning up with red pants on, that would narrow down the possible options.

Stephanie: And the same belt. Right? You said that he was wearing the same belt?

AJ: Yeah.

Stephanie: It was a similar belt. Yeah. 

AJ: A colored belt. Yeah. Well, there was a wallet that was also found in the pants, I believe, or with these remains. But the wallet was empty, so there was no ID cards or anything that they could find, so couldn't identify. 

Stephanie: That's unfortunate. 

AJ: Yeah. So also, why was the wallet empty? I mean, I guess if it's been in the water for three years. 

Stephanie: Or if someone took all the evidence in it. 

AJ: Yeah, if there was someone involved, there was foul play. They could have emptied the wallet before they dumped the body in the water too, so that no one would find the body or be able to identify the body. But also, why would you just empty the wallet and then put the wallet in the pants? If you're gonna do that, you could just take the wallet. You know what I mean? 

Stephanie: I don't know if you mentioned this and or if you will mention this. Did they ever think foul play or they just thought they were just missing , something natural happened to them, like they drowned? 

AJ: Well, I think the police always just thought they capsized and drowned. They crashed that night, but there's never been anything to prove that. So one of the points that the PI brings up is , the PI isn't really suggesting that it is foul play, but he's just saying you can't conclude that they just capsize and drown when you have no evidence to suggest that. So they're going with that theory, even though they've never found anything. The only thing they ever found was the gas can that was tied to that boat. You know, they think it's from that same boat that went missing. They found the gas can, but never any bodies. Also, not, even though they did not find the bodies, never found like jackets or hats and this was March, so they would've been wearing jackets, you know, it's still cold in Ontario in March. It's spring, so they'd be wearing coats or hats or shoes. Nothing was ever found, no shoes or anything like that, other than the body that was found in 98. The red pants. So how did six bodies drown? And also there were allegedly, two of the boys had experience on boats before, so they weren't completely newbies on boats. So even the fact that they did capsize is also weird. Not impossible, obviously they could have, but... 

Stephanie: Yeah, I was just gonna say, I find it very suspicious that all six of them would've drowned, especially if two of them were experienced boaters.

AJ: Yeah.

Stephanie: It's very rare that if you have a boat crash and everybody dies in a boat. Well, I mean, it has happened. But what I'm saying, it's very odd to me that all six of them drowned. Nobody found any evidence of anything. That's just weird to me. 

AJ: Yeah. If they did all drown, fine, but then how do you say that they never found anything? No pants? No coats, no nothing. No... 

Stephanie: Or even the boat. 

AJ: Yeah and the boat itself. They never found any of the boat. 

Stephanie: The boat would have to, like you said, we went back to this before, either it's still floating out there or sunk somewhere. But you still have it missing. It's weird. 

AJ: Yeah. So they started the search 36 hours or so after the boys went missing and then they searched for 48 hours after that. In that timeframe, the boat obviously it's gonna eventually sink or just float away, but I still think that that was within a short enough amount of time where the boat should have still been able to be found above the surface. It's not gonna sink that quickly, probably if it's deemed unsinkable. I mean it's possible. Who knows? But the fact that there was never any reports ever that the a boat or a piece of the boat or anything from inside the boat was ever found. It was just the gas can that was empty.

Stephanie: With no water in it.

AJ: Yeah. That was supposedly floating around. 

Stephanie: This whole thing doesn't make sense. They could have just drowned because the boat just sunk. There's no evidence of either of that. No bodies, no boat. Honestly, something more sinister happened.

AJ: Yeah. 

Stephanie: How does the whole boat go missing and never been found? That doesn't happen usually. 

AJ: Yeah. Never been found. 

Stephanie: I'm so intrigued. I have more questions than I have answers. 

AJ: I know, and that's the thing with this case , there's so much we don't know. Like how can a gas can, an empty gas can float around and roll around in choppy water for two weeks and have no water in it whatsoever after two weeks and not sink. You'd think it would just immediately fill up with water if it had the open top. 

Stephanie: Well, if it had holes in it , it would sink.

AJ: Well, the only opening would've been the top , where the cap should have been. 

Stephanie: Yeah, but if it was chopping around in the waters and it got snagged on a rock or something and it poked a hole in it. 

AJ: But it didn't, cuz there's pictures of the gas can. 

Stephanie: Oh, okay. 

AJ: There was a small dent that you can't really notice. 

Stephanie: Still if it filled with water it would sink. 

AJ: Exactly. So it's just weird that they would've found that. 

Stephanie: And placed there.

AJ: Yeah. And, and then why would you have placed it there? Also they say the winds and the currents aren't consistent with how it could have ended up in Wilson. If it's gonna be taken by the current, it's gonna end up in Rochester, which is 70 miles from Wilson. They just say even that part of it doesn't make sense that it would be found where it was found, even if it did float away. But I also find it hard that it would just float away, be in the ocean for two, or be in the lake for two weeks, you know, with an open top.

Stephanie: I think we have to look back at those surveillance cameras. Those other people that were there before the boys got there and then afterwards.

AJ: Yeah. 

Stephanie: Those two people that were there before with that bag. They never really looked into that. So I feel like that's someone they should start with, cuz those people could know something or seen something or be part of this whole mystery. 

AJ: It's very, you know, likely or possible that they are completely unrelated. Those other people that were there. But I mean, you should at least talk to them. Maybe they, you know, if they had interviewed them right away, you know, in the first few days after, you know, the people could have seen something that maybe they thought was insignificant, but then when they could talk about it, they could be like, "oh yeah, that was kind of weird. I did see a group of boys here, or I did hear them over here," but I don't have anything to suggest that they actually did talk to any of those people. I can't say they didn't, but I just don't really believe that they would have, considering they didn't even wanna look for the boys for the first 36 hours and only did so when the boat was reported missing. It wasn't outta concern for the boys, it was mostly just cuz the boat was missing probably. 

Stephanie: Did anybody ever talk to anybody at the party, witnesses of when the boys left? Did they argue with other people at the party or anything? Did they talk to anybody because that's also where you would start too? 

AJ: Yeah. Well, I mean I remember I said at the beginning, the people at the party did say to the investigators that, you know, the boys said that they were gonna go goof off of the marina or that's what they said before they left. They didn't specifically say, "oh we're going to meet this person here or we're going to do this. They just said we're gonna goof around." obviously the, that's in kind of like the record. So obviously someone did talk to police about that, so they must have interviewed people from the party, but nothing that really led to anything significant.

And like I said at the beginning, like there are some discrepancies in the details of that night that are frustrating and somewhat hard to navigate. So one example of that is that the official website about this disappearance that I've been talking about, which is managed by Bruce Wickets, mentions details of a physical altercation between Jay and Danny at the party that night.

The website says that after the fight, Danny left to go seek out the help of a mutual friend of his and J's to quote, intercede and quote between them, it says that Danny and the friend then returned to the party. But by that time, people had left for another location. So then Danny and the friend went to another friend's house, but then later separated and Danny was never seen again.

But other sources besides this website have no mention about this fight between the boys. And then in an interview with Bruce Ricketts himself, so the one that I watched where he was talking to a couple other people on a podcast, um, you know, the interviewer asked if it was possible that maybe one of the boys was harmed by another one of the boys that night, and then maybe things escalated.

And Bruce says that there's no evidence of that and that all six boys were great friends. So like, which was true, like were they all great friends and everything was great? Or did two of them have a fight and there was tension like then why do 

all six go missing though if two people had a fight and there was some like, yeah, tension between the two, that's two people out of, out of six, that's still four people that 

are missing.

But I'm just thinking like maybe like, maybe the six of them did go on the boat and then two of them, like maybe they caught and like one of them ended up dead or something happened something, and then. Like, it's like one of them ended up dead. And then cuz one of the theories too was that like, because somebody had spotted them in New York, apparently, like shortly after they disappeared and then somebody said they saw them in, in the beaches area of Toronto.

Um, they said like, oh, maybe like, you know, something happened that night and then the boys like fled and like made it to the states. Like maybe they took the boat to New York, they made it there and then just took off and like disappeared. But that's kind of weird too. Like they wouldn't have really felt like they would've done that and the only they, they would've found the boat.

Yeah, exactly. There's no boat, there's no people. Yeah. But if they ditched the boat somewhere, the boat still would've been bound by somebody or some, like, somehow. Somewhere. 

Yeah, or unless like still no boat. So. Well cuz like in that interview that they do with Bruce as well, like the interviewer mentions like maybe somebody found a boat floating and like saw, oh, this is a free boat.

You know what I mean? Like then painted it over and gave it a different serial number and then just used it. Maybe and I could, so it's possible it could have been found, but it just never was reported. Cuz there also wasn't a ton of information about this case. Like initially, maybe in Pickering, but like no one in New York cared.

I doubt about this case. So like if someone on the New York side had seen a boat floating, they're not gonna say, oh this is boat, maybe this is the missing boat from those six boys. Like they probably would've now even heard of the case. So they could've just found it like, oh, free boat. Maybe if there was no signs of any like struggle or there was no like suspicious thing about it, it was just like a boat floating instead of returning it or reporting it, they would've just like taken it and maybe used it, you know?

So just because it wasn't reported doesn't mean it was never found. Like it could have been found. I just, I 

think this whole thing just revolves around the boat. I think if we find the boat, we find the people and that's what I'm sticking to. Yeah. I just find, I mean there could be other things on, but that's, in my mind, that's what I'm sticking to.

Like this boat needs to be found so we can get some information. I don't know, do you agree? Like, I don't like. It just seems weird to me. Yeah. Whole big boat goes missing. Like I don't understand how to happen. 

It's just odd that the boat and six bodies just get, never get found ever. So yeah, like uh, like I said, there was like kind of discrepancies in the information.

So also in that interview Bruce mentions, like on the night that the boys disappeared, it was just the one boat, the Boston Whaler that was stolen. He says the water tricycle was taken the night before from a different marina, but the official timeline on the main website still has that information about the water tricycle being stolen that night by the boys and it being found by the searchers who couldn't recover it.

But I haven't been able to see that other information anywhere else. So it's kind of hard, even like among the same, like it's still him both times. It's just kind of a discrepancy in the same information. So maybe the website hasn't been updated in a while cuz this interview was like 2022. It was just last year and the website, who knows, could have been longer.

So. Even if you look on the website and then you hear his interview, like some of the information maybe is a little bit hard to follow. Um, so it seems contradictory and it's hard to discern what the correct timeline really is. Um, but I will say the website does provide some good documentation such as police notes and reports from the case and also some photos that are worth taking a look at.

So we'll link the, um, we'll link the website and all of our sources like we always do in the show notes, but I definitely recommend taking a look at the website cuz it has some, some good information on it, even if it is a little bit confusing. Like I listen to like three different podcast episodes on this case and the information is like slightly different.

One podcast or YouTube channel called the Jay's girlfriend Monica. But then on the website it sh her name is Monique. And it's just weird that that would be different information. Like, you know, it's not that hard to, to say what someone's name is, so, I dunno, it's why it's different on the two sources, but, It is.

So it's a kind of like a weird kind of thing where there's a lot of sort of information that I don't know how much of it is true or what's been updated and what hasn't, cuz there's not a ton of, like, there's some local news articles from like the Durham Region paper that talks about like the anniversary of the case coming up and Bruce Ricketts and his investigation.

But if you're gonna like, try to find an actual documentary or like an article from like a national paper, like it's just not gonna happen. So a lot of people don't even know about this case. So there's not a lot of information to kind of corroborate, so it's just kind of like a Yes. I've never heard of it, so yeah, me neither.

And like, and wish I had. Yeah, super interesting. It's crazy, like they could probably do a documentary series on it cuz it's so crazy. But I just, it's just mysterious and I just, it's just hard when you don't have a lot of information to go on cuz you kind of have to, can only go on the information that's there and you can't really corroborate it with anything because there's nothing else to corroborate it with.

So I'm just kind of going based on what this PI is saying. The point is we don't know what happened if they capsized, if the boat sunk or if there was foul play involved. Like it's just weird. Six boys and a boat went missing. I had no sign of any of them unless those remains that they found in 98 was from one of the boys.

But we can't even definitively say that because there's just nothing that ever really came out conclusively about that. So it's just very. Odd for super strange. Yeah. So I mean what is your theory? Like you think there was foul play or do you think it was just they crashed 

and I don't, I don't think they crashed because I feel like the, to crash a boat, the boat would still be wherever they crashed it cuz it'd be like broken or whatever.

So to me, like I feel like something more like tragic happened, I mean tragic, that they crashed and they died. But that's also tragic. But I feel like you don't just have six boys gone missing and like a boat missing because if they crashed the boat would've would've been in the water still and the bodies would've been either there or like floating somewhere.

After all they've this time. So yeah. 

And like if they did like an extensive search of the water, like they said they did, and they were in that 60 mile radius between. You know, Wilson, New York where the gas can was found and Pickering where the boat was stolen from. Like if they're doing an extensive search of that area, they should have found something.

There's six bodies and a boat. You don't find anything. Or like even the things from the boat, no, no clothing, like I said, no hats, no coats, no shoes, anything. So just very odd. I mean, and there also, there's talk in that interview with Bruce Brits about like, there are experts that say like, in really cold water, cuz it's still March like in Lake Ontario, so it's still gonna be cold and like near freezing temperatures probably, or a little above.

But there is like experts who say like when there's water, when it's really cold water, like bodies can sink to the bottom in that temperature and they never be recovered or like never be floated to the, never float to the top. So it's possible they just floated to the bottom. I can't see all six of them floating to the bottom.

But even if a couple of them did, there still should be some that are still floating somewhere and. I mean, you can't necessarily search the entire bottom of the lake. Like I understand that if things sink, it's gonna be harder to find them, but I just can't, it's hard to fathom that like six bodies could just go overboard or capsize on a boat and have nothing be found from them ever.

And now it's like, that was in 95, so we're, you know, we're coming up on 30 years. In a couple years, it's gonna be 30 years, you know, and in a couple of weeks from this recording it's gonna be the, the 28th anniversary of it. Uh, cuz they went missing March 17th, like the early morning of birth 17th. So just, um, very odd and very bizarre.

So I don't really know what my theory is. I think, you know, you could probably just assume that, you know, they stole the boat and maybe they were drinking a lot. They went out, the water was choppier than they thought went overboard. But that doesn't explain the boat never being found or that doesn't explain.

No body's being recovered. So, but I also had nothing to say that it was foul play either. I can't say, oh, that the, I think this person's a suspect or this person. Like there's nothing to suggest that either. And also, how does six people get killed? Like if it's foul play, like if it's one person, you might think, but like, how is six people gonna be murdered?

Like, you know, if one person did that, like that's kind of hard to believe. So it would've had to been like a 

larger Yeah. That, that kind of like goes back to like the one that me and Katie did a couple weeks, weeks ago where like two people got killed By what? Assuming one person. 

Yeah. Like so what did they come across?

Another boat filled with a large group of people who then killed six boys. That's what I mean, like it doesn't make sense. And still there 

will still be bodies 

unless they Well, they, they took the bodies. Yeah. But like that seems far boat. Unless they're 

hiding the 

boat somewhere. Yeah. Then they took the boat too.

Yeah. Like, again, like it's so many questions. You have to, you have to tow the boat. Yeah. 

Or unless. It was, somebody drives the boat, I 

guess. Yeah. Like I know they said that the, like the gas can had like enough for 25 miles and I don't know how much was in the actual boat itself. So if there was 25 in the gas can and then maybe some in the boat, you could make it the full 60 to 60 miles to get across the river.

Uh, or to, sorry to get across the lake. Um, so I don't know. Yeah, it's just so many questions, so I can't even like, put it in my mind like it probably really makes sense. Like, yes, the boys probably stole the boat that night. Like that's probably what happened. Just based on the fact that they were at the marina on the surveillance footage, three of them, the boats were reported missing.

Like that's probably the case. And also like Jay telling his, his girlfriend Monique, that, you know, they had gonna go for a joy ride and like she knows that they had stolen stuff before, so that's probably what happens. But once they get into the boat away from the marina, who knows? Neither scenario makes sense.

Like it doesn't make sense that they met a large group of people who then killed them, took their bodies and the boat. And hid them all, like that's farfetched. So you have to naturally believe that they must have just capsized if it was choppy, but then the boat should still be recovered or the body is like, it doesn't make sense.

Either scenario doesn't make sense. So it's very weird. Yeah, that's why I wanted to do this case because it's just many questions and not a lot of answers and vague information and the information that's out there, it's hard to kind of say definitively what's actually true. Cause this is all the work of a PI too, right?

So he has different sort of levels of information or access than like a regular, like police investigator would have. So it's just confusing. Yeah. So, um, just a very, very weird case and, um, still unsolved and the boys, the six boys are still considered missing to this day. Anyone with any information that might assist investigators in this case is asked to contact the Durham Regional Police Services at 1 8 88.

5 7 9 1 5 20 0 extension 25 11. Again, that's 1 8 8 8 5 7 9 1 5 2 0 extension 25 11. Crazy case. And hopefully it can get solved for closure for the families. Like I said, it's now been 30 years and it's just hard the longer you go, the uh, more unlikely that it will get resolved. But hopefully somebody might know something or knows somebody who knows something.

So the more people that kind of know about this case, uh, the more chance that maybe something can lead to closure. Um, So, yeah, definitely bizarre. That does it for, for this week's episode of Crime Family. So thanks so much for for tuning in. So if you are a fan and you want to support us on Patreon, you could join us on tier one, two, and three and get exclusive extras you can't get anywhere else.

So that's on patreon.com/crime family podcast. We're also on Red Bubble. We have the merch store there. So if you wanna support the show and get some Crime Family Merch, we'll put the link to the show notes for the merch store as well. And we thank everyone who, who buys merch and supports the show. And we'll be back with a new episode next week.

Um, hopefully Katie will be here for that. Um, hopefully she can join us for that. But we definitely hope you'll join us, uh, for a new episode next week. So thanks so much and until next time, take care. Bye bye.