Deviant Criminology
Dr. Richard Weaver Jr., Heather Kenney, and Rachel Czar take listeners on a journey through the world of true crime. With their unique careers in the criminal justice and academic world; they work to provide an entertaining and educational experience for listeners. This podcast examines many areas of true crime including; the formation of laws, cases that defined caselaw, and crimes that impacted the world. Please join us on this journey as we transition from professionals in criminal justice and academia to budding podcasters.
Deviant Criminology
Brenda Spencer: Unraveling the Tragedy and Its Aftermath
What compels a 16-year-old to open fire on a school, claiming, “I don’t like Mondays”? It's a question that has haunted us since Brenda Spencer’s shocking actions on January 29, 1979. Our latest episode peels back the layers of this tragic event, unraveling the story behind the Boomtown Rats' infamous song and examining how Brenda’s case brought gender dynamics to the forefront of mass shooting discussions. Listen as we dissect the complexities surrounding the definitions of mass shootings and the impact these have on public perception and statistics, challenging the narratives shaped by political and social influences.
Explore the dark shadows in Brenda Spencer's life, her disturbing relationship with her father, and the chilling allegations of abuse that surfaced during her parole hearings. We scrutinize the unsettling coincidences involving her cellmate and the eerie dynamics within her family, raising questions about truth and manipulation. This episode brings to light the difficulties of uncovering genuine narratives amidst conflicting allegations and the potential exploitation faced by vulnerable individuals.
As Brenda Spencer faces the possibility of release after decades of imprisonment, we tackle the challenging issues of accountability and rehabilitation. With insights into societal changes and the evolving perspectives of victims and survivors, we reflect on the broader implications of access to weapons and the responsibilities of those who could prevent such tragedies. Join our true crime community as we express our gratitude to our listeners and invite you to connect with us online, helping us expand the conversation around these crucial topics.
www.deviantcriminology.com
So, sitting in a college radio station at Georgia State University, a man by the name of Bob Geldof was reading a Telex report about a recent shooting that had occurred. And Telex was a system kind of like a fax, except it was only used for text-based communication that was sent through phone lines. When you look at one today it is very much like a typewriter, a fax machine kind of got together, hooked up, had a baby and created this rotary phone fax machine so. But at the time it was very high tech. But they were found across the United States in news outlets, radio stations, police departments. It was the primary form of getting information out across the country. Their primary usage was sending important information related to police activity or political information.
Speaker 1:So Geldof is reading about this shooting that had taken place recently, specifically on January 29th 1979. What grabbed his attention was a line attributed to the shooter about why they committed this horrific act, to which they replied to the reporter I don't like Mondays. So Geldof and his bandmate Johnny Fingers, members of the Irish band Boomtown Rats, would use this quote as the title for their song I Don't Like Mondays, which would become a hit in Ireland. A popular song in the United States bring controversy, leading to the band canceling a show where the shooting took place in San Diego. So this case we're discussing today is the Cleveland Elementary School shooting committed by 16-year-old Brenda Spencer. Thank you.
Speaker 1:I'm Richard Weaver.
Speaker 3:And I'm Heather Kenney.
Speaker 1:And here we go.
Speaker 3:Now the song is really catchy and, seriously, it is in multiple playlists. The interesting thing that I wonder is how many people who have heard this song, maybe even dozens of times, don't know the history behind it. And this was a big case at the time, not only because of victimology, but because of the offender. We talked before about some female murderers I mean, we covered Nancy Doss and they're not as common as male offenders are. But what makes this even more obscure is the fact that females account for such a small percentage of mass shooters.
Speaker 1:First a little defining of terms here. This will probably be said in a lot of episodes if we discuss mass shootings or mass murder. But there are differences in these terms. Though some media, government agencies and academics kind of use the terms interchangeably, they are not the same thing. And mass violence is one of my areas of research so I don't want to say I'm an expert in it, but I'm an expert in it. So the National Mass Violence Center, which is kind of the hallmark area for information on mass shootings over the last few decades, reports that according to the United States legislature, a mass shooting or mass killing has to have four or more homicides occur during that incident. Mass killing has to have four or more homicides occur during that incident, which means that if 30 people are shot but only three die, this does not meet congressional definitions of a mass shooting, which means it doesn't go reported as a mass violence incident, which in my opinion that's just political insanity. That's the way to try and keep the numbers of mass shootings down in federal reporting.
Speaker 3:The FBI only defines mass murder, which generally is four or more homicides in one event in one or more location in close geographic proximity, which is a reasonable definition of mass murder.
Speaker 1:But I think it misses out again. They're not getting into the mass violence where. What if you have 30 people shot but only two or three died? Then it doesn't meet this qualification. So, according to Britannica, the FBI also defines a mass shooting as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area, though there is no number of victims required to fit this definition, and this is kind of what you hear more of when you see in the media or news alerts, or if you go to college and you get the alert that there's an active shooter on campus or a shooting incident. There's a lot of different terms that get thrown around, but for our purposes we're going to utilize two definitions that are commonly accepted. The first is mass shooting being an act of one individual shooting multiple victims in an attempt to kill people in a populated area, and when we cover mass murder, we're utilizing the federal definition of four or more killed, not including the offender in the event.
Speaker 3:So, again, not to go down the rabbit hole of how these incidents are reported, studied and the conflicts between groups on the number of these incidents each year, or historically, because we don't want to get into all of the political things around that Obviously people have motives to try to say there's more. Other people have motives to say that there are less, and there's all kinds of liability issues in the middle of that with gun control and who's responsible for gun control and are gun manufacturers responsible for restitution to victims, and there's all kinds of different questions there that we don't want to get into at this point but we might in the future. According to multiple sources, there were 149 mass shootings between 1982 and 2023. Of those, females alone accounted for four and males alone counted for 143. So female shoot, so female solo shooters account for less than 3%.
Speaker 1:Which it kind of matches up with other crime statistics, that women, especially violent crimes, commit less. But it's interesting when you talk about like how we report these and stuff, because the federal government, local law enforcement, sometimes if there's any remote possibility that a mass shooting is gang related, they will take it off of the mass violence or active shooter response. So there's a lot of possible gang violence or Unable to identify violence that gets put in this other category when you look at the FBI statistics. So again, this is an incident that has bought a lot of political interest because the gun lobby has been trying to well what this doesn't classify. That doesn't classify, though personally as a researcher, 149 mass shootings is not even close to accurate, though I digress to focus on this one event that occurred on January 29, 1979, and this occurred at the Cleveland Elementary School, which was located in San Diego, california.
Speaker 3:So the specific incident that we're talking about today, this mass shooting, was committed by Brenda Spencer, who was 16 years of age at the time of the offense. So let's talk a little bit about Spencer's background. Brenda Spencer was born on April 3rd 1962. She was born to Dorothy Nadine and Wallace Edward Spencer, who married on December 12th 1954 in I'm sure I'm going to say this wrong Chula Vista.
Speaker 1:Chula Vista is correct.
Speaker 3:Is that?
Speaker 1:Okay, so it's Chula Vista.
Speaker 3:And had three children together, Brenda being the youngest. The father has another daughter that is the youngest, but that is the crazy part of this story she was born after the shootings occurred.
Speaker 1:Brenda had a normal childhood, according to her parents, up to the age of nine when her parents divorced. So this is kind of common. We see in mental health and stuff is when divorces happen, children have different responses and some of that can interact with their education, how they interact with people compared to how they did before the divorce happened. Some become introverts, some become extroverts, some act out. So there's a little information about the divorce itself and the stories differ about the reason for the separation, with the mother saying that the father was having an affair and wanted to move out and move off with somebody and the father denying this. So with little information being available, the only thing we know for sure is that Edward gained custody of the three children.
Speaker 3:There have been reports that she was on medication for seizures, but we could only find one article that mentioned this, though she was diagnosed with seizures and epilepsy in prison. This is one of dozens of things that are mentioned after the fact, but there's not consistent reporting of facts.
Speaker 1:That's something that shows up in this case a lot and again, I think a couple of cases we've already covered and one thing with us doing a little bit sometimes historic cases even though it's sad to say that something that happened in 1979 is historic is there's so much stuff that comes out after the fact that people said like, oh, I knew this about them or they said this to me, but none of it was reported beforehand and nobody can say like, oh, we have proof that I was born, and it's kind of like the oh, everybody's fine until they're a serial killer.
Speaker 1:And then, oh, I knew them and they were horrible people and we were scared for them, but nobody ever said anything beforehand. So is there that kind of media? Here's my 15 minutes to be on TV. So a lot of the stuff that comes up that people said about her after the fact, everybody else can take it at face value to a point until it can be confirmed, because there are a lot of contrary statements that are said by supposedly what schoolmates said in the media compared to what teachers said she was like. So again, it's kind of just becomes what it is.
Speaker 3:The next section is going to be a little bit confusing, and there's a reason for that that, because what can be described as the after the event factor. This is that after a violent event like a school shooting, some people come out and say things that had not been previously reported. This could be because it has not come up before, or could be individuals trying to get attention or put a stronger narrative on the light on the offender. I think that sometimes people also remember things in a different light given current circumstances. Something that they thought wasn't relevant before all of a sudden now seems relevant, and now they want to share the information which before they thought was irrelevant. But sometimes, if they'd shared it, it might've been helpful ahead of time.
Speaker 3:And I think that sometimes our brains are programmed to find patterns and after you see something at the end of the event, you look back and try to put different pieces together to make the pattern make sense. So I think that's sometimes when you have people say well, she kicked the dog and she said she didn't like Mondays and you know she used to goof off in class and she was pushing people in the hall and things like that, where individually they never stood out as events that were important. But then in the hindsight, after they see what happens at the end, they say, oh, look at all these things that led up to it, and maybe everybody in the classroom did those things, but now that you have this end event, they look back and remember all those events about that one person.
Speaker 1:It's kind of also how people deliver the line that they say the person said Like if you say like I'll never let you go, or you say I'll never let you go, or you say I will never let you go, like it's just how people interpret what they say and how they deliver line, like that's one thing in acting, or even in like teaching and stuff, like you put dramatization on things the way you want it to come across.
Speaker 1:So again, this does get kind of confusing because we're going off of reports after the fact and again contrary information. And a lot of this information comes from multiple sources. But a big one that I used that was good but had its flaws, was a documentary made during her 2006 parole time period called I Don't Like Mondays 2006 parole time period called I Don't Like Mondays, and the one thing that was very interesting about that is Brenda's father lived in the house that this events occurred from to the day he passed. They were able to see him, but he would never do interviews with anybody, so things about him are not very well known, but I will cover that here in a second. But this comes into play here that, according to Brenda's teachers, she was a quiet student but was very interested in animals, wanted to be a vet. It has been reported that she once won a photography contest that was put on by the Humane Society. Former classmates claimed a different perspective on Brenda.
Speaker 3:These classmates made claims that Brenda had talked about killing cops, that she bragged about wanting to kill people and once mentioned that she would be on TV. These statements never appeared to have been reported to school officials or noted until after the shooting. This makes those statements a little suspect on their accuracy, but it appears several classmates confirmed the statements. What makes this hard to delve into further is just the time gap between the crime until now and the lack of technology in the 70s and the 80s to now.
Speaker 1:Another incident that is differing claims is that around the age of 15, school officials reportedly believed that Brenda was potentially suicidal. According to her mother, the school had contacted her late in 1978 to speak with her about their concerns her mental health. Yet her father, who was the primary guardian, said he was never told his daughter was potentially suicidal and never noticed any of the nature and nothing of that nature from his own daughter. Which is odd to me because the mother in interviews says oh, the school called and they were very concerned but the mother didn't have custody. The father who had custody says I never got a call like this. In the documentaries and stuff I looked at I didn't see anything from like courts or from the school where anybody reported that. So it's an interesting piece of this, but it comes with a grain of salt of is the mother trying to make the father look irresponsible and bad? Is the father trying to deny this to protect his daughter? Because they were, they had a touch and go relationship their whole life and you'll see how that comes in later. But even if this suicidal mentality was present or not, if the father knew about it or not, for Christmas of 1978, edward gives Brenda a Ruger 10-22 semi-automatic rifle and approximately 500 rounds of ammunition.
Speaker 1:Edward claims in an interview, the only interview that he would ever give in the documentary. I Don't Like Mondays. The interview is very weird with him and there's just really no other way to say it. He sometimes answers questions. He seems like he's kind of confused sometimes, but it's the only interview we ever did and it's the only view we get of her father. But he said that Aranda had asked for the gun and that the two had gone hunting together before.
Speaker 3:The Spencers grew up in a quiet neighborhood, though it was reported that they lived in poverty. Details about the living conditions would come up after the shooting during later parole hearings. Details about the living conditions would come up after the shooting during later parole hearings. Police and reporters would later say that this was not the kind of neighborhood that had a lot of crime or police calls. Across from the Spencer's home was Cleveland Elementary School, approximately 150 yards being between the Spencer's home and the schoolyard and the schoolyard. On Monday, january 29th of 1979, in the morning hour as the elementary school students started to arrive at the school, brenda took her Christmas present and a reported 500 rounds of ammo and started shooting at the children as they arrived. Her first shots were reportedly aimed at Cam Miller, a nine-year-old boy, targeted because, according to Brenda, he was wearing a jacket of her favorite color, blue.
Speaker 1:So as the shots rang out, the principal, whose name was Burton Ragg, w-r-a-g-g, started trying to get the kids to safety and he was being supported by another teacher named Daryl Barnes and a janitor, mike Sucher, supported by another teacher named Daryl Barnes and a janitor, mike Sucher. Sadly, principal Rag was shot, I believe in the upper chest, from what I remember, and the janitor Mike. Both of them were killed while trying to save children's lives and, to be real, they did save lives. They helped direct attention towards them so kids could get up to the school and Daryl Barnes and then the administrators inside were able to help get these kids to safety the ones that weren't shot. So, after responding to the area when the shots were going out, his name was Officer Robert Robb. While responding to the call he was also shot by Brenda, being wounded in the neck, and although he lived through that, luckily the injury did end up ending his law enforcement career.
Speaker 1:But there were eight children that were shot, two deaths, and then the officer that was wounded. Teachers that were inside and administrators when the shots been hired didn't know what was happening. They were hearing these like pops, because this is a 22. So it's not a loud boom like we kind of affiliate now with AR-15s and things like that. This was a very small sound, so they looked outside and there was an interview with one of the school secretaries that said she didn't really notice what's going on until she saw the children hitting the ground and the principal screaming. So, after shooting approximately 36 rounds, killing rag and sucher wounding officer, rob and injuring eight other children.
Speaker 3:Going back to the previous description of these types of incidents, this makes the cleveland elementary school shooting a mass so to step back a little, there are a couple of reports and statements that we found while researching this case that referred to this shooting as the first school shooting and or the modernization of school shootings. This is not really factual here, as there have been a variety of shootings and bombings targeting schools in the United States dating back to the 1700s schools in the United States dating back to the 1700s. In more modern times there was Bath, michigan school massacre in 1927, university of Texas and Charles Whitman. There are other historic shootings at schools and really the incident noted as the monumental moment for modern school shootings was Columbine, which was really the first major school shooting on the post 24-7 news era.
Speaker 1:Yeah, like Columbine and some of the differences. And now we can see it with Nicholas up in Newton. But she didn't target her own classmates like this was just a random act out of her own window. Just a random act out of her own window, where columbine is more of what we think of a school shooting, where it's students in that school going after their own fellow students. So this is where, again, those kind of terms are getting thrown around and colorado really knows a lot about this.
Speaker 1:But after her 20-minute shooting rampage, brenda barricades herself in her home as the SWAT team was mobilized and responded to the area. So this is kind of a hectic time. Again she's barricaded herself in this house, 150 feet from the school. She's refusing to come out.
Speaker 1:The media is kind of and this is what's so weird to me, because I think the media is a little bit better now but the media was calling her house trying to get her on the phone, which is supposedly where a reporter had her on the phone and asked her why she was doing this, and she says I'm bored. This brings me joy and I don't like Mondays Multiple lines like that that are attributed to her because reporters said they were calling and talking directly to her, but this is the time frame where, supposedly, she tells that reporter. I don't like Mondays, which would become this historic song, but during negotiations with police, brenda did make comments explaining her rampage as having no real reason and that it was not premeditated at all. She noted that it was just a lot of fun and that the children looked like a herd of cows standing around.
Speaker 3:But it was her comments to the media that would become the headline and title of the song later. When the reporter asked why she was still barricaded in her home and why she was doing this, she responded I don't like Mondays.
Speaker 1:Which is such the craziest response I've ever heard for all these shootings. Like and we get into a little bit more later about some stuff that was going on with her and things that came out later. But you know, to me a lot of the mass violence I've studied and I look at there's really a true reason behind it of they're targeting either because they're weak, which this kind of does look like. You see, with sandy hook, where you're in florida, where you're targeting children because they're weak, and it's a place that's going to have a lot of targets to make a name for yourself. This was kind of before that era of making a name for yourself and so I don't really see it as that. But it genuinely seems like she had. No, I don't want to say hatred because something was going on, but these children weren't targeted for any other reason. They just happened to be there that day and that was the day she chose to start doing this.
Speaker 1:So that I don't like mondays is. It's going to be said a lot in this episode. Welcome to when we're talking about this. But it really is why that song later became as popular as it did, to a point, not only to people that liked the song. But even some of the victims, which I'll mention again later, said that they liked the song because it wasn't glorifying the shooting at all. In fact, the guys that wrote the song have come out and said they wish they hadn't done it because how popular it became. But really it was more of a statement about the insanity of it and the violence that we were seeing as a culture, because this is just unbelievable. There's no reason.
Speaker 3:After her arrest and processing into the county jail, the mass shooting was over, but a lot of questions still existed and many would never be answered. One thing noted by police after entering her home was that the home was in shambles, with empty beer bottles and whiskey bottles littering the house. Though they noted Brenda did not show signs of intoxication, it later would be said that Edward was a drinker.
Speaker 1:Brenda was tried as an adult, but she took a plea deal which saw her sentenced to 25 years to life, with the possibility of parole for two counts of murder and assault with a deadly weapon. She did not testify or speak on her own behalf and I have a question about that. Where, like from law enforcement, I understand, but she wounded eight children or eight people, eight children specifically, and then you have Officer Rob killed too. So in my eyes you have at least eight counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Why would they only plea in Europe? I mean, obviously you don't know their intent, but like, why would they take a plea of just two counts of murder and assault with a deadly weapon and then give the possibility of parole?
Speaker 3:I think sometimes that's back to that like I don't know if you want to call it inducement to take the deal or incentivizing somebody to take the deal, especially in a case like this where there's children involved. As a prosecutor, the last thing you ever want to have to do is put a kid on the stand to testify because you know they've already been through whatever it was they had to go through to be there. And you're going to ask them about it in front of a bunch of people who are strangers and probably in a setting that's scary to them you know, sitting in the front of the room with a judge sitting over them, and they know it's serious and usually people have already told them something about. Now this is a place you really have to tell the truth, you have to be honest. So they are already stressing about making sure that everything they say is accurate. And then you add into it that they're talking about this event that you know, like this would obviously be just incredibly traumatic and you start to think, one, you don't want to have these kids go through that. But then, two, you like I hate to say it, but you have to worry about the person on your jury who just doesn't have common sense or like you just can't connect with or you just can't figure out what they're thinking, and that's something you always have to worry about, especially with this, this, with her being a 16-year-old girl young, I'm sure she looked, you know, rather innocent, and even if she didn't at the time of the shooting, you know, if she gets a good attorney, you know, maybe put her in a dress where you know, less makeup or more makeup, or do your hair this way or that way and try to make her look even more childlike than her 16 years you get somebody on the jury who looks at her and says, well, this is just a child, especially in that time frame of that 1979.
Speaker 3:Like now, in our modern day, we look at these school shootings and we see these things and we say, well, yeah, they shot, you know. And back then, though, that wasn't as common as it is now, where you say, oh, whatever, like you know, of course, these things happened and I could very much see a concern that you would get somebody on the jury who would look at her and say that little girl couldn't have possibly done this. There's no way you can tell me that little girl over there took a gun and did these things. You all got it wrong and there was somebody else in the house who did it. Maybe it was her dad, maybe it was somebody else, but there's no way it was her. And then you risk having an acquittal and, like we've talked about before, with double jeopardy if you go and you lose and they find her not guilty, you're done, that's it.
Speaker 1:And it also surprised me on this one that they got her as an adult. I also surprised me on this one that they got her as an adult. I mean because when you look at the pictures of her um coming out of the house and the trial, like she does look like a child, like there's, except when you look at her eyes, like her eyes are definitely very something's emotionally there. But there were some discrepancies that would come up after her plea deal later. She would later say that she was told to take the plea deal. She didn't really know what was going on but she didn't want to take it to trial and she was just told to do it and that's why she did it, why she took the plea deal. But of course those never manifested anything. But the next interesting issue that came up to me was in an interview with reporters from prison in 1993. So this is 16 years after the shooting.
Speaker 1:Spencer would claim that before and during the shooting spree that she was high on alcohol and PCP.
Speaker 1:Toxicology reports didn't show anything like this. Her former lawyer said he had not heard that claim from her before that interview and her older siblings also claimed that she had not done drugs besides marijuana. So this is again a discrepancy that comes up and, I think, hurts her in a way, because we'll see, as she goes further and further to more parole hearings and she's denied parole at this time that she changes her story and there's different things that supposedly have happened that led her to come this way, and some of it can, some of it there's, there's things that really make it seem more legit, but this one is the one out of all of them that I'm like I don't know, I don't. I think the police at the time would have noticed it. I think they would have found evidence of drug use in the house at that level of PCP, and they did find alcohol. But that one I just kind of questioned and even like, if there was even a hint of that, wouldn't a defense attorney have jumped all over that?
Speaker 3:One would think right, because then you could try to use it as some type of mitigation, even just the sympathy card. You know if, if something's going on, you could say whether she be an addict, or whether she be taking drugs to try to self-medicate for a mental health condition, or whether she was taking drugs to try to numb the pain of some traumatic event she'd experienced prior. There's all kinds of different ways you could use that to tell a backstory that would be more sympathetic than just I don't like Monday. So I went off and did this horrible thing.
Speaker 3:But, as you noted, like with parole hearings, you said why would you only plea her to two? Well, if we plea her to anything and she's life in prison with a possibility of parole, she's going to say I'll take it as opposed to we're going to drop the hammer and you're going down and you're never going to see the light of day. And then part of it is you hope the parole officers on the back end are going to do their part to look at things and say you know what? We don't think you're ready to come out yet and make the right call and not let her back out if she's still a continuing risk to society which none of us ever know when you're looking at it at the moment. But I would think if I was there in 1979, I would look at it and say this is somebody who will never be safe to be in society. But of course, you know, you don't always know the future and you don't, you can't with 100% certainty say that that would never be the case.
Speaker 1:So in a later parole hearing, brenda would claim that she was sexually and physically abused by her father and that they had slept on the same mattress in a small bedroom bedroom. Her mother, which we will discuss more in a minute, claims she was suspicious of the possible sexual and physical abuse, yet never reported it to authorities or attempted to ask Brenda about it. And Edward denied ever abusing or assaulting his daughter. And we do know. Historically the victims of sexual assault may never admit it and it may have taken years for her to come to terms with it. One thing that was interesting because this came up in the 2006 parole hearing is that when her father hears about it, they had been close and talking. He'd seen her in jail, like he always went and saw her, spent a lot of time. They interview him and say well, your daughter said in the parole hearing yesterday that you sexually molested and abused her, and he vehemently denies it. Like I said, it's kind of an odd interview anyway, but his reactions seem weird. But this leads to kind of a very disturbing fact In a story that's already kind of crazy.
Speaker 1:A 17-year-old cellmate of Brenda Spencer's was released from jail to a halfway house. The young girl fled from the halfway house and went to Edward Spencer's home home. This person, this young lady, this girl looked so much like Brenda. It said that her defense attorney, the prosecutor and local enforcement had community members calling saying why is she out? So this girl ends up not only going to Edward's house but living with him and eventually he gets her pregnant and they have a child together. And then a year after that one area I saw that they got married, another just that they hooked up. She was there for a year and then she leaves and leaves the child with him.
Speaker 1:But I think we can never know 100%. Nobody talks about it and one feature of this is none of the siblings have ever really talked to the media ever since this became big. But you have a young, you have a woman that is saying she was sexually assaulted. They find this mattress. It was reported back in the police number one that all this stuff existed. But then you had this story of a girl who's underage looks just like her goes to this guy's house and he ends up having sex with her and getting her pregnant. To me that adds not proof, but it does kind of sway the concepts more towards. Maybe there's something there.
Speaker 3:I don't know what you think of that, but that was a very disturbing fact to me. I think definitely it's bothersome and, like you said, there's a whole lot of less than coincidental coincidences in that 17 years old. Obviously, if it was her cellmate she's like his daughter's age and I think that at least most of the people I know, if there was somebody who was their daughter's age, who was like, hey, let's hook up, They'd be like, uh, no, no, thank you. Like most people I know who, like I hate to use the word normal, but the average person I know would not be interested in somebody who was that much younger than themselves, especially when the person's 17. It's a little bit different when you're talking about somebody who's maybe like 65 and 45. It's still kind of weird that it's a 20-year difference, but it's not as really, really weird as like a 17-year-old with somebody who's like 37 or 40. That's a big difference.
Speaker 1:And especially when his daughter is saying that he molested her. And here's this girl that looks just like her that he's taking advantage of. And to me this incident does kind of raise questions about the relationship between Brenda and her father and her father's sexual attraction to teenage girls, because there's gotta be multiple things there. When you see that and this is all speculation we don't know, but we do know he had sex with her. We do know he had a kid with her. He admitted that he didn't.
Speaker 3:You know um but also like why did she go there? Like, if she leaves jail and she's at this halfway house of all of the places in the world, why does she end up with him?
Speaker 1:right and and again. Now that makes me wonder how was brenda talking about him to her cellmate, was she very? You know he's a good guy. He took care of me like he'll look out for you. He's always here seeing me. So that again goes to some of those even in the worst circumstances, your enemy can become. You're here almost like what's the um this? There's a term for it. I cannot believe I'm blanking on it where people who are kidnapped stockholm syndrome, so to a point maybe, but that's also her father, her mother's not around, which again we're going to hit on here in a second because it bothers me. The mother's situation really kind of bothers me on this, but we can't say definitely. But we do know he had sex with a teenage girl and that he ought to be pregnant.
Speaker 3:So yeah, I mean, the whole thing seems suspicious to me and who knows what she said to her cellmate or how the two of them connected, because also, how would her dad know to be on the lookout for this prior cellmate? Just seems really suspicious that the two of them ended up together.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and we've got to remember this was somebody that was a cellmate before she was 17. So this is still fresh. This is still early right afterwards. So Brenda is still fresh. This is still early right afterwards. So Brenda's the same age roughly. It's just there's some creepiness there that just makes my spine a little tingly. So to the mother now.
Speaker 1:Brenda says that she had a strained relationship with her mother and that she was never really a part of her life relationship with her mother and that she was never really a part of her life. There are actions in her younger years that appear to support this claim, with her mother claiming to see signs of abuse but not wanting to ask Brenda about it or seek out help from authorities. And if you're a mother and you're as involved as in some interviews, like she claims to be and all the things she saw well, why would you not report that? If you saw it, you know, especially if you wanted custody, like she'll sometimes claim. And Brenda says they had a very strained relationship. She didn't see her mother. So this is kind of one of those she said he said. Well, she said she said things. But the actions of Brenda's mom and then the way she talks about Brenda later on don't match up and her mother also said that she didn't try to get custody of the children after the initial custody hearing because it would have just cost too much.
Speaker 1:And Brenda's mother definitely comes off as self-serving in her statements and makes comments that could lead listeners to not see her as being caring or involved, which is very different than her father. Her father did seem very active in life but again there are signs that there may have been substance abuse issues and maybe there was this inappropriate relationship and everything. But the courts saw something in the 70s enough to give the dad custody of all three and the mother no custody. So I'm not sure what was going on with the mother. But the other thing that's interesting with that, like I said, is the father did one interview from 1979 to his death. Mom has done a lot of interviews so I know there's maybe some things where she was possibly making a little bit of money on the side from doing interviews. I don't know that. I couldn't find anything that said that, but I do know the news stations will pay people as guests and she seems to show up a lot. Brenda again made statements about her mother's involvement in her life and her mother's statements are contradictory and neither can really be supported, because her siblings have never spoken out in any way, so we don't have validating information from the siblings.
Speaker 1:They've kind of separated themselves and want nothing to do with this, which is kind of another thing that's very often seen with the families of mass and active shooters, serial killers, basically any of these big named murderers. They want nothing to do with it. They'll change their name and they'll take off. Named murderers they want nothing to do with it. They'll change their name and they'll take off. What was weird about this is that Edward Spencer stayed in that house until his death in 2016. So there were a lot of people the victims and community members that almost found it offensive. They stayed in that house and didn't.
Speaker 1:I don't know how I feel about that. To my view, like he already was kind of in poverty. He didn't have a lot of money. Can you force a man out of his home? I don't know. That was one of those I felt. I don't know how I feel for the father, because, if everything is true, he's a horrific human being, but there's so many unverifiable statements and things that come out. Oh, 34 years later, but in 2006, she did not get parole again.
Speaker 3:And you don't know, with a lot of this stuff, because it could also have been. Maybe he was innocent of these things and you know, maybe it's just the way the circumstances have played out. And maybe he stayed in the house because it made him feel like he was close to his children and his family and what he had lost when all of this happened. And maybe the cellmate took advantage of the situation. Maybe she knew how heartbroken dad was and maybe she sought him out, thinking, well, I can replace her and have three hots on a cot. And you know, while they were there, something happened. And you know, while they were there, something happened. And you know, maybe he really didn't have that much to do with whatever it was that happened.
Speaker 1:Who knows, like we'll never know that and that's the the definitely a. We will never know and I think you bring up a point there is did this cellmate know that he was the only misdaughter and take advantage of it, especially if he's already intoxicated and he's probably drinking more now because all the stuff that's going on? But one thing I will say from the documentary when they tell him, your daughter accused you of sexually assaulting and raping her and this is the first time she says it 2016 parole hearing and again, like we've said, I know victims and you know this as being a prosecutor specifically in sex crimes but his response and the look of disgust and almost like betrayal Again, I don't know how to take it, but there's something there where he genuinely looks disgusted and horrified that she would say that and it's weird that he was going and see her all the time. He's like she did not say that and he looks like he can't believe that that was said. So that stuff is the things that come up in cases like these after the fact and, of course, a documentary. People are looking to make a name for themselves with this, obviously, and she didn't get parole in 2006 either. In fact, though, having multiple parole hearings, brenda Spencer is still in prison as of August 2024. And her next parole hearing shall be sometime in 2025 at the age of 63.
Speaker 1:Now some of the things that I thought were interesting through looking at some of her parole hearings before is she was a model person in prison where she was learning skills like she talked about. She'd learned fork truck driving and she could get a job when she got out. This was doing the 2006 hearing and her attorney, who I believe is a public defender, was talking about these things. She's done the education classes, she'd finished and she'd had no problems. But then there was another section report that something she had done. It may have been her medical conditions or something she was not allowed to be in general population. Again, these are multiple reports.
Speaker 1:I don't know what's true, what's not, what's still current, but she was diagnosed with epilepsy and a seizure disorder in jail not long after going in. So there were some talks and that's again the problem with this case there's so much stuff out there but yet also a lack of information. So I don't know if she had the seizure disorder diagnosed before she went in, but she definitely had it when she got to prison and was put on medications. I don't know if that's why she can't be in general pop or if she's a threat, because there was a relationship she had with a man outside and he ended it and she had carved something into her chest, and there were differences on what the parole board and the prison was saying, that it said and what she said. But what the parole board said was it definitely showed that she was not mentally stable enough to be let out. But no matter what, when I look at everything from this case up to now, there's obviously some time.
Speaker 1:Something happened after that divorce in 1970. Well, it was like 73 that changed her and led down this path, and it's the worst thing about these type of shootings and acts of violence is we don't really have details of before, especially with the divorce Cause mom has a good reason to attack dad. Dad has a good reason to attack mom. Brenda has a reason to attack both because she's trying to get parole and find a going. So we don't know the details, and especially with no other family coming out. What we do know, though, is what happened that day, and we do know that eight children were innocent children were shot going to an elementary school. Two uh, heroic adults gave their lives trying to protect those children. One other officer was wounded and taken out of the line of duty. That's the only facts we can ever say for sure. Everything else is kind of speculation, which I guess when you're talking like from my end in law enforcement, it's got to be for pressies too, is that doesn't really lead us to. How can we try?
Speaker 3:and intervene beforehand which obviously is what we always want to do is to try to prevent these things and be proactive rather than reactive. But unfortunately, with a lot of these types of things, we end up being reactive and we're the ones who are trying to put the pieces together after something is broken, instead of being there to try to stop it from being broken in the first place.
Speaker 1:And this case also brings up the people want to point at the dad. Well, you caused this because you bought her a gun. Well, if she'd never shown any signs before this incident to him and he'd taken her hunting, then is he really responsible for what she did with something he was trying to give her out of love? That's the same thing. Um, with the sandy hook shooter was mom. She knew that was a little different in the fact that mom knew he had problems but bought him a gun, thinking, oh, they could go shooting and this would be a form of therapy form and get him out. And then he turned and used it on her and goes into a much darker question that we won't get into really, I think probably ever, because it can't be answered is how far do you hold legally parents responsible for the actions of their children?
Speaker 1:And I know in the michigan case recently, where both parents were actually prosecuted because they had multiple warning signs of what their kids were going to do in this incident and we haven't covered columbine and I don't know if we will. If we will, that will be like an eight-part series probably, because that is the mass school shooting that started. It all for me was the how the hell did something like this happen? And how do you go to that, like, where does that threshold go? From being bullied and just I've got to get out of high school to I'm going to give up my own life and kill a bunch of people? But I guess, like asking somebody that's worked in law and prosecution, I mean, how would you have ever thought, before this case had just came to Michigan, you would ever been able to hold a parent accountable for something like that?
Speaker 3:It would have been extraordinarily difficult. But, like you said, there's a whole lot to that case, a whole lot of warning signs, a lot of documentation, which I think you were talking about before how, after the fact that these things happen, people look back and they pick and they choose and they see different things or they say, oh, he said this or that. But that case was very different from my point of view because those things were already recorded and written down and there was a very clear record. It wasn't like after the fact people said I remember this thing happening. It was here is what we know, when we knew it and what we told their parents. And this is what the parents did or did not do with the information we provided. And so it was absolutely clear that the parents knew certain things and either took action or didn't take action, based on what they should have realized from what they absolutely knew.
Speaker 1:And they almost stoked some of the issues and that's. This is where I'm going to go kind of on my soapbox a little on a tangent. But I like I said this mass violence, mass shootings is my area, so kind of more as a broad statement. Like almost everyone I have studied, I can't think of one off the top of my head. There were not warning signs. People did not hear statements, see actions. There had already been interactions with police. There had already been interactions with police. So really take those things seriously.
Speaker 1:Because I have more respect for the parents that I had talked to when I was in law enforcement Multiple times where parents said something's wrong with my kid and I think they're going to hurt somebody. Please come intervene, Come talk to them. Or the friends are like, look, I've got to turn my friend in, like you're talking about wanting to harm people because it's when you don't think it's your responsibility to say anything, or maybe they're just joking and this is just funny. That's all. Those signs were there in every case that I've ever studied and lives could have been saved if just one person had said something. And especially at the same time I'll call out law enforcement on that. That, when somebody makes a report of that, take it seriously, because going all the way back to Columbine, they knew what these kids were doing and just didn't take it seriously. It was just boys being boys, kids being kids and we have to do better as a society. So off my soapbox now of that. I brought that down way hardcore, like let's bring it back up a little bit really to say that like, being a social worker and having watched a couple of Brenda Spencer's parole hearings and reading a lot about her, I'm not sure how I feel about her being released. Like I believe she has mental health issues. I believe that she needs to get the help she deserves.
Speaker 1:The story from her prison time shows that she's mostly been a good prisoner. She's learned trades and she's gained some education and she's going to be 63. So she spent her entire adult life in prison and I thought it was kind of weird again watching the documentary and seeing some of the stuff that people said. And Officer Rob said that if she was put on parole he would start carrying a gun again because he would feel fear for his life. This woman, it's 40, 40, no, 54 years later. Almost, almost, yeah, she'll be 48 years somewhere around there. Wow, math just failed me today. She was 16. She'll be 63. 57, 47.
Speaker 3:75 was 48 years ago.
Speaker 1:Okay, so there we go. Yes, so she'll be roughly she'll be six years. She'll relatively spend 47, 48 years behind prison. Is she really going to be a harm to anybody if we get her, if they release her, to a halfway house or a place where she can get the treatment she needs, she can be around people that can help her adjust to society, because think of how different the world is now than 1979. I can literally tell you I know everything that has changed in that time period from 1986 forward.
Speaker 1:But listening to the interviews with victims and survivors, most do not want to see her released and some fear if she gets out they won't be safe. But I, just just as a social worker, I say she's done enough time. She was a child when it happened. Get her medicated, get her to a halfway house, get her a social worker and the people she needs. I think at this point, give her a chance. You know she's not in great health. She's not like. Does she deserve to die in prison? I don't know how I I think it's a tricky question and I think it would be something I would punt to a. She's not like. Does she deserve to die in prison? I don't know.
Speaker 3:I think it's a tricky question and I think it would be something I would punt to a medical expert somewhere because I absolutely wouldn't want her to get out and get her hands on a weapon and have something else happen. And the sad truth is, like barring any of the political stuff one way or another. I know everybody has different opinions, but there are enough weapons in our country that if you really want to get one, you will be able to find a way to get one. And that's just a sad truth of our country that there's no way you can prevent somebody from not getting it if they have determination and money and means to go get it. So I think that you know, with something like this, I think she would have to be supervised on some capacity for the rest of her life.
Speaker 1:Absolutely With a social worker. Of course I'm going to promote my own people, but I think that mental health piece is a big part of it. But the other thing I worry about is, besides her siblings two that she grew up with one she never knew and I don't know how she probably would feel about that one Her dad's gone. I couldn't find anything on her mother if she's still alive or not but pretty much the only connection she had are gone. So she's coming out to a world where she's basically going to be alone. So who's she going to a world where she's basically going to be alone? So who's she going to be a harm to if she's under supervision or even able to work a little bit? I don't know. I just there's a bleeding heart part of me that as a social worker that's like when is her time? Enough that you gave her life in prison with the possibility of parole, but did you know that that possibility of parole was bullshit and you were never going to give it to her?
Speaker 3:Which, of course, it's a maybe right, because it's not up to that person, whoever it was that signed this plea agreement, you know, 50 years ago. They don't have any control over what happens now, and those people I mean, there's a high probability that they're not even here anymore and that they left this earth with her still being in custody. And I'm sure some of them thought at the time this decision will be something that's made after I'm gone. So, on the flip side, as far as, like you were talking about when has she done enough and her having nothing on the outside now, you could also use that as a counter argument. Everything she knows is in prison. Her entire life has been in prison. That's her support system, that's her safe spot, that's her home. Everyone that she knows, her whole world, is there.
Speaker 3:Why would you take her out of that and push her into this completely foreign place now, with cell phones and computers and all of the things that there are, and she would be pulled away from everybody that she knew and the people who take care of her at the prison? Because you have people who it is a prison, but there's still a community there. You still have friends, you have guards who make sure that you're safe. You have people who bring you food and make sure that you're fed, and if you have a medical problem, they take you to a doctor and make sure that you're seen and have some type of care. So I think that you could also make the argument that trying to pull her out at 63, when that's the only life she's ever known and every person she's connected to in the world is there, and when you take her out she won't see those people anymore, I think you could argue that's cruel also.
Speaker 1:Yes, and I see that. But then there's a flip side of that choice. Right, and she's the one asking for parole, right, so she's the one asking for at least the opportunity. So does she not? But again, no, to a point. She doesn't get that because she committed these heinous crimes and there's victims that are out there and there's always going to be victims. But, ethically, if she's up for parole, she's done all the stuff she's supposed to and she's asking for the least opportunity at 63 years old. When she was 25 years old, she's done a lot more than 25 years, should she not? If she's asking for it and being given the opportunity under supervision, and if she doesn't work out well and she says, look, I'm not going to be able to make it again, given the opportunity, she decides to basically turn herself back. I don't know if that's a thing. I don't know if you can be like you know what? Put me back in prison.
Speaker 3:Well, that's a whole other issue, right? Because we have hopeless people all the time who are looking for the crude reference of three hots and a cot and they feel like they need to be on the inside to have somebody take care of them, whether because they don't have finances or they know they have mental health problems and they know that when they're inside they get the treatment that they need. And they do commit crimes just to get in. It's not like you can go to the jail and say, knock, knock, I went in, can I come stay?
Speaker 1:oh yeah that's crazy shit. I had homeless people that would do that and there's or houseless people and they were always like super cool and stuff, like I never had a problem with them, but they would come up and be like I'm gonna break this window. I'm like please do not break a government window. All, all right, I'll arrest you for threatening and then you would take them down Like you got to do something because I don't want to break the window and they're going to do something if I don't arrest them. But yeah, it would usually be on the most cold nights and stuff. But it is.
Speaker 1:There are people and I've said this before like the crazy shit my friend used to say of like I need to go back to prison to get my head on straight. It is weird how prison and the institution of prison does change people so much that they feel more danger outside the walls because they become so institutionalized inside the walls. I don't know if that's the case with her. I'll kind of see how this plays over in 2025 when her parole hearing comes, because I have followed her story for so long. The criminal justice part of me says look, what you did was wrong and you need to stay behind bars the rest of your life, contrary to the social work side of me, that says you've done almost twice as long as your 25 dollar life with the possibility of parole. Maybe you should have a chance. But again, like you said, social workers should be involved in those decisions, humanly capable and stuff.
Speaker 1:But kind of a final interesting thing that I thought about this was usually there's no good that comes out of any of these cases and besides that, most of those children went on to live and they've had decent lives and there were some interviews with them that were great. The ones that were interviewed for this documentary said they actually liked the song. Oh, that's cool, because the way they thought it it did depict like this wasn't glorifying what happened to us. This was talking about the problems with what's happening in society that allowed this to happen. So though I will often say nothing good came out of these and there are probably a lot of people that say nothing did good come out of this I will say at least we got this on.
Speaker 1:If you like it or not, I thought it was good. So I don't know what your thoughts are about this whole case in general, because this was kind of more of one I brought to the table, but it's definitely one of those to me that sticks out because the stuff beforehand, the stuff in the trial and then the things that came out afterwards that weren't brought up to uh until it was in the parole system or for parole hearings, so I don't know what you thought of that it's definitely interesting and it's definitely unique and, like you said, there are different aspects to it.
Speaker 3:And the patrol, the whole parole issue. Does she even know what she's asking for, since you know she went straight from dad's house to being in prison? Maybe she doesn't even know what it means, but maybe somebody told her you want this, so she's asking for it because she thinks that's what she wants. But we'll never know if she doesn't get out.
Speaker 1:Correct, so I'm really interested to see what happened next year. I want to thank you all so much for listening to our little podcast. This is created with love and passion for criminal justice and true crime. So if you're enjoying the podcast, please follow us, like or rate us on whatever system you're listening to us on, subscribe to our podcast and download episodes. Downloads are important for our growth, as is growing our listeners. So if you wouldn't mind, take the time to ask your friends, family, coworkers, tell them about us through word of mouth, social media. I don't care if you even scream at strangers on the streets. To help us kind of get out there who we are. If you're interested in learning more, you could visit our website at wwwdeviantcriminologycom. There you'll find some stuff about our backgrounds, references, show notes for each episode. You can also follow us on our Facebook page at Deviant Criminology deviant underscore criminology, or find me at drrichardweaver on Instagram. And as we grow, we hope to develop a community that will grow with us. No-transcript.
