Speaker 1: In the last episode, we discussed part one of Sheila Davilou.
Speaker 1: Now today we're going to be continuing that story with
Speaker 1: part two, so be sure if you haven't heard yet,
Speaker 1: to check out part one before continuing with us today.
Speaker 1: But for now, let's get into the rest of the story.
Speaker 2: My name's Ben, I'm Nicole, and you're listening to Wicked
Speaker 2: and Grim, a true crime podcasting. The following podcast and
Speaker 2: material intended for.
Speaker 1: A mature audience. Listener discretion is advised. I owe everyone
Speaker 1: on an apology. Do you I do?
Speaker 2: What the heck did you do?
Speaker 1: When I uploaded part one the other day, I forgot
Speaker 1: to put part one in the title. Wow, until like
Speaker 1: it was like six hours later and I realized so.
Speaker 1: But however, we did talk about in the intro of
Speaker 1: that episode that it was part one. Oh, but I
Speaker 1: forgot to put in the title.
Speaker 2: Was that intentional?
Speaker 1: No, it wasn't. It was completely accidental.
Speaker 2: I know, I'm just bugging. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was just sitting there chilling. Then I can just
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, this like epiphany hit me, and
Speaker 1: I was like, I didn't put part one in the title.
Speaker 1: So I rushed back and edit it and put it
Speaker 1: back in and I was like, I hope not too
Speaker 1: many people are going to be mad at me.
Speaker 2: You gotta love those epiphanies, say right, that realization of oops,
Speaker 2: I fucked up. I hate when they happen in the
Speaker 2: middle of the night, when you're like trying to fall
Speaker 2: back to sleep or something and you're like, oh shit,
Speaker 2: that's when it.
Speaker 1: Feels the worst. It feels like you're your like heart
Speaker 1: and stomach is dropping through the bed you're laying on,
Speaker 1: you just like sink deeper into just like despair. Oh
Speaker 1: it's the worst. But one thing does help that, really. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Actually there's two things that helps it. This and signing
Speaker 1: up over on Patreon. Did you see that covin I did.
Speaker 2: Actually that one I saw.
Speaker 1: Well, you probably thought it was gonna be the first one,
Speaker 1: didn't you.
Speaker 2: No, No, no, I didn't.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, the second thing.
Speaker 2: I'm here and can see you going to open your
Speaker 2: oh to fair.
Speaker 1: Enough, fair enough. Well, maybe I got some people out there.
Speaker 1: But the second thing is signing up over on Patreon,
Speaker 1: and we have some amazing patrons to thank this week,
Speaker 1: just like Maggie Williams, Amanda greg Ka Ray. I hope
Speaker 1: I said your name right, Sandra and Dennis, Katie Ort,
Speaker 1: Cody Yates, Tammy Sutton, Sarah Wellen, Kristen and Amanda Graham.
Speaker 1: They all signed up. They're getting that access behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: They get our Friday photo dump, some pre shows exclusive
Speaker 1: episode that comes out at the end of the month
Speaker 1: for anyone who signed up to that all access.
Speaker 2: Than mag It's a good list of peeps.
Speaker 1: It is good list of peeps, and it's it's a
Speaker 1: nice little place to just hang out, learn more about
Speaker 1: the show and learn more about us too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's good vibes over there. Honestly, good vibes is
Speaker 2: a good way of putting it. Yeah, but are.
Speaker 1: You ready for part two?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Talking about good old Sheila.
Speaker 1: Talking about good old Sheila. I don't know if i'd
Speaker 1: really say good old Sila.
Speaker 2: No, she's terrible.
Speaker 1: She kind of a bitch. But we're telling her story regardless.
Speaker 2: She's kind of a bit.
Speaker 1: She's kind of a fucking bitch. I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 1: It's the truth. That's that's what she's like.
Speaker 2: Oh that was good.
Speaker 1: You like that?
Speaker 2: I did? Yeah, I really did.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I've got a little bit of a recap
Speaker 1: in case there's been some time since you listen to
Speaker 1: part one, So a little bit of a recap on
Speaker 1: what happened on last episode. So. Sheila Davlou was a
Speaker 1: pharmaceutical research scientist living in New York in the early
Speaker 1: two thousands. She was married to Paul Christos, a doctoral
Speaker 1: student and researcher, and the two appear to be living
Speaker 1: a stable, very professional life now. In reality, Sheila had
Speaker 1: a very long history of hiding relationships and controlling what
Speaker 1: people around her knew about her personal life. After immigrating
Speaker 1: from Iran as a child, Sheila grew up in a
Speaker 1: very strict household, one that emphasized academic success and obviously
Speaker 1: a public image to go along with it, because hey,
Speaker 1: that's what we want, right people to perceive us well
Speaker 1: and also to do well. She studied biochemistry at Stonebrook
Speaker 1: University and later earned a master's degree at New York
Speaker 1: Medical College. Under family pressure, she entered her first marriage
Speaker 1: at quite a young age, but still while married, that's
Speaker 1: when she began an affair with Paul Christos. Now after
Speaker 1: her divorce, she married Paul in two thousand and moved
Speaker 1: in with him in Pleasantville, New York. Both Sheila and
Speaker 1: Paul worked very demanding schedules, and their marriage gradually became
Speaker 1: rather emotionally distant. Paul remained loyal and very trusting, believing
Speaker 1: that their situation would eventually improve, and in two thousand
Speaker 1: and one, while working at Purdue Farmer in Stamford, Connecticut,
Speaker 1: began an affair with a coworker named Nelson Sessler. Now
Speaker 1: Nelson was unaware that she was married, and to keep
Speaker 1: the two men separate, Sheila told Paul that her mentally
Speaker 1: ill brother visited regularly and required Paul to leave their apartment,
Speaker 1: remove all his belongings in any existence of him, basically
Speaker 1: not to upset her brother. Now during these periods, she
Speaker 1: brought Nelson to the condo, of course, not this brother,
Speaker 1: making him believe that she was in fact living alone
Speaker 1: and single. So at the same time, Sheila told Paul
Speaker 1: very ongoing stories about a workplace love triangle involving Melissa
Speaker 1: Jack and Anna Lisa. Now these stories were actually about herself, Nelson,
Speaker 1: and another woman in Nelson's life, Anna Alissa Raymundo, and
Speaker 1: Paul unknowingly gave Sheila advice about well her own relationship
Speaker 1: that was on the side. Nelson eventually chose Anna Alisa
Speaker 1: over Sheila, and as her relationship became more serious, Sheila
Speaker 1: became increasingly obsessed with him. She monitored his schedule with Analisa,
Speaker 1: access to Nelson's voicemail, and arranged coincidental encounters in public spaces.
Speaker 1: By late two thousand and two, she viewed Annalisa as
Speaker 1: the main obstacle to being with Nelson. She's the one
Speaker 1: in the way. So on November eighth, two thousand and two,
Speaker 1: Shila left work for several hours and went to Analisa's condo. Now,
Speaker 1: after gaining entry, she attacked her in a violent struggle
Speaker 1: and stabbed her to death. Then she placed an anonymous
Speaker 1: nine to one one call from a nearby pay phone,
Speaker 1: tipping off the very bloody murder scene she had just
Speaker 1: left behind, and then returned to work. Police initially focused
Speaker 1: on Nelson, but his ALBI proved extremely concrete, so now
Speaker 1: investigators didn't know about Sheila's relationship with him at the time,
Speaker 1: and early forensic evidence did not identify any other suspect,
Speaker 1: so the case essentially stalled. After the murder, Sheila reinserted
Speaker 1: herself into nelson life as the emotional support person, and
Speaker 1: their relationship started to blossom in razume. Meanwhile, Paul, well,
Speaker 1: he remained unaware of all of this, and he continued
Speaker 1: leaving the home during those supposed brothers visits. Now, early
Speaker 1: in two thousand and three, Sheila was again maintaining two
Speaker 1: separate relationships, but the difference now was Paul was beginning
Speaker 1: to question some of these things. And that is where
Speaker 1: we left off.
Speaker 2: Oh, that is just a wild story. It is, yes,
Speaker 2: hard to believe that that is even true.
Speaker 1: I know she is a very much so manipulative person.
Speaker 1: I want to say a master manipulator, which she very
Speaker 1: much so is, but I don't want to give her
Speaker 1: that credit. At the same time, you know what.
Speaker 2: I mean, She's kind of a bitch.
Speaker 1: She's kind of a bitch. That's the ongoing theme of
Speaker 1: this story for sure.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, I'm obsessed with us.
Speaker 1: Do you have any questions or anything you want to
Speaker 1: go over before we dive into the rest of the
Speaker 1: part too.
Speaker 2: No, pretty straightforward. Yeah, it all came back to me
Speaker 2: in one little.
Speaker 1: Hush, little overwhelming wave of she kind of a bitch? Yeah, gotcha. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: with that all out of the way, let's dive into
Speaker 1: the rest of the story. So by early two thousand
Speaker 1: and three, the strain on Sheila and Paul's marriage had
Speaker 1: become quite impossible to ignore. What had once been a
Speaker 1: partnership built around shared ambition and mutual respect, while it
Speaker 1: had slowly turned into a relationship that was more defined
Speaker 1: by distance. Paul was spending most of his time working
Speaker 1: on his doctoral research and teaching, while Sheila seemed increasingly
Speaker 1: absorbed in her own world. Their schedules while they rarely aligned,
Speaker 1: and when they were together and conversations happened while they
Speaker 1: were often brief and only really surface level ones. The
Speaker 1: arrangements surrounding Sheila's brother, it too, had become one of
Speaker 1: the biggest sources of tension between them. For years, Paul
Speaker 1: had accepted the idea that he needed to leave his
Speaker 1: own home whenever her brother had visited. He packed up
Speaker 1: his belongings, removed fos, photos and any sort of personal items,
Speaker 1: and stayed in hotels without any sort of complaint.
Speaker 2: Well, that's pretty messed up, because it's not just that
Speaker 2: he's like leaving, it's that he has to take his
Speaker 2: whole existence out of the house.
Speaker 1: Which is true. And what we talked about in Part
Speaker 1: one was the idea that like her brother being mentally ill,
Speaker 1: she's leaning on the idea of saying that, well, if
Speaker 1: he sees that I have a relationship with you, it
Speaker 1: could upset him that, you know, he's not central to
Speaker 1: my life anymore and disrupt his like his balance, right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I understand Paul's wanting to be very supportive of that,
Speaker 1: but at a certain point that becomes too much, you know.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and I think it it in his mind, well,
Speaker 2: I think we should just let me meet the brother
Speaker 2: and like work this out kind.
Speaker 1: Of thing for sure. Like at first, he's like, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm probably doing something necessary to not only integrate myself
Speaker 1: into her life, but you know, the brother's life. You know,
Speaker 1: we'll get there. But over time he's like, Okay, these
Speaker 1: visits are becoming more frequent, less predictable, Like they happened
Speaker 1: like monthly, and other times they were even like more
Speaker 1: often than that, and each visit it meant that Paul
Speaker 1: was disappearing from his own life for days at a time,
Speaker 1: and he eventually is just like, well, this is no
Speaker 1: longer a reasonable situation. So he had never met the
Speaker 1: brother in law, he'd never been included in conversations about
Speaker 1: the future. He was being asked to pretend that his
Speaker 1: life inside his own marriage basically didn't exist, and so
Speaker 1: his frustrations are growing, and he started actually expressing some
Speaker 1: concerns to Sheila, which is good. Good for him, right,
Speaker 1: He's actually standing up to himself or for himself and
Speaker 1: be like, Okay, I think like, at first, I want
Speaker 1: to be supportive and do what you're wanting and needing
Speaker 1: from me, but at a certain point you need to
Speaker 1: let me have me too.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, it's unreasonable and we need to come up
Speaker 2: with a game plan going forward one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: So he asked whether the situation could change, and he
Speaker 1: suggested that her brother might eventually need to know the truth,
Speaker 1: and he questioned whether continuing to live separate lives if
Speaker 1: it actually made any sense. Now, these conversations with Sheila,
Speaker 1: they didn't exactly go well. Sheila reacted quite emotionally whenever
Speaker 1: the topic was brought up. She framed Paul's concerns as
Speaker 1: selfish or insensitive, and she doubled down on her responsibility
Speaker 1: to her family and her brother's mental health. Any suggestion
Speaker 1: of change whatsoever was met with tears and anger. Now,
Speaker 1: while Paul was pushing back. He also began noticing other
Speaker 1: changes in his wife. She was more secretive with her phone,
Speaker 1: she worked late more often, and she sometimes seemed distracted
Speaker 1: even when they were together. He couldn't pinpoint anything specific,
Speaker 1: but he felt that something in their relationship had fundamentally shifted.
Speaker 1: It was now like off. Something was there he couldn't
Speaker 1: quite point out, but still he didn't suspect any sort
Speaker 1: of infidelity. He was just assuming that it was stress, exhaustion,
Speaker 1: you know, career pressure, those sort of things that would
Speaker 1: have been responsible. Now, with all of this happening from
Speaker 1: Sheila's perspective, Paul was becoming a bit of a problem.
Speaker 1: He was no longer content to quietly accept her word
Speaker 1: and disappear on a whim. He was beginning to assert
Speaker 1: himself and he wanted to live openly as her husband.
Speaker 1: And those expectations, will they directly threaten the life that
Speaker 1: she had built around Nelson.
Speaker 2: That is so messed up that that would be a problem.
Speaker 1: I know, right, But that's exactly the situation. She's leading
Speaker 1: two different lives. She's with two different men, or at
Speaker 1: least like trying to be with one and not necessarily
Speaker 1: the other.
Speaker 2: Because I'm obsessed with Paul. He just seems like the
Speaker 2: perfect husband really.
Speaker 1: Basically, I mean he's a little naive, let's put it
Speaker 1: that way and be honest. But yeah, he's very trusting,
Speaker 1: he wants this to work, and he's very open and
Speaker 1: accepting of what she needs from him.
Speaker 2: Uh huh. But he is not what she wants I guess,
Speaker 2: or you know, wants him to keep being this little
Speaker 2: naive person that doesn't ask questions or think about outside
Speaker 2: the box of how can we fix this or change this?
Speaker 1: Right, she just wants attention in certain ways, and if
Speaker 1: that falls off the grid in any sort of relationship,
Speaker 1: she finds it in the other and another relationship with
Speaker 1: another person.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: And then it's not only confronting it and trying to
Speaker 1: fix it or talk about it or maybe even get
Speaker 1: a divorce because hey, this relationship isn't for me, it's
Speaker 1: I'm going to find someone else and lead the double life. Now,
Speaker 1: at this point, Shila faced a choice. She could end
Speaker 1: her marriage, pursue a divorce just as I was talking about,
Speaker 1: and deal with the financial, the professional, the social consequences,
Speaker 1: all of that sort of stuff that comes along with it,
Speaker 1: or choice number two, she could remove Paul as an
Speaker 1: obstacle entirely, just like she had done before.
Speaker 2: Two. Okay, okay.
Speaker 1: So it was not long after these tensions intensified that
Speaker 1: Sheila introduced Paul to a new idea. She told him
Speaker 1: that she heard about a trust game from coworkers now.
Speaker 1: She described it as a bonding experience, something designed to
Speaker 1: bring couples together in like a little closer like it
Speaker 1: had a little bedroom game sort of say, it's a
Speaker 1: game for couples, you know, involving blindfolds, handcuffs, and guessing
Speaker 1: objects based on touch. Sheila framed it as very harmless
Speaker 1: and intimate, a way for them to reconnect after months
Speaker 1: of emotional distance right now. Paul being very eager to
Speaker 1: improve their marriage, he missed feeling close to his wife,
Speaker 1: and he believed that she was genuinely wanting to rebuild
Speaker 1: the relationship, and when she suggested playing this game, he
Speaker 1: agreed without hesitation. On Sunday, March twenty third, two thousand
Speaker 1: and three, Sheila and Paul spent most of the day
Speaker 1: running errands and visiting family. They had lunch with Paul's
Speaker 1: mother in White Plains and returned to their Pleasantville condo
Speaker 1: in the afternoon. By all appearances, it was a very
Speaker 1: calm and usually pleasant day for the couple that had
Speaker 1: grown distant. They talked easily, shared small moments, and showed
Speaker 1: signs with no conflict in them. But later Paul would
Speaker 1: describe it as one of the better days that he
Speaker 1: had in those months with his wife. They were together,
Speaker 1: they were living, they were existing. Now it was some
Speaker 1: time around four pm. Sheila reminded Paul about this trust
Speaker 1: game that she had mentioned earlier in the week, and
Speaker 1: so she gathered what she said she needed for the game.
Speaker 1: A blindfold that she made from some black pantyhose, a
Speaker 1: pair of handcuffs, and a heavy wooden chair with sturdy rungs.
Speaker 1: They set it up in a spare bedroom that had
Speaker 1: carpeted flooring. Now Sheila went first. Paul handcuffed her wrists
Speaker 1: to the chair and tied a blindfold around her eyes.
Speaker 1: He pressed various objects from the house against her body
Speaker 1: and asked her to guess what they were. Now, they
Speaker 1: used various items from the home, like a camera and
Speaker 1: a box and whatever else they could find, and after
Speaker 1: several rounds, Sheila correctly identified most of the items. And
Speaker 1: when it was over, Paul removed the handcuffs and the blindfold,
Speaker 1: and then it was Paul's turn. Sheila secured his wrist
Speaker 1: to the chair and blindfolded him. She began the same process.
Speaker 1: Paul guessed most of the items correctly too, as they
Speaker 1: were pressed against his skin. And as the game continued,
Speaker 1: Sheila left the room several times in searching for some
Speaker 1: objects to use, of course, and at one point Paul
Speaker 1: heard her in the kitchen, and when she returned to him,
Speaker 1: she told him that the next object would be the
Speaker 1: last one. Now Paul, still tied to the chair, was
Speaker 1: waiting for the last object to be pressed against his skin.
Speaker 1: He felt his wife, Sheila, begin to position herself with
Speaker 1: her legs on either side of his thighs as he
Speaker 1: sat cuffed in the chair. Then he suddenly felt an
Speaker 1: intense blow to the chest. The impact was so powerful
Speaker 1: that it knocked the breath right out of him, and
Speaker 1: he heard Sheila scream. The moments later, he felt another
Speaker 1: violent strike right near the same spot. Now, Paul, remember
Speaker 1: was still blindfolded in handcuffed to this chair. He couldn't
Speaker 1: see what was happening to him. He struggled to breathe
Speaker 1: and felt a very immediate severe pain. Sheila told him
Speaker 1: that she thought she had hurt him accidentally, and she
Speaker 1: claimed that, you know, she must have accidentally fell or
Speaker 1: tripped and caused some injury. And when Paul insisted she
Speaker 1: removed the blindfold, she eventually did, and he saw her
Speaker 1: standing over him, panicking and disoriented, and his shirt was
Speaker 1: covered in blood as it was seeping down to the
Speaker 1: floor and beginning to pool.
Speaker 2: Holy shit, Sheila.
Speaker 1: Had stabbed him two times in the chest with a
Speaker 1: pairing knife accidentally quote accidentally, according to her, But he
Speaker 1: didn't really understand this. Still, he didn't know exactly what
Speaker 1: had happened. All he knew was that his wife had
Speaker 1: somehow hurt him, and he assumed that, yeah, it was
Speaker 1: in fact an accident. Why would he think otherwise. Now,
Speaker 1: Sheila said she could not find the handcuff key as
Speaker 1: he asked to be uncuffed, so instead Paul just told
Speaker 1: her to break the wrung of the chair, and after hesitating,
Speaker 1: she did so, freeing his arms. Now he tried to
Speaker 1: stand up, but collapsed from the pain and the weakness,
Speaker 1: and he began sweating heavily and felt his heart racing.
Speaker 1: He repeatedly told Sheila to call nine one one, but instead,
Speaker 1: when she went into the kitchen, she returned with a
Speaker 1: glass of juice, telling him to drink it. When he refused,
Speaker 1: she eventually pulled out her phone and appeared to make
Speaker 1: a call. While pacing through the apartment, she told Paul
Speaker 1: she was speaking to the emergency services and that help
Speaker 1: was on the way. She told Paul eventually that emergency
Speaker 1: responders were short staffed and it would take twenty five
Speaker 1: to thirty minutes before they would arrive at the scene.
Speaker 1: Now this explanation made very little sense, but Paul was
Speaker 1: in too much pain to argue otherwise. He began to
Speaker 1: feel himself fading out, and at one point Sheila offered
Speaker 1: him night quill, suggesting it would help him feel better,
Speaker 1: but he pushed it away, and Paul he realized he
Speaker 1: couldn't wait for the ambulance. He didn't have twenty five
Speaker 1: minutes or thirty minutes, however long it would take for
Speaker 1: them to arrive. He told Sheila that she needed to
Speaker 1: drive him to the hospital, and she needed to do
Speaker 1: it immediately now. She agreed, and after slowly helping him
Speaker 1: into a jacket, she brought him to the car and
Speaker 1: placed him in the back seat. Instead of taking the
Speaker 1: direct route to Westchester Medical Center, Sheila drove slowly along
Speaker 1: a secondary route. She made unnecessary turns and delays in
Speaker 1: the path she was driving, and Paul became increasingly alarmed
Speaker 1: at what was going on. He's slowly starting to think,
Speaker 1: why is she doing this? Why is she taking so long?
Speaker 1: Why is she taking these routes? And finally, when she
Speaker 1: got to the hospital grounds, she drove right by the
Speaker 1: emergency entrance to the er and drove behind the building
Speaker 1: into a largely empty parking lot near the rear at
Speaker 1: the end of that lot.
Speaker 2: Oh, my goodness, gracious, this woman doesn't have a heart.
Speaker 2: She is just like Puer.
Speaker 1: Evil she is. She's essentially trying to prolong this and
Speaker 1: hope that he died.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now, After stopping the car, Sheila dropped the keys on
Speaker 1: the floor and was pretending to search for them. And
Speaker 1: when she finally exited the vehicle after allegedly finding the keys,
Speaker 1: she walked around to Paul's door on the passenger side
Speaker 1: in the back seat and opened it, but instead of
Speaker 1: helping him out, she lunged at him holding a knife,
Speaker 1: and she stabbed him in the chest once again. What
Speaker 1: and as she raised the knife for another strike, Paul
Speaker 1: reacted instinctively. He knew now that what had happened wasn't
Speaker 1: an accident. He knew she was attacking him, trying to
Speaker 1: kill him.
Speaker 2: He knew that his wife was batshit.
Speaker 1: Crazy exactly, and as this strike was coming down this
Speaker 1: would have been the fourth stab, he blocked her arm
Speaker 1: and shoved her away and forced himself out of the car,
Speaker 1: despite losing blood rapidly. He grabbed the blade with his
Speaker 1: bare hands and ripped it from her grip. He threw
Speaker 1: it aside and staggered towards two people exiting a nearby building.
Speaker 1: Now Sheila followed him, and she was pleading with him
Speaker 1: to say this was just an accident. Just please just
Speaker 1: tell him it was an accident. She told him that
Speaker 1: if he told the truth, she was going to get
Speaker 1: in so much trouble. And when the bystanders reached Paul,
Speaker 1: they immediately saw the severity of his injuries and called
Speaker 1: for emergency assistance. Sheila ran from the scene right away,
Speaker 1: but police caught up with her a very short distance
Speaker 1: away and placed her under arrest. Paul was rushed into
Speaker 1: emergency surgery, and surgeons discovered that the earlier stabbings had
Speaker 1: punctured his heart and damaged major blood vessels. One wound
Speaker 1: had even nicked an artery, causing blood to fill his
Speaker 1: chest cavity and his lungs. Holy doctors later said he
Speaker 1: survived only because he retrieved the treatment right when he did.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, because yeah, I was thinking this was not
Speaker 2: gonna end well, like just listening to the amount of
Speaker 2: blood and stuff he's losing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she prolonged it, and if she was able to
Speaker 1: prolong it anymore, he likely would have died before reaching
Speaker 1: the hospital.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. And then she just freaking like fled.
Speaker 1: Yep, she ran.
Speaker 2: Oh okay. I cannot even believe that someone's just terrible
Speaker 2: as a person.
Speaker 1: Now, after Sheila was arrested outside the parking lot and
Speaker 1: trying to run on March twenty third, two thousand and three,
Speaker 1: she was taken into police custody and brought in for questioning. Now,
Speaker 1: at that point, investigators were still uncertain whether Paul would
Speaker 1: survive at all. His condition in hospital was very critical,
Speaker 1: and doctors had warned that he might not make it
Speaker 1: through the night. Police were fully aware that if Paul
Speaker 1: did die, Sheila would be facing a murder charge rather
Speaker 1: than a tempted murder. Detectives began asking Sheila to explain
Speaker 1: what had happened inside the apartment and during the drive
Speaker 1: to the hospital as well. Now she appeared calm and
Speaker 1: cooperative at first, but her story immediately raised a lot
Speaker 1: of concerns. She told officers that she and Paul had
Speaker 1: been playing a consensual bedroom game, which they were and
Speaker 1: during that he was accidentally injured. According to her initial account,
Speaker 1: she claimed that she had been holding a pairing knife
Speaker 1: and somehow lost her balance, causing it to puncture into
Speaker 1: his chest.
Speaker 2: That wouldn't make sense to literally anyone.
Speaker 1: No, and she insisted that she never meant to hurt
Speaker 1: him and that everything was basically an unfortunate accident. And
Speaker 1: yet doesn't make sense. You might might be able to
Speaker 1: get away.
Speaker 2: With saying that once, yeah, one stab wound, but like at.
Speaker 1: Three right, yeah, but like oh I fell, Oh I
Speaker 1: fell again. Oh we're in the parking lot of the hospital.
Speaker 1: Oh I fell, still holding the knife, Like what the fuck? Okay,
Speaker 1: So that's essentially what she's trying to say, and the
Speaker 1: police weren't buying it. Now, She also told police that
Speaker 1: she immediately called nine one one and followed their instructions.
Speaker 1: She said emergency services were delayed and that she had
Speaker 1: done her best to help Paul while they were waiting. Now,
Speaker 1: when they asked why she had not driven directly to
Speaker 1: emergency service and the entrance right, she went right past
Speaker 1: the emergency entrance, and she claimed, well, because she drove past,
Speaker 1: she was confused. She didn't know where to go.
Speaker 2: I think it's generally pretty obvious. It usually actually, if
Speaker 2: you're actually driving right past it, you're gonna be able
Speaker 2: to tell that, Okay, this is the emergency entrance.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but basically she's trying to portray herself as like
Speaker 1: panicking and frightened over what happened, which is why she
Speaker 1: didn't see it. Oh my god, even though it would
Speaker 1: have been obvious.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Usually it's lit up and it says emergency.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a very safety kind of oriented thing. It's
Speaker 1: like blaring lights like for people in emergency situations, so
Speaker 1: it's easy to find to notice. Yeah. Now, when investigators
Speaker 1: asked for more details about the nine one one call
Speaker 1: that she said she made, Sheila gave different time estimates
Speaker 1: for when she supposedly made the call, and well, it
Speaker 1: was very gray on how she described this call, it happened,
Speaker 1: and how it occurred. She also struggled to explain why
Speaker 1: she offered Paul juice and cold medicine instead of any
Speaker 1: sort of first aid. I mean, that was her first
Speaker 1: aid while waiting for medical aid to come.
Speaker 2: I can kind of understand the juice just slightly, really
Speaker 2: a little bit, because I don't know, maybe she's thinking
Speaker 2: he's losing a lot of blood, He's going to need
Speaker 2: like some sugar or something. I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Just playing Devil's advocate, I can kind of, I mean
Speaker 2: five percent understand that maybe.
Speaker 1: I mean, as someone who was a previous first aid attendant,
Speaker 1: it makes no sense to me. But hey, if you
Speaker 1: say so, all right, I'll let you have that one.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, police were already reviewing evidence from the scene itself.
Speaker 2: Kay, I'm just going to interrupt you. I think why
Speaker 2: it's understandable is because when you give blood, right, and
Speaker 2: like sometimes people faint in there, Like I've given blood
Speaker 2: and someone fainted and then they kind of like come
Speaker 2: to and they're given juice because they just lost a
Speaker 2: lot of blood and like they're trying to replenish them.
Speaker 2: So I get this as a totally different scenario one
Speaker 2: hundred and ten percent. But it's like, that's why I'm saying,
Speaker 2: I can five percent understand that is a.
Speaker 1: Controlled environment though controlled bleeding. That's not a Oh I
Speaker 1: nicked your artery with a knife and you are actively
Speaker 1: bleeding out on the floor begging for nine one one.
Speaker 1: Here's a cup of juice, Like, are you fucking kidding me?
Speaker 2: You're just over your laughing that I could even understand
Speaker 2: this remotely.
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit blown away, Yes, a little bit
Speaker 1: taken aback if you will. But anyways, Hey, I play
Speaker 1: a devil's advocate all the time. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: argue on that. What you're saying does make sense. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense to me, but it makes sense that
Speaker 1: someone might not know what to do and that might
Speaker 1: be a reflex, So i'll give you that. Now. Police
Speaker 1: had recovered Sheila's phone from the parking lot where it
Speaker 1: had been dropped during the struggle, and when they examined
Speaker 1: its call history, they found no record of any nine
Speaker 1: one one call.
Speaker 2: Okay, I was curious, No, she.
Speaker 1: Didn't call nine one one. Instead though police found something else.
Speaker 1: The phone showed repeated calls and voicemail attempts to one
Speaker 1: other number that belonged to Nelson Sessler. And it don't
Speaker 1: mean just a history from like before. I mean, while
Speaker 1: Paul was at home bleeding, she was trying to call Nelson.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, I am just fired up with this one,
Speaker 2: because that's fucked.
Speaker 1: Up, that is. And when confronted with this, at first,
Speaker 1: she just flat out denied it, and then she claimed
Speaker 1: she must have accidentally died the wrong number, and later
Speaker 1: again she said she couldn't remember who she called. Like
Speaker 1: her explanations were changing constantly, and each new version it
Speaker 1: just contradicted the one before it. Now detectives were speaking
Speaker 1: with Paul at the hospital too. Now, despite his injuries,
Speaker 1: he was fully alert and very cooperative. He told investigators
Speaker 1: exactly what had happened. He described being blindfolded, handcuffed, you know,
Speaker 1: with this consensual game with couples at home sort of say,
Speaker 1: and then being stabbed twice and denied medical help, then
Speaker 1: driven in circles and stabbed again in the parking lot
Speaker 1: when he was on the far end of the hospital grounds.
Speaker 1: He explained how Sheila pretended to call for help and
Speaker 1: tried to convince him to lie about the attack when
Speaker 1: he was finally on the doorstep of emergency services. His
Speaker 1: account was detailed and matched the physical evidence on hand precisely.
Speaker 1: The location of the wounds, the knife recovered nearby, the
Speaker 1: dropped cell phone, and witness statements all supported Paul's version
Speaker 1: of events. It was clear that Sheila was lying through
Speaker 1: her teeth.
Speaker 2: Isn't it almost kind of impressive that he was able
Speaker 2: to remember all this stuff too? Hey, like he's in
Speaker 2: a very bad state.
Speaker 1: He is, but he was very much so conscious this
Speaker 1: entire time.
Speaker 2: I guess, yeah, But I'm just thinking he could almost
Speaker 2: have been in shock and not even have remembered exactly
Speaker 2: what was going on, or thinking he was delusional. But
Speaker 2: I'm very glad that he remembers it so clearly definitely.
Speaker 1: Now. Detectives then change their strategy at this point. Instead
Speaker 1: of treating the situation as a possible accident, as Sheila claimed,
Speaker 1: they began confronting her directly with the evidence that supported otherwise.
Speaker 1: They informed her that Paul had survived surgery and that
Speaker 1: he was in fact expected to live at this point,
Speaker 1: which removed any possibility that she could continue portraying this
Speaker 1: as an accident or a tragic misunderstanding that had ended
Speaker 1: in a death, or anything right. And when she learned
Speaker 1: that Paul was alive, her demeanor changed. She became more defensive,
Speaker 1: and she even suggested that she'd been in emotional distress
Speaker 1: and began going down the very classic path of well
Speaker 1: maybe I blacked out.
Speaker 2: Oh we've heard that before.
Speaker 1: All too many times. Regardless how she defended herself, though
Speaker 1: she maintained that she never intended to kill him, But
Speaker 1: investigators knew they were dealing with a deliberate attack, not
Speaker 1: an accident, and Sheila was formally charged with attempted murder. Soon,
Speaker 1: detectives began conducting a full review of Sheila's background, personal relationships,
Speaker 1: communication records. Now, this is obviously very standard procedure in
Speaker 1: major violent crime cases, especially when suspects behavior suggests long
Speaker 1: term planning or hidden motives, and investigators were no longer
Speaker 1: looking only at what happened on March twenty third, two
Speaker 1: thousand and three. They were also trying to understand whether
Speaker 1: this attack that a larger sort of pattern. One of
Speaker 1: the first things police examined in detail was Sheila's cell
Speaker 1: phone investigators analyzed months of callogus, voicemails records, and saved contacts.
Speaker 1: It was during this review that they noticed just how
Speaker 1: frequently she had been communicating with this Nelson Sessler. Now.
Speaker 1: The sheer volume and timing of the calls indicated to
Speaker 1: them clearly that their relationship was very significant. Now. Sheila
Speaker 1: initially minimized their relationship when asked about it. Of course,
Speaker 1: she described him as a former coworker and casual acquaintance. However,
Speaker 1: the phone records show frequent late night calls, long conversations,
Speaker 1: and repeated attempts to reach him on the day of
Speaker 1: Paul stabbing too, which directly contradicts her claims of just
Speaker 1: being casual coworkers and that sort of thing. So investigators
Speaker 1: then contacted Nelson himself and asked him to come in
Speaker 1: for questioning. During this interview, Nelson acknowledged that he had
Speaker 1: known Sheila through work at Purdue Pharma. He also admitted
Speaker 1: that he had been involved in a romantic relationship with her.
Speaker 1: He explained that he had started seeing her before becoming
Speaker 1: serious with Anna Lisa Rimando, and that he eventually ended
Speaker 1: things with Sheila to focus on the relationship with Analisa.
Speaker 1: It was then that he learned Shila was married, and
Speaker 1: he said he didn't know that Sheila was married at all.
Speaker 1: He had no clue this entire time. Now, up until
Speaker 1: that point, the two thousand and two murder of Anna
Speaker 1: Lisa Rimando had been treated as a very isolated crime.
Speaker 1: The investigation had focused primarily on her boyfriend, workplace contacts,
Speaker 1: and possible random intruders. No suspect had ever been charged
Speaker 1: in the case, and it had gradually gone cold. But
Speaker 1: now while police were learning that the woman accused of
Speaker 1: trying to kill her husband had previously been romantically involved
Speaker 1: with Anna Lisa's boyfriend or fiance if they were engaged,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure they were, and that connection immediately raised
Speaker 1: some serious questions in red flags. So detectives reviewed the
Speaker 1: original murder file and compared it to what they knew
Speaker 1: about Sheila's behavior. They noted that Sheila had been working
Speaker 1: at Purdue at the same time as Annelie and Nelson,
Speaker 1: as well, she would have known their schedules, routines, and
Speaker 1: relationship status. They also learned that Sheila had been closely
Speaker 1: following the love triangle involving Nelson and Alisa, and another
Speaker 1: woman often discussed in detail with her husband as Melissa,
Speaker 1: but this before was of course just gossip. Now, however,
Speaker 1: it appeared more personal and filled the jealous motive. Police
Speaker 1: also learned that Sheila had taken a long lunch break
Speaker 1: on the day of Analisa's death. Security records show she
Speaker 1: left work at ten fifty three am and did not
Speaker 1: return until one fifty three pm, and this time window
Speaker 1: aligned with the time of her murder. Investigators began to
Speaker 1: re examine her movements on November eighth, two thousand and two,
Speaker 1: and looked deeper into this and they compared badge swipes,
Speaker 1: the records for parking and phone pings, and witness statements.
Speaker 1: They mapped out her location during all of these hours,
Speaker 1: and the results show that she had both the time
Speaker 1: and the opportunity to travel to Analisa's condo and return
Speaker 1: without raising any sort of suspicion. They also reviewed the
Speaker 1: anonymous nine to one one call that led police to
Speaker 1: the crime scene. Voice analysis experts were consulted, and while
Speaker 1: not definitive on its own, the analysis suggested similarities between
Speaker 1: the caller's voice and Sheila's. Forensic specialists also revisited physical
Speaker 1: evidence from the condo two, which involved a complete re
Speaker 1: examination of the physical evidence collected from there. This included clothing,
Speaker 1: blood samples, household surfaces, and items from the bathroom and kitchen.
Speaker 1: Many of these materials have been preserved in storage but
Speaker 1: had never fully been analyzed. Using newer testing methods, forensic
Speaker 1: specialists focused particular attention on the bathroom sink area. During
Speaker 1: the original investigation, technicians had documented small amounts of blood
Speaker 1: found on the faucet hand and surrounding surfaces. At the time,
Speaker 1: these stains were believed to belong to the attacker, who
Speaker 1: had likely cut themselves during the struggle and then attempted
Speaker 1: to wash off blood before leaving. One tiny blood droplet
Speaker 1: on the faucet handle was selected for renewed testing. Advances
Speaker 1: in DNA technology now made it possible to extract usable
Speaker 1: genetic material from extremely small samples, and laboratory analysis revealed
Speaker 1: that that droplet contained a mixture of DNA a mixed
Speaker 1: DNA profile. Part of the sample matched Anne Lisa Raymondo
Speaker 1: and the other part matched Sheila Davilou Boom.
Speaker 2: Hey. Yeah, if she didn't do this to Paul, then
Speaker 2: she would probably have never gotten.
Speaker 1: Caught exactly she probably wouldn't have, So this meant that
Speaker 1: Sheila's blood was present inside the victim's apartment, specifically in
Speaker 1: the bathroom where investigators believed the attacker had attempted to
Speaker 1: clean up. But the thing is, Sheila had consistently claimed
Speaker 1: that she had never, and I mean never been inside
Speaker 1: an Elisa's home, so according to her, there was no
Speaker 1: legitimate reason for her DNA to be present there what soever.
Speaker 1: Investigators began working to confirm that the blood sample found
Speaker 1: containing Sheila's DNA could not be explained by contamination. Since
Speaker 1: she said she's never been in that apartment whatsoever, they
Speaker 1: needed to ensure that it wasn't contamination that placed it there.
Speaker 1: They reviewed the handling of the evidence from the moment
Speaker 1: it was collected, through every stage of storage and testing.
Speaker 1: Chain of custody records showed no irregularities, and independent analysis
Speaker 1: confirmed the validity of the results. At the same time,
Speaker 1: police went over the timeline of Sheila's movements on the
Speaker 1: day of the murder, and still it pointed towards her
Speaker 1: having a window of time to do this. Investigators also
Speaker 1: revisited witnesses interviews from two thousand and two. Several coworkers
Speaker 1: remembered Sheila being unusually quiet or withdrawn after Analisa's death,
Speaker 1: which isn't unusual, but others even recalled her quickly becoming
Speaker 1: emotionally supportive for Nelson, and at the time, again, it
Speaker 1: wasn't suspicious behavior to anyone, but in hindsight, that's when
Speaker 1: it suggested a very calculated involvement.
Speaker 2: Gosh, she's good, Hey, like she really did play her cards. Well, oh,
Speaker 2: I'm to a degree, to a degree, so I'm glad
Speaker 2: though that this is all being discovered. But I do
Speaker 2: feel like she I mean, she spent her whole life
Speaker 2: kind of being that.
Speaker 1: Way, that's true, But I like, I don't think she
Speaker 1: played her cards the best. I think luck was on
Speaker 1: her side for a lot of it, too, because all
Speaker 1: it would have taken was for Nelson to divulge that
Speaker 1: he was in this love triangle earlier on, and she
Speaker 1: would have been immediately on that suspect list. But for
Speaker 1: whatever reason, personal or otherwise, we don't know, Nelson and
Speaker 1: didn't say anything, or she was left out of the picture.
Speaker 2: Did he even think it wasn't of importance or there
Speaker 2: was no way she would have done something like this.
Speaker 1: Whatever, reason he had for not bringing her name up
Speaker 1: and letting police know that there's potential other people you
Speaker 1: might want to look at because of connections, not because
Speaker 1: of you know what. I think she could have done it,
Speaker 1: but this person's connected. At least. He just didn't tell
Speaker 1: the full picture and that left her in a blind spot,
Speaker 1: which was pure fucking luck.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I guess if he would have said her name,
Speaker 2: it would have pretty easily been solved.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, phone records further supported this new developing theory
Speaker 1: that Sheila was in fact responsible. She had been in
Speaker 1: frequent contact with Nelson both before and after the murder,
Speaker 1: but after Annealsa's death, the volume of communication increased, showing
Speaker 1: not only that she had begun seeing him shortly afterwards,
Speaker 1: but that she was in fact still married to Paul
Speaker 1: while doing this. So to prosecutors, it's seeing that Sheila
Speaker 1: had become obsessed with Nelson, viewed Anna Lisa as an obstacle,
Speaker 1: decided to remove her, and after succeeding, she attempted to
Speaker 1: eliminate her own husband as well, who was another obstacle,
Speaker 1: so she could pursue the relationship without any sort of
Speaker 1: ongoing complications. But when that attempt failed. Her double life
Speaker 1: and murderous ways were finally exposed, and she had nowhere
Speaker 1: else to go. Over several years, detectives, prosecutors, and forensic
Speaker 1: experts worked together to refine the case. They prepared expert
Speaker 1: testimony on DNA analysis, voice identification, behavioral patterns, and they
Speaker 1: gathered records, reconstructed timelines, and re interviewed key witnesses. They
Speaker 1: did their due diligence as best as they could, and
Speaker 1: by the time Sheila went to trial for the murder
Speaker 1: of an Alisa Raymondo, while she was already serving a
Speaker 1: twenty five year sentence in New York. You see, in
Speaker 1: two thousand and four, she'd already been on trial in
Speaker 1: Westchester County for what she did to her well ex
Speaker 1: husband Paul. Since he survived and there were witnesses in
Speaker 1: that parking lot of the hospital, it was a pretty
Speaker 1: open and shut case. So by this time she was
Speaker 1: already serving her time for the conviction of attempted murder
Speaker 1: of Paul Christo's.
Speaker 2: She got twenty five years for that. Hey, she got
Speaker 2: twenty five years for that's I'm glad. That's impressive. I
Speaker 2: was thinking it was going to be of less.
Speaker 1: No, she got twenty five years, which is phenomenal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And now this case, however, it was essentially going to
Speaker 1: determine whether she would ever be released from prison or not. Okay,
Speaker 1: because if we have this twenty five years, if there's
Speaker 1: anything on top of it, it's likely that she's going
Speaker 1: to freaking die in jail, behind bars and never be released.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: But if she gets away with it and is not convicted,
Speaker 1: then potentially it could be twenty five years and then out.
Speaker 2: She's not going to get away with it. You don't think,
Speaker 2: no way, There's no way.
Speaker 1: So the murder trial began in twenty twelve in Stamford, Connecticut.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors presented a detailed timeline showing Sheila's movements on November eighth,
Speaker 1: two thousand and two, supported by Purdue Pharmer's security records
Speaker 1: and witness testimony. These records established that she had left
Speaker 1: work at ten fifty three am and did not return
Speaker 1: until one fifty three PM, a window that aligned with
Speaker 1: the estimated time of Ana Lisa's killing. The prosecution's central
Speaker 1: evidence focused on three points, the anonymous nine one one call,
Speaker 1: the blood found at the crime scene, and Sheila's lack
Speaker 1: of any credible alibi. Audio experts testified that the voice
Speaker 1: in the nine one one recording matched Sheila's voice patterns
Speaker 1: in tone speech habits. But while the voice identification was
Speaker 1: not precise as DNA testing was, the prosecutors argued it
Speaker 1: was a strongly supportive piece for their case when combined
Speaker 1: with the other evidence. May not match her exactly necessarily,
Speaker 1: saying she could be hiding her voice or changing it
Speaker 1: in some sort of way, but when you look at
Speaker 1: the big picture, it makes sense now. Forensic specialists also
Speaker 1: explained the DNA analysis in very much so a lot
Speaker 1: of detail. They told the jury how the tiny blood
Speaker 1: droplet on the bathroom faucet contained both Analisa and Sheila's
Speaker 1: genetic material. Independent laboratories even confirmed its match, and experts
Speaker 1: testified that contamination was extremely unlikely given the proper handling
Speaker 1: procedures and storage records they had. Prosecutors also emphasized that
Speaker 1: Sheila had no legitimate reason to be inside Analisa's apartment.
Speaker 1: In fact, she had denied ever visiting that condo at all.
Speaker 1: She was never in there before, no witnesses placed her
Speaker 1: there socially, there was no professional connection that would explained
Speaker 1: her presence there, yet the presence of her blood at
Speaker 1: the murder scene, right where investigators believe the murderer would
Speaker 1: have cleaned up, was yet present. This evidence directly contradicted
Speaker 1: her her statements and in their mind, proved that Sheila
Speaker 1: was lying. Phone records and testimonies showed that Sheila was
Speaker 1: emotionally and romantically involved with Nelson, and that they had
Speaker 1: resumed their relationship shortly after Aneals's death. The state argued
Speaker 1: that this clearly demonstrated Sheila's motive and intent, and when
Speaker 1: it came time for the defense, they focused on attacking
Speaker 1: the reliability of the forensic evidence. Sheila claimed the blood
Speaker 1: sample must have been contaminated. She disputed the voice analysis
Speaker 1: and argued that it was subjective. She maintained that she
Speaker 1: was not present at the crime scene and suggested that
Speaker 1: investigators had rushed to judgment after her conviction in New
Speaker 1: York against Paul. At one point, Sheila represented herself in
Speaker 1: parts of the proceedings and personally questioned witnesses, including Nelson
Speaker 1: and Paul. This was an unusual decision that drew a
Speaker 1: lot of attention, but it did very little to weaken
Speaker 1: the prosecution's case. At all. After several weeks of testimony,
Speaker 1: the jury deliberated and returned with a verdict. Sheila Davlou
Speaker 1: was found guilty and convicted of first degree murder.
Speaker 2: Yeah she was.
Speaker 1: In April of twenty twelve, she was sentenced to fifty
Speaker 1: years in prison in Connecticut.
Speaker 2: These are some dang long sentences, the good ones, yeah now.
Speaker 1: Because of her New York and Connecticut sentences, they were
Speaker 1: ordered to run consecutively, not concurrently, so she would first
Speaker 1: complete her twenty five year sentence for attempting to kill
Speaker 1: Paul Christos and only after that which she began serving
Speaker 1: the fifty year sentence for Anna Lisa's murder. In practical terms,
Speaker 1: the rerually meant that she would likely spend the rest
Speaker 1: of her life in prison, because she had a total
Speaker 1: of seventy five years to serve. When she was sentenced
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve, the legal system closed the final chapter
Speaker 1: of the case. But for the people who had been
Speaker 1: affected by her actions, well, the consequences didn't end with
Speaker 1: a verdict. Annelissa Raymundo's family, the loss was permanent and
Speaker 1: very irreplaceable. She'd been a successful pharmaceutical researcher with advanced degrees,
Speaker 1: a stable career, and a long term plan with Nelson Sessler.
Speaker 1: Friends and relatives described her as disciplined, generous, and deeply
Speaker 1: committed to her family. Her death didn't come as a
Speaker 1: result of random violence or chance. She was targeted by
Speaker 1: someone that she'd once trusted as a coworker. Remember she
Speaker 1: opened her condo door because she recognized and trusted the
Speaker 1: voice on the other side. Her parents, siblings, and extended
Speaker 1: family were forced to live with the knowledge that her
Speaker 1: life had been taken because of a jealous romantic rivalry
Speaker 1: that she herself never even knew existed. Court proceedings stretched
Speaker 1: off for nearly over a decade, prolonging their grief and
Speaker 1: forced them to repeatedly relive the circumstances of her death.
Speaker 1: Paul Christos, on the other hand, well he had survived,
Speaker 1: but his life was permanently changed. Physically. He endured open
Speaker 1: heart surgery, extended hospitalization, and months of recovery. The stab
Speaker 1: wound that nicked's heart and damaged his lungs could easily
Speaker 1: have been fatal. Doctors had even stated that if help
Speaker 1: arrived even slightly later, he likely would not have survived. Emotionally,
Speaker 1: the impact was just as severe. Paul had trusted his
Speaker 1: wife completely and without any question. He'd accepted years of
Speaker 1: strange behavior, unexplained absences, and humiliating requests to erase himself
Speaker 1: from his own life. He had believed her explanations and
Speaker 1: defended her when others might have questioned them. Learning that
Speaker 1: she had planned and attempted to kill him shattered him.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, how would you ever trust another soul again?
Speaker 1: I don't know now. In interviews and court testimony, Paul
Speaker 1: described struggling with long term anxiety, difficulty forming relationships, and
Speaker 1: lingering lingering trauma over all those same things. How would
Speaker 1: you trust anyone?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I don't. I mean, I wouldn't blame him if
Speaker 2: he just never did.
Speaker 1: Yeah, fair enough now. Meanwhile, Nelson Sessler was left to
Speaker 1: reckon with his own role in the events. He lost
Speaker 1: his fiance in a brutal murder. He later learned that
Speaker 1: the woman who had comforted him during his grief was
Speaker 1: responsible for that very killing, and he also faced public
Speaker 1: scrutiny for his involvement in overlapping relationships and his failure
Speaker 1: to disclose Sheila's existence to police early in the investigation.
Speaker 1: Although he was never charged in wrongdoing. The case had
Speaker 1: followed him for years. For investigators and prosecutors, Sheila's case
Speaker 1: became a prime example of how easily complex personal relationships
Speaker 1: can obscure violent crimes. Early misdirection, withheld information and subtle
Speaker 1: manipulation delayed justice, and it took far too long to
Speaker 1: uncover the truth. Sheila Davilou has continued to deny her
Speaker 1: responsible for Annalisea's murder. She's filed appeals and given interviews
Speaker 1: asserting that the evidence was flawed and that she was
Speaker 1: wrongfully convicted, but the courts have repeatedly upheld the verdicts.
Speaker 1: Looking back, investigators and psychologists who studied the case have
Speaker 1: pointed to a consistent pattern in her behavior. When relationships
Speaker 1: no longer fit the narrative she wants, she attempts to
Speaker 1: remove any obstacle rather than confronted, and when deception failed,
Speaker 1: while she turned to violence, and when violence ultimately failed,
Speaker 1: she simply denied responsibility. Had Paul Christos not survived, it's
Speaker 1: hard to say if Sheila would have been linked to
Speaker 1: Annalisea's murder at all. The case may have remained unsolved.
Speaker 1: Two deaths might have been written off as unrelated tragedies.
Speaker 1: Maybe she wouldn't have served time if Paul died. Maybe
Speaker 1: she would have been able to play off this incident
Speaker 1: as an accident like she hoped, with medical teams rushing
Speaker 1: out to the parking lot with a grieving wife holding
Speaker 1: her dead husband in her arms. Instead, one man's survival
Speaker 1: exposed the full scope of what had happened and who
Speaker 1: Sheila really was. This case highlights just how deadly obsession, manipulation,
Speaker 1: and secrecy can become once it escalates beyond your control.
Speaker 1: It's not a case that is exactly remembered for sensationalism
Speaker 1: or mystery, but instead for the quiet, methodical way a
Speaker 1: double life unraveled and revealed its cost simply because one
Speaker 1: person wanted attention and was looking elsewhere to find it.
Speaker 1: And that's the story of Sheila Davilou. What a bit, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I knew you were going to end it with that sentiment.
Speaker 2: Kind of a bit, okay. I It's sometimes hard for
Speaker 2: me to fathom that people, when they're so obviously guilty,
Speaker 2: are still just like I didn't do it and doing
Speaker 2: appeals and shit. It's like, at some point, girl, like
Speaker 2: you did it, like just I know, just admit it really, Oh.
Speaker 1: I must have blacked out. Oh I didn't do that.
Speaker 1: I wasn't there. It's not me. You're wrong, not me, Like,
Speaker 1: are you seriously?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Like literally the evidence everything shows like, oh.
Speaker 2: My god, I mean, I guess what else do they
Speaker 2: really have to do while they're serving time? You know, yeah,
Speaker 2: might as well, I guess just waste people's time. I
Speaker 2: don't know.
Speaker 1: I guess if there's any hope of you ever having
Speaker 1: another life, I mean, that's deny deny, right.
Speaker 2: And I sure hope that Paul has a good life
Speaker 2: now because he or I mean, I know, he's obviously
Speaker 2: going to struggle forever, but like he survived for a reason, right,
Speaker 2: So yeah, we can only help hope that he does
Speaker 2: find someone that is deserving of him and.
Speaker 1: He's super kind. I really hope that Sheila and what
Speaker 1: she did to him didn't change that kindness in him.
Speaker 2: Hmm. Yeah, this story is just it's unbelievable actually.
Speaker 1: I know, but like seriously, Okay, I'm going to go
Speaker 1: into like a fucking metaphor here. Paul had like the
Speaker 1: kindest fucking heart and she literally scarred his heart. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Like he had a heart of gold and now there's
Speaker 1: a literal scar.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it literally and physically really yeah both Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I like how when you got that, you're like,
Speaker 1: oh shit, Yeah, because she did.
Speaker 2: She pierced his fricking heart.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she broke his fucking heart.
Speaker 2: Oh then I could sob. Now my eyes are watering.
Speaker 2: Holy shit.
Speaker 1: That man deserves the world.
Speaker 2: Honestly, I think that this is going to be one
Speaker 2: of my top cases for a while. Yeah, because it's
Speaker 2: mind blowing to me.
Speaker 1: It's a wild it's a wild ride.
Speaker 2: Yeah, to put it, you did very least. You did
Speaker 2: a good job, Like, holy shit, you just took us
Speaker 2: to the fucking.
Speaker 1: I don't even know I took you to the fair,
Speaker 1: threw you on a ride, didn't buckle up your seatbelt,
Speaker 1: and didn't tell you that it's a roller coaster that
Speaker 1: goes upside down and three loop to loops and exceeds
Speaker 1: sixty miles per hour.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Actually that's kind of how I feel. I feel
Speaker 2: like I just got off of that. So there you go.
Speaker 1: You're welcome. I don't know if there's ever roller coaches
Speaker 1: that exceed that speed. I just pulled a random speed
Speaker 1: out of my ass. But I think you get the point.
Speaker 1: But I also want to highlight one more point, and
Speaker 1: that's we are extremely grateful that you are here listening
Speaker 1: to our show. We're an independent podcast. It's us who
Speaker 1: research right record all of it. There's no big corporation.
Speaker 1: It's us living in our tiny home doing this because
Speaker 1: we have the support of people like you who listen
Speaker 1: to the show all the way to the very end,
Speaker 1: like right now. It means the world to us and
Speaker 1: it does a lot for us to keep being able
Speaker 1: to do this going forward. So thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we really really appreciate every single one of you
Speaker 2: that's here.
Speaker 1: We do. And if you want to check out more
Speaker 1: for our show, we have Patreon, we have social media's
Speaker 1: all the links are in the description of this podcast.
Speaker 1: If you want to give us a review, that too
Speaker 1: goes a long way. It shows other people that, hey,
Speaker 1: you know what, this is a great show, you like it,
Speaker 1: what your honest thoughts are, and we'd appreciate reviews as well.
Speaker 1: It goes, like I said, a long.
Speaker 2: Way, Yeah, so sure does. So. I think it's your
Speaker 2: turn though to to you know this off.
Speaker 1: Okay, well you got to get me there.
Speaker 2: That's well done.
Speaker 1: That sounded a little dirty.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, that's horrid. Okay, anyway, thanks for being here.
Speaker 2: That's super awkward, and until next time, stay wicked.