Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Pathway Chili for part two of
Speaker 1: our series about the disappearances of Paul Skiba, Sarah Sciba,
Speaker 1: and Lorenzo Shiverer. Actually is taking a break, so Jules
Speaker 1: and I are doing this series of episodes completely on
Speaker 1: her own, where I share the information with her and
Speaker 1: she gives off reactions. So before we continue, I'll just
Speaker 1: give a brief recap at a lot of the details
Speaker 1: about the case. It took place back in February of
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety nine in Westminster, Colorado. Thirty eight year old
Speaker 1: Paul Skib as the owner of the moving company called
Speaker 1: Tough Movers. He was currently divorced and had a joint
Speaker 1: custody agreement with his ex wife, and his nine year
Speaker 1: old daughter, Sarah Skiba, would often come visit him on
Speaker 1: this particular weekend. Paul, who also lived with his mother, Sharon,
Speaker 1: She would ordinarily watch over Sarah when he did his
Speaker 1: moving jobs, but since she was out of town attending
Speaker 1: to personal affairs, Paul would have to bring Sarah on
Speaker 1: his most recent job, and they would accompanied by one
Speaker 1: of their employed by one of his employees, a thirty
Speaker 1: six year old Lorenzo shiver But after they completed their
Speaker 1: moving jobs, they just seemed to vanish without a trace,
Speaker 1: and it turned out that there were traces of blood,
Speaker 1: bullet holes, and even some hair and a scout fragment
Speaker 1: at his moving yard on one of the trucks, which
Speaker 1: seemed to indicate that off missing people had become the
Speaker 1: victims of foul play. But unfortunately, the police investigation in
Speaker 1: this one was very incompetent. They initially just ignored all
Speaker 1: the bullet holes on the evidence of foul play and
Speaker 1: suspected that Paul decided to take off with Sarah as
Speaker 1: to violate the custody agreement he had with his ex wife,
Speaker 1: which made no sense because Lorenzo had a wife and
Speaker 1: children of his own and it didn't make any sense
Speaker 1: that he would decide to take off with them. But
Speaker 1: things got more complicated when it turned out that Paul
Speaker 1: was currently living with his girlfriend, Teresa Donovan, and she
Speaker 1: had recently had a baby named Paul Roger Skiba, even
Speaker 1: though it couldnt be conclusively determined if Paul was the
Speaker 1: boy's father, and Paul had decided that he was going
Speaker 1: to kick Teresa out of the house and try to
Speaker 1: sue for custody of Paul Roger, but he just happened
Speaker 1: to go missing on the very same day this was
Speaker 1: supposed to take place. And to make things even more complicated,
Speaker 1: Lorenzo was involved in a relationship with Teresa's sister, Bobby Joe,
Speaker 1: but it appeared that he was going to end that
Speaker 1: one because he was going to reconcile with his wife.
Speaker 1: And there was a lot of suspicion that Teresa and
Speaker 1: Bobby Joe knew a lot more about the disappearances that
Speaker 1: they were letting on. And it also turned out they
Speaker 1: had a brother named Tom Donovan, who years later would
Speaker 1: go to prison for the attempted murder of their mother.
Speaker 1: He was known for having a history of mental health
Speaker 1: issues and violent episodes, so it has been theorized that
Speaker 1: perhaps Bobby Joe and Theresa could have been listed Tom's
Speaker 1: help to do something to Paul, but things got out
Speaker 1: of control and he wound up murdering Paul, Sarah, and
Speaker 1: Lorenzo and disposing of their bodies. But unfortunately, they've been
Speaker 1: unable to find enough evidence to implicate anyone and the
Speaker 1: three victims are still missing twenty seven years later. So
Speaker 1: in two thousand and five, Paul's mother Sharon reached out
Speaker 1: to the organization Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons,
Speaker 1: who agreed to obtain the funding to put up a
Speaker 1: billboard near Tough Movers which would spread awareness about the
Speaker 1: case and feature photos of the three missing victims. Shortly thereafter,
Speaker 1: the Westminster Police Department announced that they were taking over
Speaker 1: the investigation from the Thornton Police Department, even though they
Speaker 1: had originally shown no interest in the case at the
Speaker 1: outset and were not very communicative with the victim's loved
Speaker 1: ones or the media. Since Sharon was Paul's conservator, she
Speaker 1: was responsible for paying off his outstanding debts, which was
Speaker 1: not financially sustainable for and while she wanted to sell
Speaker 1: Paul's house, she was unable to do so without a
Speaker 1: death certificate. It was not until December of two thousand
Speaker 1: and six, nearly eight years after they originally went missing,
Speaker 1: when Paul and Sarah were legally declared dead. After obtaining
Speaker 1: Paul's death certificate, Sharon finally sold his house, but the
Speaker 1: money she earned from the sale, as well as proceeds
Speaker 1: from a one hundred thousand dollars life insurance policy Paul
Speaker 1: had taken out on Sarah, wound up going to the child,
Speaker 1: Paul Roger. At one point, during a trip to Idaho,
Speaker 1: Theresa had a paternity test taken for Paul Roger and
Speaker 1: mailed the lab results to the Skiba family. The documentation
Speaker 1: showed that Paul was the child's father, but given the
Speaker 1: troubled history with Teresa, they were not entirely trustful of
Speaker 1: the results. Sharon eventually moved back to Minnesota, but on
Speaker 1: December the twenty seventh. In twenty thirteen, she succumbed to
Speaker 1: cancer at the age of seventy four. Paul's father, c J.
Speaker 1: Would also pass away in December of twenty twenty at
Speaker 1: the age of eighty eight. In February of twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: Denver's Channel nine News ran a twentieth anniversary segment about
Speaker 1: the case, which revealed that during the previous five years,
Speaker 1: detectives from the Westminster p d had interviewed two additional
Speaker 1: witnesses and resubmitted DNA evidence for analysis, but they were
Speaker 1: still not yet at the point where they could solve
Speaker 1: the case and make an arrest. Sarah's mother, Michelle Russell,
Speaker 1: was interviewed for the segment and stated quote, there are
Speaker 1: too many people who are remaining silent about this for
Speaker 1: too long. The murder of a nine year old girl.
Speaker 1: Twenty years is an insane amount of time to not
Speaker 1: know what happened to your child. Please be a decent
Speaker 1: human being and come forward with your information anonymously if
Speaker 1: you have to end the silence and help bring Sarah home.
Speaker 1: End quote. In February of twenty twenty five, on the
Speaker 1: twenty six year anniversary of the crime, the detectives from
Speaker 1: the Westminster PD announced that they had reanalyzed the original
Speaker 1: evidence and discovered new DNA that they were hoping to
Speaker 1: test with more advanced modern technology. But for the moment,
Speaker 1: no one has ever been charged for the role in
Speaker 1: the three victims disappearances, so Paul Skiba, Sarah Skiba, and
Speaker 1: Lorenzo Shiver all continue to remain missing persons. So I
Speaker 1: guess you could say the path went Chile.
Speaker 2: Okay. I have so many questions here. I feel so
Speaker 2: horribly for Michelle and obviously for Sharon because she took
Speaker 2: the position of being the conservator and having to dole
Speaker 2: out payments to it. Sounds like Teresa for Paul Roger.
Speaker 2: And then we have this DNA test that I don't
Speaker 2: know if Sharon was pushing for a DNA test or
Speaker 2: if Teresa volunteered, and what type of lab this went through.
Speaker 2: I would like to know, was this irreputable lab? What
Speaker 2: did the results look like? Is there a reason that
Speaker 2: they believed that they could be because it seems that
Speaker 2: from a legal perspective, because Paul's name was on Paul
Speaker 2: Rogers's birth certificate, that his estate was essentially going to
Speaker 2: go to Paul Roger and that there didn't seem to
Speaker 2: be much legal recourse. So I don't know what would
Speaker 2: be the motivation in faking the paternity at that point
Speaker 2: when it seems like all funds are being diverted to
Speaker 2: Paul Roger regardless of praternity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I know that Sharon was still responsible for
Speaker 1: paying child support on Paul's behalf while he was missing
Speaker 1: to Paul Roger, even though it had not yet been
Speaker 1: conclusively established that Paul was the child's father. But before
Speaker 1: he went missing, Paul still had the mindset that even
Speaker 1: if it isn't my child, I still want to try
Speaker 1: to get paternity and get custody because I don't trust
Speaker 1: Teresa to be a responsible mother and raise this child correctly.
Speaker 1: And that's why he did volunteer to put his name
Speaker 1: on the birth certificate, because we do know that they
Speaker 1: were technically broken up for a while, but they had
Speaker 1: sex one and that's likely when she became pregnant, but
Speaker 1: they just had a hard time trusting paternity. And I
Speaker 1: do know that they were suspicious that maybe uh Teresa
Speaker 1: had the DNA results, But before that even happened, Sharon
Speaker 1: was still responsible for paying child support and financially supporting
Speaker 1: the child, so I don't think there would be much
Speaker 1: reason to a doctorate either way. But like you said,
Speaker 1: I don't have too many details about how she got
Speaker 1: these tests. I just didn't know that they were done
Speaker 1: in a different state and she sent the documentation, but
Speaker 1: since I haven't personally seen it, I don't know if
Speaker 1: there's a good reason to believe if it's doctored.
Speaker 2: And I'm not sure if we addressed this last week.
Speaker 2: I don't think that we did. But I am curious
Speaker 2: if you know any more details as to the nature
Speaker 2: of the relationship between Lorenzo and Bobby Joe, Like, did
Speaker 2: they have a tumultuous relationship? Do we know if they
Speaker 2: were like breaking up and making up, or if they'd
Speaker 2: been together for a long period of time, or if
Speaker 2: there would have been any motivation for Bobby Joe to
Speaker 2: go along with this and to have Lorenzo killed as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why I have a lot of unanswered questions,
Speaker 1: because all we really know is that technically Lorenzo was
Speaker 1: separated from his wife, but at the time he went missing,
Speaker 1: there was apparently talk that he was going to have
Speaker 1: a reconciliation with her, which kind of indicates that his
Speaker 1: relationship with Bobby Joe was not in a good place
Speaker 1: and they didn't have much of a future. But I
Speaker 1: also haven't heard any details about them having any fights.
Speaker 1: It's not like with Paul and Teresa, where Teresa was
Speaker 1: on disability would not work. But she was inviting people
Speaker 1: over to party and do drugs while Paul Roger was
Speaker 1: there and was completely neglecting him, which pretty much caused
Speaker 1: Paul to reach the end of his rope. And we
Speaker 1: also talked about the fact that Lorenzo's son, Josh, had
Speaker 1: been living with Lorenzo and Bobby Joe, even though Lorenzo's
Speaker 1: daughter was still with her mother. But we also talked
Speaker 1: about how only a couple days after Lorenzo went missing,
Speaker 1: Bobby Joe immediately packed up Josh's belongings and pushed them
Speaker 1: out of the house, which seemed to indicate she knew
Speaker 1: that Lorenzo was not coming back. And so yeah, it
Speaker 1: definitely seems that there was suspicious stuff going on there.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if Bobby Joe was specifically like
Speaker 1: wanting Lorenzo to be killed, but I could also see
Speaker 1: her not caring if something happened to Lorenzo because the
Speaker 1: relationship may not have been in a good place.
Speaker 2: And who knows, like maybe Teresa whipped her up into
Speaker 2: a frenzy. If Teresa felt like she was being broken
Speaker 2: up with and her soft place to land was being
Speaker 2: taken away and that she was going to be kicked
Speaker 2: out of Paul's house, the timing is really curious. And
Speaker 2: then if we have a possibility that Lorenzo was going
Speaker 2: to reconcile with his wife, then we could have two
Speaker 2: jilted sisters. And we also know from the brother that
Speaker 2: there's an emotional regulation problem, it seems like with Teresa
Speaker 2: and with Tom, because we know that Tom stabbed his
Speaker 2: mother and like lacerated her liver. It was very very intense,
Speaker 2: So I don't know what we can deduce about Bobby Joe.
Speaker 2: I would just be making assumptions based on the information
Speaker 2: we have about Tom and Teria Lisa. But I would
Speaker 2: think that there is a possibility that you could have
Speaker 2: somebody in a situation like he's going to leave me
Speaker 2: for his wife, and my sister's also in this situation.
Speaker 2: You've got them coming together and deciding to do this,
Speaker 2: because perhaps Teresa is just like, I don't want to
Speaker 2: put up with being put out, and I'm going to
Speaker 2: get my sister on my side, and then we can
Speaker 2: also get our brother, and then we've got three of us,
Speaker 2: and maybe we can get away with this crime.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we'll discuss this more. But I've always considered
Speaker 1: the possibility that maybe they didn't want anyone to be killed,
Speaker 1: that maybe they wanted Tom to maybe rough them up
Speaker 1: a little bit, rough up Paula and Lorenzo, but did
Speaker 1: not expect that he would commit a triple homicide. And
Speaker 1: that even if Bobby, Joe and Theresa were not present
Speaker 1: when this took place, or we're actually directly involved in
Speaker 1: the crime, they know what happened and have remained silent
Speaker 1: for so many years. Because I just shared the quote
Speaker 1: from Michelle that she believes a number of people out
Speaker 1: there know exactly what happened to the three missing victims
Speaker 1: and have remained silent the entire time. Well, I've always
Speaker 1: had a particular interest in cases where multiple people disappear
Speaker 1: at the same time, but this one is particularly unusual,
Speaker 1: as it involved a father, a daughter, and an employee
Speaker 1: who just happened to work for the father, all going
Speaker 1: missing simultaneously. In some cases like this, there can be
Speaker 1: ambiguity about whether one of the missing individuals was actually
Speaker 1: a victim, or if they may have killed the other
Speaker 1: victims themselves before they disappeared voluntarily. Since twenty seven years
Speaker 1: have passed and no evidence has ever surfaced to suggest
Speaker 1: that Paul Skiba, Sarah Sciba, or Lorenzo Shiber are still alive,
Speaker 1: that scenario doesn't seem likely here, but I still see
Speaker 1: it brought up in online discussions about this case. What's
Speaker 1: particularly disturbing is that there's ample evidence to indicate that
Speaker 1: Sarah was murdered, and even if she was not the
Speaker 1: intended to target, the responsible party didn't seem to have
Speaker 1: any qualms about killing a nine year old child. I'll
Speaker 1: stay right up front that the original police investigation in
Speaker 1: this case is one of the worst I've ever seen,
Speaker 1: and we've covered a lot of bad ones on this podcast.
Speaker 1: When you consider that it involved a missing child who
Speaker 1: was likely a victim of foul play, the seer in
Speaker 1: neptitude and indifference on display here was all the more disgraceful.
Speaker 1: At the outset, the disappearances wound up being reported to
Speaker 1: no less than three different law enforcement agencies, the Westminster
Speaker 1: Police Department, the Thornton Police Department, and the Grandee County
Speaker 1: Sheriff's Office, and they all initially seemed to believe that
Speaker 1: the whole thing was a parental abduction and that Paul
Speaker 1: had elected to run away with Sarah because he was
Speaker 1: unhappy over his custody agreement with his ex wife. I mean,
Speaker 1: if the only missing victims were Paul and Sarah, then
Speaker 1: I suppose this theory wouldn't be all that unreasonable. But
Speaker 1: how would this account for Lorenzo Shiver's disappearance. Why would
Speaker 1: a loving father with two children of his own just
Speaker 1: decide to abandon them and throw everything away just to
Speaker 1: go on the run with his boss. This theory could
Speaker 1: have been easily discounted if the Westminster PD had bothered
Speaker 1: to go to tough movers and perform a proper search
Speaker 1: of the parking lot, but this did not take place
Speaker 1: for days. Jerry Biby's account of the officer who somehow
Speaker 1: neglected to notice traces of blood on the moving truck
Speaker 1: and a scout fragment on the windshield is truly mind blowing.
Speaker 1: And even when the Westminster PD found bullet holes on
Speaker 1: the side of another moving truck, they still refused to
Speaker 1: believe that a crime had been committed and felt, well,
Speaker 1: maybe someone fired up the truck on a previous occasion.
Speaker 1: If this case had been treated as a homicide from
Speaker 1: the very start and a proper forensic analysis was performed
Speaker 1: with the trucks and the parking lot, this case may
Speaker 1: have been solved relatively quickly, even if by chance or
Speaker 1: responsible parties left their DNA behind. The investigation was botched
Speaker 1: so badly that I wouldn't hold my breath that the
Speaker 1: evidence was properly preserved, though it does sound like they
Speaker 1: were able to recover some DNA during a new forensic
Speaker 1: analysis last year.
Speaker 2: I'm gobsmacked by how bad this police investigation was. The
Speaker 2: fact that we've got a nine year old missing child,
Speaker 2: and that they're just ready to write the song as
Speaker 2: a parental abduction. They don't want to look into it
Speaker 2: any further. There's all of this blood evidence on and
Speaker 2: around this van, like we've got scalp, we've got blood
Speaker 2: on the exterior, and we just have police that aren't
Speaker 2: even doing the bare minimum, and then we have jurisdictional issues.
Speaker 2: Nobody really seems to care until things are being put
Speaker 2: out into the public right with like billboards, and then
Speaker 2: it's like, okay, we'll do the bare minimum. So then
Speaker 2: we have DNA and we don't know at present moment.
Speaker 2: You're saying how that DNA factors into the case and
Speaker 2: if it's tied to anybody.
Speaker 1: That is true. Yeah, I hadn't heard anything about DNA
Speaker 1: at all until this past year, and I was assuming
Speaker 1: that because they botched the crime scene because it wasn't
Speaker 1: properly preserved, that they were thinking that, Wow, how can
Speaker 1: we determine which DNA we have here belongs to just
Speaker 1: regular people who visited this moving yard, or belongs to
Speaker 1: the killer. But so they've been be very secret of
Speaker 1: about details about where they got this from. But I'm
Speaker 1: assuming they think, well, this DNA cannot be in this
Speaker 1: particular location unless it belongs to the killer, so hopefully
Speaker 1: we can match it to someone. But yeah, we talked
Speaker 1: about how like they saw these bullet holes in a
Speaker 1: truck and said, well, that doesn't prove anything. Someone could
Speaker 1: have fired at the truck in a previous occasion. It's like, well,
Speaker 1: that's very unusual if someone's firing bullets at a moving truck,
Speaker 1: like you think you would want to investigate that. And
Speaker 1: it just seems crazy like that these law abiding citizens
Speaker 1: who had like a nine year old girl with them,
Speaker 1: that they're just essentially treating it as like a gang
Speaker 1: slaying where it's not worth investigating, and that like pretty
Speaker 1: much all the legwork early on had to be done
Speaker 1: by Sharon and other friends of the victims.
Speaker 2: It's crazy the amount of mental gymnastics that one has
Speaker 2: to go through after you've seen all of the forensic
Speaker 2: evidence that's there. I don't know if they have confirmation
Speaker 2: bias or if they realize that, like what they were
Speaker 2: doing was wrong and they're just trying to sell it
Speaker 2: because they're trying to cover their butts. I'm not one
Speaker 2: hundred percent sure, and I can't speak to what their
Speaker 2: motivation is it looks like they're trying to cover their butts,
Speaker 2: and I don't know if they truly believed that it
Speaker 2: was a parental abduction and that they could write off
Speaker 2: all of this evidence. I can, in good conscience believe
Speaker 2: that all of the police officers that were involved in
Speaker 2: this case believed that this was a parental abduction. After
Speaker 2: this evidence became clear. It seems like maybe somebody was
Speaker 2: leading the charge with that and it was like, Okay,
Speaker 2: well we've already said this, so let's double down, rather
Speaker 2: than being like, let's explore another avenue, which seems like
Speaker 2: the logical progression to take you go where the evidence
Speaker 2: takes you. And when you realize there is forensic evidence,
Speaker 2: nobody's back yet even if it was a parental abduction,
Speaker 2: why is Lorenzo with them? None of it makes any sense,
Speaker 2: and they aren't willing to take any accountability and say, yeah,
Speaker 2: maybe we got it wrong, and we're human, we're fallible.
Speaker 2: This happens, let's pursue another avenue.
Speaker 1: That's pretty much it. That nobody wanted to admit they
Speaker 1: screwed up or were wrong and just kept going on
Speaker 1: the same path, and we talked on it a Lott
Speaker 1: episode that when like a lot of Paul's friends like
Speaker 1: broke into the moving yard and was pointing out all
Speaker 1: the evidence of the police, they were thinking, Okay, we're
Speaker 1: going to arrest you for breaking in. We're not going
Speaker 1: to worry about these murder victims and just worry about
Speaker 1: these trespassing charges, which showed that their priorities were majorly
Speaker 1: out of whack. So, in spite of their numerous issues,
Speaker 1: law enforcement did ultimately reach a conclusion that we can
Speaker 1: agree with. Paul was always the intended target of the
Speaker 1: crime and Sarah and Lorenzo wound up being killed because
Speaker 1: they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Speaker 1: And I suppose now would be a good time to
Speaker 1: address the theory that Lorenzo was not actually a victim
Speaker 1: and may have been personally involved in what happened to
Speaker 1: Paul and Sarah. Law enforcement has never given off any
Speaker 1: indication that they believe Lorenzo had a hand in the crime,
Speaker 1: but we still see this theory push forward by amateur
Speaker 1: sluice and online discussions about this case. I think this
Speaker 1: is based largely on the fact that while there was
Speaker 1: DNA blood and other physical evidence at the scene, which
Speaker 1: matched Paul and Sarah Now of it match Lorenzo, of course,
Speaker 1: I seriously doubt that Lorenzo would have committed these two
Speaker 1: murders alone and then just decided to go on the
Speaker 1: run and stay off the radar for twenty seven years. Remember,
Speaker 1: Lorenzo's car was found in a parking lot several blocks
Speaker 1: away from Tough Movers. Why would he abandon it at
Speaker 1: that particular location and what else would he use his
Speaker 1: transportation to get away? I suppose an alternate theory is
Speaker 1: that Lorenzo could have been involved in the crime with
Speaker 1: other individuals, that after Paul and Sarah were murdered, the
Speaker 1: others decided to double cross Lorenzo by killing him and
Speaker 1: disposing of his body. After all, Lorenzo had been living
Speaker 1: with Bobby Joe Donovan at that time, and her family
Speaker 1: is suspected of being complicit in this crime. But nothing
Speaker 1: we've heard about Lorenzo's character would suggest he was capable
Speaker 1: of something like this, as by all accounts, he was
Speaker 1: a very nice guy and a devoted father, and it's
Speaker 1: hard to imagine someone with two children of their own
Speaker 1: being that willing to participate in the murder of a
Speaker 1: nine year old girl. Lorenzo's wife, Misha, found the rumors
Speaker 1: and allegations about his involvement to be so hurtful that
Speaker 1: she actually took the step of writing to the media
Speaker 1: in order to remind everyone that Lorenzo was a human
Speaker 1: being and deserved to be treated as such. Dealing with
Speaker 1: the grief of having a loved one go missing is
Speaker 1: bad enough, but it must have been extra difficult for
Speaker 1: Lorenzo's family to hear accusations that he was a murderer. Personally,
Speaker 1: I think one of the reasons Lorenzo's blood in DNA
Speaker 1: was not found at Tough Movers is because he may
Speaker 1: not have actually been killed there. If Paul and Lorenzo
Speaker 1: were shot in the parking lot, then the perpetrator or
Speaker 1: perpetrators may have forced Lorenzo to help them move the
Speaker 1: bodies into the moving truck at gunpoint. After they left
Speaker 1: the scene, Lorenzo was subsequently killed at another location and
Speaker 1: all the bodies were disposed of together. Whatever happened, I
Speaker 1: definitely believed that Lorenzo was an innocent victim and had
Speaker 1: no complicity in the crime.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I one hundred percent agree with you on that.
Speaker 2: I think if Lorenzo was involved. It would have been
Speaker 2: under duress that he would have been held gunpoint and
Speaker 2: like you said, help them move the bodies, something like that,
Speaker 2: and then they killed him at another location. Maybe if
Speaker 2: they buried the body somewhere. They had him dig the graves.
Speaker 2: There's a possibility that they used him to be the
Speaker 2: labor force. But be as far as being involved in
Speaker 2: the crimes, I don't see any motivation for Lorenzo. We're
Speaker 2: hearing murmurings that he's going to possibly get back together
Speaker 2: with his wife, So why would he murder his boss.
Speaker 2: This is the job that he has, this is how
Speaker 2: he would be able to support his family, and he's
Speaker 2: going to kill his boss, his boss's nine year old daughter.
Speaker 2: And why because Bobby Joe wants him to? Well, I
Speaker 2: don't really buy that because he's essentially well potentially breaking
Speaker 2: up with Bobby Joe to get back with his wife.
Speaker 2: So I just don't see a clear motive for Lorenzo
Speaker 2: to have been involved. And then the fact that he
Speaker 2: hasn't popped up on the radar anywhere else, He's been
Speaker 2: out of communication with his entire family, there's no trace
Speaker 2: of him. I just don't buy that he was involved.
Speaker 1: Definitely not. And another logical hole in that is that
Speaker 1: this took place at the end of a moving day
Speaker 1: where he, Paul, and Sarah had gone on a bunch
Speaker 1: of different jobs and done some moving in various locations.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't make much sense for Lorenzo to spend
Speaker 1: the entire day doing that and then kill them once
Speaker 1: they get back to the moving yard. It's like, if
Speaker 1: you wanted to kill Paul, why not do it at
Speaker 1: the start of their shift, before they even go out
Speaker 1: and are seen together by all these witnesses. But I
Speaker 1: did find the quote there from Lorenzo's wife Misha to
Speaker 1: be powerful because we've constantly see this in criminal cases
Speaker 1: where online sluice will point at the victims' family members
Speaker 1: or friends even though there's no evidence of it whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've seen it in stuff like the Idaho
Speaker 1: four case, where like the surviving roommates are constantly being
Speaker 1: accused of being involved in the murders because they survived,
Speaker 1: even though like law enforcement has never given off any
Speaker 1: indication that they're suspects. So I think that Misha's words
Speaker 1: are very powerful, just to remember that the these victims
Speaker 1: and these survivors are human beings and don't spend all
Speaker 1: this time speculating about their lives and accusing them of
Speaker 1: things that they didn't do. So now let's look at
Speaker 1: the timeline of how events played out on the day
Speaker 1: these three victims were missing. We do know that Paul, Sarah,
Speaker 1: and Lorenzo traveled to numerous locations to complete some moving
Speaker 1: jobs on February seventh, and the last time they were
Speaker 1: confirmed to be alive is when Sarah made a phone
Speaker 1: call at six twenty two pm. Details about this phone
Speaker 1: call are bague, but since this was nineteen ninety nine,
Speaker 1: I'm not entirely sure that a nine year old girl
Speaker 1: would have her own cell phone, so it's possible this
Speaker 1: call was made from a phone at Tough Movers, which
Speaker 1: is how the authorities were able to confirm that the
Speaker 1: three victims were there at that time. I've seen one
Speaker 1: source of state that the call was made to a
Speaker 1: twelve year old relative of Teresa Donovan's, though it's never
Speaker 1: been publicly confirmed who this person actually was. But it
Speaker 1: seems likely that Paul, Sarah, and Lorenzo were ambushed at
Speaker 1: Tough Movers sometime after the call, as witnesses have confirmed
Speaker 1: that they saw the moving leaving the parking lot sometime
Speaker 1: between seven and eight pm. It was apparently returned there
Speaker 1: at around midnight, meaning that the responsible parties were probably
Speaker 1: using that four to five hour window to dispose of
Speaker 1: the victim's bodies. Since bullet holes were found on the
Speaker 1: side of another moving truck and mortar oil was poured
Speaker 1: on the ground to cover up a pool of blood,
Speaker 1: the evidence suggests that at the very least, Paul was
Speaker 1: shot to death in the parking lot. As far as
Speaker 1: I know, no witnesses reported hearing gunshots that night, though
Speaker 1: someone did report hearing the sound of a woman's scream.
Speaker 1: I find it interesting that all the sources I've seen
Speaker 1: specifically use the word woman rather than girl. This could
Speaker 1: rule out the possibility that Sarah was the source of
Speaker 1: the screen, meaning that an adult woman may have been
Speaker 1: present when the murders took place.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we talked about this briefly in part one, and
Speaker 2: I find this really compelling. I think that when you
Speaker 2: hear a child's scream, there's a pitch to it, the
Speaker 2: higher pitch than there would be with an adult woman.
Speaker 2: And I don't think like you can always tell the
Speaker 2: difference between a woman's scream and a man's scream. Like
Speaker 2: I think of the case of Robert Wan, there was
Speaker 2: the one of the three guys who is, for some
Speaker 2: believe are complicit in Robert's murder, Victor Zuborski. He had
Speaker 2: the higher pitched voice, and I remember people identifying him
Speaker 2: as sounding like a woman, even that I'm one one operator,
Speaker 2: So I think that you can't always guarantee and your
Speaker 2: witness is going to be able to get that correct.
Speaker 2: But if this year witness did, then I think it
Speaker 2: would indicate that there is a very strong likelihood that
Speaker 2: Teresa or Bobby Joe or both of them were present
Speaker 2: at Tough Movers at that time. And I'm really curious
Speaker 2: as to the nature of this phone call, who it
Speaker 2: was made to, and what was spoken about, but we
Speaker 2: don't have any of those details.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is so frustrating to me because it's mentioned
Speaker 1: maybe once during the earliest coverage of this case, but
Speaker 1: law enforcement has never addressed it since then. And I
Speaker 1: can understand for privacy reasons if Sarah spoke to a
Speaker 1: twelve year old that they don't want to release too
Speaker 1: many details, but it also makes me wonder could that
Speaker 1: have been like confirmation if this girl was a relative
Speaker 1: of Teresa's, that they were back at Tough Movers. So
Speaker 1: if Teresa was complicit, she probably said Okay, we know
Speaker 1: that they're there, and then possibly sent someone or traveled
Speaker 1: there personally in order to commit the murders. But like
Speaker 1: I said, I find it curious that it just seems
Speaker 1: like a very important detail and it has not been
Speaker 1: mentioned at all for over twenty years.
Speaker 2: And like I wish we had cell phone data at
Speaker 2: this point too, because if we did, then you know,
Speaker 2: they would be able to triangulate the location of Teresa,
Speaker 2: Tom Bobby Joe. See if this twelve year old relative
Speaker 2: of Teresa's potentially called Teresa after or where they were
Speaker 2: at the time when they received this call. Was it
Speaker 2: a cell phone, was it a landline. There's so much
Speaker 2: that the technology could tell us, but since it's nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety nine, it seems like we don't have a very
Speaker 2: clear picture of any of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's so weird, And I don't even know
Speaker 1: what kind of relationships Sarah would have to a twelve
Speaker 1: year old relative of Teresa's. Because this was her father's girlfriend.
Speaker 1: She hung around her quite a bit. But I didn't
Speaker 1: know that she would be particularly close to Teresa's family,
Speaker 1: So it makes me wonder, why is Sarah electing to
Speaker 1: call her at this particular time, on this particular night.
Speaker 1: So I have I think there's probably a piece of
Speaker 1: the puzzle missing here which we just don't know about.
Speaker 2: Like I assumed it must be like a niece or
Speaker 2: something of Teresa, But then she only has the two
Speaker 2: siblings that we know about, Tom and Bobby cho and
Speaker 2: neither of them has a twelve year old daughter, correct.
Speaker 1: As far as I know. I mean, if they did,
Speaker 1: it's never been mentioned anywhere. So makes me wonder. Did
Speaker 1: Teresa invite this twelve year old once to Paul's place
Speaker 1: and she befriended Sarah and that's why they're talking on
Speaker 1: the phone. So yeah, I can only assume that maybe
Speaker 1: they just want to protect this twelve year old, and
Speaker 1: that's why law enforcement has not shared too many details
Speaker 1: about this call with the public. I think that one
Speaker 1: of the most important details of this case is that
Speaker 1: Paul had not originally been planning to work that day.
Speaker 1: He ordinarily did not like to go out on moving
Speaker 1: jobs when Sarah was visiting, but he had agreed to
Speaker 1: take Jerry Byby's shift, since Jerry needed the day off
Speaker 1: to prepare for his grandfather's memorial. Investigators have repeatedly stated
Speaker 1: that they believe Paul was the intended target, and there's
Speaker 1: no indication that anyone had a motive to kill Jerry
Speaker 1: and wound up killing the others because they mistakenly assumed
Speaker 1: that Jerry would be at Tough Movers, So you have
Speaker 1: to ask how many people knew Paul would be there
Speaker 1: that evening. What's extra tragic about this whole situation is
Speaker 1: that if Sharon had not been away in Minnesota, Paul
Speaker 1: likely would have just left Sarah at home and had
Speaker 1: his mother watch over her. So it's just horrible luck
Speaker 1: that Sarah may have been collateral damage in a premeditated
Speaker 1: murder plot on her father. Whoever was responsible for this crime,
Speaker 1: it seems very likely that there had to be multiple
Speaker 1: people involved, if not with the murder itself, but with
Speaker 1: the cover up and disposal of evidence. Loading three bodies
Speaker 1: onto a moving truck and disposing of them so thorough
Speaker 1: that they haven't been found in over two decades would
Speaker 1: be a pretty difficult task for just one person, particularly
Speaker 1: when you consider that the truck's large extension ramp was
Speaker 1: missing and may have been used to weigh down the
Speaker 1: victims in a body of water. It definitely seems like
Speaker 1: multiple people had to be responsible for moving Paul and
Speaker 1: Lorenzo's cars, since they were both abandoned at separate apartment complexes.
Speaker 1: Lorenzo's vehicle was in a parking lot located several blocks away,
Speaker 1: so theoretically the person who left it there could have
Speaker 1: made it back to Tough Movers on foot. However, Paul's
Speaker 1: car was abandoned several miles away in Denver. There was
Speaker 1: also traces of mud on the vehicle, even though Paul
Speaker 1: was known for keeping it very clean. Hypothetically, if one
Speaker 1: person used the moving truck to transport the victims' bodies,
Speaker 1: an accomplice could have followed them in Paul's car, and
Speaker 1: if they went to a remote area, that would explain
Speaker 1: where the mud came from. Perhaps, after they dumped the bodies,
Speaker 1: the driver of Paul's car abandoned it in Denver on
Speaker 1: their way back had hitched a ride with the driver
Speaker 1: the truck when they returned to Tough Movers. But it
Speaker 1: also sounds like the truck was big enough to fit
Speaker 1: an entire vehicle in the back, so perhaps that's how
Speaker 1: they transported it. As far as anyone can tell, no
Speaker 1: significant connections have been found between the two apartment complexes
Speaker 1: and the victims, so it's possible they were just chosen
Speaker 1: at random. The purpose of moving the cars may have
Speaker 1: been to throw off the investigation, because if they weren't
Speaker 1: found at Tough Movers, then perhaps the authorities would be
Speaker 1: inclined to believe that the victims took off on their own.
Speaker 1: And well, if that was the perpetrator's strategy, it actually worked.
Speaker 1: Another bizarre detail of this crime is that the perpetrators
Speaker 1: went to the trouble of putting a new lock on
Speaker 1: the gate to the Tough Movers parking lot. But once
Speaker 1: again this strategy seemed to work out better than they
Speaker 1: could have imagined, since it was days before the police
Speaker 1: even bothered to enter the lot.
Speaker 2: Wow, there's just so many possibilities here with what could
Speaker 2: have happened to the bodies, how many people were involved,
Speaker 2: and if Lorenzo was roped into helping under like at gunpoint,
Speaker 2: which I think there's a strong likelihood, because if we
Speaker 2: are to imagine that Tom was the perpetrator, and that
Speaker 2: potentially either Teresa or Bobby Joe or both were there.
Speaker 2: We have two women who are smaller, we have Tom
Speaker 2: who's potentially stronger, and to have another man to be
Speaker 2: able to assist with the laborious tasks such as digging
Speaker 2: a grave or hauling bodies, then it would make sense
Speaker 2: to me that Lorenzo's DNA wouldn't have been found on
Speaker 2: the vehicle, and that he would have been killed at
Speaker 2: another location. We have mud on the vehicle, which could
Speaker 2: indicate that they went to a wooded area or that
Speaker 2: they went closer to a body of water, and that's
Speaker 2: how the bodies were disposed of. I do find it
Speaker 2: curious that it's been this long and that we haven't
Speaker 2: found any traces of the victims. But it is pop
Speaker 2: that they could be in a body of water somewhere,
Speaker 2: or that they could be buried somewhere, and that Lorenzo was,
Speaker 2: unfortunately the person who would have dug the grave. I
Speaker 2: think that all things are in play here. None of
Speaker 2: them strike me as these mastermind criminals. I think it
Speaker 2: all comes down to really shoddy police work early on.
Speaker 2: I think that all could have been uncovered had they
Speaker 2: doggedly pursued this like they should have with a nine
Speaker 2: year old child missing and two adult men missing, and
Speaker 2: just went where the evidence took them, rather than having
Speaker 2: this theory in their mind with confirmation bias and being
Speaker 2: like it was a parental abduction and they just really
Speaker 2: had no way to explain why Lorenzo would have gone
Speaker 2: along with this or would have been missing as well.
Speaker 2: So rather than having a plausible theory that made sense
Speaker 2: with the evidence, they had a ridiculous theory that made
Speaker 2: no sense that they doubled down on, and then multiple
Speaker 2: different police departments seemed to come up short here. No
Speaker 2: one really seemed to do their due diligence, And it
Speaker 2: is such a travesty because Paul Lorenzo and little Sarah,
Speaker 2: nine year old Sarah deserved better.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, like, this was a very sloppy crime, and
Speaker 1: if it was done with a more competent police department,
Speaker 1: I don't think that the perpetrators would have gotten away
Speaker 1: with it because they left so much evidence behind. And
Speaker 1: we talked about how Teresa at this time was suffering
Speaker 1: from arthritis, so she was on disability and unable to work,
Speaker 1: so I don't think at the very least that she
Speaker 1: would have been able to contribute too much at helping
Speaker 1: dispose of the bodies, which is why I agree with
Speaker 1: your theory that they may have kept Lorenzo alive for
Speaker 1: a long time and held him at gunpoint to help
Speaker 1: him dispose of the bodies because they needed his physical
Speaker 1: labor before they killed him as well. And yeah, I
Speaker 1: know we talked about it in our last episode that
Speaker 1: they searched a number of bodies of water in the
Speaker 1: area which were in like a radius of a life
Speaker 1: four or five hours, because we know that trucks was
Speaker 1: seen leaving a lot between seven and eight and they
Speaker 1: were brought back there at midnight, so there's only so
Speaker 1: far they could have driven. But unfortunately they just have
Speaker 1: come up empty. So we still can't be one hundred
Speaker 1: percent certain if the bodies are in water or not,
Speaker 1: or if they've been buried somewhere, in which case it
Speaker 1: would be much more difficult to find. So who would
Speaker 1: have had a motive to commit a crime like this, Well,
Speaker 1: there's one obvious answer to that question, but before we
Speaker 1: start discussing it, I want to explore other potential scenarios.
Speaker 1: One theory is that the murders may have been drug related,
Speaker 1: because Paul was supposedly involved in drug dealing and would
Speaker 1: let pushers park their vehicles in his lot. Of course,
Speaker 1: since this theory was pushed forward by Teresa Donovan, I
Speaker 1: would ordinarily take it with a huge grain of salt.
Speaker 1: But surprisingly, the formerly detective Pat Long actually told Lorenzo
Speaker 1: Shiver's family that he believed this is what happened. So
Speaker 1: if law enforcement is willing to entertain the drug theory,
Speaker 1: could that mean that they have additional information to suggest
Speaker 1: it might be true. Well, we do know that Paul
Speaker 1: had a few prior scrapes with the law in the past,
Speaker 1: some of which involved drugs, and it sounds like he
Speaker 1: did smoke marijuana recreationally. But Fall's family insisted that he
Speaker 1: never would have done anything illegal while Sarah was around,
Speaker 1: as due to his custody agreement. I'm sure he would
Speaker 1: have wanted to pain himself as the most responsible father possible.
Speaker 1: If Paul really was allowing drug dealers to use his
Speaker 1: parking lot, then you'd think he would have made sure
Speaker 1: to keep Sarah away from that place. The fact that
Speaker 1: he took All along with him on multiple moving jobs
Speaker 1: which lasted the entire day, suggests that he did not
Speaker 1: believe there was any danger for himself or his daughter.
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess if you're going to push this
Speaker 2: theory forward and everything is in play right now, we
Speaker 2: don't have a lot of information, I think this is
Speaker 2: less likely, but I think it's still a possibility. And
Speaker 2: if he was using the lot for letting the drug
Speaker 2: dealers park there and pedal their wares, then maybe he thought, well,
Speaker 2: I'm just getting the try and I'm taking Sarah and
Speaker 2: we're going out on jobs. We're not spending time in
Speaker 2: the tough movers parking lot. So maybe he didn't believe
Speaker 2: that he was putting Sarah in danger because it was
Speaker 2: such a brief amount of time that she would be there,
Speaker 2: and the likelihood of drug deals going down would be
Speaker 2: slim to none. I'm not really sure how much weight
Speaker 2: we can put behind this, especially if we have police
Speaker 2: believing that this could be a theory. I don't trust
Speaker 2: their investigations up to this point, but I can't discount
Speaker 2: the fact that this is a possibility too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and like if it was just Teresa, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: put much stock into it, But the fact that one
Speaker 1: of the former league detectives told Lorenzo's family that they
Speaker 1: believe this is what happened, is why I can't completely
Speaker 1: dismiss it. But at the same time, this was one
Speaker 1: of the detectives from the original botched investigations, so it
Speaker 1: almost seems like it's him shifting the blame, thinking that, well,
Speaker 1: we may have screwed up, but it's all the entire
Speaker 1: leave the fault of Paul because he was involved in
Speaker 1: legal activity and put his in danger. And if you
Speaker 1: hadn't been dealing drugs or you're hanging around with dealers,
Speaker 1: then this wouldn't happen in the first place, so you
Speaker 1: can't put the entire blame on us. And I find
Speaker 1: it interesting that he said this for the first time
Speaker 1: during like an interview with like Lorenzo's son and his wife,
Speaker 1: So it's almost like he's saying, well, we knew Lorenzo
Speaker 1: was a good guy, and it's not his fault he
Speaker 1: was killed. But if you want to blame someone, blame
Speaker 1: Paul and don't blame us.
Speaker 2: That was kind of the vibe that I got. It
Speaker 2: was like, let's shift the blame a little bit and
Speaker 2: put the spotlight on Paul. And I just want to
Speaker 2: remind everybody that these weren't meth dealers. These weren't coke dealers,
Speaker 2: they weren't dealing heroin. They were selling marijuana. So think
Speaker 2: of the type of client tell that they are going
Speaker 2: to be servicing versus somebody who would potentially be selling meth.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't think that he would be getting into this
Speaker 2: major clash with weed dealers that would end up with
Speaker 2: a nine year old girl killed. I just have a
Speaker 2: hard time believing it. It's possible, but again, I'm more
Speaker 2: inclined to believe that this is shifting blame. And Theresa
Speaker 2: has her own motive for saying that this could have
Speaker 2: happened if she was involved, and then the detective could
Speaker 2: also have an underlying motivation.
Speaker 1: So another individual who was pushed forward as a potential
Speaker 1: suspect was Paul's cousin, Herbert Michael Hines. Herbert happened Paul's
Speaker 1: original partner when he started Tough Movers, but sometime during
Speaker 1: the late nineteen eighties, he was arrested for aggravated robbery
Speaker 1: and received a six year prison sentence. After he was released,
Speaker 1: Herbert went back to work at Tough Movers, but the
Speaker 1: story goes that Paul caught him stealing money from the
Speaker 1: business and cut Herbert out. In February of two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, reporter Jessica Centers published an extensive article about
Speaker 1: this story for the Denver based publication Westward, titled a
Speaker 1: cold Case Frozen in Time. When Herbert was asked to
Speaker 1: provide comment from the article, his response was quote, I
Speaker 1: quit the business because I was making more money in
Speaker 1: the stock market. I don't know anything about this case,
Speaker 1: kiss my asso. It's not clear to me if Paul
Speaker 1: and Herbert had a major falling out, But if they did,
Speaker 1: I can see why Herbert would seem like a promising suspect,
Speaker 1: especially when you considered that he was a convicted criminal
Speaker 1: who had served time in prison. But unfortunately, other than
Speaker 1: the brief reference to him in the aforementioned Westward article,
Speaker 1: there's really not all that much information out there about Herbert.
Speaker 1: We don't know if he was in the Denver area
Speaker 1: on the night that disappearances took place, or if he
Speaker 1: had an alibi, And even if he still had a
Speaker 1: grudge against Paul, wouldn't have been strong enough to drive
Speaker 1: him to murder a nine year old girl. And once again,
Speaker 1: the biggest issue with any theories involving Herbert or drug
Speaker 1: dealers is that Paul was not originally scheduled to work
Speaker 1: on February the seventh, So could any of these people
Speaker 1: have known he would show up to Tough Movers at
Speaker 1: that particular time on a Sunday night. Sure they could
Speaker 1: have been following Paul around and had no qualms about
Speaker 1: murdering his daughter. But wouldn't it still be easier to
Speaker 1: kill Paul at a time when he didn't have an
Speaker 1: adult male like Lorenzo with him. Why put yourself into
Speaker 1: a situation where you'll be required to get rid of
Speaker 1: three bodies rather than one. Now I get the impression
Speaker 1: this crime was committed by someone who had intimate knowledge
Speaker 1: of Paul's routine as well as their own motive to
Speaker 1: wat them.
Speaker 2: Gone, yeah, I tend to agree with you. And as
Speaker 2: far as Herbert goes okay. So he ended up going
Speaker 2: to jail in the eighties. Even if we say it's
Speaker 2: like the late eighties, he gets the six year prison sentence,
Speaker 2: he comes out and works for Tough Movers, and then
Speaker 2: he's let go because he's stealing money potentially. So if
Speaker 2: that is the case, we're then to believe that what
Speaker 2: he waits like four years and decides to exact his revenge.
Speaker 2: I mean, even if say he served he was convicted
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty nine, served a six year prison sentence,
Speaker 2: and went to work for Tough Movers for a short
Speaker 2: period of time, we still have a couple year lull
Speaker 2: here where he isn't working for Tough Movers, so when
Speaker 2: things are fresh, if he was fired or let go
Speaker 2: from the business, I would be more inclined to believe
Speaker 2: that he would take a drastic step, like, you know,
Speaker 2: killing Paul. But I also have a hard time believing
Speaker 2: that he's going to put himself in a position where
Speaker 2: he's going to kill Sarah, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: It's just because she's also related to him. It doesn't
Speaker 2: seem like a good fit for me. I can see
Speaker 2: how they could point a finger at him and raise
Speaker 2: him as a potential suspect, but it's not really connecting
Speaker 2: for me personally.
Speaker 1: I have a feeling that if he had not said
Speaker 1: kiss my ass to the reporter, then maybe you wouldn't
Speaker 1: have been mentioned in the article, because that does sound reasonable.
Speaker 1: If he says that, yeah, I quit the business because
Speaker 1: I was making more money in the stock market, and
Speaker 1: if that is true, that he has no discernible motive
Speaker 1: to kill Paul. But because he acted so rudely to
Speaker 1: the reporter, she started thinking, Okay, he's very defensive here.
Speaker 1: Maybe we should mention him and look at him as
Speaker 1: a potential suspect.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you were being accused of killing a
Speaker 2: nine year old girl, you'd probably be pretty defensive too,
Speaker 2: So I can empathize with him from that perspective. And
Speaker 2: especially if you're being bothered by reporters and being asked
Speaker 2: these questions that you don't want to have to address.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean that you're guilty. He doesn't mean you're
Speaker 2: hiding something. You may just not want to be involved
Speaker 2: in what they're doing. And so he takes maybe not
Speaker 2: the classiest approach and tells the reporter to kiss his ass.
Speaker 2: But I can almost understand where he's coming from.
Speaker 1: There, definitely, and considering that there are much more promising
Speaker 1: suspects in this case rather than Herbert, That's why I'm
Speaker 1: inclined to believe that this is a red herring and
Speaker 1: he was not involved. So this finally leads us to
Speaker 1: Teresa donnovan, and I can definitely understand why she has
Speaker 1: garnered more suspicion than anyone else. While she agreed to
Speaker 1: do interviews in the years following the disappearances and use
Speaker 1: them as an outlet to push forward the theory that
Speaker 1: the Trio were murdered by drug dealers, she eventually decided
Speaker 1: to shy away from the spotlight and has not talked
Speaker 1: about the case publicly in quite some time. I find
Speaker 1: it unusual that she flat out admitted that she failed
Speaker 1: a polygraph in one of her interviews, and while I
Speaker 1: obviously don't put much stock into the results, this detail
Speaker 1: has never been publicly confirmed by law enforcement, and it's
Speaker 1: very rare that you'll find potential suspects who take the
Speaker 1: initiative to reveal something like that on their own accord.
Speaker 1: Teresa also insisted that she told police the identities of
Speaker 1: the individuals responsible for this crime, but they wouldn't listen
Speaker 1: to her. Law enforcements never named Teresa or anyone else
Speaker 1: from her family as a suspect or person of interest.
Speaker 1: So if they have their own feelings about who is
Speaker 1: responsible for this crime, they've kept them to themselves. But
Speaker 1: let's look at the timeline of events. According to Sharon,
Speaker 1: Paul called her on Friday to inform her that he
Speaker 1: was planning to kick Teresa out of their house on
Speaker 1: Sunday night, So it seems like one hell of a
Speaker 1: coincidence that he would happen to go missing before this
Speaker 1: took place. It sounds like Paul reached the end of
Speaker 1: his rope with Teresa, but it's still been keeping her
Speaker 1: around for the sake of her son, Paul Roger, even
Speaker 1: though Paul wasn't even one hundred percent certain that he
Speaker 1: was the boy's father. However, if Paul had been able
Speaker 1: to prove his paternity while he was still alive, he
Speaker 1: likely would have sought full custody of the child, and
Speaker 1: given Teresa's alleged shortcomings as a mother, there's a good
Speaker 1: chance at the court would have ruled in his favor.
Speaker 1: When you consider these circumstances, Teresa definitely had a motive
Speaker 1: for wanting Paul gone. Jerry Biby also claimed that Teresa
Speaker 1: told them she had gone to Tough Movers on the
Speaker 1: night the three victims went missing, but she asked Jerry
Speaker 1: not to inform the police. If true, then that's a
Speaker 1: major red flag. And while I'm wondering why Teresa would
Speaker 1: even admit to something like this. Perhaps she was paranoid
Speaker 1: that some eyewitnesses may have seen her at Tough Movers
Speaker 1: that night and needed to come up with a story
Speaker 1: to account for it. Like we mentioned earlier, a witness
Speaker 1: reported hearing a woman's scream near Tough Movers that night,
Speaker 1: so could it have been Teresa. But even if Teresa
Speaker 1: committed these murders, she was on disability at the time
Speaker 1: due to issues with arthritis, so it seems unlikely that
Speaker 1: she would have been capable of covering up the crime
Speaker 1: and disposing of the bodies all by herself. So if
Speaker 1: she needed assistance, who would be a better person to
Speaker 1: turn to than a family member?
Speaker 2: Oh? Absolutely, I think that if Teresa was the one
Speaker 2: who's responsible, or what the architect of this, which I'm
Speaker 2: more inclined to believe that she is the best suspect,
Speaker 2: then she would have had to have roped in either
Speaker 2: Bobby Joe or her brother Tom or both of them.
Speaker 2: And then, if we are going along with the theory
Speaker 2: that Lorenzo was also held that gunpoint and used as
Speaker 2: labor to help Paul bodies, helped dispose of bodies, and
Speaker 2: then was killed at a later date in another location,
Speaker 2: then that all checks out for me. But I do
Speaker 2: find it really interesting that Theresa would mention that she
Speaker 2: was at Tough Movers the night before. And I think
Speaker 2: you're probably right that she must have been worried that
Speaker 2: somebody saw her, and so she's trying to cover her
Speaker 2: butt by telling Jerry and then just kind of hedging
Speaker 2: her bets. If law enforcement points out that she was
Speaker 2: there or there was a witness, she can be like, oh,
Speaker 2: I was there, but it was innocent, like, look, I
Speaker 2: told Jerry about it. If I was guilty, then why
Speaker 2: would I tell Jerry type of a thing.
Speaker 1: But it's also weird that she would specifically tell Jerry,
Speaker 1: don't tell tell anyone that I told you this, even
Speaker 1: though she's trying to cover herself. So if she had
Speaker 1: just said I was there and came up with an
Speaker 1: excuse for it, then Jerry would have thought, oh, that's unusual.
Speaker 1: Maybe she left before something happened. But the fact that
Speaker 1: she's saying don't tell the police obviously raise red flags
Speaker 1: with them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I suppose you could look at it two ways.
Speaker 2: It could be one of those scenarios where it's like,
Speaker 2: I don't want to place myself at the scene of
Speaker 2: a crime. Even though I'm innocent, I know that it
Speaker 2: looks super sketchy and they don't have any proper suspects,
Speaker 2: so I don't want the police to point the finger
Speaker 2: at me. So it comes down to her having something
Speaker 2: to hide, but not necessarily being involved in the crime,
Speaker 2: which I don't believe is true, but I think there,
Speaker 2: of course is a possibility, and that would be why
Speaker 2: she'd say to Jerry, like, don't say anything. But I
Speaker 2: think it's more likely that she's just putting it out there,
Speaker 2: trying to hedge her bets if the police bring it up.
Speaker 2: It's like, oh, I mentioned it to Jerry, and she
Speaker 2: thinks that she's being smart by saying to Jerry, don't
Speaker 2: say anything, so then she can just like pull that
Speaker 2: out at a later date if need be. E. Jerry's
Speaker 2: like kind of her alibi witness, But she didn't really
Speaker 2: take into account how sketchy it made her look that
Speaker 2: you don't want to come forward with this information, and
Speaker 2: we've got a missing nine year old girl and Paul's missing,
Speaker 2: and you don't seem to want to give police all
Speaker 2: of the information. That in and of itself is odd.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like even if by chance she was innocent, she
Speaker 1: went to tough movers and then left before anything bad happened
Speaker 1: to the victims. They'd still want to speak to her
Speaker 1: to see if she saw or heard anything unusual. She
Speaker 1: might have some useful information. And I also wonder if
Speaker 1: she was trying to be too clever for her own
Speaker 1: good when she publicly admitted that she flunked a lie
Speaker 1: detector test, because usually it's the reverse, where like people
Speaker 1: will say interviews, oh I passed a polygrapt and sometimes
Speaker 1: law enforcement won't confirm or deny it. But he or
Speaker 1: she's saying that she flunked one and law enforcement won't
Speaker 1: confirm or deny it. So maybe she's using reverse psychology, saying, hey,
Speaker 1: why would I admit to something like that publicly if
Speaker 1: I was guilty.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you watched the show The Traders,
Speaker 2: but it's always like is it a bluff? Is it
Speaker 2: a double bluff? Are they lying? Is it like this
Speaker 2: is such an obvious move? Are they doing this because
Speaker 2: they think that we would never believe that a trader
Speaker 2: would actually do that. That's what this feels like right now.
Speaker 2: If you're saying, like, okay, she said that she publicly
Speaker 2: flunk to polygraphs, Like, I just feel like, don't even
Speaker 2: address it. Don't even talk about the polygraph If you
Speaker 2: failed it or if you passed it, you're going to
Speaker 2: have people that are going to start picking that apart.
Speaker 2: I just think, like, what would be your motivation in
Speaker 2: putting forward that the test says that you're lying, even
Speaker 2: though we know they're not reliable and that they're detecting
Speaker 2: physiological changes not lies. I think it is an odd move.
Speaker 1: It is, Yeah, So it just sounds like she was
Speaker 1: just trying to use some sort of like traders type
Speaker 1: of thing, some reverse psychology, and she thought maybe it
Speaker 1: would make her look less suspicious, but obviously that didn't work.
Speaker 1: So of course, there's also the fact that Teresa's sister,
Speaker 1: Bobby Joe, just happened to be living with Lorenzo at
Speaker 1: the time he went missing. There haven't been many details
Speaker 1: shared about the nature of Bobby Joe and Lorenzo's relationship,
Speaker 1: but since it's been reported that Lorenzo and his wife
Speaker 1: Misha were talking about a reconciliation, I'm guessing his relationship
Speaker 1: with Bobby Joe may not have had much of a
Speaker 1: long term future. When Lorenzo went missing, Bobby Joe made
Speaker 1: a cryptic remark about how she knew he wasn't coming back,
Speaker 1: and it does not sound like she participated in the
Speaker 1: search effort for him and Bobby Joe also took the
Speaker 1: step of boxing up all the belongings for Lorenzo's son,
Speaker 1: Josh and essentially kicking him out of her house, which
Speaker 1: is a pretty cool thing to do to a teenage
Speaker 1: boy whose father has gone missing. Her actions seem all
Speaker 1: the more bizarre when you consider that the authorities were
Speaker 1: still treating Paul and Sarah's disappearances as a parental abduction
Speaker 1: at the time and were adamant that no foul play
Speaker 1: had occurred. So how could Bobby Joe be so certain
Speaker 1: that Lorenzo was never coming back. So we have a
Speaker 1: pair of sisters whose spouses vanished at the same time,
Speaker 1: and they both seemed rather nonchalant about the situation. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying Bobby Joe was directly involved in these disappear spearances,
Speaker 1: but if what or more if her siblings were responsible,
Speaker 1: she likely knew what happened and kept her mouth shut.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll definitely agree on that point. I think that
Speaker 2: Bobby Joe's actions are incredibly suspicious. The fact that Lorenzo's
Speaker 2: son is essentially kicked out and she knows that he's
Speaker 2: not going to be coming back, that speaks to somebody
Speaker 2: who has intimate knowledge of what went on. In my opinion,
Speaker 2: that's what it speaks to. I don't really think you
Speaker 2: can read it in any other way unless you're thinking, oh,
Speaker 2: she thinks that he left and you know, went back
Speaker 2: to his wife or something, but the teenager would be
Speaker 2: informed of that. I don't think that Lorenzo would be
Speaker 2: returning to his wife and the kid would just somehow
Speaker 2: be left with Bobby Joe, So that doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2: I think it speaks to her knowledge, and I think
Speaker 2: that both Teresa and Bobby Joe have knowledge about what
Speaker 2: happened to Sarah and Paul and Lorenzo, and I just
Speaker 2: don't see any other way to interpret their bizarre actions
Speaker 2: after the fact.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'd be curious to know if Josh the son
Speaker 1: is able to confirm Bobby Joe's whereabouts, because I do
Speaker 1: know that he was living there at the time, and
Speaker 1: that after Lorenzo failed to return home, Josh spent the
Speaker 1: next few days staying with his mother before he returned
Speaker 1: to find that all of his belongings have been boxed up.
Speaker 1: So if Josh is able to verify that he was
Speaker 1: there that night and that Bobby Joe was home the
Speaker 1: entire time, then that would probably rule out her having
Speaker 1: any direct involvement in the murders and the cover up,
Speaker 1: But it also shows that she probably still has guilty
Speaker 1: knowledge of what happened and is remaining silent because she
Speaker 1: doesn't want to implicate her siblings. Of course, suspicion about
Speaker 1: Teresa and Bobby Joe only increases when you look at
Speaker 1: the actions of their brother, Tom Donovan, who is currently
Speaker 1: serving a twenty eight year prison sentence for attempting to
Speaker 1: murder their mother, even if you discount that Tom displayed
Speaker 1: a lot of unstable behavior following the disappearances, such as
Speaker 1: phoning up Sharon and telling her that Paul and Sarah
Speaker 1: had been shot in the head and that the same
Speaker 1: thing was going to happen to her months earlier. Paul
Speaker 1: had also fired Tom from Tough Movers, and if you
Speaker 1: look at the timeline, it appears that Lorenzo was hired
Speaker 1: to replace him, so it sounds like Tom may have
Speaker 1: had a personal grudge against both men and a motive
Speaker 1: to harm them, even if Paul wasn't having relationship issues
Speaker 1: with his sister Broh. We know Teresa could have enlisted
Speaker 1: Tom to a sister with the situation, but did not
Speaker 1: anticipate that he would go so far as to murder
Speaker 1: three people. In fact, if Teresa was present in the
Speaker 1: Tough Movers parking lot that night, it was the source
Speaker 1: of the scream that the witnesses heard. Perhaps she was
Speaker 1: left genuinely shocked by her brother's outburst of violence. Yes,
Speaker 1: there is no direct evidence linking Tom to this crime,
Speaker 1: but if anyone unstable enough to stab his own mother
Speaker 1: five times would have been capable of shooting a nine
Speaker 1: year old girl.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that as far as suspects go, Tom
Speaker 2: is our best suspect. Like you said, he's got an
Speaker 2: axe to grind. Lorenzo could have been the person who
Speaker 2: was hired to replace him he was fired by Paul.
Speaker 2: And then you have Teresa, who we don't know the
Speaker 2: exact nature of their relationship, how close they were, but
Speaker 2: it seems like if you got both of your sisters
Speaker 2: who you feel like have been wronged by these men,
Speaker 2: these men who you already don't like that could be
Speaker 2: motivation enough, especially if you're thinking that maybe if Paul
Speaker 2: is killed, then some of his estate will be going
Speaker 2: to Paul Roger. And who knows if Teresa promised Tom
Speaker 2: some kind of monetary reward if he was involved and
Speaker 2: helped her with this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I'm thinking as well, is that that
Speaker 1: would be one of his motivations for like committing murder.
Speaker 1: But we also know that Sarah was not originally planning
Speaker 1: to go with Paul on on these moving jobs that
Speaker 1: day and that the only reason he had to take
Speaker 1: her along was because his mother, Sharon was in Minnesota
Speaker 1: and couldn't watch over her. So maybe Teresa's thinking to herself, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: I don't want to hurt a nine year old child,
Speaker 1: but I'm willing to kill Paul, and Tom is willing
Speaker 1: to kill a Rarenzo. Possibly is revenge and if she's
Speaker 1: present and then to her brother suddenly pulls out a
Speaker 1: gun and shoots Sarah, this nine year old girl. I
Speaker 1: can definitely understand why Teresa would be horrified by that
Speaker 1: and thinking that he just took things too far and
Speaker 1: she could have been the source of the scream that
Speaker 1: all the witnesses heard. So the crime is a bit
Speaker 1: of a weird contradiction because it simultaneously comes off as
Speaker 1: both professional and sloppy. On one hand, the responsible parties
Speaker 1: did a very thorough job of disposing of the victim's
Speaker 1: bodies and cleaning the interior of the moving truck, as
Speaker 1: well as moving Paul and Lorenzo's vehicles and wiping them
Speaker 1: both clean of fingerprints. But on the other hand, they
Speaker 1: did a pretty half fast job of cleaning the exterior
Speaker 1: of the truck and left behind blood evidence and a
Speaker 1: scout fragment. It makes the whole situation with the police
Speaker 1: investigation all the more frustrating, because if they had not
Speaker 1: done such a half fast job following through on this
Speaker 1: and actually collected evidence immediately, then they may have been
Speaker 1: able to build a case against someone. At the very least,
Speaker 1: I get the impression that detect this who worked on
Speaker 1: this case in recent years have done a much more
Speaker 1: professional job, and they likely have their own ideas about
Speaker 1: what happened, but just lack the evidence to make an arrest.
Speaker 1: If Tom Donovan was the individual who committed these murders,
Speaker 1: then at the very least he is going to be
Speaker 1: locked up for the next two decades and won't harm
Speaker 1: anyone else. But that does not offer much comfort for
Speaker 1: the victims' families when their bodies have yet to be
Speaker 1: found and no one has ever been formally charged with
Speaker 1: this crime. And even if Tom is guilty, I'm sure
Speaker 1: he didn't act alone, and there may be others out there,
Speaker 1: such as the siblings, who know exactly what happened and
Speaker 1: are keeping their mouths shut.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm thinking too. I think Tom is the
Speaker 2: best aspect, and I don't think that he would have
Speaker 2: done this of his own accord. I think that he
Speaker 2: would have had to have been persuaded by Teresa or
Speaker 2: Teresa and Bobby Joe or some combination, and went ahead
Speaker 2: and did these things. But I agree to your point
Speaker 2: that it looks both sloppy and professional. I think that
Speaker 2: how professional it looks is based on how awful the
Speaker 2: investigation was initially, and so it looks more professional than
Speaker 2: it actually was. They left behind so much evidence. Yes,
Speaker 2: the bodies were disposed of in a way that they
Speaker 2: weren't found insofar as we know who knows. I mean,
Speaker 2: they could have been disposed of in different states, in
Speaker 2: different places and separate from each other, and they could
Speaker 2: be sitting as John or Jane does somewhere and we
Speaker 2: just don't know that information. So there's a lot that
Speaker 2: we don't know. And one thing that I really would
Speaker 2: like to have more information on, and I hope that
Speaker 2: they come forward once they've done all the testing, is
Speaker 2: the DNA that they found. Because you said that the
Speaker 2: current investigators who are working on the case seem a
Speaker 2: lot more dedicated to it, and we've seen it over
Speaker 2: and over and over. You get a fresh set of eyes,
Speaker 2: people with new priorities, they have less to cover up for,
Speaker 2: like such as the past situation where it seemed like
Speaker 2: there was a lot of butt covering. You have people
Speaker 2: stepping in completely fresh. Their motivations are different and so
Speaker 2: the results are different.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Tom Donovan, he is in prison for attempted murder,
Speaker 1: so I have a reason to assume that his DNA
Speaker 1: is in the system. So if his DNA is found
Speaker 1: at the murder scene, he could easily be matched to him.
Speaker 1: I guess maybe the only issue potential obstacle is that
Speaker 1: Teresa was Paul's girlfriend, so she may have visited the
Speaker 1: lot on her own accord, and Tom did work there
Speaker 1: on a previous occasion. So if they found his DNA,
Speaker 1: I wonder if he could say, oh, that was from there,
Speaker 1: from like many months earlier before I was fired. So
Speaker 1: I'd like to think that they have the DNA in
Speaker 1: a specific spot where they could say, Okay, if your
Speaker 1: DNA is there, you definitely committed the crime. So that's
Speaker 1: why I hope that this new lead does eventually go
Speaker 1: somewhere and that they could figure out who committed these murders.
Speaker 1: Since there are three victims in this story, that means
Speaker 1: that a ton of people have suffered these past twenty
Speaker 1: seven years. Paulskiba's parents have both passed away, but he
Speaker 1: still has a surviving brother and a number of friends,
Speaker 1: such as Jerry Biby, who are still searching for answers.
Speaker 1: Zizo Shivers's two children have had to grow up without
Speaker 1: their father, and most heartbreakingly, Michelle Russell lost her own
Speaker 1: daughter and has had to live with the knowledge that
Speaker 1: Sarah was likely murdered over something she had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with. And another victim in this story is Paul Roger,
Speaker 1: who was still a baby when all this went down.
Speaker 1: But regardless of whether or not Paul Skiba was actually
Speaker 1: his biological father. It seems clear that Paul was going
Speaker 1: to do everything he could to help him. Paul Roger
Speaker 1: would now be twenty seven years old, and even though
Speaker 1: he has been raised by someone who is suspected of
Speaker 1: being involved in this crime, I hope he still managed
Speaker 1: to have a decent life. I definitely believe that there
Speaker 1: are people out there who know exactly what happened to
Speaker 1: these three missing victims, and all it would take to
Speaker 1: break this case wide open is for the right person
Speaker 1: to come forward. So if you happen to have any
Speaker 1: information about the disappearances of Paul Skiba, Sarah Skiba and
Speaker 1: Lorenzo Shiver, please contact the Westminster Police Department at three
Speaker 1: zero three six five eight six four three zero. That's
Speaker 1: three zero three six five eight six four three zero,
Speaker 1: And if you wish to remain anonymous, you could also
Speaker 1: call Metro Denver Crime Stoppers at seven to zero nine
Speaker 1: one three seven eight sixty seven. That's seven two zero
Speaker 1: nine one three seven eight sixty seven. Jewels any final
Speaker 1: thoughts on this case.
Speaker 2: This is such an interesting case. The idea that we've
Speaker 2: got three missing people and that their bodies have never
Speaker 2: been found. We've got one really good suspect with Teresa.
Speaker 2: We've got another with Tom, and then Bobby Joe's kind
Speaker 2: of a question mark, but it seems like there's a
Speaker 2: potential that she was definitely complicit or had guilty knowledge
Speaker 2: about this crime. And they're the ones that have the
Speaker 2: most motivation all of the alternate suspects and alternate theories. Yes,
Speaker 2: there's a possibility, is it, you know, the drug theory.
Speaker 2: I think there's a very low probability, but anything is possible.
Speaker 2: I just really wish for the families that we could
Speaker 2: get that DNA evidence, push forward and get some more
Speaker 2: answers on this case, and then maybe if it comes
Speaker 2: down to trying Tom and maybe Teresa, maybe Bobby Joe
Speaker 2: for their involvement in the crime, then maybe we'll get
Speaker 2: the answers as to where the bodies are so that
Speaker 2: they can bring them home to their loved ones.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I've seen that in so many missing persons case
Speaker 1: where if enough times passes, their loved ones say that
Speaker 1: we don't even care that much anymore about getting the
Speaker 1: perpetrators to face justice. We just want to recover our
Speaker 1: loved one's remains and give them a proper burial. And
Speaker 1: I could definitely see someone like Michelle feeling that way
Speaker 1: about her missing child. And at least if Tom Donovan
Speaker 1: was responsible, they can take comfort in knowing that he
Speaker 1: is currently in prison for another crime. But yeah, I
Speaker 1: remember reading about this case on the Charlie Project many
Speaker 1: years ago before I even started the Trail Went Cold,
Speaker 1: where the Path Went Chili, and just being gobsmacked about
Speaker 1: how bad this investigation was and think that, Wow, I
Speaker 1: can't believe that there was just so much evidence available
Speaker 1: at the outset and they just chose to completely ignore
Speaker 1: it when they could have potentially solved this crime almost immediately.
Speaker 1: And here we are twenty seven years later, and we
Speaker 1: still don't have any conclusive answers. We have a number
Speaker 1: of people who have suspicions about what happened, and there
Speaker 1: are some very promising suspects, but because we have no
Speaker 1: bodies and no conclusive evidence linking him to the crime,
Speaker 1: it has still gone on solved for all this time.
Speaker 1: And I definitely believe that all the other theories push
Speaker 1: forward about drug dealers or Paul's cousin being responsible are
Speaker 1: red herrings, as I just think it's too much of
Speaker 1: a coincidence that Paul would happened to go missing on
Speaker 1: the very same night that he was going to kick
Speaker 1: Teresa out of his house, and she conveniently got to
Speaker 1: remain there for several months afterwards because he was no
Speaker 1: longer around to enforce it. And I do believe that
Speaker 1: Paul was the intended target and that Sarah and Lorenzo
Speaker 1: were just in the wrong place at the wrong time,
Speaker 1: and the perpetrators just got very, very lucky that the
Speaker 1: original police investigators were so incompetent. But like I mentioned,
Speaker 1: even though I do believe there's a good chance that
Speaker 1: Tom Donovan was the trigger man and he is in prison,
Speaker 1: there are still people out there who probably at least
Speaker 1: have knowledge about what happened or were complicit in the
Speaker 1: cover up, and can offer so much comfort to the
Speaker 1: victims' loved ones if they come clean and reveal the
Speaker 1: location of the victim's remains. And that's why I hope
Speaker 1: that this recent DNA testing that they're conducting will eventually
Speaker 1: lead to a resolution, so that about brings an end
Speaker 1: to this latest edition of The Pathway Chile about the
Speaker 1: disappearances of Paul Sciba, Sarah Sciba, and Lorenzo Shiver. So
Speaker 1: join us next week, when we present a new series
Speaker 1: about a new case.