Crime Weekly - S3 Ep222: Marlene Warren: The Sneaky Salesman (Part 2)

Episode Date: July 5, 2024

On the morning of May 26, 1990, 40-year-old Marlene Warren answered the door of her upscale Wellington, Florida home to find a person dressed as a clown holding a flower arrangement and two balloons. As Marlene reached out for the gifts, the clown shot her in the face, leaving Marlene gasping for air on the floor as the clown calmly walked back to a white Chrysler LeBaron and drove away. While Marlene was rushed to the hospital in critical condition, a massive manhunt for the clown began. And as the investigation unfolded, it was revealed that Marlene had expressed fears that her husband, Michael Warren, was going to kill her. However, the police would soon find out Michael couldn’t be the killer—he’d been with a friend when Marlene was shot. But, as the investigation continued, disturbing information about Michael’s possible connections to the murder began to surface. Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod ADS: 1. HelixSleep.com/CrimeWeekly - Get up to 30% off all mattresses and two FREE pillows! 2. Smalls.com/CrimeWeekly - Use code CRIMEWEEKLY to get 50% off your first order and FREE shipping! 3. Check out 10 To Life on Youtube! New episodes every Tuesday and Thursday!

This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news. Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news? There's a better option. I'm Will, and I created IQ Bar Plant Protein Bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low-sugar brain and body fuel.

IQ Bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and lion's mane, and zero weird stuff. And right now, you can get 20% off all IQ Bar products, plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ Bar sampler pack with 7 plant protein bars, 4 hydration mixes, and 4 enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste, and you'll love how you feel. Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with IQ Bar. Go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20 to get 20% off all IQ Bar products, plus free shipping. Again, go to eatiqbar Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur.

Today, we are diving into part two of the Marlene Warren case, otherwise known in my head as the terrifying clown case. If you weren't scared of clowns before, this will be enough to make you fear them. As a quick recap to where we are already, on the morning of May 26, 1990, a white Chrysler LeBaron drove into 40-year-old Marlene Warren's Wellington, Florida driveway. A clown exited the car carrying a basket of flowers and two balloons. And when Marlene opened the front door, the clown shot her in the face, then calmly walked back to the car and drove off. Marlene was rushed to the hospital and put on life support while detectives began their investigation, setting out to uncover

where the clown costume flowers and balloons came from. During their search, they received a tip suggesting that they look into Marlene's husband, Michael, and his mistress, Sheila Keen. So that's where we are so far. Derek, are you ready to dive into part two? I am, but I want to talk about it first because I purposely, I do not know what happens in this case. And guys have been great in the comments. I haven't seen all of them, but I don't even know if this case was solved or not. And it was hard for me not to look it up because it's always easier to kind of know the end because I can make myself look really smart throughout the episodes. So it's hard. And I went back and forth on a couple of things and

I was looking over my notes and this reminds me of a case I did on Detective Perspective. Liz Barraza. Have you ever heard of that case? No. Okay. The short version is there's a video. You should check it out. It's not long enough for us to do on Crime Weekly.

It's an unsolved case, but basically there's ring doorbell footage where Liz Barraza, her husband leaves, he takes off down the road. And then shortly after, while she's putting things out in the driveway, a car pulls up. Someone gets out dressed in like, it's still alleged, but like maybe cosplay, maybe some type of costume gets out. There's a few words exchanged. And this person shoots her deliberately, intentionally, absolutely went there to kill her. And then they pull off.

They still have not found out who this person was. And in that case, to me. Did they have a suspect? They don't. They still have not found out who this person was. And in that case, to me- Did they have a suspect? They don't. They don't. Did they look into her husband? I believe they did look into her husband, but what I had suggested at the end,

which is leading me to where we are tonight, is that there could be a world where, and let me turn it over to this case because it still applies. You're looking at, I don't believe this case was a situation where it was just a random act of violence. This was an assassination, no doubt about it. This was a planned attack. So then that leaves you with a couple of situations

for, and we've talked about these retaliation, right? Some enemy out there of Michael's that we're unaware of who's retaliating against him. Maybe it was intended for him. Maybe it was a message sent by killing his wife, but that's one angle. The other angle is it was a planned attack for Michael or it was a planned attack because of Michael. Those are two different things. The planned attack for Michael, because it appears that Michael has an alibi, right? We know that he was on the road. Could he have directed someone to kill his wife? Could he have directed someone to say, hey, I'm going to be leaving. This is what I want to happen. You need to kill Marlene. So whatever, we can be together or because I want

money or whatever it might be, right? Or it could be a situation where it's for Michael. What do I mean by that? This brings me back to Liz Barraza. I brought up the scenario, the theory that maybe if Liz Barraza's husband was involved with someone else, maybe that person without Liz Barraza's husband's blessing decided to kill Liz Barraza because this person wanted to be with her husband. And the only reason I bring that up is because you mentioned Sheila and how she's a suspect. It seems like, I mean, I'm not an idiot. It seems like there might be some connection here. And we talked about Richard Keene, which was Sheila's husband at the time who worked for Michael. Worked for Michael, yeah. But you could have a situation here where maybe Michael and Sheila work together and this is, they carried this out. You could have

a situation where if Sheila is involved, she did this because she wanted to be with Michael, or you could have a situation where Richard knows about the affair and wants to frame Michael and get back at Sheila. So he's the clown as well, where he could be doing this again to get Michael in trouble. But in that case, why not just kill Michael? So that's the clown as well, where he could be doing this again to get Michael in trouble. But in that case, why not just kill Michael? So that's where I am going into this episode. I don't know if there's going to be a twist where there's another person that you haven't mentioned yet who may come into the equation, but that's just where I left after part two, where I see it involving Michael in some way, shape or form. I just don't know how yet, but that's all I got.

Yeah, I agree, especially with, you know, the sketchy behavior, his kind of willingness to bend and blur the lines of the law and what he feels that he has to follow. Like he's not, you know, entitled to follow the same laws as everybody else. He kind of does sketchy things with his used car dealership, things like that. And you have to think it's an inside job too, right? I mean, because of the timing of it, he's not there knowing the layout, knowing the clown situation. So there has to be a rat on the inside who's giving this person, whoever the clown was, information that would allow this person to carry out this crime without being apprehended initially, at least. So then the fact that you said you kind of agree, considering you know the story, that makes me feel good.

Makes me feel like I might be on the right path here. But that's all I got. We can dive into it. I just, that's my initial thoughts going into this one. So on May 27th, 1990, this was the day after Marlene was killed. Detectives did speak to Sheila Keene and her estranged husband, Richard, and they did this in separate interviews. In Sheila's interview, she said she wasn't having an affair with Michael. She acknowledged that there were rumors going around, but insisted they weren't true. This is suspicious to me, by the way. When somebody openly denies something that's so easily proven, it's like, what are you hiding at that point? What are you hiding? Why wouldn't you just, the woman's dead, just be like, yeah, we were having an affair, but that, in my opinion, as Sheila, I don't think it has anything to do with Marlene's death, so I have nothing to hide. So when asked where she was on the morning of May 26th, Sheila said that she was in Lake Worth, Boynton Beach, and Rivera Beach, all towns surrounding West Palm Beach. She says she was looking for cars to repossess. Sheila just so happened to be by herself that morning. She didn't visit any locations or speak with anyone who could verify

her location at the time of the shooting. Sheila told detectives that at one point that morning, she called Bargain Motors to see if there were any other cars that needed to be repossessed, and that's when she first heard that Marlene had been shot. And remember, Bargain Motors is the car lot that Michael, Marlene's husband, owns and operates. Detectives then asked Sheila if she owned a clown costume or had access to a white Chrysler LeBaron, and she said she did not own nor had she ever owned a clown costume and she did not have access to a white Chrysler LeBaron. Detectives didn't really believe Sheila's story, and later that day, they searched the trash dumpsters outside her residence,

but they didn't find anything incriminating. Now, in Richard's interview, he revealed that he and Michael had been friends for several years. However, he believed that Sheila, who had left him in January of 1990, had been having an affair with Michael. Richard claimed he did not hold a grudge against Michael, though he hadn't been associating much with him in the last month or so. Richard added that before Michael and Sheila's affair, Michael had all kinds of girlfriends. So basically, it's not like Sheila was special in this aspect. It wasn't like Michael had kept his vows before Sheila and this was some sort of, you know, long lost love that he would kill for. It seemed kind of common. But despite this, Richard couldn't recall Michael having any problems at home.

Next, detectives asked about guns and Richard said he didn't own any because he was a convicted felon. Detectives then asked if Sheila had guns, and Richard confirmed that she did, and mentioned that around a month prior, Sheila had called him and asked about her.38 caliber revolver, which she claimed was missing. Conveniently. Richard told her and the detectives he didn't know where it was. Now, after these interviews, detectives continue trying to figure out where the flowers, balloons, and clown costume came from. They eventually interviewed two employees at the Spotlight Costume Shop on South Dixie Highway in West Palm Beach, and they said they'd sold a clown costume just a few days before Marlene was shot.

This obviously stood out. Why? Well, the timing. It was May. Yeah. So how many people are really actively shopping for any kind of costumes, much less clown costumes? Yeah, it's not Halloween coming. However, like maybe it was a birthday party or something, you know. It could be.

Yeah. You'd still want to question that person regardless. Of course. Question for you, because we've covered so many cases. I feel like we talked about whether the firearm used would be a revolver or semi-automatic. Was it for this episode that we discussed that? And so here you are.

Because there was no shell casings left behind. So here you are. Again, that would explain it. If this gun is the one involved, I would presume as an investigator when we're taking on this case, we are looking for a suspect that would own a revolver. So this is one box being checked for Sheila, obviously very early in it, but that is a red flag. And the fact that she's saying she doesn't know where it is now, not good. Not good for her. Yeah. Well, and the fact that she sort of almost like set that

narrative a month before Marlene died, like, where's my gun? Wherever could it be? I haven't found it. I haven't seen it in so long. Do you know where it is? Estranged husband who's a felon and can't own a gun. And, you know, it's like you're setting the stage for what's about to come. Yeah. Firearms also, when, if you do misplace a firearm, which I don't know how anyone would misplace a firearm, but you have a responsibility legally to report that firearm if it goes missing because it could have been stolen. You don't know. So you would want to report that firearm as stolen or missing to law enforcement in case it is used in a commission of a crime. Police want to be aware if there's firearms that are unaccounted for on the streets. So if you don't know where it is, at minimum,

you should let law enforcement know. And I say legally in the sense of if that gun is used in a murder down the road, you can find yourself in a really difficult situation if you hadn't reported it at the time when it was stolen. We have had situations where firearms are used in the commission of a crime and come to find out that gun was stolen a year or two prior. And when we find the original owners, they say, we were in fear of reporting it that we could be in trouble, so we didn't. But either way, you don't want to put yourself in that situation. So the fact that she didn't report it, the fact that she lost it in the first place,

all of that, it raises a lot of questions for me. I was actually thinking about it when you were talking and I was like, yeah, who would lose a gun? I would lose a gun, to be honest with you. Like, if I had one in my house, what's a revolver? How big is it? It's not very big. It's not very easy. It's like a handgun.

But I definitely lose that, you know, like, but also I'm not. Is this the point where I'm supposed to say, no, you would never or can I be honest? No, you can absolutely. You totally would lose a firearm. I would definitely. That's why I don't have them laying all over the place. And if you have firearms, they should be in one place, which is a safe in your house, right? Stephanie would lose the safe that the guns were in.

I'd be like, how tall is the safe, Stephanie? I don't know, like six or eight feet? It's not here. It's like eight feet tall. I don't know. And then I'm like, Derek, I have no idea where it is. You walk into my house and you just pull a random blanket off and you're like, is this your gun safe? It's behind the refrigerator.

I don't know how it got there. How did it get there? Yeah. So I don't blame her for maybe misplacing it. However, the timing is suspicious. Like a month before Marlene dies, all of a sudden you can't find the gun. That's probably kind of similar to the gun that killed her. Like something's up here.

Not good. And then not reporting it. Well, yes. Yes. Also, I probably wouldn't report it because I'd be like, I know it's here. Yeah, I'm going to find it. The second I report it, I'm going to find it and then I'm going to be mad. So this is why I don't have guns.

You know, that's as simple as that. So let's talk about what the costume shop employees told the police. Both employees told detectives in separate interviews that a tall, thin, white woman with long brown hair came into the shop two days prior to the murder. The woman looked androgynous. She was tall with brown eyes and she wasn't wearing any makeup or nail polish. And she had on men's work boots, jeans and a lumberjack checkered shirt. Is that what androgynous is to people? Because this is me all the time. You know what I mean? Like on the day to day. So a woman came in and bought this clown costume. It was a woman.

Yeah. A tall woman. Did you hear that? A tall woman. Is Sheila tall? We're not going to talk about that right now. But what we are going to talk about is was the clown tall? Okay.

Good point. Good point. How tall was the clown? They did say that the clown was tall. Yeah. Over six feet. It didn't matter how many. Some people said 6'1 or 6'4 or whatever.

But all of the eyewitnesses, which was Marlene's son's friends and Marlene's son, they all said tall. That was the one thing that was kind of consistent among their testimonies. And I will say, I'll be the first to admit that even a lot in episode one, I'm under the assumption that it's a male. Me too. So that's where I'm at. After episode one, obviously, with Sheila being in the equation, it does change some things. But that is an interesting take that, well, not even interesting take. It happened where a female purchased the clown costume. Is it the one that's in question? Maybe you're taking me on a ride here and this is going to be a red herring. But interesting. Did not see that one coming.

Now, the employees also mentioned that the woman showed up after the store was closed. And although they told her she could come back the next day, she insisted she was only going to be there for a minute. She really needed a costume that night. She knew exactly what she wanted. Yeah. Once again, very suspicious. Like you can't come back in the morning. Why do you need the costume that night? What kind of clown party is happening that night? So the customer was allowed inside. She said she wanted a woman's clown costume and enough white makeup to cover a person's entire face. Interestingly, the customer did not want to purchase any clown shoes with the costume. And this detail actually caught the detectives' attention as they knew that the clown who had killed Marlene was not wearing clown shoes. It was wearing lace-up army-style boots. Both employees noted that the woman was very quick in picking out what she needed,

and she ended up purchasing the cheapest items, a clown costume that was yellow and orange on one side and a candy pink color on the other, an orange wig, a red nose, and face makeup. Detectives showed both employees a six-photo lineup with one photo of Sheila included, and both the employees pointed to Sheila's photo and said she looked like the customer. Get her. Yeah, so photo pack. So let's just go over that quick. We talked about it before. PhotoPacks are really easy to do. They probably came back after having the conversation with these guys. And basically what they'll do is they'll go into their internal database. They can pull up.

Obviously, this is the 90s, so it's a little different. It might have been not as digital as it was for me. Now you can just type in a description of a person, female, certain age range, hair color, eye color, skin complexion, and it'll populate 20 to 30 different people that match that description. And then what you can do is you remove the background of every photo so you don't see like the placard behind them that shows they've been arrested before. That way the witness doesn't know. That's the correct way to do a photo lineup. But as we know from West Memphis 3, not all police officers do that. Correct. So you don't do it that way.

And then what they'll do is they can cut out little squares in a folder. We actually had folders that were designed for this with numbers. You print out this printout that's a template for the folder. It has six to eight photos of other individuals who match the description and then obviously the person in question. Sometimes it can get a little bit more complicated if the individual that you're looking into has never been arrested before to get a photo that's similar so that they don't stand out. But then what you would do is put all those individuals in a lineup, not give the witness any type of direction or indication of what you're looking for and allow them to pick the people. And even after they do, you don't give any indication whether they were on the right track or not. All you do is go, thank you. You have them sign the photo, initial the actual folder,

have them sign a document, say that they weren't directed or guided in any way. And then you move on to the next person. So when you have two people, if you do it the right way, both identify the person that is the person in question of your investigation, it's a big moment for the case. And I've only had that happen a few times for me where it came down to a photo array like this. But when it does, it takes every fiber in your body not to jump up and kind of do a fist pump. We've actually had books too, because I was 2004. We actually had books too, where it's like 100 or 200 different photos and the person's just sitting there going through them. And all of a sudden they'll go, oh my God, that's them.

And I'm like, wait, hold on. How sure are you? 100%. That's definitely them. And you're like, wow, okay, now I can go look up who this person is. And it starts the investigation. So yeah, there's definitely a couple cool moments in an investigation like this where you feel like you're you're kind of like you said, just chasing leads that lead nowhere. And then all of a sudden, like the clouds just cleared for a second. Yeah, it's pretty cool. It's pretty cool. So this is interesting. So now we have the revolver. We have a female purchasing the clown suit and a positive identification by two individuals who identify Sheila. Yep. But however, one of the employees kind of wavered a bit on her

identification and then pointed to a different woman who also resembled the customer, which now the detectives are like, God damn it. Brutal. That's brutal because when you only have six people, it is possible someone could identify your person and still not be right. They could be guessing. That's another question you're supposed to ask in an interview. How certain are you that the person you picked out today is the person you saw on the day in question? 70%, 80%, 90%, 100%. So you want to gauge their level of certainty in case a defense attorney down the road tries to bring that into question. So this is not good. The fact that I said all that big speech and then you say, well, one of them wasn't sure and identified a different person. That's the other side to this coin where when that happens, the wind is completely taken out of your sails. And now that euphoric feeling that I just described to you completely goes away. So yes, obviously now there's a little bit of a kink, but still more than you had before

you walked into that costume store. Yeah, it's a great start. A ton more. Yeah. But before leaving the store, the detectives purchased an identical wig as the one bought just days earlier by the clown. And we're going to talk about where they go from here, but we're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back. So detectives on this case also interviewed employees from a Publix at 2895 North Military Trail in West Palm Beach who were called a woman purchasing the same exact flower and balloon ensemble the clown had. If you recall from part one, the clown had a wicker basket of red and white carnations in two mylar balloons. One of the balloons was a red heart, and it said, you're the greatest in white cursive letters, and the other had a picture of Snow White

and the seven dwarves. Now, this was a super solid lead. What are the chances that anyone other than the clown was responsible for purchasing the exact same wicker basket and two super random balloons? It's not like this came as a package deal and it was like this celebration package that you could pay one price for. You'd have to pick these things out. Now that lead became even more solid when detectives learned that the You're the Greatest balloon was only sold at this specific Publix location. A receipt from the purchase of the flowers and the balloons showed that they were bought at 9.22 a.m. on May 26th, less than two hours before Marlene was killed, and the items were paid for with a $100 bill. The two employees who sold the flowers and balloons described the person who purchased the items as a white woman with long brown hair tied in a

ponytail, and they said she had male mannerisms. However, neither employee said they would be able to identify the woman. While they weren't able to get a positive ID, detectives noted that this description matched Sheila. And you know what else? Sheila's apartment just so happened to be around a half a mile away from that Publix, so it would have been her Publix, the one she shopped at. Now, at this point, everything was pointed to Sheila as being the clown killer, which made sense as she, I guess, technically would have motive to kill Marlene. Jealousy. You know, it's usually jealousy or money.

Yeah, or she could be doing this could be a conspiracy between her and Michael where this was set up for whatever reason. She could just. Yeah, but so they could be together. Correct. This could be something that he's in on and she's just having to execute the plan because it's too obvious it would be Michael. Or maybe somebody else was in the clown costume, not Sheila, but she was kind of just the one behind the scenes getting everything together.

We don't know for sure. Yeah, there could be a third person. You may end up telling us it's Richard. So Sheila's got a lot of problems right now, period. I don't know if this is going to go a different route, but on where we are right now in this story, Sheila is in a lot of trouble. Sheila's not looking innocent. No, it's not looking good. It's not looking good. Everything that you've laid out as far as the purchase of the specific balloons, the clown costume, the specificity of the clown costume, the specificity of the balloons. And her needing it that night. And yeah, and also her living only, would you say one mile from that Publix? The only Publix that carried that specific balloon?

Yes. This ain't good. This ain't good. At the very least, she's definitely involved. Or someone who looks just like her is trying to frame her. One of the two. Yes, she could have a doppelganger. That's out there framing her intentionally. That is also a possibility. So remember, all this is happening.

The investigation is going on. Marlene is still at the hospital on life support. But sadly, on May 28th at 930 p.m., she was pronounced dead. Marlene's body was sent to the medical examiner's office where the bullet that killed her was recovered from her vertebrae. Now, this is good because remember, no shell casings left behind. So we don't even know at this point what type of bullet it is. But now we do. And ballistics testing showed that Marlene had been killed with a.38 or.357 caliber projectile. Man, this keeps on coming. It was a jacketed hollow point, possibly a Remington 125 green bullet, which was fired from a weapon other than a Smith & Wesson or a Colt.

I mean, it's very vague. It's a very vague description. Like, probably a lot could fit the bill. I don't know a lot about bullets and things like that, but it kind of seems like— It makes it hard. It makes it hard because the projectile can be mangled and kind of disfigured as it leaves the firearm. Obviously, there's a lot of force behind it. And depending on how it enters the body, it can be mangled.

So the fact that they're able to even deduce what they did is a win because that's not always the case, especially if there's an exit wound as well and the projectile hits something solid like a doorframe or a car, then it's done. So the fact that they were able to even get that much information is a win. Yeah. So the initial analysis suggested that the bullet might have originated from various firearms, including but not limited to those made by Charter Arms, RG Industries, and Ruger. Following the ballistics testing, detectives reached back out to Sheila's estranged husband, Richard Keene, to ask more questions about the.38 Sheila had lost. Richard said he couldn't remember what type of gun Sheila owned,

but he knew it was not a Smith & Wesson or a Colt, which was obviously helpful because the detectives knew the murder weapon was also not a Smith & Wesson or a Colt. Richard said he couldn't remember where Sheila purchased the gun, because the detectives knew the murder weapon was also not a Smith & Wesson or a Colt. Richard said he couldn't remember where Sheila purchased the gun, and as far as I can tell, detectives were never able to locate her gun. Detectives continued with their investigation and solid leads kept pouring in, most of which pointed towards Sheila and Michael being involved in Marlene's murder.

A sergeant from the West Palm Beach Police Department called detectives to inform them that in 1998, Michael's business, Bargain Motors, was under surveillance for a car theft that had occurred in the city of West Palm Beach. This is possibly the same car theft we talked about in part one, where Michael repossessed a woman's car, convinced her it was stolen, and then tried to resell that same car while collecting on the insurance. The sergeant also told detectives that Michael had possibly been involved in drugs, loan sharking, stolen property, and hiring sex workers. The sergeant further mentioned that the FBI may have been involved in the investigation due to a stolen truckload of lawnmowers that had been connected to bargain motors. Detectives learned through other interviews that trouble seemed to follow Michael

everywhere he went, or at least that's probably how he looked at it. He's like, what do I do to deserve this? Everybody's always messing with me. I'm always getting into trouble. Bad things always seem to happen to me. It couldn't possibly be my fault. It couldn't possibly be me, the one common element. So at one point, Michael's plane disappeared and it was found with a broken engine. Another time, one of his racehorses was found dead. Now his wife was dead. Michael either had really, really bad luck or, spoiler alert, he was a shady guy doing shady things and causing bad things to happen. Yeah, on the surface, I mean, if it's not obvious, it sounds like a guy who maybe for an insurance scam or something like that, when he has something that is more of a

burden and no longer a value in his eyes, he decides to make that thing disappear. Or something that's worth more to him broken or dead than it is. Correct. Yeah. That's his MO. We're talking about motive here. We're talking about the MO, the modus operandi. How does this person conduct a crime? Again, it's a little bit of a stretch at this point, but it's something that you have to consider. I don't know if it's a stretch. I agree with you. It shows a pattern of behavior like, oh, my racehorse. And we see this all the time, by the way. Is it going to be enough for a charge? No. No. But yes, it's a start. It's a start.

It builds a charge? No. No. It's a start. It's a start. It builds a pattern. Yep. Detectives also received a call from an employee of Payless Rent-A-Car, which was located at 500 South Congress Avenue in West Palm Beach. The employees reported that a white Chrysler LeBaron had been stolen from Payless on April 15th of that year, around six weeks before Marlene was murdered. The employee said that Bargain Motors had been involved in the theft and suggested the police should look into this further. The police did investigate this tip and learned that Payless and Bargain Motors were at war with each other. Bargain Motors and its attached rental company had taken out an ad in the phone book which read, quote, a bargain auto rentals in regular print at the top with pay less in bold letters underneath it.

Now, this ad looked almost identical to the pay less rent a car ad. This caused, obviously, quite a few problems. People would often call bargain auto rentals thinking they were actually calling pay less because of these issues. And obviously, pay less sued bargain over this ad. To learn more, detectives went to Bargain Motors to speak with employees, but Michael was actually there, so detectives spoke with him first. He repeated that he had no idea who would have wanted to hurt Marlene, but this time he also mentioned that he was involved in a $150,000 lawsuit in the Chicago area

concerning a disputed win of his racehorse. Now, in my opinion, it seems like Michael was insinuating that maybe this lawsuit could be linked to Marlene's murder, as if maybe it was a revenge killing. Michael then revealed to detectives that he had talked to Marlene's son, Joe, more about the clown's white LeBaron. Michael had even shared several pictures of different models and years of LeBarons with Joe, which made Joe realize that the Clown's LeBaron was actually an older model box style, not a new model like he previously thought. Michael said that based on Joe's first description, he thought the Clown car might have been a rental car due to how new it was, but now that Joe thought it was an older model,

Michael thought it could have been sold at a dealership. He suggested detectives start looking at car dealerships that sold LeBaron's and repossessions that had taken place of LeBaron's. Detectives let Michael know that they were checking all aspects of the car, and Michael again insisted that they concentrate on car dealerships and any repossessions, as he did not feel that the car could have been a rental car, and he couldn't have been more obvious if he tried, right? If you're a cop, Derek, and you're talking to this guy whose wife was killed by a clown who was driving a white Chrysler LeBaron. And then you found that the same kind of car had been stolen from a rental car place that was at war with this woman's husband's car dealership.

And then you want to talk to the woman's husband and he's like, nah, it's not a rental car. Don't even look over there. Look here. Are you immediately thinking like this is suspicious? Why does he so badly want us to not go down this path and go down this path instead? What's at the end of this path? Of course. Yeah. It's going to make you want to explore it even further. So now I really, now I really want to go look into it. And so it's one of those situations where at this point, you're battling two things. You may have some suspicions about the individual, but you also have to be sympathetic to the situation where this person may not be the best person, but may also not be responsible for what happened to their wife. So you're trying to find that balance where you're talking to them as a victim, as a witness, but also at the same

time, a person of interest. So it's like this really weird balance where you also want them to continue to open up to you. Whether you think they're a witness or a suspect, you want them to continue to feel comfortable speaking with you because the more they speak, regardless of what side they're on, they may reveal something that could be helpful in the investigation. So yeah, detectives may have some suspicions at this point, but what they want to do is just continue to get him to speak and lock himself into certain statements because if it turns out to be false, they can use that against him later. And if he is telling the truth, maybe some insight that he has will help lead to the real killer. So either way, number one thing here is the fact that he's speaking with police openly and voluntarily, because if he's lying,

that will be revealed when they start to look in and cross-reference what he's actually saying. Right. And I mean, just as we just kind of talked about, the detectives who were talking to him, they're trained to sort of pick up on these sorts of things. And they thought that Michael's fixation on the car was suspicious. You know, he's like taking it upon himself to be like a detective and showing his stepson all these different pictures and kind of almost trying to lead him away from thinking it was a newer car to like, oh, are you sure it wasn't this car you saw? And then he's like, listen, Joe completely changed the story of what he told you, and now he thinks it's this. And he's trying to lead them down a different path.

Like, why would he be suggesting how they would investigate a lead so vehemently? However, because they didn't want to develop tunnel vision, and they wanted to make sure they covered their bases, they moved on and they interviewed several of Michael's employees. So numerous employees told detectives that back in April, a married couple, Alyssa and Vincent Restivo, called Bargain Motors, believing it to be Payless car rental, and they tried to return a 1990 white Chrysler LeBaron that they had rented from Payless. Michael ended up telling

the couple to park the car at Payless on Congress Avenue and leave the keys in the visor. He promised them that the car would be picked up. One of the employees at Barg on Congress Avenue and leave the keys in the visor. He promised them that the car would be picked up. One of the employees at Bargain Motors further told detectives that shortly after Bargain received the phone call from the Restavos, he drove Michael and Sheila to Payless car rentals. He watched them getting into a white LeBaron and driving off. And later, Michael explicitly told him not to mention the LeBaron to anyone. So it seems like Michael's good at being a small-time crook, you know, but when it comes to the big leagues, he's really not that slick. What do I always say to you?

If criminals were smart, they wouldn't get caught. It's the truth. I hate to say it. It's not to discredit law enforcement because there's some really smart detectives out there, and even if the criminals were smart, if the detectives are smarter, they'll catch them. But a lot of the times where we don't have all the information, the criminals do, they know what happened. So when you're uninformed and you're trying to piece it together, really, you're just trying to look for the mistakes at first, because the mistakes are

where the information is. So if the criminals are really good at their job and they ensure that they've tied up all loose ends, it makes our job very difficult, which is why 50% of the homicides in this country go unsolved, right? That's a major reason for- That's kind of a scary statistic if you think about it, Dan. It is. It is. It's why- But they can't all be smart criminals. Some of them are just lucky. Well, some of them are just lucky, timing, that's some of them are just lucky timing all those things. I mean, we've talked about cases where I mean, think about like, remember that? Jennifer Cassie, the fence was at the defense pool.

Same place I went in my head. Yeah. Like they're just the camera just happened to be snapping those photos. Criminal had nothing to do with it. Oh, my gosh. So that drives me crazy. That can happen as well but here you have a situation where if more than one person knows it's no longer a secret and

when you start involving people who don't have an incentive to lie they're gonna dime you out as soon as the police start asking questions so that's what you have here yeah what do they say two can keep a secret if one of them is dead? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Michael's involving all his employees because I think he got cocky, right? He's doing all these weird things with cars and racehorses and he's kind of getting away with it. And yeah, sometimes he gets caught up, but there's never any real repercussions. And he's kind of like, I'm real good at this stuff. You know, I can do anything. Nobody's ever going to catch me. You can't catch me. I'm the gingerbread man. But then he gets in, like I said, the big leagues when you're talking about murder and those kinds of investigations are going to go a lot harder, a lot deeper, and they're really not going to

leave any stone unturned. Well, think about this too. What they're doing here is time. So other than the flowers and the balloons, it seemed like, at least on the surface, that the intent here was, hey, if we do it far enough in advance, detectives won't go that far back. So as long as we're not doing it around the time of the murder, we should be good. And so you have this car that was taken back in April, so a little over a month. And then you also have the clown costume that was purchased prior as well. So you have a couple of things that were purchased in the hope that when detectives start to look into things, they won't go back far enough. And unfortunately for Michael and Sheila, at least at this point, it seems like their assumption was inaccurate. Detectives would go on to speak to that couple,

the one who had tried to return the Chrysler LeBaron, and they explained that they had tried to return the car to Payless, but the rental office was closed. So they went back home. They searched the phone book. They found an ad for what they thought was Payless, but actually belonged to Bargain Motors, called them up. A Bargain employee answered, claimed that they were part of Payless, which obviously is a complete lie. But the Restivos believed this to be true at the time and explained that they had tried to return the car, but found the business closed. So I wonder how many other times customers had called Bargain Motors and been like, hey, pay less.

And they're like, no, but we are. We're affiliated with them. We are kind of the same thing. Yeah, we can really we can do it. Not only can we do we can do it better. Come on. We can do anything that they can do. We can do better.

So, yeah, yeah no this is great though to have we're starting to put the puzzle pieces together i feel like now it's too far into it to be a red herring there's going to be some something here there's obviously substance and where there's smoke there's fire so uh this is going to get good and the fact that we're still only halfway through this episode i don't know where else we're going to go. But it's I feel like we're getting to a point now where Michael and Sheila are going to go from being persons of interest to suspects very quickly. Absolutely. Let's take a quick break and we'll be right back for the rest. All right, we're back. So the Restivos called Bargain Motors. The Bargain Motors employee was like, yeah,

we're part of Payless. We're affiliated with them. And then the same employee said that he would talk to his supervisor about what they should do and get back to them. The employee spoke to Michael, then called the Restivos back and said that his supervisor wanted them to leave the car in front of the Payless store on Congress Avenue with the keys placed above the visor. Following these instructions, the Restivos left the car at Payless. Then they called the same number to confirm they had done so. However, this time the employee denied giving those instructions. Alarmed, the Restivos rushed back to the Payless only to discover the car was gone after only 15 minutes had passed.

The couple called the police, reported the car as stolen. All of this information obviously intrigued the detectives as it linked Michael and his mistress Sheila to a car that perfectly matched the description of the vehicle used by the killer clown. Because remember, the employee at Bargain dropped Michael and Sheila off at Payless and saw them both get into that white Chrysler LeBaron and drive away. Yeah, it makes sense on the surface here. What you may have is like you're laying out, Michael sets up this call with the Restivos, gets them to drop the car off at a specific location where he knows it's going to be, goes and scoops up the car very quickly. And then when they call back to say, hey, the car's there, he can play dumb and say, oh, I never told you to do that. You better go get your car before something happens to it. And obviously, by the time they go back, the car is gone.

So now there's no paper trail between his dealership and the Restivos. So he, in his mind, has plausible deniability. He can say, yeah, they called me, but we never completed the transaction. Therefore, I never took possession of this LeBaron. Yeah, we never even told you to bring it there. What are you talking about? That's right. So I never had the LeBaron. Unfortunately for him, which really doesn't make any sense, the fact that he involved someone who wouldn't be part of this whole thing, that's... Yeah, why wouldn't you just have Sheila

drop you off and her drive away and then you drive away in the LeBaron? Like, come on, man. And you could still make a connection even if you didn't have the witness, but how much more secure are you now knowing that an impartial party saw them get out of his vehicle and into the LeBaron, both of them? It's a slam dunk at that point. If you didn't have that piece of the puzzle, maybe some of you out there say, oh, you know what though? It does look bad, but it's not. How do you convince a court of that? How do you convince a jury of that? Maybe they say, yeah, it's great. You're making that leap, but we don't know it definitively. Now with this outside party, this employee saying that he dropped them off at the LeBaron,

it's game over. Again, I've said game over a couple of times this episode, because I do feel at this point- It's just piling up. You've given us a couple of things that are, I wouldn't say a smoking gun individually, but in totality, yeah, this is a really compelling case. The question in my mind right now is, how is this all tied together? Is it just Michael and Sheila? Is there another person involved? What was the motive behind it?

That's where I am right now, unless you throw something at me that completely changes my mind. Well, detectives were now wondering if the two LeBarons were one and the same. And if so, did that confirm Sheila and Michael were both involved in Marlene's murder? Good question. So detectives continued their investigation. And on May 30th, a white LeBaron was found at a Winn-Dixie located at the intersection of Royal Palm Beach Boulevard and Okeechobee Boulevard in Palm Beach. Witnesses told detectives that the car had been there since at least 8.30 a.m. on the 27th. That's obviously one day after Marlene was shot. The car had a license plate on it, so the number was run through the system, and it was determined that this LeBaron was registered under a different tag name, which belonged to, can you guess? Payless Car Rental. No. I know, right? No chance.

It's all falling into place. All falling into place. Even without those plates though, think about what you just said there. The Restivos' vehicle was taken in April. Okay. It was, let's say some random person stole it, did a quick joy ride with it and then parked it. Or sold it for parts or whatever. Whatever. Well, it wouldn't be found in that condition if it was, but this vehicle- It wouldn't be found that many weeks later. So the fact that the vehicle was found on the 30th, days after the murder is not good. And then on top of that, you have the employees confirming that, hey, by the way, this vehicle hasn't been here since April. So even though you may have had this

out as a stolen vehicle since April, this vehicle has only been parked here since, oh, coincidentally, right around the time of the murder. And here's the thing that, yeah, I thought was interesting. Winn-Dixie, it's a store, right? Like a gas station kind of store? Yeah, public place. So the employees and the witnesses said at least 8.30 a.m. on the 27th, which means that's probably when they were just getting up, getting about, getting into work. It probably was parked there the night before, in the dark of night. And then just everybody realized it was there when they started going there in the morning. So the night after Marlene's murder, the car is abandoned literally directly after the murder. They would want to get rid of it as soon as possible because that's the that's the link between them and the murder. So they want to get it out of their hands as quickly as they can.

And again, just a stupid move. Yeah. As far as the criminals are concerned, because you think about DNA and trace evidence. Again, we're talking in the 90s, so it's not as big of a concern, but you'd probably want to take that car and burn it. Yeah, they didn't even bring it that far. It was in Palm Beach. It doesn't make a lot of sense. And as you alluded to, you bring the vehicle there. The employees are going to come in the next morning. They know what vehicles are supposed to be there. So when they roll up- It's a brand new white Chrysler LeBaron.

They're going to say, well, whose car is this? And should we have it towed? Is it someone else who parked here? So it's going to be on people's minds. It's just not very well thought out. That's all I'll say. Yeah. It's Florida, man. There's swamps everywhere up in here, man. Yeah, dump it. Like find someplace else. You just park in like a convenience store parking. And you're like, all set. We really did something here. Yeah. Not not trying to give any ideas, but just a very poorly executed strategy altogether. If this was the original back to the drawing board sort of situation. So obviously, this confirmed that the LeBaron was the same exact LeBaron that Michael and Sheila stole from Payless

before the murder, which directly now connects them to the murder. So this car was towed to the crime lab and then obviously searched for physical evidence. And what do you think they found in there? Well, they found several small orangish-red curly hair fibers that were in the area of the passenger seat, the back seat, and the driver's door. These fibers didn't look natural. They looked acrylic, almost like they came from a clown wig. Additionally, there were long brown human hairs found in multiple parts of the car and burgundy fibers found on the carpet. In the trunk, detectives located a brown paper bag from Publix. If you remember, that's the same exact place the clown's flowers and balloons had come from.

The car keys were not found in the car and there were no signs of hot wiring, leading detectives to believe that whoever used the car actually had the keys. Maybe somebody had left them under the visor outside of the Payless rental car place. However, the keys were never located. So I guess the case is over then. We can't, nothing else we can do. We have to tow this. We can't drive it. It's too hard. So glad to see DNA was found though. And also all the trace evidence as far as the fiber. So really early stages of this whole, you know, science and forensic science where we are in the true crime space, as far as what we were doing as far as investigation.

So good on them. Good on them to find that stuff and preserve it correctly. Yeah, I mean, obviously they sent all the hairs and fibers off for testing. And you'd think with, especially with the human hair, like this is a lock. They're going to figure out where it comes from. But unfortunately at that time,

DNA analysis was not advanced enough to identify whose long brown hair was left behind. And even like now, it's difficult. Like we remember with the Casey Anthony, that happened in the 90s. They needed like something with a root to kind of determine the exact DNA. So they could only tell from the hair itself, sort of like had it been treated with coloring, had it been this or had it been that, but they can't really tell if there's no like DNA attached. You need some skin cells. Now they have mitochondrial DNA where they can do more like in today's- Which is so cool. Yeah. In today's world, there's much more you can do, but let's put it into context, right? 1994. Why is that significant? Think about what happened in 1994. Nicole Brown Simpson, right? That was like the first big case where we started. I mean, I'm sure there's others. Someone will correct me in the comments, but that was the first real case where we started to hear

about DNA and how good it was and how reliable it was. Dr. Henry Lee was involved in that case. That's 94. And that was a very highly publicized case where you're bringing in some of the top experts in the country. This is 1990. Again, not as prevalent. So unless they literally had the entire, you know, the entire root of the hair and some skin, it's still a relatively new technology and science. And I'm sure the scientists involved with it were not that great at that point because it's still new. Exactly. But I mean, what they did have enough advanced technology for was to determine that the orangish red hair was acrylic and from a wig, just like the detectives suspected. All of this information told detectives that the stolen Payless car was the same car as the clown's white LeBaron. So on the same day that the LeBaron was located, detectives decided to bring Sheila in for more questioning. So they had officers day that the LeBaron was located, detectives decided to bring Sheila in for more questioning. So they had officers sit outside her home and wait for her to get there. When she arrived, she was with her mother, Mary. So both were asked to go to the station for questioning.

They both agreed. Mary was interviewed first, and she said that around 12.30 p.m. on the 26th, Sheila arrived at her home in Indiantown, which is 40 miles away from West Palm Beach. Mary said she thought Sheila was wearing a purple shirt and faded jeans and was driving a small gray vehicle when she arrived. There wasn't any information in the police notes about what Mary said happened after Sheila showed up at her house, but we know that before the interview was over, detectives asked Mary if Sheila had a gun, and she said yes. In fact, around three to four weeks prior to the murder, Sheila called her looking for the gun, just like she'd called her estranged husband. Mary said she didn't think Sheila ever found the gun. Sheila was interviewed next, but she asked

for an attorney, so detectives ended the interview, then told her that they were getting a search warrant for her house. Detectives later searched Sheila's home and collected multiple items, including two pairs of black lace-up style boots, consistent with the ones that Joe said the clown was wearing. And remember, Joe is Marlene's son. Investigators later processed the shoes and recovered various hair fibers from the bottoms of the shoes, specifically orangish acrylic fibers and burgundy fibers that looked just like the ones found in the LeBaron. But again, DNA analysis wasn't advanced enough to prove for a fact that they were the same. While it seemed like everything was coming together,

the evidence detectives had so far wasn't enough for a warrant. So the investigation continued on. On June 1st, Marlene's funeral was held, and the police were present, taking pictures, keeping track of who was there, and looking for odd behavior. And this is a very common thing that police do. And I don't know that for sure. You're the police officer. I just know that in a lot of cases where a murder happens and they don't know who did it, they will go to the funeral. And why do they do that, Derek? Well, there's a few reasons. First and foremost, you want to develop an understanding of the family dynamic, who's there, who's not there. Are there any mannerisms or behaviors that are displayed during those interactions where

you may be able to draw some conclusions from? And at minimum, you want to document, you want to make note of the people who are there because as you're conducting your preliminary investigation, you're still learning all the parties involved. And at that point, everyone's a suspect. So you have nothing to lose, everything to gain. You take a bunch of photos, you take some video. And if down the road, you do develop a person of interest, when you bring them in, you may be able to question them about certain things. And if you've documented correctly, you can go back and cross-reference to see if they were lying or not. And if they were, you can then use that video or photo to bring it back to them and say, hey, listen, you're lying. We don't understand why. Here's what we have. Now

you fill in the blank and tell us your reasoning behind it. So it may not go there. There's a lot of times where you collect evidence and you don't end up using it. But I'll tell you, there's also a lot of times where you don't collect the evidence and then you're kicking yourself in the ass after the fact because you didn't. And according to Joe, Sheila Keene was at the funeral, even though she'd been having an affair with Marlene's husband. In the days, weeks and months after the funeral, multiple people were interviewed. And at one point they brought in Jean. And remember, Jean had been dating Joe at the time of his mother's murder. And she made another statement. Jean was asked if Joe had ever discussed the investigation with her. And she replied, quote, I did not like to talk about it

with Joe because he just starts crying. He loved his mom. I loved her too. End quote. Jean told detectives that Joe and his mother were real close. They never fought. They argued with each other, but never fought. Jean was asked if Joe ever said who he thought killed his mother. And Jean answered no. Next, she was asked if she could recall who he thought killed his mother, and Jean answered, No. Next, she was asked if she could recall anything that stood out from the shooting, and she said, The shooter walked real slow to the car, got in the car, looked at us. I remember those eyes so horrible, and he drove away real slow." She said the clown was a man with light blue eyes, but if you recall from Part 1, Joe said the clown's eyes were dark brown. So Jean was then shown a picture of the stolen LeBaron

that was recovered from the Winn-Dixie parking lot. And she told detectives with 100% certainty that it was not the same car she'd seen the clown drive. The one she'd seen had a pinstripe down the side. This information really stood out to detectives because in Jean's first interview, she was asked if the car had pinstripes. And remember, she said, I don't really know. She hadn't gotten, she hadn't had her glasses on.

And so she didn't get a good look at the car. But now she remembers the color of this person's eyes and the pinstripes on the car. So that's a little shady. This is why I'll say it now. I've said it a million times to you guys as investigators. This is one of our biggest barriers to entry when it comes to solving a case. It's the witnesses because they're not all created equal. And it doesn't mean that they have malicious intentions, but just like Stephanie's laying out right here, initially she had minimal information to provide because of the limitations with her eyesight.

But after talking to other people and speculating probably on her own time and maybe having dreams about it, you start to mix what is reality from what you've heard from other people and the two start to meld together where now you can't really differentiate between what you've heard from others and what you remember seeing or hearing. And again, this isn't saying that she's doing it intentionally. She truly believes it and will find a way to deliver her opinions with a high level of conviction to make detectives question whether or not they have the right vehicle. So it's a big thing that we have to go through all the time. And it's something that you have to recognize.

You have to document and see where it goes, because if you don't, and this is brought up later, a defense attorney could say, hey, you intentionally left this information out because it didn't match your narrative. So you have to put it in there and then you have to find ways to locate other witnesses who may discredit what you have here. And then you go with the majority. If five witnesses say no pinstripe and one witness says, yes, there was a pinstripe, in most cases, that's the outlier and they probably got it wrong. But these are the circumstances we deal with every day and it does not make our jobs easy. So do you remember the psych experiment they did, I think back in like the 1940s or 1950s was like a car crash experiment that they, I think it was like two psychiatrists. I should look it up, but basically it was to prove that eyewitness

testimony is not reliable. And so they did, maybe it was not even the 40s or 50s. It may have been later. I feel like I just wish I could remember this from college. But they showed that a witness's testimony can change from the first recollection. And if time has passed and they're exposed to new information in the interval between witnessing the event and then recalling it, the new information can have effects on what they recall. So the original memory can be modified, changed, or supplemented. And because of this study, they decided psychologically, like the first, if you interview a person like on the day or the day after it happened, that's going to be the most reliable testimony because then if time passes, they've talked to people. And maybe they've talked to each other, right? Like after the police leave, Joe and Jean and their friends, they're like, oh, what did you see? Well, what did you see? Well, I saw this and the guy had dark brown eyes. And now your memory is being changed,

modified. It's very flexible, especially then. And now you don't even remember what you actually saw. Now you're it's got like a Frankenstein memory of things you heard from other people. And you're like you said, thinking about it. And it was a like a Frankenstein memory of things you heard from other people and you're, like you said, thinking about it. And it was a very good study and it showed how unreliable witness testimony can be. Also, it did prove that when police ask leading questions, it can, once again, affect a witness's memory, those leading questions specifically. Yeah. Just based on your behavior, a detective's response non-verbally can affect the witnesses because they're looking for affirmation that they're on the right track. Of course.

And you may do something that suggests to them that they're wrong and they'll change their story. Let me throw one more curveball at you. or a home invasion, and the offenders will intentionally plant quote-unquote witnesses at the scene who will come forward with the vehicle description or the shooter description, and they will say, hey, listen, you didn't hear it from me, but it was a purple Camry that did this. Black rims, about a 2000, just be on the lookout for it. And they're coming forward and they're positive of what they saw. Come to find out they're somehow connected to our offenders later down the road. So we have decoys. That's crazy.

We have decoys that are being planted to throw us off. So that's another thing that we're dealing with. It's not fun, Stephanie. It can be hard. It is a challenge. It can be rewarding. But it is not fun and the criminals don't play fair. That's what I'll say. They do not. I completely agree with you. And yes, that kind of shows like that study kind of shows the exact same thing that people are

pliable. They can be convinced that what they saw wasn't what they saw. And especially when there's high stakes, like in this situation, you know, you don't want to say the wrong thing and then have the police led in the wrong direction. You don't want to say the wrong thing and then have the police led in the wrong direction. You don't want to be responsible for this woman's killer getting away. So you almost rack your brain. You second guess yourself, third guess yourself. And then when really you should just be listening to your gut and just recalling what you saw that day. That's it. Yeah. But I always say, tell me what you know, not what you think. Yeah. Simple. Stick with that premise and you'll be okay. Just tell me what you know,. Stick with that premise and you'll be OK. Just tell me

what you know, not what you think occurred and we'll be fine. Well, we're going to take our last break and then we'll be right back to finish today's episode. OK, so detectives ended up speaking to Christopher DeSantis, an attorney who had previously represented Joe in an assault case. Now, according to court records, Joe participated in the stabbing and beating of another man in 1986, and he was also accused of stealing a jet ski in 1989. And remember, Joe was Marlene's son. In the end, Joe was sentenced to probation for the stabbing and beating and the jet ski theft charges were dropped. During the time Christopher DeSantis spent representing Joe, he got to know Marlene and Michael quite well. DeSantis told the detectives that on one day in 1989, he and Michael were walking out of the

courtroom when Michael asked, quote, if a husband were to kill his wife, what would happen to her estate? End quote. DeSantis told detectives, quote, my first impression was, is this guy nuts? End quote. Yes. Yes, he is. DeSantis explained that he, quote, my first impression was, is this guy nuts? End quote. Yes. Yes, he is. DeSantis explained that he always thought there were no problems in the Warrens' marriage. So he figured Michael's question was simply, you know, out of curiosity, like rhetorical, you know, a question you would ask in law school. So DeSantis answered the question honestly and told Michael that Florida law was peculiar. He said, quote, it really isn't an issue of whether a man kills his wife the question is whether the man is convicted of murdering his wife because if he's convicted of murdering his wife

he wouldn't inherit the estate but if he were convicted of a lower charge he would not only that but if he had a friend who did it and they couldn't tie him as an accessory to the friend he'd get away scot-free end quote of, all of this was very interesting to detectives. As the investigation continued, detectives received a call from a man who said he'd seen Sheila in his store around two to three years prior to Marlene's murder. And while she was there, she was wearing a clown suit. Detectives went on to locate a picture of Sheila wearing a clown costume for Halloween. And this was notable because in Sheila's first interview, remember, she told detectives she'd never owned a clown costume, which could have technically been true. I thought that too, when they were like, have you ever owned a clown costume? She was like, I never have owned one. I've rented them. I've worn them, but never owned

one. So detectives continued interviewing people. They were also investigating Michael's business, Bargain Motors, and its link to the white LeBaron used by the clown. During this part of the investigation, they learned that Michael and at least one employee were involved in various legal activities. Surprise, surprise. Including turning back the odometers on cars that they were selling, stealing customers' cars and claiming the insurance money on them, and operating a chop shop. On October 25th, around five months after Marlene was killed, the police conducted an overnight raid at Bargain Motors, where they seized file cabinets, insurance information, and other documents. According to neighbors, Michael seemed more worried about the raid's

impact on business than the current investigation into his business. But Michael should have been worried about the investigation, because on October 26th, he was arrested and he was charged with 13 counts of operating a chop shop, racketeering, filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim, conspiracy to commit grand theft, and just plain old regular grand theft. At a court hearing, the prosecutor said the charges were just the tip of the iceberg of criminal activity committed by Michael and his employees. Michael's attorney fought back and claimed the detectives were, quote, frustrated by their inability to find the killer. They're looking for anything they can to justify the time spent investigating my client, end quote. The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office spokesman refuted that claim, stating that Michael's arrest was not related to the murder case. The charges stemmed from evidence gathered about his business dealings while investigating

Marlene's death, which is fair. And, you know, these defense attorneys are always going to just pull things out of their ass and throw anything at the wall like, oh, they're just mad they can't find the killer. So they're trying to get my client for anything. And it's like if your client wasn't doing anything wrong, they wouldn't be able to get him for anything. Do you understand? Yeah. No. And that's how a lot of these cases go where even on a traffic stop, right, we might stop you for a broken taillight. Then we find out that you're a fleeing felon, that you're wanted in another state. So it's one maybe smaller crime. In this case, it was a bigger crime, a murder. But yeah, in a lot of situations, investigators can be there for one specific reason, and it may open doors to another situation that you're involved in. So it's possible. Now I'm going to say this because I'm always honest with you guys. Do I think that this was partially because law enforcement believed that Michael was involved in Marlene's murder? Yep. I do. I absolutely do. You do? I do. Because I kind of just feel like they were like, yeah, they thought he was, but also

when they're investigating, they're like, damn, this guy's got a lot in his closet. Like, there's a lot going on here. And they wouldn't have charged them if they didn't have something. But for me, and I'm just speculating here, but I think that's my one job is to take you behind the curtain. I'm not saying they did it in like a retaliatory sense. They had the justification to do it. But do I think they maybe took a little bit more time to make sure they got it right

to start to pin Michael to the wall? I'm sure it was in the back of their minds that this guy was also on their list as a potential murderer or involved in a murder. And I don't think that was lost on them as they were conducting this investigation for a chop shop. What's the motive though? Like, do you think you're going to get him to confess to the murder by getting him on lesser charges? No, not him. For these chop shop things. Not him, but maybe you start to put him in some trouble and he starts to get a little distracted and maybe someone else. Maybe or partners or business associates start to see

he's going down, police are on to him, and maybe with him being tied up in all this litigation, they're more willing to come forward, especially in a world where potentially they could also be charged as co-conspirators in these other crimes. If you want some incentive to get them to come forward, say, hey, listen, work with us on this and we'll let you go on that. For all we know, this employee, I don't know if it's in chronological order here, but this employee that dropped Sheila and Michael off, I'm assuming because of the way you put it in here was before this, but there's also a world where this information came to light after this stuff started happening. No.

So I think you're right. Because if you look at it, it's kind of like the mob, right? It's like the mob. If you want the big guy, you've got to put pressure on the little guys who are involved with what the big guy is doing. But it's like, okay, you weren't the one that ordered this. You're not the one in charge. But you're going to go down for this unless you help us get Michael, right? Because they said they were looking into Michael and his employees with the odometer stuff, the insurance

stuff. So yeah, they're probably looking at these employees and they're like, listen, we know it wasn't you. Okay. You're not the kingpin. You were told to do it. You're just following orders. You want to go to the people who have a lot to lose, but weren't as heavily involved. Weren't as heavily invested, yeah. You can work with those people. Because what they're trying to do is get Michael for murder. And they're like, we don't care about this chop shop stuff, man. That's why I'm going with this. I'm not trying to- I agree with you. I see that.

Anybody who's been in a situation where your vehicle was stolen and it was brought to a chop shop, I apologize. I'm not making light of the situation, but I can tell you that on our list of priorities, a stolen vehicle that's going to be replaced with insurance money is not at the top of our list of the crimes to solve. Yes, those crimes can lead to other things where there may be narcotics involved or money laundering or whatever it might be. But there's more going on here where they took a serious interest in these crimes because of who was involved in them. That's just that's just where I'm coming from. I said, that's why I'm glad I asked you because at first I was like, well, they probably just,

because if it's me, I'm like looking into this guy for one thing and then I'm like, oh, look at all this other stuff. Let's just clean this mess up while we're doing this. But you're completely right because he's the guy at the top.

He's got all these people around sort of insulating him. You chop away at the insulation and leave him exposed. Yeah, so the spokesman comes out and says, listen, we're here doing our job. That's what we're supposed to do. We here.

And he's not wrong, right? He's, you know, what he doesn't know doesn't hurt him or what she knows doesn't hurt her, whoever the spokesperson was. But that's my take on it. I'm reading between the lines. I think there's more to the story. Totally. So the investigation continues.

And before the end of the month, Michael had a bond hearing. During this hearing, the prosecution officially stated that Michael was a suspect in Marlene's murder and that Sheila was also being looked into. This was the first time authorities publicly revealed that they had suspects in Marlene's murder. And this kind of also shows you like how long law enforcement can keep things close to the vest because Marlene was murdered in May. Right? They were finding out all of this stuff really early, like by May 30th, they had the car, right? The Chrysler LeBaron. They don't arrest Michael until October. And then they're publicly saying things. They've been working on this for months and months and months. They kind of knew what they were looking for,

but they didn't say anything to the public at that point because there was no need to. But when they were sure, they were sure. That's right. And at that point, they have him. So they don't mind showing their cards to a certain degree. And this also ties back into what we were just saying. They're out there revealing in this prosecution that they're looking at him for a murder as well, even though that's not what he's there for at that time. So to think that that wasn't part of the equation when they were going after all this, that would be ridiculous. You're right. Is that what you wanted to hear? No, no. I don't think you were like, you didn't die on that hill. I'm earning my paycheck this week. That's all. I was just curious, you know. I think I'm like too naive sometimes where I'm like, no, they were just in the shop. They were in bargain motors and they were like, something smells fishy here.

And listen, I don't have a problem with it, by the way. I mean, listen, you know, if you're involved in a murder and you're doing other shady shit and I can't get you on the murder, I'm going to look into your other stuff. And if you're committing crimes, I'm going to do my job and hold you responsible for those things. I know. I agree. It just feels a little. Well, you got to think about something because I don't think you're the only one. Let's talk about that because I don't feel a little, I don't know. Well, you got to think about something because I don't think you're the only one. Let's talk about that because I don't think you're the only one that's going to think that.

And I'm not going to convince people to feel otherwise. But think about something. If it's your loved one that was murdered and this person has dotted their I's and crossed their T's, but they're a known criminal who's committing other more, I guess, not as severe crimes. Would you want detectives working your loved one's case to use that? Would you want them to look the other way and say, oh, you know what? That's not the crime we're going for. No, listen, as we said earlier, criminals do not play fair. We have an obligation, most police officers, to play by the rules. Well, we are there to find

out what crimes you've committed and hold you responsible for them. So if you're going to go out there and commit a murder and at the same time be committing these more petty crimes, you better be clean because when we come knocking, we may not have enough the smoking gun to get you on the murder. But if there's other things that you're tied to that we can prove, we're going to go after those things because we're hoping that that leads to where we really want to be. So we're playing by the rules. Yeah. Is it a little, I guess, for lack of a better word, petty, because we're going after these more, there's bigger crimes to go after. But overall, if this is all you have at the time,

you got to use the tools at your disposal. And that's what law enforcement is doing here. They're not planting evidence. They're not, you know, lying on the reports there. Michael was committing these crimes. So they're using what he did against him, which that's, that's fair game. Yeah. I mean, it's a slippery slope, right? Because obviously when you put it that way and, and you're like, Oh, if it was your, yeah, if it was my relative, I'd go vigilante style, you know, I'm like bring Batman and I don't care. There's no rules. But then you think about it as like on a, on a a on a greater scale. And you're like, well, but you're right. Like criminals don't play by the rules.

And the police often have to to such an extent where it makes it almost impossible to sometimes catch these people and get them on anything. So I don't know. Yeah. Final question. If they're not committing those more inferior crimes and police are doing the right thing, there's nothing they can do, right? Criminals, they'll be fine. The only reason the law enforcement was able to do what they did with these chop shop allegations was because there was evidence to support it. So it's not, don't blame police, blame Michael and his co-conspirators. Because if Michael was tied up in this bigger crime, he probably should have made sure he was playing by the rules and all the other situations. So something like this, which you have referred to the mob in the past, like that's why they really didn't want, they didn't really want

people committing the petty crimes around them because they didn't want to get tied up in something that was going to lead to something bigger or expose something bigger. So yeah, this is his own doing. Law enforcement just did a good job of using what they did have to bring charges against him. And I don't know the significance of those charges, but it seems like that opened doors to some potential leads for the murder, which if that's what your goal is, then they accomplished it. I'm interested to hear what people have to say about that because I know it's going to be split. Because it is. I'm split. You know, it's like, I don't know. It's hard. There's these gray areas. I'm not suggesting. I want to make it perfectly clear, although I think it already is.

You're not suggesting setting people up, obviously. I'm not suggesting setting people up or some type of entrapment or planting of evidence or kind of embellishing on a police report. Yeah, you're right. If you've got skeletons in your closet and you don't want them revealed, don't murder people. Yeah, I'm saying if you murdered someone, but you're also stealing vehicles, that's on you.

Yeah. That's on you. And if I, as a police officer, find out that you're stealing vehicles and I can get you on that, but I can't get you on the murder, I'm not giving you any breaks on the stolen vehicles. Simple. Yeah, I get it. So that's where I'm at. But I'm not giving you any brakes on the stolen vehicles. Simple.

Yeah, I get it. So that's where I'm at. But I'm not saying in any way, shape, or form that law enforcement should bend the rules or go in the gray area. They got to do it by the book. So if you commit a crime, that's on you, not them. Well, before the statement that Michael and Sheila were being looked into for Marlene's murder, the investigation had been kept fairly quiet from the public, but the news didn't come as a surprise to Marlene's

parents. Her stepfather, Bill, later said that he had suspicions all along, and in fact, he'd even straight up asked Michael if he was involved. Bill said, quote, I told him, Mike, I don't think that you did it, but I know pretty damn well that you know more about it than you're letting out, end quote. According to Bill, Michael responded by saying, quote, honest, honest, Bill, I don't know, end quote. Then the two men changed the subject, but Bill didn't believe him. The investigation into Michael's business dealings continued, and he was later charged with more crimes connected to bargain motors, bringing his total to 66. But none of those counts had anything to do with the stolen LeBaron because in the end, even though there was all that forensic evidence, authorities were unable to prove that Michael and

Sheila stole the LeBaron from Payless. That's frustrating. Instead, because it's like the fibers that were in the car, in the wig fibers that were in the car were on Sheila's shoes. The employee dropped them off at the freaking car and saw them drive away in it. Same exact car. Like the bag from the Publix. The balloons and the basket were bought from. This is crazy. Well, they know they got the car.

They know they got the car that's involved. Or they believe they do other than the one outlying statement. They know they got the car. The problem is they got to tie Michael and Sheila to that car, which you're relying on one person. And again, this could come back to why is that person divulging that information? Did they have something on this person as well? Well, yeah, because get this, one of Michael's employees was arrested and convicted of stealing the car. There you go. There you go. There you go. Probably the same employee that said he dropped them off there and witnessed them drive away in it.

There you go. So we're on to something here. So while Michael awaited trial for all 66 of his charges, detectives publicly announced that they officially knew who was responsible for Marlene's murder. It was none other than Michael Warren and Sheila Keene. Detectives said that while they realized Michael couldn't be the gunman, they had evidence to suggest he was involved in Marlene's murder. It was none other than Michael Warren and Sheila Keene. Detectives said that while they realized Michael couldn't be the gunman, they had evidence to suggest he was involved in Marlene's murder. They also had a lot of evidence pointing to his mistress, Sheila, as being the

killer clown. Detectives went on to cite several possible motives for Michael and Sheila to kill Marlene, their affair, the five-figure life insurance policy for Marlene, and the fact that Michael would now own all of the Warrens' property. He wouldn't lose half of it in the divorce Marlene was planning. But even though detectives felt like they figured out all the puzzle pieces, they still didn't have enough evidence. They said, quote, we may have enough evidence for an arrest, but we may not have enough for successful prosecution, end quote. So at that time, no murder charges were filed. But as we know, that is not the end of the story. We have one more part before we wrap up Marlene Warren's tragic death. So join us for that next week. And Derek, what do you think about this, where we

stand? I don't know. I was going to pose a question to you. What do you think about the fact, I'm taken back by the fact law enforcement came out and said, hey, we know who did this. You just praised them for keeping stuff close to the vest. Yeah. Well, at this point, they're like, whatever. And now they're like, let's throw it out there, put it into the public. We're this confident about it. They murdered this individual. Well, it was a combination of the two. We don't have enough to charge them, but we want everyone to know. They have enough to arrest, not enough to prosecute. Right. So they're walking free, but yet they're being portrayed as killers by law enforcement.

Well, maybe they want people to come out because Michael's got all these affiliates and associates in this underworld. But how do you feel about that? Honestly, we just talked about the ethics. I don't know. See, once again, it's like a... I don't love this. I don't love this. See, we're switching roles here. Especially in Florida, man, where everybody owns a gun. You don't know some vigilante style justice happening. I don't love it from the sense of what if you're wrong? If you were that certain, then that means you have something that definitively

puts them behind bars, which in that case, you should charge them and you'll get them hopefully convicted in a court of law. But for you to come out and say, yeah, it was these two people, it was a combination of them without enough to even feel like you could get a conviction, I feel that's a slippery slope. So on one end, I'm defending their work to bring charges against Michael for his other crimes. On the other end, I don't love this. And I would love to hear your opinions out there of what you feel about it on the two

topics. Obviously, them going after Michael for the other charges. I would like to think most people, we can see some common ground there. But how do you feel about law enforcement coming out publicly and accusing two people being responsible for Marlene's murder with, in their own words, not enough for a successful prosecution? Well, I mean, it kind of feels like where we're at, right? So this is 1990. Their DNA technology and forensic technology is severely lacking at this point, right? Just from what we're saying, you've said what?

It's a rap? Oh, yeah. I thought it's a slim dunk. The police are thinking the same thing, and they know even more than we do. But they're like, we just need a little more. And maybe if we go public with this, some seedy associates from the underbelly of society crawls out and says, actually, I know something. If you really need to prosecute this dude, I mean, Michael's got tons of enemies. If you really need to prosecute this dude, I can help you. And maybe that's what they're hoping for. So they're at a place where they need just a little bit more. They don't know what else to do to get it. So they're kind of like desperation, like let's put it out there and see

what comes our way. I'm going to hit you with another theory that is taking you guys again behind the curtains here because this has happened to me. Here's a situation where law enforcement's working their asses off. And we've talked about all the evidence that they've gathered throughout this case. The bag, the balloons, the car, the witness who saw Sheila and Michael get into the vehicle, the fact that the description of the person who purchased the balloons, the flowers, the clown costume, all matches Sheila, right? Law enforcement's going to the prosecutor and saying, hey, here you go. Here's your case in a bow. We have enough. And the prosecutor, which has been known to do this because they play defense attorney as well, goes, ah, you know what? I need more.

And law enforcement is internally going, are you kidding us? Like, this is a slam dunk case. We have enough here. where because the state's attorney or the DA or the AG don't always agree with law enforcement, this is a way of police coming out and saying, we know you did it, but apparently we need more for a successful prosecution. We have enough to bring charges, which is what our part would be, but apparently we don't have enough for a successful prosecution. So maybe there's a world where law enforcement is an internal conflict that we will never know about, where they're sending a shot across the bow to the state's

attorney, the DA, whatever it is, who's in charge of this one and letting the public know, hey, these two people are murderers, but we don't have enough to prosecute them right now, according to so-and-so. So it could be a little politicking going on here as well. I'm just saying, I don't have anything to, but that's something that we wouldn't do that in Rhode Island. You'd get hammered for that if you did something like that. But I have had many situations where we didn't agree with the attorney general on the decision not to pursue charges against someone. I have had situations. That's true too. The police could be like, we want to press charges and the DA's like, ah. See the wording? We're reading between the lines here. We have enough evidence for an arrest,

but we may not have enough for a successful prosecution. It sounds very just, you know, nothing crazy on the surface, but when you really pick it apart, they're saying, we feel we have enough to arrest him right now, but we don't have enough for a successful prosecution. Well, guess what? Law enforcement wouldn't determine if there was enough for a successful prosecution. The attorneys were. So without naming them, it sounds like that's what they're saying. And I've had this happen on Breaking Homicide.

Like putting pressure on the DA. Public pressure. Public pressure where now people are going to go, what do you mean? You have enough for an arrest, but not. What are you talking about? And it's going to maybe cause some rumblings within the different agencies. I've kind of pulled a move similar to this with Breaking Homicide, where I've said things like, you know, we feel like we know what happened here. But unfortunately, the powers that

be don't want to take the next step. I went out and spoke publicly about the Cody Joyce case regarding that one where I felt like they had enough. And yet I put it at their feet saying, hey, the AG doesn't want to do anything. So shout out Steven Zapala for that one, for not doing anything. But that's a whole different story for a different day as far as the corruption in that city and that state. Yeah, because usually it's the police getting the public pressure. Yeah. You know, and getting called out

through like social media and stuff. But now they're like, let's see if we can use this to our advantage, put some pressure on the district attorney's office or is it a state's attorney in Florida? I can't remember, but either way, same thing. Put some pressure on the people who are doing the prosecuting, who are kind of going back and

forth and waffling on whether or not we can do this. Have the public do something and put pressure because this poor woman's dead, and then just step back and see what happens. Now that I've said it to you that way, it's almost like when you hear a word or a sound and you have a word on the screen that you read, it always sounds like the sound being said is the word you're reading. Now that I've said that to you, thinking about it from that context, when you reread that quote, doesn't it sound like they're basically throwing an FU to the prosecution? Yeah, right? Yeah, it's kind of like because the police don't decide whether they have enough to prosecute.

That's it. That's not their job. Yeah, it's not their job at all. But they're putting it out there that we don't feel we have enough for a successful prosecution. They're just not calling someone out specifically. They didn't even say we don't feel it was like, we may not have enough for a successful prosecution. You know, it's like, but they, they, they're like, we kind of think we do, but they don't. So they want, and we've had situations where the prosecution's like, oh no, we want a confession. Well, it's like, yeah, we do too. We would love that. That'd be great.

We'd also love a video. Would have loved that six months ago, my friend. Yeah, we'd also love a video showing them committing the crime. But unfortunately, what we have here is a witness saying they stole the car. And then the car having the orange wig, hair fibers being found days after the murder occurred. All the story not lining up. And then obviously the means, the motive, and the opportunity to do all this with the combination between Michael and Sheila. Yes, Michael can't be the gunman, but he absolutely could have facilitated everything here. So interesting to see where we are. There's a few different questions to weigh in on this one.

So I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts about this case. It feels like there's a power dynamic going on right now internally between law enforcement and whoever's in charge of prosecuting this case where there may be some disagreements going on. I'm interested to see if they were eventually charged because there's a whole nother part to this. So I know it's not a slam dunk or you would have ended it right here. So I'm curious to see how this one plays out. I'm wondering if they're actually, now I'm doubting whether they're going to be charged or not.

Well, you'll find out next week with everyone else. All right. Any final words from you? No, I think we're good. I'm actually excited to finish up this series because it does, yeah, there is some stuff coming. Damn, still more coming. All right, final word from me, little plug, K-Cups. All the K-Cups are back in stock, including the Stealth Roast. We now have those K-Cups as well. So if you want to go

check it out, go to criminalcoffeeco.com. It's all in stock right now. We were out of stock on all the bundles for almost a month. So we have another supply in. We do have plenty, but I wouldn't wait forever because it is going pretty fast. As always, guys, we appreciate you being here. Like, comment, subscribe. Way down below with your opinions on some of the different issues we discussed tonight. We really want to hear your opinions. Until then, everyone stay safe out there. We'll see you next week for part number three. Have a good night. Bye.