Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
Hey, everybody, it's Lacey, and I'm Lauren, and welcome to another episode of the Llamas Podcast.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: And today we're going to be continuing with our infamous women. And today we're going to be talking about serial killer Eileen Warnos.
And I, when Lacey mentioned this, wasn't sure who she was. But I, after Googling, I realized I did know who she is because of the movie Monster that had Charlie Theon in it, and this is who she played. So if that gives you a refresher for anybody like it did me, this is who we will be talking about today.
[00:00:40] Speaker A: Yep. And before we get there, Lauren, I do have a question.
So I know we've talked about power of attorneys recently and getting those done, but when should somebody get a will done? Because clearly it changes. Like, if you ever want to change it, you have to spend more money potentially to hire an attorney to get it done again. Is there a rule of thumb that you like to go by for when to do a will?
[00:01:05] Speaker B: I think there's a few different times we think about it, like, if you own real estate, I think that's always a good time to go ahead and get that will done. When you have children, I think that's definitely a good time because we want to make sure we put guardians for the children, and then we may not need to update it until the children are adults. So usually doing that one or then, you know, when you do have adult children. But the big thing about doing a wheel is you want to do it while you're mentally confident to do so, and we can't. Lately, I've been approached a lot by people who are in situations like maybe hospice or they're dying sooner rather than later.
And that's a hard situation for me because, yes, I want to help these people, but the question is they still have capacity to do so in this situation. So the bar for capacity with the will is pretty low. You just got to know who you want to have your stuff, what you have, and who you want to give it to. But when you're on hospice and you're like, being pumped full of morphine, mentally, you're not competent to sign a will, I don't think, because you're so, you know, drugged out or if you have been, the doctor told you, you know, you only have a day or two to live. Are you in the right mental state to make these decisions? So I think a lot of times people will put this off and off and then realize, hey, I need this when something bad happens. No, I'M not saying, like, if you've been diagnosed with cancer and they say it's terminal, you definitely probably still have time to do a will you still have capacity do so? But, like, when you wait to that end of life stages, I know, me and a lot of other attorneys that do this type where are going to question if you have the capacity to do so. And it's just a situation you don't want to put your family in. So I think, you know, the sooner the better. And realistically, don't wait. I mean, don't wait till you're 90 years old and you've been told you have, like three months to live and they're pumping you full of medicine. And I'm not saying you shouldn't have that medicine. You should to be comfortable, but it's messing with your mental state.
And none of us want to get in trouble for malpractice or doing wheels that we don't feel secure in doing. I'm not gonna do a wheel for somebody I don't think is competent. And so I just think, like, if you wait too late, there's a good chance you're not going to be able to get it done. And even if you do have to update it in the future, just know that that's, you know, one of those things that occasionally will come up, but we're not going to be updating it every year. It's more when big life changes happen. But don't wait until your family member has been on death's door to come do the wheel.
That's my little PSA for everybody in estate planning. Do it the sooner rather than later, because none of us are guaranteed not to walk out this door today and be hit by a bus.
Solid point.
[00:04:08] Speaker A: So quick question to segue into Eileen Warnos before we get into her. She had one child when she died and she was executed.
She died on death row. She had one child that was given up for adoption.
If she had no other surviving relatives, would that adopted child be able to inherit?
She had nothing. She was on death row, but that's.
[00:04:35] Speaker B: What I was gonna say. I really don't think she'd have. So it depends on the situation. But sometimes, like, usually when a person gets adopted, it, like, cuts all those rights from the parent. But there are some exceptions to that. I mean, and there's more exceptions, like for the child to be able to inherit from the parent than from.
For instance, like, if you gave your child up for adoption and then your child became a millionaire and died, you.
[00:05:04] Speaker A: Are not going to be able to.
[00:05:05] Speaker B: Go back and get you gave your child up for adoption. But there are some exceptions, like in this situation where she had had assets, there could be a chance that the birth child could be able to inherit from his mom in that situation, but we're never going to see it in the reverse.
[00:05:25] Speaker A: So moving on from that. So like I said, talking about Eileen Warnos here, and you probably shouldn't have, like favorite serial killer. I mean, I want to say, like it's, it's a, I guess the story fascinates me, especially as an attorney. Some of the moving parts I'm going to get into with her sentencing and how she was sentenced to death.
But, but going to Eileen Warno. So she is a notorious, notorious serial killer. And I think what makes her so notorious is kind of like what we were talking about last week, Lauren, just her being a female. When we think of serial killers, we typically think of men. Like most people, most serial killers that we know that have been, you know, convicted of multiple murders have been men. So I think one of the reasons she is so famous, I guess you would say, is because she is a female for killing multiple men.
So Eileen was born, her mom was like 14 years old when she married her dad and they, she had an older brother and she like two years after her brother was born, she, she was born. But by that point her mom had filed for divorce from her dad.
So Eileen never met her dad. And her dad was actually later convicted of rape and I think it was a minor as well. So he was in his like, life in prison and he died by suicide in prison. So she never met him.
And then her mom was like, I'm not raising these kids anymore. And so she left the kids at grandparents and was like, they're, they're Y's now. And the grandparents adopted her and her brother, which she didn't find out that they were adopted until later on in life. But she did just live just a very hard life.
It she had said that her grandfather abused her and would make her take her clothes off and was very terrible towards her. Her grandma later died and her grandpa kicked her out when she was like 12, 13, 14 years old.
And so that's what, when she started her career in sex work and that is what led to these murders is her career in, in sex work. So that's what she used to support herself once she was kicked out at a very young age.
She was already starting to dabble in it at like 12 years old, which is just insanity to me. But for drugs and a bunch of other stuff. And, oh, one thing to note, too, her dad was apparently diagnosed with schizophrenia and maybe a couple other mental health disorders. And so, like, when I talk about Eileen in these situations, I very much think she had mental illnesses as well, similar to his.
But she continued life as a sex worker, and she went on with that, and she was in and out. She eventually ended up in Florida, which is where these crimes were committed.
She murdered, like, six or seven men. But she had been in trouble a lot before then. And I'm not talking about just maybe shoplifting here and there. I'm talking. I think she chunked like a cue ball from. From playing oh, God on Blanken. Oh. Oh, yeah, she chunked one of that at somebody's head.
And so lots of physical violence. She had been arrested for, convicted for as well as, like, robbery. She had been in trouble with guns before. I mean, when she killed these men, it's not like we're going in with a clean record. And I have to say that she was, you know, she had quite, quite the history of violent acts. And I do believe she would have continued to be violent and probably murder if she had not been caught.
So the. What I find the most fascinating in this case is how she arrived to the death sentence with the first victim. So the first victim, she ended up killing him and all six. She said that they tried to rape her. That was her initial story when she got caught. And the way she got caught is like, she had fingerprints all in these men's cars. Like I said, she was involved in sex work. She said these men picked her up as a sex worker and she had a girlfriend at the time. And the girlfriend got a confession for immunity. So the girlfriend was. They. They reached out to her. She had fled away from Eileen and was like, hey, we will give you immunity, meaning should not be prosecuted if you help us get this confession. So they were able to elicit a confession from Eileen using the girlfriend. And so that's why she was arrested for the six murders. But the first one, she says he was trying to rape her.
And she details that very horribly. I won't go into details on the podcast, but it's very, very bad.
And so that was the first case she went to trial on.
This man actually had already been convicted of prior rape, and there was act. They had information about him being very harmful to women and violent to women. But none of that came in to the jury when determining whether or not Eileen should get the death sentence or not. Now, she did get the death penalty on the others. And I think she pled no contest on some, so maybe she still would have ended up on death row. But I think it more so stemmed from the first case, which I do think was true.
So I think, in my opinion, what I think happened is I do think this first man tried to rape her and that triggered her trauma. And like I said, I do think she was mentally. Well, she was diagnosed as antisocial personality, which is a very hard diagnosis, but I think that just triggered her and that's what led to the killing of the other men. I'm not convinced. And she later teetered back and forth on the other five men about them trying to rape her and harm her. And you know, then she subsequently killed, she shot all of them to death. So I don't know, I, I think the first one just triggered the trauma. I think he did try to rape her and if that hadn't happened, I don't know that she would have went on the killing spree. I think that's what triggered her. But I do believe the information about his past should have come in at least during the, the sentencing phase. What do you, what are your thoughts on that, Lauren?
[00:12:35] Speaker B: Well, I guess I have a question. So like since she confessed and they have a confession from her, it was there a trial or was like how did, was there a guilt or innocence phase since she confessed? Was there a regular trial?
[00:12:49] Speaker A: Yeah, so the first one was the others she pled no contest.
So with the first one there was a trial and that was the one. I think she continuously kept the same story that he did rape her and it was in self defense that she shot him. Initially it was all of them, but then she kind of backtracked and teetered. She kind of backtracked and teed on all of them at some points when she was actually on death row. Cuz I think she just, she even made statements that she just wanted to die and for her lawyers to quit fighting for her to get off death row.
And she would say, I'm a horrible human being, just kill me.
But for the most part, and during the trial she did say that it was in self defense for the first one and that was a trial. And then the death, the death, the.
[00:13:38] Speaker B: Because she's, Even though she confessed because she's saying it self defense, she's saying.
[00:13:43] Speaker A: She did say that in the confession. She did say. Now she said all of them, they all tried to rape her and it was all self defense. That's what the confession was.
[00:13:54] Speaker B: Okay, I Mean, I would think his priors probably should have came in to show he did have a habit.
And just so people know, like, when stuff comes in, like the judge makes this decision based on if it is more probative than prejudicial. So it isn't a judge's discretion on certain things coming in, and a judge has to weigh those factors. So it's not that her attorneys didn't try to put that out there. It's the fact the judge said, no, the jury doesn't need to hear this because this is more prejudicial than probative.
But in this situation, I think it's probate. It has value because it shows a track record of him to back up what she is saying.
[00:14:41] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:14:42] Speaker B: Now, in the long run, would it have made a difference? I don't know. Because she killed six other people.
[00:14:47] Speaker A: So, I mean.
Right. I don't, I can't say that she would have eventually got the death penalty for one of the others. But it does just bother me that the first one before she pled to the other ones, you know, she got the death, death penalty. And even if you're not going to allow that to come in for the jury to consider for the trial. Right. Whether she's guilty or not guilty, I think it has to come in, in the, in, in the penalty phase. I think the jury has to hear his prior convictions and, you know, any letters from others about how he was at least during the penalty phase.
[00:15:23] Speaker B: Question, when she tried for. Okay, so the timeline on this, I guess I'm just thinking, why did they go after the death penalty just for one death? Or had she already killed all six of them at that point?
[00:15:34] Speaker A: She had already killed all six, but this was just the first one they brought to trial. So after that, she pled to some of the others, not all. There is one that I believe she confessed to killing, but. But they never, they never found his body. So she was not convicted of, of one. Okay.
[00:15:59] Speaker B: That's why they went after the death penalty on the first. On one that it's not that they went after the death penalty for her killing one man. They had the other five or six or however many lined up to go. Okay.
[00:16:11] Speaker A: And I think her history played a part in it too, which I do understand. I mean, like I said in the beginning, this is not a woman with a clean record. You know, she was not coming in, never been in trouble before in her life, and then just went on a spree. I mean, she had some pretty brutal, violent convictions and some involving Firearms and all these men were shot to death multiple times. So you know, I think that played a part in it as well with the, with the fact that there were six men that were murdered. So that I think all of that went in together as to why they sought the death penalty penalty.
And I think because of her diagnosis in that, from what I have been told, like if you are diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, that is just one thing you don't want because like you can't. There's a lot of things that you can, like psychiatrists and psychologists can help people with and get treatment plans with and I guess rehabilitate. And that is one I've always heard that either you can't or it's just the hardest to, to do so. Like she, if she definitely never needed to get out of prison, I, I don't, I don't think she should have gotten the death penalty, but she definitely should have got a lot. I mean she could not, you could not let this person out of prison. For sure she was going to continue to harm people.
She was very, very unwell. On top of so much trauma from her childhood and what she had endured. I, I just don't think there was a place where she could, could let her out into a community and not worry that she's not going to do something because she most likely would have.
[00:17:56] Speaker B: Well, I'm looking at like I just wanted to pull up some stats while we're talking about women being executed and those type things. So in total from like this is from the 1600s when they started, I guess, like formally having trials and executing people here, 576 documented instances as of December 31, 2022 of women actually, and that is beginning with 1632. So only 576 women. And since they reinstated it, there was a time period when the death penalty went off the table everywhere. And then it came back. And so since 1976, 18 women and one person on here, just as a note, one was a man who transitioned to a woman.
So there's different ways of how they classify that, but including that person, there's 18 women who have been executed. And they all have been in the south obviously, but is really huh.
[00:19:04] Speaker A: It's all in Southern state. Well that would make sense. We do.
[00:19:10] Speaker B: Missouri. So that's kind of.
But none in South Carolina actually. No women have been executed here.
But I just thought that was interesting how small is like 3.6% of people that have been executed have been women.
[00:19:27] Speaker A: I think she was once they so it's cruel and unusual punishment is the Eighth Amendment. And so they deemed for a while that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment. But in 1976, that's when that was overturned. And she was the 10th woman, I think, once it was reinstated, to be executed, because she was. I think it was the early 2000s.
[00:19:53] Speaker B: She was executed in 2002.
[00:19:58] Speaker A: So I have two. Two things, one thing to add, and then I have a question. So one thing.
When I listen to my True Crime podcast, I find it interesting what people choose as that their last meal. She declined her last meal. She only wanted a black cup of coffee.
And she said that she will. She will be back.
So interesting back there.
But my question is, so we reserve the right for the death. Well, the death penalty is supposed to be for the most heinous crimes. Right. And let's just say for the sake of argument for this, we both believe in death penalty wholeheartedly and fully.
[00:20:37] Speaker B: Right.
[00:20:38] Speaker A: And so the heinous of crimes, I always like to compare because I think a lot of times I see things and it doesn't make sense why it's the death penalty because it's not as heinous as other things that didn't.
So what does this compare in your mind to Susan Smith?
Because on one hand, Susan Smith had no record, but killed two innocent children. Whereas here, yes, you have six deaths, but a very disturbed, very, you know, sexually abused trauma that you also have in the Susan Smith case, too.
So you do have that in this case as well. But Eileen had multiple convictions with guns and violence.
But she was. She was working as a sex worker. These men were all older than her. She was, like, in her early 30s. They were all 40 to 60 years old.
Now, you have this information where the first one potentially raped her and had in the past.
How do you gauge this? Do you say, you know what, death penalty is appropriate for Eileen, but not Susan? Or do you say Susan Smith was more heinous and she should have gotten it and Eileen not.
[00:21:46] Speaker B: I think that's a hard one. I think for one, with Eileen, it was a.
They were doing some bad stuff. The men that were coming to her were not on the up and up. You're not gonna go. I mean, I try to be the.
[00:22:04] Speaker A: Parent victims of Susan Smith. They're very different categories. I agree. I agree. Those were two very innocent babies. This is completely different. I agree.
[00:22:12] Speaker B: And as a mom, the mom part of me is like, how could you ever do that to your children? Like, to me, Susan Smith crime was more heart Wrenching because it was two little babies, that she was the one that was their mom, that was their support system. That was who they went to for stuff.
Where in this situation, you were going to a prostitute to have sex, which was illegal in Florida at the time.
So these men were engaging in illegal behaviors themselves. They were all adult, consenting men, knowing what they were going into.
Now, did they deserve to get killed if they didn't rape her? No, I don't think so. I don't think prostitution should merit. If you do that, to be shot like they were.
[00:23:00] Speaker A: Right.
[00:23:00] Speaker B: I think some of it is the nature of her crime, though. Brutally shooting that many people. I think the thought is yes on the first one, but I guess probably. I'm guessing back in 2002, everybody heard about. Or when she had her trial, everybody had heard about her and knew she killed all these other people. So there's the thought she can't be rehabilitated at all. And then if you let her out, she's just a danger to society kind of situation, where I guess in Susan Smith, I don't know if she was really a danger to society as much. Would she go out and kill random people?
No. She killed her sons because she wanted a man.
And now here's to say she wouldn't be deranged and kill some woman for trying to take her man, too. I don't know. But in her situation, I guess the public at large wasn't as much of a threat as in this situation with Eileen.
[00:23:55] Speaker A: I mean, especially with her diagnosis, I. I do think that she would have continued to be a threat. She. Like I said, I don't think she should have got the death penalty, but definitely life in prison.
She was not someone that you could trust to be in the community and us be safe. But you bring a.
If Susan Smith released today, I don't. I don't know that she would hurt again. I'm definitely more confident that if Eileen were still with us, she would.
I don't have that confidence level.
[00:24:24] Speaker B: I don't think Susan Smith is gonna go out and randomly murder somebody, I guess, just for.
I don't know. Okay, so we can. This can be a whole nother podcast episode where we dig more into serial killers in the serial killer gene. If it's a thing or not a thing. Yeah, I don't think Susan Smith had that. I do not think she is the type. What she did is heartbreaking and disgusting. And if she had got the death penalty, I would say. I feel like that was a very heinous crime.
But I do not think the way she killed is a threat to society at large. But this Eileen Warnos, what if somebody just pissed her off and she flew off the deep end? It was started out with the men that were using her for prostitution, but it could have easily escalated to you cut me off at Walmart, screw you kind of situation.
[00:25:16] Speaker A: My question too is hitchhiking was really big in this time of Eileen and I don't know that every single one of these men were seeking out her services. I guess I should say, I wonder if some of them just picked her up because she was hitchhiking and then she just murdered him in cold blood.
[00:25:40] Speaker B: Right?
[00:25:40] Speaker A: I think that is quite, quite possible. I don't think the first one, I fully believe her story on the first one. I can't tell you why. I mean, I think, I guess because I do know the priors and so like. And I think that that is just what set her off onto this spree, like I said earlier, but I don't know that all five of them were Johns. I, I do think there were.
It's not out of the room of possibility that some of them were innocent and just trying to give her a ride because I know hitchhiking was a lot bigger during that time frame when these murders were committed.
[00:26:10] Speaker B: So I agree with like you were. If you were stuck on the side of the road, you would hope a friendly neighbor would pick you up. So, yeah, I think she was more of a threat to society than Susan Smith was. Now, their level of heinousness, Susan Smith.
[00:26:25] Speaker A: Takes the cake in my book, but.
[00:26:28] Speaker B: I don't think she's the threat. I think the threat, yeah, it's the threat.
[00:26:32] Speaker A: I think both of us are kind of on the same page. It's more heinous and it's because we're moms. We think the crime is more heinous that Susan Smith committed. But when you look at the other side of it, threat to threat the community, then Eileen Ornos takes the cake. And this is why I say it's so complex with death penalty and who gets it and who doesn't.
[00:26:54] Speaker B: That's a lot of it depends on what state you're into. Like, obviously some states is not legal, but say it was legal in all 50 states. Some states are going to be more likely to pursue because when you look at this, the list of the women, Texas, Texas is a big one. Oklahoma's biggest is kind of surprising. Oklahoma is the south, but not as much like south south, I guess, but Oklahoma's in there Florida where I feel certain states are just less likely to even if it's legal, they are less likely to go for it. So I think a lot of it's going to depend where you are.
[00:27:29] Speaker A: I, I didn't think about that. But you're right. And I also think in, in building off that union where Susan Smith did not get the death penalty they sought it and did not get. It is a tight knit community and these jurors to not know the case and go in open minded and, and I'm not saying that they didn't. I do but I do think there's a difference. When it is a smaller community not saying that they knew her new stuff but it is a different mindset. Whereas where Eileen was sentenced to the death penalty with these jurors, it, it's Florida, it's a bigger city. It's more disconnect from your community, if that makes sense. So I think what you're saying is whether from a woman, I think it's different for men. But when you're talking about sending a woman to death row, I think like you said place plays a part. I think it probably is harder for a smaller tight knit community for those jurors to send a woman to death row as opposed to like Florida, a bigger city, a wider county that just doesn't have that tight knit.
[00:28:40] Speaker B: And she was from Michigan so she wasn't born and raised there. She didn't have connections like in Union County. Susan Smith born, raised her whole family was there. And whether the jurors knew her, you knew somebody that knew her. Like even if you had no opinion and the jurors were you knew it's like the six degrees of like Kevin Bacon thing in Union we probably all know each other but less than 3 degrees kind of thing because it is a small community. And like for instance my mom knew her Angie, that's my admin downstairs she went to school with her and that's like a small section of us all newer. I do think and I just think in general states the way they perceive and go after death penalties different depending on resources allocation.
But I think it'll be I think we need to in the future do a podcast just dealing more like do a series on serial killers and kind of looking at the difference of how they were treated, punished and also where they were and talk about this serial killer gene and if we think it's real or not.
[00:29:44] Speaker A: I agree. Somebody mentioned guy was accused of something pretty harsh and they said I don't get I don't know that he did it. He was very nice and kind of. And so charming. And I said, you just described Ted Bundy.
So, yes, I definitely think that we. And they're like, oh, my gosh, you're right.
So, yeah. So I think that's another thing that we can do. But I think this is kind of wrapping up our notorious Women in Crime series.
But let us know what y' all think.
What are your thoughts on the death penalty when you take in how heinous a crime is, as well as, you know, harm to the community that they pose if they were to be released and any other topics y' all want us to talk about?
See you later.
