Killing was Purposeful /// Part 2 /// 842 | Forensic Files

At Eisener Ramper, we are creative problem solvers that take a 360° approach, focusing on you. We're an
award-winning firm with decades of experience. Eisener, let's get you ready. The rural
way of life is about making everyone feel at home. Tractor Supply chose advanced 5G solutions from T-Mobile for
business to transform intelligent customer service. Together, we put the power of AI to work across 2200 stores,
keeping things running seamlessly inside, curbside, and countryside. This is elevated customer experience. This is
tractor supply with T-Mobile for business. Take your business further at t-Mobile.com/now.
[Applause] [Music] Welcome to True Crime Garage. Wherever you are, whatever you're doing, thanks
for listening. I'm your host Nick and with me as always is a man who is like the Michael Jordan of being a son of a
[ __ ] Here is the captain. Yeah, the roof is the ceiling. It's good to be seen and good to see you. Thanks for
listening. Thanks for telling a [Music] friend. Today we got some more beer in the old garage fridge. We are drinking
Lawn Mower Yard Logger by Churchill Brewing Company. Lawn Mower Yard Logger is delightfully crisp and refreshing.
It's lightbodied, a little malty, and very crushable. Garage grade, three and a half bottle caps out of five. And
let's give some thanks and praise to our good garage friends. First up, a big shout out to Christy Ha in Vancouver,
Washington. And a big time we like your jib goes out to Justin from Castle Rock,
Colorado. Here's a cheers to April C in Ramsay, Minnesota. I purposely let you have this one because you came up with
this nickname. So, the shout out is to Jessica and Captain Big Dick, somebody we met at at a Crime Con. And they're
from Clayton, North Carolina. Jessica and Captain Big Dick from Clayton, North Carolina. And raise your glasses in the
air to Jessica and Captain Big Dick and Clayton, North Carolina. And last, but certainly not least, here's one close to
the garage. We got to cheers to Dominic in Columbus, Ohio. Everyone we just mentioned, they went to
truerimedg.com, clicked on the pint glass, helped us out with this week's beer run for the beer fund, and for that
we thank you. Yeah. BW are you in? Beer run. If you have a topic that you'd like
to hear on the show, whether it's the the big show like we call the big garage show like we call this show or off the
record, hit us up. Captain True Crime Garage. And that is enough of the business. All right, everybody. Gather
around, grab a chair, grab a beer. Let's talk some true crime. Where we left off here, Captain, was the
police talking and speaking with Walter Zempic back in 1985, giving conflicting statements to different investigators,
conflicting statements about his whereabouts of the night in question to different law enforcement agencies.
However, what we do know is that police moved on from Walter Zmpic after he passed a lie detector test back in
1985. The exam, which was of course all centered around on questions if he had killed Lori, revealed no deception. So,
at some point they decided to move on from him and the case went cold until 2008. So, let's fast forward back to
2008. go back to the future here. The cold case investigators reviewed that case file and were struck by these
inconsistencies that they were seeing in Walter Zimpik's stories. They spoke with
his mom, Carol. Now, his mother, Carol, had been interviewed in 1985, but because Zimick had already passed that
lie detector test when she was spoken to, she was never really asked about her son's alibi in ' 85. She was only asked
about like his character. Now, in 2008, she tells the cold case investigators the following. That on the evening that
Laurianne Hill disappeared, Zmpic had left their home to go find her, stating that later that evening, Hill called the
house three times looking for Walter Zimp. The first call was early in the evening. We don't we're not getting
exact times on some of this, Captain, but keep in mind, she's being asked these questions 23 years after the fact.
So during this first call, Carol answers the phone. She says that she was surprised. She thought that that her son
was already with Lorie Hill. So she was surprised that Lori was calling and looking for her son. Then she says there
was a second call. This took place several hours after the first call. And this is the one that it sounds like
investigators believe that this is the call that most likely came from Mr. G's Pizza. And this is because Carol, when
she's talking to the police, she says, "Look, I remember it being very noisy in the background. And I also remember Lori
being very angry when I told her, look, I already told you he's not home. So, he's still not home at this time,
several hours after the first call. Well, this call could have came from the party as well. We don't know if she made
a call from the party. That's a good point. And we also don't have timestamps for these calls. Exactly. So, she also
remembered that Lori was again very angry during a third call, which she says she believes was 1 hour later.
Approximately 1 hour later, she even swore at the mother, saying something nasty to the mother and then hung up on
her. During the third call though, the mother Carol says that she couldn't hear noise in the background. There wasn't a
bunch of noise in the background like she had heard on the second call. Carol further remembered that the phone rang
two more times that night. The the first of those two was very late. Again, it was this time it was Hill's sister,
Lorianne Hill's sister, Rachel, calling looking for her. Carol remembered that after that phone call, her son Walter
Zmpic came home with his friend whose last name Carol remember being Lon L O N W A Y. We would later learn, so she
doesn't know this in her statement uh at at this time when she's giving the statement in 2008. We would later learn
that a a friend of Zmpix did exist with the last name of Lon and his name was Willie Lway. So
Zmpic's mother, Carol, stated that Lon was a good friend of Zimpics and that he was around Zimpik's age. Carol noted
that Zimpic was drunk when he came home. Later, the phone rang again. She says again, it was Lorianne Hill's sister
reporting that Lori was missing. Zmpic then said that he was leaving to go to Lorie Hill's parents' home and he left
with Willie Lonway. Upon questioning by the investigators during this interview,
Carol was consistent in her memory of the events of October 25th, 1985. It's interesting, too, here, Captain, that
not only is she, you know, not only does she say she remembers it, but but she appears to remember that quite clearly,
being able to give some decent description to some of the the phone calls and the order of the events. Now,
regardless of how much weight and credibility we want to give to Walter Zmpik's mother's statement in 2008, we
need to note that that is completely inconsistent with what Walter Zmpic told investigators in 1985. Both stories,
right? Both stories that he gives. Now, in 2008, we have Walter Zmpic. He's living in Strawberry
Plains, Tennessee. Strawberry Plains Forever. Investigators traveled there to speak with him armed with a search
warrant for his DNA. In the interview, he admitted he had lied to both the Lucas County and Fulton County
authorities back in 1985, but he said he he couldn't remember why he lied to them, but he did deny being with Willie
Lway at all. Yeah. So, this is December 30th, 2008. And we do have the we have the
transcript from that. We'll we'll read through a brief portion of it here. This is the part of the 2008 interview where
the detectives are confronting him about his statements that he gave in 1985. So, the first question is, okay,
I'm going to ask you this again. Now, you gave two different statements to two different police officers and both of
them we know were lies because you weren't home that night. Your mom said you weren't home. Lori called your house
and if Lori called looking for you, that means you weren't home. Walter's answer,
right? Question. So, we are clear. The 29th, 2 days later, uh, and then on the 1st, 3 days later, you talked to police.
All of this is fresh in your mind. They're talking about all of this is fresh in your mind at the time. Right.
They say, "What did you do on that night?" And you said, "Well, I was home at 7:00 and I went to sleep at 11:00."
Which isn't true because your mom said you weren't home. Answer: Right. I wasn't home. Question. Then 4 days
later, you talk to different police. They say, "What did you do? I went to Southwick, meaning the mall that he had
mentioned. Hung out with this girl. I can't remember her last name. She was at my house from 10 till 2, which wasn't
true, right? She wasn't at your house from 10 to 2. Answer: no question. So that's twice. That's two stories that
weren't true that you'd given to police just after your girlfriend is found murdered. Answer. Uh-huh. And
affirmative is is the response given there. He's he's agreeing with what they're saying. Well, I can say if I'm
law enforcement, if I'm a detective and somebody is inconsistent and somebody's lying, that is a that's like giving a
dog a bone. And I would have a hard time letting go of that bone. Yes. And clearly in
2008, that's the investigator's feelings as well. I if it were me there interviewing him, I wouldn't show any
signs of this. I wouldn't react to it or I wouldn't say anything. But it would be
surprising to me for him to just so casually agree. Yeah, I was. Yeah, I did lie. Yeah, I did give two different
statements. Like he doesn't seem to try to talk his way out of that. It's kind of strange though that he doesn't
remember. He's basically telling law enforcement, "Yeah, I lied, but I don't remember the reason why." But you have
to remember he's he's a young adult at this time. So, is it just possible that he just got scared initially? Like, yes,
she was my exgirlfriend. Yes, she was calling me. You know, we know what happened to her. We know that her body
was found. Is it is it a possibility that he's just scared that somehow they're they're going to try to pin this
on him? See, dude, I can totally agree with that because I mean, like you said, he's 18 at the time when he's first
questioning questioned. She's missing for a period of time and then she's found. If he had nothing to do with
this, no one could imagine their girlfriend, ex-girlfriend being found dead in a cornfield days after being
reported missing. And now we fast forward to 2008 when they're questioning him in December of
2008 and it's over 20 years later. And I think that I, you know, anybody that looks back, given a long enough
timeline, I think anybody that looks back to their teen years and and even when they're 18, as was Walter at the
time of this horrible event, I think it's almost all of us can say that thing that thing was really
dumb. Why did I do that? I don't even know why I would do that. Like, you know what I mean? like you you don't you
can't even reconcile with why you would have behaved a certain way or said something in in the moment back then. It
it's I think of times where I I lied to get out of being busted for something or
kind of squirmed or weasled my way out of or into something and I kind of look back and I
go, why wasn't I just honest in the moment? Like Yeah. or sometimes the lie that you come up with is worse than just
telling the truth uh gets you into more trouble. But what are your thoughts on the statements from his mother? Is there
anything that jumps out to you? Well, I wish that I wasn't armed with all the information that I that I am
fully aware of now, right? To give you what my reaction would be to that question without all the information.
she's going to change her statement at some point. And so, while it sounds to me I I think that if regardless of hers
changing her statement, what the other statement is, I actually think that there's probably a lot of truth in this
statement that she gives, she remembers it so clearly and so vividly to the point of saying, "Hey, on this one call,
I heard a whole bunch of noise in the background and on this other call I didn't hear any noise in the
background." Right? And those sometimes people stretch a story and say too many words because they're trying to make up
for something. They're trying to cover their tracks. They're trying to sell you a lie. And other times there are details
in a story or explanation that simply because they're they're true. They're they're factual information or at least
they believe them to be true. And so I think that there's probably a lot of truth in this statement. I wouldn't boil
it down to that she remembers correctly 23 years later exactly how many phone calls she received. We know that she's
unable to provide a time other than vaguely. This one was early in the evening. This one was a couple hours
later. She does recall speaking to the sister at some point that the sister calls because Lori's
missing. I think she's got the details right. the timing's a little off, but what's what's the most important part of
her story is Walter Zmpic is not home during the the times that he in both of his statements, even though they're
different, they both end up with him being home, right, at 10:00. And that is when everything is in question because
regardless if you believe the Bettingers sighting of the three kids in the middle
of the county road on their way home. We have confirmed sightings by several people that Lorie Hill was alive and
well using the phone at the pizza joint. Offered more than one ride by two different credible people. Eyewitness is
seeing her walking. It's that 1000 p.m. time marker and everything after that is
in question. And he in both of his versions of his alibis for that night, he puts himself at home at 10:00. His
mom asked in 2008, he's not home at 10:00 in her story. Yeah. But here's what sticks out to me. And I think one
of the things with, you know, a tragic event is sometimes you have to try to make sense of crazy. But as you know,
sometimes in these cases, there's logic to it. There's reason to some of this stuff. And so what sticks out to me if
I'm law enforcement that where I'm confused by is I have this individual that's lying to me. Okay?
inconsistencies, changing stories multiple times, and then in the future now he is now telling me, "Yes, I I did
lie. I don't know why I did." But what she says that sticks out to me contradicts the end result in the sense
of she says, "Well, I got these calls from his ex-girlfriend. He's 18. She's 14. They
like we said they they either dated for a few months or maybe was even a little bit longer but she's calling for help
essentially or calling that's what he believes and we have the call from the sister. So then what does he do? He goes
out now whether he's by himself or with a friend he is going out. sister. The sister is calling for help because
because she can't find her sister because Lory's missing. According to Carol's statements, Lori isn't calling looking
for a ride. She's simply calling looking for Walter Zmp. But what I think sticks
out to me, which would be confusing if I'm law enforcement, is he goes out, whether it's by himself or with a
friend, to go look for her. And so to me that is an act of kindness, of caring, of you know, did something happen? Did
she go, you know, did he know she was going to this party? Did, you know, did he hear about this altercation? But to
me, it's an act of kindness or caring that I'm I need to go find her if, you know, her sister said she's missing. I'm
well, I'll go look for her. I'll swing by her parents house or whatever. So to me, that's an act of caring as opposed
to what is the end result? We have a murdered 14-year-old in a corn field. So do you see that as conflicting? The act
of caring? No. No. I'm saying like if I'm law enforcement, I hear the statements from his mom, it doesn't seem
like there there's no confrontation between Lori and Walter that we know of. So, it's just it doesn't it doesn't seem
to make any sense of why would he want to find her and kill her, you know, and and then also he tells his mom, "Well,
I'm going to go look for her." So, I don't know. It just kind of contradicts the ending, right? But I mean, I get
that it could be viewed as an act of kindness, but I but I mean, if you give me the afternoon, I'll give you a
baker's dozen of people that killed somebody and then went out and joined a search party to look for them. I think
the the big part that stands out to me here is regardless of why he lied, you know, he's not he's not there at 10:00.
He's he's confirming that in 2008. And both of his stories in 1985 put him at home at 10:00 and then a staying there
for the entirety of the night after that 10:00 marker. His mom's story is not that. His mom's story is that he wasn't
home until it was notified that she was missing. Remember, Rachel doesn't go out
looking for her sister until what is close to 200 a.m. That's 4 hours after that 10:00 marker. And so what what
stands out to me, I find it incredibly weird that if he did go out and look for as his mom says, which I believe that he
did, that is not anything that suggests that he is guilty, right? like I don't understand why in 1985 he didn't tell
them that he went out looking for that for her at 2 o'clock in the morning. Further, I want to point this out. We do
know based off of the reports, off of the paperwork that Walter Zmpic in 2008 was
was interviewed on December 30th. What we don't know is when his mother Carol was interviewed in 2008,
right? Because I wonder, is there a chance that mom is interviewed prior to December 30th and she calls her son and
says, "Hey, you're never going to believe this. The sheriff's department showed up today and they were remember
your old girlfriend Laurianne Hill from when you were a kid. They were asking me
about her disappearance and about the night that she disappeared. I mean, it's like 20ome years later, right?" And son
is asking, "Mom, it's highly likely." Yeah. What What did Well, what did you tell him? And she tells them what what
tells him what she told them. And now he is armed with information. Oh, they're probably going to come and talk to me
because I remember telling them something different. And he he's got some time to sort out, well, do I try to
talk my way out of it or do I just admit, yeah, I told you guys a story. I fed you a story back then and I don't
remember why or I don't know why. Yeah, that's weird to me. That that sticks out
to me. Why? Why? Why couldn't you remember why you lied? What was it? Question number four that I went
through. They get him to confirm that, right? He says they say so twice. That's two stories that weren't true that you
gave to police after your girlfriend is found murdered. He answers, "Uh-huh." Which is is according to the paperwork
is an affirmative response. And then they go on to ask him, "So how can anybody not want an explanation for
that? So that's why we came to you to give you a chance to explain that to us. His answer is, "Look, I don't know what
to say to you." I mean, I don't question. And then the next morning, you told the Hill family that you got in a
bar fight that night. Answer: Uhhuh. Affirmative response. Question. And then your mother, he cuts them off. Answer. I
don't necessarily remember that either, but I mean then the interview's cutting him off, but your mother told he cuts
them off. Answer this was 20ome years ago. So part of his story to Lorian Hill's family is that he was
in a bar fight sometime that night, which that's seems to be news to everybody else as well, right? like
there they weren't armed with that information in 1985. That wasn't part of his story in 1985. So, as you hear, as
you know, from this this uh transcript that we went through, Walter Zmpic really had no explanation for the
inconsistencies. He didn't even really try to explain them. And then after this 2008 interview, he spoke with both his
mother and with Sandy. remember the the girl that he said uh he had brought home
that night. So when investigators then returned to talk to his mother, Carol, all of a sudden she's less certain about
her story according to the investigators and they say it was clear that she had spoken with Walter Zmpic
since she had been interviewed by the officers several day days before and that Zmpic told her that Sandy was in
his bedroom on the night that Lorie Hill had been killed. And she also affirmed that Willie Lonway was the boy who was
with Walter Zmpic that night. So now she remembers the first name. These detectives, they do track down this
Sandy girl. She had never been interviewed, but up to this point. She does tell investigators that she
remembers dating Walter Zmpic for maybe a month this back in 1985. They did meet
at the Southwick Mall in the fall of 1985, but she said she did not go back to his apartment on that first night
that they met, and she certainly never remembers sneaking in through a bedroom window. She recalled that their first
phone conversation was where he told her that his ex-girlfriend had been killed and he said it happened the night that
they met and that she was his alibi. Have you had that moment where your kid asks for help with homework and you're
like, "I haven't done this since middle school." Or maybe your child's ahead of the curve and getting bored in class.
Whether your kid is struggling or soaring, can make a real difference. Il is an award-winning online learning
platform that helps kids really understand what they're learning. It covers math, language arts, science, and
social studies from preK all the way through 12th grade. It's designed to be engaging, personalized, and yes,
actually fun with encouraging feedback that keeps kids motivated. Don't miss out. L is used in 96 of the top 100
school districts in the US. One in four students in the US are learning with. I have friends and family that
have used for years. It's great for the summer months when there's no classes so
you can stay on track. And it's even better when there are classes trying to get ahead. Or maybe your kid needs help
studying for test. Most kids need help in specific areas. I know that I did. And Il is a great way to keep your kids
on track or to get ahead. Make an impact on your child's learning and getl now. And True Crime Garage listeners can get
an exclusive 20% offl membership when they sign up today atl.com/g. Visit.com/g to get the most effective
learning program out there at the best price. This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. The importance of
maintaining your mental health has gone overlooked for many years in this country. Mental health awareness is
growing, but there's still progress to be made. Many people avoid seeking mental health support due to fear of
judgment or stigma. When people hesitate to get help, it doesn't just affect them. It impacts families, workplaces,
and entire communities. This mental health awareness month, let's encourage everyone to take care of their
well-being and break the stigma. The world is better when people are healthy and happy. BetterHelp has over 10 years
of experience matching people with the right therapists from their diverse network of more than 30,000 licensed
therapists with a wide range of specialties. BetterHelp is fully online, making therapy affordable and
convenient, serving over 5 million people worldwide. Easily switch therapists at any time at no extra cost.
We're all better with help. Visit betterhelp.com/g to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp
hp.com/g. If you're a pet parent, you know about Chewy. And when they say that they have everything you need to keep
your pet happy and healthy, they're not messing around. To keep them happy, Chewy has over 100,000 products from all
the brands your pet loves at prices you love. Food, treats, beds, you name it, they have it. And it gets shipped
directly to your door. I love Chewy. More importantly, my dogs loved Chewy as well. It's a fantastic service. The
selection is huge. There's so many options to choose from for all variety of pets, not just dogs. But the thing
that I loved the most was the auto ship feature. One of my dogs had a dietary concern that required a certain brand
and make of food that was difficult for me to get and difficult for me to find. The Chewy Auto Ship saved me countless
hours of driving to hunt down the food that my dog needed and the excitement from the dogs when the box would arrive
with treats and toys for their enjoyment. Chewy has everything you need to keep your pet happy and healthy. And
right now, you can save $20 on your first order and get free shipping by going to chewy.com. That's chewy.com to
save $20 on your first order with free shipping. chewy.com. Minimum purchase required. New customers only. Terms and
conditions apply. See site for complete details. Treat yourself and treat your pets with chewy.com today. As
temperatures climb, it's easy to fall into the same old routine. Familiar tanks, wornin shorts, and the usual
lineup. Quint offers an effortless upgrade. elevated easy pieces that instantly refine the everyday uniform
without the extra effort like 100% European linen shorts and dresses from $30, Luxe swimwear, Italian leather
platform sandals, and so much more. The best part, everything with Quint is priced 50 to 80% less than what you'll
find at similar brands. by working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middleman. Quint gives you
luxury without the markup. And Quint only works with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing
practices and premium fabrics and finishes. I absolutely love Quint and my new favorite, European linen shorts.
Super comfortable and super stylish. And you know when you're getting compliments
from people saying, "Hey, Captain, you look well put together." And when you look good, you feel good. So, treat
yourself. What I also love about Quint is the quality. Topnotch quality at a great price. Like I said, 50 to 80% less
than what you find at similar brands. Treat yourself with Quint. Treat your closet with a little summer glow up with
Quint. Go to quint.com/g for free shipping on your order and 365day returns. That's at qi
nce.com/g to get free shipping and 365day returns. quint.com/g. Treat yourself with
quint. All right, we are back. Thanks for joining us here in the garage. Cheers to you all and cheers to you,
Colonel. Cheers to you, Captain. So, these cold case investigators, they even tracked down some of the other names
that they were seeing in their old case file. Some of these people, their names were in the file, but they had never
been interviewed. And one of those persons was a lady named Linda Ferraso. She was a family friend of the of the
Hills. She recalled that on October 26th, so this is the day after Lori is missing. She her body's not been found
yet. She recalls that Walter Zmpic was helping her post flyers looking for the missing girl. And she said that she
noticed that he had scratches all over his arm. That she said it looked like he like run through a a rose
guard and she overheard him telling someone else that he had gotten into a bar fight the night before. After 8
months of investigation, in 2008, Walter Zmpic was arrested at his home. Fulton County
detectives announced the cold case arrest to the media and they blared it with headlines screaming about the Hill
case cold case kidnap, rape, and murder at long last being solved. Walter Zmpic was he waved extradition, was
transported to Ohio to face these charges. He plead not guilty on both counts and bond was set at $1 million.
So really, a lot of this is going to boil down to trying to reconstruct his actual whereabouts on the night of the
murder. And now we have to introduce his defense attorney. He had two defense attorneys. This is a fatherdaughter duo
here. Lawyers Greg and Amber Van Gunton. They filed a series of motions, 36 of them, including a motion
to dismiss the case because they argued that their client's defense was prejudiced by the passage of 24 years
since the murder because some of the witnesses had died, moved on, forgotten, or just plain vanished. They argued and
the physical evidence had either been used up or stored improperly because it was revealed that the physical evidence
was misplaced. So testing that could have the result in the exoneration of their
client Walter Zmpic would be impossible. Right? there's there's not this physical
evidence still existing today while we're waiting on a court date that that there's a chance this could exonerate
our client. So in short, what they're saying is the delay in bringing Walter Zmpic and the delay
in charging him with this for 20ome years was reasons for why he was he couldn't put up a great defense.
at the motion to dismiss the the hearing altogether. His mother, Carol, testified
that she received only one phone call the night that Lorie uh went missing. She said that she did
not recall Willie Lway being with her son Walter at all that night. This was totally different from what she said in
her interview in 2008. The prosecution filed 39 motions of its own, arguing that the delayed prosecution wasn't just
a matter of negligent failure to prosecute back in 1985, but that actual new evidence was discovered. And that
new evidence, of course, being all of these inconsistencies in Zimpic's statements and his mother with her
flip-flopping stories that she's now giving to police. Well, this family is known for flip-flopping on their
stories. They're a family of flippers and a family of floppers. Floppers. Yeah. You'd think they'd be able to test
something to either try to link him to the crime or, you know, possibly just go, "Well,
we we ran the test and we didn't find his DNA, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't the killer." Well, I mean, so
they had the tests back then. They had the results back then, but but of course what those results are they even
comparable to something that you would be able to come up with in 2009, right? And and then furthermore, the whatever
physical evidence once that once existed, nobody can get their hands on it anymore because it was misplaced or
destroyed or or what have you. So, you know, people that that don't do these things, that aren't involved in these
things, they don't have a great understanding of how important the chain of custody of physical evidence is in
all of these cases. And if you slip up, if there's one misstep on the chain of custody on someone lawfully and
correctly storing evidence, then it's all tainted, right? It's tainted whether it was tainted at all because you can
argue that it was tainted if it's unaccounted for for any time. Who's to say what the hell was going on with that
physical evidence? And so because they don't have it or it disappeared for a while, it's it's basically moot. It's
it's no good. It's good for nothing. There was some physical evidence that did suggest that maybe Walter Zimp
wasn't the killer. They they did have a Okay, so in 2009 with Walter Zmpic facing trial, defense attorney Amber Van
Gunton said in interviews with members of the media that there was no evidence against her client. In fact, the
evidence exonerated her client. She claimed she cited the lab report testing a pubic hair found on Lori that did
not match Walter Zmpic. She told NBC 24, quote, "I've never been more convinced in my 10 years of law practice that this
man is innocent. He should be released from jail based on the evidence that has finally come forth." End quote. In
another interview, she says, "This case is absolutely ridiculous. I don't understand why they are still pursuing
charges at this time." So, remember, they're trying to get this tossed out of court altogether. the
the at at the first go round it does get tossed. The the judge is like, "Yeah, there's not a whole lot going on here.
There's not a whole lot of evidence. Uh there's nothing really new. This is not a great idea to actually charge this guy
and take him to to trial." But that would ultimately get overturned by a higher court. And without going
through all of those court proceedings that took days and days to sort through, what we what we end up with is the the
case was going to go to trial in 2012. The state's first witness being Craig Rup, the guy that was, you know,
dating Lori at the time. Remember, he said he never saw her after she left the party that night. He told the jury that
he had heard that Lori had been concerned that she was pregnant. and he said that he met Walter Zmpic during the
search for Lori. Zmpic telling him that Lori had been about to dump him, dump Craig, and if she was pregnant that the
baby was his Walter Zmpix. But with this fight, cuz this fight that Walter says he got in this bar fight, do we have any
eyewitnesses to this fight? Well, I don't think that it's even a a a sticking matter because when he's
interviewed in 2008, he says he doesn't remember a bar fight, right? Um he may have told one or two people that back in
1985, but now he's he's admitting that his statements were inconsistent, that he lied to police twice in both of those
statements. And then when asked about the bar fight, he's saying, "Yeah, I don't I don't remember saying that." You
know, I don't remember that. Doesn't remember why he lied. Doesn't remember the bar fight statements. Very
fascinating. Now, during this trial, we also get uh some I I there, you know, in
these true crime stories, Captain, there are certain things that I'm a sucker for, and I don't know why this this part
of these stories always intrigues me. Maybe it's that that if I were ever to be on a jury, you know, I've been called
for jury duty at least once that I can recall, but uh I always think that it's neat when
they when they go out to a scene. So, the jury was driven to Swanson to to to view the spot where Lori was last seen
uh and then into that rural area where her body was eventually found. They heard the testimony obviously from the
men who found her body. They they heard testimony from first responders and the medical
examiner and they also heard testimony from Lor's friends and family about the circumstances of her disappearance and
death. But but okay, so what actual evidence do they have against Walter Zmpic at this trial? Right. Because
you're going to have physical evidence. Correct. Right. you. What we end up with
and and you're going to love this. Oh, this is going to get your goat, my friend. We have a jailhouse confession.
Three months. So, three months after he's arrested, there's this guy named Steve Moden that Well, but hold on that
when there's no physical evidence and there's no other really hardcore evidence, they always seem to get a
confession. Well, because jail houses are often filled with liars and cheats who probably are willing to make a deal
to benefit themselves, right? And throw anyone under the bus at any time. That's
why I always look at these as like a with a side side eye, right? And I would I would
um find these more credible if the person didn't ask for anything and didn't receive anything
because you sometimes you don't ask for anything but but the law the law enforcement agencies that you're helping
out with this confession will give you something even if you don't ask for it. So here's here's the thing that boggles
the brain, right? So, like if if I'm just some dude, which well well I actually you are. Yeah. Um but if if I'm
some dude, not in a jail house, not in a prison, Mr. Joe Citizen as I am, Mr. civilian and I call up the
police and I say, "Hey, this guy I know, he confessed to murdering uh somebody and or or hey, I know you're
investigating such and such and I this person admitted it to me, told me that he did
it." Typically, what is their protocol? They'll mike that guy up. They'll mic me
up and try to get that story out of him once again, or they'll tap my phone and try to get him to tell me the story once
again. Right? Why in the hell in all of these jail house confessions, there's only one that I can think of where they
actually miked up the inmate and in that scenario they only miked up the inmate because he was
placed there. He was under working undercover. Why not mike up this Steve Moden and see if he can get Walter Zmpic
to repeat what he once told him? They never seem to do that. They just like, "Oh, you know what? Wheel his ass into
the courtroom and have him testify and we'll see what the let the jury sort it out." So, he says that he tells police.
He tells he he mailed a letter to the prosecutor. Uh, his the prosecutor's name is Scott Hasselman.
He mails the prosecutor a letter saying that look, I'm I'm a bit of a legal resource to some of these other inmates,
uh, a lot of the other persons waiting trial or that they will seek me out for some legal advice. And I ended up
talking with Walter Zmpic while he was locked up before his trial. He admitted to me that he kicked and beat Lori to
death because he wanted because she wanted to break up with him and he he couldn't handle the rejection. And the
Steve Moden guy goes on to say that Walter Zmpic allegedly told him that he blacked out in a fog of rage while he
was beating her. and that Zmpic went on to tell him that he had several people helping him out by lying to cover up his
crime, including a friend whose house he had walked to after dumping Lor's body in some brush. So, you got this
confession, supposed confession. You have a couple people that do testify that he had scratches on
his person. You have the inconsistent statements and then the rest is all like take it for what you will, right? Like
was he jealous? How jealous was he? Was she rejecting him? Could he handle the rejection?
You there's really no physical evidence. In fact, the physical evidence you do have if if that has if that should even
play a role in it, I don't know. Right? because you're going to get the defense that rightfully so will continually
point out that Walter Zmpik's DNA was not a match to that hair that was found on Lori. So, the only physical evidence
is pointing away from the guy that's on trial. Well, and if you're his defense team, you want to hit that
home over and over. Hey, we got physical evidence that points to somebody else, not my client. Walter Zmpic did not
testify at this trial. As you just correctly said here, his attorneys had effectively emphasized that there was
zero physical evidence against their client. about 11 hours spread out over three days for the jury to conclude that
they could not agree whether Walter Zmpic the second had if he was guilty of murder and so the judge had to declare
this a mistrial in the case. The jury was sent home. However, Mr. Zmpic, Walter Zmpic still remained charged with
murder. He was free on bond but must continue to stay in the state of Ohio on electronic home monitoring. This
is this sucks. All right, look. I I know that there's a lot of people out there.
The room is probably divided right now. Shout out to the people in the back. The
room is probably divided on on who believes this guy might be guilty, who thinks that he he's getting railroaded
here, regardless of the situation. Look, if he's guilty, we really don't care. But we don't know that the the a big
part of this too for him, he's a business owner. He lives in a different state and he's had to remain in Ohio for
a very long time, years, but because this was a mistrial, not an acquitt, he was able to be
retrieded. Now, what takes place here behind the scenes, Captain, is the prosecuting
uh the prosecution, they are interviewing. This is like almost like a debriefing of the the jury, right?
They're they're interviewing the the jury, asking them, you know, what certain questions. And it was after
talking with the hung jury, they decided that they were not going to further the the case against him.
So they dismissed, the prosecution dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning it could
be refiled should additional evidence be found against Zmpic, but three years of
Walter Zmpik's life had been spent as an accused murderer. 18 months of that had
been spent in the state of Ohio. However, he was free to return to Tennessee at that time. and he says that
he due to the amount of time he lost his business because of the accusations against him and his time away from the
state of Tennessee. So, I'm guessing law enforcement at this point just thought,
okay, if we pursue, we don't have enough. It's been some time that has passed, but maybe if some more time
passed that we we'll be able to build a stronger case against him. Yeah, this is
one of those tough ones where you you can see maybe not just a a garage divided like I had mentioned, but maybe
a house divided amongst some of the law enforcement officers and even the prosecution of, you know, did is this a
situation where we have the guy, we know who did it, we just can't prove it in court, or is it a situation where maybe
they got the wrong guy? It it's the hair evidence for me that makes this all very
shaky, right? like if but what does that hair evidence mean? And and I and I hate
to be going down this road because I'm somebody that with the porch light project we
we DNA is the holy grail for us in in in our cases and it's and it often is telling us who is responsible for what
in this scenario is simply a hair found on her person. We know that her current boyfriend Craig Rup, he says they went
to this pond to spend some time together, his words. What What does that mean? Did they do everything except for
have sex that night? As he says, right? It appears that based off of the evidence that they collected in 1985
that she was either sexually assaulted or did have some kind of sexual had sex with somebody that evening. But what I'm
getting at is I do believe that there's a world where Craig Rup or somebody else
left that hair on her person and Walter Zmpic then later killed her. I believe that that's a possibility. I also
believe that there's a world where he's completely innocent and lied about where
he was that night because he was a dumb 18-year-old kid and and scared. What we do get is a lot of more drama in this
case. So nothing happens publicly after Zmpic walked on the case until let's go to
2014. We have Rachel Hill, Lory's older sister, and Walter Zmpik both appear on the Dr. Phil TV show. Now, a lot
happened. Uh I'll give you the old Colonel summary here. Of course, Rachel Hill was fully in full tilt on Zimpik's
guilt. Basically, it was evident that since the arrest of 2009, her rage against him had been festering inside of
her, and it was only heightened by them not being able to get a guilty conviction. Rachel told Dr. Phil that
when the relationship ran its course and Lorie moved on, Walt, she refers to him
as Walt, did not accept this. quote, "He was a stalker," she said. She said, "Walt gave Lori an ultimatum and then
she was killed." Rachel laid out the last hours of Lor's life for Dr. Phil about her going to the party, arguing
with her boyfriend, and being seen by neighbors, walking alone toward home. Then she went missing and Walt was a
crying mess, huddled in a fetal position and extreme an extreme reaction. Maybe like maybe he's overreacting on purpose.
Maybe he's he's he's putting on a show. Rachel told Dr. Phil that when Lori was found, the
damage to her sister's head and face was so bad that her father told the girl's mother that Lori had been shot. There
was a hole in the center of her forehead. Her right ear had been missing, been eaten by animals. The Hill
family never, she says the Hill family never suspected Walt back then. Rachel said that he was the best man at her
wedding. He spent time, he says he spent time at their house after Lori was killed, stored a car there for a period
of time. But she says that she began to suspect Walt in 1991. Uh that year, I guess Walt had
taken her uh Rachel's babysitter out on a date and Rachel walked into the room and found Walt attacking the teenage
girl, beating her and in her words saying trying to rape her. She says that she chased him off
with a shotgun and that's when the thought came to her. Well, maybe he had done the same thing to my sister. She
went on to tell Dr. Phil, that when police went to serve the warrant to on Walt for this incident, uh, so this
would be 1991, that he had photos of Lori on his walls and his bedside table. They found her
earring, Lor's earring that she had worn the night she was killed. It was all bent and
misshapen. Rachel said that it was misshaped because she had been hit while, you know, the earring was still
in her ear. She said that Walt told police that the family gave him this earring as some kind of momento of Lori.
She denies this when he says that. She told Dr. Phil that quote, "I am 100% positive that Walt is my sister's killer
beyond a shadow of doubt." And then she called Walter a psychopath. Earlier during the week of the Dr. Phil taping
for the show. Rachel admitted she had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital because she had threatened to
kill both Walter Zimpik and his attorney, Amber Van Gunton. I I mean, look, this is not a great way to handle
your problems. I can maybe reconci reconcile with the idea of going after Walter Zimpik, but I I don't
know that you need to threaten to kill the attorney as well, but clearly she's not in her right mind. The She did say
she was honest about being admitted to the psychiatric hospital. She did say the hospital they were keeping me safe
from hunting Amber and Walt down. Rachel said that she promised her father on his deathbed that she would kill the
man who killed Lori and she was determined to keep that promise. Yeah, but you have to figure out who it is
first. You have to figure out who it is first. And she did say that that, you know, when she was able
to clear her mind, clear her thoughts, she she changed her mind on wanting to carry out that promise to her father
because she was older. She had five granddaughters. She, you know, she had a family. She had many more reasons for
staying out of prison than just the one for getting even and getting that eye for an eye that her father wanted. But
this is I mean this is a strange and bizarre scenario, right? She's not seen the accused since the
trial that he that he walked away from. And now they were going to be face to face on set together. Well, this is a a
Dr. Phil special. This is what he does. This is what he does. Yeah. This is what
old Phil one day he's going to put us face to face and have it out. one last goaround. At some point, she's heard she
can be overheard asking Dr. Phil if his security guards were present because she
she wanted to make sure that if needed, they would be there to stop her from hurting Walter
Zimp. So, Zemp Zimp said in a pre-taped interview, you know, when they pre-taped
something and then later they air it on the show, he's saying in that pre-taped interview that Rachel was fixated on
him. He says, "I've always been in love with Lori." He maintained that he and Lori had started talking about getting
back together, and that night she was supposed to leave the boy that she was seeing at the time. He said, "In
essence, she was at the party. I was at the mall with some friends. That night, I got a call from the police around 1:30
a.m. asking if I had seen or heard from Lori. I said no. The next day I saw Rachel at her house and helped search
for Lori. He denied having any scratches on him of any sort. He said he was crushed when Lori was found dead. He he
did go on to tell the show, "Hey, look, I passed a polygraph exam back in 1985. Uh my DNA was tested against the DNA on
Lor's body. It didn't match." And while he's trying to defend himself and point out reasons why he might be innocent,
Rachel starts spouting off, you know, I hate you. I know you killed Lori. Rachel
said, "Man, this is disturbing." Rachel said that Lori when she was attacked that night and killed that Lori fought
so hard her knuckles were broken. Her argument was that the DNA was so disintegrated there was nothing left
that he could not have been cleared by DNA. He did this is this is odd because we we know he had a different stance on
this when interviewed in 2008. He on the show and maybe he was just trying to present himself in a certain light, a
bad light, but he did deny lying to the police. He said he did give two conflicting
stories about that night and one he just just left out the facts that he was with
a girl that night with the with the Sandy girl. Now, of course, Dr. Phil's not going to allow this to stand, right?
We we we know his his mojo. So now he's you can see him armed with the transcript from the interviews and
he's going to confront Walter saying like like look man in this interview you admit that you lied like so don't don't
sit here and tell us that you didn't lie to the police. You you admit it right here. We have your words. So Walter gets
all kind of shifty during this part. He's he's he's kind of denying it again. Yeah, but you can be a liar and not a
murderer. True. And and and in and in his defense, he has a different answer for it at this time. He's saying, "Look,
yes, I gave them two different stories. The only difference in my stories is that I left Sandy out. In the second
story in in the second story I gave them, I didn't leave Sandy out." And he he's saying now to Phil, Dr. Phil, I was
young. I was scared. I was nervous when I was talking to the police back in 1985. And of course, Phil's Dr. Phil's
going to point out, look, this this is this looks very suspicious. And and look, I can I don't like Walter in this
part, but I can agree with both Dr. Phil and Walter's statements when when he's confronted and and Dr. Phil pushes him
even further, challenges him even more. Why did you give at this point Dr. Phil is saying three different alibis? The
rebuttal here is that uh Walter saying, "I always said that I was at the mall." And he's and he goes on to say that the
the things the things that remain true to this day. I always said that I was at the mall. Number one, and number two, I
never saw I always said I never saw Lori on the night that she died. Walter's attorney, Amber, then points out on the
show to Dr. fulfilled that she speaks up and she raised a theory that has never been presented before in the case saying
that that it was a ritualistic killer. She said that two sticks were found on Lor's stomach in the form of an upside
down cross. I guess it's so out of left field here, Captain, that that during the course of the Dr. Phil episode,
that's not really further explored, right? There's similarities to this case and and the deli case and but when you
find a victim in in a wooded area or a field there are sometimes these killers decide to well maybe I can conceal the
body and after starting that process realize there's not enough material around them and they right or that a car
drives by and then they they take off. It's like the first time that somebody brought up to me with deli, they go, you
know, they found a found some sticks on the girls in the form of a cross or a form of something. And I said, yeah,
they were in the effing woods. It would be strange if they didn't find some sticks. Like uh I mean, come on here,
people. So, I'm not going to go through the the 1985 polygraph, but we do have the transcript of that. And and Dr. Phil
did as well. They brought on an expert, a polygraph expert, former FBI special agent who reviewed the
1985 test that Walter passed. And you know, he passed that test. The expert said, "This would be a very, very
difficult test for him to lie his way through and to pass. This would be a very it'd be very difficult to end up
with these results with the way that the test was administered with the questions
that were asked and for him to be deceptive but not give off the result that he was being deceptive. So
that I mean if you're scoring at home put one in favor of Walter here. But there was a second episode a second Dr.
Phil episode Dr. Phil made Rachel Hill promise to put some stock in the Polygraph results. In other words, he's
saying, "Hey, we're going to we're going to do another episode here, but I want you to try to keep more of an open
mind." And on this episode, it was very different. Uh Walter said to Rachel, "I feel sorry for you and I feel sorry for
your family." Rachel asked only one question. The the purpose of this second episode
here, Captain, was they were going to administer polygraph examinations of both Rachel and of Walter. This would be
Dr. Phil's team doing this. And that's why he's saying, look, you know, we know that we know that he passed the
polygraph in 1985. We're going to give him another one today. Hey, we're going to give you one as well, and we want you
to try to keep an open mind about the results that may come of this. So, what were the results? Well, this is
interesting because part of the the questions for Rachel centers around that babysitter incident, remember where she
says, "This is the light that went off after I saw him assaulting this teenage babysitter that I wondered, did he do
the same thing to my sister years ago?" Right? And the the examiner said that regarding that babysitter incident,
Rachel's statements and answers were truthful. The results were truthful. Now, the flip of that is in
regard to Walter Zimbeck killing Lori and all the questions that were involved for him
in this new updated polygraph gets the same result. He's he says he didn't kill her and he the
result is he's not being deceptive. Right. And in this moment and and I think look I mean sometimes it takes a
person to have walked in another person's shoes. And what I mean by that in this
this scenario is Rachel knew all along that this guy passed the 85 polygraph. But doesn't that polygraph mean a whole
lot more when you know something to be true and you have to sit down and give your own and then the results are in and
they're saying, "Yeah, cames came back that you were telling the truth about this incident that this guy didn't want
to admit to." In Zimpik's test, he's only asked about if he killed Lori. He's only asked if about questions pertaining
to the night that Lori disappeared and about uh Lor's homicide. It comes back non-deceptive. He says he didn't do it.
says he wasn't involved. Non-deceptive. So in this scenario, Captain Rachel seemed to immediately accept that the
polygraph results were in fact accurate. She began crying. She was almost hysterical. She pleaded with Walter
asking him questions as she's crying. Why all the lies? Why all the different stories? He said he didn't even remember
saying those things to police. He said he was a kid. She cried. He cried. Walter goes on to say on the show that
he loved Rachel's family, that he loved the Hill family, saying, "I would," quote, "I would do anything for Lori."
And then he approached Rachel and they hugged it out. And he says to her, "Let's go find the person who did this
together." Yeah. Rachel acknowledged that she has that that she has to forgive him and that she has accepted
that he didn't do it. But she said she hoped it was him because if it wasn't him who had killed her sister, then it
was a monster. And in and and back in ' 85 and in the moment that her poor sister knew that she was going to die.
And it doesn't end there because we fast forward two years later. The case was pretty much stone cold after the charges
against Walter Zimick were dropped. It was stone cold up until the Dr. Phil drama and then even after that stone
cold at least as the as far as the public knows. So years go by but in 2016 a man was arrested in Fulton County for
the murder of another young woman in a crime that seems eerily similar. And this arrest would revive Lorie Anne
Hills homicide case at least in the eyes of the public and especially in her family. The victim in that case was
Sierra Joan. The man, the local man arrested for her murder was James Dean Warley. And after Warley's arrest,
Rachel Hill spoke with NBC 24. She said that she believed when Zimbeck was arrested that he did in
fact kill Lori. But now after this new information, she believed that James Worley killed her sister Lori. Now, to
be perfectly clear here, Captain, this seems to be more of a gut feeling type of thing rather than Rachel having any
evidence of Warley's involvement or having killed her sister. This next part here is from NBC 24 says, quote, "Rachel
believes it was Warley who killed her sister after she saw him at his first arraignment in Fulton County."
She said, "The evil that oozed out of him and the bloodstained hands and the fact that he wrote with
his left hand is what convinced her." Rachel said she was told years ago that her sister's killer was left-handed.
Anyone who has any information about the murder of Laurianne Hill, please contact
the Toledo Police Department at 419-2453142. And if you have any information about James Dean Warley,
convicted murderer James Dean Warley, please call the Fulton County Sheriff's Office at
419335410. Want to thank everybody for joining us here in the garage each and every week. and thanks for sharing these
cases on social media. Colonel, do we have any recommended reading for the beautiful listeners? Absolutely,
Captain. This week, this one was a uh one that I think is properly handpicked by yours truly
because we've been getting a few requests lately for Dayton, Ohio cases. Um, and so this is by a great historic
true crime expert that, you know, it's one thing to cover these stories that happened 10, 20 years ago. It's one
thing to cover these stories that are new, fresh in the news just a few months ago, like we like we did it a week or so
back. All of these cases are unique, but it's incredibly difficult to go way back
in time and find a good deal of information and historic facts to piece together a story about an old true crime
story. And and Sarah Kashall does it better than most. And we've recommended some of her books previously on True
Crime Garage, but this week we are recommending a it's called Murder in Victorian Dayton. The tragic story of
Bessie Little. The murder of Bessie Little and the trial of her murderer rocked Victorian Dayton. Believing
herself pregnant and desperate to save her reputation, young Bessie tried to force her boyfriend to marry her
quickly. Instead, he took her out for a buggy ride, shot her twice in the head, and dumped her body in the river. When
she was discovered, he tried to convince everyone that she had committed suicide.
We talked about a dramatic trial this week on True Crime Garage. We talked about the drama on Dr. Phil. There was a
dramatic trial in this case as well. So, go out and check out this great book, Murder and Victorian Dayton: The Tragic
Story of Bessie Little. You don't have to write that title down now because you can go to our website true
crimegar.com. Click on the recommendation tab and we have podcast, documentaries, and other books
recommendations there for you. And until next week, be good, be kind, and don't limit.
[Music]

Killing was Purposeful /// Part 2 /// 842

Part 2 of 4

www.TrueCrimeGarage.com (http://www.truecrimegarage.com/)

Starting in the 80s and then continuing for two decades, Toledo and northwest Ohio was experiencing an increase in violent crimes. Horrifically, abduction, murder, and rape were on the rise. Some of these cases remain open to this very day. Murder was difficult to investigate. Some cases were traditional homicides - person kills someone they know for reasons specific to their relationship. Others were more random. There were cases that were closed out with someone being held accountable for their actions and then there are cases that have fallen by the wayside. These cases have gone cold. But as we look back we must consider the possibility that one or more serial offenders operated in this area and went undetected. This week we take a look at the still unsolved homicide case of Lori Ann Hill.

Beer of the Week - Lawn Mower Yard Lager by Churchill Brewing

Garage Grade - 3 and a half bottle caps out of 5

Go to Crime Con 2025 in Denver, September 5 -7. Save on tickets by using our PROMO code - TCG

More True Crime Garage can be found on Patreon and Apple subscriptions with our show - Off The Record. Catch dozens of episodes of Off The Record plus a couple of Bonus episodes and our first 50 when you sign up today.

True Crime Garage merchandise is available on our website’s store page. Plus get True Crime Garage Pod art that you can post on your socials on our Media page.

Follow the show on X and Insta @TrueCrimeGarage / Follow Nic on X @TCGNIC / Follow The Captain on X @TCGCaptain

Thanks for listening and thanks for telling a friend. Be good, be kind, and don’t litter!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com (https://pcm.adswizz.com) for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Brief Summary

Walter Zmpic's inconsistent statements lead to his arrest for Laurianne Hill's murder, but evidence remains inconclusive, resulting in a mistrial and ongoing investigation.

Key points

Welcome to True Crime Garage. Hosts Nick and Captain introduce the show with humor and a beer review.
The Case of Walter Zempic. Investigators revisit the cold case of Walter Zempic, revealing inconsistencies in his statements.
Conflicting Statements. Walter Zempic's mother provides new information about calls from Lori Hill.
The Search for Lorie Hill. Walter's actions after receiving calls about Lorie's disappearance raise questions.
Walter Zmpic's Arrest. After 8 months of investigation, Walter Zmpic was arrested in connection to the cold case.
Defense's Argument. Zmpic's defense attorneys filed motions arguing that the passage of time prejudiced his case.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

Raise your glasses in the air to Jessica and Captain Big Dick.

A playful toast to listeners.

2:45WatchMay 14, 2025

Tension

65/ 100Some tension

More from True Crime Garage TV

Solve the Crime

Read a real case one clue at a time, then see how your call held up against the investigators.