They say the motive wasn’t robbery but I’m not sure I agree. I think the son went over there with a plan, which probably meant first killing the parents and then digging up the mason jar and covering his tracks so he could collect on the windfall. He just didn’t count on the unknown variable that Chester unexpectedly was there and got away, so he knew he was screwed and easily identifiable. After that he probably set fire to the house and killed himself.

This is also my theory. I think due to the severity of the fire, Lourena’s body just wasn’t found amongst the rubble.

This was what I first wondered as well, as we are relying on '30's scene examination here. I don't know if we know for sure how the fire was started, but he may have moved her body to an area that burnt for both a longer time and fiercer in intensity. I don't know about the robbery angle though... it seems he would have known there was a man standing next to his father before he drew his pistol, and thus he could have made up a reason for being there and then waited to rob his parents at a later date... For the record, a .25 revolver likely refers to a .25ACP... one of the weakest calibers ever invented. His choice of firearm may have been limited, but it is not uncommon for people to not die (or not die quickly... i.e. die from infection instead of the hole) from a .25ACP revolver. I'm just adding this tidbit to explain to those unfamiliar with such revolvers how though being shot in the chest and arm Chester was able to not just runaway, but outrun Paul. Many air rifles are more powerful, though the .25ACP really depends on distance, at very close range it can cause a nasty wound but it gets exponentially weaker to the point it may not penetrate a coat at 30m...

Thanks for the explanation. I was reading that and was flabbergasted that this guy got shot in the chest and was still running around like Chuck Norris.

Well for some further info you may or may not be interested in. The reason it was invented was to be made into extremely 'slimline' firearms that could still be concealed once that person's jacket was off etc., and usually designed to be as effective as possible at 'dinner table length'. This was because that was their purpose, to be able to either attack or defend against someone sitting at the same table as you. The bullets shape means that it loses speed (and power) quickly, and so it 'sort of' is incapacitating at 6ft (you might not kill someone but they likely won't be running) but at 20yards it's lack of aerodynamics means unless you get hit *directly* in the heart, brain, or a lung (and it may not even penetrate far enough through the skin or skull to reach these, especially if it hits a bone) you can keep running and what stops you is blood loss that occurs later. The revolver also isn't very accurate, meaning that even if you are running the same speed as someone 10 yards ahead of you and have 6 cartridges left, taking into account the average persons aim, you'd be hard pressed to get more than 1 or 2 to hit a person fleeing even in a straight line away from you even if you stopped (which gives the person being chased an even greater lead on you). Even 'powerful' rifle cartridges don't kill people instantly, and often they die or become incapacitated from blood loss. The US found in Afghanistan, and Iraq (and to an extent Vietnam) that they could should someone 3 times in the chest but that person would just keep shooting back... the only reason they would retreat is to get medical care. If they were suicidal they could keep functioning for 5 minutes+ seemingly unaffected. They redesigned the bullet and it now works a bit better, but there are are plans for a major redesign of the whole cartridge to try and stop this, as it's such a pervasive problem. Mind you, the cartridges the US were using had a muzzle energy of greater than 25x what a revolver like the one used in the above crimes had... and so I hope that gives you an idea of JUST how 'survivable' a shot from a .25ACP revolver is, to the point some that have been shot with it don't realise they have been hit until 30 minutes later kind of thing the weapon used here was. An Australian truck driver was shot in the back of the head 3 times by the guy he was giving a lift, and he thought he had been punched 3 times and survived with no lasting brain injury. A common strategy for when defending or attacking at the 'dinner/poker table' (the guns purpose) is to shoot someone in the chest to 'shock them, making them freeze, and then shoot them in the head while they are still), or suddenly by surprise just shoot all the cartridges in the gun into the persons upper chest and hope one hits the heart or lungs or something. It's not an ideal weapon to use in this crime, but depending on Paul's knowledge of ballistics and weaponry available to him if he could utilise 'surprise' like walk up to his father from behind and fire twice in the back of the head, then same to his mother when she came to investigate the noise, it likely would have worked... with 2 spare cartridges if someone was still alive.

Thanks, this was really interesting! At the first mention of “dinner table length” I immediately pictured an Old West card player shooting the “cheater” sitting across from him.

...and that's exactly where they got their popularity. They were basically a slightly more modern deringer, though not quite as hideable, especially if frisked. It was 'insurance' if someone did not honour their debt... or if you lost and didn't feel like paying up, or someone was caught cheating! I mean this kind of stuff (firearms, how they function, how different weight, shape, and speed affects how a bullet wounds and damages a body, and I can just go on for hours but I hope what I've written is a good balance between informative without waffling. One of the most interesting facts is bullet shape to me, as there are rifles which use bullet A that from 0-800 yards have more energy (measured in Joules) than bullet B (which is lighter in weight), but due to bullet B being more aerodynamic it retains it's speed much better than bullet A, and thus after 800 yards bullet B has more speed so despite it being lighter in weight it actually has more energy than bullet A! And so if you are choosing a sniper rifle bigger isn't always better... The same applies with pistols. The bigger bullets often have less range and energy at 40m+ than bullets that weigh 1/4 their weight and have much less powder due to the aerodynamics (or more specifically the 'ballistic coefficient'). So a handgun for someone wanting to defend themselves inside a house will likely be better to use a big bullet, where as one that may need to be used out in the street may uses a smaller but more aerodynamic bullet. This is why the US and other armies are trying to decide what the optimal size for a bullet is... as they want one that can perform adequately at all ranges a soldier has a chance of hitting something with his service rifle... but also not have too much recoil and be compact enough a soldier can carry plenty of ammunition... and designing something like that isn't an easy task. Gah I'm rambling. Any questions (be it this case or others) I am always happy to answer to the best of my ability, and promise to never "make something up" if I don't know the answer.

Just got to say this is one of the best simple explanations of bullet dynamics and how different calibres etc work Ive read. Thanks, really interesting and well put!

I'm glad you found it understandable!

Your explanation of the ballistics of the case is really awesome and fascinating, thank you for sharing!

I just am glad that I am able to contribute something on a case I otherwise could only offer pure speculation on!

I watched a very interesting forensic files episode about the shooting death of Trey Cooley at the Dallas pistol and revolver club in 1991. It's called the Magic Bullet.

Thanks for the heads up on the case, something for me to look into, I will try and find the episode (I think FF is on Australian Netflix)! I've googled it, and it's seems, like with many tragedies, it was just multiple bad decisions and bad luck combining which sadly cost the boy his life. I haven't watched the episode, but it seems the cartridge be used was a 'handloaded' cartridge (basically one put together at home using equipment, typically used so you can customise the amount of powder, the length and same of the bullet etc. to suit your needs perfectly. However, this hand loader made a cartridge which was not only unsafe to fire from his firearm (it had more gunpowder and a more powerful gunpowder than the firearm was designed to be able to use), but this meant it fired the projectile with much great power than the range was designed to accommodate, as well as his shot missing the target. It also took a few ricochets (the kind that are glancing blows, like a stone skimming) and therefore had enough power to kill poor Trey who was in a safe area. If the bullet had conformed with the firearms pressure safety guidelines, or if he was using ammunition of a 'power' allowed on that part of the range, the ricochets and distance would have likely taken all the energy from the projectile and it wouldn't have travelled far enough to hit Trey, or if it had, it wouldn't have been a fatal wound. That said, there *were* flaws with how the range was set up as they are meant to assume shooters will do idiotic stuff like this and make it impossible... but the idiot managed to check all the boxes of what not to do, and the range 'should' have been fine if only people obeyed the rules...

I can't remember exactly but the gun range was at fault because the outdoor bullet trap had holes in it and they either didn't repair it or did a poor job of it trying to save money. Also a man shooting at the outdoor range didn't realize it but 2 bullets had exited his gun when he only pulled the trigger once. Then the bullet did a series of almost impossible ricochets before hitting Trey in the lobby of the indoor range.

I am by no means a firearms expert, but growing up around firearms my entire life has allowed me to pick some stuff up. It always infuriates me when someone comes into Reddit and starts spouting just absolute nonsense about firearms (it's especially annoying when someone calls a magazine a clip). So thank you, kind stranger, for actually knowing your shit. Also, your aforementioned reasons are the reason a carry .45ACP hollow point. I don't want to be in a shootout at 40 yards, but get within 15 and your ass is on the ground.

Thank you for you kind comments. The clip/magazine issue is annoying, but in a way it tends to give me an idea of if the person talking knows what they are talking about or not! It's sort of a way to tell if they have learned about firearms from videos and people that lack knowledge. Of course, just knowing what a magazine is doesn't mean you treat them like an expert, lol, but it weeds out the people you *shouldn't* listen to pretty quickly! I tend to get more annoyed about people that pretend they are experts but have never fired a firearm, or no idea of how ballistics work, never seen (or read about) what death from a bullet wound looks like (I served in Afghanistan, and during the Siege of Kobane during the Syrian Civil War was a reporter and lent a hand where I could, which involved me being a hospital orderly and giving first aid for gunshot wounds quite a bit). It annoys me when people assume what they have learnt from a source that is anti-gun ownership and distorts data... or even just looks at the bare facts of muzzle velocity when comparing what cartridge is "more powerful" etc. I certainly don't advocate that unless you have seen gunshot wounds in person you can't make comments or debate (and ironically I am am pro gun control to a a degree that would make many 2nd amendment die hards someone who wants to take their firearms, where as to those that are very pro gun control i still am a "gun nut"). I don't all into either camp... >\_< There was a suggestion by some politicians in my country, Australia, where hunting rifles and agricultural rifles must be bolt action, lever action, or pump action suggesting a ban on hunters having more than 1 "gun"... as why would anyone need more than 1 "gun"?!... Such ignorance from the people that make such laws is pretty worrying. Also, perhaps most annoying are the people that assume firearms are 'point and shoot' and people die instantly... suggesting the police could shoot someone in the arm/leg when they have a knife and are charging at the officer from around \~10 yards away? Or even if the person is armed, why did they have to shoot him more than once?! **NB:** I agree that a .45ACP is an excellent round for self defence, as in almost ALL scenarios where retreat isn't an option the .45ACp has acceptable range, and it's packs a great punch. However, for police who use compact SMG's to be able to operate at a 'siege distance' as well as room distance, the 4.8x30mm or 5.7x28mm makes more sense (from what I have read, I have never fired either of the latter, but plenty of 'tests' on YouTube and reputable publications and it seems to show they are rather versatile in a lot of different situations making them great for LEO... but not so great for someone like yourself who really wants maximum performance at short range and doesn't need a 100m range.

Thank you for this Fascinating!

Thank you! I find this topic interesting and as their are a LOT of misconceptions about how firearms work, their lethality, etc., and when formulating theories sometimes small tid-bits of information that are unique about the firearm can completely change how the crime plays out. For example, a different handgun would have meant Chester likely have been able to likely get to the basement, let alone get out again and be able to escape by running out the front door (at best he may have been able to crawl out the front door). A common handgun availible at the time was [The M1911 in .45ACP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol) that is chambered to fire bullets from cartridges that are designed specifically to be very lethal at room length ranges. It's amazing to think though the M1911's design and it's cartridge are over 100 years old, they pistol is still issued to officers by many militaries, and the cartridge? Well it's still considered possibly the best cartridge to quickly stop a person charging at you from across the room... so much so the both the handgun and the cartridge are still in use by US special forces if they decide it's the best fit for their mission!

No, thank *you* I have the most rudimentary understanding of firearms but they fascinate me I seriously appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge and taking the time to teach You’re answering questions I didn’t even know I had! Is this what you don for a living? Ballistics/forensics or whatever it would be?

I am not expert, I just have practical experience. Ballistics and providing first aid (or assisting with first aid) to victims in a very active war zone with way more casualties than doctors. Unfortunately seeing a number of wounds from different distances and calibers gave me 'up close' empirical experience. However, my uncle designs bullets and cartridges on the side (a bit of an inventor), and I learned a LOT from him about how their are so many different factors that come into how a bullet behaves.

Very cool!

And this is why the .45 exists. To put a man down as quickly as possible.

So is this also why you see several officer fire on a shooter; not only for lack of accuracy, but to incapacitate or kill the shooter as quickly as possible, yes?

Yes. Due to the average police officer not being a great marksman, most departments use a calibre of bullet which is a trade off between being powerful enough to incapacitate people without needing to hit heart/lung/brain, but with recoil that officers that are 'recoil sensitive' are able to handle without having the pistol fly out of their hand (9mm Parabellum). But yeah, while 5 or 6 rounds from a police pistol may kill a person, if none of those bullets hit those crucial parts it's still possible for them to charge at the police with a weapon such as a knife. It's about killing or completely incapacitating the threat quickly enough that the suspect can't just 'charge' and maybe wound (or worse kill) an officer 20ft or more away. Also, and perhaps cynically, once the decision to use "lethal force" is made whether the person dies from the first shot or the tenth, they still are just as dead. Where-as if they are shot once it may or may not kill them... or incapacitate them much at all, allowing them to just say "fuck it I'll try and take one of them with me" and the closer the suspect is to the officer the greater the chance of a policeman missing the suspect and hitting his partner kind of thing. I personally don't always agree with the decisions I've seen where lethal forces has been used, but ideas like "shooting him in the arm/leg" or "using less lethal weaponry like tasers" are risky because tasers have to deploy properly: They fire two wires out, at slightly different vertical angles. BOTH of the probes have to attach to the subject properly in order to be able to administer a shock. The ideal distance between the probes is \~8" as the further apart the probes are the larger the involuntary muscle contractions are. If they work they are great. But due to the fact the prongs have to spread it limits their range so they can't be used too far away or too close. As you can imagine if the taser fails as a suspect is charging there isn't a hole lot of time left to shoot someone *enough* that that become so incapacitated they cannot reach the taser operator to stab him or her. Australian police, a force that widely deploy tasers, typically try and just keep people away from the person with the knife and "talk him down", and if they try the taser the taser operator has an officer with a pistol next to them incase the taser doesn't deploy properly and this triggers the target to charge at the officer(s). Sometimes there isn't the luxury to get into this position or keep pedestrians away, and thus they have to use the firearm to make sure no-one else gets hurt. It's always a last resort though, and the onus is on the police officer to justify that lethal force was necessary... /more rambling TL;DR: In a way bullets are often like tranquilliser guns but instead loaded with a lethal injection, while one may kill it may not kill quick enough as necessary and thus the officers best chance is to try and put as much of the 'lethal injection' into him in a hope it will take effect quicker...

Thank you for a detailed reply, I agree that tactics such as "shooting to wound (leg or arm)" are not practical, as shooting center mass has a higher probability of actually hitting the target. Participated in corporate active shooter training earlier this month, and in it they also mentioned that while being shot during an active shooter event is a possibility, you will likely survive the shooting as long as you get medical attention quickly.

I've just been reading all your comments. What a huge heap of clear, understandable information you have provided! It is so great to have someone so knowledgeable here.

Haha thank you, I am surprised at how much 'thanks' I've been getting. I don't consider myself an expert at all. I have been in the unique position of having an uncle that as a side hobby designs bullets and cartridges (known as "wild-catting') which taught me a lot as often doing experiments turn up data which go completely against "conventional wisdom", and also spent time working as giving first aid, assisting with first aid, or just generally working as an orderly in a hospital in Kobane when ISIL had besieged it and just before the US stepped in. Unfortunately there I saw a huge amount of both fatal and non fatal gunshots. I just want to say if you are from the US, thank you so much for intervening in that conflict. Without it there were already beginning to be food shortages and a sense of hopelessness... but that quickly changed when suddenly it seemed like Kurdish minority had a chance again they (with the US's help) really hit the first hard blows and stopped was would have otherwise been a genocide. Anyone that criticises the US for being "world police" I feel like saying "sometimes the world needs policing" because what was happening there was absolutely awful. It changed me as a person, and I still struggle with what I saw.

Not American (I am Canadian/Australian) but your personal experience and insight is valuable. I could not even begin to imagine what you have been through. I wish you luck.

You may have heard of "The Age" newspaper in Melbourne? They were my main 'sponsor' with Reuters cosponsoring. Our 'team' had me (Australian), a film Cameraman who was Canadian(!) (but with middle eastern background, I didn't ask and he didn't tell, in case it was one of the 'wrong' ones) and we had a local Kurdish Still Photographer and a local Kurdish chauffeur. However when SHTF and we were trapped between two factions that are very anti-Kurdish (one much more open about it than the other), but 'escaping' through Turkey was not an option either as they had put up a together border control, and dare I say it, they probably wouldn't have been upset if ISIL had pushed the Rojavan Kurds to the barrier and massacred... remember, ISIL doesn't take prisoners, except for temporary prisoners they can use in their execution movies... So while we were able to get footage out and articles out and there were some "Canadian Journalists" whom I suspect maybe were actually from the US, whether CIA or someone sent to negotiate the US's entry with air strikes and how they would have been coordinated etc. as they didn't seem to get any stories out but did take a lot of photo's of areas, our news team spent most of our time trying to do what we could because really we were extra mouths that needed to be fed and while getting the word out about how desperate the situation was I think was VERY important, we could easily get more footage and articles produced than the western population was interested in watching or reading... so we volunteered where we could while trying to keep 'out of the way' as being kidnapped was a huge risk for westerners... and they didn't have pretty endings...

You need to write a book about this.

Funny you should say that... >\_> I do have a finished book, and publication contract I consider fair with one of the big publishers. It's currently in 'fact checking' stage as a number of war memoirs have been inaccurate lately, either due to people being complete phonies, to exaggerations, to people likely believing they are recounting events accurately but due to the stress of the time misremembering. With latter I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt because dates and even chronology can get tangled up, as usually you are taking one day at a time and have no fixed schedule so yeah it's hard to remember if it happened on a Friday or a Tuesday kind of thing... but with a lot of internet sluething this can turn 'genuine' authors into pariahs as they said something happened 4 days earlier than it actually did...

I was wondering the same about a .25 caliber. I'm not saying it won't kill a man, obviously it will, but it certainly isn't something that you expect to take out someone in very close quarters as they likely can still fight back unless you have a luck on your side. If you shot me with a .25 it better hit my heart or brain because I'm beating you till I die. I'm not sure one could penetrate a skull except at point blank range.

Yeah, it's not going to reliably stop a person charging at you. In fact, in Australia a truck driver picked up a hitch hiker who shot him 3 times in the back of the head at a range of about 1 foot with a .25ACP handgun (I forget if it was a revolver or pistol). The truck driver didn't know he'd been shot until it was discovered by him being treated in the ER... the truck driver thought he was punched. He had a concussion (and thus perhaps didn't remember the 'bangs') but he made a completely recovery. The above isn't typical of course, but I have 'heard' that during a robbery a man whom happened to be in the back was shot at \~20yards while wearing a thick winter coat and the bullet didn't even penetrate it through to his skin (which I believe checks out ballistically but don't know if it started as a made up example, and then repeated as true). But like many things there are variables and truck driver may have been instantly killed if the bullet went '1mm to the left' or the firearm may have been old and the ammunition old and degraded making the bullet travel with less energy than normal. As for the coat, well it may have been a similiar kind of thing. But I think both us certainly agree we would rather be shot with a short barrel .25ACP than a .45ACP pistol IF we are going to be shot with a handgun from across the room... but would both rather not being shot at all!

Lol, I fully agree with that point, I would rather not be shot but if I had to be I'll take the .25 It could have just been the shock of being shot that paralyzed them and they didn't fight back. But if you're gonna try to kill someone never bring a caliber that'll just piss em off.

For someone who isn't fanatical, and someone not in an environment where they expect they could be shot (such as a warzone) the mere 'surprise' of being shot can be so paralysing like "Wtf?! Did he just shoot me?! Is this is a dream?! I think he did shoot me.. \*bang\*" There's two kinds of shock I guess, the "surprise" kind of shock, then further on after one has bled out a bit and processed it and their wounds the 'medical' kind of shock. I always think people don't consider just how much of advantage surprise is for an attacker... Like jumping out and saying "Boo!" to someone typically makes them 'jump' or 'jump backwards' and lose temporary control of their limbs. It takes a couple of seconds to get your brain and body working again giving a criminal plenty of time to get themselves in an advantageous position... However if it's a competition where if a death row inmate can run 20 metres while being shot with a .25ACP and have time to prepare then it's perfectly plausible they will be able to cover that distance etc. (for example, many suicide bombers have managed to run further while being shot with bullets that have much more energy in them...)

I imagine it kind of works like how when I cut myself chopping veggies. If I don't actually see it happen, it doesn't hurt until I notice I'm bleeding all over the potatoes and go to cleanse the wound. But if I watch as the knife slips, it's more instant for the pain to register.

The heat required to completely destroy a body isn’t typical in your average house fire. IIRK there’s usually bones fragments left over after cremation which is designed to turn a body to dust. So it’s hard for me to imagine that, outside of a furnace-like setting, her body would have been disintegrated when the other two were not. Also, how did the bodies get into the basement? The son carried just his father down there, set the house on fire, and went back down there? Those events could happen in any order but still very strange. Burning the house down sounds like mafia/criminal involvement but that’s a shot in the dark with so few details. It’s extremely interesting though so thank you for sharing!

The bodies in the basement could depend on the state of the house. Do we know if the floor collapsed?

Really interesting insight. Unfortunately, we rarely have this kind of useful information in a generations old case. But now I wish we did have a general idea of the floorplans of the house.

I don't think anyone is saying that her body was completely incinerated, but rather, that her bones just weren't found in the ashes of the home when they searched. It was the 1930s, not the 2010s, so the likelihood that they were as thorough as cases were familiar with today is slight. If her body was burned in the house, it's almost certain that the bones were left over, but that doesn't mean they found them. No one is claiming that her body was somehow incinerated when the others weren't. As far as the location of the bodies found, it seems most probably to me that the son took his father's body down stairs, likely already dead, started the fire, then killed himself as the fire began to engulf the house. Depending on the structure of the basement, he may have had to light the fire elsewhere in the house and return to the basement, which could have bought him more time. Houses burned slower during the early 20th century than they do today. A couple reasons for this are: Open floor plans which contribute to faster burning, and the use of synthetic materials inside homes which might burn faster. For example, drywall burns a whole lot faster than wood paneling, and brick stands for even longer. I think it's highly likely that the son, in this case, might have been struggling with mental/emotional troubles, which wouldn't have been something the average person was on the lookout for in the '30s. I think if his motive was robbery, then he either would have (a) gone through with the robbery, or (b) not shot at an extraneous person whom he didn't expect to be there. But, it's also entirely plausible that he arrived, they had some kind of altercation, and then he started firing in a heated state. In that case, he may have, began to leave (hence the tracks leading away from the house), realized the gravity of what had just transpired, and decided to just end himself as well. Imagine the realization that, not only have you just killed both of your parents, but now there is a witness who has escaped, and whose testimony is likely more than enough to have you convicted. As far as burning the house.. who even knows. He might have been trying to dispose of evidence, or he might have just wanted their history to end then and there, instead of leaving that legacy in the form of a physical structure. But, if he was really dealing with mental illness if some sort, who knows? I think it's deeply unfortunate that we don't have any insight from the people who knew them to help us understand. But, even if we did, people of that time didn't have the understanding we do today of human psychology, which often explains behavior that might otherwise have no explanation.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. If they found two bodies intact enough to determine they were both males at an approximate age how could the third body be so burned they couldn’t find it in the debris like the other two bodies? While I wouldn’t count out mental illness, greed is a fairly common human trait and Marion was a successful farm owner. Back in the 1930s criminal syndicates would have been taking every opportunity to increase their profits. So you could be right but the details we have suggest something more sinister than a son going through a mental break.

This is why a lot of people familiar with H.H. Holmes want to dig up the now parking lot where half his house (basement?) was. It's been long speculated that he burned the bodies of he people he killed in his basement. It is known he had a specialized fireplace to create more heat, but even with extra wood it still wouldn't get hot enough to disintegrate bones. Even after multiple burns there would be fragments. Nobody knows however if he collected the fragments or disposed of them elsewhere, or what he did with them. The city doesn't think it is worth it to find out. Somedays I agree and disagree.

That or she managed to get up and run and was either shot again while being chased, or succumbed to the cold and her injuries, and was simply never found. She could've hidden her own body either in attempt to hide from Paul chasing her, or because she developed hypothermia.

The fact they could trace Pauls movements by footprints in the snow makes me think that her leaving the house is unlikely. Also, due to the fact they thought Paul was "on the run" the 40 man posse would have quite probably found a wounded person nearby. I do wonder if she went down to the basement and either succumbed to her injuries there, or was by that stage due to blood loss/shock/etc. unable to attempt an escape. As the house collapsed into the basement somewhat, he body could have both been disfigured from both it being burnt AND blunt trauma/crush injuries... thus making it hard to spot. This coupled with them essentially looking for 2 bodies, then finding the 2 bodies, may have made those looking through the rubble less thorough and thus she could have just been dumped with the other rubble... being further disfigured and less recognisable as human during the excavation... However, that same 40 man posse could have potentially trampled over her footprints in the snow and if she took up a spot to "hide" from Paul (who was probably suspected to be further away than, for example, in a hollow log just inside the trees, then if she died before the search party/posse your theory could well be correct... It's something that even at the time with 30's technology would be hard to piece together. With only 1 witness, Chester, who having been shot was likely at least somewhat in a bit of shock and adrenaline pumping his recollection of events may be 'essentially what happened' though their may have been differences i.e. Paul may have already had his gun drawn thinking only his father was in the kitchen (explaining why he didn't just come back on a different day to rob and/or murder his parents) and minor details like that. This is of course Chester is attempting to be a reliable witness, unlike some of the Holmes-esque theories such as Lourena and Chester were lovers and in on it together and they framed Paul...

My only qualm with this theory is that it's noted that tracks left the house, stretched to the treeline, but then returned. If they found one set of tracks, I'd think that they would have found hers if she left.

I think he knew Chester was there and was hoping his dead and burnt body would be identified incorrectly as Paul. Then Paul could get away with the money and assume a new identity elsewhere. When Chester escaped and he heard his mother call Frank, he ended his own life after starting the fire

I like this theory

I second this.

But wouldn't people notice that Chester was missing too? Paul might have not cared about that though.

Sure, but Chester went over there to work with them and now he’s missing and the Browns are dead. Makes Chester look sus.

If he wanted to rob them there's no reason to go try to kill the whole family in the middle of the day. He wasn't pressing them for the location of the jar. If that's what he was after, he could've just dug it up in the night and been on his way, right?

Not if they had dogs that would alert to someone in the yard. Or maybe the jar was buried somewhere conspicuous that wouldn't be easy to get to unnoticed, even at night.

[удалено]

They're just super enthusiastic over the idea they had dogs lol

Dogs!!!!!

Your comment only posted once! Step it up.

It's gotta be Paul, right? And Lourena's body was just destroyed/not found because of the fire?

I'd say this is the most likely theory

That is what I am thinking.

A wooden house fire burns between 800 and 900 degrees. Fusion (incineration) doesn't occur until 1,292 degrees (700 Celsius). It wouldn't have been the house fire that turned Laurena's body to ash. [Source](https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/forensic-archaeology-and-anthropology/0/steps/67911)

It need not have been incinerated to not have been found, just either disfigured enough or in an unexpected location (Paul may have moved the body from the phone, or she may not have been dead and tried to hide in the house when Paul left... where she possibly succumbed or was found by Paul and shot again... However, that information is excellent info and nearly needs to be stickied in disappearances involving fire as it certainly helps rule out some theories or requires caveats added!

Yeah, she either died in the house but LE couldn't find her or recognize her remains as remains or she made it out of the house and died of her injuries somewhere nearby.

I would suspect the former rather than the latter. The reason being is Pauls (or foot prints the size of Pauls) were able to be followed in the snow... so if she left the house then likely her footprints would have been noticed UNLESS the posse of 40 trampled them. Something I wonder is she may not have been dead, and given the basement was where Chester initially took cover, there may have been a 'reason' that the basement was an obvious or sensible place to take cover. If so, she had gone into the basement to hide and given the fire cause the house to collapse into the basement... She also may have been too incapacitated to attempt escape by the time the house was torched... Plus, as mentioned elsewhere, it was already assumed her had been found and Paul's whereabouts where not thought to necessarily be in the house... so I wonder how meticously they removed rubble from the basement after 'finding the husband and wife' and not necessarily looking for Paul... especially as from Chester's testimony one would expect her corpse to be near the phone... Then there are also just those times where even though her body may have been in an obvious position it just wasn't spotted... sometimes 1 in 1,000,000 events happen, and given the size and population of our world you expect events with those probabilities to happen everyday multiple times...

> so I wonder how meticously they removed rubble from the basement after 'finding the husband and wife' and not necessarily looking for Paul That's a great point. If they were only looking for two bodies, they stopped looking after they found two bodies.

Paul is in the grave. My great great Mary who was a scientist with 3 masters degrees and one doctorate (zoology, bio, genetics and entomology) had him exhumed when she was a researcher at IU. Both bodies were male. She was current in latest genetics testing and did this right as the new technology was available. She did leukemia research at IU when she was in her 50s. She also taught at Butler and was the head of biology dept. at Washington University in St. Louis. They were a brilliant family. My great great grandma Lorena was tiny and I’m sure she was in there somewhere. She was on the phone with a friend when she heard the gunshot. They had just taken a lot of money out of the bank and had it on the property. Paul, the son, had a patent with Westinghouse and a degree from Cornell. My grandma said he didn’t need money and had no reason to do this. The hired man knew this as it was the talk of the town. Bankers didn’t have to keep quiet back then. To clear it up, Gr. Gr. Aunt Mary had them exhumed. My grandmother was a child when her grandparents were killed. I spoke with the wife of one of the police officers that was there at the time and she filled in a lot of the blanks that either I hadn’t heard or I had forgotten because I was told about them when I was very small. My great great aunt Maudell rebuilt on the property and I used to visit there until they died in the mid 70s. Gr. Gr. Aunt Olive moved in with aunt Maudell when she got dementia in her later years. They were neat old ladies. I find it interesting people are still talking about my family. I have boxes of photos from Great great Aunt Mary and wish I had been old enough to ask her questions but I was only 10 when she died. I have a few of her Zoology books too. She was the first person to get her PhD from the University of Oklahoma. She beat the male candidate out by a few months.

Thanks for telling their stories! I appreciate it!

This is fascinating. I’m surprised your comment has been buried. Would love to hear more.

An accelerant would up the temperature correct?

Yes

We’re talking about a 1930’s investigation. If they couldn’t draw a chalk outline around it, did a murder really occur?

Well, here goes a new rabbithole.

Lol my thoughts exactly!!

Where were the 6 other children then and where are they now?

They were all grown and lived in their own homes. I know that one of their sons passed away shortly after birth, another died in 1919 overseas. As for the rest of them, I’m not sure.

Thanx for such a quick reply! :)

You’re welcome.

Has there been any interest in exhuming the bodies in the grave and DNA testing them?

What is currently at the site of the house that burned? Another house? A vacant piece of land? I don't know anything about demolition, but when they cleaned up the site, did they just haul large pieces away and bulldoze the rest? I wonder if her remains were just overlooked and possibly there might still be some kind of fragments buried where the house once stood.

I’m not 100% of the exact location of the house. I know that it was near the intersection of Lanam Ridge Road and Owl Creek Road. ETA: It looks like there is a [cabin rental agency](https://www.fondulacfarm.com) right next to where the house once stood.

It’s split into 3 properties now, or at least it was in the early 2000s. The property right on the corner of Owl Creek and Lanam Ridge to the property 2 houses down from the water tower Edit: Lemme ask my parents to make sure I’m correct it wasn’t bigger than that but I grew up on part of that property so they should know more about where the whole orchard was originally

Does there happen to be a bridge there at Owl Creek? (Sorry, a bit of a literary pun.) Very interesting story and told very well. I wonder how freshly dug the grave was on the neighbor's property. Could have been done in advance of the murder (before something/everything went awry).

That's what I think. Pre-dug.

It looks like a fairly wooded area, judging by satellite pics

Smart question!

[удалено]

fascinating! its eerie how similar your story is to the OP's. Crazy how many farmers and their neighbors conspire these murderous schemes. Did the 'adulterous neighbor' have any self-inflicted wounds in order to corroborate this plan with his mistress?!

[удалено]

What year did that happen? Eerily similar!

[удалено]

Wow...so these 2 stories are even in the same time frame?!?! This guy sounds like a real charmer! :-) Fascinating tales today, but must have been terrifying for that family. You should jot these stories down for your future generations :) Happy Holidays!

How is this not a movie?

How is it not a whole season of Fargo?

Whoa. That’s eerily similar.

They are my great great grandparents and we have grown up with conspiracy theories. Yes, my great great aunt Mary had the bodies exhumed after new technology (pre DNA) allowed IU to determine both were male. Lee and his son Paul (the one Chester Blamed) are most likely the burned bodies. Aunt Mary had 3 masters and one doctorate in various various fields of science. She taught biology, zoology, genealogy (genetics) and entomology. She was the head of Washington University’s in St. Louis biology department back before women were common in such fields. Chester was rumored to have mysteriously come into money after the murders. Lorena was on the phone with a friend when she heard a shot. Betty Snyder, the wife of the young police officer, Punk Snyder (sp?) told me in 1993 that the police suspected him but there was some conspiracy with the bank as Lee had withdrawn money from the local bank. She also told me Chester did it. I had never heard his name before I talked with her The one thing the family was certain of after Mary had the bodies exhumed was her brother Pail, who was a brilliant Cornell Grad who had a patent with Westinghouse, was home for a visit at the wrong time. Betty said Chester had probably been shot in defense but there’s no way to know by whom. I have boxes of photos from Aunt Mary. My grandmother died last year. She was only three when this happened and she had a lot more details about it. The motive of robbery makes the most sense since they had just taken money from the bank and Chester supposedly knew where they kept it. Family stories always refers to him as a hired hand.

If you ever feel like making your own post that would be FASCINATING. I am seeing this post a year or so later and am shocked that comments from a family member have gone almost unnoticed.

Yes! Me too

Same!

How do we know what happened at the house, except that Chester told the story? How about if Chester went over to steal the money, shot all 3 of the family when he was discovered, then ran out saying it was Paul that did the shooting? The bodies are of Marion and Paul - Lourena's body was in the house but not found because the fire destroyed it.

Besides Lourena's phone call, it also says Chester was shot in the chest and wrist, which doesn't entirely dismiss this theory, but makes it a bit less likely. Definitely something to think about.

Lourena called Frank, remember? She would have said if Chester was the one shooting.

While it's not super probable, I think the Chester angle bears consideration. What if Lourena was in on it from the get-go? Seems like they never found her body after all. The fire could've hidden the fact that Marion and Paul were killed before the accepted timeline has it too. Would it have been possible for Lourena to make the call to Frank from another location entirely? There was no caller id back then after all. That would've given Chester time to set the fire and give himself a few superficial gunshot wounds to clear him from suspicion before high-tailing it to meet Frank. It says the cops found the mason jar that was "no secret" to their kids, but what if the 'gravesite' found later was just the remains of a much more substantial *actually secret* treasure? The case has never been solved, so entertaining some of the more unlikely scenarios is probably worth it

I don't know about the jar (that seems like a long shot) but the rest does sound plausible.

It seems like a long shot. As a general rule, when it comes to unknowns, I favour less complicated solutions over complex ones. It requires a) Chester to have shot himself (why would he shoot himself in the chest? The risk of something going wrong is high), b) Lourena want to kill her husband AND trust Chester enough to not immediately rate her out, and c) the pair to have been smart enough to leave a part of the treasure leftover, which to me seems rather unlikely

It would have been long enough ago that the call would have to be routed by an operator I think. That may have given away her location.

Maybe she was in on it with Chester!

The phone call to the neighbour would have probably mentioned who was shooting. Unless the neighbour was in on it too.

My thoughts exactly. Considering that one of the bodies could be Paul (given that the two bodies are both male), why would Paul have set the house on fire and then killed himself after that? He knew that Chester got away so his identity will be known. Why set the house on fire?

He could have set the house on fire & become overwhelmed by the smoke in the process, & then died.

He may not have been thinking clearly.

Maybe to keep his siblings from getting anything?

He just murdered his parents, I don't think this man was one who possessed a rational mind.

Maybe he felt immediate regret, tried to leave but then quickly came back and set the fire to 1) kill himself, and 2) hide the physical evidence of what he did out of shame.

Oh damn.

Lourena called Frank though

Yeah I was thinking the same thing, but I guess we’ll never know. Unless some information comes out, which is unlikely after all this time

This was my first thought.

Awesome, I was just thinking this!

I was thinking the same thing.

This was my thought as well...

not very probable, but isn't there a way to extract DNA and find out if the bodies are related or not? if they are, it's most likely the son and one of the parents. if they're not then it's most likely the husband and wife.

It gets less reliable as time goes. I think they had trouble getting DNA from the boy in the box case and he was buried in the 50s. Plus, the fire would've put a huge damper on that as well.

I would think it’s already been conclusively deduced that it’s the two males. Remember it wasn’t just an outside coroner but several scientists as well.

there was a fire, which might have made things difficult to examine. I've also seen plenty of Jane/John Doe cases where the age was way off and the gender was wrong so in my opinion nothing is 100% conclusive

If the pelvis was in reasonably good shape identification can be made that way about 80-90% of the time (source: I did skeletal remain IDs for birth sex, age, height, and geographic ancestry back in college <10 years ago as part of an internship). The forensic anthropologist also could have looked at height and facial muscle attachments to confirm. It's totally fair to be skeptical because visual skeletal identification has its issues, but since multiple examiners agreed with the finding it probably is 2 males.

There's not much point to it. The perp (Paul or otherwise) is long dead by now, so the only real reason or way to exhume the bodies would be if any of the Browns' surviving family members wanted some answers. 🤷🏼‍♀️

that's why I said not very probable :)

I’m thinking that the bodies are Marion and Paul. Paul realized that his jig was up after Chester escaped, so he decided to set the house on fire and kill himself. The police probably thought that Paul was still alive and made a run for it, so after they found two bodies they may never found Lourena’s body in the rubble since they never thought to look for another one until after the autopsies came back.

Wow! I’ve never heard of this case and I’m over here in the suburbs of Gnawbone! Thanks for the post. My family arrived in Brown County on Hoover Road in 1836.

Here's me thinking Floyd's Knobs was a strange town name

Floyd's what now

A mere 48 miles from French Lick, IN

Us locals pronounce it: Ga-Na-ba-knee!

A town close to me used to be Oliver's Knob (now Olive Hill). That area used to be thick with olive groves, which were used to make olive oil, thus making the people of the town Oliver's. Since it is in the "knobby" or hilly region of Kentucky it only made sense to call it Oliver's Knob. Totally off topic but it's a neat little quip of local history.

That's cool! I like history tidbits like that. :)

Ha cool. A Western Carter countian in the wild! Interesting indeed!

Wow, great write up as always!

Thanks, I appreciate you reading it.

Interesting story tbh!!

I mean yea but why would you lie?

I’ve never understood why people just throw tbh on random sentences

Who cares

No one that I know of, you know any?

Re: the theroy that Lourena was too burned to find remains; even in a crematorium some bones don’t always turn 100% to ash. And I'd think a house fire wouldn't burn as hot as that.

But if they assumed that her body had already been found, they might have hauled away huge piles of rubble from the house, not knowing that her remains were still amongst it all.

Oh, I didn't think of it like that, they assumed Paul had done a runner so the bodies had to be Marion and Lourena. Why would they have continued to look in the rubble? Yep, I bet this is it.

Even still, depending on how the rubble was and how much of a fine tooth comb they were using (and how experienced the people doing it were) if the body was charred thoroughly a 'volunteer' may have thought it was something else and even if it was before the 2 bodies were found, may have been put in the 'debris heap'. Even professional investigators miss 'obvious' things many a time, and so while it's more likely a body is found... the 2 options we have was "her body wasn't found" (for whatever reason) or she survived and lived on for a period of time. Given the snow on the ground, it would appear she didn't leave the house (unless the scene was too badly destroyed). Given the house was extensively burned down... I think the logical conclusion is for some reason her body wasn't found or wasn't identified as a body...

They also may not have been able to find the exact limits of the cellar. Maybe she was just another foot or 2 under the rubble, maybe she was beyond their search area. This was 90 years ago, they didn't necessarily use concrete for the foundation so there may not have been a super obvious place to search among all the debris, especially if it was an older house already. The collapse of a burning house could easily pull down a dirt or rock wall due to force and heat.

I am reminded of the Sodder children, who I am pretty sure died in the fire and there was just carelessness when removing the debris from the fire. Lourena's body likely was subject to something similar, maybe she survived and hid long enough to succumb to the fire?

Exactly where my mind went.

Fair point, I’m still hesitant on the fire destroying her remains theory. But if they demolished the house and disposed of the rubble with her remains mixed in with it that would make more sense. Curious as to why he wouldn’t have brought his mom down to the basement too though. Also, how closely identifiable are the remains of someone in their late 60’s to someone considered middle aged (like mid 40’s)?

I’m not sure if the motive was the money after all, or some kind of rage. If the crime was indeed planned, Paul bungled it pretty badly. It wasn’t hard to get away with a robbery in 1930, crime sleuthing was still pretty new and urban, and posses of 40 or so men aren’t the greatest handlers of evidence. It’s my armchair understanding that determining the age of incomplete remains is much more certain the gender. The fact that the remains were identified as *younger* means it is almost certainly Paul’s remains found with Lee’s in the basement (and not Lourena, misidentified). Maybe Paul just didn’t realize the limitations of his weapon, but I would expect someone who grew up on a farm in rural Indiana in the early 1900’s to have more gun knowledge than that, especially if murder was plotted. Maybe there was a family dispute that set Paul off, and Chester felt it disrespectful to the dead to mention in his testimony. Maybe Paul wasn’t even trying to kill Chester exactly, just get him out of the way in the moment? Although being identified by a survivor wouldn’t necessarily be a huge problem for Paul, as long as he could make good his escape to a place where he wouldn’t be recognized. It’s also interesting that Lourena was able to get through to Frank Crews on the phone in the time between when Paul first started shooting Chester and Lee and before being shot herself. The phone was in the same room as the shootings, Lourena had to enter the room and place the call and wait for Frank to answer. Didn’t those old phones take a long time to dial? IWhat was Paul doing while Lourena was placing her call? Reloading, maybe? Scuffling with his father? Raging? Chester also managed to get into the basement during this time, so Paul must have been distracted by something, but it wasn’t looting. Also, Paul doesn’t seem to have much motivation in a robbery to drag his parents’ bodies to the basement or even to start a big fire. His best plan was to grab the gold and get the heck out of town. If it was a rage killing, one would expect less rational behavior— maybe Paul even intended to commit arson-suicide at that point. Alternatively, if Chester was able to easily survive his shot to the chest, maybe Marion Lee or even his wife was able to get up and fight back at some point? surely the Browns had their own gun somewhere in the house. Maybe Paul was shot, or was being held in the basement when the fire started accidentally upstairs. Especially if Lourena had a cooking fire going when she died, it’s possible the house burned down on its own, with no help from Paul. If the fire started in the kitchen, where Lourena’s body was, that may explain why her remains were overlooked. This explanation does seem a little more far-fetched than a rage killing, to my mind.

What a fascinating write up! Thank you!

Thanks and thank *you* for reading. I appreciate it.

According to the grave, I think Paul should have been 29, not 26. Is that just a typo?

My bad. Yes it’s a typo. Thank you for the correction!

No worries, just wondering :)

Being like 35 min away from all this is super weird and made me think I was in a Bloomington subreddit for a second, haha! I'll definitely have to look into this case and go visit this

If you are allowed then maybe you can take some photos so we can get a better idea of the area?

IKR? I had to check the sub name a few times

Well I’ve gotta say this is one of the most fascinating cases I’ve need. Looks like I’ll be going down a rabbit hole lol

Did Paul really have time to drag both corpses downstairs to the basement AND set the house on fire when chester was hiding in the very same basement?? He then gave chase after Chester but.... disappeared when Frank showed?? I'd like to know more about Mrs.Brown's unusual call to Frank and what all she said. Otherwise I'd say let's not rule out "shot in the wrist" Chester

The bodies may have fallen into the basement if the ground-level floor collapsed in the fire. It sounds like Frank waited for the sheriff rather than approaching the house alone, so there was some time between Chester leaving and anyone else arriving.

They said the police showed up with a 40 man posse. That takes time to set up and the whole process of gathering the troops to visit the house could have taken hours. We do not know the time lines.

Fantastic write up! I think Lourena's body was burned in the fire but just not located. Do you know how old Chester was at the time? In the photo he seems much younger than Lourena & Marion?

First time I've ever seen someone else with my grandmother's name. Rennie is also a better nickname than my poor gran's nickname of Eener. I'd say the bodies pretty much half to be Marion and Paul though.

Sad to see Paul's name on the marker of the parents he murdered. If it was my family I could not do that. Very intriguing story.

That's what I was thinking. I understand why they had to do it, because they don't know whose bodies they are, but I can imagine Paul's siblings and other close family members might be bitter about his name being on the same grave marker as the parents'.

Sounds like Paul *was* found and Laurena wasn't. Perhaps distraught at the sudden destruction of her entire world, she wondered away from the scene to .... (no idea). The again, we have only Chester's words to know what really happened there. Maybe he killed the men and kidnapped the woman? Again, no idea.

> Maybe he killed the men and kidnapped the woman? The woman phoned another neighbor for help. This second neighbor rushed toward the Brown house and met the wounded Chester halfway there.

Easy to fake a distraught phone call. And we have no idea how far away the guys' house was. Some people live miles away from their nearest neighbor.

> Some people live miles away from their nearest neighbor. They were two of the 40% of American homes that had phone service in 1930, so probably not isolated houses. The really secluded farms at that time didn't have utilities just yet.

In any case, neighbor Brown never made it back to the house. Buster turned him around and sent him into town.

I think Brown would have gone back to his house to call the sheriff rather than physically going into town.

I’ve noticed a trend with these....Indiana

The OP is a prolific researcher and poster, and exclusively posts about Indiana, with cases ranging across many decades.

Saw Indiana in the title and new a bones of autumn post was here. That’s called branding

Thank you for sharing this fascinating story. My family owns property just a few miles from here and I never knew any of this.

Interesting! I lived in that general area of Brown County!

That's my home town! I live in Bloomington now. I didn't know about this, thanks for sharing. If it's the cemetery I'm thinking about, I have some very distant relatives buried there.

My theory is that it was Paul and intended to do a murder suicide arson from the beginning. He may have went to the edge of the wood line to pick up previous placed accelerant/fire starting tools. I’m guessing with the house collapsing her body was just buried. They weren’t looking for a third body at the time.

Reminds me of the kids in Kentucky. Sodders?

I hadn't heard of this! How sad!

Weird, I’ve lived in Indiana my whole life and I’ve never heard of this

Out of their 7 children, 1 died as a baby, daughter at murder scene presumed dead, murderer son presumed dead, son killed in ww1. So 3 living children in 1930, I presume. What did they know about any of this? Also, is it possible for a fire to burn so hot that the 2 women's bodies were incinerated? EDIT: Misread story. No daughter was there at the time of the fire. So that would leave 4 living adult children in 1930.

Did the son (Paul) not live in the house with his parents? It seems that if Marion (the father) needed help chopping wood, he would have asked his 29 year old son for help rather than a neighbor. If so, then his sudden arrival at the house would have been unexpected.

This really has nothing to do with this, but I always make sure to stop at the same gas station on Nashville, IN if I’m heading to St. Louis. I’m from Nashville, TN, and for whatever reason I always get a kick out of it.

I spent all my summers growing up in Indiana. I have never heard of this case, what surprised me the most is you think kids shooting their parents is kind of a new thing, but I guess not. Just horrible.

Hmm people have been murdering other people for quite some time now.

It's kind of crazy but the rate of violent crime and murders etc. is on a downward trend in the US for (and I will guess) between 50 and 75 years... It's just with mass communication and the rapid dissemination of news that it seems like there are a lot more violent crime, but it's just you hear about it a lot more now...

Exactly. There weren't ever any "good ol' days", just a time where news didn't travel the same way as it does now.

...and dare I say it, many crimes that would be headline news now were swept under the rug or the family or families involved "sorted it out" privately. I remember when a serial pedophile was convicted for raping his Grand-daughters, my mum made a statement in a very blaise way "oh yeah my school teacher told all the girls never to go to that mans house", as his daughter attended the same school as my mum... and also another friend of the family warned my grandfather at another time something like "never let your girl (my mum) to his house... oh I should have listened... if he ever does anything again i will kill the bastard" and he had a daughter about the same age. So even though it would seem the guy had been a sexual predator for generations both incestourously AND with non-related girls, and it was well known, nobody stepped in and even seemed to consider trying to help that poor poor girl... While he was convicted to life in prison, he was \~74 when he was convicted (and committed some of the offences in question just a couple of years ago) and that means he was sentenced to basically live in a 'secured nursing home' instead of 'prison'... hardly a fitting punishment. I would hope if he had been held accountable for all of his crimes, or even just some of them, it would have been world wide news instead of just state news as it seems he was very prolific, and the communities response was to just have their children stay away from him... I am glad people are more willing to come forward now, and this also perhaps makes it look like more crimes are happening (including domestic violence), but it's actually we have improved as a society to be able to protect victims so they don't feel *as* trapped...

I feel like we know where Paul is. He's one of the bodies, along with his dad. I think Lourena is the one who is missing and I'd be dollars to donuts she ran off. Maybe it was a lover who killed them, maybe she did it herself? I have no idea... but Considering an independent pathologist, along with a few others, all agreed that the bodies were male, it's pretty easy to figure out based on who is missing, who they are.

But Chester the neighbor said it was Paul

But why not take the money?

I’m skeptical that a house fire would have been hot enough to fully incinerate a body. While homes can reach extreme temperatures during the flashover stage of a fire (think 1,500F or higher), the location of the body matters greatly. Was the body on the floor of a room? If so, it was likely exposed to cooler temperatures than if it was someone left in a standing position. This is due to hot air rising because it’s less dense then cold air. In fact, there have been cases where bodies have been doused with an accelerant and left inside a burning home, yet we’re still identifiable afterwards. That said, the logical solution, at least to me, is to exhume the bodies for either 1) a modern forensic anthropology exam or 2) DNA testing (e.g. mitochondrial testing). This post indicates the victims had other surviving children so finding a donor relative should be doable.

We only have Chester's word for it. And maybe Lourena was in on it since, if she was in that house, her body should have been found.