How a Love Obsession Led to the Brutal Murder of Anna Lisa Raymundo

Anna Lisa Raymundo

ENVY: A love infatuation ends with a perceived rival’s death. Sheila Davalloo was enamored with her co-worker at a pharmaceutical company in Stamford, Connecticut. One thing stood in her way—his girlfriend Anna Lisa.


Table of Contents


Anna Lisa Raymundo’s Murder

Anna Lisa began her day working from home. She had spoken with her mother at 10:34 a.m. She was on her laptop computer when the doorbell rang. She was not expecting any visitors.

At 12:13 p.m., the Stamford Police Department received a 911 call in which the caller reported that a man was assaulting someone at 123 Harborview, apartment 105; the caller claimed to be a neighbor. The dispatcher knew that Harborview was a commercial area without apartments and knew the given address had to be incorrect.

After the caller hung up the phone, the dispatcher called back and discovered that it had come from a pay phone at a Dutchess restaurant on Shippan Avenue. The dispatcher telephoned the restaurant and spoke to a manager, who had not noticed anyone at the pay phone. The dispatcher sent officers to 123 Harbor Drive, which she knew was a residential facility near the Dutchess restaurant.

An officer knocked on the apartment door and received no answer. He pushed the door open and saw the deceased victim on the floor of the front foyer. The officers saw no signs of forced entry.

“They opened the door, and they walked in on a horrific, violent assault scene,” Stamford Police Captain Richard Conklin said. “The walkway from the front door was a bloody mess, things thrown about and knocked about.”

Anna Lisa Raymundo’s face was completely disfigured, an act characteristic of a female killer. She was stabbed repeatedly, brutally attacked…there was so much blood and her entire apartment showed signs of a death struggle with her attacker. She suffered 9 stab wounds to the face, left cheek, neck, and shoulder areas. The fatal blow being a straight entry stab through her left lung. The victim’s official cause of death was internal bleeding, and she was alive during the entire grisly attack.

The police arrived only an hour after Anna Lisa succumbed to her death. “The blood had not had time to begin coagulating. Puddles of blood were shiny and wet. Tacky. The victim herself appeared to be still bleeding out.”

When asked about the brutality of the victim’s demise, Greg Holt, a detective that worked the case, stated that “somebody hated this woman.”

The victim, 32-year-old Anna Lisa Raymundo, was a former Purdue Pharma employee. In late 2000, Nelson Sessler met Anna Lisa at an after work happy hour.

When Nelson Sessler returned after work to Anna Lisa’s apartment, where he frequently stayed, police officers questioned him. He was completely unaware of what had happened. He responded calmly when informed of Anna Lisa’s death, which raised the suspicions of investigators.

After several hours of questioning, the police released Sessler. He was cleared the following day when Stamford Police reviewed security records from Purdue Pharma. “They have very good security cameras, security system, and they were able to show what time he punched in,” Stamford Police Captain Conklin said. “He was at work when this assault took place.”

The police were unaware, at this point, of any connection between Sheila and the crime.

In the summer of 2001, Sessler met Sheila Davalloo for the first time at another after work happy hour. Sheila told him that she was divorced, although she was still married to Christos.

Anna Lisa, a native of New York, was Associate Director at Purdue Pharma while Sheila Duvalloo was a pharmaceutical researcher and Nelson Sessler was a scientist.

Sessler began separate sexual relationships with both of the women.

In the summer of 2002, Sessler focused his attentions on Anna Lisa Raymundo, and the two became a couple. As his relationship with Raymundo began getting more serious, he began ignoring Davalloo, something that drove her crazy with jealous rage.

Even though Sessler maintained his separate apartment in Stamford, he spent the majority of his time at Anna Lisa’s apartment in Stamford. Sessler’s relationship with Anna Lisa continued after she left Purdue Pharma in 2002 and began a new job at another pharmaceutical company, Pharmacia, in New Jersey. Despite working in New Jersey, Anna Lisa Raymundo continued to live at her apartment in Stamford, Connecticut.



Sheila Davalloo’s Lies & Schemes

During Anna Lisa and Nelson’s relationship, Sheila and Sessler would rendezvous periodically at her and her husband’s condominium unit in Pleasantville, New York. Before Sessler would visit, the Sheila would tell her husband that her mentally ill brother was coming over and that he should leave and take his belongings with him because her brother would react badly if he found out that she was married. Christos believed this because he had been told by Sheila’s parents that she, in fact, had a mentally ill brother.

In 2002, Sheila Davalloo concocted a story about a love triangle among three fictional coworkers: “Melissa,” “Jack,” and “Anna Lisa.” Nearly every day, she recounted the tale to her husband Christos from the perspective of her purported friend Melissa. In actuality, “Melissa” was herself; “Jack” was Sessler; and “Anna Lisa” was Raymundo. Sheila told Christos intimate details about Melissa and Jack including that Melissa was upset when Jack rebuffed her sexual advances.

She once said that Melissa had discovered Jack’s travel plans and had flown to his destination. She then conveniently ran into him at the airport as he was boarding a plane home and sat next to him on the return flight. Sheila constantly asked Christos for advice ‘on behalf of Melissa’ with questions such as why Jack was in a relationship with two women and why Jack was cheating on one woman with the other. Christos listened to these stories to humor his wife.


Eventually, Sheila told Christos that she wanted to go on a stakeout with Melissa in order to spy on Jack. Although Christos thought the proposed surveillance was a little odd, he did not believe it would actually occur; he gave her a pair of night vision binoculars. She told Christos that she had purchased a lock pick set for Melissa because Melissa wanted to break into Anna Lisa’s apartment to look at photographs in order to get a sense of the relationship between Jack and Anna Lisa. She practiced with the lock pick set on the front door of their Pleasantville condominium unit. She also asked Christos for an eavesdropping device that she knew he owned in order to assist Melissa in planting the device in Jack’s office so they could listen in on his conversations. Early one morning, Sheila telephoned Christos to inform him that she and Melissa were outside Anna Lisa’s apartment and asked him if Melissa should confront Anna Lisa. Christos told his wife that Anna Lisa had a right to know her boyfriend is cheating on her. In time, Christos became sick of the stories of the love triangle and became angry with his wife.


Sheila also related the story of the love triangle to Emilio Mei and Tammy Mei, friends of theirs, to Christos’ parents and to one or two other friends as well. Sheila told Tammy Mei about Melissa almost every time they spoke and would ask her questions such as whether she thought Jack would break up with Anna Lisa and date Melissa. Sheila told Tammy Mei that Melissa had access to Jack’s voice mail and would listen to it on a daily basis to see if he was still seeing Anna Lisa or any other woman. She also told Tammy Mei that Jack tried to set Melissa up with one of his friends, but that it did not go well because Melissa just wanted to be with Jack. In reality, Sessler did attempt to set up a date between a friend and Sheila.  She asked Tammy Mei quite a few times if Melissa should confront Anna Lisa to let her know that she was also seeing Jack. Tammy Mei advised against this confrontation but sensed that the Sheila wanted her to say that Melissa should confront Anna Lisa.



Stamford Police Investigation

In the course of the investigation, officers found details whose relevance later became apparent.

Mr. Arenovski, Corporate Security Officer at Purdue Pharma, testified that Sessler came to work at 9:37 a.m. that fateful Friday and left at 5:10 p.m. The records showed he stayed in the building the whole workday.

Citing a report for Davalloo, Arenovski said that she came to work just after 8 a.m. and left again at 10:53 a.m. She didn’t return until two hours later. She left work at 4:35 p.m. Anna Lisa Raymundo was killed between 10:34 a.m. and 12:13 p.m., according to Davalloo’s arrest records.

Raymundo’s mother, Susan, a pediatrician, testified about a phone call her daughter made to their home in Florida at 10:34 a.m. on Nov. 8, 2002. The phone call occurred just two hours before Stamford police found her body in the foyer of her Harbor Drive condo amid a bloody crime scene. Detectives had Susan Raymundo check phone records to confirm the message came from Anna Lisa’s home phone.

At 11:57 a.m., Anna Lisa Raymundo’s home telephone had been used to place a call to Sessler’s office. He had not answered the call and no voice message had been left.

A voice recognition expert, Tom Owen, identified Duvalloo as the owner of the voice of a woman making the 9-1-1 call at 12:13 p.m. from the restaurant that alerted the Stamford police to the homicide of Anna Lisa. The caller was saying that she thought the guy was attacking her neighbor.

Mr. Owen used newer, digital voice analysis method to match Duvalloo’s voice with the 9-1-1 caller. Prosecutors presented Dan Arenovski, the associate director of corporate security for Purdue Pharma in Stamford, where Davalloo had worked with Sessler and Raymundo.


Officers discovered a bloodstain on the handle of a bathroom sink, which suggested that the assailant had tried to clean up after the crime. The bloodstain much later was determined to contain all of the different genetic elements that were present in the DNA profiles of both Sheila Davalloo and Anna Lisa Raymundo.

The state’s expert testified that due to the fact that Anna Lisa cleaned her apartment regularly, as testified to by Sessler and her parents, and the fact that the sink handle was nonporous, it was ‘extremely, extraordinarily unlikely’ that any DNA left by the defendant on the sink handle prior to November 8, 2002, would have lasted or remained very long.

Christos noticed one day in November 2002, that Sheila came home from work with a nasty cut on her thumb. She explained that she had cut her thumb opening a can of dog food for their two dogs.

After Anna Lisa Raymundo’s death, Sheila Davalloo pursued Sessler. She sent him a care package, consoled him, and was one of the few people willing to talk to him at a time when most people shunned him.



As part of his work, on November 13, 2002, Christos had a meeting with representatives from Pharmacia, where Anna Lisa had worked. The representatives mentioned that a colleague of theirs had been recently murdered. Although a name was not mentioned, Christos began to wonder if “Melissa” did something to Anna Lisa. Christos mentioned to Sheila that an employee at Pharmacia had been killed and asked whether Melissa was involved and if Anna Lisa was okay. Sheila did not seem shocked or surprised and responded, without elaboration, that Anna Lisa was fine.

Christos testified at trial that he believed that, at that point, Sheila thought that he had made that connection. In late 2002, Sheila reported to Christos that Jack and Anna Lisa had broken up and that Melissa and Jack were together exclusively.

But also in late 2002, Sheila asked Christos for information about fingerprints and DNA.

On December 8, 2002, during dinner, Sheila also asked Emilio Mei and Tammy Mei about DNA and fingerprints, and questioned whether they have everybody’s DNA on file.

In early 2003, Tammy Mei noticed that, although Sheila continued to talk about Jack and Melissa, she had not spoken about Anna Lisa in a while. Tammy Mei asked her about Anna Lisa, and she responded that Jack and Melissa were a happy couple. Anna Lisa had moved to New Jersey because she had obtained a job there.

In January 2003, the defendant invited Sessler to go on a group ski trip. The group turned out to be only Sessler and herself. Sessler again entered into a sexual relationship with her. Sheila would invite him to her residence, but, again, only after having first told Christos that her mentally ill brother was visiting.

In 2003, the frequency of trysts at the Pleasantville condominium—under the guise, so far as Sheila told Christos, of her mentally ill brother’s visiting—increased. Christos was frustrated with leaving when her ‘brother’ visited and told Sheila that her brother had to be told that they were married.


Sheila Davalloo’s Motive for Murder

Sheila’s purpose was to further her extramarital affair with Sessler and to ultimately eliminate, by murdering, both Anna Lisa Raymundo and her husband Christos, whom she perceived as obstacles to that affair.

Sheila Davalloo Convicted of Murder

Sheila Davalloo’s Attempt to Kill Her Husband Christos

In March 2003, Sheila and her husband were engaged in playing a guessing game. The game involved one person being handcuffed and blindfolded while the other placed objects against the bound person’s skin; the bound person was to guess the identity of the object. Sheila was the first to be bound and blindfolded. She guessed various household items.

Then it was Christos’ turn. He lay on the floor, blindfolded and handcuffed to a chair. Christos guessed various common household items. Sheila then went to the kitchen to retrieve one last item to guess. She sat on Christos’ midsection and touched the item to his face; Christos guessed the item was a candle. The item was a knife. Sheila thrust the knife into Christos’ chest, paused and then again thrust the knife into his chest. Christos said, ‘Oh, my God, I think I hurt you. You’re bleeding.’ Still blindfolded and handcuffed, Christos asked her what had happened. She explained that ‘something fell on you. I think the candle hurt you.’ Christos asked her to remove the blindfold, and she did. But when he asked her to remove the handcuffs, she stated that she could not find the key. At Christos’ request, she helped him break the chair to which the handcuffs were attached.


Christos asked his wife to call 911. He heard her seem to make a 911 call, but, after a significant amount of time had passed, no ambulance arrived. Christos asked her to call 911 again and he asked to talk to the operator. She told Christos that the operator did not want to talk to him, but rather wanted him to lie on the floor. She at this point instead telephoned Sessler and invited him over to the condominium for dinner.

Eventually, Christos, still conscious, asked her to take him to a nearby hospital, and she obliged. She drove slowly, according to Christos, and parked in the rear of the Behavioral Health Center of Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla, New York. Sheila got out of the car and opened the rear driver’s side door. Christos thought she was going to help him out of the car until he saw an angry expression on her face and saw her lunge at him with the knife.

Christos managed to get out of the car and attempted to wrestle the knife out of her hands. The melee moved to a grassy spot in the parking lot, while Christos visibly was bleeding through his shirt. Sheila told Christos to ‘stay with me, talk to me….’ Christos broke free, ran about 200 feet, and yelled to a medical resident and another person, who were near the entrance to the Behavioral Health Center. The resident called 911. Sheila asked the resident to let her take Christos to the emergency room. The resident refused.

Christos survived following open-heart surgery, and Davalloo was arrested for attempted murder. The People of the State of New York v. Sheila Davalloo


When Sessler arrived at the condominium for dinner with Sheila, he found police officers searching the residence. Police officers informed him that there had been a domestic dispute and that Christos was in a hospital.

Later, after reading an article in a newspaper about the stabbing, Sessler contacted the Stamford police and informed them that they should consider Sheila to be a suspect in the death of Anna Lisa Raymundo. Sessler told officers about his concurrent affairs with the Sheila and Anna Lisa.

Days after Christos’ stabbing, the Stamford police contacted Christos about the death of Anna Lisa Raymundo. Christos gave the officers several written statements and Sheila’s phone records.

Detectives in Westchester drove to Stamford to talk to Sessler after seeing Davalloo had called him in between stabbing her husband. Learning his girlfriend had recently been killed, they spoke with detectives working the Raymundo murder and discovered the two cases were connected.

Duvalloo was sentenced to 25 years for the stabbing of her husband, Paul Christos, in 2003 in their home and a medical center parking lot in New York to eliminate Christos as an obstacle. Sheila and Christos were divorced in 2004.



State of Connecticut v. Sheila Davalloo

It would take five more years for Davalloo to be charged with Anna Lisa Raymundo’s murder. She was formally charged in November 2007, but she did not stand trial until 2012.

Christos testified in the Connecticut jury trial of Sheila Davalloo for the murder of Anna Lisa Raymundo.

DNA blood samples swiped from the sink handle in Raymundo’s condo in 123 Harbor Drive, Stamford, Connecticut tied Ms. Duvalloo to the crime scene. Supervisory State’s Attorney James Bernardi theorized the killer used the bathroom to try to clean off blood after the multiple fatal stabbings.

Sheila Davalloo, a 42-year-old pharmaceutical researcher accused of killing Anna Lisa Raymundo in order to be with her boyfriend, chose to represent herself at the trial.

Prior to trial, however, Sheila Davalloo filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent Christos’ testimony on the basis of the marital communications privilege. The state also filed a motion in limine, requesting a determination that certain statements between the former spouses were admissible. The testimony at issue dealt with Sheila’s statements and actions during the course of the marriage pertaining to the relevant events.

When she finally got to court, she represented herself, while the state called a dozen witnesses to testify about Davalloo’s obsession with Nelson Sessler. Sessler himself testified about their relationship and shared letters Davalloo had written to him after being arrested for attempting to kill her husband.

It was only then Sessler become aware of the depths of her feelings about him. “I had no idea she was obsessed,” Sessler said. “We never had that kind of relationship where we shared the word love. It was completely left-field for me.”


A voice recognition expert, Tom Owen, identified Duvalloo as the owner of the voice of a woman making the 9-1-1 call at 12:13 p.m. from the restaurant that alerted the Stamford police to the homicide of Anna Lisa. The caller was saying that she thought the guy was attacking her neighbor.

Mr. Owen used newer, digital voice analysis method to match Duvalloo’s voice with the 9-1-1 caller. Prosecutors also presented Dan Arenovski, the associate director of corporate security for Purdue Pharma in Stamford, where Davalloo had worked with Sessler and Raymundo.



Motion to Prevent Christos’ Testimony in the Anna Lisa Raymundo Case

On June 3, 2011, the court heard arguments relating to the motions in limine and ruled that “ ‘these statements … were not made in furtherance or induced by affection, confidence, loyalty, and integrity of the relationship; quite the contrary. It is just the opposite. The statements made to the run-up of the murder of [Raymundo], the description of a faux triangle, again, for lack of a better word, it would be bizarre to classify those as in furtherance of the sanctity of the marital relationship. The plan here was to do in a potential third party suitor of [Sessler] … and, ultimately, [Christos], have him removed from the scene either by way of divorce and/or physically remove him from the scene. And, in fact, this defendant was convicted of the attempted murder of her husband in those [New York] proceedings. So, those statements leading up to the run-up in this triangle and whatnot for various reasons don’t fall within the purview of the marital privilege. To rule that way would be … bizarre. Statements after the death of Raymundo to accommodate the relationship with Sessler fall in the same category, as well as the statements leading up to and relative to the attack and attempted murder of [Christos].’ ” Id., at 430, 101 A.3d 355. The trial court further stated that, “[t]o argue that these [statements] were in furtherance of the marital relationship defies common sense, are in fact bizarre, and could only be applicable to some parallel universe … with which I am not acquainted.” The court then granted the state’s motion and denied the defendant’s motion.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of murder in violation of § 53a–54a. She was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment to be served consecutively to a sentence she received in New York for her conviction based on the attempted murder of Christos.

In the present case, there are three categories of statements the trial court identified: (1) “ ‘statements made to the run-up of the murder of [Raymundo],’ ” including the “ ‘description of a faux triangle’ ”; (2) “ ‘[s]tatements after the death of Raymundo to accommodate the relationship with Sessler’ ”; and (3) “ ‘statements leading up to and relative to the attack and  attempted murder of [Christos].’ ” State v. Davalloo, supra, 153 Conn.App. at 430101 A.3d 355. As for the statements made during the period immediately preceding the murder of Raymundo, all of them were meant to deceive the defendant’s spouse by being dishonest about her “brother’s visits,” the real actors in the faux love triangle, and the reasons she requested items from Christos. The statements after the death of Raymundo were meant not only to deceive and further her obsessive relationship with Sessler, but also to conceal her involvement in Raymundo’s death. Finally, with regard to the statements leading up to the defendant’s attempted murder of Christos, it is self-evident that her violence against her spouse vitiates any reasonable argument that these statements were “induced by … affection” as required by § 54–84b (a).

Because the defendant’s purpose in making the statements at issue was to further her extramarital affair with Sessler and to ultimately eliminate, by murdering, both Raymundo and Christos, whom she perceived as obstacles to that affair, we agree with the determination by the trial court and the Appellate Court that the statements at issue here do not fall within the language of § 54–84b (a) because we simply cannot conceive of  any scenario whereby the statements could have been “induced by the affection, confidence, loyalty and integrity” of the defendant’s marital relationship as required under that statute. In short, the defendant made statements to Christos that were indisputably not induced by affection or loyalty and, in the end, engaged in the ultimate betrayal of the spousal relationship, attempting to murder her husband. We, therefore, agree with the trial court that application of the marital communications privilege, in the particular facts and circumstances of this case, would be nothing short of bizarre.



Judicial District of Stamford

Whether Appellate Court Properly Construed General Statutes § 54-84b in Concluding that Defendant’s Statements Not Subject to Marital Communications Privilege  

The defendant was convicted of murder in connection with the death of Anna Lisa Raymundo.  The defendant and Raymundo were involved in a love triangle with their coworker, Nelson Sessler, while the defendant was married to Paul Christos.  The defendant did not tell her husband of the tripartite affair, but she frequently told him stories of her friend and confidant “Melissa” and of the intimate details of Melissa’s workplace love triangle with “Jack” and “Anna Lisa.” 

The defendant would sometimes tryst with Sessler at the home she shared with her husband, asking her husband to leave home on the premise that her mentally ill brother was visiting and she did not want her brother to know she was married. 

The defendant also told her husband that she had purchased a lock pick set for Melissa because Melissa wanted to break into Anna Lisa’s apartment in order to “get a sense of the relationship between Jack and Anna Lisa.”  She practiced with the lock pick in front of her husband and asked to borrow an eavesdropping device that he owned, claiming she wanted to assist Melissa in monitoring Jack’s communications. 

In November 2002, Raymundo was found dead in her Stamford apartment of stab wounds inflicted during a violent struggle.  After Raymundo’s murder, the defendant told her husband that Jack and Anna Lisa had broken up and that Melissa and Jack were together exclusively.  She explained a severe cut on her thumb to her husband as an injury incurred opening a can, and she asked him questions about fingerprints and DNA. 

In March 2003, the defendant invited her husband to play a guessing game that involved him being handcuffed and blindfolded while she placed objects against his skin.  The defendant stabbed her husband during the “game,” and she was charged in New York with attempting to murder him. 

When Sessler learned of the attempted murder charge, he told the police that they should consider the defendant a suspect in Raymundo’s murder.  The defendant was convicted of murder in connection with Raymundo’s death and she appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly allowed her husband to testify at trial as to incriminating statements she made to him because those communications were protected by the marital communications privilege. 

In State v. Christian, 267 Conn. 710 (2004), the Supreme Court recognized a common-law marital communications privilege, holding that a communication is protected if it was confidential and made to a spouse during a valid marriage.  Christian held that the privilege can apply in any legally valid marriage, irrespective of marital difficulties and despite outward appearances that the marriage is irretrievably broken.  General Statutes § 54-84b, enacted after Christian, codified the marital communications privilege and defines a “confidential communication” between spouses as one made during the marriage “that is intended to be confidential and is induced by the affection, confidence, loyalty and integrity of the marital relationship.” 

The Appellate Court (153 Conn. App. 419) affirmed the defendant’s murder conviction, rejecting her claim that the trial court wrongly determined that the marital communications privilege did not apply simply because it deemed the defendant’s marriage “bad.”  The Appellate Court held that the trial court properly focused on the nature of the specific communications and § 54-84b’s requirement that they be “induced by affection.”  The Appellate Court found that the trial court rightly determined that the privilege did not apply because the defendant’s communications with her husband were not “induced by affection” but rather were made to deceive him, to further her obsessive relationship with Sessler, and to induce her husband to assist in his own demise. 

The defendant appeals, claiming that, in enacting § 54-84b, the legislature intended to codify—not restrict—the common-law marital communications privilege expressed in Christian.  She argues that the Appellate Court wrongly construed the statute’s “induced by affection” language as requiring a court to make subjective judgments about the health of the marriage despite Christian’s teaching that the privilege can apply even when a marriage is, by all appearances, “bad.” 


Appellate Court of Connecticut—Court of Appeals, State of Connecticut v. Sheila Davalloo

The defendant claims that (1) in violation of the marital communications privilege, the court improperly permitted Paul Christos, her husband at the time of the events in question, to testify as to conversations she had had with him, (2) the court improperly permitted the state to present evidence of uncharged misconduct, and (3) the court improperly found that she validly waived her right to trial counsel. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.



BOOK: Obsessed by M. William Phelps Available on Amazon

Sheila Davalloo was young, attractive, and successful. When she started a new job at a cutting-edge research lab in Stamford, Connecticut, she met the man of her dreams. Nelson Sessler had no idea how violently Sheila would react when he began seeing a co-worker, Anna Lisa Raymundo. Sheila eliminated her rival in a bloody knife attack and then turned her rage on another victim, her husband, she saw as an obstacle to her passions. Phelps recounts the riveting story of a white-collar love triangle gone horribly wrong…and the terrifying infatuation that drove one woman to kill.


Sheila Davalloo Maintains Innocence in Romantic Rival’s Slaying (Aly Vander Hayden, Oxygen True Crime, December 2019)

In an exclusive prison interview with “Snapped Behind Bars: Sheila Davalloo,” the convicted killer tried to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence that helped secure a subsequent 50-year prison sentence against her.


Jury Convicts Woman in Death of a Philippian-American Woman (Philippine Daily Mirror)

Anna Lisa Raymundo wanted to be a Chief Executive Officer for some big companies one day. But her big dreams were snuffed away by a woman who was obsessed with Anna Lisa’s boyfriend.

A magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University in Boston, Massachusetts in government and pre-medical programs, Anna Lisa obtained a master’s degree in public health and worked at another pharmaceutical company before landing a job at Purdue Pharma.

Anna Lisa was the daughter of Dr. Renato Raymundo, 70, a native of Pasig City and Dr. Susan Raymundo, also 70, a native of Quezon City, both in the Philippines.

Stamford Murder Victim’s Parents Testify (Jeff Morganteen, Greenwich Time Staff Writer)



How a Love Obsession Led to the Brutal Murder of Anna Lisa Raymundo

ADD COMMENTS BELOW