The investigators now had a much more serious lead than the vague names they had started with. Edward had reportedly been assaulted, robbed, and threatened by a man associated with Paris only weeks before the killing. The threat had allegedly been made after a dispute involving Edward’s refusal to continue helping him. If the account was accurate, it provided a possible motive and a possible suspect.
Stacy's interview gave detectives more than a possible threat. It also showed how Edward discussed Paris when she was not present. He described himself as someone who had been trying to help her for years, even when the arrangement made people around him uncomfortable. According to Stacy, he said Paris would take large amounts of his paycheck and that he continued giving despite warnings from coworkers.
She remembered Edward talking about his job at a junkyard or similar business and saying that his boss thought he was being foolish. The boss, Stacy recalled, had essentially told Edward he was giving too much money away. Stacy said that hearing this made her more uneasy because Edward did not describe a single emergency payment. He described a pattern.
The child-services issue was another sign of how deeply involved he had become. Stacy said Edward told her he had helped Paris regain access to children who had been removed, and detectives later treated that history as evidence of a relationship based on dependence and trust. Edward was not simply an occasional visitor buying cigarettes or dinner. He had attached himself to problems that affected Paris's housing, children, transportation, and money.
Stacy also remembered how sharply Edward's tone changed when he talked about the man released from prison. Edward told her the man had struck him in the face and taken money from his pocket. The dispute then continued because Edward had been expected to drive the man to a job interview. After the assault, Edward refused, and according to Stacy, the man threatened to kill him.
Stacy did not present that threat as something she had personally heard. She was repeating what Edward told her. Detectives would still need corroboration. But because Edward was now dead from gunshot wounds only weeks after the alleged threat, the statement was too important to dismiss.
She told detectives she had urged Edward to take the threat seriously. Her nephew had been shot in August, making her especially sensitive to anyone treating a death threat as empty talk. She remembered telling Edward that he had known Paris for years and still was not being protected from the people around her. If the relationship kept bringing danger to his door, she said, he needed to walk away.
But detectives still needed the suspect’s name, and they needed to know what Paris would say when asked about Edward directly.
Detectives returned to Stacy’s account once more before leaving the jail. She believed the man who had threatened Edward was living with Paris after his release from prison. Edward had apparently said he could no longer go freely to Paris’s home because the man was there. Stacy regretted not asking more questions at the time. She had not pressed Edward for the woman’s full name, the exact apartment complex, or the boyfriend’s identity because she had no reason to believe she was hearing the beginning of a homicide case.
Within hours, detectives went to Paris Jones’s home without warning. They wanted to hear her story before she had time to coordinate it with anyone else. They began with a simple question: when had she last seen Edward?
Paris said it had been a couple of days earlier, on Monday. She said Edward had brought her cigarettes because he worked across from a corner store and could sometimes get them on credit until payday. Her description reinforced the picture investigators were already building. Edward was someone who repeatedly showed up for her and her children.
Paris said she had tried calling him Tuesday, at least in part from her daughter’s phone, but had not reached him. Detectives were struck by the fact that she had not gone to his house after failing to contact him, especially given how close she claimed they were. If she had been genuinely worried about him, they wondered, why had she not checked on him in person?
They did not immediately accuse her of anything. Instead, they asked about Edward’s living situation and whether he had ever stayed with her. Paris acknowledged that he had. She said Edward had previously been in a difficult housing arrangement in which a landlord had allegedly taken some of his property, and she had encouraged him to find a place where he had a proper lease.
For a time, she said, Edward stayed with her. When he found his own house in July, Paris even kept a copy of his lease because she wanted him to have proof of his tenancy. “He had my back, I always had his back,” she told detectives.
That answer created another problem. Stacy had told police that Paris’s boyfriend was released from prison in September and that Edward’s presence around Paris became an issue after that. Paris, however, was not volunteering the boyfriend’s name. The man was not at the house during the interview, and Paris’s own car was also missing.
Detectives began pressing on the vehicle. They told Paris they knew she sometimes let other people use her car and asked where it was now. Paris initially insisted she had her own car and tried to separate the missing vehicle from the homicide investigation.
“Where is your car then?” one detective asked.
“I mean, I don’t have my car with me right now,” Paris answered.
The detective told her directly that she was becoming evasive. He explained that when he later spoke to prosecutors, he needed to be able to say whether Paris had cooperated or whether she had withheld basic information in a murder investigation. He emphasized that they were not there as child-services investigators and were not evaluating her parenting. Their concern was Edward.
“We got Ed that laid dead in this house for a couple days,” the detective said. “And you’re not telling us answers to simple questions.”
Paris became emotional. Detectives kept returning to the car. Eventually, she admitted that a man she knew had the vehicle. The transcript records her giving a name that was captured inconsistently by the automatic transcription, but investigators ultimately identified that boyfriend as Mikuel Glenn. Paris acknowledged that the man using her car was not merely a casual acquaintance. He was the person she was dating.
That was the name detectives had been trying to get.
The doorstep interview with Paris became more revealing the longer it continued. Detectives asked why, if Edward had always been there for her, she had relied on calls rather than simply going to his house when he stopped answering. Paris said her own phone was broken and that she had used her daughter's phone. The explanation did not resolve the detectives' concern, but they did not accuse her of knowing he was dead.
They then asked about Edward staying with her. Paris said he had come from another bad rental arrangement and that she had wanted him to have a stable place. She described copying his lease so he would have proof if another landlord dispute developed. To her, she said, that demonstrated loyalty: Edward had supported her, and she supported him.
The car became the pressure point because detectives knew it could connect Paris to someone else. When they asked where her vehicle was, Paris first answered around the question. They told her directly that simple evasiveness would matter when they later described her cooperation to prosecutors. The homicide, they reminded her, was not a child-services case and not a judgment about whether her children looked cared for. It was about Edward lying dead in his home for days.
Eventually Paris acknowledged that the man with the car was the man she was dating. The transcript captures the name inconsistently, but later records in the same source identify him as Mikuel Glenn. That disclosure gave detectives a person they could compare against Stacy's story about the recently released man who had allegedly assaulted and threatened Edward.
When Glenn sat down for the first interview, detectives tested him with facts they already knew. Paris had said her boyfriend had access to her car; Glenn said he never used it. Paris had described Edward as a longtime helper; Glenn minimized the relationship and said he barely knew Edward. He also denied knowing Edward had stayed with Paris. Each answer could have had an innocent explanation, but together they made investigators more interested, not less.
Glenn's reaction to the threat allegation was equally important. Before detectives finished laying out the theory, he became defensive and insisted he had never threatened Edward. They asked whether jealousy over Paris could have caused conflict. Glenn dismissed the idea and said he could have been with other women if that was what he wanted.
The detectives did not tell him they had proven his guilt. They were probing for inconsistencies. They asked whether his DNA could be in Edward's house. Glenn said no.
They asked whether it could be on the shell casings. Again, he said no. They asked whether he had ever gone to Edward's house. Glenn insisted he did not even know where Edward lived.
Then came the phone question. Investigators told him future cell-site analysis could show which known devices were near Edward's home on Halloween. Glenn initially answered that he did not believe his phone or Paris's would appear there, then strengthened the statement by saying he had been with Paris and the children all day. Detectives preserved that claim because it could later be tested against records.
Paris’s hesitation stayed with them. It was possible she was hiding her own involvement, but there was another possibility: she was afraid of Glenn. The investigators did not yet know which explanation was correct. What mattered for the moment was that they could now bring in the man who allegedly had assaulted and threatened Edward shortly after getting out of prison.
Glenn agreed to speak with detectives. From the beginning, his answers created contradictions.
Asked how long he had known Paris, he said they had known each other since they were young and described the relationship as good. He denied living with her. Then detectives asked whether he regularly used her car.
“No, I never use her car,” Glenn said.
“Ever?”
“Ever.”
That statement immediately conflicted with what Paris had just told investigators.
Detectives shifted to Edward. Glenn said he was familiar with him only from years earlier, when Edward had lived near one of Glenn’s former girlfriends. He described Edward as a decent person and claimed they had never been close. Glenn said he had recently returned from serving roughly two years in prison and had not spoken with Edward since coming home.
He also denied knowing that Edward had lived with Paris. He said Paris had mentioned Edward only as a friend and gave the impression that he had no strong feelings about the relationship.
The detectives then introduced the reason he had become a suspect. Multiple people, they said, had reported that Paris’s current boyfriend had problems with Edward and had threatened to kill him.