Murdered Innocents (22 page)

 

One of the last people anyone expected to show up at the courthouse steps for Robert Springsteen’s extradition hearing was Erik Moebius, the same man who posited the theory that the yogurt shop murders were part of a large conspiracy, and who had been disbarred from the state of Texas in 1995 for misconduct. Moebius claimed he now represented Robert Springsteen.

One problem. He didn’t.

Apparently, Robert Springsteen III, Robert’s biological father, hired Moebius to represent his son. Springsteen’s family in West Virginia, however, claimed Moebius had nothing to do with Robert’s case. Regardless, Moebius made sure his presence was felt.

The previous Monday morning, Moebius, armed with a fifteen-page legal brief requesting a change of venue for extradition hearings from local court to federal court, had rushed into Judge King’s courtroom. Three days later, U.S. magistrate judge Jerry Hogg denied the petition for removal. “None of the bases for accepting jurisdiction in this court are valid and that no credible legal authority was cited.”

“We’re neither surprised nor upset by the ruling,” proclaimed Moebius. “The most important thing is to keep the boy in West Virginia.” He spoke of Judge Hogg’s ruling, “In effect, he stated we need more law to point out where we can take jurisdiction. And we have more law.” His strategy was simple: “We will literally be flooding that court with affidavits and case law.”

These assertions came as a surprise to Robert Springsteen’s state court attorney, David Bungard.

 

Charlene Rose walked into her home after a hard day’s work. She expected to be greeted by her husband, Roy, but he was nowhere to be found. Charlene noticed something on the kitchen table.

It was a note from her husband: “The police took me to court and to jail—9
a.m.
”

Unbeknownst to Charlene Rose, her husband was taken away by two Charleston police detectives. They had a warrant for his arrest for contempt of court. Rose was taken to Kanawha Circuit Court, where Judge King ordered him behind bars at the South Central Regional Jail. The judge required that he remain there until he boarded a plane and was flown to Austin.

“I guess I’m lucky they let him write that,” Charlene Rose said.

“They are taking this terminally ill man on chemotherapy and treating him like this?” Charlene pondered. “I don’t see what the big hurry is.”

John Hackney Jr. filed a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Roy Rose. The writ stated that Rose’s medical condition would make it near impossible for him to fly to Texas. Apparently, Rose’s heart problems had been upgraded to a possible heart attack. Dr. Jon Murphy also included a letter in the writ that stated, “I feel strongly that this travel and stressful interrogation will cause deterioration in his delicate medical condition.”

Charlene Rose was afraid for her husband. She was also pissed.

“If anything happens to my husband,” she stated defiantly, “there’s a lot of people who are going to be sued.”

 

 

The second time Roy Rose appeared before Judge King, he was decked out in a prison-issue orange jumpsuit. He was also shackled with chains on his ankles and wrists. He wore shower shoes with no socks. The temperature outside was thirty degrees.

Judge King would make a determination that morning about what to do with Rose.

Charlene Rose testified on her husband’s behalf. She reminded the court of her husband’s poor health. Rose’s cardiologist, Dr. William Harding, also testified on his patient’s behalf. He asked the judge for a few accommodations to make life a little easier for the sickly Rose. One request was that if Rose was to be transported to Texas on a plane, he be given plenty of room to move around.

“He’s a free man,” stated Judge King, “not a prisoner. In fact, he will be staying in a hotel in Austin.”

The reality, according to Charlene Rose, was that Judge King signed an order that would place her husband in the Travis County Jail, not the Four Seasons, when he arrived in Austin. In fact, as soon as the judge signed the forms, Rose was whisked away to a small private plane with the propellers practically spinning.

Rose was not allowed to move around on the flight. The officials also forgot to bring his medication.

When Rose arrived in Austin, he was driven past the Marriott, the Westin, and a La Quinta and directly to the Travis County Jail. Once imprisoned, Rose received none of his medication. According to his wife, guards opened his cell door every twenty minutes and flicked his lights on and off repeatedly and did not allow him to sleep.

Detectives also allegedly spoke to Rose for several hours over a period of two days about the case. Threats were made. He was told either testify or be put in prison. Rose, of course, agreed to testify.

When Rose eventually returned home to his wife in West Virginia, he did not tell her what he said before the grand jury. He was afraid to do anything wrong for fear that the Texas officials would come banging on his door again.

On November 13, 1999, Charlene Rose sent an “open letter” e-mail that was posted on TexasJustice.com. In it, she described the treatment her husband received and how they both feared for their lives. She summed up their mental states as:

She ended the e-mail with support for Springsteen: “We both continue to believe Robert Springsteen is innocent.”

 

Ten days earlier, Robert Springsteen’s legitimate lawyer, David Bungard, filed seven motions to keep his client from being extradited. Bungard focused his arguments on the criminal code differences between West Virginia and Texas. The main focus being that West Virginia did not execute the death penalty, while Texas did.

In the intervening ten days, Robert Springsteen found support from one interesting group. The Bar of England and Wales Human Rights Committee (BEWHRC), an international human rights organization, filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief on the suspect’s behalf. The group did not argue for Springsteen, but rather against the death penalty. They cited that international law prohibited the execution of anyone who was under the age of eighteen at the time of the criminal act.

Bungard echoed these sentiments. In his motion, he wrote the imposition of the death penalty upon Springsteen “would remain so offensive, it would shock the conscience of the people of this state.”

There were plenty of people in the courtroom who opposed the beliefs espoused by BEWHRC and Bungard. Namely, Eliza Thomas’s uncle John Bencheri and Mark Harbison and Fred McClain, uncles of Jennifer and Sarah Harbison. The three men were adorned with black-and-white “We Will Not Forget” buttons.

Thus, the stage was set.

Bungard repeated his argument. Judge King, however, was reticent. He stated he did not want West Virginia to become a hideout haven for individuals who wanted to avoid capital punishment.

“What you’re saying is our citizens can go to other states, rob banks and kill people, and then come back here without facing the death penalty?” the judge questioned Bungard. Springsteen’s attorney argued that his client should be eligible only for the maximum possible punishment in West Virginia, which is life without parole.

King did not bite.

Extradition was granted.

A few hours later, Springsteen, clad in his orange jumpsuit, was led by a Texas Ranger onto the tarmac at Yeager Airport. The shackled suspect was guided toward a small turboprop plane used to fly him back to Texas. A crowd gathered behind a chain-link fence to watch the spectacle. He looked up as the Ranger double-checked his restraints and noticed the crowd. Springsteen gave them a big thumbs-up sign.

Robin Moss was eager to give the entire proceeding an entirely different finger. Springsteen’s wife could not believe what had just occurred. She was terrified for her husband.

“I’m no longer a believer in the justice system,” she told reporters gathered around her after her husband was flown out of the state. “They can do virtually anything they want to do. There’s no way he’s involved in something this horrendous.”

 

Forrest Welborn and Maurice Pierce both appeared before Judge Meurer for a hearing to determine whether they should be tried as adults or minors.

In the state of Texas, a person who is under the age of seventeen when a crime is committed cannot face the death penalty. Pierce was sixteen and Welborn was fifteen at the time of the yogurt shop murders. The determination of the hearing would be whether or not they could have been considered adults at the time of the murder. If they were found to be so, each young man could face a maximum sentence of life in prison. If they were not to be certified as adults, all charges against them would be dropped because suspects over the age of eighteen cannot be tried in juvenile court.

The atmosphere was more like a capital-murder trial than a juvenile-certification hearing.

Detective Robert Merrill testified against the two suspects. He stated Pierce was called the “mastermind” of the crime by Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen in their confessions.

Robert Icenhauer-Ramirez, the attorney for Welborn, and Guillermo Gonzalez, the attorney for Pierce, had harsh words about the investigation. Icenhauer-Ramirez stated police used “terrible and deplorable investigative techniques” to garner information. He also cited a lack of evidence when he claimed the officers had “no reasonably trustworthy information” that would implicate Welborn.

Merrill continued to testify to the specific details of the crime. It was the first time the information was released to the public.

Some of the details Merrill mentioned were:

The shocking details made some in the audience gasp. The parents of the girls audibly wept as Merrill described what happened to their daughters.

“‘The girls were crying and whimpering. They were begging us not to kill them. They said that they didn’t want to die,’” Detective Manuel Fuentes read from Scott’s written statement.

Afterward, Pam Ayers told reporters that she did not know all of the details as to how her daughter had been killed. Barbara Ayres added, “As horrible as it was, we had to hear it. They suffered it. Now we’re finding out, it’s as bad as we could have feared.”

On the other side of the aisle, Bill Pierce, Maurice’s father, believed Merrill’s testimony cleared his son. He believed Merrill’s admission that the confessions had changed and shifted throughout proved his son’s innocence. Basically, Scott and Springsteen lied; therefore, their entire confessions were deemed untrustworthy.

“We know that he had nothing to do with it,” the elder Pierce believed.

Barbara Ayres, on the other hand, felt quite the opposite: “We’ve got the right ones. It’s all right that it took eight years, as long as we’ve got the right ones.”

 

 

The second day of the certification hearing was a day of videotapes. Parts of Scott’s taped confession were played before the court. Also, a taped interview between Welborn and Austin police detective Douglas Skoulat was played. It was recorded during the same time frame as the Springsteen and Scott confessions.

Skoulat attempted to get Welborn to confess to being the lookout.

“You hear it every day in your head,” the detective said to the long-haired Welborn during the interview. “You know you could have stopped it. Did you want it to end? Did you? Did you?”

“I don’t remember,” replied Welborn.

“Bullshit, you do remember,” insisted Skoulat. “You can hear those bloodcurdling screams. You can hear the gunshots. You’re hearing [them] right now,” he dramatically stated. “You’re hearing those girls scream and cry. You’re never going to forget it.”

Welborn sat silent for more than twenty minutes. He asked if he could leave. Skoulat ended the interview.

On Thursday, December 2, Detective John Hardesty testified about the joyride the four boys took the night after the murders. He also admitted that the detectives had no physical evidence that implicated either Welborn or Pierce.

The day before, however, Austin police detectives served search warrants on all four young men. The objective of the warrants was to collect blood and hair samples from each one. Apparently, there was evidence collected at the crime scene that may have matched any or all of the suspects. The evidence was given to Detective Paul Johnson.

Thursday remained a busy day outside the courtroom at the certification hearing of Welborn and Pierce as well. Bob Ayers declared he would seek to change the law for teenage murder suspects.

“If you’re grown up enough to pull the trigger, you’re grown up enough to stand trial.” Ayers said even if the young men were not certified as adults, he would still push to change the law so a murder suspect from the age of fourteen to seventeen would automatically be charged as an adult. “We are going to live on the steps of the Capitol to get the law changed.”

Meanwhile, Joe James Sawyer, Robert Springsteen’s new lawyer, began to work the media. He was upset with the poor quality of the interview tape used in the confession of his client. The audio was marred by heavy static, which made the tape nearly unlistenable.

“Let’s just say these geniuses [in the Austin Police Department] have proved once again how inept they are in investigating one of the most famous murders in Texas history.”

Sawyer believed the police purposely mangled the recordings. “This is the single most important interview they’re going to get,” Sawyer exasperatedly stated, “and they botched that. I think it was a deliberate botch. We’re now going to have an impaired recording.”

Sawyer explained the significance of the turn of events. “Guess whose memories we’re going to have to rely on? Yeah, the cops.”

Springsteen’s attorney also made it clear he was ready for a dogfight. He emphasized he looked forward to going to trial.

“First of all, I believe Springsteen is innocent,” replied the zealous advocate. “I am not interested in a plea bargain for Rob.”

 

 

Out of respect for the families of the victims, Judge Meurer postponed the certification hearings for the eighth anniversary of the girls’ deaths. The postponement extended through December 7 as well.

 

 

The hearings resumed with Sergeant John Jones on the stand. The former lead investigator spoke of why the yogurt shop murders task force questioned Pierce and subsequently wrote him off as a suspect.

Jones gave several reasons as to why he dismissed Pierce as nothing more than a disillusioned teenager seeking attention. He noted, first, that Pierce asked for and took a lie detector test. He did not, however, state what the result of the examination concluded. Jones also mentioned the results of the test had been lost.

Jones stated Pierce allowed police to search his home. Nothing was uncovered.

Jones also testified Pierce agreed to wear a wire, or recording device, in an attempt to implicate Welborn in the murders. Jones informed the court, “It was obvious to everyone that Pierce was trying to force the issue on Welborn, who appeared to have no idea what Pierce was talking about.”

Jones also admitted police were unable to match the revolver Pierce carried into Northcross Mall on December 14, 1991, with the bullets found at the yogurt shop.

Bruce Stevenson, the polygraph administrator who asked Michael Scott questions during his interview, testified he had also examined Forrest Welborn back in 1997. He claimed Welborn showed deception in the test when asked if he knew who killed the girls. On all other questions about the murders, including whether or not he participated or was in the shop, he showed no deception. Stevenson testified that Welborn also passed the polygraph when asked whether or not he had ever possessed a firearm that belonged to Pierce.