Murdered Innocents (23 page)

 

“We just want him to come home,” said Forrest Welborn’s mother, Sharon Pollard.

She would know soon enough whether her wish would be granted. Judge W. Jeanne Meurer convened court to decide whether Welborn and Maurice Pierce should be tried as adults in the murders of Amy Ayers, Eliza Thomas, Jennifer Harbison, and Sarah Harbison.

Defense attorneys were allowed to make their final pleas for their clients. Robert Icenhauer-Ramirez reminded the judge that Welborn was the only one of the four suspects who maintained his innocence from the get-go. He also stated he believed it was the Austin police detectives who tried to plant him at the scene when they interviewed Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen.

Guillermo Gonzalez, Pierce’s attorney, was much more demonstrative. He claimed that he had no doubt that Springsteen and Scott had committed the murders. He also blamed the police for forcing ideas into the two older boys’ heads about his client.

“Like rats from a sinking ship, they were offered a way out,” Gonzalez stated. “And sadly, they took it.”

After hearing the last-minutes pitches, Judge Meurer was almost ready to make her decision. The parents of the girls sat in the front row of the courthouse. They all held hands. Judge Meurer leaned forward to give her opinion. She concluded both Welborn and Pierce’s cases would be transferred to the adult legal system despite being minors during the commission of the crime. The parents of the girls let out a collective sigh upon the news.

Judge Meurer added she would not reduce the bail for either man.

Forrest Welborn’s family, however, was able to raise 10 percent of his $375,000 bail the next day. The bail money was paid in cash. Donna Sproles, Welborn’s aunt, contributed the majority of the deposit. The twenty-three-year-old suspect was released from Travis County Jail later that day. He was greeted by his father, Jimmy Welborn, and sister India. Tears silently dripped down his face as he was escorted away by his loved ones.

“It was hard for him being in there and being innocent,” stated India. “He hasn’t been able to see his son.” She added her brother would return home to Lockhart and await trial.

It would be a while before any trial began.

Assistant District Attorney Gregg Cox stated that trials would not probably begin for another year. “Justice demands . . . that this case be allowed to proceed and that a jury sees this case,” Cox proclaimed. He added that the district attorney’s office had every intention of trying each of the suspects individually.

Bob Ayers commented, “This hearing is nothing compared to what the trial’s going to be.” He declared his family needed a break. “We’re going to get some rest, put this behind us, stay in touch with the DA’s office and let them tell us when the first trial date’s going to be and where—and then we’ll start preparing.”

As for the additional wait, Ayers realized the wheels of justice were not controlled at his behest. Besides, he had already waited eight years.

“There is nothing we can do. There is nothing these boys can do except let the legal system work.”

Pam Ayers added, “There is no relief really for what we are going through. But it is a relief that we have crossed at least one hurdle.”

Sharon Pollard could only hope her son would receive a fair trial. “If this is their evidence,” she wondered, “how could he be convicted?”

 

Judge Mike Lynch, criminal court judge for the 167
^th
District, announced he placed a gag order on all parties involved in the yogurt shop case.

Joe James Sawyer, Springsteen’s attorney, however, opposed the gag rule.

“Anytime you abridge the First Amendment, you’re walking a tightrope,” the boisterous Sawyer exclaimed.

Three hours later, District Attorney Ronnie Earle, with the parents of the slain girls by his side, announced his office would officially indict Robert Springsteen IV. He added he would seek the death penalty.

 

 

The families of two of the four suspects held a candlelight vigil to bring attention to what some people in Austin believed to be a travesty. Fewer than twenty-five people showed up.

Philip Scott, Michael Scott’s father, wanted to know what new evidence had been uncovered that would lead to the arrest of his son.

“It is tragic enough that four young girls were murdered, but to unjustly persecute four innocent boys is also a travesty.

“Why did the APD choose . . . to believe these boys were not involved in these murders for eight years?” wondered Scott. “Things just do not add up in this case.”

Jeannine Scott, Michael Scott’s wife, shared a similar belief.

“Mexican nationals, Satanists, People in Black, and more have been said to have been guilty in this case. Now, why these boys? We challenge the people of Austin to consider the case not only with their hearts, but also with their minds.”

Maurice Pierce’s wife, Kimberli Pierce, also participated in the vigil. She stated the “confessions of Mike Scott were very clearly coerced and pressured.”

The Springsteen family, back in West Virginia, could not attend.

On the advice of his attorney, neither Forrest Welborn nor his family attended the vigil.

 

 

Ronnie Earle appeared again before a bank of microphones. He came to announce that the grand jury had convened. They were to decide whether Michael Scott and Maurice Pierce would have to stand trial. Earle confidently stated the grand jury had decided there was enough evidence to go forward with the charges against both men.

Earle added he would also seek the death penalty against Scott.

Pierce, on the other hand, would not face the death penalty, due to his age at the time of the murders.

No mention was made of Forrest Welborn other than “the investigation is continuing.”

 

The beginning of 2000—or what many people mistakenly referred to as “the new millennium”—found things rather quiet on the yogurt shop front. The autopsies of the girls had been unsealed and reprinted in the local newspaper. Also, the specter of Erik Moebius’s conspiracy theories raised its head. Tony Diaz, lawyer for Michael Scott, met twice with Moebius to get a clearer understanding of his complex insurance-scam theory. Diaz was intrigued by the theory.

“Whenever he tells me something, it seems plausible,” explained Diaz. “Whether it’s true or not, I don’t know. But we probably will explore it.”

Robert Springsteen’s attorney, Joe James Sawyer, was less than thrilled with Moebius’s intrusion. “I do not pay attention to, and give no credence to, the ravings of idle minds.”

Otherwise, things seemed rather sedate. That is, until several gun issues arose.

The first issue involved a federal ballistics report on the .22-caliber revolver Maurice Pierce had been arrested with back on December 14, 1991. The ATF report stated the bullets found in the bodies of the girls did not match Pierce’s gun. Ballistics expert John Murdock’s research indicated the bullets found inside the girls’ heads were not fired from Pierce’s gun.

“My client has always insisted he is innocent,” said attorney Guillermo Gonzalez. “They could have done it when they put this new task force together. They could have nipped this in the bud before making arrests.”

Murdock also tested two .380-caliber semiautomatic guns. Neither gun was used to shoot the bullet recovered from Amy Ayers.

The ATF report forced the prosecution to scramble. It was time to find a gun.

 

 

The Texas Department of Public Safety’s Dive Recovery Team decided to drag the lake. Based on Springsteen’s confession, Pierce had allegedly tossed the .380 automatic pistol into Lake Austin.

State prosecutor Buddy Meyer feigned ignorance about the search. “I don’t know that anything’s missing here.”

Springsteen’s attorney was incensed. “As they have throughout this case, the state finds itself, once again, groping blindly in the dark.”

Indeed, the search was near impossible. Lake Austin, which is also part of the Colorado River, had experienced six floods since 1991.

No gun was found.

 

 

The third gun issue involved the confession of Michael Scott.

Tony Diaz filed a change-of-venue request for his client due to extensive and biased pretrial publicity. Within the motion, Diaz included a statement and a photograph of the interview of his client with Detective Robert Merrill. The statement professed that Merrill had used a gun to coerce a confession from Scott. The photograph showed Merrill as he stood behind Scott in the interview room with his finger pointed at the back of Scott’s head while holding a gun.

Diaz failed to mention that Scott had confessed to two completely different officers, besides Merrill, more than twenty-four hours before the alleged gun incident. Diaz also failed to mention the videotaped confession clearly showed Merrill holding the gun upside down, with the barrel pointing away from Scott’s head, and no finger on the trigger. The videotape also showed Merrill jabbing his finger into the back of Scott’s head for a split second and then quickly removing his hand and bringing it back around in front of Scott.

Regardless, Diaz achieved his goal, which was to get the still photograph of Merrill with the gun “in the vicinity” of Scott’s head out to the public. The picture was widely seen by the citizens of Austin and beyond, via newspapers, magazines, and the Internet.

Sawyer confronted Merrill about the gun during a pretrial hearing to determine whether or not Judge Lynch would allow in Springsteen’s confession.

“Are you the person who crammed the gun in the back of his head?” asked the irrepressible Sawyer.

The query raised an objection from prosecutor Buddy Meyer: “We want to try this case in court, not in the media.” The objection led to an argument between Sawyer and Meyer. Finally Judge Lynch asked Sawyer to rephrase his question.

“Was Mr. Scott’s statement in any way coerced?”

“No,” replied Merrill.

“What would you deem to be coercion?”

“Forcing him to tell.”

“If, hypothetically, someone placed a gun to the back of a person’s head, would that be coercion?” Sawyer postulated.

“It might be.”

“Was there a firearm present at the interview of Mr. Scott?”

“Yes.”

“Did it come close to the back of his head?”

“It did.”

“Did you scream at Mr. Scott?”

“Yes.”

“Did you call him a ‘pussy’?”

Meyer objected again.

“Mr. Sawyer, will you please get to the point?” pressed Judge Lynch.

“Your Honor, I believe I already have,” replied the satisfied Sawyer.

 

Judge Mike Lynch was not in his office.

Had he been there, he would have received a disturbing letter. It was addressed by grand jury member Diana Castañeda, former member of the Austin School Board. Castañeda wrote that she believed the prosecution was not completely forthcoming in regard to the evidence presented to the grand jury.

“I am not convinced that the grand jury was treated in a forthright manner,” Castañeda stated, “but rather used as pawns in what I assume to be a rush to judgment.

“I respectfully request that you hold a hearing . . . to determine whether the indictments returned by 147
^th
[
sic
] our grand jury were obtained by deception or withholding evidence.”

Castañeda cited no particulars. She gave no specifics of the charges she levied against the prosecutors. She did say, however, she followed coverage of the case in the newspaper.

 

 

Guillermo Gonzalez sought to lower Maurice Pierce’s bail substantially. He had what he believed was compelling evidence of the deception being perpetrated by the police officers investigating the yogurt shop murders.

Gonzalez informed Judge Lynch that Detective Paul Johnson admitted to him he knew Maurice Pierce’s .22 revolver may not have been the gun used in the murders. And he knew even before Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen confessed and implicated Pierce.

Detective Johnson testified in the pretrial hearing about a ballistics test run on the bullets by the Austin Police Department ballistics division back in January 1999. The results proved to be almost identical to those reported by the ATF’s May 2000 report.

Johnson testified he did not mention the test in the November 1999 certification hearings because he “forgot.” He claimed he intended to include the finding in one of his reports; however, it slipped his mind.

Despite the omission, Lynch only lowered Pierce’s bail from $750,000 to $700,000.

Kimberli Pierce cried as she told reporters that she still could not afford to get her husband out of prison.

“He has a family. He has a daughter. He will not run. Innocent people don’t run.”