Dance of Death (27 page)

Across the courtroom, Renee sat uncomfortably. She grimaced at Diggs when he sat down. In a methodical, concise, step-by-step manner, the prosecution called its witnesses one at a time to relate to the jurors a horrific sequence of events that led to Brent's murder. Rather than using high-tech resources, such as PowerPoint, 3-D computer displays or an array of expensive audiovisual equipment, they made their case the old-fashioned way and kept everything straight by presenting facts, dates, timelines and maps mounted on Styrofoam boards. Renee followed along nervously, her eyes darting between the prosecution and defense attorneys as they revealed her complicated, tangled life.

The prosecution would build its case with a parade of twenty-nine witnesses over the span of six days. The majority of those testifying were professional people and employed by law enforcement agencies. It was a progressive revelation as to why Renee Poole had wanted her husband dead. There was so much information that the prosecution had to painstakingly construct their full deck, one card at a time. At certain moments during the trial, some of the jurors displayed incredulous looks at what they were seeing and hearing. It was apparent that a few of them, especially the female jurors, had led lives where they had never been exposed to things from Renee's life that were being discussed in the courtroom.

In the two days the defense were scheduled to call its witnesses, it would be unlikely they could gather enough steam to do even the slightest damage to the prosecution's case. And it appeared a very weak challenge if they intended to use only ten called witnesses. Of the ten, only two were expert witnesses, while the remainder were either Renee's family or her friends.

The first witness of the trial was Myrtle Beach patrol officer Scott Brown, who had been patrolling the beach the night Brent Poole had been murdered. Renee had flagged him down to say her husband had been murdered. He would testify about the incident and her demeanor when he first made contact with her on the beach.

“‘In shock' is about the best way I could put it,” he stated. “She was not screaming and flailing around, but she was extremely upset.” He would later describe how she had reacted when he found her on the beach. She had fallen to her knees and knelt down beside her husband. She remained trembling and crying the entire time. She had picked up his hand, crying, and had started rubbing his hand.

At one point, Hembree asked Brown, “What if anything did she tell you about the instructions by the killer?”

Brown stated that the suspect had told them to lay down on the beach. “She told me that she had done so, and as soon as she laid down, she heard two shots. And at that time, the shooter ran toward the sand dunes.”

Hembree asked at the end of his testimony, “I have one more question for you. What was the condition of the defendant's T-shirt? Did it have anything on it?”

Brown testified that he got a good look at her shirt and there was nothing on it. There was no sand on the back of it. There was sand in the front seat where he had placed her in the driver's side, but there was no sand on the back of the seat. He said his seats had had regular cloth seats on them.

On cross-examination, Diggs pointed out the sand in the vehicle had to come from somewhere. And the fact that she flagged the officer down had to imply she was trying to get emergency help for her husband, that she was in shock.

“Shock . . . meandering.”
Diggs emphasized the buzzwords before asking Brown, “Given your understanding of what was taking place, was that pretty normal of what you would expect in that situation?”

Brown said that it would depend on the person. He'd seen both sides.

“But she
was
in shock?” The level of Diggs's voice rose in indignation.

“Yes, sir, she was,” Brown answered.

Diggs painted a portrait of a woman who was crying and extremely upset. He made Brown admit she was trembling when he first talked with her and was still trembling when she picked up her husband's hand and held it.

“Officer Brown, do you recall it being just a general conversation that you were having with her, or was she still in shock and was she still trembling while you were speaking to her?”

“Yes, she was still trembling and forcefully crying. She kept her hands cupped over her mouth and nose.”

Diggs got Brown to consider that Renee was “noticeably crying with force, even to say it might have been controlled panic to some extent.”

“Could say that,” Brown interjected.

“One last question, Officer Brown,” Diggs promised. “When you saw her, did it appear to you that she was seeking you out as opposed to maybe trying to evade being seen by you at that time?”

“Neither,” he answered. “She appeared to be a normal beach walker, just walking toward me.”

“Toward you?” Diggs repeated. “But you never got any—any indication that she might be trying to hide from you?”

“No.”

If the spectators were keeping score, Diggs would have won that round on points. But the next three witnesses would have been scored as a draw.

Private First Class A. L. “Lewis” Aiossa, second shift in the beach patrol, was on duty that same night Brent was killed and had responded to the scene. With the help of a previously drawn diagram of the crime scene mounted on the Styrofoam poster, he highlighted and described the area from the high-rise hotel at Seventy-sixth Avenue, the Carolina Winds, up to Eighty-second Avenue, and beyond the northern end of Myrtle Beach. He concluded with the response of the officers and emergency personnel and how they sealed the area and protected the crime scene.

Diggs did little on cross, except accuse the officers of interrogating Renee from the very beginning.

The second witness, Karole Jensen, identified her home on the diagram and stated she heard a series of firecracker noises at 11:45
P.M
. and a man's voice coming from the beach and in front of her next-door neighbor's house. Jensen didn't see a lot, but what she had heard was significant. Her testimony had pinned down the time of the shooting. Officer Brown had testified earlier he had placed his first call at 11:51
P.M
., that was six minutes after Brent had been shot. Jensen had also said she had heard no one screaming, only the sound of a man's voice. The prosecution hoped the jurors would speculate that some of the six minutes it took for Renee to flag down Officer Brown she had spent talking with John Frazier.

Corporal David Grazioso, crime scene witness, reported what had been found at the crime scene, documented and marked as evidence. Of note was a photograph shown to the jury documenting the empty 9mm cartridges at the scene and where they were found. Four live 9mm cartridges and two fired 9mm casings had been found in the immediate crime scene area. They were presented and introduced, along with twenty-one other state exhibits. Humphries had Grazioso hold each photo exhibit up and identify its found location on the Styrofoam board.

The prosecution had placed valuable property at the scene, especially the wedding rings of both Renee and Brent. If this was a robbery, they contended, why would these items still be there? Had the robber gotten spooked and spilled his loot? Or, as the prosecution wanted the jury to conclude, the robbery had never occurred at all.

Orrie West needed to offer an explanation of how all that stuff got there. On cross-examination, she got Grazioso to say that any of the evidence—i.e. cigarette pack, change and a towel found at the crime scene—would not be uncommon to find at the beach. As far as the wedding band and the unspent 9mm cartridges, who was to say that the robber didn't get spooked, was in a hurry, fumbled with the stuff and found it difficult to find in the sand? It could have happened exactly like that.

The prosecution laid rest to this theory, however, with their fourth witness, seventy-five-year-old Howard Sirles. Sirles lived in Richmond, Virginia, but had been visiting his beach house on Myrtle Beach Drive when he found Brent's wallet in his yard. He told the jury about the condition of the wallet when he found it and how his yard had a brick-and-wooden fence that enclosed it, along with four-foot-high shrubbery. It had to have been purposely thrown into his yard. He said at the time he didn't know anything about Brent Poole or his murder, and didn't realize the importance of his finding the wallet. The prosecution made it clear there was no other explanation for the wallet being in Sirles's yard other than the robber himself had tossed it over the fence during his getaway.

“When I opened it up and saw the nine dollars inside [the credit cards and driver's license], it became a different thing,” Sirles said, believing at the time the wallet had not been stolen. “Had it been empty, I would have probably put it in an envelope and mailed [it] to North Carolina. If it had eight thousand dollars in it, I don't know what I'd have done.”

A roar of laugher erupted in the courtroom.

All Diggs could do in cross was to have Sirles concede it had probably been thrown over the fence from the street.

Sirles was clearly enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame. It took Judge Cottingham a few extra minutes to persuade him his services would no longer be necessary. While the courtroom enjoyed a much needed comic relief, several members of the jury experienced a lightbulb moment. The finding of Brent's wallet—with his credit cards, driver's license and money still inside—could possibly disprove the motive was robbery. Why would a robber throw a wallet away with money and credit cards in it?

The fifth witness, David Blubaugh, was the officer on duty who drove to Sirles's house and confiscated the stolen wallet. With his testimony, the pendulum had begun to swing toward the prosecution. And with their next witness, pathologist Dr. Edward L. Proctor, they moved forward to deliver a crushing blow.

Dr. Proctor lived in Myrtle Beach and was engaged in the practice of clinical and anatomic pathology, as well as forensic pathology. He had the normal four years of college and four years of medical school, then finished another four years of pathology training and additional studies to become a forensic pathologist. His credentials in and around Horry County were well-known in the field of anatomic pathology, clinical pathology and forensic pathology, and he was certified by the American Board of Pathology. No one from the defense rose to challenge his qualifications as an expert witness in forensic pathology.

Before the casually dressed doctor began his testimony concerning Brent Poole's wounds, the prosecution asked the court to pause so that the Pooles could exit. Craig Poole, his wife, Amy, and his sister, Dee, chose to remain in the courtroom during Proctor's testimony and had to bite a lot of bottom lip to keep from choking up. Renee looked straight ahead while the doctor testified, but she was able to hold her composure. The usual widening of the eyes, gasping and lowering of the eyes from the jurors occurred during Proctor's lengthy explanation of Brent's wounds and demonstration of how they occurred. One huge point of contention for the defense took place when he stated that Brent Poole was shot standing up, and not while lying down as Renee had claimed.

The surreal moment in the trial came when Humphries asked Proctor to demonstrate the wounds using his face as a prop. Proctor pointed to the points of entry and explained to the jurors that both projectiles had passed through the brain, tearing apart vital brain tissue. Either projectile was fatal and would have rendered him unconscious in a matter of seconds. His testimony was certainly not for the weak-kneed.

Diggs tried to counterpunch by getting the doctor to agree that it was possible if the angles were the same, Brent could have been shot in a kneeling or squatting position. Standing two feet from Proctor, Diggs also wanted him to concede that Renee could have held Brent's head without getting any blood on her clothing, but he never could make that connection.

After watching Diggs dance around the issue for about five minutes, Humphries rose to his feet and responded, “Your Honor, if there's some evidence of that, I'll be glad for him to ask that question.”

“Well, I'll let the doctor respond,” Cottingham ruled.

Proctor searched for the right words, before finally giving up, “Well, I certainly wasn't there. I don't know how he was handled or if he was or was not touched. But had someone grabbed his head, or both sides of the head, or about the ears, or under the chin, in all likelihood there would have been some blood present. But how much? I have no idea, sir.”

Diggs had hit a snag. All he could do was add, “But certainly this is not a situation where an artery had been severed and you had a massive amount of blood spewing out of that particular wound?”

“No, sir, there would not,” Proctor conceded. “I do not think there would have been a spurting artery, no, sir.”

“All right, that's all I'm trying to get at,” Diggs concluded. “Thank you very much, Doctor.”

It had been a long morning of testimony on the first day of trial and the jurors were tired and hungry. The defense had gone nowhere with their cross and recross of the pathologist and the courtroom was getting restless. Judge Cottingham decided it was a good time to break for lunch.

The Horry County Courthouse is nestled among towering oak trees in downtown Conway. Mostly lawyers and accounting offices face the courthouse on the front and sides of the streets. On the corner, not even a block away, sits Wayne's Restaurant, where most of the court participants enjoyed Southern fried cooking at its finest. Their menu featured a hearty selection of vegetables, salads, desserts, breads and an array of meats, including fried chicken, pork chops, quail, barbecue and shrimp. The meal and a beverage could be purchased at a reasonable price, but the hospitality and trial commentary from Wayne's owner, Linda Hucks, was always free.

After lunch, all the spectators and participants in the trial took their seats and waited on Judge Cottingham. The first witness called to the stand by the prosecution was Winston-Salem investigative officer Mike Rowe, who had put together the photographic lineup package for Myrtle Beach police on June 16, 1998. The jury was shown the five photographs chosen from a computer database that were similar in physical characteristics to Frazier. The prosecution introduced this to them for the purpose of familiarity. Their plan was to recall this same document on another day, with witnesses who had identified John Frazier as the man dressed in black on the beach the night Brent was killed.

The prosecution continued its presentation of evidence with Detective Terry Altman and crime scene specialists from both Myrtle Beach police and SLED. In their slow and deliberate style of questioning, Hembree and Humphries took turns asking each officer their connection with the personal effects and clothing of Brent Poole after his death and what involvement did they have in collection of those items and turning them into property and evidence. Again, the judge paused, as before, to excuse Brent Poole's family before the evidence was produced.

The defense had no questions to ask of these witnesses but one. Lieutenant Ira Jeffcoat, a fifteen-year-veteran forensic evidence technician with SLED, testified that among the evidence submitted to him to be tested for body fluids was Brent's underwear. They tested for blood on his blue jeans and striped shirt, white towel, right shoe—all of those cuttings contained human blood belonging to Brent. One particular item swab tested for human semen came from Brent's pair of white underwear. After a chemical test, it was determined there was, in fact, human semen on the underwear of William Brent Poole. It had given the appearance that Renee had had sex with Brent in an effort to stall so that John could get in place to deliver the fatal blast.

The trial had pretty much lost its emotional edge with the late-afternoon witnesses, but it quickly returned to a higher intensity when sex was mentioned. Dressed fashionably in a bright red suit, Orrie West questioned Jeffcoat in relation to his findings. “Did they ask you to determine whose semen that was in his underwear?” she asked.

“No, I did not. I was never submitted a sample of blood from the victim to compare to the unknown stain. I would have to have that sample to make that comparison.”

“So you don't know that it was Mr. Poole's?”

“All I know is there was semen on his underwear,” Jeffcoat stated.

“Now, you said how long have you been doing this for SLED?”

“Fifteen years.”

Hembree asked for permission to redirect and with one question he asked what everyone already knew was the answer: “How would you expect it to get there?”

“Through ejaculation after sex,” Jeffcoat replied.

The unspoken affirmation on the jury's face was significant. Had Renee Poole really made love to her husband on the night he was shot, thus luring him right into a death trap?

After a brief sidebar and a few remarks from the judge to the jury, the court called for a break.

During the break, Diggs rallied his troops. He anticipated the prosecution was about to make one of its biggest strategic moves. They were preparing to bring on the big boys, Detectives John King and Terry Altman. In addition, they would introduce and play the tapes of Renee's interviews. This, he believed, was where the game would be won or lost.

Diggs wasn't worried. He had promised the jury in his opening remarks they would hear Renee's testimony in her own words. After the tapes were played, his plan was to launch a ruthless attack against the detectives and accuse them of coercing Renee into a confession. This would later on lead the jury straight to his strongest defensive claim when he introduced his expert witness and his testimony relating to false confessions. Renee was in shock after the murder of her husband and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She was in a vulnerable position while she was being interviewed by the police and was coerced into giving a confession. This tactic would put the defense back where they wanted to be in this trial and give them a strong defensive foothold.

But, first things first. He had to contend with the prosecution's witnesses.

Humphries' questioning of the mild-mannered and gentle—dressed to the nines—Detective King led into Renee's confession that she and John had conspired to murder. For the jury, it was hard to imagine this soft-spoken detective forcing Renee into a confession. King implied it was as plain as the nose on his face, she was not under any undue duress and was more than willing to talk with the police. And at no time had she been threatened or had she been promised any hope of reward or hope of leniency for her statements. She had not only agreed to provide a statement voluntarily, but had allowed them to tape it as well. King had no concerns whatsoever regarding whether or not Renee understood what she was saying to him.

Humphries took his time and through King's examination methodically presented to the jury the circumstances of and conversations from Renee's interviews. During this process, he introduced and explained in a lengthy discourse with King the Miranda warnings and Waiver of Rights forms that Renee had signed, indicating she had been advised of her rights. He then addressed her interview in Davie County, where she was represented by counsel.

“Specifically, in regard to that particular interview,” Humphries asked, “was the defendant asked directly by law enforcement whether or not John Boyd Frazier had shot William Brent Poole?”

“Yes, she was,” King answered softly.

“And during the interview, the first part of that interview, what was her answer to law enforcement?”

“She said no,” King responded. “She said [that] it could have been. Then she said it could have been anyone. But she didn't give a direct answer and say, ‘Yes, it was.' ” He then revealed that during the interview process her attorney had requested a fifteen-minute recess.

Humphries approached the witness. “What new, specific information did you receive, if any, in this second portion of the interview which occurred on the twelfth of June at Davie County?”

“She told us it was John Frazier that shot and killed her husband.”

“And did she indicate to you how she was sure of that information?”

“She said she knew it was John from his voice, from his build, from his mannerism and just from being around him.”

Humphries then asked King to explain for the jury Renee's arrest the night of her husband's wake at the funeral home. Why it was necessary to arrest her that evening?

King explained the fugitive task force had located and arrested John Frazier and they had some concern Renee might flee. He admitted his concern was not just specific to Renee, but as it would have been under any other circumstance when a codefendant was arrested prior to another codefendant.

The prosecution held nothing back. “What if anything,” Humphries began, throwing everything out but the kitchen sink, “was said by the mother of the defendant to “Butch,” a member of the fugitive task force, regarding interview techniques, if you will, regarding her daughter.”

King didn't bat an eye. He looked straight at the jury and responded, “It was relayed that you have to really get on Renee real hard to get the truth out of her.”

Diggs rose to his feet and offered a boisterous objection on the basis of hearsay. The prosecution had insinuated that even the mother couldn't trust her daughter to tell the truth. Cottingham sustained.

“Your Honor, I understand,” Humphries countered. “Just as a basis, I submit to the court this is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to support the technique used by law enforcement in the interview of the defendant, which will be relevant clearly on cross-examination.”

“All right,” the judge accepted the explanation. “I charge the jury that the assertion by the mother at that time may not be used as any evidence other than it is for the truth asserted. It is merely solicited for the purposes of his further technique in discussing with the defendant. Is that correct?”

“That is correct, Your Honor,” Humphries assured the judge.

Cottingham explained his decision to the jurors again and cleared it with Diggs before he allowed King to continue.

“Once I was in possession of that information,” King stated, “as a result of that information, I wrote that down on a piece of paper and slipped it under the door during her interview.”

“Now, after giving this note that you've spoken of to Detective Altman,” Humphries went on to say, “what, if anything, did you note regarding his interview technique with the defendant?”

“Once I gave him that information, his technique did change,” King answered.

“Was it more assertive?”

“Yes, it was.”

“Did there come another point during the interview where you heard something that you wished to then convey back to the interviewers?”

“Yes, I did.”

Several of the jurors leaned forward or sat up in their chairs. Humphries smiled, then instructed King to tell the jury about that.

“During the course of the interview, I heard Renee tell Detective Altman and Lieutenant Frontz that she didn't think John was gonna be there because the time was too soon. I then wrote that information down on another piece of paper and slipped it under the door to bring that to their attention.”

Humphries took a step toward Sergeant King. “And after giving them that information, did those detectives then go back to that point—that they thought John would be there too soon?”

“Yes, they did.”

Humphries then moved to publish to the court typed transcripts and the first recorded interview between Detective King and Renee on the night of Brent's murder at 3:37 in the morning. He wanted the jury to hear how much her story changed from this interview to her later ones, and that the most incriminating evidence against her would come not in this interview but in a subsequent one when she was in the presence of her attorney.

Before the jury heard the tape, Judge Cottingham wanted to make certain Renee got a fair shake. For fifteen minutes, he instructed the jury on the Miranda warnings and the law as it related to Renee's alleged voluntary statements. It was an impressive history lesson concerning constitutional rights. As the judge went through it all, Renee stared at King from across the courtroom.

The jury listened to the taped interview and followed along with their typed transcript copies for exactly one hour and two minutes. They heard a very calm and collected Renee Poole being interviewed by the polite Detective King. At 6:27
P.M
., Judge Cottingham asked the defense if they desired to cross-examine the witness or break for the evening.

Diggs wisely chose to break and begin with King in the morning.

The prosecution believed they had delivered a tremendous blow to the defense's case that Renee had been coerced into making a confession, in allowing them to listen to the taped interview. They had wanted them to see that even the not-so-bright persons could figure out a fallback position after they had said something they regretted and claim they had been pressured—when it had never happened. The prosecution was convinced Renee was sophisticated enough to do just that when she saw her statement was going to be used against her.

The defense had their work cut out for them. The jury would want to know why it was that Renee hadn't been able to keep quiet and kept talking to the police until she finally confessed? Had she helped to plan it, but thought she could get away with it simply because she hadn't pulled the trigger?

Sergeant King was a very believable witness. If the defense was going to discredit him, then Diggs was going to have to show up in court tomorrow with his boxing gloves on.