Gregory “Greg” Price, Schiess’s attorney, interrupted the questioning then.
“I’m going to interpose an objection on behalf of Dr. Schiess,” Price said. “It appears that you’re going into his economic circumstances, and I understand that this is a punitive damagement action.” Price named some previous court decisions pertinent to the case, and continued, “It’s improper during an action to go into the economic status of the parties until after, and if, a judgment is rendered.”
“I understand your objection,” Davis said, “but I think my questions right now are relative to the circumstances of which these two individuals committed the acts on Martha Darlene Roberts and relate to the motive. I think I have the right to cross-examine and ask her what her knowledge is, but your objection is noted, and I’ll continue on.”
Stallings asked for a moment off the record with his client; then Davis began again, asking Barbara if she knew of any brokerage representatives or any brokers that Schiess dealt with while the two of them were dating.
“We never really discussed his finances or nothing,” Barbara said. “After the wreck we were in, he would help me out to, like, pay doctor bills, stuff like that and stuff, but it’s not something we’ve discussed.”
Davis asked again about the details of the wreck, which had gone on record as the worst in the state of Georgia over the Memorial Day weekend of 2004. He was primarily interested in whether or not Barbara or Schiess had made an insurance claim against the other driver, what insurance company had been involved, and whether anything had been paid to either of them as a result of the accident. Barbara told him that there had been no money to be had by a lawsuit, and that the driver of the car that had hit them had gone to jail.
45
Having exhausted the subjects of auto accidents and insurance money, Davis then switched over to the topic of membership in the South River Gun Club, asking if the couple had gone to the club, taken lessons, or practiced to improve their ability to shoot a shotgun or other firearms.
Barbara answered by asserting her Fifth Amendment right.
“Growing up in Texas, did you hunt and fish?” he asked.
Barbara told him she had fished, but she asserted her Fifth Amendment right again when Davis asked if she had done any hunting. She said that some of her siblings had hunted, but she was not able to give any details. Davis then asked if, when she went to her mother’s funeral, she had discussed with her nephew, a deputy sheriff, how law enforcement conducted fingerprint detection and analysis.
“You were concerned about fingerprints showing up on items that were found at the scene of the murder of Darlene Roberts, weren’t you?” he asked, and Barbara invoked the Fifth Amendment. This was the start of an endless stream of questions about the events of April 6, 2006, all of which would be answered by the assertion of Barbara’s Fifth Amendment rights.
“And those fingerprints you were concerned about were not only yours, but also Robert John Schiess’s, correct? On April 5, 2006, were you with Robert John Schiess at the Weathington Road residence in Rome? You and Robert John Schiess staked out the roadway to Vernon Roberts’s house in order to ambush Darlene Roberts, didn’t you? You were present with Robert John Schiess in Cherokee County, Alabama, correct? You came in contact with Darlene Roberts, didn’t you? Robert John Schiess came in contact with Darlene Roberts, didn’t he? You were in the possession of, either owning or had use of, a firearm, correct? You had a romantic relationship with Robert John Schiess, correct? Robert John Schiess had possession of or had access to a firearm, correct? You were present in a vehicle with Robert John Schiess, weren’t you? That vehicle was not owned by you, was it? It was owned by Robert John Schiess, correct?”
In each and every case, Barbara had asserted her Fifth Amendment right not to answer due to the fact that the answer related directly to the ongoing criminal case. Rodney Stallings was ready to ask for a few minutes to confer again with his client. He requested a break, and the proceedings went off the record for a few minutes while he advised Barbara on what she was and was not required to answer.
46
Greg Price, the attorney for Schiess, had objected frequently to Barbara’s being asked for information about his client that she had no personal knowledge of, such as exactly what Schiess’s financial holdings and property ownership might be, and he stated his position once again when the deposition resumed after a short recess. But when Davis began his questioning again, it amounted to another long string of inquiries, almost all of which were answered by Barbara’s statement, “Assert my Fifth Amendment right.”
“On April 6, 2006, you owned a pair of glasses, correct? Those glasses that you’re wearing today, how long have you owned those? How long have you been prescribed glasses? Did you use Pearle Vision in Conyers, for the purchase of your glasses or glasses frames? At the Pearle Vision in Conyers you obtained a pair of eyeglasses that had titanium type frames, correct? You and Dr. Schiess purchased twelve-gauge shotgun shells at Piedmont Outdoor Store, correct? When you were at the firing range, did you and Dr. Schiess use a twelve-gauge shotgun? You knew what kind of car Darlene Roberts drove, didn’t you? You and Dr. Schiess were laying in wait until Darlene Roberts came home from work, weren’t you? You saw Darlene Roberts driving her car toward her home, correct? You and Dr. Schiess stopped Darlene Roberts on the dirt road or the gravel road on the way to her home, correct?”
Attorney Davis was getting absolutely no response from his questions other than the assertion of Barbara’s Fifth Amendment rights, so he stopped using as many questions and began placing most of his remarks to her in the form of statements.
“You and Dr. Schiess were present when farmworkers came by on an ATV. You and Dr. Schiess tried to bind Darlene Roberts’s arms and placed plastic wrap over her head and around her neck. You and Dr. Schiess dragged Darlene Roberts from her car. You and your lover, Dr. Schiess, chased Darlene Roberts through the pasture after dragging her from her car, correct? You and Dr. Schiess, your lover, fired a firearm toward Darlene Roberts, fired a shotgun at Darlene Roberts more than one time. Darlene Roberts was struck by shotgun pellets from the shotgun that you and Dr. Schiess fired. Darlene Roberts was killed at the hands of you and Dr. Schiess. You suffered a black eye as a result of the events that occurred on April 6, 2006, while you were trying to commit the murder of Darlene Roberts. You still had the black eye when you attended your mother’s funeral four days later. On April 7, 2006, you called Pearle Vision in Conyers and reported that you only had the right arm and right lens of glasses and you needed to order a new pair of glasses. You gave a statement to law enforcement personnel implicating you and Dr. Schiess in the murder of Darlene Roberts. You and Dr. Schiess attempted to dispose of Darlene Roberts’s body after you had committed murder, correct? You observed Robert John Schiess fire a firearm at Darlene Roberts. You observed Robert John Schiess shoot and kill Darlene Roberts.”
The questioning kept on, with Davis issuing statements and Barbara continuing to answer with Fifth Amendment rights assertions.
“Prior to her death, Darlene Roberts never attempted to physically harm you. Prior to her death, you never witnessed Darlene Roberts threaten Robert John Schiess, or have any contact with him. Prior to her death, Darlene Roberts never threatened you. Neither you nor Robert John Schiess has an alibi regarding the death of Darlene Roberts. You were in the presence of Robert John Schiess on April 6, 2006, weren’t you? And the two of you committed the killing and the murder of Darlene Roberts on that day, didn’t you? On that day you and Robert John Schiess engaged in an attempt to kidnap Darlene Roberts, correct? On that day, or prior to that day, you stole road signs from Floyd County as part of your plot to kill Darlene Roberts. You and Robert John Schiess did use stolen road signs on April 6, 2006, in Cherokee County, Alabama. You told investigators that you were behind the truck as Darlene Roberts came driving up so she would not recognize you, correct? And you saw Dr. Schiess stop Darlene Roberts and get her out of the car, c
orrect? And you told investigators that Dr. Schiess bound Darlene Roberts with Saran Wrap, correct? And Darlene Roberts got loose and ran, and you and Dr. Schiess chased her, correct? You told investigators Dr. Schiess actually got in the car and chased her in the car, correct?”
Greg Price had begun frequently objecting to questions that involved his client, Schiess, and Davis decided he had done enough for the time being. He stated for the record that was all he had at that time, and turned the cross-examination over to Price until his turn came to recross-examine the witness.
47
The questioning style of attorney Price was not quite as aggressive as Davis’s had been. He was looking out for the interests of his client, Schiess, and his questions were focused more on Barbara’s relationship with Vernon Roberts.
He began by asking Barbara if she knew Ron Kelly, a security guard for Temple-Inland, and asked if he had ever communicated with her in any manner. Then he asked if during the time period after the divorce, she had continued to have any communication with Vernon.
Barbara answered that she had communicated with her ex-husband by telephone, in writing, in person, or by e-mail.
Barbara said that she’d had frequent e-mails from Vernon, discussing all manner of topics, and said that she and Vernon were still dating at times following their divorce, even having a physical relationship beyond the time of his marriage to Darlene. She and Vernon had contacted each other by e-mail frequently during the time of that physical relationship, and had spoken often, both on cell phones and home phones.
“When would you have occasion to see Vernon?” Price asked.
“We met one time at the back gates on Mays Bridge Road, where the contractors and stuff would come in and out, and at that time we talked and stuff, and I gave him a mink coat to give to Darlene.”
“Did you and he and Darlene ever socialize together?”
“Not really,” Barbara said. “We would sometimes end up at the same place.”
“During that time period that he was married to Darlene, was she aware of the fact of your physical relationship with Vernon?”
“Not total knowledge. I don’t know how to answer that exactly.”
“Did you and Darlene ever have any confrontations about the fact that you were sleeping with Vernon while she was married to him?” Price asked.
“Assert the Fifth Amendment right,” Barbara answered.
“Was Vernon present during that confrontation?”
The Fifth Amendment right was invoked again.
“And, in fact, Vernon and Darlene had some serious issues about the fact that you and Vernon were sleeping together, is that correct?”
“Assert the Fifth Amendment right amendment,” Barbara said, overstating the privilege.
“On April 5 and 6 of 2006, you had telephone communications with Vernon, is that correct?”
“Yes, sir.”
“These telephone communications were done with a calling card, is that right? Do you know where you purchased that calling card?”
Barbara did not remember.
Price asked what Barbara and Vernon were talking about during those times, and Barbara said, “Different things on that day.”
“Different things,” Price repeated. “How many times did you call Vernon on the day of Darlene’s death?”
“I’d have to be guessing,” Barbara said, and Price told her that her best recollection would do.
“Four or five, something like that. He called me a couple of times, I’m not sure.”
“And during that time period that he called you, do you remember what time of day or night it was that Vernon called you on the day of Darlene’s death?”
Barbara said that she thought it was once in the morning, probably before nine o’clock, and once in the afternoon around the time he’d be getting off work, between four and five o’clock.
“Did you have a cell phone? Is there any reason why you used the calling card as opposed to the cell phone?” Price asked.
“Because he had asked me to,” Barbara answered.
“Okay. Was that so that Darlene wouldn’t find he was calling and there wouldn’t be a record on the phone? Was using the calling card to mask the fact that you and Vernon were communicating with each other?”
“Yes, sir,” Barbara said, “and from other employees that might be in his office at that time.”
“Did Vernon ever communicate with you by telephone after Darlene’s death?”
“I’m not certain, sir.”
“Did you ever call him after Darlene’s death?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Did you call him using the calling card, or did you call him using your cell phone, or how did you call him?”
Barbara told him she had called Vernon both ways.
“Did you discuss the fact of Darlene’s death with him? Can you tell me about that conversation?”
Barbara answered Price’s question at length.
“The first call was right after my sister called me from Texas when we found out that Darlene was dead, and I called him and he was coming back from the funeral. And then, later that night, early in the morning—midnight, one o’clock, something like that—I called him to let him know that my mother had died and he had told me that if things would have been different, he’d have been at my mother’s funeral, and then he asked me to pick up some flowers for her, and I asked him what he wanted to say on the card, and he said, ‘Just put something that you know what I’d say,’ and that was the first couple of times.”
“Now, these conversations ... Dr. Schiess was not aware of those conversations. He was not present during the time period that those conversations between you and Vernon occurred, is that correct?”
“He was nowhere around,” Barbara said.
Stallings asked for another short break; then the deposition resumed.
“You’d indicated that you had been having e-mail contact with Mr. Vernon Roberts, and we know that there was an e-mail—based on your testimony—there was e-mail communication in April 2006,” Price said. “Was there any communication in March 2006 via e-mail with Vernon?”
When Barbara answered that there had been, Price asked her approximately how often she would e-mail Vernon, and she said she would guess somewhere around eight times a month, from December 2005 through March 2006, going to Vernon’s e-mail address at his office at Temple-Inland.
“Now, the police have asserted that you had issues, and I’m not talking about the allegation of murder,” Price said, “but the police have indicated that you had issues with Vernon and Darlene to the extent that you would go onto their property and stalk them, is that correct?”
“Assert the Fifth Amendment right amendment,” Barbara said.
“And, in fact, the police have accused and have evidence of you wearing a disguise and a mask and going onto Vernon and Darlene’s property and committing acts of vandalism?”
Barbara invoked the Fifth Amendment once again.
“And you’re aware of the fact that the police told you that Darlene said that if she died, that you would be the one that did it? Now, you, in fact, told people that Bob Schiess is innocent of these allegations, isn’t that correct?”
“Assert the Fifth Amendment right amendment.”
“Will you give me the names of the people that you wrote to or communicated to verbally that fact, that your opinion was that Bob Schiess was innocent of this charge?”
Stallings quickly interrupted for another short, off-the-record consultation with Barbara.
When the deposition resumed, Price asked several questions regarding Vernon’s current wife, whom he had married six months after Darlene’s death, inquired once again about the photo of Barbara’s bruised eyes, wanted to know if Barbara and Darlene attended college together, and asked about the broken eyeglasses and Pearle Vision. All these questions drew the same response: the Fifth Amendment assertion.
Then Price jumped to other topics, which primarily got Barbar
a’s stock answer.
“You’ve asserted to law enforcement that you knew that there was blood in Vernon’s house after the murder. How did you know that? Did Vernon put that blood in the house? How did you know, and why did you say that you knew, there was blood in Vernon’s house?
“On the day of Darlene’s death, you’ve already told individuals that you wore a disguise on that date. Why did you wear a disguise? Describe it. Has Vernon ever worn a disguise, to your knowledge? Did you assist Vernon in putting dirty, bloody clothing in a trash can outside of Vernon’s residence? Did you dispose of any of Darlene’s property on the day of her death?”
Barbara asserted her Fifth Amendment right to everything.
Price then got into an area that Barbara was not hesitant to answer.
“Are you currently under the care of physicians at this time?” Price asked.
Barbara answered that she was under the care of Dr. Cecilia Kane and Dr. Steve Felton for bipolar depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and nerve damage in her arms and both wrists. She told Price that she had been hospitalized and treated for mental-health issues at Windwood in Rome, Georgia, on five or six different occasions, from 1999 until the present.
Price asked for a couple of minutes off the record to organize his notes, then came back for a hard-hitting finish.
“Ms. Roberts, Vernon, in fact, told you in your communications with him that he could not afford another divorce, isn’t that correct, speaking of him and Darlene?”
“Yes, sir.”
“When did he tell you that?”
“A couple of different times. One time particularly was when we had the affair in October.”
Blood Ambush Page 15