The Murder of Jeffrey Dryden: The Grim Truth Surrounding Male Domestic Abuse

by Troy Veenstra

  The day was warm, humid, and slightly sunny as all my family members arrived at the Wyoming Court House in small clusters that summer afternoon. Normally on this day my brothers, sisters, and I would be celebrating the birth of our mother, praising her for being 29 years old for more than a decade. Honored to have such a wonderful and loving person to call our own, yet this time things were far different.

  This day… this day, we came together as one group of friends and family united in purpose. Preparing ourselves to lay witness to the woman, the monster that took our beloved. We came to look upon evil, came to gape upon the fiend, the beast in shackles that plagued our hearts, our thoughts, and our dreams from the moment, the day her anger and her rage slain our beloved in cold blood.

  Tensions were high that afternoon as Paula and her group of combatants arrived. Everyone’s eyes quickly taking heed to the white lettering scribed upon the back of the dark tinted windows of their vehicles. Words of tribute, symbols that would reflect in the sight of others, outsiders that would gaze upon their splendor, their importance, these words placed in remembrance, memorial of a man, a son, a brother, cousin and friend named Jeffrey Scott Dryden.

  Prior to the official commencement of the pre-trial hearing, we were kept separate from the supporters of his murderer, allowed into the courtroom first in hopes of minimizing the hostilities between the opposing masses. Odd, it seemed in retrospect, just as in other courts across the country, the family of the accused feels the need to blame the victim’s family for their loved ones actions.

  This was ever so prevalent, ever so real, when Chiquita’s group of supporters took their seats on the wooden benches just opposed to us. Their thoughts ever prevailing through the tension of the room as they gazed angrily, heatedly with narrowed brows at Jeff’s family and friends, gawking and sighing coldly at us every time Paula gasped for breath or gave a distraught, tormenting gasp.

  Chiquita’s aunt, the main bulk of her support, gazing at Paula through the whole ordeal, gawking at her as if her hurt was faked, as if her agony, her sadness was nothing compared to the heartache her son had placed upon their minds by the actions Chiquita alleged she was forced to take that night.

  It was sickening to see such hatred, such disregard and malice directed at her by the family of Jeff’s Killer. Appalling to see such rage misguided; unfocused from the true culprit they were too unwilling, too ignorant to blame… disgusting to see such hate burning with desires of malevolence from those that would later call themselves, “Children of God…,”

  Sitting there with pen in hand, I watched as Fizer, (Chiquita) entered the courtroom dressed in full blue prison garb, her hands in cuffs, ankles in irons as she walked towards her table, her head gazing only at her auntie and mother in the front row.

  Never once, did she look towards the family of the true and only victim, never once did she allow herself to gaze upon the tears of sadness and torment her actions caused. Never once showed signs of remorse for the life she took that early summer morning.

  After a few seconds passed, the Public Defender (hereinafter as Defense) made it an issue to request a few tissues for the accused, as tears ran down the side of her face.

  “Crying for whom I wondered,” as I heard my family and friends sigh coarsely, the anger they were feeling growing with mutual intent. “Crying for Jeff… his family and friends, or crying for yourself,” I thought, knowing that the answer was surly the latter, for those that abuse and kill could never know the pain they force upon the family of their victims. Never heed to think, nor wonder or care, nor deem to know the pain of their infliction above their own.

  PRELIMINARY TRIAL BEGINS

  The preliminary trial began at 110 in the afternoon on August 19, 2010 at the city courthouse of Wyoming Michigan, in the matter of The People vs. Chiquita Rena Fizer, Judge Timmers presiding.

  Prosecutions First Witness:

  Wyoming Police Officer Ross Egan

  Officer Egan stated that when he first arrived on scene (Crossroads Apartment Complex) he saw one white male on the ground appearing to be unconscious as one white female was kneeling down towards him applying emergency medical treatment to the left side neck of the male victim (Jeff). Officer Egan stated that the scene appeared secure, and that from what he saw right away it was a “bloodied mess” as he saw blood everywhere, specifically on the doorway leading into the apartment complex, the sidewalk, and the grass around the immediate area.

  Officer Egan stated that there was another female of African-American descent, standing a few feet away from the victim in hysterics. On approach of this female he stated that she had blood all over her clothing but that she did not appear to be injured and that the blood on her did not appear to be hers. Egan stated that the black female made a statement; however, he was unsure if the statement was directed towards him or a statement in general, the female stated, according the officer Egan, “She had the knife, that they were fighting over it and the knife fell.” Egan stayed with the victim, as the black female was out of his sight for a few moments, until other officers arrived on scene.

  Officer Egan conveyed this information to his commanding officer when he arrived a few minutes later on site. Jeff was declared dead on scene while Egan was transporting the accused to the Wyoming Police Station. The information of his passing remained between the officers and medical techs; no one else at that time was informed that the victim had expired.

  Cross Examination of Police Officer Egan

  “When you first saw the defendant, what was she wearing at that time?” the Defense asked. “She was wearing a tank top and very short shorts.” Officer Egan replied. “At any time, did you see her change her clothes or was she wearing the same clothing when you transported her to the Wyoming lockup?” The Defense asked. “I believe that she was wearing the same clothing in lock up as she was when I first came upon the scene,” Egan stated.

  “Was there any testing done on her clothing at that time to see if the blood on her person was hers or if it could have been someone else’s blood?” the Defense asked. “At that time, no, not to my knowledge, though it may have been done later on in the investigation, it was not done at that time,” Egan stated.

  “Prior to transport, did you talk with Mrs. Fizer, the Defendant at any time?” Defense asked. “I talked with Fizer in the doorway, at that time she was not under arrest so no notice of her Miranda warnings was needed as the defendant gave the information to my questions freely.” He stated. “What was her demeanor at that time?” The Defense asked. “She was calm at times when it seemed to matter but then broke into tears at other times; this went back and forth in the course of my questioning her,” Egan Stated.

  “During the initial questioning in the doorway, what did you ask?” “I asked the defendant what had happened and she stated, ‘We got into a fight, he was holding the knife, and we started fighting over a steak knife and the knife slipped and Jeff was cut.” Officer Egan stated to the court.

  “Now going back a bit,” the Defense said, “where were you located when you first received the call?” he asked. “I was at the Galewood Bar, located on the corner of Burton and Godfrey.” Egan stated. “And what did you do when the call came through your dispatch?” Defense asked. “I went all out with flashers and sirens and arrived approximately 2-3 minutes later.” He stated. “2 to 3 minutes later?” The Defense repeated his question, “Yes sir, 2 to 3 minutes later, it was only about 3 to 4 miles away.” Egan stated.

  “Alright… now going back to the time you took the Defendant into custody and was in the process of transporting her to the Wyoming lock-up; did you question the Defendant any further on the incident?” Defense asked. “Yes I did,” Officer Egan said as he paused, continuing with his answer, “Dispatch called back and informed me that the Defendant was currently on probation for a prior domestic assault against the victim less than 2 months prior and in that assault the defendant had used a knife against him as well.” He stated, as members of my famil
y as well as some of Fizer’s supports gasped to the enlightened statement.

  “Um…,” the Defense stated as he quickly went back to his table, thumbing through his notes as if surprised by Officers Egan statement. “Was…,” the defense stumbled with his words, “Was she wearing a watch?” the Defense asked, as Egan answered, “Unknown sir.” “I see,” the defense stated, “and what was her demeanor when you arrived at the police station?” Defense asked, “Still crying.”

  “Did she know that Jeff was dead or at any time did you tell her?” Defense asked, “No, I did not tell her what his status was and she never asked, though she acted as if she already knew.” Officer Egan stated before being told by the Defense that he had no further questions at that time.

  Prosecution 2nd witness:

  Detective Tim Pols, 12 years as a detective for the Wyoming Police Department

  Detective Pols received the initial call about the stabbing a little after three that Sunday morning, at that time he was not made aware of the status of the victim. His first contact with the only suspect and witness of the stabbing took place in a holding room with one other detective about an hour later. Prior to that, he did not review the crime scene first hand but instead, was informed of what the officers that arrived on scene had observed, as well as other witness statements taken by the neighbors that tried valiantly to save the young man’s life.

  Walking into the holding room that morning was the first time, he gazed upon the only witness and suspect of the murder. Introducing himself and the other detective to Chiquita, he advised her of her Miranda Rights and had her signed the statement stating that she understood and waived her rights at that time.

  In the course of the questioning, Fizer told the detectives that her and Jeff were in a dating relationship but that the relationship was not going well (perhaps sleeping with other guys while Jeff was at work was to blame). On that night she stated that, Jeff was over at his brothers and that she had gone off to bed. Prior to that, she and Jeff were having a texting argument between each other. This argument was over the fact that she asked him to pick her up from her mother’s house, which Jeff went to go get her.

  However, after waiting in the driveway for some time he discovered that she was not there, (she did not tell the officers nor state where she was) but that Jeff was pissed that he had gone over there for no reason after she had asked him.

  Fizer stated that once Jeff got home, he immediately went to the bedroom and began fighting with her accusing her of cheating, but that she pretended to be sleeping, as she did not want to argue with him at that time. She stated that he grabbed her private area, and then grabbed her cell phone and walked out of the bedroom towards the kitchen. She followed him and when she got into the kitchen, she stated that Jeff was holding a steak knife that he got from the drawer in his left hand and her cell phone in his right hand.

  They argued some more until Jeff threw her cell phone to the ground smashing it, but still kept the knife in his hand. Fizer stated that Jeff did not assault her nor did she feel threatened by him having the knife in his hand nor did he use it in a threatening way. (No self-defense if one does not feel threatened or their life in danger at the time of the alleged occurrence) It was then that she went for the knife and according to her, “We struggled over it with my hand on his wrists.” Fizer stated that during some course of the struggle the knife “slipped” and “he got cut.” During clarifying questions to try to figure out how the knife slipped, Fizer could not answer those questions in a light that was not unfavorable to her description of the events.

  When asked, “What happened after Jeff was “cut,” Pols stated that Fizer told them that, “I guided him out of the apartment, knocking on doors as they made their way outside asking for people to call 911.” Furthermore, Fizer stated, “Jeff at that time took his cellphone from his pocket, gave it to me, and told me to call 911, which I did.” However, it was reported by Pols that several neighbors before then had already called 911 about the incident. Additionally, when one takes into account the damage inflicted upon his neck and throat by the knife, the possibility that Jeff was even able to speak is questionable.

  Fizer told Detective Pols, that she was unsure where the knife was after the stabbing occurred. The initial interview took approximately 30 minutes from the time she signed her acknowledgement and subsequent waiver of Miranda until the time of the clarification questions about how the knife slipped, it was only after these questions were asked that Fizer invoked her right to stop answering questions.

  It was at that time the Prosecution entered into evidence the 911 call made by Fizer on the night in question. The Prosecution then played the tape before the court. In the tape, you can clearly hear Fizer state, “He went crazy… I had the knife, he grabbed it and it slipped.” The cellphone was then taken away from her by what was presumed to be a male neighbor who began to tell the dispatcher what was going on.

  Interestingly enough, on the tape, Fizer is screaming into the receiver at times, but when she speaks about Jeff going “Crazy” and that “the knife slipped,” her voice is very clear and direct. Whether or not this means anything is really a matter of personal opinion though it does go along with officers Egan testimony about how Fizer, when asked questions seemed to be, “calm at times when it seemed to matter but then broke into tears at other times.” That said however, the purpose of the tape being entered into evidence was to discredit the previous statements Fizer made to Detective Pols, by using her own words as a witness against her, when she originally stated that Jeff had the knife through the entire altercation.

  When asked to continue by the Prosecution, Pols said that after the initial interview with the suspect, he reviewed the 911 calls, the crime scene photos; spoke with the officers on site, and the neighbors that witnessed parts of the incident. “I also made the death notice to the family of the victim, informing his mother of the possible murderer of her son,” he said, pausing for a brief moment before continuing. “Afterwards I was ready for a second interview with the suspect, Chiquita Fizer.”

  According to Pols, Miranda was still in place and she was made aware of this. He stated that when he entered into the holding room this time he noticed that her character had changed from the previous interview. “Fizer’s demeanor was clam, calculating and she answered her statements to our questions in ‘matter of fact’ way,” he stated.

  “When I informed her about the 911 call and told her the statement that she made about her having the knife, she said, ‘that’s a lie, I never said that at any time.” Pols looked her dead in the eyes, and told her once more, “The 911 call you made, clearly has you stating that you had the knife and that Jeff went for it not you,” he said, only to hear her again state that she never said she had the knife. It was only then that her demeanor changed yet again, this time becoming flustered, she refused to talk about the incident any further, Pols stated.

  Cross Examination of Detective Pols

  On cross the Defense made several run on questions that were not really questions but more like statements to a question.

  The Defense stressed on a few points as if he was trying to build a case of cruel or unusual punishment while Chiquita was kept in holding. To try to show this, the Defense on several occasions ask Pols if Fizer was “forced” to stay in the same bloodied clothing during the entire time she was kept in holding. He asked if she had been offered any pop, water, or use of the rest room. Pols stated that the officers that oversaw her during that time treated her fairly and correctly.

  The Defense then asked if, during the initial interview, when Jeff came into the bedroom and touched Fizer’s private area, (when the private area came up they were referring with their hands toward the hip area). If the touch was consensual by Fizer whom at the time previously stated she was pretending to be asleep, (it is presumed that this question was asked by the Defense to try leaving open the act of self-defense or at the very least place the victim in a poor light). Pols stated tha
t it was presumed that the touch was non-consensual.

  The Defense then asked Pols about the location of the knife after the stabbing but Pols stated that Fizer stated the she was unsure where the knife was after the stabbing. That said however, Pols stated, “that during the first interview with Fizer, she continued to state that she did not have possession of the knife during or after the struggle (which is the opposite of what her statement said over the phone during the 911 call).”

  The Defense tried on several occasions during cross to get Detective Pols to state that Fizer had the knife at some point during the struggle but each time the Detective told the Defense that according to Fizer’s statement she never had the knife in her possession before, during, or after the stabbing.

  The purpose for the Defense trying to get Pols to state that Fizer had the knife at some point would have been detrimental to the statements already made by Fizer. If the detective had stated at any time in his testimony that she had the knife then the idea of Fizer lying to the detective would not be as destructive towards her defense as it was, as if you’re caught in a lie once, even before being charged, what does that say about your character as a whole?

  Prosecution witness 3

  Medical Examiner (hereinafter ME) 28 years of experience as a forensic Pathologist PHD, Spectrum health, also the Kent County head medical examiner.

  After being sworn in, the Prosecution asked the ME about the process they use in conducting information about what was the ultimate cause of death to the body during the course of the autopsy. In response the ME stated, “the way we do things is through certain steps to see if we can ascertain what happened to the victim at what time, to what degree… kind of like a story slowly unfolding through each layer.” He said before continuing, “We use three steps in determining the Cause of Death.