Investigator Mike Mayhew returned for a repeat performance on the stand. The first item covered was the interview that Mayhew had with Wesley on December 21, 2007, at 6:15 P.M.
“And that would be the day after the discovery of Jocelyn Earnest’s body?”
“That is correct.”
“And who was present during the course of that interview?”
“Mr. Earnest, his attorney Mr. Sanzone, myself, and Investigator Babb.”
“Now, prior to speaking to Mr. Earnest did you disclose to him or any other person the discovery of an alleged suicide note?”
“No, sir, I did not.”
“Or did you discuss the themes contained within that suicide note?”
“No, sir, I did not.”
“Either before or during that interview did you discuss with Mr. Earnest how Jocelyn was killed?”
“No, sir, not during the interview. It was later that I was asked and it was told how she was killed.”
“And what did you tell him at that point?”
“That it was a gunshot wound.”
“Did you discuss the date you believed she was killed at that time?”
“No, sir, I did not, except that she was found [on] Thursday, December twentieth at twelve o’clock noon.” Nance took Mayhew through how the investigators had asked Wesley what his schedule had been like that week, and about the truck he’d borrowed.
Joey Sanzone, on cross, attempted to establish that Wesley had many sources to learn facts about the case before his initial interview with law enforcement: news accounts, his conversation the night before with Investigator Babb, and other people who might have been interviewed before him about the case. Mayhew acknowledged that some of the information could have been legitimately obtained, but other details could not.
Sanzone asked, “Now when he came in, it was perfectly voluntary.”
“Yes.”
“He didn’t have to.”
“Correct.”
“And he agreed at that point to provide fingerprints or any other information or any other samples you might need.”
“Yes, he did.”
“The conversation you had with Mr. Earnest, you [ . . . ] asked if she was ever suicidal, didn’t you?”
“Yes. It was asked if she [had] ever spoken about suicide or [ . . . ] harming herself [ . . . ]”
“And he told you [ . . . ] years ago . . .”
“No [ . . . ] He said the year before [ . . . ] I think his correct wording was ‘several times she has stated to me she wanted to commit suicide.’”
Sanzone pulled out the document of the interview and asked him to read from it. “And then what did he say?”
Mayhew read the question and its answer: “‘When is the last time she told you that?’ ‘I guess it would have been right after the summer of 2005 when I left and went to Chesapeake.’”
After some back-and-forth about the truck and the holster found in the gun safe, Sanzone handed the witness over to Nance for redirect. Nance said, “Mr. Sanzone asked you about media reports and your knowledge of them.”
“Uh-huh.”
“Are you aware of any that referred to this being consistent with suicide?”
“No, sir.”
“Or the finding of a suicide note?”
“No, sir.”
“Or the themes that may have been contained in that suicide note?”
“No, sir, there was not.”
Sanzone now stood for recross and asked: “But you do know what may have been rumored in the general public?”
“No, sir, it’s general public.”
“And you don’t know what rumors Mr. Earnest may have heard?”
“No, sir.”
THIRTY-SIX
The Commonwealth called Dr. Janet Andrejco, who’d been the principal of Great Bridge High School for four years until her retirement on August 1, 2010. Her presence on the stand spawned another defense objection, which led to a round of questioning outside of the presence of the jury.
After a lengthy argument, the judge ruled Dr. Andrejco’s testimony was admissible and the jury returned to the courtroom. She reviewed the schedule for the school, demonstrating that Wesley had not been responsible for overseeing any school activities on December 19, 2007, and that he’d been at work on December 20, the last day the school was in session before beginning their holiday break on December 21. In response to the prosecutor’s questions, she told the jury that there were approximately 350 computers and 150 printers at Great Bridge High.
Nance asked, “Did he [Wesley Earnest] return after the winter break?”
“He did.” However, Dr. Andrejco testified, he did not return after law enforcement appeared at the high school on January 24, 2008, pursuant to the investigation into the death of Jocelyn Earnest.
On cross, Dr. Andrejco testified that the school walkie-talkie system had about fifteen people on it, including the assistant principals, and they could all be reached immediately at any time they were at the school.
• • •
Next, the Commonwealth called Jesse McCoy’s uncle to the stand, where the Baptist pastor testified about helping out his nephew—Wesley’s former student—by performing the detailing on Wesley Earnest’s car on Thursday, December 20, because Wesley said he’d be out of town on Wednesday.
On cross, Joey Sanzone asked, “Sir, you say this was a brand-new business. When had it started up?”
“It never officially materialized,” he said. Wesley Earnest was their only client.
Sanzone asked the preacher if he could, without any reference to his notes, tell the jury when was the first time anybody asked him to go back and revisit the conversations with Wesley Earnest.
“I had no reason to until Dr. Earnest called me the following May asking me for a receipt.”
“. . . You hadn’t even thought about these conversations for six months at that point, had you?”
“That’s correct. Well, I take that back. That’s not entirely true. Earlier that year, my nephew called me [ . . . ] and said [ . . . ] had I heard about Dr. Earnest being indicted? And at that time I did not. But that made me think, do I need to be aware of anything. So I certainly started to replay some things in my mind to make sure that I had what I had clear.”
“But you had no notes?”
“No, sir.”
“And all of this is just done just sitting around thinking back over a few months?”
“Well, he would have been our first official customer. And you always remember your first and [ . . . ] with much more clarity than others.”
“Well, but he was your only customer. Y’all weren’t in business.”
“That’s true. And that’s all the more reason for me to remember that a little clearer.”
“You didn’t call him up on Wednesday and confirm that he was out of town anywhere, did you?”
“No, sir.”
“You didn’t talk to him on Thursday about returning from town anywhere, did you?”
“No, sir.”
“In fact [ . . . ] all you needed was a day when he was going to be at school from eight o’clock in the morning to four o’clock in the afternoon so you could pick up the car and detail it.”
“Essentially.”
“And with him being at school on Wednesday from eight to four, you could have done it that day.”
“We talked about that day, but . . .”
“You couldn’t do it that day.”
McCoy explained that Thursday worked better for him anyway. “Being a Baptist pastor, Wednesdays are heavy church days [ . . . ] I told him that would not be a good day for me and if we could avoid that day that would be best, but if it absolutely had to be that day, I could make an exception.”
“And he certainly didn’t insist on it being Wednesday, did h
e?”
“At one time he did. That was the best day for him at one time [ . . . ] but he changed it because he had other commitments.”
• • •
Erik Goodrick hopped into the hot seat saying that he lived in Virginia Beach and Wesley was his neighbor in 2007. When Wesley moved, they still kept loosely in contact by telephone.
Erik told the jury that he was in Chicago in between Thanksgiving and Christmas installing a printing press. Wesley called him twice while he was gone, but since his phone was dead, he did not retrieve any messages until after Christmas. In the first message, Wesley simply asked that Erik call him back. In the second one, Wesley said he needed to borrow Erik’s truck. When he got the messages, Erik returned the calls and left a message but Wesley never called him back.
In response to questions from the defense, Erik said he knew nothing about Jocelyn Earnest and never saw her. He did, however, see Wesley’s girlfriend, Shameka Wright.
Erik said that he was not surprised by Wesley asking to borrow his truck because he’d done so once before when he had needed to move some furniture. On that occasion, Wesley had cleaned the truck before returning it, something Erik never did himself. He and his wife used to joke about needing to get Wesley to borrow the truck again so it could get cleaned.
• • •
David Hall, a teacher and coach with the stocky body of a wrestler, took Erik’s place before the jury. He said that he struck up a friendship with Wesley, who was teaching him how to hunt. The two of them went out together as much as they possibly could. He said that Wesley never mentioned Jocelyn, and they never discussed finances.
Before Christmas break, he and Wesley exchanged vehicles after school during the week of December 17. David said that Wesley wanted to move furniture to a trailer but asked him not to say anything about that to any of the administrators because he was trying to establish a residence.
When Nance asked about the condition of the tires on his truck, Dave said, “Oh, they were in great shape. They were about a year and three months old, but I rotate them every three thousand miles.” He then told the jury about Wesley borrowing the truck again in January and returning it with new, but inferior, tires.
• • •
Like Wesley Earnest, Jim Clevenger was a public school administrator working as an assistant principal at Great Bridge High School. While he and Wesley worked together, they formed a professional friendship. “There were times that we would go out and get dinner before a football game or something, you know. That was the extent of the social activity. But, yes, we did [ . . . ] Wesley actually volunteered some information about his financial status [ . . . ] He indicated in his first year that he didn’t necessarily have to work, that he was not like most administrators who could limit how much they could invest, that the folks downtown were investigating how to coordinate the paperwork so that he could invest a portion of his money.”
“Did he say the status of his debts? Anything like that?” Nance asked.
“He indicated that he didn’t have a lot of responsibility.”
Jim told the jury about Wesley Earnest’s stressed reaction to the arrival of two men in dark suits at the high school on January 24. He said that Wesley specifically asked if Dave Hall had spoken to them and that Wesley appeared preoccupied all day.
Joey Sanzone did his best to make Wesley’s inquiry about David Hall appear innocent or coincidental. The question, however, hung in the air. It had made a lasting impression on the witness; would it weigh as heavy with the jury?
THIRTY-SEVEN
After brief testimony from a clerk at the Chesapeake Campground, noting that it was Wesley Earnest’s mother who rented him the space for a trailer on December 26, 2007, the next witness was the store manager for Kramer Tire in Chesapeake, Rick Keuhne. His qualifications as a tire expert were accepted by the court. He told the jury about his January 10, 2008, transaction with the person calling himself Tom Dunbar.
At the sound of that answer, Joey Sanzone asked to approach the bench and the jury and witness were sent out. He and the judge had a lengthy discussion about the vacating of the first verdict and the standing of the motions filed for that trial and this one. It all boiled down to an objection by the defense that the tire evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
“The court feels that this is probative as far as circumstantial evidence . . . and that probative impact is not overcome or overwhelmed by prejudicial impact,” Judge Updike ruled.
When testimony resumed, Rick Keuhne related the circumstances of the sale and his inability to find anything wrong with the man’s tires.
“Mr. Keuhne, are you familiar with emergency tire repair substances such as Fix-a-Flat?” Nance asked.
“. . . Fix-a-Flat is nasty stuff that individuals put in their tire if there happens to be a hole . . .”
“When a tire is changed is the evidence of the use of Fix-a-Flat apparent?”
“Very apparent . . . If anyone has kids and watches Nickelodeon when you see the green slime that’s what Fix-A-Flat looks like inside of a tire. It not only gets inside the tire and completely coats it and also does the same thing to the rim. And tire changers hate it because it takes an additional . . . ten to twenty minutes to clean the rim to get the Fix-A-Flat off.”
“. . . Did you observe any evidence of the tires that were driven in on this vehicle having Fix-A-Flat or a similar substance in them?”
“No, sir.”
On cross, Sanzone attempted to undermine Rick’s standing as an expert witness. Then he raised questions about the validity of the receipt since it had not been signed by the customer. Rick said that was not unusual when a customer pays cash, since the store only required a signature on charge purchases. Sanzone came close to badgering the witness over a small point, whether the document presented was a work order or an invoice. Then, the defense cast aspersions on his inspection. “You never looked at the rims of the vehicle after the tires . . .”
“Yes, I did. Yes, sir, I did,” Rick insisted, clarifying that while he did not inspect the insides of the tires, he had checked out the outsides.
“Were you inside your showroom ringing up these sales?”
“When?” Rick asked.
“On the day these tires were sold. You don’t ring up tires from outside in the shop, do you?”
“I . . . did the original work order inside . . . the showroom. I then carried the ticket out into the shop, and then I went back out to the store. The only customer I really had at that time that evening was Mr. Dunbar.”
• • •
Investigator Gary Babb was recalled as the final witness of the day to testify about the false address on the Kramer Tire work order. He told the jury that there was no Silver Spoon Drive in Roanoke; in fact, no road by that name anywhere in Virginia.
As for the zip code, 24131, the closest number that he could find was 24121, which is the zip code for the lake house. The phone number given had area code, 304, that he said was a West Virginia area code—the area code where Wesley’s mother and stepfather lived.
• • •
The seventh day of the proceedings, November 17, 2010, began with more legal huddling. Joey Sanzone requested that his proposed fingerprint expert, Jennifer Mnookin, be allowed to be present during the Commonwealth’s testimony on fingerprints. Wes Nance objected primarily because Mnookin was not an expert in the purported field, but a law professor who taught and researched evidentiary issues, but when pressed by the judge, Nance relented.
The prosecution case continued with Kenneth L. Riding, a retired employee from the Department of Forensic Science at the State Crime Lab in Roanoke, where he’d worked for ten years as a forensic scientist specializing in latent prints. Prior to that job, he was a latent print examiner for Arlington County Police Department in northern Virginia and spent five and a half years examining prints at the FB
I in D.C. He testified that throughout his forty-one-year career, he had examined around 4 or 5 million prints, and had testified about 310 times. He was accepted as an expert by the court.
First, Riding explained his methodology. “The fiction ridges . . . have what are known as Galton’s details . . . These characteristics consist of bifurcations where a . . . single ridge will work into two ridges. They are known as ending ridges, dots and enclosures or islands where a ridge will bifurcate and come back together forming an enclosure.”
“And in doing fingerprint comparison and this differentiation is there a methodology that you use?”
“Yes, there is,” Riding said. “It is called ACEV, which is an acronym for the process used in [ . . . ] doing fingerprint identifications and comparisons. It stands for analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification.”
Riding testified that he did not find any fingerprints of value on the shell casing or the murder weapon; however, although there were no visible prints on the alleged suicide note, his luck changed when he used a chemical called ninhydrin to process it. “The chemical reacts to the amino acids that are given off by the fingers,” he said. “Two latent fingerprints were developed on the suicide note.”
“And where were those fingerprints in proximity to the paper and the printing on the paper?”
“One was on the front and one was on the back of the paper.”
“Once you develop those latent fingerprints do you document that in some form or fashion?”
“The note is actually sent to the forensic photographer there at the state lab.”
Nance presented an exhibit to Riding. “Do you recognize that?”
“It appears to be enlargements of the fingerprints that were developed on the suicide note.” Riding then demonstrated the manner that the note could be held to leave the prints where they were: one as if the paper were pinched from the top, the other as if the note had been grabbed on the side.
“Sir, once those two latent prints were developed, what do you then do with it?”
“I eventually compared them against some elimination fingerprints, which were submitted to the lab.” He then explained that he’d had to obtain Jocelyn Earnest’s fingerprints by going to the morgue and getting them himself. Then, he said, “It is a matter of looking at the latent print and picking out points of similarity or characteristics in there and comparing them with the fingerprints of Jocelyn Earnest [ . . . ] The latent prints developed on the note were not identified as Jocelyn Earnest’s.” He testified that he also got a negative result when he compared the unknown prints to Maysa Munsey, Marcy Shepherd, and Dora Farrah, another of Jocelyn’s co-workers known to have been in Jocelyn’s house in 2007.
Under Cover of the Night Page 20