Hometown Killer

by Carol Rothgeb

  The detectives referred to Phree and Martha as “young women” so Sapp wouldn’t think of them as children.

  Sapp, wearing a pale blue-and-white-plaid shirt, listened intently at the defense table, now sporting a Hitler-style mustache.

  The next day, on cross-examination, Lieberman, referring to the other defendants, their sentences, and plea bargains, asked Lieutenant Moody: “You wouldn’t be a party to these pleas if you didn’t believe these people were guilty, would you?”

  Lieutenant Moody replied that he would not.

  The defense attorney seized the opportunity to introduce a chart that he had prepared showing what each of the other defendants had previously admitted to:

  David Marciszewski:

  1. Hit w/hand and board (Martha).

  2. Had sex w/her (Martha).

  3. Covered girls (Martha).

  4. Threatened to kill (Martha).

  5. Hit Martha’s head w/rock.

  6. Hid evidence.

  7. Dropped rocks on heads.

  8. Left big rock on Phree’s head.

  Wanda Marciszewski:

  1. Took pulse—had none.

  2. “Kill them.”

  3. Phree pulse and none on Martha.

  4. Hid evidence.

  John Balser:

  1. Hit girls in head w/rocks.

  2. Sex w/both girls.

  3. Hid evidence.

  4. Covered girls.

  5. Hit girls w/hand and a limb.

  Jamie Turner:

  1. Jamie raped.

  2. Hit girl.

  3. Hid evidence.

  4. Hit girl w/hand and boards.

  5. Hid evidence.

  6. Covered girls up.

  7. Dropped rock on one.

  8. Hit w/pipe.

  Alex Boone:

  1. Hid evidence.

  Lieberman included Robby Detwiler on his chart, even though Robby had never been charged:

  1. Touched girls.

  2. Covered girls.

  Lieberman asked whether or not they had advised Sapp that he was being videotaped. Lieutenant Moody replied that it wasn’t necessary.

  On redirect Lieutenant Moody told the jury that the plea bargains were made in an attempt to find the semen donor. William Sapp was the seventy-fifth person on whom DNA tests were conducted in relationship to this investigation.

  He testified that the concept of “intercourse” was different with each one of the other perpetrators.

  Steve Moody told the jury that on April 4, 1997, the day after they concluded their interview with Sapp, he went to see John Balser and told him, “Jimmy Boy, he said it was okay to tell the truth.”

  The prosecution rested its case.

  At all times, I avoided making eye contact with William Sapp, but during a break in the proceedings, I came face-to-face with him when the old courthouse’s single, excruciatingly slow, elevator stopped and the doors opened as I waited to enter. There he stood, facing me, flanked by a deputy on each side. As I quickly looked away, I caught a glimpse of the emptiness—of the nothingness—in his eyes.

  William K. Sapp did not take the stand. The only “testimony” the jury heard from him was his videotaped confession. In fact, the defense did not call any witnesses. They did, however, introduce into evidence an exhibit of records from Children’s Services pertaining to Sapp.

  There was no rebuttal.

  Dennis Lieberman asked the court for a directed acquittal on all counts. Judge O’Neill denied his request. The defense attorney then asked the court for a directed verdict on three counts of abuse of a corpse and one count of rape. He claimed there was no evidence that Belinda Anderson had been raped.

  Assistant prosecutor Steve Collins reminded the court of the testimony from the former jail inmate who said that Sapp had admitted to him that he raped Belinda before he killed her. Collins also reminded the court that Belinda was naked from the waist down when her body was found.

  Judge O’Neill ruled that there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to determine if Sapp was guilty or not of the rape charge and the three counts of abuse of a corpse.

  Closing arguments were then scheduled for the next day.

  William Sapp appeared some days in the courtroom wearing a striped shirt and other days he appeared wearing a plaid shirt, but he continued to change his appearance. Now clean shaven, he listened vigilantly during the closing arguments.

  Schumaker began what would become a very passionate statement by reminding the jury of the specifications: purposeful killing of multiple victims, rape—principal offender, and kidnapping—principal offender. Rape with force—victims under age thirteen.

  Phree’s shorts were Sapp’s “signature.” He cut the shorts before she died—prior to the deathblows. Another child found the bodies, a child the same age as Phree and Martha.

  He showed the pictures of the girls’ bodies to the jury. “This is staging—posing—not rage. This is a perverse individual getting his kicks. He was meticulous. Their heads were in holes.

  “He was playing a game—a murderous game.”

  They took the bike and the shorts to the Lion’s Cage. The shorts were wrapped in a brick. Meticulous planning—meticulous getting rid of evidence. It showed planning. It showed control.

  After the murders they met at the Lagonda Avenue house. A pair of panties was found in the cistern.

  “Now what does Dr. Stewart—the forensic pathologist—tell us? Phree Morrow—at least four blows to her head—one to the lip—one to the neck—one to one hand—one to the other hand—two to the shoulder—contusions of the thigh—lacerations. Hemorrhages to the wounds—she was alive. These are not postmortem. She is alive when all of these wounds are struck and all of these blows contributed and are a cause of her death.

  “Martha Leach—two blows to the back of the head—one blow to the right front—two to the shoulders—one to the ribs—abrasions—multiple trauma. Eggshell fracture of the skull.

  “The force required on both: at least an unrestricted second-story window fall straight down on concrete.

  “The question that haunted law enforcement for years: Who put the semen in those girls? They didn’t have that answer. When they were prosecuting those other individuals, they did not have that answer. Well, we got that answer and we’ve presented it to you. The DNA stipulation—no contest.”

  Schumaker pointed to Sapp: “It’s his semen in those girls! This man chooses victims of opportunity and who, for some reason, are vulnerable.”

  He reminded the jurors of Robby’s testimony: “The individual who did not leave? That man! You want to talk about sudden rage? He’s still there. He’s still there when the others come back. And what is he doing? He is molesting the girls. He is still—after all that he has done—having his fun. Rage? Or somebody who is enjoying—perversely—what he is doing?

  “The scene talks to you, ladies and gentlemen.

  “That’s not sudden rage! That’s a perverse individual enjoying the act of rape—enjoying the act of murder. Because we know that after that point in time other blows were struck to those girls. When that man participates in those last blows—and Robby sees him with the rock over his head and turns away—he has a significant period of additional time to think about what he was going to do—and do it. That is called prior calculation and design.

  “Robby didn’t tell us the truth for a long time. He was a scared kid. It was tough for Robby to admit what he did. I think you could see that.”

  Schumaker referred to Belinda Anderson: “There wasn’t anyone else at this scene to blame anything on. The Valium and cocaine in her system shows she had a weakness, a vulnerability.”

  Close proximity. Relive crimes. Secluded area where he’s comfortable. Areas where he’s in control. Not sudden rage. Not coincidence. He got trash bags and went back and dug the shallow grave.

  They thought Helen Preston had been hit by a train. When asked if she had been raped, she nodded yes.

  �
�That is called an ‘excited utterance.’ ”

  Helen lost her watch and Sapp said he threw a watch away.

  It was a game at first: “Bob did it.”

  Schumaker held up Helen’s stiff, blood-soaked pants for the jury to see and then laid them aside: “He took her back to that dock—he thought she was dead—and shoved her under that dock. And by all accounts, she should have been dead. But she crawled out of there. She was discovered. And the officers discovered some chilling evidence—those pants.”

  Helen was sitting on her cut-up pants. It took Sapp seven to twelve minutes to cut them.

  “He knows what he’s going to do. He’s done it before.”

  Helen indicated glasses. The pants were not disposed of because he was interrupted. “Something happened to interrupt him—that caused him to run from the scene before he had done everything he would normally do. In fact, this time—unlike the others—he ran so quickly, he disposed of one of his prize knives on the church roof. He was interrupted. Someone was in the area.”

  He told Lieutenant Moody and Sergeant Graeber where the weapon was hidden that he used on Helen. The prosecutor gripped the rebar firmly in his right hand: “This is what he clubbed the face of Helen Preston with. This is what he shattered virtually every bone in her face with. He completely shattered the orbital floor, which caused the entire side of her face to droop down.”

  Sapp said he did not come inside Helen, but he left his “signature.”

  “Uh-oh. What’ll I do?”

  “He was haunted so bad, he went out and killed again!”

  Phree said, “Are you going to kill us or just fuck us?” This showed prior calculation.

  “Let’s tie in Mom! Let’s blame Mom!” And he tried to throw the rock to the other side of the world.

  Phree told him, “You’ll be sorry!” His response was, “Like hell I will!” Sapp told the others, “Don’t return to the crime scene.” Sapp was in control.

  Schumaker quoted Sapp talking about Belinda: “Blond. Pretty face. Pretty body.” And then later, “How many times do you have to hit someone before they don’t get back up?”

  And “Like opening up a Christmas present!”

  He was like a child at Christmas. Prior calculation. Not a coincidence. Isolated areas. Weakened people: “It’s about a man looking at victims of opportunity as Christmas presents—to rape and kill for his pleasure.

  “That’s why—when you look at all these counts, whether they charge prior calculation, whether they charge in the course of a rape, whether they charge in the course of kidnapping—the man’s guilty.

  “Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.”

  Dennis Lieberman gave the closing argument for the defense.

  “I’m convinced you’ll not find him guilty of charges that carry the death specifications. I’m convinced you’ll find him guilty, but not of those.

  “This is not about innocence. Find him guilty of the ones he did and not guilty on the ones he didn’t.”

  He told the jury they could find him guilty of murder, or manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. The principal offender was the person who personally performed each act. There can be more than one. Bill Sapp was not the principal offender, but he was certainly guilty of rape of two girls under thirteen.

  He referred to the “defense board”: “If this is true, David Marciszewski is the principal offender.”

  There was no evidence Belinda was raped—consensual sex.

  Prior calculation? Rocks were there. Out of control.

  Lieberman asked the jurors, “Who are you? We are what our parents made us.”

  Child abuse. Foster families: “What if that excuse is true? What if that excuse is real?”

  According to Children’s Services records in 1972: “He has hostility toward all women he comes in contact with.”

  He was born innocent. He didn’t have a chance. His stepmother beat him with fists all day. “This man never had a chance.”

  Profound hatred for women. Voluntary manslaughter. Guilty, but not as charged.

  Lieberman quoted Sapp: “They should never have done that to y’all. I’m sorry.”

  As Lieberman finished his closing statement, Sapp demanded from the defense table: “You’re gonna have to let me out of here or shoot me! That’s all you got left!”

  After Judge O’Neill quickly had the jury removed from the courtroom, he called a break. When court reconvened, he scolded the spectators about whispering.

  Before the jurors were brought back in, Sapp made the unusual request that the handcuffs and shackles—utilized during transportation of the prisoner—be left on him. It was rare for a jury to see a defendant bound in any way, the concern being that it could prejudice the jurors.

  Judge O’Neill: “Have you talked to your attorneys about this?”

  Sapp shrugged and answered: “It needs to be.”

  “So ordered.”

  Judge O’Neill also ordered that no family members of the victims were allowed to sit in the first row.

  Assistant prosecutor Steve Collins presented the rebuttal argument. He addressed the issue of Sapp’s dysfunctional family: hot-tempered father and lazy mother—highly exaggerated. He had very little contact with his mother since early age. He claimed that Sapp was the one who set Paul on fire.

  With clenched teeth Sapp spoke out loud in the courtroom, “That’s not it.”

  Collins continued to say that the abuse by Sapp’s (biological) mother was not supported by the facts. He then quoted Sapp: “If you’re a liar, gotta do it right.”

  He killed because he enjoyed it. He was a cold-blooded killer who had a fascination with death.

  The assistant prosecutor pointed out to the jurors that what they had seen on the confession tapes, regarding Phree’s shorts, was Sapp’s reliving of the experience. And when Sapp demonstrated cutting Helen from ear to ear, again he was reliving it.

  Collins told the jury that Sapp was full of self-pity, not uncontrollable rage: “This defendant’s a coward.”

  At the defense table Sapp was visibly angry. His jaw was clenched and his legs were continuously shaking up and down as they had done many times during the trial when he was upset.

  Collins continued, saying that Sapp chose vulnerable victims: “Those are the actions of a coward.”

  As Collins ended his rebuttal, Sapp, even though he was still handcuffed and shackled, seemed to try to leap out of his chair. He shouted in the direction of the deputy who was holding the controls to the stun belt, “What the fuck you doing, man? It didn’t fucking work, did it?”

  The deputy shrugged. “I didn’t touch it!”

  Again the jury was removed from the courtroom immediately and there was a break in the proceedings. It was determined that the stun belt had malfunctioned and accidentally shocked Sapp, although not with full force.

  Lieberman asked Judge O’Neill to instruct the jury about the belt incident. When Sapp was brought back into the courtroom, he was shackled but no longer wore the belt. Sapp, his mood obviously lighter and speaking to no one in particular, stated, “Just call me ‘Jingles.’ ”

  Some of the other investigators who had worked on the case would later say that they were “sure” Al Graeber was sitting in the courtroom with them listening. Sharon Graeber told them, “That’s probably why the zapper went off—just to let Sapp know he was there!”

  Judge O’Neill read the jury their instructions for deliberation, including the death penalty specifications and the charges against William K. Sapp.

  The specifications: the murders of two or more persons, murder during the commission of rape or kidnapping, principal offender, and prior calculation.

  The charges:

  1. Aggravated murder—Phree Morrow.

  2. Aggravated murder—Phree Morrow—during commission of rape.

  3. Aggravated murder—Phree Morrow—during commission of kidnapping.

  4. Aggravated murder—Martha Leach.

 
5. Aggravated murder—Martha Leach—during commission of rape.

  6. Aggravated murder—Martha Leach—during commission of kidnapping.

  7. Rape—Phree Morrow.

  8. Rape—Martha Leach.

  9. Kidnapping—Phree Morrow.

  10. Kidnapping—Martha Leach.

  11. Tampering w/evidence—Phree Morrow and Martha Leach.

  12. Abuse of a corpse—Phree Morrow.

  13. Abuse of a corpse—Martha Leach.

  14. Aggravated murder—Belinda Anderson.

  15. Aggravated murder—Belinda Anderson—during commission of rape.

  16. Aggravated murder—Belinda Anderson—during commission of kidnapping.

  17. Rape—Belinda Anderson.

  18. Kidnapping—Belinda Anderson.

  19. Tampering w/evidence—Belinda Anderson.

  20. Abuse of a corpse—Belinda Anderson.

  21. Attempted aggravated murder—Helen Preston.

  22. Attempted aggravated murder—Helen Preston—during commission of rape.

  23. Rape—Helen Preston.

  24. Kidnapping—Helen Preston.

  25. Tampering w/evidence—Helen Preston.

  On counts one through six and fourteen through sixteen, the jury had the option of finding Sapp guilty of murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter (felonious assault). On counts twenty-one and twenty-two they had the option of finding him guilty of attempted murder.