A Wolf in Suburbia: The Pesce Family Murders Part 4

Episode 85 covers chapters 12, 13, and 14 of the book, "A Wolf in Suburbia: The Pesce Family Murders.

The trial commences with the presentation of some key witnesses, including Doreen Beauchamp (Wolfenbarger's Girlfriend) and Betty Faye Smith (Wolfenbarger's Mother). 

Transcript

EPISODE 85 A Wolf in Suburbia: The Pesce Family Murders Part 4

Chapter 12 - Day Three

Friday, March 28th, 2003

Day three of the trial began at 8:42 A.M.. Judge Ryan took his seat at the bench as the jurors, family members, reporters and audience entered the courtroom. Ryan briefly went over some of the morning’s issues and asked both the prosecuting attorneys as well as the lawyers for the defense if anything else needed to be discussed before they began. Prosecuting attorney Baker spoke up. 

“Stefano Pesce and Marcus Mersino are both in the court. They are witnesses in my case. I didn’t think there would be a problem with them being here during the defendant’s opening statements.”

Wolfenbarger’s attorney, Richard Cunningham was quick to disagree. 

“I do, Your Honor. This is not a matter of somebody being an identifier or some tangential matter. This is really important testimony, and as to both witnesses, I would respectfully request… I know that Mr. Wolfenbarger would like nothing better than to have his mother here to support him, but she is a listed witness by the prosecutor. We recognize that the nature of the beast is such that when one is a witness, one should testify to what he or she knows, not what he or she hears, pro or con.”

Judge Ryan agreed with Cunningham and asked Stefano and Mr. Mersino to wait outside until after the opening statements. Once they excused themselves, Ryan offered Cunningham the floor.

“The vicious, cruel thugs who killed the Pesce family were sending a message. That’s what the evidence will show. Oh, you’ll hear evidence that things were taken from the Pesce house there on St. Martins, but the evidence will also show that robbery was not the motive. There was a message being sent.”

Cunningham was using his opening statements to lay the foundation that he would continue to try and unravel over the course of the trial. 

“Now I doubt during the course of this trial you’re going to learn specifically who it was who was sending that message. There will be plenty of clues, but I don’t know if you will learn specifically who did it.”

The defense, over the course of the trial, would try again and again to imply that Wolfenbarger’s uncle, Billy ‘Wadd’ Smith, and various members of the Devil’s Diciples were behind the murders. 

“You’ll learn through the evidence that the messenger in this case, was a person by the name of Billy Smith. Mr. Baker tells you that the police recovered the murder weapon, but he doesn’t tell you that there was DNA evidence on that weapon and he didn’t tell you that the scientific test excluded Mr. Wolfenbarger, excluded Mr. Lincoln.”

As Cunningham continued, he brought up Marco Pesce’s mother, Maria Vergati. It would be the first, but certainly not the last time that one of the defense attorneys would offend Pesce family members. 

“And he tells you, quite candidly, that Maria Ventiglio (sic) is from Italy and doesn’t speak English, but what he doesn’t tell you is John Wolfenbarger doesn’t know one word of Italian.”

A woman, shot in cold blood, her entire family looking on from their seats and he butchered her name. The second time followed immediately and came out worse. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

“He tells you there’s no forced entry into that house. He tells you that those people enter while Miss Vertilario (sic), the grandmother, is there alone. But he doesn’t tell you that she is seated in the front room, seated as if having a conversation, not running, not moving, not hiding, but seated as if talking to someone when she is executed with a pillow and a gun. And yet Mr. Wolfenbarger doesn’t speak Italian.” 

  Throughout the rest of his opening statement, Cunningham planted little seeds in the minds of the jurors. ‘Tracy Letts fabricated evidence to hurt his client’, ‘Billy Smith changed his story every time he told it’ and that after Melissa, the youngest Pesce child, was shot; she was moved on purpose to ‘make the bodies into a perfect circle’. Cunningham leaned heavily on the premise that Marco Pesce was in financial trouble and that Billy Smith was the West Side Boss of the Devil’s Diciples and that the Diciples were a semi-organized criminal organization. Eventually he referred to Smith as ‘the John Gotti of Brightmoor’. Would those seeds grow? Only time would tell. 

Cunningham wrapped up his portion of the opening statements and the Wolfenbarger jury was excused from the courtroom. Once the Lincoln jury was seated, Prosecutor Baker ran through his opening statements for them, they were nearly identical to what he said to the Wolfenbarger jury; a recounting of events and a preview of evidence. Before he could call his first witness, however, it was Cornelius Pitts’ turn. Pitts, a 37 year veteran of the courtroom, was working for Dennis Lincoln practically pro bono. 

“You will notice that prior to my arising to give this opening statement, I briefly caucused with the defendant. And I did so because we are engaged in perhaps the most monumental experience of his life.”

Pitts, as he would often do throughout the trial, attempted little by little to separate his defendant from John Wolfenbarger. As his opening statement got underway, he quickly pointed out that Lincoln was under the impression they were planning a robbery, not a murder.

“Let me suggest to you that the testimony is going to reflect that in this professional planning for this particular alleged robbery and murder, there was the acquisition of ski masks and et cetera. Why would you need to get rid of any witnesses if you’re wearing ski masks? And if you got the ski masks or if you went to buy them, why wouldn’t you wear them?”

“Let me suggest to you there’s going to be no testimony whatsoever to reflect that this man, Dennis Lincoln, was ever inside of that house, no testimony whatsoever. I can tell you that for a fact.”

“Let me suggest to you there is not an iota of physical evidence they can associate this particular crime with… that is, what happened inside the house, with Dennis Lincoln.”

From there Pitts spent a good portion of his allotted time discussing Billy Smith and his arrests and life time probation, jumping on the train that Cunningham had started rolling. He then brought up Tracy Letts and her lying under oath numerous times, piggybacking on Cunningham’s similar statements. Finally he brought up the idea that Lincoln’s statement after his arrest had been coaxed out of him by relentless interviewing by the detectives and that they made race an issue.

“And you can’t tell me they didn’t talk about race out there. The testimony very well may be that they deny it, but the fact of the matter is reality would say listen, my man, you black and you’re out here in Livonia. You're gone, Jack. Common sense is going to tell you that that happens. You don’t think it happens?” 

Cornelius Pitts and his attempt to bring race into the murder trial was the second time that morning that various Pesce family members felt offended.  The Lincoln jury was excused at 12:15 P.M. following Pitts’ opening statement. At 1:40 P.M. court reconvened and the first witness was called to the stand.

Linda Keimig, an employee for almost three years with the staffing company Cybertech, was the first person to take the stand. Cybertech’s offices were located in Garden City, Michigan above Orin Jewelers. On December 19th, two days before the Pesce murders, Keimig claimed to have had a run-in with the defendants. It wasn’t until 10 days later, while reading the Livonia Observer that she noticed the two men arrested for those murders were the same men she talked to in the stairwell at her work. On January 5th, after seeing bigger pictures of Lincoln and Wolfenbarger she decided to call the police. Fifteen days later the police came out, meeting her at work, they took a written statement. 

On cross examination Cunningham more or less teased the witness for her being offended by the abruptness of their departure after learning where the jewelry store was. Pitts was eager to discuss why she waited so long to call the police.

“The minute you saw those pictures in the paper, you picked up that phone and called, did you not?”

“No.”

“Not that day?” The jury could see where Pitts was going with this line of questioning.

“No.”

“Not the next day either, was it?”

Again, she answered no. 

“As a matter of fact, ma’am, if it was significant, a horrendous crime that you’re trying to report and concerned about, the third, fourth, fifth day you haven’t done anything about it, have you, yes or no?”

“I was ill, that’s why I did not call.”

Pitts was not about to let up. His intent was to render the witness's testimony useless. 

“Your explanation for not calling the police on direct examination was I have laryngitis, isn’t that what you said?”

“Yes.”

“Did you break your arm? Is there anything wrong with your fingers?”

“No.”

“Ma’am, you could write, can’t you? There’s nothing to prevent you from writing a note.”

“No.”

Pitts ran the same line of ‘questions I already know the answer to’ when asking her about the fifteen day period between when Keimig called the Livonia Police and when they finally showed up to take her statement. On redirect, Douglas Baker did his best to give credibility back to the witness as Cunningham and Pitts objected at every turn. Linda Keimig was excused at 2:40 P.M.. 

The second witness, Anita Douglas was then called to the stand. Douglas, over the course of the previous 15 years, had shared both a professional relationship and friendship with Marco Pesce. On occasion, Douglas would take vacation time from her regular job to help Marco during Christmastime. She had been working at Italia Jewelry on December 21st and was one of the first people to arrive at the scene on Sunday, the 22nd. 

Douglas was asked by Baker to describe the events of the 21st for the court. She had been at work all day and mentioned how Pesce had been coming and going throughout the day. While her times differed from statements made later by Diane Pesce, she had been aware of him leaving to bring the kids to Ann Arbor and she had been the one to take the phone call from Carlo around 6:00 P.M. that evening.  

On cross examination Cunningham wasted little time before bringing up Pesce’s supposed financial problems.

“When you were doing office work for Mr. Pesce, did you have anything to do with his business accounts, pay any of the bills?”

“Occasionally.”

“All right, Mr. Pesce at that point in time had some financial problems, didn’t he?”

Douglas Baker shot out of his chair like a rocket. 

“Objection! There’s no foundation.”

Cunningham adjusted his wording a little and asked the question again.

“Well, you did accounting?”

“No, I occasionally paid a bill or two.”

“Okay and you knew he was in financial trouble?”

Indignant, Douglas responded to the question, “I didn’t say that and I didn’t know that.” 

The court learned that Nancy Trondreau was the one to take care of Mr. Pesce’s books. She would be called later on in the trial.

The third day of the trial wrapped up with two relatives of the deceased, first came twelve-year-old Stefano Pesce. Prosecutor Douglas Baker began his direct examination. 

“Stefano, when he was alive, what was your relationship to Carlo Pesce?”

“He was my cousin and my best friend.”

“And did you know his dad, Marco?”

“My Uncle.”

“Okay and did you know Carlo’s sisters Sabrina and Melissa?”

“They were my cousins too.”

Baker asked Stefano to remember back to December 21st and his various conversations with Carlo. The young man also described what he did when he and his parents arrived at his cousin’s house. During cross examination, Cunningham was surprisingly gentle with Stefano, focusing mainly on the accuracy of his timeframe and what he saw inside the house. Cornelius Pitts, Lincoln’s attorney, chose not to question the witness. 

The last witness of the day was the husband of one of Marco’s cousins. Mark Mersino had the unfortunate responsibility of being at the Pesce home Sunday, the 22nd as police first arrived. His testimony was a basic recap of what transpired that morning. He was quickly cross examined by Cunningham who once again questioned the validity of a witness’s time frame, Pitts passed on this witness as well. The Honorable Judge Ryan addressed the courtroom before dismissal. 

“I need to warn you, ladies and gentleman, you are not to watch any media coverage relative to this trial. You are not to listen to any radio reports relative to this trial, nor are you to read any newspapers. Now, I’m not going to be in your homes over the weekend to see if you pick up the Detroit News or Free Press or any local paper. I leave that to you to preserve the integrity of this trial. All right, with that, have a good weekend, a restful weekend because next week we will be covering a lot of mileage.” 

Chapter 13 - Opening Day

Monday, March 31st, 2003

Monday was a big day in both the courtroom and for the city of Detroit. Opening Day for the Detroit Tigers has, over time, become a holiday for baseball fans. With bars and parking lots opening at dawn, fans of the sport and partying alike head downtown to join in the festivities. Radio stations lay claim to the more popular bars and host parties with bands and disc jockeys broadcasting live. Local favorites like The Elwood, The Town Pump and Hockeytown Cafe are stuffed wall to wall with twenty-somethings, while venues like The State Theater and The Fox; normally open for concerts and shows, are transformed into pre-party hot spots. 

Despite the Tigers losing over 100 games in the 2002 season, diehards were excited for a clean slate that would begin later that afternoon against the Minnesota Twins. As the city partied, people involved in the Pesce trial did their best to find available parking for cheaper than twenty dollars around the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice.  

Jurors entered the courtroom at 9:28 A.M. and day four of the trial was underway. After a quick recap of the previous day’s events from Judge Ryan, Prosecutor Douglas Baker called his first witness, Marco’s brother Fabrizio Pesce. Early on, Pesce discussed his relationship to the deceased, he and his brother coming to the United States in the seventies and his mother arriving on a three month visa, among other things; used for the purpose of background information.

Baker next asked questions pertaining to the day of the murders; the unanswered phone calls, the odd stillness of the house and the subsequent Christmas party that Carlo, Sabrina and Melissa were supposed to attend with Fabrizio and his family. Periodically Baker would ask Fabrizio if ‘he was ok’. It was an understandably emotional time for every member of the family and having to testify amplified that emotion. 

After briefly discussing his mother, Fabrizio was asked to describe each of the three children. 

“Just very briefly, Carlo, would you describe him in terms of his maturity level and his intelligence?”

“He was really sharp. He… he used to write, read a lot. He was just… he can read a thousand page book in two days. And he used to write poetry. I wrote poetry myself and published a book, so I was really proud when he finished a poem and showed it to me.”

“Was he mature, was he childish?”

“No, the only time he became a child, when he was playing, coming home and playing with Stefano. But then he could make a conversation of a 40-year-old man. His vocabulary was just awesome.”

“What about Sabrina, how old was she at the time of her death?”

“Nine.”

“And she’s been described as quiet?”

Fabrizio attempted not to get choked up as he spoke. The girls, in particular, had been so young at the time of their death. 

“Yeah, real quiet. She was my princess. She had this artistic ability, she was always drawing.”

“And Melissa, how old was she at the time of her death?”

“Six. Last Saturday would have been her seventh birthday.”

“And she was an affectionate child?”

“Yeah, she was beautiful. She just always cracked a smile to everybody, to the point that, you know, all my friends loved them so much. And every time she came to the Italian American Club, we had a family dinner night there every Thursday. So everybody was getting together with friends and she was around giving kisses and hugs and playing with other kids. She was awesome.”

On cross examination Cunningham addressed the time frame of that Saturday, December 21st. He attempted to nail down times since there had been a little confusion surrounding Stefano’s testimony. Before he wrapped up his brief questioning, Cunningham asked Fabrizio if he knew his brother’s wife, Diane. 

“Relatively.”

“I’m sorry?” replied a confused Cunningham. Fabrizio went on to give a garbled answer, obviously uncomfortable with the question.

“Relatively.  In the sense not… yes, I knew her, I know my brother’s ex-wife, yes.”

“You knew her family?”

“I know who they were.”

“So you did have a lot of contact with her over the years?” 

“Not at all.”

“Not at all. Was there any particular reason for that?”

“Well, the first years we were just like any other regular family, and then later on she just… um, we couldn’t invite them over. She maybe wouldn’t show up or maybe come late. Most of the time she had something going on, problems, whatever it is, so we stopped personally inviting her. It just kind of… time went by… they were calling or stopping by, they were welcome.”

Cornelius Pitts, for a third witness in a row, decided not to cross examine. 

The next person to take the stand was Wolfenbarger’s girlfriend, Doreen. In 1998, when John was transferred to Saginaw Correctional Facility he met another inmate, who happened to be Doreen’s cousin. Her cousin wrote to her, asking if she would please become pen pals with his new friend. After some initial hesitation she began to write back and forth with Wolfenbarger, eventually visiting him from time to time. Upon his release in August of 2002, John moved in with Doreen and her mother in Livonia. She had been with Wolfenbarger and Lincoln often during the week of the murders and became a very important witness. 

After running through the initial questions all witnesses are asked, Baker began to question her regarding her health problems that began in 1997. 

“Could you explain your health problems to us?”

“Um, first I became legally blind and then my kidneys started to fail due to diabetes.”

“In terms of your eyesight, can you describe for the jury that condition as best you can?”

“I can see you. Um, I can see the darkness of your eyes. Um, I can’t see your eyeballs or anything, but I can see you. I’m totally blind in my right eye. I started dialysis in 1998 and then I had a transplant in 2001.”

Baker next ventured into the relationship between Doreen and John, how often did she visit him, how often did they write and did she fall in love with him?

“Yes I did.”

“And you’re still in love with him?”

“Yes.”

“And did he express his love for you?”

Again, her answer was yes. Baker then discussed her knowledge of Dennis Lincoln. She admitted to learning about him through conversations with John. Wolfenbarger had also given her a heads up regarding Lincoln’s parole in the spring of 2002. Lincoln and Doreen began to correspond via email.  

“At first I asked him how he was doing, and then he would tell me that he was looking into school and looking for jobs and that he started this online business and asked me if I wanted to join.” Lincoln came to Doreen’s house one time to teach her about his online business. It was the first time he met her in person. 

In August, Doreen went to Parnall Correctional Facility in Jackson with John’s mother Betty and his uncle Billy Smith to pick him up. When first paroled, John moved in with his mother in Brightmoor. Their relationship continued outside of prison, becoming sexual in nature and the pair saw each other almost daily. Wolfenbarger moved in with Doreen in November. 

“Can you explain why there was a decision made to have him move in with you?”

“Where he was living with his mom, he was paying rent and also helping me pay on my credit card and for the horse I had. So if he moved in with my mom and me, he would just help me with bills and not have to pay rent.” 

Baker then moved into a line of questioning regarding how often Wolfenbarger would talk to Dennis Lincoln; it was met with multiple objections from Lincoln’s lawyer. If the prosecutor was trying to give examples to the jury of how often Lincoln and Wolfenbarger might have talked and discussed robbing a jeweler, Pitts wanted to put a stop to it. 

Eventually the questions focused on the week of the murders and when and where Doreen saw Wolfenbarger and Lincoln between December 18th and 24th. After an hour of testimony from Doreen, the judge ordered recess until 12:30 P.M., at that time she returned to the stand.

Prosecutor Baker began to ask Doreen about her visits to John since his arrest and brought up the numerous letters the couple had sent back and forth since December. Baker then inquired whether or not John, during her visits and letters, had tried to blame Billy Smith for the murders. At this point, Cornelius Pitts asked to approach the bench and requested that the Lincoln jurors be excused. Since this chunk of questions and answers would solely focus on Wolfenbarger, Judge Ryan asked those jurors to step out for an extended lunch. Baker continued his questioning.

“One of the themes that he talks about is how Billy Smith did this and that he’s going to show that Billy Smith has done this, correct?”

“Yes.”

Baker then brought various letters into evidence that Doreen received from Wolfenbarger between his arrest and the trial. Doreen turned over the letters to police and the prosecution after they were requested. He read one letter aloud and asked Doreen to follow along.

“Oh, I’ve got a job for you. Write down, as best you can, remember all the hanging out, you know, I did with Bill and his club, from the barbeque, the party we went to at the bar when I worked with Dino and Mad Anthony, all the bragging he did about him and the club while we were driving back from Jackson, whatever I told you about the raids, how you felt by being around him when he got me the towing job and Psycho got me in the Carpenters Union. And also write down what you saw of my life as in the four months I was home, my jobs, what all I did around your house, for my mom, Tracy and her kids. How I interacted with the holidays, how we always talk on my breaks and when you went to Dave’s when I got sick towing and the nail in the eye, to the bomb, Arrow Smith, and how I give you my extra money after I pay my bills. Prosecution will try to insinuate I was using you, but you gotta set them right. I was paying on the furniture, my phone and hospital, helping you with Mandy and Smiley, how we decided to shift your debts to get an easier payment. You get my drift, Baby? And oh, you had forgot that Friday night when Dee was at the house and copied the Star Wars game for me and checked his emails and had to print out a map of how to get home. Remember we told him how to go out to Seven Mile, 696, and we thought he would get lost? I’m pretty sure that’s why they’re torturing your computer. I just remembered that stuff the other day.”

In another letter Baker points out a section that states,

“Do me a huge favor and answer this question after giving it serious thought, okay? Say I became aware of intimate details of a crime two days after it happened, yet the consequences of going to the authorities would put my life in danger as well as possibly family and friends. What do you feel I should do? If I mentioned who hired Bill, who are far more dangerous than him and his club, I would place myself in need of protection that the government could care less to offer. Seriously, think about this, and after you come to your decision, I want you to write down your opinion. Now, place the question to your mom and to Dave and write down their opinions. I’m stuck in a Catch-22 and have been since that Monday night. Do I live a life in prison because I don’t want the people I love harmed nor myself by telling on them, or do I tell and put them away and possibly never have a free moment because I fear death around every corner for me, you, my mom or Poo, anyone I care about? Cunningham doesn’t want me to speak because of all that can happen, yet that’s like throwing my life away. My picture has already been splashed all over the world, so protective custody is looking like a lost cause. And then how can I have life with you and my family and school. That’s why I’m lost.”

By reading these letters, Baker was trying to show the jury that Wolfenbarger was manipulating Doreen by telling her what to say, insinuating that John wrote these letters, knowing they would come up in court. Doreen never did any of the things her boyfriend asked her to do, and instead just told John to be honest.

“Now in this particular letter doesn’t it state, in part, ‘Billy was in big money trouble and took the contract to kill the father, Marco Pesce’?”

Doreen responded in the affirmative. Baker continued to read from the third letter. 

“I can’t tell you too much but it was beyond a doubt a paid hit and he got 15 grand for it. By keeping me at the bar when he and Dee took off, he knew erasing my alibi because Sam, the barmaid, would lie for him. Steve (Phillips) knows the widow, Diane Pesce. Bill owed the mob 10 grand that was due pronto.”

Baker looked up from the note.

“Did he say those things to you?”

“Yes.”

Baker then read further on in the letter when Wolfenbarger brought up for a second time that it was Lincoln who had gone with Billy Smith to the Pesce home. At one point John mentions that Smith had taken Lincoln’s ID and stated that if Lincoln ever told the truth he would go to his mother’s house and kill her. It’s a statement Lincoln adamantly denies having been said. 

On cross examination, Cunningham discussed the letters with Doreen, making sure that jurors were aware that, at no point did Wolfenbarger ask her to make anything up. He only asked her to ‘remember’. Doreen went on to say that she didn’t remember Billy Smith bragging about his involvement with Diciples but often did feel uncomfortable around him.

On redirect of the letters, while the Lincoln jury remained outside, Baker discussed a particular statement that John’s mother Betty made to the police.

“John told me, ‘I’ve got to tell you something, Mom. There were people killed. I told the son of a bitch not to hurt the people, Mom. I swear I didn’t hurt anyone.”

Betty went on to tell the police more things that John had said to her.

“He’s not here no more, he’s gone bye-bye. I was upstairs, children were downstairs, mother downstairs and father downstairs. I went upstairs and heard pop-pop-pop. I ran downstairs. I didn’t know what to do. I took care of the guy who killed them. Don’t ask me anymore, Mom.”

At 1:42 P.M., after another short break, both juries were allowed back into the courtroom. Wolfenbarger’s girlfriend Doreen was still on the stand. 

Cunningham now worked on his cross-examination that was no longer specific to Wolfenbarger only. Questions were asked pertaining to the phone calls made back and forth on the day of the murders and they also discussed Wolfenbarger’s financial situation. 

Pitts, for the first time in four witnesses chose to cross examine. He began by asking Doreen how she was feeling and if she enjoyed her lunch. As Lincoln has pointed out, he liked to be a smooth talker with the female witnesses at first, and then he would flip on them and attack their credibility. His first line of questioning merely laid the foundation that police and prosecutors alike had run through a ‘rehearsal’ with her before the trial, in fact telling her what to say. 

Lincoln’s attorney went on to reference some of her original statements that were made to the police and how it was not brought up that when the three of them went to the mall she noticed they were sitting by a jewelry store but now, under oath, she claimed she had noticed their proximity to Rodeo Diamond Designs. As he continued to attack her credibility he made an observation.

“I just know sometimes you’re looking over at Mr. Baker when I was asking you questions.”

When he finished his cross examination, Pitts put the charm back on.

“And with that, Judge, I’m not too sure that Mr. Pitts has any additional questions. Thank you very much, Doreen.”

After several hours of testimony a relieved Doreen stepped down from the witness stand and the prosecution called up their next witness. Officer Patrick McGrath of the Livonia Police Department was the second officer to arrive at the Pesce home on December 22nd. Baker’s examination consisted of a basic walk through of what McGrath had done on the day of the murders, both Cunningham and Pitts opted not to cross examine the witness. 

Baker next called Sergeant Steven Smith, a 24 year veteran of the Livonia Police Department, to the stand. Smith had been the third officer to arrive at the home and showed up after the officers he supervised radioed in for help from the fire department to gain entry into the home.  After Baker asked about how a crime scene is kept from contamination he was done with the witness. Cunningham, on cross asked about his thoroughness and whether any bodies were moved, Pitts chose not to cross examine Sgt. Smith. 

The final witness of the day was Sergeant Michael Bremenour. Before he was sworn in, Judge Ryan warned the family members that during the testimony prosecution would be showing a video, taken by police of the crime scene at the Pesce home. He warned it would be disturbing and would allow them to leave if they so choose.       

As sergeant of the Crime Scene Unit at the Livonia Police Department, Bremenour’s responsibility was to process crime scenes and evidence. With over 500 hours of classroom training and years on the job, he was good at what he did. Bremenour, along with his partner Sergeant James Siterlet arrived at the Pesce home at 1:15 P.M. that day. 

Assistant Prosecutor Oronde Patterson handled the direct examination of Bremenour and offered into evidence a layout of both the main floor and basement of the Pesce home that the sergeant had drawn. Bremenour discussed his use of both a 35mm camera as well as a video camera; they then played the video taken from that day. 

When the video was done, Judge Ryan asked for the televisions to be turned off, Patterson however expressed his need for it further. He wanted Bremenour to be able to go room by room and explain the evidence. Both Pitts and Cunningham objected presumably to keep emotion down in the courtroom. The longer the bodies were shown in the video, the more it might hurt their clients. Ryan denied the objections and Patterson continued. 

Bremenour’s latent fingerprint acquisitions were discussed as well as any samples of DNA that were taken. None of the fingerprints or DNA matched that of the two defendants. The defense lawyers were eager to cross examine the witness; however they would have to wait until the following day. Judge Ryan deemed that it was a good time to break and court was adjourned. 

Chapter 14 - Day Five

Tuesday, April 1st, 2003

As the fifth day of trial and third day of testimony began Judge Ryan ran through the previous day’s witnesses and their involvement relating to the case. Oronde Patterson, appearing on behalf of the people, had a few more questions for Sergeant Bremenour before the witness was turned over to the defense. Patterson asked Bremenour to explain to the jury what an elimination print was. 

“An elimination print is an inked fingerprint card of a person, a known person; in this case it would be occupants of the home, Mr. Pesce and his family. These fingerprints are compared against latent fingerprints to try and identify every fingerprint we can at that scene.”

Patterson, attempting to display the knowledge and credibility of the witness, asked Bremenour about his training and the number of crime scenes he had processed over the years. The Sergeant responded that he had been to hundreds, if not thousands of scenes and attended numerous schools for fingerprinting and crime scene courses. While the defense wanted people to think the Pesce murders were not the outcome of a robbery, the prosecution pushed for the opposite. 

One of the few upper hands that the defense held was the fact that there had been no prints and no DNA evidence from the crime scene that showed either of the defendants to have ever been in the home. The only piece of evidence that might have had Wolfenbarger’s DNA on it was the doorknob from the door leading to the basement safe. That doorknob and the chunk of door it was attached to had never been found. 

Patterson quickly pointed out that the lack of fingerprints and DNA from the person responsible could be due to that person wearing gloves, Bremenour confirmed that. Patterson also wanted to deal a blow to another one of the defense lawyer’s points that whoever had shot Maria Vergati must have known her or knew how to speak Italian because the manner in which they found her made it look like she had been having a conversation with the culprit. Bremenour confirmed that there is no way to know that. 

Another fact that the defense was trying to prove was that the Pesce family members found in the basement had been arranged in a circular pattern, left as some sort of ritualistic sign or message. They went so far as to say that the youngest victim, Melissa, had been shot and then dragged to complete the pattern.    

“Can you tell from the way that they were lying right there in the basement that this was a message that was sent by the shooter?”

“I did not see a message, no.”

“Could it have been that the victims were told to lay down and they were simply shot?”

“Yes.”

Cunningham objected, claiming speculation and Judge Ryan agreed. 

Patterson directed Bremenour’s attention to Marco Pesce and more specifically his wallet. Defense argued in their opening statement that if it had been a robbery, why was the money found in Pesce’s wallet not taken. Bremenour explained that the money had been hidden.

“There was money folded up in the photo area where you would keep your photographs.”   

Richard Cunningham began his cross examination and would attempt to attack Bremenour’s credibility at every turn. Bremenour explained earlier in his testimony that three of the four victims found in the basement were wearing coats and that only Sabrina had not been wearing a coat. He also testified to never finding a coat that would have belonged to Sabrina. 

Cunningham handed Bremenour Defendant Exhibit A-1 which was a picture of the crime scene in the basement. He asked the sergeant to explain everything he saw in the photo. 

“A large green chair, desk, desk chair, table, looks like there’s a jacket on the table.”

“You mean like a child’s jacket?”

“I don’t know that it is a child’s jacket.”

“I see. Well, naturally as a crime scene investigator, you should have some responsibility to determine what that jacket was, right?”

“Not necessarily at the time.”

“You came in here yesterday and said there was no jacket in the area.”

Patterson quickly objected that that had not been his testimony. Cunningham continued, smelling blood, however faint. He wanted the jurors to see that, in his opinion, Bremenour had not been very thorough in his report. Cunningham also pointed out that in his report he had written that ‘Sabrina had moved after being shot’. It was in fact Melissa that had either moved herself or was moved by someone as the defense wanted jurors to believe.  

“You do make mistakes sometimes like everybody else?”

“Yes.”

“Okay, did you catch that mistake before you came here to testify?”

“Obviously not.”

“Now there was one bullet right through her heart, right?”

“I don’t know that it was through her heart.”

Cunningham was trying to lay a foundation showing that someone who had suffered a fatal gunshot wound could not have possibly moved herself. It was a question better suited for the medical examiner who would be taking the stand next. 

“How many crime scenes have you ever come to where you’ve seen more than one death and they were all in circles, all touching each other in the same area, how many scenes like that have you seen?”

“That’s the only one.”

“So this is kind of a unique situation, fair to say?

“Unique in and of itself, yes.”

Cunningham continued by asking if any of the identifiable prints found throughout the house matched those of his client. He knew the answer to the question already. Although Bremenour had explained what a latent print was in his testimony the day before, Cunningham asked him to do so again. 

“When the ridges on your fingers or the palms of your hands come in contact with a surface, if that finger is not moved or dragged, it will leave the impression of those fingerprints on a surface.”

Cunningham asked the sergeant how many identifiable fingerprints he had found in the house. Out of the several dozen that had been lifted, only nine were identifiable. The defendant’s lawyers were not fond of the fact that different witnesses had used the word ‘ransacked’ in their testimony, still trying to disprove that the murders were a result of a robbery. 

“I noticed in the report that all the beds are made. Is that consistent, do you find that in every home invasion where the beds remain made?”

“Each house is different, I couldn’t tell you.”

“You’ve done thousands I think you said of these. How many times do you come in when a house is ransacked and you see all the beds still made?”

Bremenour remained calm despite his credibility being questioned. 

“Half the time, I don’t know.”

As Cunningham continued he asked questions regarding forced entry, collected fibers and DNA. Before finishing his cross examination he showed Bremenour Defendant’s Proposed Exhibit D-1 which was a photo of Marco Pesce’s wallet with its contents removed. 

“Now I notice in the background here, I see what looks like maybe a hamburger and cup of coffee, maybe a mask, some other things. Am I safe in assuming that this is from the officers, this is not Mr. Pesce’s mess right there on the counter?”

Cunningham was possibly attempting to show that the scene was contaminated and sloppy. He always wanted to add to his argument that this hadn’t been a robbery. A robber wouldn’t have left behind a wallet with money and credit cards inside, in his opinion.

“You’ve been trained in doing murder scenes, is that what I understood you to say?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Is it unusual to see a homicide victim still have their wallet?”

“No.”

“Okay. So like a lot of robbers just don’t bother to take their victim’s wallets?”

“Well, I don’t know the intent of the murder.”

Cunningham finished his questioning and cross examination was offered to Cornelius Pitts. He only asked one question. 

“You found no fingerprint evidence in that particular case that would associate Mr. Lincoln with ever being in that home isn’t that correct?”

“Yes, sir.” 

“I have no additional questions.”

 The tenth witness to be called in the Pesce family murder trial was Dr. Yung A. Chung from the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s office. Dr. Chung, at the time, had been with the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s office for 14 years. As a forensic pathologist, her job consisted of autopsy examination and occasional scene investigation. 

Having performed the autopsies on the Pesce family, Dr. Chung retrieved her notes and read over each of the five files. She spoke with slightly broken English. 

“Miss Vergati sustained a single gunshot wound. The entrance was left upper chest and exit was left lower back. The path was front to back and downward. The bullet passed through the heart.”

Dr. Chung stated that Maria Vergati’s time of death was approximately 6:00pm.

“Mr. Pesce sustained a single gunshot wound. The entrance was left upper back, lower border of shoulder blade, and it exited to the middle of the chest. Bullet passed through the left lung and the heart causing lots of blood in the chest cavity.”

A toxicology report was performed on Marco and was negative for drugs and alcohol. 

“With Carlo there was a single gunshot wound to the left side of the back. The exit was left side of chest.”

Like his father, the bullet had passed through his lung and heart, causing a large amount of blood to enter his chest cavity. 

“Sabrina sustained a single gunshot wound to the left upper chest, just below the shoulder blade. This bullet passed through the left hilum. Hilum is just the center middle portion of the lung, before exiting from the chest.”

At just three foot, ten inches and sixty five pounds, Melissa was the smallest victim. There was obvious interest in her autopsy with the defense trying to prove that she had been positioned by the assailant and couldn’t possibly have crawled herself.

“With Melissa, there was a gunshot wound entrance to the left side of her upper back, almost the same location, just lower border of the shoulder blade with the previous case. This bullet passed through the liver and the lower lung and a portion of the heart.”

Oronde Patterson, the prosecutor handling the direct examination, wanted to lay a foundation for the question of Melissa being able to move after having been shot. 

“Doctor, are you able to tell whether these shots, there was immediate death or what?”

“Yes, most deaths were immediate and died within a very short time.”

“Well, there’s a difference between immediate and short time. Are you able to tell whether it was instantaneously or within a short time?”

“I would call within a very short time because all victims are shot to the heart except for the one, but that also very critical area of the anatomical location.”

Patterson directed Dr. Chung’s attention to Melissa specifically. His hopes were to have the doctor explain that it would be possible for her to move after being shot, it didn’t exactly go as planned, but she also didn’t rule it out completely. 

“Maybe she can move just very short time and she can’t get up or she can’t walk, she didn’t have that kind of movement, but she can maybe twitch, twisting or twitching the arm or leg, but that’s the maximum.”

“Could she have moved a foot?”

“She could.”

Whether Dr. Chung understood ‘foot’ to mean a distance of measurement or actual body part is unclear. Patterson continued to ask if it was possible for her to move her entire body hoping for a different response each time but never really got the answer he was looking for. 

During a short recess Patterson collected his thoughts and approached her in a different matter, this time getting the answer he had hoped for. 

“Doctor, I’ve handed to you People’s Exhibit No. 145. Do you see Melissa in that particular photo?”  

“Yes.”

“You see like a little fire engine truck that’s behind her? If she is another 12 inches closer to that fire engine, could she have moved to the spot that she’s in now?”

“It’s not impossible.”

Patterson moved the questioning back to the grandmother who had been shot while sitting on the living room couch. 

“Now, let me ask you, as it relates to Miss Vergati, did you find any soot or gunpowder on her person or any clothes?”

“No.”

“Let’s say if there was a pillow that was pressed up against Miss Vergati’s body, would that keep you from detecting soot or gunpowder?”

“Yes, definitely soot could be filtered through that pillow and we may not see it on her clothing or on the body.”

Patterson brought up the fact that a pillow may have been used in each of the shootings since no gunpowder was found on any of the victims. He also asked if the path the bullet traveled through Vergati meant that the assailant may have been standing over her when he shot. She positively confirmed both ideas. 

On cross examination, Cunningham wasted little time and quickly attacked the doctor’s credibility. 

“Dr. Chung, fair to say that this is not the first time you’ve ever testified in a courtroom? Probably hundreds, if not thousands of times before?”

“I did more than 6,000 autopsies and testified at least 600 times.”

“Okay, but the first time you sit on the stand, the first question you’re asked is whether Maria Vertiglia (pronounced wrong again) has two kidneys. The first thing you say is yeah, yeah, she has two kidneys.”

“That was my mistake. I did not look carefully.”

“I see. So you answer without thinking, I mean, you tell him what you think he wants to hear. You don’t want to give us a real answer, is that what you’re saying?”

If Cunningham’s intentions were to agitate the witness, he had succeeded. 

“I said that answer was my mistake.”

“I see. Okay. Doctor, let’s go through and see if you might have made some other mistakes.”

Cunningham once again smelled blood on a witness and decided to continue the attack. 

“Okay. The first thing I would like to discuss would be the autopsy on Miss Vertil… I’m sorry, Marie Vultigi.”

Prosecutor Baker stood up, annoyed and corrected Cunningham. 

“Vergati.”

Cunningham looked down at Dr. Chung’s report and asked her a question.

“You spell it V-e-l-g-a-t-i on here so you can understand why I might mispronounce the name looking at the report. Anyone ever point out to you that perhaps that’s a misspelling of that name or anything?” 

Cunningham continued to point out her mistakes by showing the jury that Dr. Chung never even had Maria Vergati’s correct first name written down. She was under the impression her first name had been Antoinetta which was actually her middle name. Wolfenbarger’s attorney mispronounced Vergati’s last name again, this time calling her ‘Vertogi’, before asking the doctor to describe stippling to the jury. Like the gunpowder discussed earlier, there had been no defensive wounds or stippling on the bodies either.

“Stippling is a tiny speckle-like skin injury that is inflicted by gunpowder.”

Cunningham went one by one through each victim, confirming with the doctor that bullets were found near the exit wounds of each victim except one. It was now his turn to get an answer he wasn’t hoping for.  

“In this case we had testimony that a bullet was found about 12 inches away from her body. Would that be consistent with her either moving or having been moved after she was shot?”

“Either way, she could move herself after being shot, doesn’t look like she has been moved by another person.”

Now clearly frustrated, Cunningham continued.

“So explain to us now please why she could not have been laid down at the time she was shot?”

“That I don’t know.”

“Just like Maria Vertigia had two kidneys is that right?” Earlier in the trial it had been brought up that Maria Vergati, whose name he had just mispronounced again, previously had one of her kidneys removed. Cunningham was clearly arguing with the witness now and Baker stood to object. His objection was sustained by the judge. Cunningham wrapped up his cross examination and Judge Ryan offered the floor to Dennis Lincoln’s attorney.

Cornelius Pitts responded in the third person again, “Mr. Pitts is finished.”

Next up on the stand was 21-year-old Westland resident, Paula Jo Kottyan. She admitted knowing John Wolfenbarger and was able to point him out in court. Kottyan was a lumber and building materials associate at the Home Depot in Livonia and had met Wolfenbarger in late August or early September. That particular Home Depot was located at the corner of Middlebelt and 96 which was an expressway that ran through Livonia. Just minutes from the various locations where Wolfenbarger resided, he stopped by frequently.

Baker asked if she began to have some sort of personal relationship with him. 

“Kind of a friendship, but nothing else.”

Like Wolfenbarger’s girlfriend Doreen, Kottyan had her own share of health problems and Baker was quick to get into those with the witness.

“Did you share with him that you had health problems?”

“Yes.” 

“And what did you tell him?”

“I had brain surgery in 1994, a cyst to the third ventricle in my brain, that I had headaches all my life, that kind of thing.”

After Kottyan admitted to her brain sometimes ‘blocking things out,’ Cunningham asked Judge Ryan if he could approach the bench. After a brief discussion Ryan addressed the defense attorney’s concerns. 

“Counsel, there is a presumption of competency, as it relates to brain surgery. There’s no concern on behalf of the court as to the ability of this witness to be a witness in this particular case. You may proceed.”

Kottyan went on to explain that besides seeing him numerous times every week at Home Depot, she occasionally would do carpentry work with him at people’s homes, splitting whatever they were paid. She had also lent him money a few times as well as her truck. From there, Baker asked her to remember back to December 21st, 2002. 

Shortly after Paula Jo’s shift began that morning Wolfenbarger entered the store and approached his friend. He needed to borrow her 1998 green Ford Ranger, stating he needed to move a futon. Although Kottyan originally said no, Wolfenbarger persisted and she eventually gave in. 

During questioning, Kottyan originally testified to Baker that John returned the truck 15 minutes before her shift ended at 6:00pm. Since the prosecution’s supposed timeline put Wolfenbarger in the Pesce home at that time, Baker went to his notes and found Kottyan’s original police statement to refresh her memory on times.

“Do you recall what you told the police in terms of the time he brought the truck back?”

“7:30 to 7:45pm” 

“Is what you wrote out in that statement accurate?”

“Yes.”

She had made the original statement five days after the murders. It was now months after the crime and her memory had been foggy regarding her ever changing shifts. 

On cross examination Cunningham made reference to John’s helpful nature and how he looked out for her by offering her side work. He then asked about the condition of her truck when he returned it to her later in the day. Kottyan acknowledged that the truck appeared unchanged from when she had driven it to work. It hadn’t been cleaned or vacuumed. Cunningham felt good about the cross examination until she brought up that the gas tank had been full and by the time she left for work there was almost a half tank gone. 

Pitts was next to cross examine the witness and started off by being charming, making sure to get her name right because Cunningham hadn’t.

“Good Morning, is that Miss Kottyan?”

“Yes.”

“How are you?”

“Good.”

“Wonderful. First time you’ve been to court to testify?”

“Yes.”

“Nervous a little bit?”

“Yes.”

“You’re doing an excellent job.”

“Thanks.”

During Baker’s direct examination it was brought up that Kottyan had only met Dennis Lincoln one time; when asked, she was able to identify him in court. Pitts, having read her handwritten police report, questioned her as to why she brought that up in court but hadn’t deemed it necessary to tell police when she was interviewed in the days after the murders.

For the next 20 minutes Pitts hammered the witness, quickly changing from his nice guy persona to a man that demanded answers. He went back and forth with Kottyan asking her the same question, numerous ways. If she had met Dennis Lincoln and knew he was an associate of Wolfenbarger, why hadn’t she thought it was important enough to tell the police. He never received the answer he was looking for but continued to ask her questions in hopes that jurors would see that she was told, by police and prosecutors, to bring up Lincoln during the trial. 

Before offering redirect to Baker, Cunningham asked for a continuation of cross examination.

“In regard to the way Mr. Wolfenbarger was dressed on that day, did you see any blood splatters on his clothes when he brought the truck back.”

“No.”

“See anything unusual at all about his appearance when he came back and brought that truck back?”

“The only thing unusual was him giving me a hug in public.”

“And when he hugged you, you didn’t get any blood on your clothes?”

“No.”

That was all Cunningham needed to hear. Prosecutor Baker attempted to do some mild damage control during his redirect which raised more objections from Pitts while also opening up the opportunity for him to cross examine Kottyan again. After more of the same questions, interrupted by numerous objections from Baker, the witness was excused. 

The next witness to take the stand was Detective Keith Schoen from the Livonia Police Department. Schoen had been a part of the investigation, interviewing various witnesses in the days and weeks after the murders. Among the people he interviewed were Billy Smith’s wife Marjorie, a bartender from the Copa Lounge named Samantha Young, Paula Jo Kottyan and John Wolfenbarger himself. 

On December 24th, shortly after Wolfenbarger was apprehended, Schoen sat down with John in the cellblock area of the police station.

“We filled out the basic form, which is just his family history, schooling, things along those lines. At that point I explained to him the next form that needed to be completed was the advice of rights form.”

Wolfenbarger responded by asking what charges were being brought against him. Schoen explained to him that he was being held on a homicide charge. Wolfenbarger quickly terminated the interview. Schoen was at home, celebrating Christmas Eve with his family when he received a page from another detective at the police department, Wolfenbarger wanted to talk.

Upon returning to the police station, Schoen had jailers bring Wolfenbarger to the interview room. 

“I put the advice to rights form in front of him, turned it his way. I then read him the rights, each individual right, asked him if he understood these rights. He stated he did. Once the form was finished, he stated that he wanted to tell me something. He did not want to be subject to a lot of questions, he simply wanted to tell me a thing or two. 

He stated he wanted to tell me that Tracy Letts and her children had no knowledge of any jewelry that may have been recovered from their residence.

I then asked him what he knew of the jewelry. He said he obtained the jewelry from an unknown white male in the Copa Bar parking lot.

He told me he was at the Copa Lounge on the 21st sitting at the bar reading a paper. He said he got there approximately 5:00 P.M. and he was reading the paper, this unknown individual asked him if he ‘wanted to do business’, things along those lines. Once they went outside to the parking lot, Mr. Wolfenbarger stated he struck the man in the face causing the man to fall to his knees. He then kicked the man in the stomach area causing the man to fall completely to the ground. And at that point Mr. Wolfenbarger states he took the bag of jewelry from the subject and entered his vehicle.”

Schoen later in the interview asked Wolfenbarger if anyone could vouch for his whereabouts on the evening of December 21st. Wolfenbarger mentioned Samantha Young, her children, Steve Phillips and Billy Smith. Each of those people, minus the children, was now testifying against him. At that point, according to the detective, Wolfenbarger once again terminated the interview stating that he wanted an attorney. 

During cross examination Cunningham asked Schoen why, if earlier in the day Wolfenbarger had said he wanted an attorney, he wasn’t appointed one. He also wanted to know why he went back and interviewed Wolfenbarger without an attorney present. Baker stood to object, reminding Judge Ryan that Wolfenbarger had initiated the second interview. Cunningham then questioned Schoen as to why he wouldn’t have had Wolfenbarger sign his original interview notes.    

When it was Pitts’ turn to cross examine he got right to the point that Cunningham couldn’t convey. 

“You’ve been on the force for how many years?”

“Approximately 14.”

“You learned the value of taking notes, right?”

“Correct.”

“You also learned the significance of transposing those notes to something that’s more literary correct?”

“Correct.”

“You have those notes with you?”

“No, sir.”

“You still have them?”

“They’ve been destroyed.”

Pitts, feeling he had just hit a homerun, retired from asking any more questions of the detective. 

The last witness of day five was perhaps the most important yet. Betty Faye Smith, the mother of John Wolfenbarger and sister of Billy ‘Wadd’ stated at one point in a letter to her son that she would rather die than testify in court, but here she was.

A resident of the Brightmoor neighborhood of Detroit for almost 20 years, her home was on Chapel Street although at the time of the murders she had been living one street over on Bentler with her ailing father. Her father’s home also happened to be across the street from Tracy Letts’ home and kitty-corner from Billy Smith. It seemed like half the neighborhood was testifying in this trial. 

Many of the original questions asked by Baker on direct examination were answered with ‘I don’t know’s, he knew before the trial began that extracting information from her would not be easy. Between her love for John and her failing memory she either didn’t want to say or couldn’t clearly remember. 

The prosecutor directed her attention to the day of December 21st and the week that followed. She couldn’t remember seeing Wolfenbarger that day but she did recall Billy Smith giving her $1000.00 to help pay back taxes on her home. Later in the week Betty learned that her son had been arrested. A few days later, when her sister-in-law Marjorie Smith picked her up to bring her to the Livonia Police Station, she found out what he had been arrested for. 

Baker then asked her to think back to January 31st when two Livonia officers came to her home to ask her about a conversation she may have had with Wolfenbarger the day after the murders. 

“They were questioning you about a conversation you had?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Do you remember talking to your son on Sunday, December 22nd?”

“No, I don’t.”

“The very day after this happened?”

Betty nodded no. 

“Do you ever remember having a conversation with your son about his involvement in the murder of the Pesce family?”

“No.”

“Are you quite sure?”

“Yes.”

“All right, do you think if I read from the report, it might refresh your memory?”

“Sir, I was on five medications. I doubt very seriously if I remember anything.”

Wolfenbarger’s mother was hoping to use her memory problem and multiple medications as a way out of testifying against her son. Baker would do everything he could to keep her on the stand. For recollection purposes, he asked her to read from the police report that contained statements she made on January 31st. 

“Go ahead and read the report to yourself.”

“Which paragraphs?”

“The first two.”

Betty Faye Smith became agitated. 

“You know better! No… I didn’t say that, no, I didn’t.”

At that point she took the report, crumpled it into a ball and threw it to the floor. 

“On what basis are you saying this was not said?”

“That’s a horrible thing for anybody to say. I wouldn’t say that. I did not know that. I could not know that.”

Baker tried to ask a follow up question but Judge Ryan quickly put a stop to the questioning and decided it was time to recess for the day. While Baker was obviously frustrated with the decision, Miss Smith was relieved. The jurors and family were excused while Judge Ryan stayed to talk with the lawyers. Richard Cunningham stood up to speak.

“Your Honor, for the record, Miss Smith, before you leave, as an attorney, I believe I have the right to interview witnesses. I’m making it clear to Miss Smith that I am not going to talk to her between now and the time of her testimony at 8:30 tomorrow and I’m not going to have any contact with her. I would like the record to reflect that.”

At that point Betty Faye Smith was free to leave.