Bitter Remains

by Diane Fanning

  At that time, neither defense team objected to that arrangement. Judge Stephens said, “At this point, I think the state’s position is appropriate. Frankly, I think that the interest of justice would be best served if both persons charged with the same offense be charged at the same time by the same jury.”

  The trial date was set for May 20, 2013.

  A month later, on April 8, everything changed. Rosemary Godwin, an attorney on Amanda’s defense, filed several motions. In one, she requested that her client sit at a separate table during the trial, since Grant Hayes had written her a threatening letter. In another, the lawyer alleged that Amanda had an alibi for the time Laura was killed, and that she’d helped dispose of the body under coercion from Grant—she’d feared for her life, as well as for Lily’s, Sha’s and the two boys’ lives. Grant Hayes’s attorney told WRAL News that these motions called into serious question whether the two could be tried together. The judge set a new hearing on the matter for April 22.

  On that date, Grant’s legal team requested that the joint trial be severed under the current circumstances. “Based on the filings of Amanda Hayes and her attorneys, it is now apparent that we have antagonistic defenses based on the reading of the motions. Clearly, they are going to attempt to make him look bad. That is part of their defense and I don’t believe that’s a manageable way to try a joint trial.”

  The state objected. They contended that the expense of separate trials was not justified. Assistant District Attorney Boz Zellinger said, “The state’s evidence on Amanda Hayes shows her as, not just a conspirator and not just acting in concert, but as a principal in this crime.”

  Judge Stephens spoke of his concern that each defendant might not be capable of receiving a fair trial and of the possibility that a mistrial would occur if they proceeded with the joint prosecution. “I know we can get this right by trying them one at a time. I have serious question to whether I can do it under this situation if we try them at the same time.”

  With this ruling, Amanda’s trial remained on the docket for May 20 while Grant’s was moved to late August. The exact order of the two proceedings would be left to the state’s discretion regarding who they would like to try first. At the end of April, they made their decision to try Grant first, and Amanda’s trial was postponed to early 2014.

  —

  IN Grant’s pretrial arraignment before Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens, on the afternoon of Friday, August 16, 2013, his attorneys requested that the court allow testimony from Amanda’s sister Karen Berry about the confession made to her by Amanda.

  Will Durham, another attorney working on Grant’s defense with Jeff Cutler, argued that after the state spoke about custody battles and dismemberment, the defense needed to respond. He wanted the jury to know that Amanda was “the one who did this—that she’s the one who hurt Laura.”

  ADA Zellinger countered that the alleged confession was in bits and pieces, taken out of context. “The statements she’s made were so essentially choppy and unclear that I think it’s difficult to rule on them when there’s so much attached to them.”

  The judge asked Amanda’s attorneys, Johnny Gaskins and Rosemary Godwin, if their client would be willing to testify at Grant’s trial. Gaskins told the judge that it was too early for them to decide. About the matter at hand, he said, “We will ultimately conclude that it is not a confession and that the use of the word ‘confession’ is rather loose.”

  Upon a request from Grant’s defense team, the judge delayed the ruling on the matter, pending his opportunity to hear Karen Berry’s testimony and a decision from Amanda on whether or not she would appear on the witness stand.

  CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

  OPENING arguments for Grant Hayes’s trial began as scheduled on August 29, 2013. Dark-haired, sharp-nosed, whip-thin Assistant District Attorney Boz Zellinger rose first, looking wound up tight enough to go into orbit, and turned his attention to an array of expectant faces. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as the sun rose over Kinston, North Carolina, on July 13, of 2011, Laura Ackerson woke up excited. For once things were going her way. [She was] the twenty-seven-year-old mother of two little boys, little Grant and Gentle. She shared custody of them with this man,” he said, pointing to the defense table, “Grant Hayes.”

  “You’ll hear that morning Laura got her things and she started to walk out the door and walk past her refrigerator covered with pictures of her little boys. Little did she know that those little boys would only know their mother for only three years. Little did she know as she walked out that door that within twenty-four hours, she would take her last breath. Little did she know that that man,” he said, pointing again at the defendant, “the father of her children, would be the one responsible for her murder and disappearance.”

  After introducing himself and his cocounsel, Becky Holt, Zellinger continued, “Evidence is going to come from this witness stand. It’s going to come from the people involved in Laura’s life. . . . [Investigators] are going to get up there and tell you the truth about what happened. And it’s not a story. It’s a reality. . . . Ladies and gentlemen, this is a case that is so calculated, so malignant, and so destructive, that Laura Ackerson disappears off the face of the earth for eleven days after she goes to Grant Hayes’s apartment.

  “You’ll ask yourself as you hear this evidence: Where has Laura gone? On July 13, after she heads over to Grant Hayes’s apartment, no one hears from her. Grant told Detective Gwartney that when Laura arrived that night, Amanda kept the boys in another room so they didn’t know she was there yet. You’ll also hear that Grant and Laura were to discuss her and him signing an agreement for her to keep custody of the boys.

  “The question still remains that ‘Where is Laura?’ You’ll hear that Detective Gwartney, upon learning the last place Laura has been is Raleigh . . . enlisted the assistance of homicide detectives and the homicide unit there.

  “Wednesday, July 20, everyone still is asking: Where is Laura? . . . You’ll learn that detectives also learned, as the investigation speeds up, Grant and Amanda rented a U-Haul trailer that could be dragged behind their car. And that they rented that in Raleigh and then they returned it in Katy, Texas.

  “Where is Laura? All roads appear to lead to Texas. . . . Ten days or eleven days have gone by of asking: Where is Laura?

  “Perhaps, most importantly . . . on Thursday, July 14, at around 2:40 A.M., some six or eight hours after Laura went over to Grant’s apartment, you’ll hear the Grant Hayes walks into the Wal-Mart at Brier Creek. . . . You’ll hear that he bought a plastic tarp, nine foot by twelve foot. That later he bought some goggles. You’ll hear that he bought some firm-grip stripping and refinishing gloves. And perhaps most importantly, you’ll hear the Grant Hayes purchased a Skil reciprocating saw with six-inch blades. You’ll hear talk about some other blades for that saw. And that’s at 2:40 A.M., right after Laura goes missing. And you’ll hear more about the eleven days that Laura disappeared. And you’ll hear about this six days between the time she went to see her children and the time that Grant Hayes took that boat ride.

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, when all the evidence has been presented, when all is said and done in this courtroom, were going to come back here and ask you to find that man guilty for murdering Laura Hayes, for bringing her over to his apartment and then dismembering her body so that she disappears off the face of the earth. Thank you.”

  —

  BOYISH-LOOKING defense attorney Will Durham stood with a demeanor so relaxed, it didn’t seem in keeping with the seriousness of the moment. He contradicted the state’s theory from Zellinger’s first sentence. “This case is about a man covering up his wife’s actions,” he said. “On July 13, Amanda Hayes killed Laura Ackerson during the fight. It wasn’t something that was planned, it was something that happened.”

  Durham told the jury about Laura Ackerson’s little silver recorder that sh
e used to tape all her phone calls with her kids, the exchanges when she picked up or dropped off the kids and every interaction she had with Grant Hayes. He explained that she would download them all on her computer, “But you won’t hear any of those recordings or see anything in those e-mails that’s violent—no arguments that have a tenor of violence.

  “You’ll also see from those documents, as well as from Laura’s diary, which was seized in this case, there are a lot of hostilities between Amanda Hayes and Laura Ackerson. You’ll see that Laura writes in her diary that Amanda sees her as psycho-crazy. And that they’re yelling at each other at exchanges. And Laura feels pretty angry that her ex-boyfriend’s new wife is yelling at her in front of the children about things related to being late or whatever kind of chastisement is going on. And the evidence will show that Amanda Hayes was extremely resentful of Laura Ackerson. This was her husband’s ex-wife that was calling multiple times a day to talk to the kids. Was still constantly e-mailing with her husband, was still constantly involved in their lives. And there was hostility there.”

  On July 13, Durham said, Laura Ackerson “goes to Grant’s house as she’s done many times before. And she gets there and they are talking about the custody case and talking about how much money they spend on it. And somehow a joke about how much money has been spent becomes an agreement. And you’ll see that agreement,” he said, referring to the piece of paper found in the Hayes’s apartment. “They agreed to end the custody dispute . . . This what Grant had wanted, he wanted custody of his kids. And he was ecstatic. But standing three feet away was Amanda Hayes, and her husband had just agreed to give his ex-girlfriend twenty-five thousand dollars and they didn’t know exactly where they were to get it from yet. And she was angry about it. Grant went to go to get the kids ready for the special visit, something happened and we don’t know exactly what that was. But we do know what Amanda Hayes . . . tells her sister five or six days later about what happened.” Durham claimed that Amanda said Laura tried to take Lily away from her. “Then Amanda did something serious and Amanda tells her sister that ‘I hurt Laura. I hurt her bad.’

  “Now what happens next are the terrible decisions of people who are terrified. Grant and Amanda started making terrible decisions because they were afraid to call the police. They were afraid that no one was going to believe what had happened wasn’t intentional. . . . They worried about going to prison. They make terrible decisions and Amanda took charge of the situation. Sent Grant out that night. He went and got some money. He said he went to Wal-Mart, hours after Laura’s death. He buys a saw and, the next morning, Amanda calls her daughter Sha and says come get these children. Come get the boys out of the house. And Sha does it and leaves Amanda and Grant with Laura Ackerson’s body and the saw in the house.

  “And you’ll hear that Amanda calls her sister, two days after Laura’s death, and says, ‘You know we always talked about maybe coming down there and you know, we’re coming.’ And she says, ‘Okay, that’s kind of weird, but okay, come on.’

  “And this was a place that Grant has never been before; this is Texas, rural Texas. Grant Hayes had never met any of these people before, these were Amanda’s kin. And they drove down there and Amanda went to her sister and told her what happened, told her what she had done and said, ‘Help me.’ And her sister helped her. And her sister gave her keys to unlock the boat, watched the kids, and then Grant and Amanda unloaded that U-Haul and they dump Laura Ackerson’s body in the creek.

  “The evidence will show that the death of Laura happened in a spontaneous, unpredictable way. Grant Hayes helped clean up, he helped dispose of her body and that’s a serious thing and that’s a terrible thing, but it’s not murder. The evidence will show that Grant Hayes is not guilty of murder.”

  CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT

  THE first witness of the trial was Laura Ackerson’s friend and business partner, Chevon Mathes. She told the jury how they’d met, and the essence of the business they’d operated together. A broad smile went across her face when she was asked about Laura’s children. “Two lovely little boys . . . Grant was just the leader. He’s the oldest and little Gentle just followed him around. They were high energy, very sweet and well-mannered children.”

  Prosecutor Boz Zellinger had Chevon tell the jurors about the custody exchanges and the nature of the dispute that arose over midweek visits the month before Laura’s death. Then he questioned her about Laura’s skills as a parent. Chevon said, “She was a very loving mother. She took a lot of time out for the kids. She would stop whatever she was doing to make sure they were okay.”

  After a discussion of Laura’s habit of recording all interactions with Grant Hayes and keeping copious notes about those encounters, Zellinger asked, “Did Laura ever express any concerns to you that she had for her safety?”

  “Yes,” Chevon said. “She told me that she feared for her life.”

  “Was this one occasion or did she express that multiple times?”

  “We spoke about it numerous times” in the months before her murder, Chevon said.

  “What did Laura say?”

  “She told me she didn’t know what Grant was capable of and if anything happened to her, Grant did it. Basically, she just told me she feared for her life.”

  When the prosecution shifted gears, Chevon responded, “Her main priority was to get her children back before anything else—even our business, even when she was working at the store, she would drop whatever she had to do for her kids. There was a time when she had meetings and I had to take the meetings when Grant called, and that was when Amanda was about to give birth and he wanted her to have the kids for a little period of time and we’d have things set up but I just had to take care of them because she dropped it to be with her kids.”

  Chevon described the many contacts she had with Laura on Tuesday and Wednesday, July 12 and 13, the success of company sales Laura made and the abrupt end of communication. She testified, “I was waiting for her to give me a call back that evening because we were going to get together and go over everything.” She added that when she called Laura on Thursday, the call went straight to voice mail.

  “Was that unusual?” Zellinger asked.

  “Very,” said Chevon. “She always had that phone on her or had that phone near her, in case those kids ever needed to call her. . . . I was concerned. She never had that phone off. She always had that phone on. It was just very odd that it was going straight to her voice mail.” Chevon described how she went over to Laura’s apartment complex and saw that her car wasn’t there. “Friday, I sent her an e-mail and said, ‘I’m concerned. I’m worried. Give me a call.’” She told the jurors about going to the police station in Kinston and filing a missing persons report, then talking to the Wilson and Raleigh police departments as well.

  The state used the witness to introduce the recovered notebooks from Laura’s apartment. Chevon looked through them and testified that she recognized Laura’s handwriting. Despite the serious nature of her appearance in the courtroom, Chevon could not help smiling and laughing as she read over Laura’s humorous comments about the potential clients who’d turned down their company’s proposal.

  Zellinger asked, “Did Laura ever talk to you about giving up custody of her children?”

  “No.”

  “Did Laura ever express to you whether or not she wanted to have custody of her children?”

  “Yes,” said Chevon. “She wanted her kids back.”

  On cross-examination, Jeff Cutler pushed Chevon to explain why Grant had custody, but she didn’t know. Then he asked, “Did she tell you that she consented to him having custody?”

  “No.”

  “Did she tell you that she allowed Grant to take little Grant to New York back in February of 2010?”

  “Yes.”

  “Did she tell you she signed a consent order in the summer of 2010, consenting to the arrangement that they
had for the next year?”

  “No,” replied Chevon. “I didn’t know about any consent. I did know that she allowed Grant to go with his father to New York. . . . She did not tell me there was anything through the courts but that he just took him to New York with them.” She further explained that her understanding was that the arrangement for the boys to be with Grant during the week and with Laura on the weekends was court-arranged and wasn’t by Laura’s choice.

  “Did she ever offer to introduce you to Grant?” Cutler asked.

  “No, she told me she didn’t want him to know about me.”

  “Do you think it’s possible that she just didn’t want you to get to know Grant?”

  “No.”

  At the probing of the defense, Chevon admitted that she had no idea of the kind of parent Grant was or how much he loved his kids. On re-direct, Zellinger asked her what Laura told her about what happened in court.

  Chevon said, “She told me that he painted a picture that she was a prostitute and a drug user and that’s how he got custody of their children.”

  “Why would Laura never go to Grant’s apartment?”

  “She was scared,” Chevon said.

  —

  ANOTHER one of Laura’s friends, Heidi Schumacher, assumed the witness box wearing a tight updo. Her face was pale and she had a haunted look in her eyes that intensified the longer she answered questions. She told the jury that Laura was her best friend and that they’d first met in late 2004 or early 2005.

  After Heidi discussed Laura’s belief that she’d been married to Grant and outlined the legal wrangling over the custody of the children, Zellinger asked, “Were you involved in any hearings involving that ex parte?”

  “I was involved in the entire custody battle. . . . I was a character witness to Laura.” Heidi told the jury that when the court suggested that Grant have the children during the week and Laura have them on the weekends, Laura went along with it because she had not seen her children in months at that point and believed that “any time was better than none.” Heidi explained that she was the one who’d told Laura “to go get a tape recorder immediately. I also told her to keep a log of any contact she had with Grant and with the boys.” Heidi noted that Laura even kept a log of their food, because of accusations and recriminations from Grant and Amanda that what she fed the boys made them sick.