by Burl Barer
“I always thought it was likely that Paul St. Pierre could have been one of the Green River Killers,” said Gail Webb. “Paul had a motorcycle, and he used to cruise that Sea-Tac strip all the time. Plus, he had the military training that was part of the profile, and that Green River area was where Paul and Andrew used to hang out, drop acid, get drunk, and that sort of thing. When Paul was arrested, the killings stopped. That might only be a coincidence, but it makes me wonder. One thing I know for sure is that both Andrew and Paul enjoyed hitting and punching people. They liked the way it felt to hit someone. They used to go out to bars looking on purpose to get into a fight so they could beat up someone. They were both really into violence. That’s a documented fact.”
Knowledge of Andrew Webb’s undisputed and fully documented history of violent break-ins, beatings, threats, and irrational life-threatening behavior was something attorneys Ladenburg and Murdach considered imperative to the jury’s deliberations. They should have known that Andrew Webb, despite his “Head of the Class” academic achievements in Tacoma’s public schools, was seriously severed from acceptable civilized behavior.
“From the neck up, Uncle Andrew was cut off from reality,” said his nephew, Travis. “I don’t know if the jury heard about the talking dead beaver skulls and the invisible Vikings, but I’m sure that when Mr. Comte testified about how screwy and unreliable Andrew is, he told about when Grandma parked the car on his head.”
“The back tire ran over his head,” testified Michael Comte. “Actually, one of the tires went over his face, breaking a bone in the jaw. That was not the only head injury he sustained in his childhood. At age seven he came home from school and complained to his parents that his head hurt. Apparently, he experienced a concussion with subsequent memory loss.”
Based on this information, Comte suspected that Andrew Webb had some type of brain damage. In 1983, Comte requested that the court mandate a complete mental screening for Webb, the request was granted, and the results were shared with the Achord trial jury.
“The state has to object,” insisted Carl Hultman. “This evidence is being allowed in terms of how it impacts the credibility of Andrew Webb, not on his violence of why he may have been involved in a murder. The murder speaks for itself.”
Judge Steiner allowed Murdach to continue. Comte explained how he and Dr. Peterson conducted their intensive and extensive evaluations, and then testified as to his impression of Andrew Webb. “ ‘I want it and I want it now, and I’ll do anything to get it, regardless of who stands in my way,’ that was the essential attitude of Mr. Webb,” said Comte.
“Why,” asked David Murdach, “was Andrew Webb placed in the moderate-risk category, especially considering the violence of the assaults?” Comte answered that the strong family support, including that of estranged wife Anne Webb, was the deciding factor. “However,” he added, “I felt he had to be contained. I recommended to the court that he be placed in a work-release facility so his movements could be monitored, and that he be required to abstain from alcohol and drugs and that his abstention be verified through urinalysis and breathalizers.”
Murdach knew that the jury, above all, needed to grasp the chronology of events following Comte’s evaluations. Careful consideration of Webb’s mental and legal situations at that time was imperative. They needed the full picture of Webb’s irrational personality, his proclivity toward sudden, life-threatening violence, and a jail sentence beginning in only two days. Webb had to be seen as unreliable, dishonest, and self-serving for the jury to disregard the plea-bargain statement—the only thing linking Christopher St. Pierre to the murder of John Achord.
Murdach continually repeated the dates and sequence of events, which are summarized as follows: April 11 and April 30, 1984, Andrew Webb submitted to the court-mandated psychological evaluations and testing. The results and Webb’s interim behavior would determine whether or not he went to prison. Less than thirty days later, May 18, he helped the St. Pierres dispose of John Achord’s body.
Because Webb had no apparent criminal history, he received on June 7 a deferred 10-year sentence for the assaults, 700 hours of community service, and 30 days in the Pierce County Jail commencing on June 11. On June 9, Paul St. Pierre shot Andrew Webb, and that was when the story of the murders began to unfold. On June 21, Andrew Webb was arrested for murder, and had remained behind bars ever since that date. He had never served any sentence or been punished for the serious felony assaults that he committed in 1983.
Following Comte’s explanation of Webb’s antisocial and distressing personality problems, Murdach presented the testimony given by Jeffery Gross, one of Paul St. Pierre’s former attorneys, during the Wells trial. The jury heard another example of Webb’s contradictory statements and further indications of his unreliability.
The final witness for Paul St. Pierre was Michael (“Mike”) Compton, a resident of the Shelton, Washington, Correction Center. He refuted Gordon Gibson’s testimony for the prosecution. Compton testified that the conversation between Paul St. Pierre and Gibson, during which St. Pierre bragged about the homicides, never took place. It was, he asserted, a complete fabrication. “Your Honor,” said David Murdach, “the defense for Mr. Paul St. Pierre rests.”
Prosecutor Carl Hultman was entitled to call last-minute witnesses to refute testimony for the defense. “Our expert rebuttal witness is scheduled for one-thirty,” he said. “I guess I could call Mrs. Bitney at this time.” Opal Bitney, John Achord’s mother, would refute the allegations that her son was out of his mind on drugs, wailing like an animal, and conversing with the nonexistent. Her son, she would insist, did not smoke, drink, or use drugs of any kind. Everything had been progressing smoothly toward closing arguments; then Carl Hultman announced the “secret identity” of his last-minute “expert witness.”
“The trial was close to completion,” recalled newsman Chet Rogers, “and suddenly there was a major battle that put the whole proceeding in serious question. We didn’t know if there was going to be a mistrial, the charges dismissed, or what was going to happen. It was Hultman’s last-minute expert witness that made the situation a real cliff-hanger.”
Nineteen
“I move to exclude this rebuttal witness,” said David Murdach forcefully, and a few minutes later, he followed with: “I seek to dismiss this case!”
Judge Gary Steiner, hearing the first remark, gave the defense counsel a raised eyebrow. It is not necessary for the prosecution to reveal the identity of rebuttal expert witnesses to the defense. Murdach knew this. He also knew the proposed witness, and the proposed witness knew him. Their relationship, although limited to brief professional interaction, was characterized by antipathy. “He and I don’t get along very well,” said Murdach. It was a profound understatement; as in truth, one refused to speak to the other.
The proposed witness was Dr. Donald F. Allison, the retired osteopath turned psychiatrist who had replaced Dr. Lloyd for Western State Hospital’s quick competency determination of Paul St. Pierre. It was not Dr. Allison’s identity or personality that formed grounds for legal objection—it was the simple fact that Dr. Allison, to the best of David Murdach’s knowledge, had never been requested to provide a professional opinion on the topic of diminished capacity. As previously mentioned, “competency” and “diminished capacity” are two separate issues entirely.
“And if he was requested to offer such an opinion, or perform such an evaluation, then I seek to dismiss this case,” stated Murdach, “for the failure of the state to furnish me with that information.” He had strong basis for both objection and dismissal. Steiner took Murdach’s reasoning very seriously. The prosecution was required to provide the defense with the names of any individuals having information relevant to the issues involved. If Allison had relevant information, this should have been disclosed long ago. Likewise, if Allison didn’t have information on that topic, there was no reason for him to testify. Either way, Murdach’s bark was equal to his argument’s legal bite.
“I have no objection to Dr. Allison testifying about his investigation into my client’s competency, his diagnosis of paranoid personality, and so forth. But then we get into the other area—diminished capacity to commit the crime. Dr. Allison doesn’t know anything about the facts of this case. My client never discussed this case with him in the manner he did with Dr. Tappin. Dr. Allison never reviewed the psychiatric data; he never read the police reports; he didn’t read Dr. Tappin’s report; he didn’t read Dr. Muscatel’s report; he didn’t read Dr. Proctor’s report; he didn’t even read his own report!” (Murdach was referring to the competency report that listed Proctor and Allison as coauthors. Allison acknowledged that Proctor prepared it, and Allison’s secretary read it to him over the phone prior to signing it on his behalf). “And ... and ... he doesn’t read the newspaper, either,” said Murdach, sputtering to a stop.
“I understand your objection,” Judge Steiner said. “There is a lack of foundation. I am going to overrule your objection, but I’m going to do it in the presence of the jury. You can object at that time. I want you to spend time now,” Steiner told Murdach, “talking to Dr. Allison in preparation for his one-thirty testimony.”
“I previously subpoenaed him to bring his notes to my office,” lamented Murdach, “and he didn’t bring them, and I’m sure he will not discuss it with me on the telephone. He won’t respond to my phone calls.”
“David,” admonished Hultman, “you can’t subpoena anybody to your office. The only power of subpoena is to subpoena him to court proceedings. I don’t think you can subpoena anybody to your office.”
“Oh, yeah, you do it all the time,” countered Murdach. As he was correct, Hultman didn’t continue the dialogue. Allison took the witness stand at one-thirty. Questioned by the prosecution, he summarily dismissed the defense’s claim of diminished capacity as “ridiculous.” Under cross-examination by an aggressive and sarcastic David Murdach, Allison acknowledged that he had heard that the superintendent of Western State Hospital chewed out Dr. Lloyd.
“Did you see anything in the hospital chart that would show that Dr. Lloyd was doing anything wrong with Mr. Paul St. Pierre?” asked Murdach.
“Yes,” replied Allison, “Dr. Lloyd called him incompetent and he put him on medication.”
“That’s the problem, isn’t it? He called him incompetent and that’s the error he made?”
“That’s one of them.”
“So you were called in on the case to declare him competent,” asserted Murdach. “Isn’t that correct?”
“To tidy up the mess, I think, is a better word,” said Dr. Allison pleasantly. “Paul St. Pierre was never incompetent.” The doctor then stunned the courtroom by flatly stating that diminished capacity was in this case “far-fetched and ridiculous,” and David Murdach’s use of it in defending Paul St. Pierre was “a smoke screen.”
“You’re blaming me for bringing a smoke screen in front of the jury, is that correct?” asked Murdach incredulously. He then inquired of Allison’s opinion of the diagnostic reference book DSM-III, which, by law, Allison must consult. “It was written by a bunch of out-of-work psychologists,” he said, adding that the authors “didn’t know what they were talking about.”
Murdach pinned his hopes of reasonable doubt about the accuracy of Allison’s contradiction of Tappin’s opinion on the following questions: “Are you board certified as a psychiatrist? Have you ever been board certified as a psychiatrist? Have you ever been a member of a hospital staff—other than Western State—as a psychiatrist?”
The answers were all negative, leaving the jury to choose between the impressive credentials of Dr. Charles Tappin, and the independent opinion of Dr. Allison—an opinion based upon his extensive experience working in the “Criminally Insane Unit” at Western State Hospital since 1973. In that capacity, Dr. Allison filed up to sixty reports per month to various judges on the sanity of individuals facing criminal charges. There was no disputing his experience, or the conviction of his beliefs. With Allison’s unique testimony, the case wound to a close. Judge Steiner set aside the following day, Tuesday, for the preparation of final jury instructions, advising jurors that they would be sequestered when they returned Wednesday for the attorneys’ closing arguments and for the jury deliberations.
“The most publicized and controversial murder trial in Pierce County history is coming to its climax,” intoned newscaster Chet Rogers. “The prosecution and the defense both insist upon justice—each, however, defines that justice differently.”
The prosecution envisioned final justice meted out by the designated executioner at the Washington State Prison. For David Murdach, justice was recognizing that Paul St. Pierre’s mental illness, by the laws of the United States of America, made him not guilty by reason of insanity. For John Ladenburg, justice was validation of his firm and unalterable belief that the state’s use of Andrew Webb’s plea-bargain statement as testimonial evidence against Christopher St. Pierre was a horrific and inexcusable violation of the law, ethics, and the United States Constitution.
The jury would hear each version of justice detailed, explained, and pleaded during the trial’s closing arguments. The first to speak, and most emotionally so, was Carl Hultman.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the defendants in this case are murderers. They are killers. There isn’t any other way to describe them.” With these words, Hultman commenced his closing argument on Wednesday. “They killed Damon Wells, and then they killed John Achord. Worse than that, they killed John Achord to cover up, or keep secret, the killing of Damon Wells.
“The evidence in this case is overwhelming,” he insisted. “It’s beyond any question. The standard of proof doesn’t rise that high.” The standard to which he referred, he reminded them, is simply: “Does the state sustain its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?” From the state’s perspective, the answer was an absolute affirmative.
The prosecutor paused momentarily, then presented two disquieting displays: the Gerber knife and Paul St. Pierre’s .45-caliber handgun. “The state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul St. Pierre shot John Achord in the face with a forty-five semiautomatic. He admits it himself. The state has proved that Paul St. Pierre, being aware that John Achord was still alive, and at the suggestion of Christopher St. Pierre, stabbed John Achord in the back with that knife.”
“Take a look at that knife,” Hultman requested. “That’s Paul St. Pierre’s Gerber knife—the one he called his fighting knife. That’s the knife that killed Damon Wells. That’s the knife that killed John Achord. That’s the fighting knife of Paul St. Pierre.”
Jurors’ eyes went back and forth between the murder weapon and the accused murderer. Despite the stifling heat and muggy humidity, the courtroom’s emotional atmosphere was ice; Paul St. Pierre sat frozen and expressionless. “The evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive that Paul St. Pierre is guilty of this crime, aggravated murder in the first degree. But what about Christopher St. Pierre? That’s a fair question. There isn’t any evidence that he had his hands on the knife,” Hultman acknowledged. “He was an accomplice, and an accomplice is as guilty as the person doing the crime. It’s time to start thinking of these two acting as one. They acted as one with Damon Wells; they acted as one with John Achord.”
The prosecutor skillfully backed up his “two as one” theory with a well-structured and expertly delivered explanation. “When Chris St. Pierre’s attorney tells you his client wasn’t part of it, remember that he ran after Damon Wells. He yelled at Damon Wells to shut up. He stabbed Damon Wells in the back. He helped bury him.” Hultman continually referenced the St. Pierres as if they were one entity, encouraging the jury to regard them as “twins” who “acted as one.”
The only primary source material damning Christopher St. Pierre was the plea-bargaining statement of Andrew Webb. Hultman acknowledged that this singular evidence against the younger brother required “a little more evaluation. Christopher St. Pierre doesn’t co
me out and admit it frankly like Paul does. The death of Damon Wells is evidence in this case primarily because we are alleging that John Achord was murdered to keep that secret. That comes from Andrew Webb’s statement: ... and Chris said we can’t get him help. We’re going to have to get rid of him, take him up and bury him,” the prosecutor paraphrased, “the police are liable to investigate. They won’t believe Paul anyway. They are liable to find out about Damon Wells.”
Hultman reminded jurors of the undisputed truth that Christopher St. Pierre fully participated in the grisly fate of John Achord. “Did he ever tell the police that he did what he did because he was afraid? No, never. He never said that to the police. He was part of it because he desperately didn’t want to be found out for what he had done to Damon Wells. The only way to keep it secret was to get rid of John Achord.”
There were two reasons why Carl Hultman continued referencing Damon Wells’s brutal death. “It was the motive for killing John Achord,” Hultman insisted, “and it tells you something about this defendant; the choirboy here with the blue tie, Chris St. Pierre. Is he that innocent-looking boy that you see sitting there, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?”
“Chris St. Pierre, an innocent lad in bad company? That’s a complete crock of shit. In fact,” Ben Webb later commented, “Chris always said that ‘dead is dead’—once someone is dead, it doesn’t matter what you do to the body because he can’t feel it, he’s not alive, he’s not there at all. It’s just an empty body. It may be disrespectful and impolite to mistreat a human body, but it doesn’t hurt the dead person at all because dead is dead. It was the same with Damon Wells as it was for John Achord. Once that poor Wells kid was dead, what difference did it make to Andrew, Paul, and Chris what they did to his dead body?”
