Blood Ambush (25 page)
Authors: Sheila Johnson
73
Thus far, Barbara’s diagnosed mental illnesses and her physical problems showed the possibility of a distinct overlap of symptoms and causes. But one of her most telling emotional problems—her obsession with Vernon Roberts—could also be connected to her bipolar disorder in some areas.
Obsessive love is believed by some authorities to be triggered primarily by rejection. It can be identified by an all-consuming preoccupation with a lover, a longing to be together with the target of the obsession, being rejected by the desired one, and engaging in self-defeating behavior because of the rejection. Barbara’s alleged episodes of stalking Vernon and Darlene, vandalizing vehicles—and other instances of harassment—seemed to fit these descriptions.
Obsessive love comes in several identified forms or stages, including love addiction, relationship addiction, and codependency. In love addiction, for example, a person is involved with the object of his obsession in a dependent, unhealthy way. Relationship addiction is where the addiction is to a relationship, such as a marriage, that the person is not willing to relinquish. In the codependency stage, the obsessed is completely dependent on the object of his obsession for the physical and emotional validation of himself. These stages can be experienced separately, successively, or all at the same time.
According to researchers, there are several factors that create a breeding ground for the development of obsessive love. They include feelings of being different—whether real or imagined—feelings of vulnerability, and, literally, boredom. Some psychiatrists and researchers have theorized that children who have not been shown enough healthy love and affection during their early years may go on in later life to develop an obsessive relationship. They also list dependent personality types as being a greater risk for developing relationship addictions.
As it has been documented, obsessive love can lead to stalking, and to crimes such as rape and murder. Those who are obsessed by another person can also engage in self-destructive behavior, substance abuse, and suicide. There is no doubt that Barbara Roberts was obsessed with her ex-husband, Vernon, but how far did that obsession go, and to what degree did it influence the events of April 6, 2006?
When Barbara and Vernon first met, there was apparently an instant romantic attraction on Barbara’s part, helped along, no doubt, by Vernon’s charm and good looks, and also by what she perceived as his need for her understanding, support, and help. She must have felt an immediate urge to rush into a relationship with him, and she helped him to get his financial life back into order.
After several fairly uneventful years of marriage, problems arose after the move from Texas to Alabama, and Barbara began to feel very insecure when Vernon subsequently began talking about separation and divorce. It was at this time that she began to seek mental hospitalizations and began to feel overwhelmingly depressed. The loss of the relationship caused a corresponding loss of self-esteem and feelings of self-hatred. After the divorce Barbara remained in denial that her marriage was over and believed that she and Vernon would get back together again. Those beliefs, when compounded with the symptoms of her bipolar disorder and PTSD, evidently resulted in a terrible tragedy that has all but destroyed many families.
Corrected medication, regular therapy, and consistent treatment since her incarceration seem to have changed Barbara Roberts somewhat. She apparently has experienced a degree of improvement in her mental state. But despite any such improvement she may have made in recent years, the past cannot, and will not, be changed. Even though she has expressed an extreme degree of remorse and regret for her part in the death of Martha Darlene Roberts, Barbara has paid for the tragic results of her earlier actions with the lifelong surrender of her freedom.
74
There had been very little contact between Barbara and any of her family members from the time of her mother’s funeral. The tragedy of their mother’s death had finalized the increasing estrangement between Barbara and some of her siblings, and she had gone through the time of her arrest, indictment, trial, and sentencing alone. But even though she might have been unaware of it, some of the members of her family had followed the events, and had been very concerned about her.
There were so many things that Barbara’s family, especially her sisters, loved about her. They recollected her to be intelligent, kind-hearted, and talented. They remembered family camping trips with a used army tent and a homemade trailer, trips to the lake, picking blackberries, and chasing chickens.
One sister, who looked up to Barbara and wanted to be like her, spoke of Barbara’s beautiful singing voice, her graceful dancing, the ease with which she learned in school, and her desire to make something of herself.
“I tried so hard to be more like her,” she said of Barbara. “This was not how things were supposed to turn out.” The only emotion she felt for her sister—even after all the heartbreak experienced since April 6, 2006—was love.
“I pray it offers you support,” she said. “I love you, Barbara.”
Edie Comeaux, one of Barbara’s younger sisters, wrote a very touching letter to be included in this book. She took the opportunity to let readers know her feelings for her sister and how the events of April 6, 2006—and all that had followed—had affected her family. Eloquent and heartfelt, the letter will strike a familiar note with anyone whose family has been marked by similar tragedy:
As an adult I always considered myself to be a conservative individual with an open mind. This self image tumbled down around me in April 2006, and remains scattered around my feet today. I realized I am a person with prejudice.
My misconceptions of people are not based on race, creed, national origin, sexual preferences or economic status. Instead I possessed a very narrow view of the individuals in our prison systems. I formerly believed everyone in prison was there after a life of crime. I pictured the inmates from broken homes, poverty and a generational lack of education. Mean and angry people who looked like the boogie man of my childhood fears. I never pictured one of my own family members as one, certainly not my own sister.
Nonetheless, Barbara Roberts is incarcerated and will remain so for the rest of her life. After the jury’s recommendation of the Death Penalty, a judge gave my sister Life without the Possibility of Parole. Found guilty of capital murder, kidnapping with intent to harm, robbery and a variety of other offenses.
My sister, my parents’ child, my son’s aunt, had participated in the brutal murder of Martha Darlene Roberts, whether or not it was her finger that pulled the trigger. She participated in the planning, stood beside and watched, assisted in hiding evidence and then continued on with her life.
A life was taken, and it makes me physically ill to think of it even today. Knowing that within days of this being done, two murderers attended my mother’s funeral and witnessed the mourning. Acting as if nothing had happened, they shared meals, made small talk, and continued to live their lives as though it was totally unchanged. To me, this is the behavior of a monster, not that of a fellow human being.
Our mother died the day we found out about the murder, before we knew Barbara and Robert John Schiess were suspects. She died from a broken heart, praying that her child was not involved. Barbara had been married to Darlene’s current husband. The divorce was not her idea. Barbara remains obsessed with her ex-husband. She has created in her own mind a much different picture of our childhood and her marriage than what actually existed. She was never happy in her marriage, or in her life. She is emotionally damaged in so many ways.
As much as I wanted to be present for the trial, I could not even begin to prepare myself to hear and see evidence against my sister. I could not bring myself to sit in the same room with her, her ex-husband and Darlene’s family. I experienced a paralyzing ache knowing my loved one caused such pain for the survivors.
Readers of this book, please know that our parents were loving, kind and generous people. They worked hard to provide for the family and just as diligently to let us know we were loved. We were raised to believe in God, to love one another and treat others the way we would want to be treated. Darlene’s murder is not a reflection of my parents. Barbara committed this crime just before her fiftieth birthday. The life she led as an adult, the people she chose to love, influenced her actions. I fully believe that another remains unpunished for his involvement in the crime, and yet another got by with a slap on the wrist.
I have forgiven my sister for her involvement in this brutal crime. She remains constantly on my mind and in my heart. I pray for her to find peace. My prayers are also with the family of this and all victims. I also pray for the family members of the criminals, for I know their pain.
—Edie Comeaux, September 2009
75
On the afternoon of Tuesday, October 27, 2009, the suit for wrongful death, brought by Vernon Roberts against Barbara Ann Roberts and Robert John Schiess III, initiated in February 2007, finally came to trial. It was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division, and was held in the courtroom of Judge Harold L. Murphy.
On the first day of testimony, some of the witnesses and the officers who were involved in the early days of the investigation of Darlene’s murder took the stand to review and restate what happened on the late afternoon in April 6, 2006, when Darlene’s body was discovered floating in the farm pond near her home just over the Alabama state line in Cherokee County.
The lead investigator in the case, Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office investigator Michael “Bo” Jolly, described the scene of the crime, a pasture off County Road 941, where two neighbors rode their John Deere Gator down into the pasture to check on what they thought was an abandoned vehicle. The Nissan Murano, which had been left sitting in a small patch of willow sprouts and weeds, belonged to Darlene Roberts, whose horribly wounded body the two men discovered in the shallow water at the edge of the pond.
When Jolly arrived at the scene, many other officers were already there, and the area had been secured. Jolly testified about the evidence found that evening and in the coming days: spent shotgun shell casings, green plastic wrap, surgical gauze, and a broken pair of eyeglasses, which were found to belong to Barbara Ann Roberts.
Jolly told the court that Darlene was believed to be on her way home to Cherokee County from her job at Temple-Inland in Rome, and she had stopped by the Rome Wal-Mart, where a security tape showed her shopping for groceries during what would come to be the last hours of her life.
When testimony resumed on the following morning, Jolly returned to the witness stand to complete his testimony concerning the investigation and the facts of the case, and other remaining witnesses presented restatements of the evidence they had given during their testimony at Barbara’s criminal trial.
The judge had already established that a great deal of the testimony from Barbara’s case would not be admissible as evidence in the civil case. He said that he could not allow testimony about anything that was said by Barbara that implicated Schiess in the crime because it was hearsay and was therefore not admissible. That ruled out a great deal of information because of Barbara’s extensive statements about the crime and Schiess’s involvement in it, but there still existed what Vernon’s attorneys believed would be ample findings against him.
After the evidence and the investigators’ testimony was finished, attorney Gregory Price, representing Schiess, went back over the statements that had been presented and attempted to find as many holes as possible in what had been heard so far. He continued examining details of the statements until he was able to verify through the testimony that had been heard that none of Schiess’s DNA had been found at the crime scene.
Then a video deposition given by Schiess was played for the court. It was much like the one Barbara had given, except that Schiess provided far less information than Barbara had during her deposition. In fact, he asserted his Fifth Amendment rights almost exclusively.
In an attempt to counteract this refusal to make any statements whatsoever, Vernon Roberts’s attorney, Andy Davis, questioned Schiess in much the same manner that he had questioned Barbara, relying on his questions to present information to the jury whether or not Schiess chose to answer. Davis managed to put together a compelling story of the relationship between Barbara and Schiess, what happened at the time of Darlene’s death, and what Schiess’s involvement might have been.
Throughout all the questioning, Schiess continually cited his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself.
“I assert my privileges,” he would say, or “I assert my rights.”
Davis asked Schiess about the events of April 6, 2006, attempting to question him about the trip to Cherokee County when he and Barbara allegedly carried two stolen Floyd County traffic barriers to use if they needed to block the road in order to stop Darlene.
Schiess answered with the assertion of his privileges.
When Davis asked if Schiess had attempted to bind Darlene with the green plastic stretch wrap found at the scene and in his apartment, Schiess asserted his rights. And when Davis described Darlene breaking free and running for her life, he asked Schiess if he had shot her at the pond. Schiess again invoked the Fifth Amendment.
Davis then described the arrest and indictment of Schiess and Barbara, and claimed that Schiess had paid Barbara’s bail and legal expenses, then later stopped helping her financially after learning that she had given several statements to the police that had incriminated him.
Schiess again asserted his privileges. He would do so continually during his video deposition, answering no questions, making no admissions, and providing no information, not even his address, just as he had during the entire course of the case against him.
Throughout the video deposition of Schiess by attorney Andy Davis, the questions were carefully designed to present the jurors with the information that Davis wanted them to hear, knowing full well that Schiess was highly unlikely to provide any answers at all. But the questions themselves very successfully served to raise the specter of guilt.
As the trial proceeded, it was soon Barbara’s turn to have her video deposition shown in court. Up to a point, her testimony was far more forthcoming than Schiess’s had been. She answered quite a few more questions than Schiess had when the deposition began, but soon began to rely on the assertions of her Fifth Amendment right.
When Davis asked about her relationship with Schiess, Barbara stated they were dating at the time of the murder, and while she did not say they were living together, she did say they often stayed at each other’s houses.
When asked several questions about Schiess’s financial matters, Barbara said she had no knowledge of anything other than a checking account of hers that he would occasionally make deposits into. She denied having any knowledge of his personal finances, property he owned, stocks he had acquired, brokers or financial advisors he used, or any other matters concerning money.
Federal Court judge Harold L. Murphy had, on several occasions, advised the jury that they could make some assumptions when the defendants invoked their Fifth Amendment right, but only about the defendant who was speaking, not about the other defendant. He instructed the jury that, in the course of their duties, they did not have the right to draw negative conclusions about one of the defendants because of statements made by the other defendant.
Many of Barbara’s statements made to investigators that implicated Schiess had been ruled inadmissible as hearsay, and attorney Gregory Price again called them into question. He said to Barbara that she had told people Schiess was not guilty of some of the things she had earlier blamed him for, but she answered by asserting her rights.
During almost her entire time of being questioned at her video deposition, Barbara had been ill at ease, agitated, repetitive, and fidgety—much the same way she had behaved during her video interrogation session with Cherokee County sheriff’s investigator Mark Hicks a few days after her arrest. But at that time, she did not invoke her right not to answer any questions at all. In fact, she seemed eager to talk to Hicks and told him in detail about the crime.
Mark Hicks took the witness stand and told the jury about Barbara’s statements that Darlene had managed to free herself following the ambush on the dirt road. She said that Darlene then ran around the edge of the pasture and down to the pond, where she tried to hide in the weeds at the water’s edge.
Then, Barbara told Hicks, Darlene had been shot three times at close range with a shotgun.
Hicks testified that Barbara had also provided many other details about the murder scene, including the fact that the black Dodge Dakota truck had been parked by the side of the road, with its hood up, to lure Darlene to stop. The investigators had learned, prior to the arrests of Barbara and Schiess, that Schiess was the owner of a black Dodge Dakota pickup. After she was arrested, Barbara told the officers where they would find the truck, hidden in a storage unit.
Hicks also told the courtroom what Darlene’s final words were, according to Barbara. Before breaking free and running for her life, Darlene had told her captors, “Let me go. I live nine miles away. I don’t know who you are from Adam. You have plenty of time to get away.”
Barbara had made several lengthy statements to the authorities and had answered at length some of the questions in her video deposition, but as he had done from the time of his arrest, Schiess never made a statement of any kind to anyone, either in person or on videotape.
When closing arguments in the case began the following day, Andy Davis laid much of the blame for Darlene Roberts’s death on Schiess. Gregory Price had argued that the civil case was being conducted like a murder trial, and he said that his client, Schiess, had acknowledged his part in the crime when he entered a kidnapping charge, but claimed again that Schiess did not kill Darlene. But Davis countered by telling the jury that the murder was a direct result of Schiess’s acknowledged kidnapping, saying that the criminal case had begun with the kidnapping—and that if Schiess had not kidnapped Darlene, she would not have died.
Before the jury left the courtroom to begin their deliberations, Judge Harold L. Murphy had instructed them that if they were to award damages, it would be up to them to come up with what they felt was an appropriate amount. During their deliberations, the jurors had only one question for the court, and that was whether or not there was a limit to the amount of punitive damages they could award under the law.
Judge Murphy told them no, there was not a limit.
When the jury returned with a verdict, they awarded $30 million to the estate of Darlene Roberts. Darlene’s family and friends hugged and tearfully congratulated each other, and Vernon told the media that he was glad the case had gone in favor of the estate.
“We can now get closure in our lives as a family,” he said.
Attorney Andy Davis told the press that the outcome of the case was a great thing for the family, but it could never compensate for the loss of their loved one.
“They lived through some horrific events,” he said. “Hopefully, this sends a message that we won’t tolerate senseless killings.”
Some of the jurors made statements following the trial, saying that the sum they had arrived on was “an abstract sum” to be split between Barbara and Schiess. They said that it was impossible to put a price on a human life, and said that the failure of the two defendants to testify in person during the trial contributed to their decision. They mentioned Schiess in particular, noting that he had not answered a single question during his deposition.
Another point mentioned by the jurors was their inability to hear any of the hearsay evidence that Barbara had given concerning Schiess’s involvement in the murder. Much of the evidence against Schiess was given by her immediately following their arrests when she outlined for the investigators how the crime had been planned and carried out. The jury had not been allowed to hear statements she had made concerning Schiess—only those that concerned her own actions during the crime. Those statements, plus the evidence from the criminal investigation and the testimony of the officers who worked the case so thoroughly, provided the jury with the information they needed to reach their verdict.
Now Vernon Roberts and his attorneys faced yet another difficult task as they planned to set out on attempts to collect the judgment they had been awarded.
Other books
A Clue to the Exit: A Novel by Edward St. Aubyn
Tandem of Terror by Eric S. Brown
Craig Kreident #2 Fallout by Kevin J Anderson, Doug Beason
Highland Shift (Highland Destiny: 1) by Harner, Laura, Harner, L.E.
I Love You More Than by Kortni Renea
Mike on Crime by Mike McIntyre
Murder Among Us by Ann Granger
Best Laid Plans by Allison Brennan
Those Girls by Lauren Saft
Idolize (Dark Storm Book 1) by Maggie Mundy
