Death Ride
Management by chaos had become the norm for the N.I.S. Office at Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. Located on the eastern shore of North Carolina, Lejeune is geographically one of the largest military installations in the country. Once the number of military personnel assigned to the base are factored in, Lejeune itself is a huge city within a perimeter fence.
My assignment to Camp Lejeune had occurred in the summer of 1989 once “Agent Afloat” duty aboard the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Independence had been completed. After eighteen months of providing investigative and counterintelligence support to the Independence, I was now more than ready for shore duty and a change in scenery.
Initial assignment as the supervisory Agent for Narcotics investigations provided some relief from the high-speed operational tempo experienced on the Indy. Working a caseload of three to five investigations accompanied with supervising two additional Agents mandated “busy” for sure but not in excess. Contrary to the norm, both Agents assigned to the Narcotics Squad were not only experienced investigators but self-motivators. Tom Myers “Speedy” and Bill Mack “Gunny Mack” were well entrenched into solid working relationships with the local Jacksonville Police Department and the Onslow County Sheriff’s Department.
In addition, both Speedy and Mack were exceptionally conscientious in relation to their work, and both demonstrated quickly that they were “high-speed, low drag” Agents requiring a minimum of supervision. The main Boss was Special Agent in Charge Bill Whittenberger. Bill maintained an Agency-wide reputation for being difficult to work for, but my initial introduction to his style was seamless. He demonstrated early on that he was a “no-nonsense” Boss and that he expected Agents to produce professional results. His operational mode was to allow Agents to work unilaterally and not to interfere. However, once an Agent displayed a substandard work ethic or product, he could be assured that Bill “Willy” Whitenberger would address the issue without mercy. I appreciated his manner regarding supervision, for I had experienced “over your shoulder micromanaging” previously and without a doubt had found it difficult to digest.
At the mid-year mark of my assignment to Lejeune, “The Boss” initiated a change of “SquadLeader” for Crimes Against Persons. Without a doubt, the position often carried responsibilities that were high profile and time-sensitive in nature. In particular on-base Homicide and Rape investigations demanded an “all hands effort” by not only the Boss but by Marine Commanders aboard Lejeune. A short time later, the “Boss” (Bill Whitinberger) was transferred, and a new Special Agent in Charge took over the office. John Machaut was now the “Boss,” and his style and personality could not have been any different. His reputation was matched by his nickname “Show Boat Machaut.” “Management by Chaos” was now truly the order of the day.
It was early summer, and I decided that a “mental health day” would greatly assist in adjusting to the new office atmosphere at Lejeune. It was Friday, so instead of “playing sick” at home, I decided that it would assist my recovery by taking a trip. Early a.m. involved hooking my boat up and proceeding to the lake for the weekend. Three hours later, I was attempting to relax fishing the reservoir at Santee Cooper, S.C. Uncharastically, and I was unable to rid myself of “office thoughts,” so after checking into a hotel for the night, I telephoned Lejeune. A short conversation with Kimberly Shue, my assistant squad leader, disclosed that a dependent wife had been discovered dead in a remote area of Camp Lejeune. Obvious signs indicated homicide and my now “take it easy plan” at the lake went south.
Arrival back in Jacksonville occurred in the early morning hours of Saturday, and arrival at my office was a short time later. Although homicide investigations fell within the purview of the “Persons Squad,” the new management style at Lejeune had resulted in all available running amuck in different directions. The first criteria was to reconstruct the actual scene of where the victim had been found. Difficulty was encountered, for I immediately realized that any type of organized effort had not been expended. Unfortunately, individual efforts were accomplished, but no coordination or communication accompanied the efforts. Slowing everyone down and assimilating all that had been done was now mandatory for second chances on murder cases seldom occur.
Examination of the victim’s body coupled with detailed observations at the scene did provide a map of sorts as to the circumstances that occurred. The remoteness of the scene indicated that the victim had been transported by vehicle. Blood drops disclosed that some of the injuries sustained were while she was in a standing position. In addition to standing, the victim was also obviously beside a vehicle, for the blood droplet pattern showed a straight line down one side.
Additional blood drops marked the short distance the victim traveled before falling to the ground. A large blood splatter occurred once the victim was down, for the velocity and volume of the blood indicated that it was the “death blow.” Additionally, all indications were that the victim was on her hands and knees when the final wound occurred. Examination of the blood patterns coupled with an extensive examination of the body disclosed that death occurred as the result of one massive blow from a heavy and extremely sharp instrument.
As is the case in most homicides, suspects normally fall into categories such as spouses, other family members, close friends or acquaintances. Chance encounters are not the norm, but they do occur, and as a result, all possibilities are initially entertained by investigators. In this instance, considerable time was devoted to a crew of timber harvesters that had been clearing areas aboard Camp Lejeune. The proximity of their work area to where the victim was found was concerning; however, once interviews commenced, the discovery of common tools used such as traditional axes and “bush axes” certainly heightened interest.
Coordination and communication are essential when ramrodding any investigative effort. Homicide efforts are unique, for if a solid lead does not present itself within the first twenty-four hours, problems occur. Forty-eight hours marks “punt time” on murder cases so without question, time, resources, communication, and organization are crucial. The necessity of confirming or eliminating suspects is not only critical but time-sensitive. I would direct Agents to pursue specific leads, and unknown to me, they were at times diverted to other tasks by the Boss or, in some cases, the Assistant Boss.
One surprise exception occurred when Roger Poole, a former Marine officer and now an Agent, was tasked to pursue the “Wood Cutters” as potential suspects. Poole single-handedly interviewed each cutter, examined tools in their possession, and conducted detailed background work on all to the extent that they were eliminated from the potential suspect pool. His work was exceptional and, without a doubt, greatly improved the chances of resolving what had become a true enough “who done it” homicide.
Unfortunately, other Agent efforts were not as effective and, at times, were flat detrimental to the overall investigative effort. One standout example were two Agents operating as a team interviewing employees and customers of a section of Bars located in an area of Jacksonville referred to as the “Second Front.” The homicide victim was known to have frequented the area businesses and was specifically identified as being in one of the Bars the night before she was found dead.
Both Agents did not lack enthusiasm, however, they did lack experience. As they conducted “screening interviews” in the Second Front area, they actually passed more information than they received. Resultant effect was a surge of calls from employees and patrons to the N.I.S. Office. During subsequent conversations, it was determined that the “sensitive information” they possessed was actually obtained from the two Agents that interviewed them. Particularly damaging was that some of the information elements could only have been known by the Agents that searched the crime scene or the actual perpetrator — killer. Once understood, I made arrangements for the two Agents involved to work on issues that could cause “no damage.”
As is customary initial investigative efforts in Murder investigations attempt to exclude the victim’s spouse or other family members. In this situation, the deeper we dove, the more complicated clearing the victim’s husband became. He was a Marine N.C.O., and he and his wife had been married for fifteen years. Background information poured in relating to how turbulent and volatile their marriage was. Infidelity on the victim’s part was paramount, along with alcohol abuse. Physical confrontations were often and Marine’s alibi for the night his wife was killed lacked substance.
Repeated interrogations resolved little and only resulted in repeat, repeat of “I didn’t do it.” Consensual searches at their shared residence resulted in no items of evidentiary value being discovered.
Although our effort was not clearing him of culpability, it also was not unquestionably implicating him in his wife’s death. His willingness to submit to a polygraph examination was exploited with the results indicating “Deception.” The stage appeared to be set, so additional post-test interrogations were conducted. During one such interaction, I determined that when he and his wife would have altercations, they would routinely occur in the kitchen area of their residence. Follow on questions determined that often kitchen utensils, knives, frying pans, pots etc., would often become projectiles or weapons.
Subsequent conversation with our Polygraph Examiner disclosed that several of the relevant questions utilized during the polygraph test had incorporated verbiage relating to “have you ever caused injury to your wife with a sharp instrument.” The resulting opinion was the understanding that the actual test results were potentially tainted due to the verbiage utilized in constructing the “control questions’. ‘ Although definitive elimination of the victim’s husband as a suspect had not occurred, the consensus was that he was guilty of being embroiled in a horrible marital situation, but he was not guilty of murder.
A canvas of the Second Front area of Jacksonville was reinitiated a week after the discovery of our murder victim. As Agents entered and exited various bars and clubs, they inadvertently observed a large “Samurai type sword” in the bed area of a compact pickup truck. The bed of the truck had a hard shell cover with side windows, which allowed the sword along with other belongings to be observed. Identification of the truck’s owner was determined, and the LCPL Marine was requested to accompany Agents to the N.I.S. office at Lejeune.
Within a short period of time, the Marine admitted giving the victim a ride from Second Front. Initial story provided was that he drove the victim to her house located on Camp Lejeune. After further questioning, the LCPL admitted that he did not take the Victim home and that after an altercation, he had struck the victim with his fist in the face and mouth area. In a strange twist, the LCPL stated he was extremely angry at the victim for she was intoxicated and that she had “vomited” in his truck.
After additional questioning, the Marine said that after hitting the victim, she stumbled and then went down on her hands and knees. Once the victim was down, he stated that he “stepped out of his body” and then went back to his truck to retrieve his “sword.” Once he returned, the LCPL said he “took up a stance like he was cutting wood” and struck the victim on the back of her neck with his sword. Additional questioning resulted in the Marine describing the resulting rush of blood “splattering on the ground” adjacent to her head. Accounts described paralleled physical observations that had previously been made at the scene. Unprompted, the Marine stated that he then returned to his truck to retrieve a towel to “clean his sword.” Concerned about the Marine claiming, “I was out of my mind,” I asked why he cleaned his sword.
Expecting to hear the obvious “I cleaned it so no one would see the blood,” the LCPL pondered the question and then calmly stated, “I always clean my sword after I use it.” The time was now in the early hours of the next day, and being a bit stunned at his comment, “I always clean my sword after using it,” I terminated the interrogation. The Marine was then told that he would be placed in the Base Brigg for the night and that after eating and getting some rest, Agents would continue interviewing him the following day.
The next day was Saturday and knowing that Lejeune’s legal division representatives would not be available until Monday, no concern existed relating to being able to continue interviewing the Marine after he rested. Arriving at the Lejeune Detention Center on Saturday, myself and an additional Agent were shocked to discover that the Marine we had detained had somehow obtained “Legal Counsel” prior to our arrival. Once the name of the representing attorney was determined, the shock pretty much dissolved into disbelief. Returning to our office, we were immediately greeted by the Boss John Miachout.
When queried on how our additional interviews went, I had to refrain from cursing. I restricted myself to the basic facts “evidently, Ms. N.I.S. Agent (name withheld) told her Marine Lawyer husband that we had made an arrest.” Our Marine suspect now has legal representation, and we will not be able to ask exactly what he meant by saying, “I always clean my sword after using it.”
As I drove towards home, I tried my best to place this investigative effort into the win column. For sure, we had resolved the murder, but just as sure, the price paid was far greater than it needed to be.
LCPL Curtis A. Gibbs was found guilty by the Military Court of Murder in 1990. His initial sentence received was “Death by Lethal Injection”; however, the sentence was modified to “Life in Prison” by the Military convening authority. Gibbs continues to be incarcerated at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas.
