CHAPTER 18, MURDER MOST ELITE

Chapter 18 in MURDER MOST ELITE began my chat with The old RD, (short for  Recovering Democrat),  my Democrat ex-professional politician friend habitually concerned about his early political home, the Democratic Party, had asked me to dinner. He was curious about my presenting a preview of a new book to be published, MURDER MOST ELITE, and expressed amazement that it would  reveal that the accused was not guilty of the murder of Natalia Parker Semler in 1973.

Sitting by the fireside, Jack Daniel's Black and branch water at the ready, with Dozer the Dachsund, napping by the hearth, this was like old times. I went ten rounds with RD  about the relative merits of the Obama administration, and I lost handily, but it is always a bracing political exercise working out with him. My consolation, such as it is.

"So now, Boz, what is this you're up to?"  he asked.

"I'm promoting a new book by Joan Bretz, called MURDER MOST ELITE. Going to hit the stores in a few months, I hope. Its format is similar to the installment magazines like Colliers and Saturday Evening Post of the nineteen forties, remember them? Gonna condense several key chapters in the middle of Bretz's story that show why a guy named Gilreath was not guilty of murder in 1974. Helluva story, RD, no kidding. Also I'm throwing in a couple of capsule book reviews titled BOZ'S BEST BOOK BUYS. Has a good ring to it, don't you think?" He nodded, generously refilling my glass with Jack and a splash of the branch.

"And  how do you present these excerpts? " he asked.

"Straight from the book," I answered, "with an explanation of what has gone before in the story, so the reader knows he's reading about two real legal cases of the past. It's one unauthorized non-fiction story embedded in the main fictional story line, and wow, that is different! Never been done before, to my knowledge. For readers who love a grade A exposure of the criminal justice system, this will turn their hair white, it's that exciting!" At that point,  RD's wife, Lucy, rang the dinner bell, and we feasted on the best rockfish I ever tasted. One that RD caught himself.

And now, dear readers, here is the first issue of BOZ'S BEST: I recommend the following for your reading pleasure.

BOZ'S BEST BOOK BUYS

THE BALFOUR DECLARATION: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Johnathan Schneer. Random House, $30. Dr. Schneer documents the definitive history of how Israel finally gained legitimate political and sovereign status. In order to understand the serious problems in the Middle East today, Dr. Schneer lists a handy eleven-page glossary of the key players in this astounding drama, complete with double-crosses, triple-crosses and plenty of back-channel chicanery. One example of political egomania in 1917: Syria dreamed of flying its flag over Jerusalem. Unbelievable gall and wishful thinking are thus exposed. This book is not to be missed by the political class. And a solid higher education is provided for the average reader.

PRINCESS PEARL: The Dragon Arch by Teri Tao. Golden Peach Publications, $7.99. Kudos to translators Yanhua Teague and Lauren Teague for achieving a luminous story in English from the original Chinese by Tao. Pearl, an ambitious half-fish, half human, the princess of the Aqua Kingdom of Emerald Mirrors, vows to be the first girl to jump over the mighty Dragon Arch in the Yellow River to become a dragon, the traditional goal of the strongest male in the Aqua world. This unique story should be sold to Disney et al. as a superb vehicle for a full-length animated feature film. Charming entertainment!

AND NOW, THE MAIN EVENT

MURDER MOST ELITE

BY JOAN BRETZ

The story to date: PI/Clinical Psychologist  Nena Santana believes her young neighbor Jimmy Patton is not guilty of the murder of 14-year-old Vondi Orloff at the elite Hampton Hall boarding school. Startling resemblance of the evidence against Jimmy reminds her of the charges against one John Stephen Gilreath, always known as Steve, which pose this question: is the Orloff murder a copycat of Natalia Parker Semler's death in 1973? Nena reviews the findings of her A Team who analyzed the Gilreath cases as assigned to them as Ph.D candidates by Dean Irving Stein, Nena's mentor at Columbia University. Nena tells of the A Team's investigation, beginning in Chapter 18:

s

CHAPTER 18

Dr. Irv Stein anointed us wannabe Ph.Ds with a proper name as kind of an official-sounding moniker granting us stature: The A Group consisting of David Velasquez, Milly Drake, Donna Randolf, and me, the coordinator of all the research. He mailed our materials to us after exhorting us to apply every bit of our knowledge of psychology into our effort: the all-important final report to him.

Within a week we learned that John Stephen Gilreath's life sentence on May 23, 1974 resulted from a totally untoward and unimaginable situation: the 1970 election of three Virginia candidates for the august office of United States Senator from Virginia, surely the most exclusive club in the world.

Both the official Democratic and Republican candidates for senator, (George Rawlings, Jr. and Ray L. Garland) had insufficient support to win over the incumbent, the rich and powerful Senator Harry Byrd, who decided to run as an Independent. Byrd immediately declared that no other candidate could be included in his mailings to the electorate, which upset many a Democratic politician because endorsement by him would provide any pol a prestigious advantage in this unique election. Further, in almost every county, pro-Byrd headquarters were formed by both Democratic and Republican local party officials who again split off from their regular party organizations to support Byrd.

At this point, an influential Republican leader in Fairfax County, and Byrd-for-Senate campaign manager, John T. (Til) Hazel, set up the local Northern Virginia Republicans For Byrd campaign office in Springfield. He hired Amy Gilreath, a Vice Chairman of the Fairfax County Republican County Committee to manage the  headquarters, confident that  Amy, a highly- respected  "can-do" loyalist, energetic problem-solving worker,  and political activist, would produce a successful political operation for Byrd.

One day Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney Robert F. Horan's box of Democratic campaign literature was delivered to the Byrd headquarters for insertion with the Senator's own personal campaign mailouts. In the hectic atmosphere so prevalent in most political campaigns, Amy, following the directions of Senator Byrd, tossed Horan's package in the dumpster. Amy described Til Hazel laughing "like hell" when she told her fellow workers his reaction to her sacking Horan's politically verboten material.

On the morning of October 3, 1970, Horan visited her home, and berated her so that the entire household and nearby neighbors heard his shrill, vitriol-laced insults. She, not easily intimidated, in return gave him the well-known finger.

"I'll get you, Amy Gilreath!" Horan screamed as his parting threat through the screen door.

Amy's sister, Jayne Collins, watched Horan from the kitchen window trot to his car in the driveway, rev up the motor and, tires spitting gravel, he raced in reverse gear to the street, rear-ending a neighbor's trash can, then sped away. Amy could not explain his behavior other than her trashing his box of campaign literature; she had never met the man before. Horan obviously figured he could get away with piggybacking on the Senator's mailings.

Just as the Gilreaths were ready to move into a new home in Nokesvile in nearby Prince William County, a vendetta against her surfaced. But the object was not only her. Both Steve Gilreath's  brother, Jimmy, and Amy had become targeted.

At midnight on December 8, 1970, Amy phoned Jayne in Cincinnati to recount Amy being indicted by way of a petition calling for her ouster signed by twenty-four county committee members. The charge was that she had violated Article 1, Section 2 of the party rules by working for Senator Byrd's re-election. Though other Republican officials had publicly supported Byrd, somehow she alone had been singled out for punishment.

Someone had grabbed the petition from her and in front of the entire assemblage tore it up, then threw it on the floor. Amy got down on her hands and knees, picked up all the scraps, and when she returned home, she pasted them back together.

The signers were old friends, co-political workers: J. Kenneth (Kenny) Klinge, William Moss, Barbara Hildebrand,  Jane Parris, et al., allies in her generous and successful assistance to the political party of her choice. She became overwhelmed with shock and dismay. Friends? Well, suddenly no, apparently not.

And how astonishing that practically overnight she became a pariah. People she had known for years began to avoid her. Others hung up on her when she phoned them. Hostile incidents began mounting against her and Jimmy, such as two Fairfax County police officers shooting bullets into the fenders of Jimmy's car. The following month, a cop picked up Jim for loitering at a McDonald's, for which he was never charged. A friend of Amy's reported that both her sons were branded as juvenile delinquents by the police. Another friend told Amy that a woman had claimed Jimmy had poured sugar into the gas tank of her car. The police told her they knew that Jim Gilreath did it. Yet they did not attempt to charge him.

So was the word on the street Get Gilreath?

Jim was fined $50 and sent to jail for a weekend for not coming to a full stop at a stop sign. But Jim, circling around the jail cell for hours scraping the walls and metal bars with his car keys, so freaked out the cops that they called in sick the next day rather than endure Jim's unique psychological warfare.

Under Donna Randolf's clever interview technique, Amy Gilreath quickly revealed several further incidents concerning Jim Gilreath, such as his being accused of stealing twenty-one basketballs from his high school, and indirectly thought to have been party to a drug heist,  and further, reports by her "friend" revealed that a Fairfax County judge claimed that "Jim Gilreath is no good." But she refused to name the judge.

Donna did an in-depth analysis of Amy, Steve and his brother, Jim, describing Steve as habitually accepting punishment for infractions that Jim had been guilty of because Steve could never bear to have people hassle him. Or Jim. He literally would admit to anything to get the accusers off his back. This deeply-entrenched character habit was his downfall. By May of 1974, it had cost him his freedom.

With Donna's profiles, we now had our first accurate picture of Amy, Steve and Jim. Jimmy, the direct opposite of his older brother, was a charismatic "smart-mouth," handsome as a movie star, a spectacularly good student, and immensely popular socially, but also the bane of his stepfather's existence, e.g. by having totaled two cars on the same day, and generally getting himself in one kind of controversy or other. Steve, by contrast, at 6'9", was shy, inarticulate to the point of being near-mute, withdrawn,  yet a fine artist and meticulous  draftsman, but an average student. He found communicating in his native English his most difficult problem, socially and intellectually. He had 20/200 vision that required him to wear heavy eyeglasses. Without them he could not identify an automobile license six inches away from his face.

After her divorce from the boys's  father, Stan Gilreath and Amy had married. Steve was eight years old. Stan provided the stability that had been lacking at home, but nevertheless Amy  felt that Steve remained a stricken little boy at heart because of the divorce. As a result, he found socializing and relating to even his close-knit family almost painful. His worried parents sent him to a McLean therapist, Dr. Fred E. Svobotka, hoping therapy would help him become more socialized as he entered college. But Steve had deliberately avoided attending some of his appointments, which Amy discovered when the doctor's bill arrived in the mail.

As of September 1971 Steve would attend Northern Virginia Community College, and the family would move to Nokesville, fifty miles from Washington, D.C., looking forward to enjoying their country-life dream on a three- acre mini-estate.

While Donna concentrated on the Gilreath family and friends, David Velasquez had his hands full trying to contact the legal principals. His first memo revealed that none of the judges in both Gilreath court  trials would consent to be interviewed. Several judges had died, including Robert R. Merhige, who conducted the first appeal in the Semler case. Further, neither Robert Horan nor his assistants, nor defense attorney Paul  (Pat)  Harrington in the Newbold case would grant interviews. That was our first strike out. Too many years had passed for us to contact these people with real expectations of interviewing them.

Meanwhile Milly Drake had been hitting the media archives and let me know within the first two weeks that there were almost zero accounts of the Newbold case, the first case against Gilreath at the Madeira School in Northern Virginia.

"It's as though the print media had no clue that little Lori  Gayle Newbold ever testified in court," she said. "I know she did because of the second case, the Semler murder that put Gilreath away. In that case, there's massive mention, I mean in extraordinary detail, of the Newbold case, all of it prejudiced and derogatory about Steve. More later," she said, "as I trudge through the miles of microfiche at the library."

I, beginning the long and arduous task of reading the transcripts and confessions in the two cases, found the Newbold case disturbing. Steve's official charge would be abduction with intent to defile, and assault, with the assault charge later dropped.

Officer Robert LaClair claimed in court that he arrested Gilreath on October 15, 1971 at a parking lot near Difficult Run stream, a short distance from the Madeira School.

He also said he interviewed Steve at 11:30 a.m. at the local McLean substation,  yet Steve swore that two policemen took him to the substation from a McLean mall. This is the first of many contradictions in this case. The second is that officer LaClair issued a traffic citation as the arrest warrant, a novel method of apprehending a suspect, indeed. In the space allocated for the specific traffic violation (of which there was no mention) LaClair wrote "arrested." The traffic violation charge was "abduction and attempt rape."

This citation is not irrelevant, by any means. The citation directed Gilreath to appear in Juvenile Court at 8:30 a.m. on October 18, three days later. If LaClair did find Steve on Route 193, why didn't he have Steve sign the traffic citation/arrest warrant there? That would have been normal procedure.  There is no Gilreath signature on that warrant.

Why didn't he take Steve directly to the substation? If Steve was not near the school, and two cops brought him to the local substation as Steve claimed really happened, how could LaClair have identified him as having been near the school? Where was the evidence to justify Steve's arrest? Further, what was LaClair doing on Route 193? Riding alone in a cruiser, to what purpose? That is, if that was indeed what he actually did?

Lori Gayle Newbold never positively identified Steve, nor did she even recognize Steve sitting six feet away from her before the trial began.

If it were valid, the traffic citation should have been a trial exhibit. But it was never part of the record. Basically, the narrative confession bearing Gilreath's signature was forged. Yes, it bore his name, but it was wrongly placed above the line for the signature, (an error that the finicky artist and mechanical drawing expert Gilreath would never make). It was probably traced from  his wallet contents, such as a driver's license or Social Security card.  A facsimile only.

The narrative confession stated that Steve drove from college in Annandale, Virginia, all the way to Bear Island in Maryland, swam over the dangerous Potomac River, then sprinted up the hill to the Madeira School. I found that too incredible to accept, and quickly rushed out to buy a map of the area.

The confession describes Bear island as a "small" island, which is a blatant untruth. It is not a small island "next to the Virginia side." Bear Island is 160 acres, the largest of the many islands bordering the river on the Maryland side of the Potomac. If Steve did confess to the crime, of which he had no memory of ever doing, he would surely know all the germane facts, like the size of Bear Island. Further, the psychology is wrong. If Gilreath wanted to accost a girl at the school, why would he drive all the way from Virginia to Maryland, and risk his life in the infamous whirlpools and undertows of the river? The subject of this confession wore only a towel, which he discarded when he reached Virginia. Thus he was naked the entire time with Ms. Newbold, but she testified that he wore a towel.

It cannot be both ways. A person cannot be both clothed and nude at exactly the same time.

Lori Newbold stated that Gilreath took her to a large rock or island in the river, but the confession places this confrontation at 100 yards inland, on dry land away from the river. Newbold should have had a vivid memory of where the alleged crime took place, but she stated that her assailant threw his screwdriver in the river. The confession contradicts that statement, instead claiming  it was discarded in a small pond.

Further, the confession characterized the subject as a nudist as well as mentally retarded, lurking around Madeira's air conditioning system, presumably hoping to meet unsuspecting maidens. He exerted no physical force with his weapon, an eight-inch screwdriver, a phallic symbol if there ever was one. This gentlemanly intruder even made sure that Ms. Newbold made her way safely back to the chapel auditorium at Madeira. This would have been an impossible feat, inasmuch as Steve Gilreath had never been at or near the school.  Oddly, the the confession cited several students  as eyewitnesses, yet no student was called to testify in court by the prosecution, which would have undoubtedly guaranteed Steve's being convicted.

Gilreath, so pathetically insecure and so very easily intimidated, was the perfect patsy to set up and convict.

Why weren't the many absurdities in the confession challenged in detail? That had not happened in court.

The extraordinary contradictions so far in the Newbold case caused the A Group to ask this  resounding question: who set up Steve Gilreath?

Stay tuned, dear readers.

                                                            Your obedient servant,

                                                             Boz