the real people

Shirley Russell Gibbs an African American US Marine Corp Capt was murdered in 1989 by her husband Robert P Russell. Her story inspired the movie "The Perfect Murder."

Appellant Robert Peter Russell was convicted of the federal offense of first-degree murder for killing his wife, an officer in the United States Marine Corps. The evidence supporting Russell's conviction was all circumstantial. His wife's body has never been found, there were no witnesses to the crime, [**2] and the murder weapon has not been located. Russell's principal claim on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. In addition, Russell challenges various evidentiary rulings by the district court; two jury instructions; and the court's refusal to give two other instructions. He also alleges that the Government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). We find no merit in any of these claims and therefore affirm. I. On March 4, 1989, Shirley Gibbs Russell, a captain in the United States Marine Corps, disappeared from her married officers' quarters on the Quantico, Virginia, military base. Her husband, appellant Robert Peter Russell, was subsequently charged with her murder. See 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b) (criminalizing murder "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States"). The Government's case against Russell comprised only circumstantial evidence. Neither the victim's body nor a murder weapon was ever recovered, and there were no witnesses to the crime. The Government's theory was that Russell, a former Marine Corps officer who had recently [**3] been discharged for disciplinary reasons, shot his wife behind the ear with a .25 caliber pistol while the two were in a storage shed adjacent to their quarters, and then dumped her body into a [*1101] mine shaft in Pennsylvania. The jury apparently accepted this theory; it returned a guilty verdict on May 3, 1991. Russell was sentenced to life imprisonment on August 2, 1991. A. The chronology of events leading to Russell's arrest is as follows. Russell met Shirley Gibbs in August 1985, while the two were stationed at the Parris Island, South Carolina, Marine Corps Base. At the time, Russell was a Marine Corps captain, and was married to his first wife, Pamela Russell. Three months after his divorce from Pamela Russell in April 1987, Russell was transferred to the Gulfport, Mississippi, Naval Base. While stationed at Gulfport, Russell continued his relationship with Gibbs, but also became romantically involved with a number of other women. Two months after his arrival in Gulfport, Russell married Gibbs. n1 Their marriage was not a happy one, and there was testimony at trial that Russell was abusive n2 and unfaithful. Gibbs consulted with a marriage counselor on at least eight different [**4] occasions during her brief marriage to Russell. The Government's theory was that Russell telephoned Sogren to confirm that she was still in Virginia Beach and therefore would not be in Quantico when he planned to murder Gibbs. It is a three-hour drive from Virginia Beach to Quantico. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**8] Gibbs had planned to have lunch with Captain Patrice Gayl on that Saturday after meeting with Russell, and she had agreed to meet Gayl at Gibbs' bachelor quarters. At approximately 1:20 p.m., Gayl went to meet Gibbs. When Gayl discovered that Gibbs was not at her bachelor quarters, Gayl drove to the Russells' married quarters. When she arrived, Russell told Gayl that Gibbs had walked to the Marine Corps Exchange to purchase paint. Gayl testified that she was surprised by this explanation, because Gibbs rarely missed an appointment. n7 Gayl also testified that Russell was flushed and sweating profusely when she saw him. n8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n7 The Government argued to the jury that it was highly unlikely that Gibbs had in fact walked to the Marine Corps Exchange to buy paint, not only because Gibbs rarely missed appointments but also because it was a cold day for a walk to the Exchange, which was five miles from Gibbs' married quarters and separated from the quarters by woods and steep hills. n8 Richard Grimm, a special agent in the Naval Investigative Service who interviewed Russell following Gibbs' disappearance, testified that Russell told him that he had given his .25 caliber pistol (as well as ammunition) to Gibbs early in the afternoon, before she departed for the Marine Corps Exchange. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**9] After Gayl left the Russells' quarters, Chief Warrant Officer Kenneth Shilko invited Russell into his quarters, where the two men talked and drank coffee for more than an hour. Shilko testified that he was doing most of the talking during Russell's visit, and that Russell seemed distracted. Shilko also testified that Russell was concentrating on a clock that hung on a wall in Shilko's quarters. Following his visit with Shilko, Russell returned to Flynt's residence and showered. By then, it was approximately 3 p.m. After showering, Russell called his parents in St. Clair, Pennsylvania, and asked about the weather. Shortly before 5 p.m., he departed from Quantico for his parents' home. n9 Though he owned an open-bed pickup truck, Russell borrowed Flynt's car, a blue four-door Mercury Tracer station wagon, for the drive to Pennsylvania. A neighbor, Rhonda McCumber, testified that she saw a small blue station wagon backed into a parking space near the door of the storage shed adjacent to the Russells' quarters at approximately 5 p.m. that day.
The Government presented a substantial amount of evidence at trial, in addition to the evidence recited above. It introduced a computer disk that had been found in Russell's desk in Gulfport, Mississippi. On that disk was a file named "murder," which appeared to be a twenty-six-step guide to carrying out a murder. n12 The Government also introduced a gun (together with ammunition) that was similar to the one that Russell admittedly purchased on March 2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n12 Among the twenty-six steps were the following: (6) "what to do with the body"; (8) "alibi, excuse from work"; (15)"how do I kill her"; and (25) "check in library on ways to murder -- electrocution?" J.A. at 164. Russell's mother testified that Russell was a writer, and that the computer file contained ideas for a novel he was working on. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Government elicited testimony from a number of witnesses that incriminated Russell. Sandy Flynt, for example, testified that Russell once told her that she should not "be surprised if six months down the road . . [**14] . you hear that Shirley is dead, . . . because I am going to kill her," J.A. at 984, and that Russell once showed [*1104] her what he represented to be a homemade silencer. Flynt testified that Russell told her that if Gibbs was ever found dead and someone asked her about Gibbs' death, she should say that she "didn't know anything about it," and she "shouldn't remember this conversation." Id. at 985. Russell's brother, Ronald T. Russell, testified that Russell once told him that "he wanted [him] to get some dynamite so he could blow 4254 26 3 [Gibbs] up." Id. at 460. n13 Thomas J. Marris, a Marine Corps lieutenant and a neighbor of the Russells' at the Quantico base, testified that on one occasion, after an argument with Gibbs, Russell removed a pistol from a drawer in his quarters and, referring to Gibbs, stated that "I got something for that." Id. at 329. John Seasock, a drug and alcohol treatment specialist and an acquaintance of Russell's, testified that he and Russell once had a discussion about the most effective way to commit suicide, during the course of which Russell suggested that shooting oneself either in the mouth or behind the ear would be the most effective method, [**15] and that the best way to kill someone else was to shoot him behind the ear. Russell's first wife, Pamela Russell, testified that on one occasion in 1981 Russell told her that there might be bodies hidden in the mine shafts in St. Clair, Pennsylvania, and that "if he wanted to get rid of her, nobody would ever see [her] again." Id. at 303. And John Keevill, a Marine Corps MP and an acquaintance of Russell's, testified that more than a year after Gibbs' disappearance, Russell asked him how long it took for a body to decompose. n13 Russell's brother testified that this statement was made in the context of "a joking situation." J.A. at 460. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Government also introduced forensic evidence. Expert witnesses testified that a .25 caliber pistol of the type that Russell purchased could have been fired in his quarters without recognition by anyone nearby, and that a close-range shot behind the ear from that weapon would probably not produce an exit wound or a significant splattering of blood. n14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n14 This testimony was based upon test firings in Russell's former quarters on March 4, 1991 -- two years to the day after Gibbs' disappearance. A tape recording of those test firings was played for the jury. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**16] Russell's case in chief consisted in large part of testimony from a number of witnesses who claimed to have seen Gibbs after March 4, 1989, the day of her disappearance. See id. at 1239-40, 1286-88, 1334-37, 1365-67. II. Russell challenges a number of the district court's evidentiary rulings. He claims that the district court admitted irrelevant evidence, see Fed. R. Evid. 402; admitted evidence that was more prejudicial than probative, see Fed. R. Evid. 403; and admitted evidence of prior bad acts for an improper purpose, see Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). A district court's evidentiary rulings are entitled to substantial deference, because a district court is much closer than a court of appeals to the "'pulse of the trial.'" United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148, 155 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Juarez, 561 F.2d 65, 71 (7th Cir. 1977)). Such rulings will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. See Beaty Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Monarch Ins. Co. of Ohio, 315 F.2d 467, 471 (4th Cir. 1963) ("The determination of the relevancy of proof offered at the trial is a matter resting [**17] largely within the sound discretion of the trial court, and is not ordinarily reviewable upon appeal."); United States v. Heyward, 729 F.2d 297, 301 n.2 (4th Cir. 1984) (probative/prejudicial balance struck by district court "will not be overturned except under the most 'extraordinary' of circumstances" (quoting United States v. MacDonald, 688 F.2d 224, 227 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1103, 74 L. Ed. 2d 951, 103 S. Ct. 726 (1983))), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1105 (1985); United States v. Rawle, 845 F.2d 1244, 1247 (4th Cir. 1988) (decision to admit evidence of prior bad acts "will not be disturbed unless it was arbitrary or irrational"). In none of its [*1105] evidentiary rulings did the district court abuse its wide discretion. A. Russell claims that much of the evidence introduced by the Government, and admitted by the district court, was irrelevant, and if not irrelevant, was so minimally relevant as to be more prejudicial than probative. In particular, he argues that the district court erred in admitting testimony that he had purchased a gun; in admitting a gun similar to the one that he [**18] purchased; in admitting ammunition used with such a gun; and in admitting a tape recording of the test firings conducted at Russell's former quarters. Russell contends that the gun evidence was irrelevant because there was no evidence that Gibbs was shot, no evidence that a gun was fired in Russell's quarters on March 4, 1989, and no evidence that a gun had any connection with her disappearance. He contends that admission of the tape recording was erroneous because the test firings were performed under conditions that were insufficiently similar to the conditions that existed on March 4, 1989. Russell additionally argues that the district court erred in admitting John Seasock's testimony regarding his conversation with Russell about the best method of committing suicide; in admitting expert testimony regarding the likelihood that a shot fired behind the ear at point-blank range would produce an exit wound or splatter blood; and in admitting Pamela Russell's testimony regarding her ex-husband's familiarity with the mining regions of St. Clair, Pennsylvania. He contends that admission of this evidence was improper because the Government's expert witnesses had no opportunity to perform [**19] an autopsy or other medical examination, given that Gibbs' body has never been recovered, and because there was no evidence that he had transported Gibbs' body to Pennsylvania.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting any of this evidence. Rule 402 bars the admission of evidence that is not relevant, Fed. R. Evid. 402, but "relevant evidence" is defined broadly as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence," Fed. R. Evid. 401. As noted, the Government prosecuted Russell on the theory that he shot and killed Gibbs in the storage shed of their quarters and that he thereafter drove to Pennsylvania and disposed of the body in a mine shaft. The gun evidence, the blood evidence, the evidence of how much noise the gun was likely to make, and the evidence of Russell's trip to Pennsylvania -- all of which Russell now contends was improperly admitted -- was unquestionably relevant to the Government's case. All of this evidence tended to prove that Russell had committed the crime and disposed of the body in the manner that the [**20] Government argued to the jury. Much of this evidence, in fact, was directly responsive to one of Russell's chief lines of defense -namely, that a shot inside of his quarters would have been heard by neighbors. n15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n15 Russell's trial counsel suggested in his opening argument that if Russell had shot Gibbs in their quarters, the shot would have been heard, because the quarters "are in a very populated area, military housing, row after row after row, immediate next-door neighbors, paper-thin walls." J.A. at 361. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Moreover, all of this evidence was relevant in light of other evidence that was either undisputed or introduced without objection. See Fed. R. Evid. 104(b). Gibbs has not been heard from since March 4, 1989, and it is undisputed that Russell, who had previously suggested that he might kill Gibbs, purchased a .25 caliber pistol two days before she disappeared. Russell admitted that there was a bloodstain on the floor of the storage shed adjacent to Russell's married quarters at the time of Gibbs' disappearance, [**21] and that he removed this stain shortly thereafter. And it was not contested that Russell drove to his parents' home in the mining town of St. Clair, Pennsylvania, on the day Gibbs disappeared. [*1106] Nor was any of this evidence so prejudicial as to require exclusion. Rule 403 provides that evidence, although relevant,"may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Fed. R. Evid. 403. "All relevant evidence is 'prejudicial' in the sense that it may prejudice the party against whom it is admitted. Rule 403, however, is concerned only with'unfair prejudice.'" Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 853 F.2d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1988). Because the probative value of the evidence was so high, and because we are required to"'look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect,'" id. at 1135 (quoting United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 862, 62 L. Ed. 2d 84, 100 S. Ct. 129 (1979)), we cannot conclude that the district court erred in its determination [**22] that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We are not persuaded, finally, that the test firings were performed under conditions that were insufficiently similar to the conditions that existed on March 4, 1989. The Government's theory was that Gibbs was shot in the storage shed adjacent to her married officers' quarters with a .25 caliber pistol at around noon on March 4, 1989. The test firings were conducted in the same location, with the same type of weapon, at approximately 4 p.m. on March 4, 1991. We have no difficulty concluding that there was "substantial similarity," Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 493 F. Supp. 1252, 1266 (S.D. W. Va. 1980), aff'd, 649 F.2d 1004 (4th Cir. 1981), between the test conditions and the actual conditions. The test admittedly was conducted four hours later in the day than the actual shot was allegedly fired, and there was no evidence that the weather conditions on the day of the test firing were exactly the same as the weather conditions on March 4, 1989. The simulated conditions, however, need only be "substantially similar"; they need [**23] not be "identical." Estate of Carey by Carey v. Hy-Temp Mfg., Inc., 929 F.2d 1229, 1235 n.2 (7th Cir. 1991). The significance of these differences clearly was a question of weight for the jury, not a question of admissibility for the court. n16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n16 Russell cites Renfro Hosiery Mills Co. v. National Cash Register Co., 552 F.2d 1061 (4th Cir. 1977), to support his claim that the district court erred in admitting the firearm test evidence. Renfro is both procedurally and factually distinguishable from this case. In Renfro, the district court had excluded the test evidence on relevancy grounds. Thus, given that we review such rulings for abuse of discretion, the fact that we affirmed the district court's decision in that case in no way supports Russell's argument that we should reverse the decision of the district court admitting the evidence in this case. Moreover, the test evidence in Renfro was excluded because the conditions under which the tests were conducted were"drastically" different from the actual conditions. Id. at 1066. Here, the test conditions -- both spatially and temporally -- were virtually identical to the actual conditions.Russell next contends, without citation to authority other than Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), that the district court erred in admitting testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding his discharge from the Marine Corps and testimony as to his extramarital affairs. Russell claims that this evidence of prior bad acts was introduced only for the impermissible purpose of proving his character. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). These exceptions to inadmissibility of prior bad acts evidence are not to be construed narrowly; evidence of prior bad acts is admissible unless it is introduced for the sole purpose of proving criminal disposition. See United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761, 766 (3d Cir.) ("The draftsmen of Rule 404(b) intended it to be construed as one of 'inclusion,' and not 'exclusion.' They intended to emphasize admissibility of 'other crime' evidence."), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 985, 58 L. Ed. 2d 657, 99 S. Ct. 577 (1978). [**25] Part of the Government's theory at trial was that Russell killed his wife because he [*1107] viewed her as a symbol of the Marine Corps, an institution that he had come to resent as a result of his discharge. See J.A. at 170-71 (Government's opening statement). Hostility is a paradigmatic motive for committing a crime, and Russell's discharge from the Marine Corps, as well as the surrounding circumstances, were obviously relevant to the Government's proof of this motive. Similarly, the evidence of Russell's extramarital affairs, especially when considered with the evidence of Russell's generally abusive treatment of Gibbs, bore directly upon Russell's motive and intent. See Virgin Islands v. Harris, 938 F.2d 401, 420 (3d Cir. 1991) (in murder case, evidence of defendant's "history of violence" toward his wife was "highly probative in demonstrating his motive and intent as well as establishing that his wife's death was not accidental or suicidal"); cf. United States v. Stapleton, 730 F. Supp. 1375, 1378 (W.D. Va. 1990) ("It is generally recognized that an adulterous relationship, particularly when it is clandestine, is evidence of possible [**26] strong motives for murdering the cuckolded husband."). Thus, this evidence, too, was properly admitted by the district court. n17


Copyright 1991 The Washington Post The Washington Post February 9, 1991, Saturday, Final Edition SECTION: METRO; PAGE B4 LENGTH: 495 words HEADLINE: Murder Charged in Missing-Wife Case SERIES: Occasional BYLINE: Robert F. Howe, Washington Post Staff Writer BODY: A Pennsylvania man was arrested near his home yesterday and charged with murdering his wife, a Marine Corps captain who was last seen almost two years ago in the quarters the couple shared at the Quantico Marine Base. The case against Robert Peter Russell, 33, was described by law enforcement officials as the first federal murder case in which the victim's body was never recovered. Shirley Russell, 29, who had sought a divorce from her husband shortly before her disappearance, was never found despite an intensive search by local and federal agencies in Northern Virginia and Pennsylvania. U.S. Attorney Henry E. Hudson said this kind of case is "obviously more difficult because you have the added burden of proving that a death occurred . . . . That necessarily has to be proven by circumstantial evidence, and that is the course we will take." Robert Russell, a former Marine Corps captain, was arrested about 10 a.m. yesterday at the State Correctional Institution in Graterford, Pa., where he worked as a drug and alcohol counselor, according to law enforcement officials. Russell resigned from the Marine Corps in the late summer of 1988. Russell is expected to be transferred to Alexandria over the weekend and arraigned Monday morning in U.S. District Court. If convicted of the charge of murder on a federal facility, Russell could be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Investigators said they were confident that Shirley Russell had been killed but would not discuss what kind of circumstantial evidence would form the basis of their case. "She had an extremely good reputation," said Gregory G. Golden of the Naval Investigative Service. "It would have been totally out of her nature just to take off. No doubt in our mind that she met with foul play." Shirley Russell, an administrator for the officer training program at Quantico, was last seen March 4, 1989, according to law enforcement officials. She had separated from her husband just a few weeks earlier, after having been married for about a year and a half. Though Robert Russell was living off base and Shirley Russell had moved to the Quantico bachelor quarters, they returned the weekend of March 4 to the apartment they had shared on base to finish cleaning it out, according to law enforcement officials. "She was due to report to duty on the morning of the 6th, Monday morning, and obviously she didn't report," said Golden. Shortly after Shirley Russell's disappearance, Robert Russell left a teaching job at North Stafford High School and returned to his home town of Mahonoy City in eastern Pennsylvania. James E. Mull of the FBI said a task force of FBI, Investigative Service, and local authorities conducted an extensive search for Russell. "There was a lot of effort expended by a lot of different agencies, including terrain searches, air searches. They even searched mine shafts in Pennsylvania," said Mull. "All indications are that she is dead."


Copyright 1992 The Washington Post The Washington Post View Related Topics July 21, 1992, Tuesday, Final Edition SECTION: METRO; PAGE D5; AROUND THE REGION LENGTH: 171 words HEADLINE: Court Affirms Husband's Guilt In Quantico Captain's Death SERIES: Occasional BYLINE: From news services and staff reports BODY: The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld yesterday the first-degree murder conviction of Robert Peter Russell for killing his estranged wife, an officer in the Marines, whose body was never found. Capt. Shirley Gibbs Russell disappeared March 4, 1989, from the quarters for married officers at the Quantico Marine Base. The prosecutor argued that Robert Russell, who recently had been discharged from the Marines for disciplinary reasons, shot his estranged wife, then dumped her body in a mine shaft or sinkhole in Pennsylvania. A key piece of evidence was what prosecutors described as "a recipe for murder," a computer diary prepared by Russell in which he listed 26 steps to the perfect crime, plus the notation: "How do I kill her????" Russell was convicted on May 3, 1991, in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole last August. The federal appeals court in Richmond rejected Russell's argument that there was not enough evidence to support the conviction.


Copyright 1991 The Washington Post The Washington Post May 4, 1991, Saturday, Final Edition SECTION: METRO; PAGE B1 LENGTH: 890 words HEADLINE: Husband Convicted Of Quantico Murder; Jury Rejects Theory That Wife Is Still Alive SERIES: Occasional BYLINE: Robert F. Howe, Washington Post Staff Writer BODY: A former Marine Corps officer who wrote a 26-step "recipe for murder" was convicted yesterday of giving life to his fantasies by shooting his wife to death, then hiding her body in the abandoned coal mines of eastern Pennsylvania. A federal jury in Alexandria took 16 hours to find Robert P. Russell guilty of murdering Shirley Gibbs Russell, 29, a Marine captain who was last seen March 4, 1989, outside the Quantico residential quarters the couple shared before she demanded a divorce. "I guess I'm the only one who really knows what happened," Russell said before the verdict, adding that he someday will write a book exposing what he said was a corrupt government investigation. The jurors, who declined to comment, apparently struggled with their decision, announcing yesterday at lunch time that they were deadlocked and later asking U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris the definition of reasonable doubt. By 6 p.m., the stalemate was broken, but only after Cacheris instructed the jurors to take another look. Russell faces a mandatory life prison sentence. Ignoring defense claims that Shirley Russell is still alive and in hiding, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lawrence J. Leiser said Robert Russell, 33, "came close" to pulling off the perfect crime. "He's a very bright guy. He thought it through very carefully," Leiser said. Shirley Russell's body has not been found, no blood was discovered in the Quantico storeroom where Russell is alleged to have shot his wife, and the .25-caliber pistol Russell bought days before the slaying has not been recovered. But what investigators did find, Leiser reminded the jury during his closing arguments Wednesday, was Russell's own "recipe for murder" -- notes he stored on a computer disk several months before his wife disappeared. Robert Russell's mother testified during the eight-day trial that the computer entry was the beginning of a novel that she and her son were writing about the murder of a Marine officer's wife. She said she had written "about two chapters" but had thrown them in the trash long ago. Leiser offered a different view. "It says what it says," Leiser said, pointing to a five-foot chart duplicating the 26 phrases taken from Russell's computer diary. "Is there any doubt in your mind that this man was planning to murder his wife?" "Make it look as if she left," Leiser read, noting that Russell told investigators after his wife's disappearance that he last saw her walking to a store five miles away in 40-degree weather to buy a can of paint. "How do I kill her????" Leiser said, reading No. 15 on the list and highlighting the fact that it was written in the first person, "not as if Jake in the novel was asking himself how he would kill someone." Defense attorneys Frederick J. Fanelli and Drewry B. Hutcheson Jr. accused the government of character assassination for harping on Robert Russell's many affairs and capitalizing on his drinking problem, which led to a "less-than-honorable" discharge from the Marines in 1988. The defense lawyers, who announced that they would appeal the verdict, also argued that their evidence suggested that Shirley Russell is still alive. A handful of defense witnesses testified that they had seen or talked with Shirley Russell hours or, in one instance, weeks after her disappearance. Darnisha Thompson, a civilian employee at Quantico who said she knew Russell, testified that she saw the captain at Springfield Mall three to five weeks after she failed to turn up for duty and was reported missing. Thompson said she saw the woman on the other side of the concourse: "She looked at me in the eyes, and it looked as if she knew. She knew I had seen her." Thompson added that the woman, who appeared "disarrayed," vanished before she and her husband could catch up to her. Three other witnesses reported sightings. One, a clerk at Russell's Quantico apartment complex, said he saw her use a pay phone in the building about 4 p.m. the day she disappeared. A cashier at a Pennsylvania convenience store said Russell came into her store to buy a lottery ticket that same day about 6 p.m., and a Dumfries woman said she saw Russell two days later walking through the snow alongside one of Quantico's main streets. Hutcheson said the sightings supported the theory that Shirley Russell had grown weary of her demanding military life and the broken relationship with Robert Russell and had chosen to escape it all by going underground. "Shirley's decision was to drop out, to step out of society, to get out of Dodge," Hutcheson said. Sandy Flynt, a key prosecution witness, said she was not surprised when she heard Shirley Russell had disappeared. Flynt, a teacher at the Stafford County high school where Robert Russell worked in early 1989, said that she and Russell had been having an affair for months when he announced that he was going to kill his wife. "They had had an argument the night before, and he told me, 'Don't be surprised six months down the road after we get divorced to find out that Shirley is dead. I'm going to kill her,' " Flynt testified. Flynt said she tried to persuade Russell that the idea was crazy because he would be an obvious suspect. Flynt said Russell had an answer: " 'They may suspect me, they may think I did it, but they won't be able to prove it.'

Copyright 1991 The Washington Post The Washington Post May 1, 1991, Wednesday, Final Edition SECTION: FIRST SECTION; PAGE A9 LENGTH: 457 words HEADLINE: 'Murder' Entry Outlined Book, Mother Says; Woman Testifies At Ex-Marine's Trial SERIES: Occasional BYLINE: Robert F. Howe, Washington Post Staff Writer BODY: The mother of murder defendant Robert P. Russell testified in federal court yesterday that a 26-step formula for murder drafted by her son was the outline of a mystery novel they were writing about the fictional death of a Marine Corps officer's wife. Patricia Russell, testifying in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on her son's behalf, told the court that they never determined "whether she was going to be murdered by the members of a gang or be killed in an accident -- I say 'she' meaning the spouse of the man in the book." Robert Russell, a former Marine Corps captain, has been charged with the slaying of Shirley Gibbs Russell, a Marine captain who, prosecution witnesses say, was last seen March 4, 1989, near the Quantico residential quarters the Russells shared before Shirley Russell demanded a separation. A key piece of evidence in the case is a computer entry labeled "Murder" in which Robert Russell listed what prosecutors have described as the 26 ingredients of a "recipe for murder." Shirley Russell's body has not been found, although federal law enforcement officials conducted extensive searches of abandoned mines in Pennsylvania not far from where Robert Russell's parents live. Witnesses testified that Robert Russell called his parents from Quantico the day his wife disappeared and paid his parents a surprise visit later that night at their St. Clair home. Patricia Russell acknowledged yesterday that Robert's computer entry was first discovered in early 1988, when her son resigned from the Marine Corps rather than face charges of unexplained absences and improper expense reimbursements. Under questioning by Assistant U.S. Attorney Lawrence J. Leiser, Russell also said that she had finished "about two chapters" of the murder mystery she and her son were working on. "We were both writing a book about a Marine Corps couple -- officers in the Marine Corps. That's where the computer disc came in," Russell said. "I was going to help him with the female aspects of the story -- why and where a woman would hide jewelry, that sort of thing." Russell added, however, that when she learned that her son was being investigated by Marine Corps officials in early 1988, she threw away her transcripts of the unfinished novel. Russell said she had always encouraged her children to write, though none of their works has ever been published. She added that Robert began writing short stories when he was a child and that during the last few years, he attempted to write two books other than the murder mystery, a children's book and a story about a Marine officer who is drummed out of the service because of his drinking problem. Testimony this morning will begin the sixth day of the trial.
geovisit();