Friday, August 10, 2012

Marshall Livingston

Painted Wall
Portland, Oregon December 2, 1982
Saturday evening. May 30, 1981, started out as an evening of heavy drinking at the home of 44-year-old John David Pierce. That aspect of the case was not unusual, according to police, particularly since heavy drinking was a common occurrence at the Pierce household not necessarily restricted to weekends. It was also common for the drinking to turn into heated family arguments bet­ween Pierce, his wife, and his four stepchil­dren. What was uncommon, however, was that Pierce disappeared on that late spring Saturday evening and was not seen again, alive.
It wasn’t until Monday morning, June 1st, however, that the Portland Police Bureau’s Missing Persons Division received a phone call from Pierce’s wife. She was frantic, out of her mind with worry, over the sudden mysterious disappearance of her husband.
“Please, come quickly, my husband is missing!” pleaded the crying woman, obvi­ously in a state nearing hysteria. But the de­tective who took her call remained calm, as he was trained to do in situations like these, and insisted that the woman slow down and give him the details about her missing husband in a more composed and chronological order. As he was talking to the woman the detective entered into his daily log the date and time, day of the week, and the name and address of the caller.
After the apparently distraught woman re­gained some of her composure, she began giving the detective sketchy details of her husband’s disappearance, explaining that he left their house drunk and in a hurry, after the family altercation reached its peak. When asked why she hadn’t reported her husband’s disappearance sooner, Mrs. Pierce reiterated details of her husband’s heavy drinking and said she thought her husband must have been sleeping it off somewhere. But when he hadn’t returned home by Monday morning, Mrs. Pierce said she began to worry that her husband had met with an accident or, even worse, foul play.
The detective informed Mrs. Pierce that there is usually a 72-hour waiting period be­fore a missing persons report is taken by police, the reason for which is to give the missing person time to either return home or to contact relatives to offer an explanation. But due to the mysterious circumstances sur­rounding John Pierce’s sudden disappearance and the fact that he had not been heard from, not to mention Mrs. Pierce’s pleading, the detective bent the rules a bit and took the report even though 72 hours had not elapsed since Pierce vanished. A short time later the detective went to the Pierce home, located in the 4800 block of Southeast 87th Avenue, in an attempt to obtain any additional informa­tion that Mrs. Pierce might have to aid the investigation.
When pressed for additional details con­cerning the events of the evening John disap­peared, Mrs. Pierce merely recounted what she had told the detective earlier on the phone. When not drinking at home, she told the of­ficer, her husband was known to frequent a number of taverns in the area, of which there were many. The detective entered into his notebook the names of those taverns John Pierce may have gone to.
When asked why she thought her husband had not returned, Mrs. Pierce said she consi­dered the possibility that her husband had decided to leave her and her four children, all of which she’d had from previous marriages, and said that their marriage had been “rocky” at best the past several months, ultimately becoming an “on again-off again” relation­ship.
She also told the detective that her husband was upset about her oldest son continuing to live with them while not working, and that Pierce was simply tired of supporting him. After all Marshall, the stepson, was 18, and Pierce felt that he was not making a strong enough effort to find a job. Aside from those details, Mrs. Pierce had no further informa­tion to offer the detective.
The detective told Pierce’s wife and step- kids that little could be done quickly because of the uncertainty of where Pierce might have gone drinking when he reportedly left his home. The cops would have to check out the local taverns one by one, she was told, a time consuming process that could only be done as manpower permitted, particularly since there was no hard evidence that suggested foul play.
Despite the dismal outlook of the cir­cumstances at hand, the detective was sym­pathetic and made every effort to console Mrs. Pierce and her family, assuring them that other detectives and officers would begin searching for the missing man as soon as possible. Mrs. Pierce was also told to expect additional investigators, who would probably want to go through some of Pierce’s personal belongings to search for clues that might point to his whereabouts.
As a matter of routine the Oregon State Police were soon notified of Pierce’s disap­pearance by the Portland Police Bureau, just in case Pierce had been involved in an acci­dent that went unreported or was not even witnessed on one of the state’s highways. If Pierce was drunk when he !eh home, the cops reasoned, it was entirely possible that he drove his car over one of several embank­ments m the area, an accident that could go undiscovered indefinitely.
The next step was to check out all the Port­land area hospitals to determine whether or not John Pierce had been admitted over the previous weekend. But each time they. queried hospital admission clerks, the investigators always received the same negative answers.
After determining that Pierce had not been hospitalized, detectives from the Portland Police Bureau began checking out their thin leads by calling on the various taverns that Pierce was known to have frequented. They presented a photo of the missing man to bar­tenders as well as patrons, but much to their dismay no one recalled having seen Pierce recently.
Frustrated by the lack of clues in the case, investigators turned to the missing man’s friends and relatives for help. But with each additional person they questioned, their at­tempts to uncover anything significant proved futile. Hitting one dead end after another, police soon exhausted all of their leads with­out finding anyone who recalled seeing Pierce on the days preceding his disappearance.
After going through his personal belong­ings, investigators ruled out the possibility that Pierce had deserted his family, a rea­sonable assumption since it was known that he had not taken any clothes or other person­al items with him.
As one day followed another, Portland police detectives were becoming less and less optimistic about the case. Pierce’s house had seemed in order, and with Mrs. Pierce’s statements there was no need to go over the home with a fine tooth comb, so to speak. Everything considered, the sleuths had not been able to learn much more about the mys­terious disappearance of John Pierce than had Pierce’s wife and relatives. And with such sketchy details and the apparent absence of any clues, the cops could not even come up with a plausible theory, although nobody on the force really expected Pierce to turn up alive at this point.
By the next day and still no word or sign of the missing man, crime experts returned to the Pierce home with hopes that Mrs. Pierce had remembered something important that she had not previously reported. But she remem­bered nothing additional, and the inves­tigators felt they were still at square one.
One of the investigators, Thomas Jenkins, who entered the investigation on behalf of the Oregon State Police, asked to see the master bedroom where Pierce and his wife slept. Not really knowing what he was looking for, but all the while hoping to uncover an obscure clue that might have been overlooked during the search of Pierce’s belongings by Portland police detectives, Jenkins walked slowly around the room taking notes. He noted that the bedroom had been recently painted, but his casual glance around the room revealed nothing that was particularly or obviously significant. Dissatisfied that their trip to the Pierce home yielded nothing of apparent im­portance, Jenkins and the other investigators left after assuring Mrs. Pierce that they were doing everything they could possibly do to locate her missing husband.
In the meantime, just when the Pierce case was looking extremely hopeless, the Portland Police Bureau received an anonymous tele­phone tip informing them that there was a body of a man lying on the banks of the Clackamas River approximately eight miles east of Estacada. But since that was out of the jurisdiction of the Portland Police Bureau, the information was quickly relayed to the Ore­gon State Police and the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department immediately launched a massive joint search effort of the area near Estacada, just off State Highway 224, cover­ing the thick brushy terrain by foot.
As the alert officers arrived at the area to be searched, they looked around to see it any­thing or anyone suspicious was in the vicinity, such as a fleeing person or a car parked with the engine running. But nothing of a suspi­cious nature was in the area, and the officers, not yet knowing the facts, were careful not to rush blindly into the situation.
As the officers entered the suspected crime scene area, they made mental notes of the conditions they observed, being careful all the while not to contaminate or destroy any evi­dence which might be present. At this point, however, they weren’t even sure they had a body on their hands. For all they knew, the call reporting the body may have been a sick prankster.
As the hunt proceeded, every patch of ground was gone over again and again, but to no avail. Hours passed quickly with no re­sults, and the search was, in fact, beginning to look hopeless. But they persevered nonethe­less, taking into consideration that if there was indeed a dead body it could possibly be that of John Pierce.
In the meantime, as deputies and officers and detectives searched for the reported body, new and distressing crime statistics were being released that placed Portland, the “City of Roses,” in fourth place in the nation for serious crimes among the 50 largest cities in the country, trailing only Miami, Atlanta and Oakland during the first six months of 1981.
Among the most recent findings released by the Oregon Law Enforcement Council were that the most serious crimes resulted in 7,067 offenses per 100,000 population in 1981, which is an increase of 6 percent over the previous year.
And now, as of this writing, Portland is leading the nation in the overall increase of violent crime for the first six months of 1982, where murder had an increase of 15.5 percent statewide. Multnomah County, in which Portland is located, had the highest rate of violent crime in the state, with juveniles accounting for 38 per­cent of the overall arrests for the more serious crimes.
Indeed, these are most serious and trying times for the residents and city officials of a community that once was well known as the country’s “most livable city.” the decline from which (due mostly to an increasing crime rate) has made it difficult for most Portlanders to deal with.
And the morning of June 3, 1981, as sear­chers were looking for the reported dead body on the banks of the Clackamas River, was to be no exception as an additional violent mur­der was about to be added to the city ‘s steadily growing homicide list.
It was at approximately 2 p.m. and only moments before the search for the body was to be called off that State Police Detective Thomas Jenkins and a state trooper nearly stumbled over the body of a man lying face down near a thicket of brush and thorns on the west bank of the river. Shocked and some­what horrified, neither man touched the body except to determine whether or not the man was in fact dead. He was, and while Jenkins stayed behind to begin taking notes, the trooper rushed off for additional assistance.
Considering the rough terrain and thick brush of the area, it is readily understandable why it took so long for the searchers to discover the body. But apparently the anonymous caller had known what he was talking about, for the body was lying near the water line in the general area that had been described.
Police wondered what the mysterious caller, the sex of whom had not been determined, had been doing in such a remote area. Was he (or she) a fisherman, who merely stumbled onto the body but didn’t want to get involved? Or was the caller the one responsible for the death of the man found on the riverbank? These were among the possibilities that had to he considered, but at this point in the investi­gation the cops had no answers. Only questions.
Traces of goose pimples were still present on the dead man’s skin, the pallor or lack of color of which was now distinct. The body was in a state of flaccidity, and had conformed to the contour of the ground on which it lay.
The reddish color of the lips and fingernails was now gone, and the eyes were drying and beginning to sink into their sockets. The eyeballs themselves were covered with a thin, opaque film, and the whites were becoming yellowish in color. The man had been dead for at least two or three days, but it would take the knowledge and experience of a medical examiner to narrow the gap of the time of death.
The dead man was a ghastly sight, and one glance is all it took for crime sleuths to rule out the possibility that he was a drowning victim. His mouth was twisted, convoluted in a violent manner, which was a clear indication that he died horribly. Judging from the condition of the man’s face and head it was presumed that he had sustained a severe heating with a blunt instrument, a reasonable presumption considering that the trained eyes of the detectives were able to discern traces of gray matter protruding through the cracked sutures of the man’s skull!
The dead man’s head was indeed grisly, actually repulsive to look at and all the more repelling to touch. The wounds clearly started out as bruises or contusions, police decided, but as the victim was continually struck with a blunt instrument such as a baseball bat, hammer or, perhaps, a tire tool, the contusions ruptured as the flesh was torn and the facial and head bones fragmented and splintered. In spite of the mess the body was in, the sleuths could see that the man was middle-aged. But he would be difficult to identify by sight because the only thing left of his face was bloody pulp.
The small amount of blood found at the site where the body, was discovered prompted some detectives to theorize that the man was killed at a different location and transported to the spot of the river­bank after death. Supporting this theory even further was the lack of brain matter and human tissue on the ground, of which there should have been a massive amount had the man sustained the heating where he lay. The only brain tissue was that which was exposed from the man’s cracked skull, and the only flayed flesh present was still loosely connected to what was left of the man’s face and scalp. He must have been killed at a different location, they reasoned, or there would he traces of tissue near the body. One thing was certain, though, all of the police agreed that whoever worked the victim over meant that he should die, because there was no way in hell that a man could sustain such a severe beating and be expected to survive.
By the time additional state and county investigators arrived at the crime site (crime site in a homicide investigation is defined as the site where the body was initially disco­vered, not necessarily where the actual homicide occurred), state troopers had cor­doned off the area to ensure the preservation of any evidence which might he present. As in most emergency situations, passing motorists slowed down to try and get a look, their curiosity concerning the emergency vehicles readily understandable. But a good policeman knows that curiosity seekers have to be kept out of the area to prevent unnecessary con­tamination of the crime site, and for that re­ason police barriers were put up and the pas­sing motorists waved on by.
Police officials followed proper procedures at the crime site in not allowing the body of the man to be moved any more than was necessary to attempt identification, and waited until technicians from the state crime labs and the medical examiner’s office arrived before moving the body from the scene. While they were waiting, an attempt to iden­tify the victim was made.
Grimacing, the chief detective at the site carefully “patted down” the corpse in search of the dead man’s wallet, which he quickly found inside the victim’s right rear pocket. Being careful not to move the body, the de­tective removed the wallet.
Inside was a photo driver’s license issued by the State of Oregon which identified the dead man as 44-year-old John David Pierce, and listed his address as being in the 4800 block of Southeast 87th Avenue in Portland. Aware of the ongoing investigation of the missing persons division of the Portland Police Bureau, the detective noted that the homicide division of that same bureau would have to be notified. The investigative jurisdiction, how­ever, would not be officially determined until the exact location where Pierce had been slain could be pinned down. In the meantime, the case would be handled by Clackamas County and state police authorities, who had begun the investigation, by observing the known facts and working backwards to discover who, what, where, when, how, and why.
Next, police photographers were con­fronted with the task of recording the scene photographically for possible later study or use in court. They took as many photographs as possible from every imaginable angle to obtain any information or possible clues which might get overlooked by investigators in the subsequent search of the site.
The photographers took general views that included not only the victim’s body but also the terrain which adjoined the scene so that it might be more easily located later by inves­tigator, court officials, and jurors. They also took medium shots from 10-20 feet from the body, showing specific objects such as trees. rocks, and even the river in the background. Finally, they took close-ups from one to five feet away, allowing for more specific detail. When they were finished, they had plenty of photos with enough detail that would enable investigators or jurors to relate them with the scene in general. As an added precaution, the scene was sketched by a police artist in much the same way that it was photographed.
A short time later the men from the coroner’s office arrived. Pierce’s body was routinely examined by a deputy medical examiner, but because of the severe condition of the body it was impossible for him to de­termine the precise cause of death. He specu­lated, however, that Pierce had been beaten to death, as had the detectives, but declined to comment about his suspicions as to what the murder weapon could have been.
The body felt cold to the touch, an indica­tion that Pierce had been dead at least 8 to 12 hours, probably longer. Because brain injury was involved in Pierce’s death, it is likely that his body temperature rose somewhat at the time of death or just prior to death, a condition that would likely affect the precise determi­nation of the time death actually occurred.
In spite of the many variables that affect the rate of body heat loss after death, the deputy medical examiner knew that it was vitally important to the investigation to obtain as precise a temperature as possible. To do this he placed a thermometer into the dead man’s rectum (sometimes it is necessary to make an incision in the abdomen and place the ther­mometer in the liver) and left it there for several minutes.
When the temperature was known, the medical examiner used a formula to estimate the time of death. Although the formula is fairly accurate, the medical examiner could only say that Pierce had died within the last 24 to 36 hours, possibly even longer if his body had been kept in a warm place prior to being dumped at the river site.
After taking blood, urine, saliva and fecal samples, the medical examiner authorized two men to zip up Pierce’s body inside a black, rubberized body bag, after which it was rushed off to the Multnomah County morgue in Portland where the postmortem would be conducted by Dr. William Brady, state medical examiner.
Meanwhile, additional troopers combed the area where Pierce’s corpse was discovered in a fruitless attempt to obtain clues. Many retraced their steps using the sector method of search, in which troopers were assigned lanes of designated width to search for clues.
But clues were scarce, and the ones they did discover didn’t point in any one direction. To make matters worse, their investigation had been greatly hampered by the heavy spring rains, a problem which prompted de­tectives to speculate that many clues may have been lost or washed away because of the adverse weather conditions.
In the meantime, the chief detective had the unpleasant task of notifying Mrs. Pierce that her husband had been found dead, after which she naturally broke down and cried. Her reac­tion became more intense when she was told how her husband had been killed and her emotions varied from deep sorrow to near panic verging on hysteria.
The next day pathologist and toxicologists in Portland converged on Pierce’s corpse and proceeded to conduct the autopsy under the direction of Dr William Brady who de­scribed every action and every finding into a tape recorder’s microphone. During the course of the autopsy proceedings, Pierce’s body, including all wounds, was photo­graphed once again. In addition, it was X- rayed for hidden trace evidence, and a chart was made for all birthmarks, irregularities and wounds. Dental charts and impressions of the victim’s teeth were made, and all of his clothing was marked and tagged for eviden­tiary put-poses.
Additionally, a state crime lab technician was standing by to gather evidence from the victim’s body. He examined the body for such microscopic evidence as foreign hairs and fibers, traces of dust and soil samples, and latent fingerprints. In addition, he took scrapings from the s victim’s fingernails, and looked for traces of foreign blood. Finding few useful clues, the crime lab technician tagged his evidence and left.
All in all, it was a difficult autopsy, and at first the medical examiners couldn’t decide on the exact cause of death. But by the conclu­sion of the lengthy postmortem, as well as an exhaustive examination of Pierce’s head injuries, the doctors and technicians all ag­reed that Pierce died a result of several direct blows to the head. They further con­cluded that Pierce had been dead at least three days.
After sorting through and studying the evi­dence so far obtained, the detectives began compiling reports knowing full well that they needed the presence of a relationship of some kind between the victim and the perpetrator of the heinous crime. It was a problem made all the more difficult because they didn’t even have a suspect to zero in on yet. At this point in the investigation, sleuths were beginning to consider that Pierce’s murder was a stranger-­against-stranger homicide, obviously the most difficult to solve.
Upon returning to Pierce’s southeast Port­land home to question his widow and family further, detectives were assured that Pierce had no known enemies. But when the cops pressed Pierce’s wife further, they detected a notable change in her demeanor that bothered them immensely:. As a result, they sought and obtained a warrant to search the Pierce home, citing inconsistencies in the statements of Mrs. Pierce and her son. Marshall Livingston.
When the detectives returned to the Pierce home, State Police Investigator Thomas Jen­kins was among those assigned to go over the house with a fine tooth comb., so to speak. Recalling that the master bedroom had been freshly painted, Jenkins decided to begin there. Using a single-edge razor blade, Jen­kins began shaving off some of the new paint to see what would be revealed, if anything.
Not finding anything significant on the walls behind the fresh paint, Jenkins decided to examine the carpet. What he found there turned out to be quite significant indeed. He and another investigator discovered blood­stains and smears on the carpet near the bed, and as far away as the door leading into the bedroom.
As he moved around the room Jenkins also found blood on the wall, which had been concealed from his view earlier by a picture. Feeling that he was on the verge of cracking the case, he took buttons from the mattress on the bed, removed a striker plate from a door that had blood on it, and had appliances re­moved from the bedroom and the garage to be examined for traces of blood. He even found blood inside a closet!
After sending the new evidence off to the state crime labs for analysis, Jenkins decided to question Pierce’s family members about the blood. But after noting further inconsis­tencies between Pierce’s stepson, 18-year-old Marshall Lee Livingston, and his mother, police detectives arrested Livingston on charges of suspicion of murder.
At police headquarters, Livingston was taken into an interrogation room and pressed for information about his stepfather’s brutal death hut, much to the cops’ dismay, he chose to exercise his right to remain silent. After further intense questioning, Livingston al­legedly broke down and confessed to beating his stepfather to death with a crowbar.
Just when it looked like the case was all wrapped up, police learned from the district attorney’s office that Livingston’s confession could not be used against him in court because it was taken after Livingston had chosen to remain silent. Without the confession, it looked as if Livingston would go free.
However, after much intensive investiga­tion, detectives turned up information that Livingston allegedly confessed the killing to his mother on the morning the killing took place. They also learned that Mrs. Pierce al­legedly told people on two occasions that Livingston confessed the murder to her. When detectives confronted her with this new information, she acknowledged that it was true about Livingston’s confession, but re­fused to help police any further.
Later, detectives brought charges against her for hindering the prosecution of her son, accusing her of buying paint to repaint the bedroom walls where her husband had been killed, and of helping her son dispose of her husband’s body along the banks of the Clac­kamas River near Estacada. She agreed to testify against her son if the prosecution would drop the charges against her, which they did.
Livingston’s trial finally began in a crowded courtroom on Thursday, October 15, 1981 before Multnomah County Circuit Judge Philip Abraham. In opening state­ments, John Colby, a Multnomah County de­puty district attorney, told jurors that Livingston killed Pierce because Pierce wanted his stepson to get a job and quit “sponging off the house.”
Livingston’s defense attorney, Herbert Sundby, told jurors he would not contest that Livingston “did that act that caused the death of his stepfather.’” but Livingston’s state of mind that night would be a central issue in the trial, and an attempt would be made to con­vince the jury that the defendant was “guilty of something less than murder.”
“There had been an incredible amount of arguing going on there for years,” Sundby told the jury. Sundby also told the jury that because of the heavy drinking that had been going on for a long time between Pierce and his wife, Livingston’s family life had been “rocky” for a long time. Because of the un­stable environment Livingston was in, said Sundby, the defendant lacked the mental in­tent necessary to commit first-degree murder. “You will find him guilty of something else,” said Sundby.
When Mrs. Pierce was called to the witness stand, she testified under questioning by Pro­secutor Colby that her husband did not get along with Livingston.
“My husband was tired of him around the house not working. He was tired of support­ing him,” she said. She also pointed out that her son, Livingston, was very protective of her, and that he would become very angry when Pierce got drunk and abusive with her and other family members. Pierce was her fourth husband.
In an emotional voice and with teary eyes, Mrs. Pierce told the jury how her son awakened her the morning of the murder and told her he had killed Pierce.
“My son woke me up,” she said. “He kept saying, ‘I did it, I did it, I did it,’ over and over again,” testified Mrs. Pierce. “He partly lifted my body off the couch and was shaking me,” she continued. “I didn’t know what he had done.” A few moments later, she testified, she thought she heard Pierce calling out to her.
“I thought I heard John calling me,” said Mrs. Pierce, “but my son told me, ‘No, he’s dead.’ I couldn’t believe it.”
Following the homicide, Mrs. Pierce told the jury she accompanied her son when he drove Pierce’s body to the location near Es­tacada and dumped the body on the bank of the Clackamas River. When asked about the drive, she told the court that she could not remember specific details of the trip. “All I knew was that my husband was in the hack of the car and he was dead.”‘ she said.
“I wanted to call somebody so they could find him,” she said of her telephone call to the Portland Police Bureau in which she reported her husband as missing. Instead of telling the police that her husband had been killed, she told them he was missing and reported the last time she had seen him alive.
“That was the truth.” she said, “but I lied. At the time I talked to them I knew he was not alive.”
According to defense attorney Herbert Sundby, Mrs. Pierce allegedly told people on two occasions that when Livingston awakened her and told her what he had done, he uttered, “Now you won’t have to cry any­more.” Mrs. Pierce testified that she could not remember whether her son said those words or not.
Livingston was convicted of murdering his stepfather, and eventually he was sentenced to a life term in prison.

5 comments:

  1. That was my Uncle, I was about 4 years old when it happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was my dad and i was 16 when Lee and his mom Ruth killed him. I new a lot of the story but there was a lot of details that i did not no. i was in tears. Ruth did not get convicted of my dads murder i know that before and after my dads murder things happened with her other husbands . I call her the black widow. I love you dad and i miss vary much.

      Delete
  2. John tired twice to fuck his step daughter - once at the river not far from where his body was found - and again before he was killed... this fact was known at time of trail - he even tried to get into the pants of the two young girls that was over to visit, Marshall - the reason Marshall and John had words! Only three people knows what happen that night - only one is a live to tell the story. What I can say is this - Mike was going to kick Johns ass the first time that he had learned John tried to get into Bonnies underwear, that's was @ 1979 just before they moved to the 87th. street address. Who's Mike you ask? The man that married one of John's daughters. Now as to the misinformation about John supporting Marshall - first Marshall was job hunting and the facts was this - John had been living off the child support Alice was getting from Loren's VA benefits all the years Alice and John was together. You see John made good money - but what was spent on his own child support - what was not - was ear marked for gaming, alcohol and his girl friend he had living in Eugene Oregon. Alice found that out when she tried to buy a item at the new Clackamas Mall grand opening - john had overdraft the visa account buying a ring for that girl friend in what I'm sure was one of his full gallon Black Velvet days on lay over in Eugene. Lets not forget that Alice was working before John - during her relationship with John and after John. I have not made it a habit of speaking bad about a dead man - but now that others have open that door - one should have real facts.... Alice first husband had taken a shotgun to her head in front her children - she divorce him @ 68 - it was about this time she met John the first time....She left her second husband after he had hit her @ 73, divorce him @75 - . @ 76 - met #3 - it ended @77 - then met John the second time, and married him @ 78 - I'm very close on the time frame - do not know the real dates... I personally know this information to be true as I learned of them first hand! How does this make the woman a Black Widow? Someone that had bad luck in relationships is more along the truth - but I forgot she was the one that had been used by a man that claimed to love, honor and protect until death do them apart.... lets not put any blame on John's actions - after all he was a good (hi) tax paying wishing to fuck anything that moved male jackass! Of all his children - his son drop in a couple of times, his oldest was seen once at a show, one went to the nut house - that was a shame for she was must likely abuse at school. One had problems, And the youngest girl only seamed to come over in order to ask for money. John was not a real bad man - just one that let his drinking destroy his relationships - Just like Marshall - human! What would you be will to do to protect your family? I did what I believe at the time had to be done....

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm sure you do miss him Jennifer - maybe had alcohol not been his best friend he would not have lost his life... Do you or for that matter anyone ask what did Marshall grain from his (John's) lost of life? I said I did it - but did I? who really had a reason - and was that reason not given by the victim from the deeds of his very own actions? How would you know? you only came around to see him when a need of a few bucks was of need - it just seemed that way when the visits where very short and money was past from him to you... Few know anything - yet people said what pleased them at the time - Nancy and your grand mother have a bone in their own closet, your father had a need to talk when he was flying high on the spirits, not all was nice or I'm sure 100% true! I'm the only person that knows the truth now - I can not lose anything - nor any reason to lie.... the person responsible for his lost was himself and my mother!

    “There had been an incredible amount of arguing going on there for years,” Sundby told the jury. Sundby also told the jury that because of the heavy drinking that had been going on for a long time between Pierce and his wife, Livingston’s family life had been “rocky” for a long time....
    Jenkins decided to question Pierce’s family members about the blood. But after noting =further inconsis­tencies between Pierce’s stepson, 18-year-old Marshall Lee Livingston, and his mother,= police detectives arrested Livingston on charges of suspicion of murder.
    At police headquarters, Livingston was taken into an interrogation room and pressed for information about his stepfather’s brutal death hut, much to the cops’ dismay, he chose to exercise his right to remain silent.

    After further intense questioning, Livingston al­legedly broke down "(did I) and confessed to beating his stepfather to death with a crowbar...
    Detectives turned up information that Livingston allegedly confessed the killing to his mother on the morning the killing took place. They also learned that Mrs. Pierce al­legedly told people on two occasions that Livingston confessed the murder to her. When detectives confronted her with this new information, she acknowledged that it was true about Livingston’s confession, but re­fused to help police any further....
    “My son woke me up,” she said. “He kept saying, ‘I did it, I did it, I did it,’ over and over again,” testified Mrs. Pierce. “He partly lifted my body off the couch and was shaking me,” she continued. “I didn’t know what he had done.” A few moments later, she testified, she thought she heard Pierce calling out to her. “I thought I heard John calling me,” said Mrs. Pierce, “but my son told me, ‘No, he’s dead.’ I couldn’t believe it.” Mrs. Pierce allegedly told people on two occasions that when Livingston awakened her and told her what he had done, he uttered, “Now you won’t have to cry any­more.” Mrs. Pierce testified that she could not remember whether her son said those words or not.

    Think - she had set up her alibi - who where those two and what was their relationship? I said I did it - but did I? that was stated at the time of the interview..... the question is not if I was in on the crime - no the question is who had a reason to kill him! I protected my family - Your father failed to preform that deed - their by given raise to the feelings that lead to his lost of life! That all - good luck....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lee don't try to blame mom for this YOU know what you did and you drink ass much as he did and you have nothing to show for your self and Jennifer I'm not going to here someone calling my mom a black widow again I'm the only reason your mother is where she is and i can make her be removed but I didn't so we can have some kind of peace after all that happened to us love always Allen

    ReplyDelete