The Case of Paula Roberts: Philip Willoughby
33:43 Share

This is Murder, She Told, true crime stories from Maine, New England, and Small Town, USA. I'm Kristen Zevey. You can connect with me at MurderSheTold.com or on Instagram at MurderSheToldPodcast. This is part two of the Paula Roberts story. If you haven't listened to part one about David Willoughby, I suggest going back and starting with that one first.

Prosecutor Herbert Bunker was furious. He believed that David Willoughby was guilty. He had a strong case, and yet the jury disagreed. What went wrong?

The day after David was found innocent, Bunker spoke to the press and was quoted in the Kennebec Journal saying he was dumbfounded that the state police hadn't interviewed defense witness Catherine Bloomberg, his alibi witness who placed him at the apartment house at the time of the murder. And that wasn't his only surprise. The biggest one was the alternative suspect theory that Moe Harrington was responsible for the crime.

Bunker knew that the verdict was going to reflect poorly on his performance, and he was upset. He said, "There's going to be some bloodletting at the Attorney General's office, and it's going to come down on me." The state police felt that Bunker had stepped out of line in venting to the press. The state police and the state prosecutors are on the same team, and this type of public outburst revealed internal dissension, a break in the ranks.

Bunker's boss, Attorney General James Tierney, got involved. Bunker offered his resignation. The chief public officer for the state police and the attorney general met privately about the outburst and released a joint statement. Having discussed this matter in full, we are in full accord and look forward to serving the public in pursuit of our identical goals. The state police rep added, I don't think it's productive to get into this hindsight type of nitpicking.

Attorney General James Tierney refused Bunker's resignation, defending his record of good work, but he did take him up on his request to be removed from Philip Willoughby's case. Prosecutor Tom Goodwin took the lead in Philip's trial. The week after David's trial was over, a credible threat was made against Judge Alexander. The anonymous caller explained how he was going to come into the courtroom and kill the judge with a handgun.

Security was beefed up and guards were on high alert. No one appeared, but it revealed the public's anger about David's acquittal. David's attorneys said that he had been dodging death threats and left the area to live with his sister, in part to start a new chapter in life, but also for his own safety. But they wouldn't have to wait long to have another shot at justice.

Phillips' trial began in Hancock County in the town of Ellsworth, which is perched right near the mouth of the Union River, some two hours east of Augusta. His defense team requested that it be held far away from the public wrath that might taint the jury pool. On Monday, November 5th, 1984, less than one month after his stepbrother was found innocent, a group of around 100 potential jurors filed into the majestic building.

Tuesday was a holiday, and on Wednesday, the group had been winnowed down to 41. Opening arguments were expected to begin Friday with the expectation that the trial could last up to two weeks, when a big wrench was thrown into the works.

Philip's mom, his stepfather, who had legally adopted him, and his sister Stacy were all called by the prosecution to testify against Philip at the upcoming trial by subpoena. Stacy, in particular, was classified as a material witness, a legal term meaning a very important one.

State police investigators tracked her down in Louisiana and brought her to Maine just for the trial. The Willoughby family appeared in court on Wednesday and filed a motion to quash the subpoenas because they claimed that they had a right not to testify against their own family. In

In general, if you are called to testify as a witness in a trial, you must appear and answer questions on the stand. But there are some exceptions. For example, you can take the fifth, invoking your right not to incriminate yourself. If you're a doctor or a lawyer, you don't have to testify against your patient or client. And most closely related to the Willoughby's plight, if you're married, you don't have to testify against your spouse.

They said that the same right to silence applied to families and that their private discussions with Philip were not subject to disclosure. Judge Alexander disagreed. He said that no such right existed in Maine state law, and he charged each one of them with criminal contempt of court.

It made no difference. He said that they would spend the trial in jail. They still refused to testify. They filed an appeal the same day with the Maine Supreme Court, and the judge agreed to postpone the jail time pending the resolution of the appeal. The judge asked the prosecution what they intended to do with these important witnesses, and the prosecution filed a motion to postpone the trial. They needed to regroup.

While Philip's trial was in limbo, David first moved away from Augusta to live with his sister, who was in York, Maine, and then later with his brother in Dallas, Texas. On December 12th, a month after Philip's trial's false start, attorneys met with Judge Alexander to discuss it, and everyone agreed to wait until the Maine Supreme Court had ruled on the family testimony question.

On January 7th, 1985, the highest court in Maine heard the Willoughby family's appeal. In a unanimous opinion, the high court said that they wouldn't rule on a hypothetical scenario. In other words, the trial judge was within his right to deny the motion to quash the subpoena, but the trial judge also should not have charged the Willoughbys with criminal contempt.

The Willoughbys, quote, "...must appear at trial and refuse to testify in risk of finding of contempt. Only upon the judgment of contempt at trial is the issue ripe for appeal," said the High Court. There was no legal basis for enabling a witness to obtain a ruling on family privilege in advance of trial. The Willoughbys had to roll the dice.

Were they willing to take the risk of being charged with a felony and potential jail time to protect their son? In February, the Willoughbys announced their decision to the press. No matter the consequences, they would not be witnesses for the state against their own family.

The new trial's date had been set for Monday, April 1st, but Philip had been stuck in jail held without bail for 15 months, and he was getting a little antsy. He was becoming a little too free about what he was saying to other inmates and correctional officers. His lawyer got word of it. The prosecution had interviewed some of his cellmates and jailers, and they learned that Philip had made some self-incriminating statements.

The prosecution has a duty to turn over to the defense any incriminating evidence, and when Philip's attorneys found out, they wanted to put a stop to it. In March, they filed a motion to suppress the new testimony claiming that Philip was suffering from a psychological condition called stir-crazy syndrome, which would make his statements inadmissible. They asked for $1,000 from the state to hire a psychologist to perform an examination. The judge approved $500.

Just a couple weeks before the trial, prosecutors decided that they wanted David to testify against his stepbrother. So they sent two state police officers to Texas to arrest him on a material witness warrant. He told the police he wouldn't fight the extradition and would testify at trial.

Phillips' trial had been relocated yet again. It had been moved to York County Superior Court, an hour and a half south of Augusta. On Monday, April 1st, jury selection began, and by Tuesday, eight men and four women had been chosen to decide his fate.

On Wednesday, the defense summarized their case to the jury. Philip Willoughby did not and could not kill Paula Roberts. This is a whodunit, and the state doesn't have the evidence to prove that Philip has done it. The prosecution led with their recent revelations from jail. This is a nasty crime, and I can produce as many as 15 people who heard Philip discuss the murder while in jail.

The defense countered that those conversations stemmed from fellow inmates taunting Philip.

On Thursday, David appeared in court. The defense petitioned the judge to prohibit his testimony on the basis that his truthfulness was questionable. Judge Alexander cleared the jury from the courtroom and heard David's testimony privately. He ruled to allow it, saying that he had no overwhelming reason to believe that his statements were false. "I am making no determination of credibility. That's for the jury. I am not the fact finder in this case.

It is not my role to decide in this or any other case which witnesses are telling the truth. The next day, David took the stand and testified against his stepbrother. He said that Philip had borrowed the tan Pontiac Valeri to get some beer and came back hyper, scared, and drunk.

He said that Philip had confessed that he had robbed a store and couldn't leave no witnesses. He recalled how he later discovered the frozen body of Paula, started to get sick, turned and ran. The same day at trial, the prosecutor played a recording of Philip Willoughby saying that it was David's idea to rob a store and that following the robbery, David returned home sweaty.

The jury had agreed to meet on Saturday in an effort to get the trial over with, so court convened on Saturday, April 6, 1985.

Two former inmates from Kennebec County Jail, where Philip was being held, took the stand. They said that Philip had bragged of committing the murder. On cross, they admitted that he'd included some gruesome embellishments to his story that later turned out to be false, and Philip's attorney suggested that Philip had likely lied to his fellow inmates to appear to be tougher. That same Saturday, Robert,

Rita and Stacey Willoughby were all called to the stand, and they each said, verbatim, "I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of a privilege and a constitutional right of privacy, which precludes me from being forced to testify adversely." The judge threw the book at them. He charged each of them with felony-level criminal contempt, jailed them, and set their bails at $75,000 each.

The serious charges would warrant a trial unto itself, but in the meantime, they waited in jail. The judge then released Robert Willoughby's grand jury testimony that had been given back in January 1984 to the public. He ruled that it could not be read to the jury trial, but that the public had a right to know what Robert said. The Biddeford Journal-Tribune released this statement.

Robert Willoughby told the grand jury that his stepson, Philip, told him that he and David, Robert's biological son, had robbed the Summer Haven convenience store in December. Philip told him that it was David who had killed 21-year-old Paula Roberts. Robert said that Philip was deeply involved with the crime, but that he believed it was David who had hit the woman with an iron.

On Monday, the attorney for the Willoughbys petitioned the Maine Supreme Court to lower their bail amounts, but for the time being, they remained in jail.

The following day, the final prosecution witnesses testified. FBI crime techs spoke about the physical evidence that linked the car and Philip to the crime, and so did a correctional officer from the Kennebec County Jail. He said that he was with Philip Willoughby when he was watching the news on TV. When the story broke about David's acquittal, he asked Philip what he thought. Philip's response? This just ain't fair because he did most all of it.

The defense began its presentation the next day, and they opened with an audio recording of Philip, where he said that David and another man, Kenneth Shepard, had committed the robbery. His attorney was trying to establish that Philip had said from the beginning that it was David who was primarily responsible. But who was this other man, Kenneth Shepard? Philip took the stand in his own defense.

I've never seen Paula Roberts. I never touched her. He said that David was responsible, and though he initially fingered Kenneth for the crime, it was actually Moe Harrington who had robbed the store with David. Philip had named Kenneth to protect his friend Moe. He explained that when David showed him a wad of cash and a class ring with the initials PR, he knew what he'd done.

On Friday, April 12th, the lawyers presented their closing arguments to the jury. Lead prosecutor Tom Goodwin pointed out that Philip's story bore a striking resemblance to his brother David's. During cross-examination, Philip had admitted that the story was identical, with only the names changed.

Goodwin told the jurors, "There was a tragic breakdown in the criminal justice system in David Willoughby's case. David Willoughby was very much involved with this tragedy, and there was an additional tragedy that he walked away free. But there's no way for you to re-decide David's case. Philip Willoughby is the person on trial here." Philip's defense attorney stressed the lack of physical evidence presented by the prosecution.

I told you in the beginning this was a whodunit. Philip was wrong to lie to the police in the beginning, but the state has not proven that Philip abducted and killed Paula Roberts or that he assaulted Dixon Smith. The case is difficult because of the lack of evidence, the lack of tie-ins. There's a gap that can only be filled in by conjecture. Please don't fill it in. While Philip's parents sat in jail, he too waited for the jury to decide his fate.

In three short hours, the jury filed back into the courtroom and delivered their verdict. Guilty on all counts: murder, kidnapping, robbery, and aggravated assault. The courtroom erupted with a mixture of emotion. Another life destroyed, but a triumph for justice. As Philip was waiting in jail for a sentencing hearing, his parents successfully petitioned the Maine Supreme Court to reduce their bail.

From $75,000, it was reduced to $10,000 each for Rita and Robert, $5,000 for Stacey. They posted bail and were out of jail. On May 8, 1986, Philip returned to face Judge Alexander. His attorney pled for leniency. He said that Philip was a follower and a wimp who couldn't have committed the crime himself. The judge, unfazed by the attorney's words, read from a prepared statement,

He described the evidence as undisputed and that he believed Philip not only killed Paula, but later went back to desecrate her body. He pointed out that Philip implicated a totally innocent man in his initial account to police. But what stunned him the most was Philip's total lack of emotion at trial. "When your family members choose jail rather than taking the witness stand out of their love for you, it appeared to me that you couldn't have cared less."

He gave Philip a life sentence for murder. In addition to the life term, he gave concurrent sentences of 20 years each for robbery and kidnapping and a 10-year term for aggravated assault. Philip, standing tall with wire-rimmed glasses and an ill-fitting charcoal sports jacket, betrayed no emotion as the judge addressed him but spoke briefly, "'The state used me as a scapegoat for their failure to convict my stepbrother, David.'"

He was transferred to the Maine State Prison in Thomaston that afternoon. His attorney promised an appeal. We all belong outside. We're drawn to nature, whether it's the recorded sounds of the ocean we doze off to or the succulents that adorn our homes. Nature makes all of our lives, well, better. Despite all this, we often go about our busy lives removed from it.

But the outdoors is closer than we realize. With AllTrails, you can discover trails nearby and explore confidently with offline maps and on-trail navigation. Download the free app today and make the most of your summer with AllTrails. This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace.

Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you.

Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com. Save $80 with code SPACE80 at Talkspace.com. I'm sending my Aunt Tina money directly to her bank account in the Philippines with Western Union. Oh!

She's the self-proclaimed bingo queen of Manila. And I know better to interrupt her on bingo night, even to pick up cash. Sending money direct to her bank account is super fast, and Aunt Tina gets more time to be the bingo queen. Western Union. Send money in-store directly to their bank accounts in the Philippines. Services offered by Western Union Financial Services, Inc., NMLS number 906983, or Western Union International Services, LLC, NMLS number 906985. Licensed as money transmitters by the New York State Department of Financial Services. See terms for details.

A week later, the trial for his family began. They, too, were entitled to a full jury trial. It was conducted in Alfred at York County Superior Court. A different trial judge presided. The defense cited a precedent set by a Nevada judge and explained that the public's interest is supported by fostering open, trusting, and confidential communications between a parent and child. Their attorney said, How

How many of us have ever thought that sometime we would be called upon to come into a court of law and divulge what was told to us, to testify against that person who had come to us for nurturing, assistance, for guidance, and for counseling?

The state prosecutor countered that the Nevada judge's opinion was not widely held and was outright rejected by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, where it said, There exists no authority or persuasive policy reason for such an extreme position, and it is this extreme position, an absolute privilege not to testify at all, that we reject.

But the defense attorney explained simply, these people aren't criminals. Philip's involvement in this crime was a tragedy, but it isn't right to make his flesh and blood put the nails in his coffin.

The judge said that it was not up to the jury to decide whether a right to privacy existed amongst family, but merely to decide whether the Willoughbys had broken the law by refusing the judge's order to testify. The instructions to the jury left little room for opinion about the family's unfortunate situation. Unsurprisingly, the jury quickly found them guilty.

Two weeks later, on May 31st, they returned to court to face the music at their sentencing hearing. The prosecutor made a recommendation for a heavy sentence as a deterrence to others who might defy the court. Judge Brennan sentenced Rita and Robert to nine months in jail and their daughter Stacey just one month. He explained, "...the parents made a conscious decision, and Stacey, who looks to them for guidance, followed."

Their defense attorney asked that the sentences be temporarily suspended pending an appeal to the Maine Supreme Court. Brennan agreed and allowed the trio to remain free on bail. The Maine Supreme Court later heard their appeal and considered carefully their claim of any intrafamily right to privacy.

Many legal arguments are decided by precedent. The legal system strives to be consistent in the administration of justice, and legal consensus establishes policy. The defense pointed to some examples of a recognition of a right to privacy of family communications in some cases in New York District Court and in a federal case court in Nevada.

But the prosecution found that every federal appellate-level decision and every state supreme court decision had ruled against such a right. This pretty much settled the matter. But to be thorough, the justices still considered the merits of their argument. They explained the ethos that guided their thoughts on the matter. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depended on full disclosure of all the facts.

and the courts must have the authority to compel the production of evidence, including the ability to punish those who don't comply.

As they explored the similar privilege of interspousal testimony, the justices were emphatic. In neither the U.S. Constitution nor in the Maine Constitution could they find any basis for intrafamily testimonial privilege. They said that the only witnesses who could refuse to testify were those that had an exception spelled out expressly in black and white.

Lastly, they challenged the sentence of nine months, pointing to an old main law on the books, which carried out a maximum sentence of just three months. The Supreme Court decided that this old law was an option available to the trial judge, but not a requirement or a limitation of his ability to charge them with contempt and sentence at his discretion. The three counts of their appeal were all rejected.

The decisions of the trial judges involved were upheld. The Willoughbys returned to Superior Court one final time before reporting to jail. Their attorney made an impassioned plea to Judge Brennan. They stood silently when the state compelled them to come forward. They upheld family values of loyalty and confidentiality. They encountered a crisis when a family member told them in confidence about events surrounding Paula's death.

He pointed to a Maine journalist who had refused to testify in another Maine murder trial because it violated his professional principles. That man was charged with contempt but was given no jail time, just a hefty fine. He told the judge, The sentence in that case should give you something to think about. The prosecutor told the judge to make an example of the Willoughbys. There should be a message that's sent out that this type of refusal cannot be tolerated.

Judge Brennan said himself that refusing to testify creates the potential for a great deal of chaos, so it's pretty serious business. He did make a concession, though, and reduced the parents' sentences to six months. No change was made for the daughter's one-month sentence.

While the Willoughbys had been focusing on defending themselves against the contempt charges, the state was still dwelling on David Willoughby's trial that was covered in Part 1, where David was acquitted. They felt that he had gotten away with murder. On October 8, 1985, exactly one year after his trial, the state charged a witness, Katherine Bloomberg, with perjury.

She lived at the 30 North apartment house and testified in David's trial that she had seen him right around the time that the murder was happening. She was arrested and arraigned shortly thereafter and made $5,000 bail.

Meanwhile, the state approached the U.S. attorney for Maine about what other charges could be brought against David. They couldn't try David again for murder because of double jeopardy, but they were looking into the possibility of federal conspiracy to commit murder charges.

David had moved away from Maine, but had returned in the late summer of 1985. And since his return, investigators regularly appeared in his life, reaching out to him for questioning. He could feel their presence, and the pressure of the Maine legal system still weighed on him. The day after Christmas, an investigator from prosecutor Tom Goodwin's office was paying David a follow-up visit, and he discovered David's body.

lifeless and alone in his apartment. He was living in Augusta at a Grove Street apartment house. His door was locked and he was found sitting in a chair with bottles of pills and alcoholic beverages close at hand.

Goodwin later said, "I think it's pretty clearly a suicide." The medical examiner agreed, and after the autopsy explanation was done the following day, he too ruled it a suicide. Regarding the conspiracy charges, Goodwin said, "That idea never got beyond the realm of just a possibility."

About a year later, the perjury charges against Catherine were dropped. Goodwin said that they didn't develop the evidence they expected to find in the investigation. He discovered that neither David nor Philip were at the house the time of the murder. But it wasn't enough to support the charge of perjury. He had to prove that Catherine knew that she was lying and that she had lied on purpose. Evidently, they didn't have adequate proof when they charged her initially.

As promised, Philip's attorneys appealed his conviction to the Maine Supreme Court, and on Monday, March 3rd, 1986, about a year after his conviction, the seven justices heard his appeal. The defense appealed five different points about the trial procedure, and the Supreme Court agreed with Philip on one of those grounds. The judge had disallowed testimony by the psychologist who had examined Philip in the wake of his stir-crazy, self-incriminating statements.

The psychologist, Dr. Brian Rines, was prepared to testify about Philip's tendency to puff up or exaggerate his participation. Philip and other witnesses at the jail where he was held all testified that there was a pecking order against the inmates that were determined by the severity of the crime.

Philip said that he wanted to get into certain cliques by bragging about his crime and saying anything that they wanted to hear. His jailmates testified about sexual details that Philip had divulged to them that were simply untrue.

They also testified about different and, at times, inconsistent stories Philip had told them. But the Supreme Court ruled that even if Dr. Rines had been permitted to testify, they didn't believe it would have changed the jury's judgment, so they ruled it a harmless error by the trial judge. On the other four counts, they more or less ruled against the defense and, in a unanimous decision, said that Philip did not deserve a retrial.

Philip's attorneys were still dissatisfied and appealed to the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court. Seven months later, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed his case and refused to hear it. Philip had exhausted his appeals.

Philip Willoughby is MD06556 at the Maine State Prison in Thomaston, and he is currently serving a life sentence. He is 6 feet tall, 390 pounds, has a large bushy brown and gray beard, and a shaved head. He's currently 59 years old. At just 21 years old in 1984, he was arrested for Paula Roberts' murder, and he never left jail again. Nor will he.

Paula's life, too, was taken away from her at just 21 years old. She and Philip shared the same birth year, 1962. She was getting ready to graduate from the University of Maine and begin her adult life. She had the rest of her life ahead of her. It was taken away from her in a senseless act of violence that was driven by greed and an instinct for violence stoked by alcohol.

In telling this story, I can't help but be reminded of Ashley Ouellette's case or Ayla Reynolds. I've covered both of these stories on previous episodes. In both cases, the evidence is conclusive that somebody in the Sanborn house or in the DiPietro house were responsible for Ashley or Ayla's death. But who was responsible? What do prosecutors do when two brothers are pointing the finger at one another? Who do you convict?

Who do you believe? In Paula Roberts' case, the car involved was undisputed. But there were three people who had access to that car. David, Philip, and Maurice. It was undisputed that two men were involved in Paula's death. David said it was Maurice and Philip. Maurice said it was David and Philip. And Philip said it was David and Maurice. What do you do when everybody says, "It wasn't me"?

I can only trust in the prosecution's judgment not to indict Maurice Harrington. It was only his fingerprints that weren't found at the scene. He was never charged with any crime relating to Paula's death, so I assume that all of the evidence pointed to David and Philip. But that evidence wasn't enough for a jury to convict David beyond a reasonable doubt. And although there is finality to the situation, questions still remain.

I wonder today, if we were to ask Philip Willoughby who killed Paula Roberts, what would he say? If you or somebody you know are struggling with mental health and suicidal thoughts, help is available 24/7. I encourage you to reach out and call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You are important and your life matters.

I want to thank you so much for listening. I'm so grateful that you chose to tune in and I couldn't be here without you. Thank you. If you want to support and contribute to the show, there's a link in the show notes with options. Leaving a nice review or telling a friend is a great way to support too. You can connect with me on Facebook or Instagram at MurderSheToldPodcast. A detailed list of sources can be found on the blog at MurderSheTold.com linked in the show notes.

Thank you to Byron Willis for his research and writing support. If you would like to make a suggestion for a future episode or a correction, feel free to reach out to me at hello at murdershetold.com. My only hope is that I've honored your stories and keeping the names of your family and friends alive. I'm Kristen Sevey, and this is Murder, She Told. Thank you for listening.