◆ SpookStack

PRE Shee dee | 78 Sheppard v. Maxwell No. 16077 of Cleveland. He was a doctor of osteopathic medicine, specializing in Surgery, and a member of the staff of the Bay View Hospital. He was thirty years of age and was married to Marilyn Reese Sheppard, also thirty. They had been married for nine years and had one son, aged seven. Petitioner and his family lived in a house on the shore of Lake Erie, which house was owned by Marilyn. Petitioner was associated in the practice of medicine with his father and two older brothers, all doctors. He was in comfortable financial circumstances. “On the night of July 3, 1954, petitioner and his wife entertained friends, Don and Nancy Ahearn, in their home. The Ahearns left at approximately 12:30 a. m., July 4, 1954; Marilyn saw them to the door, for petitioner was or appeared to be asleep.on a couch in the living room. The evening had been a congenial one, and the Ahearns ob- served no indications of hostility between petitioner and his wife (who was pregnant) at any time during the evening. In fact, there were overt manifestations of af- fection between them. “Shortly before 6:00 a. m. a telephone call was received from petitioner by J. Spencer Houk, mayor of Bay Village and a friend of petitioner. Houk lived two houses distant from the home of petitioner. Houk heard petitioner say: ‘My God, Spence, get over here quick, I think th have killed Marilyn.’ 4 mee Houk dressed and with his wife, Esther, drove within a short time the few hundred feet to petitioner’s home. Upon arrival the Houks found petitioner on the first floor of the house. His face showed some injury, and he complained of pain in his neck. Esther Houk went up to the bedroom, at the suggestion of petitioner, to check on the condition of Marilyn Sheppard. She found Marilyn lying in a pool of blood on the bed. She was dead. The room was covered with splattered blood. It was determined that she had suf- fered some-thirty-five blows about the head by some blunt instrument, causing death. There was some conflict as to how long she had been dead when discovered by the Houks. The story given by petitioner to police and at the trial, was substantially as follows: As he was sleeping on the couch, he was awakened:by a noise coming from the second floor. He thought he heard his name called. He went up the stairs, which was dimly lit by a light in the hall. He recognized only a white ‘form’ standing next to the bed No. 16077 Sheppard v. Maxwell ° 79 where his wife slept. He grappled with the form, and was struck on the back of the neck which rendered him un- conscious. Before losing consciousness petitioner heard loud moans, as if from someone injured. When petitiner recov- ered consciousness, he examined his wife, found or thought that she was dead, determined that his son (in an adjacent room) had not been harmed, and then, hearing noise of some sort on the first floor, ran down. He saw a form running out the door of the house nearest to Lake Erie, and pursued it to the shore. There he struggled again, and again lost consciousness. When he came to, he went back to the house, re-examined his wife, and called Mayor Houk. Petitioner was unable to establish (1) the number of people in the bedroom at the time of the first encounter or the time of said encounter; (2) the duration of his uncon- sciousness on either occasion, or (3) the sex or identity of any of the single or several assailants he encountered. He stated that his perceptions had been vague because he was. asleep at the outset of the chain of events, and unconscious twice as it progressed. “In the course of interrogations by police and the County Coroner, petitioner was asked if he had had sexual relations with one Susan Hayes, an ex-employee of the hospital, in March, 1954, in Los Angeles. Petitioner denied this, but later admitted it when confronted with her state- ment of the affair. The state contended that Miss Hayes was the motive for a premeditated murder, but the jury returned a verdict of murder in the second degree. “The murder of Marilyn Sheppard capitvated the atten- tion of news media in an unprecedented manner. Editorials on the first page of a leading Cleveland newspaper, and news media generally, set up a hue and cry for a solution to the crime. An inquest was demanded and held, and peti- tioner’s arrest was suggested most strongly by at least one leading newspaper. On July 30, 1954, petitioner was ar- rested; he was admitted to bail, and indicted a few days later, on August 17, 1954. He has been in custody ever since. “The trial began on October 18, 1954, and on December 17 of the same year the cause was submitted to a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. :On Decem- ber 21st the verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree was returned, and petitioner was sentenced to life impris- onment in the state penitentiary at Columbus, Ohio... . f ' i t