Writing Under Cover of the Night brought back memories of another woman I wrote a book about: Susan McFarland in Gone Forever. Jocelyn, like Susan, was professionally successful and cherished by co-workers, friends, and family. Both seemed to have lifestyles that did not put them at risk of dying violent deaths. But these women were caught up in disintegrating marriages with narcissistic spouses who hid a secret side of their lives. Both of their husbands were convicted of their murders.
According to the United States Bureau of Justice, 3.8 percent of all homicides in this country involve women dying at the hands of their husbands. Although three-quarters of these killers had prior criminal records, it was not the case with Wesley Earnest or Richard McFarland. Depending on the study reviewed, 67 to 80 percent of men who murder their wives have physically battered them beforehand—for many it was escalating violence that finally turned fatal. Yet neither of these women were injured by their husbands until the ultimate, fatal act of domestic violence that ended their lives.
What can we do to prevent this loss of life? Awareness of the reality that this possibility exists is the first step; recognizing narcissism and the dangers it presents is another.
A review of the symptoms in the DSM-IV-TR reads like a description of Wesley Earnest. Narcissists possess a “grandiose sense of self-importance,” “exaggerate their achievements and talents,” and are “preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success.” They believe that they are “special or unique,” display “arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes,” believe “others are envious,” and “require excessive admiration.” Many people who encountered Wesley Earnest felt just that way about him. How many times had Wesley told his co-workers and friends that he was independently wealthy? What about his frequent insistence on being addressed as Dr. Earnest?
Narcissists are also “interpersonally exploitive” within relationships and “take advantage of others to achieve their own ends.” Wesley forced Jocelyn to forsake her dream of a simple cottage on the lake in exchange for the monument to achievement that he built. He used Dave Hall to borrow the truck that helped him commit murder. He manipulated Wayne Stewart at Taco Bell into providing an alibi.
Finally, a narcissist has a sense of entitlement and unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment. Wesley expected his attorney to believe his lies. He expected the same of law enforcement, and of both juries. He really thought he was smart enough and charming enough to convince others that the story he’d told was reality.
In his book People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck took it a step further, writing: “In addition to the fact that the evil need victims to sacrifice to their narcissism, their narcissism permits them to ignore the humanity of their victims as well. As it gives them the motive for murder, so it also renders them insensitive to the act of killing. The blindness of the narcissist to others can extend even beyond a lack of empathy; narcissists may not ‘see’ others at all.”
In The Gift of Fear, Gavin de Becker wrote about a dangerous myth in spousal murders, that they happen in the heat of the moment, when “in fact, the majority of husbands who kill their wives stalk them first, and far from the ‘crime of passion’ that it’s so often called, killing a wife is usually a decision, not a loss of control.” And the evidence of Wesley stalking Jocelyn is overwhelming and undeniable.
What can we do? We can learn all we can about the warnings that foreshadow spousal homicide. We can explore the psychology of intimacy turned fatal. We can teach ourselves to cultivate our intuition and never fear acting on it or speaking out about genuine concerns to others. We all need to see others and be effective in our evaluations of them. We all need to discern between ungrounded fears and intuitive responses to the often subtle signals of danger. Jocelyn Branham ignored her intuition on her wedding day, allowing warning signs to pass unheeded because she did not want to look foolish, or to inconvenience or disappoint her family and friends. How often have we all done exactly the same thing?
However, would leaving him at that altar have protected her against the ultimate act of violence? Maybe, or maybe he simply would have acted sooner. If she had kept her home security system armed 24/7, would she still be alive? It would have made Wesley’s mission more difficult to achieve, but he could have ambushed her on her way from her home to her car or in a secluded spot of Canadian woods. Killers are very determined people.
To my knowledge, Wesley has never been professionally diagnosed with any level of narcissism or personality disorder. My judgment on his psychology is merely my opinion, based on evidence of his behavior shown in two trials and backed by many who have crossed his path and by two juries in a court of law.
There are others with a different viewpoint, including his mother, Patricia Wimmer. Another person who still proclaims Wesley’s innocence is his attorney, Joey Sanzone.
He said, “I don’t know anyone who would put together such a complex plan and I don’t see that person in Wesley. You’d have to have so many different talents and that is not how Wesley lived . . . Wesley is very pleasant and engaged. He’s not brooding or mad at life.”
Sanzone also retains serious doubts about the evidence in the case. The blood found in Jocelyn’s home, although far removed from the actual scene of her death, bothers him. “Familial DNA may still be an issue on the blood in the bathroom. We may get a cold hit someday. I think the killer is the person whose blood was found, or someone who was there with that person.”
But the biggest issue of all for the defense attorney remains the fingerprint evidence. “This will be like the Sam Sheppard case but on a different issue. It will be alive, years from now.” He bases that faith on the evolving nature of all forensic science. He believes that, like many other techniques that have been turned on their heads in the past, the science of latent prints will undergo a similar sea change. He feels that the sins of expectation bias, the assumption of the number of points needed to absolutely identify a specific individual, and the current inability to correlate friction ridge measurements to the pressure applied will be altered by more research and we’ll end up throwing out much of what is now accepted as gospel as junk.
The massive changes in forensic science never cease to amaze, so I have to conclude that it is possible that he and Dr. Jennifer Mnookin may be right. But to me, the case was hardly even reliant on the print evidence anyway. Latent prints aside, I felt that the circumstantial evidence in this case pointed unwaveringly to one person: Wesley Earnest.
Whether I am right or wrong, one thing will always remain true. The violent death of Jocelyn Denise Branham Earnest inflicted a heavy loss on many people who will feel the grief for decades. And so I add another woman to the roll call of those I wish I’d had a chance to know in life. I do so with the fervent hope that this book will lead someone, somewhere, to act to save their own or another woman’s life and keep one more name from being added to my list.