Case Info
Courthouse: Fulton County, Georgia
Charges:
- Malice Murder – Not Guilty
- Felony Murder – Judgement Acquittal
- Verdict Rendered: 22nd August 2025
Judge: Rachel Krause
Prosecutor: ADA Vincent Faucette, ADA Brian Trepanier, ADA Simone Hylton
Defense Attorneys: Donald Samuels, Joel McDurmon
Victim: Melissa Wolfenbarger (Deceased)
Today’s Witnesses:
1. Witness #14 – Pete Ricketts – Dept. Crimes against crimes against children, women and missing persons.
2. Witness #15 – Liane Elizabeth Lacosse – Sergeant at Atlanta Police dept
3. Witness #16 – Richard Stein – Capt. At the police dept.
4. Witness #17 – Jarion Shepherd – Homicide investigator
5. Witness #18 – Dr. Mary Beth Hauptie – Forensic Odonatologist
6. Witness #19 – Dr. Mark Gilbeau Anthropologist
Lets dive into today’s witness testimonies
1. Witness #14 – Pete Ricketts – Dept. Crimes against crimes against children, women and missing persons.
1. Direct Exam
a. He testifies to dealing with the missing persons report and investigating Cathy Wolfenbarger and she being reluctant in giving information.
b. He testifies to interviewing Christopher Wolfenbarger on 12th September 2001, 18th months after the initial missing persons report. He wasnt aware of an investigation or body parts being found in Atlanta.
c. He testifies to the notes that was taken during the interview. He testifies that it was noted in his report that he got married to Mellissa in 1995 despite mentioning 1992 as well.
d. A video was brought into evidence of his interview with Chris back in 2001
e. He testifies that Christopher had said that him and Melissa were together in December 1998 and last saw her walking on the street in 1999 saying she looked sick and possible drug use and said she may have been involved with someone named Mike.
f. He testifies to being the one to put Melissa’s dental records into the system on 3rd December 2001 to aide in the finding of Melissa. He testifies to being contacted about the records on 12th March 2003 regarding the records.
g. He testifies to interviewing Chris again on March 2003 but didnt have the dates recorded. He says he was interviewing with detective Calhoun. He cant recall specifically when Chris had said from the interview that he last saw Melissa.
h. He testifies to giving his files over to detective Calhoun to continue his investigations.
2. Cross Exam 1:00:00
a. Defense asks him if he is working off memoriy and He testifies that there should have been a report generated for him of the interviews
No redirect exam
2. Witness #15 Liane Elizabeth Lacosse – Sergeant at Atlanta Police dept [1:05:00]
1. Direct Exam
a. She testifies to there being a search by the Kadaver dogs that was in a different jurisdiction.
b. She testifies to her involvement in the Christopher Wolfenbarger case and says that the report she had didnt produce any evidentiary value.
c. She was testifying to overseeing an interview with Chris
1. There was a long sidebar regarding the confrontation clause as statements from Christopher’s police interview were proffered by the state to be presented through a witness that didnt solicit the statements or even present in court. The judge sustained this objection
2. Cross Exam
a. Quick cross exam about her involvement with the Kadaver search team and she said that she wasnt part of the search and no search was done.
No redirect exam
3. Witness #16 Richard Stein – Capt. At the police dept.
1. Direct Exam
a. He testifies that he became involved in the case due to involvement of Abate and Adrianne Love back in 2021
b. He testifies to checking the evidence they had, he says there was difficulty locating evidence such as a phone that was irretrievable and explains why he was unable to locate a video tape.
c. He says that the results from the bags didnt have or hold evidentiary value.
2. Cross Exam
a. The defense highlights the involvement of a news station and podcasts being involved in 2021.
b. The defense highlights the DNA results in the reports where Christopher was excluded from the report.
No redirect Exam
4. Witness #17 Jarion Shepherd – Homicide investigator
1. Direct Exam
a. He testifies to what determines a cold case and who they suspected in the case and says the reason for this suspicion is because of both having a violent relationship.
b. He testifies to the patterns of domestic violence victims and how they usually fall back into relations with their abuser.
c. He testifies that Melissa never showed up for court for a battery case on March 15th 1999 and how her head was found the next month.
d. He testifies that the torso not being found was important to his investigation.
e. He testifies that her head was removed by a saw and the saw became important in his investigation. He testifies to interviewing Chris’s employers regarding the ownership of a saw.
f. He testified that her limbs and head was removed by a saw.
g. He testifies to also interviewing Christopher at his home and he was with Sergeant Leighton says that he was with his girlfriend and the interview lasted for an hour.
h. He testifies that the interview was non custodial and Chris wasnt under arrest etc.
i. He testifies that he asked Chris why he had not reported his wife missing and also speaking to Chris regarding his possession of a saw.
j. An audio recording of the 2021 interview was played.
i. Chris says that he does not remember what he told Calhoun about the last time he saw Melissa
ii. He also says that he doesnt know whether she was seeing other people.
iii. He talks about a saw that was missing and he doesnt know anything about it.
iv. He says that he doesnt remember an altercation at the waffle house.
v. He mentions the criminality of the family in the audio and says that they probably killed her but says he doesnt know.
k. He testifies that it was a red flag for him as he would have expected a husband to look for their wife.
After the break, the defense made a motion to limit the testimony that the DV expert is to testify to and the state argued that they are only going to be a general testimony. The defense had a valid point as the defence is not pleading self defense and he does have a DV record, but the state is arguing to not using the witness to say he is an abuser and was allowed. That was my understanding
2. Cross exam
a. He testifies to not talking to Officer Sutton and only focusing on his police report.
b. He testifies that the DV order that was dismissed wasnt relevant to their investigation as he was focusing on the homicide.
c. He testifies that he was dragged and having the injuries from that night. He says that they dont speak to the officer and only refer to the reports that were made.
d. The defense highlights that Chris was cooperative and inviting to the detective for their interview.
e. The defense highlights if Chris had a right to be suspicious of his activities with his in laws.
f. He testified that his wife lied saying he wasnt there.
g. The defense highlights regarding the DNA evidence that was given by Chris and it coming back negative, and he says that he had in the back of his mind that DNA degrades over time so he didnt follow up.
3. Redirect Exam
a. The state went through the possible things that could degrade DNA like water e.g. The rain testimony and he says these can impact results but thats not going to stop them collecting DNA.
b. An audio recording was played of the interview with detective Calhoun with Detective Stein. Chris said that he saw Mellissa in March or April.
c. He testified that Chris had destroyed his search warrant and was found in a makeshift hole in the wall next to his appliance
4. Recross Exam
a. The defense highlights where the substance of the rainfall came from and he testified that he got it from the report that her hair was wet, the report was shown to be only mists.
b. The defense highlights the inconsistencies in the detectives questioning of his client regarding the last time he had seen Melissa that would mean different results.
5. Witness #18 Dr. Mary Beth Hauptie – Forensic Odonatologist
1. Direct Exam
a. She testifies to her qualifications as a dentist as a prerequisite to having a specialisation in her role of a forensic odonatologist. She says that her job is to recognise the unrecognisable as she is called to find those that are unrecognisable.
b. She testifies to being involved in the Melissa Wolfenbarger case as she was the one that took the phone call and was accompanied by the medical examiner Robert Parker. She says that this happened in 1999 but cannot remember the exact date.
c. She testifies that the head that was found was decomposed and she could see an underlying bone.
d. She tesifies about being able to identify Melissa’s body while she was on the scene.
e. She testifies to identifying the skull to belong to Melissa Wolfenbarger on the 14th March 2003.
2. Cross Exam
a. The state highlights that a few descrepancies in the report like her date of birth which was 1970 and she testifies that there are some parts of the report can answered by the medical examiner.
3. Recross Exam
a. Nothing much of note.
6. Witness #19 – Dr. Mark Gilbeau Anthropologist
1. Direct Exam
a. He testified to assisting in the case of Melissa and being aware of her remains being recovered.
b. He testifies what happens to the remains when in their custody and he says that the remains would be in a cooler and that is what happened in this case. He also explained the role of a pathologist who prepares the body for the anthropologist to examine.
c. He testifies that the saw that was shown to him could have made the marks on the exhibits shown to him which was the dismembered remains of Melissa.
2. Cross Exam
a. The defence highlighted that the head was flesh clean and he testified that bleach was one of the ways its done so was running the skull under heat.
- This was to show that it was the lab that done this and not the killer [My thoughts]
b. The defence highlights the creation date of the method, and he testifies that the method was around since the 40s and 50s and based on this method, it was concluded as a white male skull.
3. Redirect Exam
a. Nothing of note.
4. Recross Exam
a. The defense asked when DNA was introduced in the States which he said was the 80s and the follow up was why didnt he preserve DNA which he said his first priority was to preserve tissue but it would be prudent for those before him to preserve the DNA
This answer is helpful for the defense as it shows a potential failing in the chain of custody. [My Thoughts]
Court Adjourned for the Day!
Hope you are now caught up with the substance of what happened in court on Day 4.
Thanks for reading xo
Sources:
Trial Footage, Available on Youtube via Law & Crime Trials, Youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX4SHg630QI
All court filings pertaining to the trial courtesy of @Happily_Angry_Lawyer aka Jim Robichaud, Available online, PDFs: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uXAurgwIdxLj5vum-hnMkvv9ZnDSZV_M
