Worth More Dead

Archer was murdered in Oak Harbor. Ketchum asked the questions and watched the pens on the polygraph move along the chart.
    Q. Were you at your apartment with Maria Archer while Steven Guidry shot and killed Dennis Archer in the Archer home?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Did you and Steven Guidry conspire to kill Dennis Archer?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Did Maria Archer ask you to kill or have Dennis Archer killed?
    A. No.
    To questions about whether he had known about Dennis Archer’s insurance policies, Pitre answered no. He also denied that he bought insurance on Bébé’s life when she was a toddler for any reason other than because he was preparing for a custody battle with Cheryl.
    Q. Was the last time you saw Cheryl Pitre on Sunday, October 9, 1988?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Did you leave your home on the morning of October 16, 1988, to purchase The Tacoma News Tribune and gasoline for your car?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Did you meet with anyone on the morning of October 16, 1988?
    A. No.
    Q. On the previous night—October 15, 1988—did your stepdaughter’s conversation with Della delay your going to bed?
    A. Yes.
    It seemed odd that Ketchum did not ask if Roland killed Cheryl. Rather, he moved on quickly to queries about Beth Bixler.
    Q. After your refusal to kill Duane Bixler, did Beth Bixler then offer that you and she could share in Duane Bixler’s $200,000 life insurance?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Was your response…also no?
    A. Yes.
    The polygrapher asked Roland if Beth had told him she was romantically and sexually involved with a man other than her husband. He answered Yes.
    Q. Did Beth Bixler approach you to have her van stolen for a sum of money to be given to her?
    A. Yes.
    The lie detector test ordered by Roland’s defense lawyer resulted in Ketchum’s belief that the subject had replied truthfully. At least, his physiological responses indicated no deception. There were several ways to react to these startling results. One was that Roland Pitre was an honest man, wrongly accused. Another was that the questions asked of him were carefully crafted to avoid those that would evoke the strongest response.
    It was also possible that Pitre was a human completely without conscience, one who felt no guilt and no remorse. Without those emotions or any real apprehension about punishment, antisocial personalities often pass lie detector tests. Polygraphs are not foolproof; they depend upon the person who administers them, the emotional state of the subject, possible personality disorders in the subject, and a number of other factors. Unless both the prosecution and defense agree, lie-detector results are not admissible in a trial for those very reasons.
    Verina Palmer wrote down what Roland told her. He seemed sure that those who read his version of the story would see that he was a much maligned innocent man and that the judge would feel the same way. Hadn’t he proved that with his lie-detector results?
    He had not.

21
    In December 1993, Roland Pitre was to appear for sentencing for First Degree Burglary, Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Kidnapping, Willful Destruction of Insured Property, and First Degree Theft.
    Chris Casad stated his reasons for believing that Pitre deserved an exceptional sentence. There were six factors to consider: abuse of trust; sophistication and planning; deliberate mental cruelty; lack of remorse; an especially culpable mental state; and, Casad stated, that Pitre’s crimes were more “egregious and onerous” than typical crimes in the four classifications.
    While it is difficult to say what makes a crime typical, it is true that most criminals don’t confine their nefarious plots almost entirely to members of their own families. Roland Pitre had been a flimflam man to get relatively small amounts of money from strangers, colleges, and government agencies but his master plans involved his wives, children, and mistresses. He appeared to have loyalty to no one except himself and concern for only his own wants and needs.
    Casad felt it was appropriate to impose a sentence of fifty years in prison and an additional five years of postrelease supervision.
    On December 17, 1993, Judge Haberly sentenced Roland Pitre to 240 months in prison (with credit for 268 days already served in the Kitsap County Jail) on Count I and 120 months (with credit for the 268 days) on Count II. It was less than Chris Casad had asked for but far more than Steve Sherman, the defense counsel, felt was called for. Roland Pitre had been afraid of getting twelve