The Bruce Brothers: Terror in Tennessee


Q&A with Former U.S. Prosecutor Steve Parker
(“Shell Game,” Forensic Files)

“Shell Game” told the story of the murders of Danny Vine, 27, and Della Thornton, 29, who were shot to death by three brothers from the Bruce family — all for a truckload of mussel shells worth $2,500.

 As a professional mussel diver, Gary Bruce knew Vine, who was a legitimate buyer and seller of the shells, the source of mother-of-pearl.

Thornton, a forklift operator, was Vine’s fiancée and together they had a Rottweiler puppy that also met its end at the hands of the Bruces and another man, William David Riales, on January 16, 1991, near Camden, Tennessee.

Crime family. Kathleen Bruce lied to police about her sons’ whereabouts on the night that they robbed Vine of his shells and committed the murders. She received eight years in jail for providing a false alibi, and the boys all got life in jail without parole.

This particular Forensic Files episode fascinated me for a number of reasons.                          

First, of course, was the reality that such horrifying cruelty could take place over a sum of money that would barely pay for a used Ford Focus.

Second, “Shell Game” provided some interesting backstory to the way mussel shells are procured. I’ll never look at all those Pier 1 mother-of-pearl-inlaid picture frames the same way again.

Menaces to society. Most compelling of all was something federal prosecutor Steve Parker said toward the end of the episode: “A lot of people were very happy [that the Bruce brothers were convicted]. It lowered the crime rate significantly in Benton County and the area.”

Attorney Steve Parker
Attorney Steve Parker

Fortunately, most of us have never lived in a town terrorized by felons like Gary, Jerry Lee, and Robert Bruce (plus a fourth brother, J.C., who did other horrible things on his own, although it wasn’t clear from the show what, if any, role he played in the Vine-Thornton murders).

But I’ve had jobs in a number of offices where the departure of one particular ogre or B-on-wheels washed away stress and conflict among the remaining co-workers.

I’m curious to hear tales from someone who lived in Benton County before and after the Bruces’ incarceration — and whether the residents ultimately felt like crocuses that could finally break through the March snow and feel the sun after a U.S. version of the Seven Samurai gave them their freedom. (Okay, maybe that’s overdramatic, but it is my blog.)

The aforementioned federal prosecutor, Steve Parker, answered some of my questions about the case in an April 20 phone interview. Parker now works in the private sector, as a lawyer doing corporate work for the firm Butler Snow in Memphis. But he still remembers vividly the aftermath of the Vine and Thornton murders. Below are some excerpts from our conversation:

Were you surprised that someone would murder two people over $2,500 worth of mussel shells?
I was a police officer earlier in my career — that’s how I put myself through law school — and then a federal prosecutor for 30 years. So, no, I wasn’t surprised.

The show mentioned that the Bruces used witness intimidation in their earlier crimes and, in one instance, blew up a building near the site where a witness was being interviewed. Did you know of any other such attempts by the Bruces?
Robert asked one of his ex-girlfriends to provide an alibi, and Mrs. Bruce began following the woman around to intimidate her. Some neighbors saw this and reported it to the police.

There was a TBI agent named Alvin Daniels, and he was out there working at the crime scene just after he got a cancer diagnosis and wanted to finish this case before he died. The Bruces would cruise around Daniels’ house to try to intimidate him.

Members of the Bruce family got in their trucks and followed Reverend Vine [Danny Vine’s father] to intimidate him.

 The Bruces thought they were invincible. And that made it easier to prosecute their case because they weren’t very smart about covering their tracks. They were very impulsive.

We had an eyewitness who saw them at the gas station. [The Bruces bought 10 gallons of gasoline to use as an accelerant and then burned down Vine’s house after killing him and Thornton.] We also had someone who was there the night they planned the murder and tried to recruit others to participate. They had a huge argument outside with someone who refused, and we found neighbors who heard the fight.

Della Thornton and Danny Vine
Della Thornton and Danny Vine

How did law enforcement contend with witness intimidation?
Normally, murder is a state crime, not federal, and normally we don’t have jurisdiction. But we accused them of robbery affecting interstate business. The shells travel and sometimes even go to Japan.

We took the case federal, so we had a federal grand jury about 90 miles away from Camden, so witnesses didn’t feel intimidated.

 We had a good team of the FBI, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and ATF. The ATF did the arson investigation.

The Bruce brothers and their mother were held without bail before the trial. We were able to prosecute J.C. Bruce early, so that let everyone in the county know they weren’t invincible.

Is the mother still in jail? And where was their father during all this?
She was released and passed away. There were no dads in the picture. I referred to the Bruces as Ma Barker and her boys during the closing argument at the trial.

What reaction did you get to the conviction?
Our phone started ringing. The sheriff’s office and other local law enforcement were very appreciative. We took out a whole crime wave.

Do you miss the drama from your days as a federal investigator?
Yes, as a fed you get to both investigate and try cases, which is compelling.

Did you feel Forensic Files was fair in the way the show portrayed the story?
Yes, very fair. It was a year-long investigation before we charged the Bruce brothers, and it was hard to get that all into 30 minutes. I was very happy with the way Forensic Files presented the case. 

Watch the Forensic Files episode on YouTube

Murder for Life Insurance on Forensic Files

“Why Are You Greasing the Stairs, Honey?”
Insurance expert Steven Weisbart provides some answers

At the moment toward the middle of a Forensic Files episode when Peter Thomas mentions the life insurance policy the suspected spouse took out on the deceased, I wonder…

Can your husband or wife just a) take out a policy on you without your knowledge or permission and then b) collect a six- or seven-figure jackpot after “accidentally” dropping a powered-on hair dryer into your bathwater?

The answers, according to Steven Weisbart, chief economist at the Insurance Information Institute in New York, are a) yes and b) yes, but it’s highly improbable.

Steven Weisbart, Ph.D
Steven Weisbart, Ph.D

Family affair. Your spouse doesn’t have to inform you about the policy, but “the law in every U.S. state says that the person taking out the life insurance policy must demonstrate an ‘insurable interest’ in the other person,” says Weisbart. “It means the person would suffer either a financial or personal loss if the other person dies.”

The insurable-interest conduit applies only to your spouse or other members of your immediate nuclear family, says Weisbart. So, that should prevent a greedy second cousin or double-crossing best friend from stealthily taking out a policy on you, injecting you with horse tranquilizer, and heading to Cabo San Lucas.

If your spouse — or parent or child — dreams up a similar plan, a policy’s high death-benefit may serve as a safeguard in the system. “If someone is applying for a $10 million policy on your life, the insurance company will want to know how healthy you are first,” Weisbart says. “So you’ll be aware of a policy because the insurance company will want to arrange a physical exam.”

Frankie Pullian
Frankie Pullian

Not so fast. Of course, a really elaborate murder-for-insurance-money scheme could mean finding an imposter to take the exam, as crooked undertaker E. Lee White did in his killing of handyman Frankie Pullian for a $980,000 payout back in 1980.

Even if your ill-intentioned spouse successfully takes that tack, however, your manner of death could trigger a police investigation and subsequent denial of an insurance payout.

Craig Rabinowitz, for example, tried to collect $1.5 million in insurance money after drowning his wife, Stefanie Rabinowitz, in a bathtub in 1997, but the coroner denied his request to have her buried by the next sundown — and uncovered enough evidence to compel Rabinowitz to confess to the crime.

Likewise, E. Lee White was caught because of suspicious circumstances surrounding Frankie Pullian’s death.

Stefanie Rabinowitz
Stefanie Rabinowitz

Killing for a pittance. So, what happens to all that insurance money once law enforcement has uncovered the wrongdoing? I always assumed companies alerted authorities to suspicious deaths in the hopes of avoiding payouts.

That’s not necessarily true, according to Weisbart. “The company could give the money to a court and let it decide who gets it,” he says. “It could end up going to your estate or to a different relative.”

Now, as at least one Forensic Files episode has pointed out, and Weisbart confirmed, if your spouse takes out a small enough policy, the insurance company will most likely pay off without any investigation. But that plan doesn’t always work. Vicki Gillette was murdered by her husband for just $27,000 in 1984, but he remarried 11 days later — raising suspicions and ultimately landing him in jail.

Vici Gillette
Vicki Gillette

The takeaway? Marry and befriend people who watch Forensic Files — they will know better than to chase riches via an insurance policy and a homicide. — RR


Next: Former federal prosecutor Steve Parker discusses the Bruce brothers’ murder of Danny Vine and Della Thornton

Opening Statement

Welcome to a new blog devoted to true-crime entertainment — starting with my favorite TV series, Forensic Files.

Since it began in 1996, Forensic Files has rendered me helpless to hit the off button, even during four-hour marathons of episodes I’ve already seen three times.

But why? I have only a marginal interest in the likes of mitochondrial DNA and medium-velocity blood splatter — the scientific content that is the reason for the show’s existence.

The first reason I like the show is structure. The writers and editors tell the story in a compact way in 30 minutes, without the pre-commercial teasers and other repetition that network true-crime shows use to pad themselves into an hour or two.

Next, it fascinates me that people who look and act like PTA moms and dads — the kind of folks who would feel guilty about grabbing the last cupcake in the office break-room — can dial down their consciences enough to murder their spouses and make their own children half-orphans.

I guess the series’ No. 1 attraction is the biographical element of the stories. The late narrator Peter Thomas told the show’s tales compassionately yet without exploiting the victims or manipulating viewers’ emotions.

But what about what happens after the closing music? The sentence-long epilogues that the producers have started adding to the closing credits are great — but I want more. I need more.

What happened to Pearl Cruz, the 15-year-old whose father used her as an accomplice to murder a beloved teacher (“Transaction Failed”)? How is Deborah Pignataro — who survived her husband’s attempt to kill her via massive doses of arsenic (“Bad Medicine”) — getting along today?

And I have a few legal questions, too. How did Ron Gillette, who murdered his wife by pressing her face into a plastic bag (“Strong Impressions”), get out of jail after only 15 years? Why did Clay Daniels — before he made headlines by plotting with his wife, Molly Daniels, to fake his own death (“Grave Danger”) — receive a sentence of only 30 days for molesting his 7-year-old cousin?

With this blog, I hope to answer those types of questions and invite queries and perspective from other fans of Forensic Files and, in time, explore true-crime movies and books as well. Please come along with me for our own investigation.RR


The first True Crime Truant post: Q&A with former JAG attorney Mark F. Renner, who defended Ron Gillette

Ron Gillette: An Air Force Man Who Didn’t Exactly Aim High

Q&A with defense lawyer Mark F. Renner
(Forensic Files “Strong Impressions”)

Ron Gillette tried to kill his wife with sleeping pills dissolved in an alcoholic drink and, when that failed, he suffocated her by pressing her face onto a plastic bag on August 28, 1984.

Juana “Vicki” Gillette had two small children

To make it look as though Juana “Vicki” Gillette died when she accidentally rolled onto a laundry bag in her sleep, he put some clothing in the bag and placed his sleeping 3-year-old son in bed with Ms. Gillette’s body.

He did it for $27,000 in insurance money – used to finance a wedding to his girlfriend 11 days after the death of Ms. Gillette at age 26. Although the show never touched on other motives, it’s safe to assume he wanted to avoid the child support payments a divorce would bring.

I imagine that anyone who’s seen the Forensic Files episode “Strong Impressions” would be happy to let loose all manner of name-calling and cursing to Hades in the general direction of the former Las Vegas, Nevada, Air Force mechanic.

Mark F. Renner during his appearance on "Forensic Files"
Former defense attorney Mark F. Renner during his appearance on “Forensic Files” in 2005

But we already know Ron Gillette’s actions were awful. To offer insight into some of the related issues — like how an individual convicted of murder managed to exit prison for good behavior after just 15 years — I turned to Mark F. Renner, who was tasked with defending the ex-military man in 1985. A former JAG attorney who left the military and is now a magistrate of Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis, Renner agreed to answer a few questions:

Were you surprised Gillette got out of prison so soon?
Yes. I got a Christmas card from him and the return address wasn’t Leavenworth, and that’s how I found out.

I thought he would have to serve at least another five years before being considered for parole.

How did this happen? The show said he got life in prison without the possibility of parole. According to the ACLU website, no one sentenced to life without parole has ever been paroled.
When he was sentenced, it was simply life, not life without parole. Then the Uniform Code of Military Justice — the bible of discipline for all military branches, not just the Air Force — changed some of the rules, which ultimately applied positively to Ron’s case.

Ronald Gillette
Ron Gillette resumed life with his second wife once he left prison

As one of his defense lawyers, did you really believe he was innocent?
I never thought he was innocent. No lawyer approaches a defense having to believe someone’s innocent. What you’re doing is compelling the government to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The death penalty was on the table, so our real focus was defending him from that.

What about the brutal assault that injured Vicki Gillette’s legs? (Ron Gillette admitted that, 18 months before her death, he had broken both her kneecaps in a fit of anger.) At least one web commenter felt he deserved 15 years for that crime alone.
He was never charged with anything in respect to the battery. He was charged with murder and faced a possible death penalty.

Did it surprise you when Gillette married another woman 11 days after Vicki Gillette died?
Yes, and it’s unlikely the government would have ever investigated the case as a murder if he had not remarried and brought his new wife back to George Air Force Base. The original cause of death was linked to possible alcohol and accidental drug intake. At first, they had not determined the suffocation and homicide.

I’m a big fan of Forensic Files. Did working on the episode about Vicki Gillette’s murder leave you with a favorable impression of the way Forensic Files creates its stories?
I found the part I had very appropriate, and I thought their efforts to be thorough were great. They wanted facts and information, and I appreciated that they didn’t try to dramatize or minimize anything.


Watch the Forensic Files episode on YouTube

Next: Steven Weisbart of the Insurance Information Institute explains why it’s not so easy to profit by a murder plan

%d bloggers like this: