Thursday, July 5, 2001 - 1:30 p.m.

The witness, a forty-six-year-old male, is employed by the University of Mississippi as the curator of Rowan Oak. At the detectives' request, Tobias Whitman came into the Yoknapatawpha County Sheriff's Office for an interview. The interview was recorded on a portable audio tape recorder with the witness's knowledge and consent.

TA = Detective T. Armstrong

SM = Detective S. Murphy

TW = Tobias Whitman

SM: Thank you for coming in to talk with us today. For the record, could you please state your name and address?

TW: I am Tobias Whitman and I reside at 3063 Davis Drive, here in Oxford.

SM: And your occupation?

TW: I have been the curator of Rowan Oak since 1996.

SM: Okay. We just have a few questions to ask you today.

TW: Well, I do rather hope we can be quick about it. I must get back to Rowan Oak - this is our busy season, you realize - and frankly, I already took the time previously to tell your officers everything I know.

TA: I'm sure we won't take up too much of your time.

SM: We found some shoe prints near the groundskeepers' shed that were made by a men's size eleven dress shoe. And we took some shoes matching that description into evidence from your home. The results of the comparisons are still pending, but would you care to hazard a guess as to whether you were the person who left those shoe prints?

TW: Yes, I've been meaning to speak to you people about that. I'd like to know when my shoes will be returned. I need them to wear to work and to social functions.

TA: I see you have some dress shoes on right now.

TW: Yes, I had to buy these after you people made off with every pair I had. It's been very inconvenient.

SM: We're sorry for any trouble, Mr. Whitman. However, you didn't answer my question. Were you near the shed at any time leading up to the murder?

TW: It's quite possible, even likely. I often walk the grounds to check on things, to speak with the maintenance staff and to inspect their work. I am the curator of a museum. A museum that covers not only the main house, but the garden, the servants' quarters and other areas. Naturally, you'd find my footprints just about anywhere on the grounds.

SM: I'm sure you're right. But can you recall a specific instance of visiting the shed before the murder?

TW: I believe that I strolled out there one day - the day before the unfortunate incident, I believe it was - to ask the men to look at a door in the servants' quarters.

SM: Did you see anyone unusual on the grounds that day?

TW: To which day are you referring? The day I visited the shed to give instructions to the men or the day of the homicide?

SM: Sorry. The day of the murder. Did you see anyone on the grounds?

TW: As I informed your officers, I am not a security guard. I do not make it a point of wasting my time in watching the comings and goings of people on the grounds. That is an activity for which others are employed. So no, I do not recall seeing anyone unusual. However that doesn't mean that someone couldn't have come around with attracting my attention.

SM: How about this - did you hear anything unusual that morning, the morning of the murder?

TW: I heard some kind of commotion outside, but it did not appear to be any of my concern.

SM: You mean the commotion when the body was found?

TW: No, prior to that.

SM: Really. What sort of commotion?

TW: I couldn't be sure. It sounded like some kind of vociferous disagreement. Really quite inappropriate for a public place.

TA: Did you see the people involved in this disagreement?

TW: No, I did not. I looked out the window, of course, to determine whether I needed to take any action, but I did not see the parties involved. The disagreement ended shortly thereafter and I presumed the situation had resolved itself.

TA: Do you know how many people were involved in the disagreement?

TW: I couldn't say for certain, but I would speculate there were two - a man and a woman.

TA: But you didn't see either one of them?

TW: As I said, no.

TA: You didn't make any effort whatsoever to try to get a look at them?

TW: I looked out the window, as I said, but I saw nothing.

TA: And you didn't do anything beyond that? Like say, go to another window in a different part of the house and look out?

TW: Detective, I am a busy man. A marital squabble is hardly any of my concern, even if it does occur right at my front door, metaphorically speaking.

SM: A marital squabble? You think these two people were married?

TW: In my experience, Detective, only people in a deeply intimate relationship such as marriage become involved in disagreements of the type I heard. A great deal of personal involvement is required to generate that level of anger. As for those two people specifically, I could not tell you whether they were current or former spouses or merely dating or formerly dating. I simply don't know. As I have said several times now, I do not know who they were.

TA: So you heard what they were saying while they were arguing? That's what led you to this conclusion about their relationship?

TW: I did not hear their words, if that is what you're asking. I did, however, hear their tone and their volume. The hallmarks of such arguments are unmistakable.

SM: Do you think the woman involved in the disagreement could have been Lorie Jones, the groundskeeper?

TW: I wouldn't have any way to determine that.

SM: Do you recall what time you heard this commotion?

TW: No, I do not. Within an hour of the later commotion perhaps.

TA: Is there some reason you didn't mention hearing this commotion or disagreement or whatever you want to call it when you were interviewed before?

TW: I should think the subject did not arise. If I had been asked about it, I'm certain I would have reported it.

TA: Are you saying that they asked you if you saw anything unusual, but they didn't ask you if you heard anything unusual, so you just didn't mention this disagreement you heard?

TW: Detective, I would imagine that in your profession, as in mine, precision is crucial. Because I was not asked about anything I might have heard, I could only conclude that it was unimportant.

SM: Do you remember what you were doing on the morning of the murder? You told our officers that you didn't know anything had happened until you heard the sirens. What were you doing at the time?

TW: I believe that I was examining a recent addition to our collection. We have been lucky enough to come into possession of a letter that Mr. Faulkner wrote to some of his creditors. Due to the number of typographical errors and misspelled words on the letter, I was pondering whether he was inebriated or simply irate.

TA: And what did you decide?

TW: Definitely irate and quite probably inebriated.

TA: Figures.

SM: Mr. Whitman, do you know Donna Swinney?

TW: No, I do not.

SM: And did you know the victim, Achim Michaelis?

TW: No, I did not know him either.

TA: Well, I'm looking at two options here. First, you were messing around with Donna and something went wrong. You killed her and Achim was in the wrong place at the wrong time, so you did him too.

TW: Surely you'll have to do better than a poor "NYPD Blue" imitation, Detective. Your assumption is so laughable that I can't even get upset.

TA: Okay, option number two. You and your family suffered greatly as a result of the Holocaust and Achim just happens to be German and he shows up dead on the grounds of your museum. Is this payback and then Donna got in the way?

TW: Once again, your immature ruse cannot work. We have many German visitors at Rowan Oak each year. In fact, Gerhard Schenker was a featured scholar at the Faulkner Conference and I entertained him in my home. I have no problems with Germans. I would hardly think you could pin this on some sort of hate crime.

SM: You never know. We're just getting started. You were there, but didn't see anything. You say you heard something, but this is the first time you've mentioned it. Footprints like yours are in the area where the murder weapon was stored. We might be on to something.

TW: I am quite happy for you then. However, until you come up with a reason for me spending my time here, then I think I have had enough of this silliness.

SM: Okay then. You can go. But don't leave town without letting us know.

TW: I note that you have been watching too much "NYPD Blue" as well, Detective Murphy. Good day.

End interview 1:58 p.m.