She and Him

All eyes and ears in the media-packed Courtroom 1 were fixed on Nancy Schultz as she testified how she found her husband in a pool of blood in their driveway after seeing multi-millionaire John du Pont gun him down two weeks ago.
Mrs. Schultz recalled at du Pont's hearing Friday on murder charges that she heard the first shot while inside her living room and a ``loud scream.''
Seconds later she heard a second shot, and as she opened the door, she said, ``I could see David's body face down in the snow.''

The mother of two children ran outside.
``I knelt down beside him and could see one visible hole in his back,'' she testified.
As a result of Mrs. Schultz's unflinching half-hour of testimony, District Justice David T. Videon ordered du Pont to face trial on murder and related charges and appear for arraignment in county court at 9 a.m. March 21.
The Olympic champion wrestler who coached du Pont's Team Foxcatcher was lying in a pool of blood next to his Toyota Tercel after going outside 10 minutes earlier to work on his car radio.

Schultz -- shot three times in the chest -- made several sounds gasping for breath, she said.

Du Pont's bodyguard, Pat Goodale, and Mrs. Schultz rolled the victim over and she tried to put pressure on the wounds. But only a few seconds later as she cradled her husband's head on her lap, he made a gurgling noise and ``he passed away at that moment,'' she said.

She said she knew he was dead because his eyes were fixed.

Mrs. Schultz, upon cross-examination by Defense Attorney Richard A. Sprague, said she didn't see du Pont fire the first two shots, but saw him holding a dark handgun out his driver's side car window pointing downward at her husband's body. He was sitting in a silver Lincoln Town Car, an affidavit states.

``I saw him drop his hand and shoot David in the back,'' she said.

She said her husband's body flinched and then ``he pointed the gun at me...I pulled back.''
She told him to ``stop shooting,'' and then went in the house to call 911.
Under relentless questioning by Sprague, one of Philadelphia's best known attorneys, Mrs. Schultz, dressed in a black pant suit, never lost her composure.

After Sprague pointed out the incident the afternoon of Jan. 26 was a tragedy in which she lost her husband, he then asked her if she knew any reason why du Pont would want to kill her husband. Mrs. Schultz answered, ``No.''

Chemical company heir Du Pont, handcuffed and wearing a plain navy blue hooded sweatshirt, appeared expressionless as he was escorted by two deputy sheriffs into the ornate yellow-walled courtroom topped by a lustrous wooden judge's bench. Seven copper chandeliers and a larger center brass chandelier hung overhead, a contrast to the tiny, spartan Newtown district court, from which the hearing was moved to accommodate the throng of news media from throughout the country and curious spectators.
District Justice David Videon explained the purpose for the preliminary hearing, his various rights and recited the charges of murder and related offenses against him.

Sprague then briefly conferred with du Pont and Sprague said, ``My client advised me he doesn't understand what you have said'' and isn't going to answer anything.
Sprague said that until the issue of du Pont's competency has been litigated and determined, a hearing should not be held and should be continued. Videon denied the motions.

On Thursday, du Pont underwent neurological tests at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia at his expense at the request of his attorneys by top neuro-surgeons to determine whether their client's ``erratic behavior'' was caused by some brain disorder, such as epilepsy, a brain tumor or lesion.

Sprague at the onset also cited the need for any exculpatory evidence from the prosecution that could shed light on the defendant's guilt or evidence.


The only document turned over at this point, Sprague said, ``has been one letter.'' He didn't elaborate.

When Sprague later asked Mrs. Schultz whether her husband kept any weapons in his Toyota, First Assistant District Attorney Joe McGettigan raised an objection and Videon sustained it.

Sprague hammered away at the witness to gain some insight into du Pont's reported bizarre behavior in the past, but Videon upheld the prosecutor's objections, again preventing her from answering.

She was asked if she had any conversations with her husband regarding du Pont's conduct prior to the shooting.

Mrs. Schultz said she didn't hear du Pont say anything during the shooting and didn't see him when he left the area while she went inside to call 911.


Du Pont, an expert marksman who once had an indoor shooting range used by local police, holed up in his mansion during a 48-hour standoff following the shooting. He was eventually captured without bloodshed.

When she told du Pont the police were coming, ``He pointed the gun toward me again,'' she said.

``I pulled back into the house,'' she said.

Sprague asked Mrs. Schultz if she was aware that the estate they were living on was ``considered by John du Pont to be the Holy Land of the Dali Llama?''and McGettigan successfully objected.
Sprague asked her if she was aware if her husband was building a bazooka, but again no reply was permitted.


Sprague also asked Mrs. Schultz if she knew du Pont had a vehicle classified as a tank, to which no answer was allowed.
A sidebar was held and Videon instructed Sprague to deal specifically with the circumstances at the time of the shooting.
Sprague asked if du Pont supported her husband during the years they lived on his property. An objection was again sustained.

McGettigan read into the record as an exhibit, the medical examiner's findings that David Leslie Schultz's cause of death was three gunshot wounds of the thorax and the manner of death was homicide.

Sprague objected to the reading of the exhibit, apparently because the pathologist, Dr. Jonathan A. Briskin, wasn't present.

Both Sprague and McGettigan opted not to make any closing statements.
``Mr. du Pont would you please stand,'' Videon then said. With that, Videon ruled there was sufficient evidence against du Pont to go to trial in Common Pleas Court.

Sprague signed the notice of arraignment for du Pont, who refused.
After exactly an hour, about 11 a.m., the proceeding was over. Du Pont was transported to Delaware County Prison to await his upcoming trial which is expected to become a major event in the county's criminal history.