NEW BOSTON, Texas (KTAL/KMSS) – Testimony wrapped up early Wednesday in the penalty phase of Taylor Parker’s capital murder trial in Bowie County after jurors heard from a former corrections officer who befriended the convicted killer and claims she has been mistreated at the jail.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Parker, who was convicted Oct. 3 in the brutal murder of 21-year-old Reagan Hancock and the fetal kidnapping of her unborn baby girl, Braxlynn Sage. Parker’s defense team is asking the jury to sentence her to life in prison.
Deirdra Cramer worked for about five months last year at the Bi-State Detention Center where Parker has been held since her arrest in October 2020. She says she waited six months before sending Parker a letter in May 2022 in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. She also put $50 in Parker‘s inmate account so that she could call if she wanted to. But on the stand, Cramer testified that Parker never called because she never got the money.
“What happened to it, I have no earthly idea. Could have put it to the medical bills,” Cramer testified, adding that she had escorted Parker to the medical unit several times while she worked at the jail and that “one Band-Aid at the jail is, no joke, like eight bucks.”
In the letter, Cramer told Parker that she thought about her a lot and that she wanted to be added to her visitor list so that she could come and pray with her. She said she would love to see her again or go to the trial with her if permitted. She told her she watched a lot of crime shows with her husband and how she was constantly stopping the shows to tell him some of the crazy things she witnessed while working at the jail.
She ended the letter by telling her, “You are loved,“ and to have a beautiful day.
In a postscript on the outside of the envelope, Cramer added, “When you think you’re not happy with your life, always know that I am happy that you exist. ❤”
Cramer said she has been in ministry for over 30 years and that she prayed with Parker and other inmates many times. She said she knew what Parker was accused of but that she told every one of her inmates that she would treat them all on the same level as she would anyone else unless they gave them a reason not to.
She testified that she did not hesitate to shake down cells when needed and that she never saw a need to search Parker‘s cell. Assistant District Attorney Lauren Richards rattled off a list of the contraband found in Parker‘s cell – a razor, a ring, a teddy bear, makeup – and asked her whether she ever brought anything into Taylor’s cell. Cramer said she had nothing to do with any of that and never brought anything in from the outside for anyone.
She said she never knowingly passed notes for Parker, but she did receive some from her. She recalled one in which Parker thanked her “for being a light in the darkness” and another she gave her before she left, telling her she was already crying and missing her.
Cramer testified that Parker never asked her for anything that violated policy or offered her anything in exchange for doing or overlooking something that violated policy. She said Parker was always respectful, although she appeared frustrated at times at what she perceived as mistreatment targeting her because Reagan‘s husband Homer was a former corrections officer.
“And so, it was like a vendetta against someone because they knew – they had a connection with him.“
Cramer said he did not know the victim or her family.
“I was neutral. My heart went out to them, of course,” Cramer said. “My heart has literally broke for everybody involved. Nobody is a winner in this.“
But Cramer remained steadfast in her assertion that Parker had been mistreated at the jail, recounting the time Parker was called down to have hair samples taken for DNA comparison. On the stand, Cramer described how the two men in plain clothes “with the prosecution” collected the samples, claiming one of them grabbed an excessive chunk of hair on the back of Parker‘s head and yanked.
“At that time, her whole head jerked back. You could tell it really aggravated her because somebody was just being mean. He knew there was no way he could get a hair sample out of something that big.“
Prosecutors have presented testimony from other jail and medical staff that Parker would often manipulate corrections officers into allowing her to be handcuffed in the front, if at all.
Harrelson asked Cramer on the stand if she followed the rules regarding handcuffing, and she said she always handcuffed Parker in the front but that one day on a visit to the medical unit, the nurse, “for whatever reason, went off on her,” telling her that from now on, she was going to be handcuffed in the back.
Cramer said it did not make sense to her because of the blood pressure and other diagnostic procedures typically performed in the medical unit, but she said she followed the rules. She also said she could tell Parker was frustrated and felt “like she was being targeted again,” but did not act out.
A jail counselor has previously testified to Parker’s disturbing reaction that day, kicking the door and cursing them out.
The former corrections officer, who worked the night shift, recounted one time when she entered Parker’s segregated pod late at night for a routine check and saw that Parker‘s cell door was wide open. She called for her and looked for her in the showers, only to come back and find her in her cell, sitting on the floor and reading with her earbuds in.
“She could’ve been out there watching the TV, just enjoying a little extra space but she was just in there in her own little world, in her own little space.“
“Did you shut her door?“ Harrelson asked.
“Of course I did!“
Cramer faced a tough line of questioning from prosecutor Lauren Richards on cross-examination, starting with discrepancies in her story about the men who came to get hair samples from Parker.
Richards asked her if she remembered speaking on the phone with the prosecutor’s office and telling them the men were from the New Boston Police Department. She also called out the discrepancy in Cramer’s description of how much hair the officer grabbed, noting that Cramer did not describe the quarter-sized fist-full during that call like she did on the stand Wednesday.
Then, Richards asked Cramer if she knew that the reason investigators needed the hair samples was because there was hair found at the crime scene before showing photos of the bloodied couch in Reagan‘s living room with chunks of hair stuck to it that appeared to have been pulled out at the roots.
“So they had to get some hair by the roots,” Richards told Cramer “So they pulled her hair too hard?“
“Ma’am, anybody can pull your hair out of your head and it not hurt,” Cramer responded. “You’re just being mean, and that’s a nice way to put it.“
Next, Richards showed Cramer a crime scene photo of Reagan’s beaten, bloodied hand.
“Do you know whose hand that is?“
“I have no idea.“
Richards explained that it was Reagan‘s hand and that it, too, had chunks of hair clinging to it that needed to be analyzed to see if they matched up with Parker’s. She also asked her if she knew the medical examiner had testified that one of Reagan’s missing fingernails was found embedded in her placenta, indicating she was alive and fighting to protect her baby after Parker cut her open.
“What do you think about that?“
“I don’t know that I need to give an opinion –“
“Sure you can,” Richards assured her.
“It’s sad.“
“Can you imagine the pain of having somebody pull your hair out?“
Cramer did not respond.
“That was a question,“ Richards prompted.
“Somebody can stomp on your toe,“ Cramer responded. “Regardless, it’s still pain.“
Cramer had testified earlier on direct examination about the “rushed training“ when she started on the job in June 2021. She said a large part of the training was about how inmates can manipulate corrections officers.
“Inmates are good at that,“ Cramer said. “It’s common for them to do, so they teach you red flags.”
On cross-examination, Richard asked her if she thought Taylor Parker is a manipulator or a pathological liar, referring to testimony from an expert witness earlier in the morning.
“I did not witness that at all.“
Cramer also said she had no way of knowing whether Parker was lying about medical complaints that resulted in numerous unnecessary trips to the jail’s medical unit in what prosecutors say was one of the ways she socialized and communicated with other inmates in her efforts to frame another inmate for the murder. Plus, Richards pointed out, those unnecessary visits took up time medical staff could have spent seeing inmates who had a legitimate need for medical care.
“They were sitting around with time on their hands,” Cramer said.
“Let’s talk about having time to sit around. If you are sitting there laughing and praying, what are you not doing? Your checks?”
“No ma’am, I always did my checks.”
Richards pointed out that the jail staff was about 100 people short at the time.
“Where are you getting the time to sit with her and laugh?”
Cramer said she had the time after she completed her checks.
“I mean, there’s things that they go through,” Cramer said, adding that she understands they have committed crimes. “but they also have a soul.”
Cramer said she would try to pray with people and try to help them get their lives right with God, even if they were behind bars.
“You are a very forgiving person. I’ll give you credit for that,” Richards said.
“That’s how Jesus works,” Cramer replied.
“But do you believe meeting our Father in heaven is predicated on repentance?”
‘She’s prayed the Sinner’s Prayer with me.”
“She’s a pathological liar,” Richards countered.
“I’m not God,” Cramer said. “I don’t judge her.“
“Have you entertained the thought that she has lied and manipulated you?”
Cramer continued to say she did not judge, prompting Richards to tell her she was asking one more time.
“Then no, I have not.”
Next, Richards turned to Cramer’s social media, noting that she has been vocal about Parker’s case.
“I’ve said a few things, that I don’t believe in the death penalty – “
Richards stopped Cramer to explain to her that this jury has agreed to evaluate the evidence and decide the appropriate sentencing option for Parker.
“So, it’s not your duty to tell them what they should do.”
“You’ve been vocal that you believe that Taylor Parker is maybe being targeted or unfairly treated,” Richards continued. “Is that what you feel? “
“She is.”
After having Cramer confirm a series of Facebook posts were hers, Richards showed them to the jury, starting with one posted on Sept. 18, just as the second week of the trial was getting underway.
“I can’t stand to cry, but recently, I broke down and bawled like a baby over a certain situation. I often find myself loving the broken ones the most. I guess that’s just how God made me.”
“You’re not talking about the Brookes here, you’re talking about Taylor,” Richards asked.
Cramer confirmed.
Richards showed another post that Cramer shared the next day with a meme that said,
“You must always be willing to truly consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs and admit the possibility that you may be WRONG. Intelligence isn’t knowing everything, it’s the ability to challenge everything you KNOW.”
“Have you considered evidence to the contrary to what you believe about Taylor?”
“I post a lot of things,” Cramer said, explaining that particular post was not about Taylor Parker but about how she began doing things after she ended her last marriage that contradicted the beliefs of the Pentecostal family in which she was raised.
Cramer confirmed that she has been trying to follow the case but admitted that she has not allowed what she has heard to challenge what she knows about Taylor Parker.
Richards pointed to another meme that warns, “never trust the good times with a narcissist.”
“Boy I’ve learned this lesson – the hard way,” Cramer wrote when she shared it.
“That’s my mother,” Cramer said. ”I was not talking about Taylor Parker at all. I know what a narcissist is and I have not encountered that with Taylor. I can only testify to the time that I knew her.”
Richards pointed to another recent post in which Cramer said she has had calls from the prosecuting attorneys and unexpected visits at her home from defense attorneys.
“I’m about to be in the middle of something that has me honestly concerned for my safety,” Cramer wrote.
“I’m just worried about retaliation that somebody might show up and try to do something to me for showing up and testifying or even just being her friend. Do we have any other friends testifying??”
On another post, a friend asked Cramer whether she seriously hoped Parker would be found not guilty.
“It’s not your job to judge,” Cramer responded.
But the friend asked the same question Richards posed to her in the courtroom on Wednesday: Whether Cramer has considered the possibility that she was the kind of person Parker could manipulate.
“She cannot manipulate me,” Cramer testified.
Finally, Richards showed another post from Cramer from the day Parker was convicted.
“She was one of my inmates,” Cramer said. “It’s so sad how people literally throw their life away – over a man 💔 Taylor was found guilty today of capital murder. She will never get to plan a 16th birthday party for her daughter. Never get to go Christmas shopping or see the lights with her babies. Never get to attend the funerals of her loved ones…”
“It’s heartbreaking to me how far sin can make a person go 😢💔 Sin will take you farther than you want to go. Slowly but wholly taking control. Sin will leave you longer than you want to stay. Sin will cost you far more than you want to pay 😢”
“Did you know she left Reagan’s 3-year-old girl alone in the home after murdering her mother?“
“Sin doesn’t leave winners,” Cramer said.
Reagan will not plan her daughter’s sixteenth birthday, Richards said, “and Taylor Parker spent her last day in the free world hunting for a victim. That’s how she spent her daughter’s birthday. Did you know that?”
“I didn’t know that,” Cramer responded. “That’s sad, too.”
“It’s disgusting,” Richards said.
“This is her devotional,” Richards continued, holding up the prayer devotional introduced into evidence last week. “Did you know about her frame-up plot? All of that happened before you got there, right?”
“Yes.”
“So in this journal, she is praying to God that they turn to Hannah as the suspect. Do you think that shows repentance or acceptance of responsibility?”
“…No.”
After confirming that Cramer never shook down Parker’s cell, Richards turned to Parker’s claim that the money Cramer sent did not show up in her account
After confirming that Cramer never shook down Parker’s cell, Richards turned to the money Cramer sent Parker’s inmate account.
“She said it didn’t show up in her account.”
“And you believed that?”
“All I know is she had trouble getting it.”
Richards asked Cramer if she knew about the testimony last week from a man who said Parker conned him out of $600 by claiming she had lost her purse on a trip, getting him to send her more money because she had not received the first transfer. He testified that she never paid him back.
“Does that sound kind of familiar? ‘I didn’t get the money?’”
“I don’t know. I only sent one letter and I only sent $50 one time.”
“It sounds to me, Ms. Cramer, that you have bought into what Taylor told you. That she’s the victim in all this. Did she talk to you about the murder?”
“No, never.”
“Why not?”
“Because we don’t discuss things like that in jail. We don’t talk about crimes. That’s just not what people talk about.”
“Do you understand what concerns that relationship causes?”
“Ma’am,” Cramer said emphatically. “I got a high letter of recommendation from my lieutenant and all of my co-workers enjoyed working with me.”
“I’m sorry, that’s not just responsive,” Richards said.
“Parker is not the only inmate I talked to.”
“So there’s more!?”
Yes, but they’re not facing the death penalty, Cramer said.
Finally, Richards followed up on her earlier testimony about the money she sent Parker and the cost of Band-Aids at the jail
“You said maybe the money went to maybe medical and said Band-Aids are $8. I just talked to (jail supervisor) Capt. Johnson and he said they are free.”
“I’ve never been in jail, so I have no idea,” Cramer said.
On Monday, First Assistant District Attorney Kelley Crisp asked Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director of Classification and Records Director Timothy Fitzpatrick about Cramer’s close relationship with Parker.
“In my opinion, there’s nothing more dangerous than an employee or a former employee,” Fitzpatrick said. “They know how the prison works. They know how different functions of that facility operate. And so now they can pass that info on to the inmate, so very, very concerning, hearing that.”
Defense expert: Parker a pathological liar, future danger unclear
Cramer was the second of only two witnesses that took the stand Wednesday. First on the stand was an expert who testified that Parker is a pathological liar and a manipulative person but that it was hard to predict whether she would pose a threat of violence in the future.
“I cannot predict that she will continue to be a danger,” said Dr. Edward Gripon, a Beaumont, Texas psychiatrist who was presented by the defense as a certified expert in future dangerousness. “Now, she will be aggravating, she will be manipulative, and she will continue to lie.”
Whether a defendant is likely to pose a continuing threat to society is one of the three special questions the jury must answer in this phase of the trial under Texas law.
Dr. Gripon interviewed Parker in two sessions over a period of about five hours and reviewed records that included her statements to police and the fabricated confession letters she wrote in what prosecutors say was an attempt to frame fellow inmates.
On the stand Wednesday, he testified that his review found that Parker exhibits “mixed features” of several different personality disorders, including narcissistic personality, borderline antisocial, and histrionic.
Gripon said she is antisocial “because she has done things that are clearly illegal. Histrionic, that’s open mouth and lots of noise. And narcissistic people who are very self-centered, attention-seeking so that the light shines on them, and that even when they do bad things, and they get attention from that, they get pleasure from that.”
A forensic psychiatrist testifying for the State at the beginning of the penalty phase of the trial found that Parker’s actions leading up to, during, and after the crime indicate she has a borderline personality and showed a lack of empathy or remorse.
But he said none of those features add up to a specific diagnosis of any one of them, and pathological lying cannot be diagnosed as a standalone condition based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-5. The manual is the standard reference used by clinicians and researchers to define and classify mental disorders.
Most people might tell little lies at some point to avoid awkward situations, but Gripon says pathological liars are different.
“A pathological liar will just lie almost always. They have a very difficult time ever telling the truth.“
He said it has been recognized as a psychosocial behavior for more than 130 years.
“It’s been called everything from ‘morbid lying,’ ‘psychologica fantastica.’ The bottom line with that is they will lie when there’s no obvious reason for it at all. People couldn’t see a motive for that. They will continue to lie and build on that with even more lying.”
Gripon said some pathological liars can come to believe their lies, but they are not delusional.
On their own, these personality characteristics might not add up to a single diagnosis. But together, Gripon said it explains why Parker is “quite manipulative” and capable of creating so much chaos.
“She attempts to read the feelings and desires of others. Among pathological liars, you frequently see they are deceptive, they are cunning and manipulative.”
But Gripon says Parker is not a genius. In his opinion, she has a normal IQ. He said some trauma in her childhood might have contributed to her developing a low sense of self-esteem that led to narcissistic tendencies, but that it would be difficult to say for sure.
“If you asked Taylor Parker, she might say she didn’t like her life and wanted to create a better one. Being more important in someone else’s eyes, the perception that you actually are.”
In his conversations with Taylor, Gripon says she told him she has created an alter ego as another way to deal with this dissatisfaction with reality.
“It’s something that she knows is in her head,” Gripon said. “When the external world is not pleasant, the internal world is better.”
Gripon said Parker also seeks attention to deal with her low self-esteem and self-worth.
“She seeks attention because she gets gratification from that. It’s ego-positive for her, it temporarily helps. In the long term, it is not beneficial, but there’s short-term benefit for her.”
Gripon believes Parker lied about being pregnant for so long and to so many people that she reached a point where a faked miscarriage was no longer an option and she had to prove it, although he noted that she looked at surrogate parenting, adoption, and some other ways to obtain a child without resorting to murder.
Still, Gripon testified that no one could have predicted the faked pregnancy would result in murder.
“That would require some kind of psychic ability which I certainly don’t have. It’s uncommon. Even if you knew they were trying to deceive, I can’t imagine how someone could jump from there to, ‘This person is going to kill someone and take their baby.’ I couldn’t do that.”
But Gripon was there to testify as to whether Parker is at risk for future violence, and that assessment required a look at her past behavior.
“Based on your review, did you find that she had a history of violence?” Harrelson asked.
“No,” Gripon said. “She has a history of commotion. You know, making a lot of to-do about things, but as far as criminal violence, I didn’t find that in her history.”
While Parker’s conviction for capital murder figures into his assessment, Gripon said it’s hard to predict whether she might do it again.
“Some people have, I think wrongly, felt the fact that someone has done a heinous act proves they will again, and our studies don’t support that.”
Gripon said Parker has had a “bland” record in her two years in jail, with no violent incidents. While there is no good way to predict whether a person would probably commit criminal acts of violence, he says pathological liars are not normally associated with such behavior.
Not to say that she has not been a pain, Harrelson said.
“A pathological liar is gonna be an aggravation to anyone that allows it,” Gripon said.
When asked whether Parker has taken responsibility for her crime, the expert witness for the defense testified that Parker had not denied it to him but that she did not want to talk about it.
“Taylor makes a concerted effort not to talk about this particular offense and the woman that died. She tries to avoid that. When pressed, she becomes emotional and somewhat tearful about how it’s ruined her life and the lives of her children,” which Gripon said is not surprising, given her personality disorders.
He said a person’s level of remorse is difficult to assess.
“Is there a way to tell whether that’s sincere or not?” Harrelson asked.
“Over time you prob could, but in the short period, it could be problematic. Are they tearful because of what they did to somebody else or what doing something to someone else has done to them? So you have to be careful.”
“A single incident is different from premeditation,” First Assistant District Attorney Kelley Crisp said to Gripon on cross-examination in response to his testimony that Parker’s murder of Reagan Hancock was a single, isolated incident that made it difficult to say whether Parker would post a continuing threat to society. “You and I both know that.”
“The incident itself was isolated in terms of other assaults,” Gripon replied.
Even if she put a hit out on her mother? Crisp asked.
“I would ignore nothing,” Gripon responded.
Crisp also took issue with the doctor’s statement that Parker had taken responsibility for the crime.
“Well, she hasn’t denied that she did it,” Gripon said.
Crisp brought up the alternate scenarios Parker fabricated to pin the blame on someone else.
“She didn’t tell any of that. She said she was there, took the baby, and had the baby when she died.“
“Did she talk about how difficult and brutal it was for Reagan?“
“No.”
“A person who would try to lie their way out of that is someone you should probably be concerned about. Is that something that would apply to Taylor Parker?“
“Yes.“
“Personality disorder is knowing their conduct is wrong but not caring or wanting to change it. Is that true of Taylor Parker?“
“I can’t tell. People with that condition don’t change that of their own volition. It’s unlikely to change without clinical treatment. I have no trust meter. It’s a story that someone tells me seems to fit together, and I don’t know when they’re telling me the truth or not.“
“Taylor Parker is writing books out of the jail, talking about other people being responsible for it,“ Crisp said. “She told a corrections officer that she had to sit in here for three weeks and listen to her being shamed by lies. That is not remorse. Would you agree with that? “
“It’s a lie. She has a character defect, and it’s cut from that same piece of cloth.“
Referring to Gripon’s earlier testimony that pathological liars will continue to lie, Crisp asked the doctor whether he agreed that sets up a dangerous scenario.
“I would.“
Crisp told Dr. Gripon that if Parker gets life in prison, she will likely go in at a level of custody that will allow her to live in dorms.
“Dorms!” Crisp emphasized. “Her favorite game is promising money to other inmates to do stuff. If a defendant is in the Texas department of criminal justice, is there a concern with promising money?”
“It would lead to problems.“
“Sure! It could lead to assault! Crisp said, adding that Parker‘s character is not going to change between here and prison.
Gripon told Crisp that he could not diagnose Parker with Borderline Personality Disorder in the DSM-5 because he could not find enough of each of the characteristics. She went over each, offering the doctor examples of Parker‘s behavior and asking her whether they fit the definition.
What about her attempt to buy a $5 million ranch? Crisp asked, dropping a photo of the entrance gate to pecan point on the projector displayed on screens for the jury.
“Would you say that falls under grandiose?”
Pointing to the criteria describing the belief that a person with Borderline Personality Disorder is special and unique, Crisp told Gripon that Parker has told others she runs the jail and sees herself as special.
“She would like to be,” Gripon said.
Then there is “having a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance is with his or her expectations).“
“She filed a grievance against the jail!“ Crisp told Gripon, referencing testimony earlier in the trial about Parker taking it upon herself to move to a different cell and then filing a complaint when she was told she did not have permission and to move back.
“So, isn’t there evidence of all nine there?“ Crisp asked after going through the list.
“Those are random samples, not what we see all the time.“
“It’s up to the jury to make that decision,“ Crisp said.
“They can do whatever they want with it,“ Gripon agreed.
Crisp asked about some of Gripon’s previous cases.
“There have been countless times you found a future danger,“ Crisp said, including one case in which Gripon later recanted his testimony and helped win the condemned inmate a reprieve.
“That’s antisocial personality disorder, not histrionic,” Gripon said, explaining that histrionic people don’t normally hurt other people.
Gripon’s reversal in that Texas capital murder case helped win the condemned inmate a reprieve while a lower court reviews his case. It has been at the center of a debate over the scientific validity and ethics of psychologists attempting to predict future dangerousness.
According to the ACLU, a review of 155 cases in which Texas prosecutors used experts to predict a defendant’s future dangerousness found that the experts were wrong 95% of the time.
Crisp read a quote attributed to Gripon by The Marshall Project in which Gripon himself seemed to be skeptical of the science.
“’I’m not trying to be disparaging of the law, but any prediction probably has a wide margin of error,” Gripon said, adding, “It’s not terribly useful.’”
“The jury is free to give whatever weight to your opinion,” Crisp said. “So if you’re not giving your own opinion much weight…”
“That was done by somebody who misquoted me,” Gripon said. “I don’t think that’s accurate. I didn’t say that,” Gripon said, clarifying that did not recant because his assessment was wrong but because the statistics on which he based his opinion proved to be inaccurate.
Both agreed that the psychiatric evidence is just one of the things the jury can consider and they can base their decision solely on any of the other factors, such as the facts of the crime itself.
“That’s right, I was going to say that they don’t even have to consider it,” Gripon said.
The following are factors a jury may consider when determining whether a defendant will pose a continuing threat to society can include but are not limited to:
- The circumstances of the capital offense, including the defendant’s state of mind and whether he was working alone or with other parties.
- The calculated nature of the defendant’s acts
- The forethought and deliberations exhibited by the crime’s execution
- The existence of a prior criminal record or prior bad acts.
- The defendant’s age and personal circumstances at the time of the offense
- Whether the defendant was acting under duress or the domination of another at the time of the offense
- Psychiatric evidence
- Character evidence
Testimony wrapped up early Wednesday afternoon when Parker’s defense team ran out of available witnesses. The trial is set to resume on Monday and could go to the jury by the end of the week.
