Defense attorney in Betsy Faria murder trial gives his insider’s account in a new book

As we wait for the March 8 premiere of The Thing About Pam, the NBC series based on the true story of the 2011 murder of Betsy Faria starring Renée Zellweger as accused killer Pam Hupp, there’s a new way to learn more about this case: Joel Schwartz, the defense attorney who represented Betsy Faria’s husband, Russ Faria, is releasing a book, co-authored with New York Times bestselling author Charles Bosworth, about the case. Bone Deep: Untangling the Twisted True Story of the Tragic Betsy Faria Murder Case will officially release on February 22 but is available for preorder now. 

In 2013, Russ was found guilty of first-degree murder (Betsy was found dead in their home; she was stabbed 55 times). However, in 2015, Judge Steven Ohmer of St. Louis Circuit Court granted Faria a new trial—and he was found not guilty. Ohmer called the investigation into Betsy’s death “disturbing.” Now there’s a newish twist to the case. In July 2021, Hupp was charged with first-degree murder in the Faria case (Hupp is currently serving a life sentence for the 2016 murder of Louis Gumpenberger). Lincoln County Prosecutor Michael Wood also announced that during his investigation, he found “potential prosecutorial and police misconduct” and “information that could potentially lead to criminal prosecution.”  

It’s a case with many twists and turns, but Schwartz and Bosworth’s book offers a distinct point of view: what goes through the mind of a defense attorney in a case like the Farias’. “The hurdles, the obstacles, the frustrations I had to deal with—they get to look into my life, into my mind, when you know somebody is innocent and how you go about fighting to show that,” Schwartz says. “Remember, I’m not the one who’s supposed to have to prove my client’s innocence. In this case, that’s what I was ultimately forced to do.” Here, five more questions for Schwartz.

Why did you decide to write Bone Deep now? 

Charles Bosworth came to me approximately a year and a half ago when we were in discussions about writing this. I’ve always felt it’s a book that needs to be written. However, I don’t know that I was ready to sit down and write a book because the process is not easy to do and to do well. Once Charles came to me and I was able to tap into his expertise and his experience, it simply just felt right. We sat down to do this before Pam Hupp was charged. It seemed, time-wise, to come full circle—from Russ’ conviction, to Russ’ acquittal, to the girls suing Pam Hupp, to Pam Hupp pleading guilty to the Louis Gumpenberger murder. 

Your book blurb calls the case a “perfect storm of miscalculations and missteps that led to an innocent man’s conviction.” Is there one of those miscalculations that you still think about a decade later, that sticks in your craw? 

One really important factor to me was, and is always, the time of death. We know that [Pam and Betsy] arrived back at Betsy’s house at 7:04 p.m. and that was due to a call that Pam made to her husband. We believe that Betsy was still alive because according to the officers that listened to the call and failed to preserve the call, Betsy said to Pam’s husband, “Merry Christmas, happy New Year.” We also know that Betsy’s daughter had called her at seven o’clock and made her mother promise to answer the phone because she was changing her cell phone plan and she was on her mother’s plan. So between 7:19 and 7:29, give or take, the daughter called Betsy three times, all of which went unanswered. At 7:27, Pam called Betsy’s cell phone from her cell phone. When the officers looked at Pam’s phone, they said to Pam, “Why did you call her at 7:27?” She said, “Well, to let her know that I was home,” which immediately changed to “almost home”… Given the cell site, the triangulation, and the towers, Pam was most likely still at the house. I can’t say that for sure, but what I can say is that she was still north of Troy, in the vicinity of the house.

Does that information weigh on you? 

It doesn’t weigh on me. I did absolutely everything I could—I fought tooth and nail to get all the information in during the first trial. The big highlight is I couldn’t get into any information regarding the insurance, but I also couldn’t cross-examine Pam regarding whether or not she went into the house, about where she was. To say it sticks in my craw…it frightens me. And that goes back to your question of “Why write this book?” Somewhere along the line, maybe there’s a prosecutor, maybe there’s a law student that reads this and goes “OK, I never want to find myself in the same situation as this prosecutor or this judge, and they’ll do the job that needs to be done.” I would also call it cathartic. I was doing an interview the other day and talking about when the judge came out and found [Russ] not guilty, and I got emotional again.

What was it like to work on The Thing About Pam? Josh Duhamel is portraying you. 

The people who I’ve worked with—the writers, the actors—are incredible. The most common word I would use is “surreal.” I was on set, and they let me do a cameo, which was a lot of fun. They wouldn’t let me be in a scene with Josh for obvious reasons—they don’t want the bartender who I played looking like one of the leads on the show. I was playing a scene where the prosecutor was not very happy with Joel Schwartz and had some choice words about Joel Schwartz. So to be in that scene and to listen to that was sort of a taste of what I’m going to be watching. And I can’t ask for anybody better to play me than Josh Duhamel. And Renée Zellweger—I can’t wait to see how she portrays Pam. I don’t think anyone would argue with the fact that she’s an amazingly talented actress. One person who doesn’t quite get as much attention who I think should is Judy Greer. [Greer is playing Leah Askey, former Lincoln County prosecutor.]

I’ve seen the trailer for The Thing About Pam. My initial reaction—without having seen the full series, of course—is that it feels…comedic? Is it hard to think about Betsy’s death, which was tragic, as entertainment? 

I didn’t know how it was going to be portrayed—it’s been sort of a one-way street on communication. Almost every day while they were on the set, I would get questions about “Is this accurate? Is that accurate?” I know they’re trying to portray things accurately. I didn’t realize it would be the dark comedy that it’s seeming to be in the ads. But again, I think it’s people doing their job. I think they’re trying to entertain and inform. And I did talk to Russ about it, and he’s not upset at all. He did say it was interesting. I think their goal is to portray this as such a different case. I think they’ve chosen to portray it in such an unusual, different way. So I certainly don’t have any issues with it other than the fact that I was a little bit surprised. I think it will be extremely well-done, and I look forward to watching it just like everybody else. I’ve spoken to Josh throughout this, and he’s watched through episode 4, and he seems to be happy with the end product so far. I’ve gotten to be friendly with him, so I trust his judgment. 

Schwartz and Bosworth will be in conversation with St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Robert Patrick at 7 p.m. on Saturday, February 26, at the St. Louis County Library Headquarters.