Pauline Pusser files reveal inconsistencies, possible motive, and more

CONTENT WARNING: SOME TEXT & IMAGES ON THIS PAGE MAY BE GRAPHIC, DISTURBING OR OFFENSIVE:

MCNAIRY COUNTY, Tenn. – For over six decades questions have surrounded the shooting death of Pauline Pusser, wife of famed Sheriff Buford Pusser. Recently, the district attorney announced after an autopsy and reconstruction of the crime scene, it is believed Buford Pusser is responsible for his wife’s death. We took a dive into those files to see what led to this conclusion.

Contained within six volumes of investigative files are details regarding witness interviews, inconsistencies in Buford Pusser’s account of what happened and what the evidence shows, as well as affairs and possible motives.

According to the files, witnesses said that Buford attempted to flee from emergency personnel that were responding to provide medical care for Pusser and his wife. In a statement to the TBI, “Donald G. Smith stated that on the morning of August 12, 1967, he was working on the ambulance that picked up (S) Buford Hayes Pusser. Smith provided that he couldn’t understand much of what (S) Buford Hayes Pusser said.” 

According to Smith, Buford’s injuries were severe and it was difficult to distinguish what he was trying to say. Smith’s statement to TBI agents continues by saying, “Smith described meeting (S) Pusser on top of the hill on Highway 45 going south on Guys Road and that (S) Pusser was driving the car and (V) Pauline Mullins Pusser was lying over in (S) Pusser’s lap.” 

He told investigators how Pusser refused to stop the vehicle for emergency personnel.

“Smith explained that the ambulance stopped, and they told (S) Pusser to sit still and turn around. Smith said his boss started to turn the ambulance around and that’s when (S) Pusser took off. Smith remarked that the Tennessee Highway Patrol and Selmer Police Chief Hugh Kirkpatrick arrived, and Smith guessed they had heard (S) Pusser’s daddy on the radio from the jail because (S) Pusser’s daddy had called for an ambulance. 

Smith reported that the Trooper and Chief Kirkpatrick got (S) Pusser stopped at the front of the hill. Smith articulated that he went to the driver’s door and that Chief Kirkpatrick got (S) Pusser’s pistol and told (S) Pusser that he (Kirkpatrick) would take care of the pistol and get it cleaned up for (S) Pusser.”

Smith told TBI agents that he did not remember seeing a shotgun in Pusser’s vehicle, but admitted he was not looking for one either.

Agents originally working the case had also questioned the blood spatter on the vehicle and did not believe it matched with Buford’s account.

In a letter written to TBI Director W.E. Hopton from agent Warren Jones, the agent expresses his issues with the blood spatter.

“A few days ago I discussed with you via phone about some most unusual spots of blood on Sheriff Buford Pusser’s car. That is there was blood on the hood of his car and on the outside of the car’s windshield. I haven’t figured out how it got there from Sheriff Pusser’s story as to the events surrounding the shooting,” writes Jones.

In 2024, investigators chose to exhume Pauline’s body for an autopsy since an autopsy was never performed when she was murdered. Investigators also reconstructed the events based on Buford’s account of what happened, along with blood spatter examination, and determined that the forensics did not match with what Buford said happened.  The findings of the autopsy also did not coincide with Buford’s version of events.

“On Friday, February 9, 2024, an autopsy was performed on the body of (V) Pauline by Dr. Danielle Harrell (Forensic Pathologist) and Dr. Diana Messer (Forensic Anthropologist) at the West TN Regional Forensic Center in Memphis, TN. The preliminary findings of the autopsy indicate that (V) Pauline was shot at least once in the back of the head, posterior to anterior, with the entrance wound located approximately left of the midline at the lower base of the left side of the skull. This information strongly contradicts Dr. Harry Peeler’s findings, as Dr. Peeler stated in his report that the wound to the lower base of the left side of (V) Pauline’s skull was an exit wound and that (V) Pauline had been shot from front to back or, anterior to posterior. Dr. Harrell stated that she believes that (V) Pauline was shot more than once in the head; however, too  many significant parts of her skull are missing for Dr. Harrell to make a definite determination of the number of shots to (V) Pauline’s head.”

The report also goes on to say that Pauline had previous wounds that were healing.

“Furthermore, Dr. Messer observed an antemortem (prior to death) healing nasal fracture on the right side of (V) Pauline’s nose. This information is extremely significant because Jim Moffett stated that (S) Buford had beaten up (V) Pauline shortly before her death, and Annie Sue Pipes observed (V) Pauline with bruises and black eyes,” according to the files.

Additionally, on May 1, 2024, according to the files, agents met with an individual that provided additional information into the events leading up to Pauline’s death.

“ASAC Michael Parson and SA Brent Booth met with Tami Johnson and Theresa Smith at approximately 12:00 p.m. at the Starbucks located at 1580 US-72 in Corinth, Mississippi. The reason for this meeting was due to information that Tami Johnson’s mother (Barbara Gail Drewry Bivins) and Theresa Smith’s aunt (Shirly Smith) overhead an argument between (S) Buford Hayes Pusser and (V) Pauline Mullins Pusser.

The significant information from this meeting is that both Tami Johnson and Theresa Smith stated that Barbara Gail Drewry Bivins and Shirley Smith overhead an argument between (S) Buford Hayes Pusser and (V) Pauline Mullins Pusser in the parking lot of the Old Hickory Grill in Guys, TN in the early morning hours on the same date that (V) Pauline Mullins Pusser was killed. 

Tami Johnson and Theresa Smith echoed the same remarks by stating that Barbara Gail Drewry Bivins and Shirley Smith were in an area of the Old Hickory Grill’s parking lot where they could not be seen by (S) Buford Hayes Pusser and (V) Pauline Mullins Pusser, but they could see and hear everything that was going on,” according to the report.

The witness goes on to say she heard the argument between Buford and Pauline Pusser and the content was over Pauline’s anger toward an affair.

“Tami Johnson elaborated that her mother and aunt told her that the argument was because (V) Pauline Mullins Pusser was fed up with (S) Buford Hayes Pusser’s affair with a black woman (Pearl Wade). Theresa Smith stated that her aunt, Shirley Smith, told her that a car pulled up and that (V) Pauline Mullins Pusser was screaming at (S) Buford Hayes Pusser that she was going to ‘ruin him’.”

One of the other concerns investigators had after reviewing the investigation was a concern experts, the ballistics evidence does not align with Buford’s version of the shooting as well.

“According to (S) Buford’s statement, after he and (V) Pauline had been shot and the attackers’ vehicle drove away toward Highway 45, (S) Buford said that he had gone back to his car and ‘had in mind’ to get into his trunk because he claimed he had a ‘high-powered rifle’ stored there. (S) Buford described ‘fumbling around’ for the keys to his trunk when it suddenly occurred to him that he had loaned his personal 30-06 rifle to a Charles Cox a week or two before the ambush. On Wednesday, October 11, 1967, about two months after the alleged ambush, (S) Buford contacted TBI agent John Sloan (now deceased) and required a ballistics test on his personal .30 caliber carbine rifle due to rumors that (S) Buford said were spreading about implicating him in (V) Pauline’s murder. The test showed that the rifle (S) Buford brought in for testing was not the same weapon that fired the projectiles and shell casings from the scene and vehicle.

Dr. Eric Warren (expert witness) states in his Ballistics Expert Report that the physical evidence in this case does not support the version of events as recounted by (S) Buford during this investigation. The locations and suspicious arrangements of the glass and cartridge cases are inconsistent with what (S) Buford claimed occurred as well as indicative of a staged crime scene. Additionally, the shooter’s location and the cartridge cases are inconsistent with the version of events provided by (S) Buford. The bullet trajectories are inconsistent with the body positioning (S) Buford described. The bloodstain pattern on the hood of (S) Buford’s vehicle conflicts with the timing of events as described by (S) Buford. From a holistic perspective, the limited universe of evidence suggests that the shooting scenes were at least altered and likely that (S) Buford was involved in her murder.”

Authorities announced in 2025 that if Buford were alive today that they believe they would have enough evidence to charge him with Pauline’s murder.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE

Click here to read our previous coverage of the Pusser investigation.