Primal Fear (36 page)

“Yes.”

“Doctor, during your interviews with Aaron Stampler, did he ever offer an explanation of what happened the night Bishop Rushman was killed?”

“Yes he did.”

“And what was his explanation?”

“That he blacked out before the killing started.”

“Did he claim someone else was in the room at the time?”

“Yes he did.”

“Who was that person?”

“He could not identify him—or her.”

“So the defendant admits being there but denies committing the crime, is that correct?”

“Yes.”

“Is that possible? What I mean is, could Stampler have blacked out in that fashion?”

“Well, yes …”

“Is there a medical term for that condition?”

“Yes. It’s called fugue. A fugue event is another term for temporary, amnesia.”

“And is it uncommon in the study of abnormal psychology?”

“Well, it isn’t rare.”

“So you have treated people who suffered a fugue event?”

“Yes.”

“How long does it usually last?”

“Anywhere from a few minutes to, well, I know of one case where a patient went into fugue for several months.”

“And this person was able to function normally in this state?”

“Yes. She just didn’t remember what happened during that period.”

“What would cause someone to go into this fugue state?”

“Undue stress, anxiety, recall…”

“Recall?”

“Remembering a traumatic event from the past. Also it can be triggered by something very simple. A doorbell ringing, a combination of words that is reminiscent of an event from the past.”

“So witnessing a brutal murder like this one could initiate a fugue event?”

“Yes, I would have to agree with that.”

“And when Aaron Stampler says he went into this fugue state, it is not a preposterous explanation, is it?”

“No, it could happen.”

“And if it did happen, it would be a form of mental disorder, would it not?”

“Yes.”

“But you say he never exhibited signs of fugue during your investigation?”

“No sir, he did not.”

“Doctor Bascott, let’s say a patient has emphysema, goes out in a cold rain improperly dressed, catches a cold and does not seek medical help. These conditions could possibly lead to pneumonia in the patient. True or false? Understand what I’m saying?”

“Yes. Cause and effect.”

“Right. And knowing the conditions, if you diagnosed the patient, you might predict that pneumonia could develop and take the proper precautions to prevent it, is that a fair assumption?”

“Your Honor, I am not comfortable with this line of questioning at all,” Venable said. “It’s all supposition and word games. Where is counsel going with this?”

“Give me another question or two, Your Honor.”

“One more chance, Counselor. Make your point or I’m going to rule this whole line out of order,” Shoat said.

“Dr. Bascott, here you have a young man and you are conducting tests to determine whether or not he is culpable in this case and you know that these conditions exist—first, that he has a confused and possibly disorienting religious background, and, second, that his mother was possibly schizoid. Would it not be fair to expect you to take extra steps to determine whether, in fact, schizophrenia exists here?”

“Well, yes. That’s what we did.”

“You specifically zeroed in on the possibility of schizophrenia?”

“We examined him for all types of mental disorders.”

“It is my impression, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you merely determined whether or not the defendant is capable of standing trial.”

“That was our responsibility. But that included diagnosing him for mental disorders.”

“So you can tell this court with assurance that he does not suffer from schizophrenia?”

“Well, I can say it does not impede his ability to recognize right from wrong and assist in his own defense.”

“In other words, it is immaterial whether he suffers from mental disorders or not.”

“Objection. Argumentative.”

“Sustained.”

“I’ll put it another way. Is it possible, Doctor, that Aaron Stampler
could
be suffering from a serious mental disorder and you overlooked it in your examinations? Is that possible?”

“Well, sir, anything is
possible
.”

“Are you saying, then, that it is unlikely?”

“Sir, two other noted psychiatrists and psychologists examined Mr. Stampler. I would say it is unlikely that all three of us could have overlooked anything of that importance.”

“So your answer is no?”

“Objection,” Venable said. “The doctor explained his position.”

“Your Honor, I am trying to determine whether he is saying it’s impossible or improbable, or if he’s saying it’s possible.”

Shoat sighed. “Please read the question again,” he instructed the court stenographer.

“ ‘I’ll put it another way. Is it possible, Doctor, that Aaron
Stampler could be suffering from a serious mental disorder and you overlooked it in your examinations? Is that possible?’”

“And what was the immediate answer?” Shoat asked the stenographer.

“ ‘Well, sir, anything is possible.’”

“It seems to me, Counselor, that he answered the question,” Shoat said to Vail.

“Not exactly,” Vail answered. “I would like the doctor to go on record that the possibility of preemptive mental disorders was completely ruled out. This is key to the defense. It goes beyond the right-or-wrong test, Your Honor. Can Dr. Bascott swear that the defendant, Aaron Stampler, suffers no mental disorder which could result in either irresistible impulse or defect of reason?”

Venable stared over at Vail.
The son of a bitch, he’s setting something up here,
she thought.
What the hell is he after?

“Your Honor,” she said quickly, “my objection stands. Dr. Bascott has explained his position.”

“Ambiguously,” Vail said.

The judge glared down at both of them.

“I agree with the prosecution,” he said brusquely.

“Okay, I want to be clear on this,” Vail said. “The doctor is admitting that it is possible some things were overlooked in the defendant’s examination.”

“Objection!” Venable yelled, standing and slamming her fist on the table. “He’s putting words in the mouth of the witness!”

“No sir,” Vail countered. “I am saying exactly what he said. It is possible they overlooked something.”

Dr. Bascott, realizing his credibility was in jeopardy, suddenly spoke up. “Sir,” he said, “I will say that Aaron Stampler is fully capable of understanding why he is here. If he does suffer any kind of mental disorder, it is my opinion that it is not severe enough to legally excuse him from his own actions.”

Vail smiled.

Gotcha.

“Thank you, Doctor.”

THIRTY-THREE

“Your Honor, the People call Dr. William Danielson.”

Vail doodled aimlessly on his legal pad as Venable ran through the routine questions establishing Danielson as the city’s chief medical examiner, where he went to school and his expertise.

“As medical examiner on this case, what were your responsibilities?” Venable asked.

“To make a detailed study and analysis of the corpse and the wounds and attendant conditions which caused his death and to assimilate them into a single report.”

Vail and Bill Danielson had gone a lot of rounds in the past and Vail liked him. Vail listened as Venable led Danielson through the description of the scene and up to the introduction of the photographs, then he jumped up.

“Objection, Your Honor,” said Vail. “The presentation of all thirty-or-so photographs is flagrantly prejudicial to my client. We submit that the prosecutor’s point can easily be supported with a half dozen of these pictures.”

“Yes, yes, Counselor, I’ve heard this before. Overruled.”

“Excuse me, sir, I take exception to your ruling,” Vail said pleasantly.

Shoat’s cheeks turned red. “Exception noted,
sir
,” he snorted with a scowl. “You may continue, Ms. Venable.”

Venable introduced the photographs one at a time, giving Danielson the opportunity to describe each one in gory detail—the amount of blood from each wound, the type (Danielson seemed to take particular pleasure in describing the difference between cuts, stabs, slices and incisions), how it was made, which ones were fatal and which were merely painful. The object was to create anxiety among the more squeamish of the jurors before the photographs were passed among them. The result would be even more damaging than simply exhibiting the pictures. The jury regarded each of the sanguine shots with abject horror, as she had expected.

“So, Dr. Danielson, did you conclude that death can be attributed to several different factors?”

“Yes. Body trauma, aeroembolism, cadaveric spasm, several
of the stab wounds, exsanguination—that’s loss of blood. All could have caused death.”

“Can you identify which you think was the primary cause?”

“I believe it was the throat wound.”

“Why?”

“Because it caused aeroembolism, which is the sudden exit of air from the lungs. This kind of wound is always fatal; in fact, death is usually instantaneous. And this wound was profound. Exsanguination was also a factor.”

“Loss of blood?”

“Yes. The extent of the wounds caused excessive bleeding. Normally, when the organs cease functioning, bleeding slows down. You get seepage but not a flow of blood. But in this case, the wounds were so numerous and so devastating that he lost almost all of his blood. The human body contains six quarts of blood; there was less than a pint in his body at autopsy. As you can see in the photographs, it was splashed on the walls, lamp shades, windows, but to a large extent it collected around the body itself.”

“All right, Your Honor, enough is enough,” Vail yelled. “We concede that there was a lot of blood on the scene. Is it necessary to continue subjecting the jury to these sickening details?”

“Mr. Vail, let me worry about the jury.”

“Fine. I’ll worry about my client,” Vail said. “As I reminded the court earlier, the prosecutor’s focus on the sick details of this case is highly prejudicial. What’s the prosecutor going to do next, haul the bishop’s blood into the courtroom in buckets so the jury can see it firsthand?”

“All right, that’s enough, Counselor,” Shoat yelled back. “Are you making some kind of motion here?”

“Yes, Your Honor. We concede that there were five and a half quarts of blood in the room. We concede that it came from the victim, that it’s red, viscous, and thicker than water—”

“All right, sir, that’s enough!” Shoat bellowed.

“And we object, Your Honor,” Vail continued, jabbing a forefinger toward Venable. “We object to any further discussion of the disposition of Bishop Rushman’s bodily fluids.”

The exchange broke the tension in the room. Several of the jurors snickered. Vail had reduced the most damaging visual evidence to a joke and Venable knew it. To continue now would risk losing points.

“We’ll move on,” Venable volunteered.

“Thank you, Madam Prosecutor,” Shoat said. He motioned Vail closer to the bench and said in a stage whisper, “Curb your emotions, sir.”

“Is that like curbing your dog?” Vail mumbled half aloud as he walked back to his desk.

“What was that?” Shoat demanded.

“Just clearing my throat, Your Honor.”

“I have no further questions at this time,” Venable said. “Your witness.”

Vail stood and approached the witness stand. “Dr. Danielson, I ask you: Are you one hundred percent sure that the same person made
all
the various cuts, slices, incisions, punctures, and other graphically described wounds in the victim’s body?”

“Do you mean is there a possibility someone else might have made some of these cuts?”

“That’s exactly what I mean.”

“The traumatic wounds—the throat wound, the wounds to the chest—I can say were definitely made by that knife and by a left-handed person. I can tell by the—”

“Yes, yes, Dr. Danielson, we’re not arguing that point. We will concede that those twelve wounds were administered by a left-handed person. How about the other… sixty-five wounds? Were all these wounds made by a left-handed person?”

“It’s hard to say. You can’t always tell whether the person wielding the weapon was left- or right-handed.”

“Depends on the wound, doesn’t it?”

“Uh, yes.”

“A puncture, for instance, would be very hard to distinguish—I mean, between a right-handed and left-handed person, isn’t that so?”

“Yes, that’s true.”

“And weren’t at least two of the twelve wounds you identified as fatal or potentially fatal in fact puncture wounds?”

“… Yes.”

“Straight in, right?”

“Yes.”

“So, what you are saying is that someone else could have wielded the knife when at least two of the fatal wounds were administered, correct?”

“I suppose so.”

“I repeat, Dr. Danielson: Could at least two of the fatal wounds have been struck by someone else, yes or no?”

“Yes.”

“Thank you, sir. Now let’s talk a minute about the throat wound. In your opinion this was the first wound struck, is that correct?”

“In my best opinion.”

“You say aeroembolism occurred, correct? Here in your report, it says, ‘Evidence of aeroembolism in heart and lungs.’”

“There was evidence, yes.”

“And you testified that aeroembolism is almost instantly fatal. In fact, your exact words were, ‘In
most
of the cases, cadaveric spasm occurs—which is instant rigor mortis.’ Correct?”

“Yes, that’s right.”

“And yet you also testify that the bishop put up a fight. That the stab wounds in his hands and arms were the result of his using his hands and arms to protect himself. Is that correct?”

“Yes.”

“So, while it is possible the throat wound was the first wound, it is more
likely
that it was not, isn’t that true?”

“It is possible that he could have survived, even fought back reflexively, for a minute or so. Certainly long enough to administer the wounds in the hands and arms.”

“The knife entered here”—Vail pointed to a spot just under Danielson’s right ear and drew his finger slowly across to the left side as he spoke—“just under the right ear, slashed to just under the left ear, cut through to the spinal column, severed the jugular, all the arteries and veins in his neck, the windpipe, and all muscle and tissue. That’s what your report stipulates, is that right?”

“Yes.”

“So there was some muscle and tissue trauma there, too, right?”

“Yes.”

“And aeroembolism, which is almost
always
instantly fatal, occurred, right?”

“Yes.”

“And you still contend that the bishop fought on for another minute or minute and a half?”

Danielson stared Vail eye-to-eye and suppressed a smile. He was good, all right. This Vail was a shark.

“I judged … because of the amount of blood and tissue samples … that probably—”

“Probably? What is it, Dr. Danielson? Probably, possibly, an outside chance, a fluke?”

“It’s certainly possible that it was the second or third strike,” Danielson agreed.

“So …if two of the fatal chest wounds could have been struck by one person and the rest of the wounds by another, it is also possible that one person actually struck the death wound and someone else then stabbed and cut the bishop after he was dead, right?”

“I suppose … yes, that’s true, but unlikely.”

“Why?”

“Why?” Danielson echoed.

“Yes, why is it unlikely?”

“Well, just think about it.… I mean, it’s just completely illogical.”

“So, Doctor, you can’t prove that Aaron Stampler made all or even any of the actual stab wounds, and you can’t prove whether one or two people stabbed the bishop or even which wound was the fatal wound, isn’t that so?”

Danielson thought about the question for several seconds and finally nodded slowly. “That’s all true,” he said.

“And the fact that Aaron is left-handed is really the only proof you have that he actually wielded the knife, true or false?”

“Yes, Mr. Vail, that’s true.”

“Thank you, Dr. Danielson,” Vail said, walking away from him. “You may come away.”

“Just a moment,” Venable said. “Dr. Danielson, in your twenty-six years as a forensics scientist, have you ever seen a case in which two people used the same knife to stab the same person to death?”

“No, I have not.”

“Have you ever heard or read of such an occurrence?”

“No, I have not.”

“Thank you.”

“Excuse me, Dr. Danielson,” Vail said. “How many cases are you familiar with in which the penis and gonads of the victim were cut off and stuffed in the victim’s mouth?”

“Uh … none, actually.”

“So this event could have occurred exactly as I described it, true or false?”

Danielson sighed. “True.”

“Thank you, sir.”

Harvey Woodside followed Danielson to the stand. It was his job to correlate the medical and forensics evidence into a single, hard conclusion: that Aaron Stampler committed a premeditated, cold-blooded murder.

He huffed his way to the witness stand, breathing heavily through his nose as he settled into the chair and took the oath. Vail listened quietly as Venable established his credentials. Woodside was also an expert at his job. Vail did not challenge him.

“So, in effect, Mr. Woodside, you link all the various elements of the crime together, is that true?”

“Yes.”

“That includes medical reports, fiber samples, fingerprints, etcetera…”

“Everything, yes. I put it all together.”

In the ensuing cross-examination, Woodside used the combination of photographs, physical evidence, fiber samples, bloodstains and fingerprints to paint a mural of terror.

“Mr. Woodside,” Venable continued, “based on the physical evidence gathered at the scene of the crime, what is your assessment of this crime?”

“That Stampler entered through the kitchen, took off his shoes, removed the carving knife from the tray, leaving fibers from his gloves when he did, went down the hallway to the bedroom and attacked the bishop. Bishop Rushman fought for his life, as witness the wounds in his hands. He was stabbed, cut and sliced seventy-seven times. He had less than a pint of blood in his body after the attack, which is one-twelfth of the normal blood supply in the body. The final act was the removal of his sexual apparatus, which Stampler stuffed in the bishop’s mouth. Stampler then returned to the kitchen, put his shoes on and ran out, and the police car happened to be passing so he dodged back inside and hid in a confessional, where he was discovered by police and arrested.”

Vail buttoned his jacket and stood up. He walked around to the front of his desk and leaned against it with his arms crossed. Shoat looked down his nose at Vail, his mouth hanging half open.

“Was it something, Mr. Vail?”

“That’s a very interesting story, Your Honor,” Vail said with a smile. “Of course we object to the entire presentation. It’s pure conjecture.”

“Your Honor,” Venable shot back, “Mr. Woodside is one of the most honored pathologists in the country. His job is to assess a crime based on the forensic evidence and that is exactly what he has done.”

“There’s no proof that Stampler removed his—and I quote—‘sexual apparatus,’” Vail said. “The only basis for Mr. Woodside’s and Dr. Danielson’s assumption is that it had to happen that way or his whole theory is full of hot air.”

“Mr. Vail,” Shoat said, leaning over the bench and glaring down at him, “it is certainly within the realm of Mr. Woodside’s expertise to logically string these events together. That is what he does. He made it clear that it’s an assumption and I am sure the jury will take that into consideration in weighing the evidence. Your objection is overruled.”

“I have no further questions at this time,” Venable said.

“Your witness, Mr. Vail.”

Vail flipped through his legal pad and slowly approached the witness box, while reading from his notes.

“Mr. Woodside,” he said, still reading from his pad, “you checked the carpeting for fibers, correct?”

“That’s correct. I worked with Dr. Danielson in the analysis of all the evidence.”

“What else did you check the carpeting for?”

“Bloodstains, hairs, other foreign matter.”

“Indentations?”

“I don’t understand the question.”

“Did you check for residual footprints, indentations in the carpeting, to ascertain whether anyone else was in the room besides Bishop Rushman and Aaron Stampler?”

“That really isn’t practical, Mr. Vail. The maid cleaned the room earlier that day. Other people passed through the bedroom.”

“So what you’re saying is, if there were other indentations in the carpet they could have been there since earlier in the day?”

“Yes…”

“And the same might be true for hair samples and fibers, isn’t that correct?”