Part 5 (1/2)

”I did.”

”And where did you do this?”

”In the examination room at the coroner's office. As part of the preautopsy examination. We also took photographs at that time.”

”And as part of that examination, were you able to determine anything else regarding possible identification of the perpetrator of this crime?”

”I was able to make certain determinations.”

”For example?”

”Based on the placement of the ligature around the victim's throat, it is my opinion that the killer was left-handed.”

As he says this, Crone, who has been copiously taking notes at the table next to me, suddenly stops and lays his pen down. Unfortunately, he isn't quick enough. Several of the jurors are looking at the ballpoint pen resting on the table, angled like an arrow toward his left hand, which just laid it down.

”Can you tell the jury how you came to this conclusion?”

”Ordinarily with a garrote, or a piece of rope, it might be difficult to tell,” says Schwimmer, ”although the dominant hand usually leaves some telltale bruising where the hands cross over. The ligature is twisted as the a.s.sailant applies pressure. But in this case it is fairly easy, and certain. The reason,” he says, ”is the design of the cable tie itself.”

He picks up a fresh one from the bag as if to emphasize.

”The a.s.sailant would insert the end of the tie into the yoke, making a loop.” Schwimmer does this with the tie.

”From the tool marks on the nylon tail it is clear that the a.s.sailant used a tensioning tool to gain leverage. This would give him a solid grip on the thin nylon. In doing this, in using the tool to pull the loop closed, it is natural that the killer would use the dominant hand to pull the handle of the tool, and the weak hand to position the loop in place at the posterior of the victim's neck. That means that when the act was completed, when the cable tie was fully tightened, the tail of the tie pa.s.sing through the yoke would pa.s.s from right to left behind the victim's neck as it exited the yoke. The tail would be in the direction of the killer's dominant hand. In this case, the left hand. This was, in fact, what I observed before removing the cable tie from around the victim's neck.”

”Thank you, Doctor.” Tannery has some close-up photographs of this, which the witness quickly identifies. These are marked for identification and placed into evidence without objection. He then identifies the cable tie used to kill Kalista Jordan sealed in its plastic evidence bag, still coiled in its deadly loop even though cut. This, too, is lettered for identification and moved into evidence.

”Just as a point of information, Doctor, do you have any scientific basis or knowledge as to what proportion of the general population is left-handed?” asks Tannery.

”About ten percent,” says Schwimmer.

”A distinct minority,” says Tannery.

”Correct.”

I can feel Crone as he bristles at this.

”Were you able to determine anything else from your observations during or before the autopsy?”

”Yes. It was apparent that the killer was taller than the victim. I would estimate, approximately six feet in height.”

”And how did you determine this?”

”The ligature, while being applied nearly on a level, was pulled up slightly higher at the back of the neck. As I said, above the first cervical vertebra. That would indicate that as the killer applied pressure, the ligature was being pulled just slightly upward, accounting for a difference in height. I determined the a.s.sailant to be approximately six feet tall by taking the height of the victim and the slight angle of the ligature and making some calculations.”

”I see.” Tannery then takes the witness through the process of dismemberment, the fact that Kalista Jordan's arms and legs were severed neatly at the joints. Three of these were never found when her torso floated up on the beach along the strand.

”Could you tell how long she had been in the water?”

”At least three days.”

”Could sharks or other predators have accounted for the missing limbs?”

”Not unless they had medical training,” says Schwimmer. Several of the jurors laugh at the dark humor.

”Objection.”

”Sustained.”

”Could sharks have accounted for this?” Tannery holds up one of the photographs toward the jury.

”No. There were no tooth marks, no broken bones. Whoever dismembered the body after death knew what he or she was doing.”

”Is it likely that this person had medical or surgical training?”

”Objection.”

”I'm asking the witness for his expert opinion,” says Tannery.

”I'll allow it,” says the judge.

”It's possible,” says Schwimmer. ”The incisions at the joints were made by a very sharp instrument.”

”Like a scalpel?”

”Possibly.”

”Thank you, Doctor. No further questions.”

Coats looks down at me. ”Your witness, Mr. Madriani.”

The tactic here is always the same, playing the game of the possible. Securing little wedges of concession from the expert, issues on which he cannot be absolutely certain, and to maneuver for openings that can be exploited.

”Dr. Schwimmer. Am I p.r.o.nouncing your name correctly?”

He nods and smiles.

”In your autopsy report you stated that the victim suffered several severe lacerations and contusions to the head.”

”That's true.”

”Were you able to determine what caused these?”

”No.”

”Do you know whether these contusions and lacerations were suffered before death or after the victim was killed?”

”No. It was not possible. The body was in the water too long.”

This was a point covered in his report. Ordinarily, bleeding into the tissues surrounding a contusion or laceration might indicate that it was an injury sustained before death, before the heart stopped beating. In this case, immersion in salt water for two or three days destroyed many of the forensic signs that the state might have followed.