“No further questions at this time, however the same stipulation holds for his recall.”
“Does the prosecution intend to redirect the witness?”
“Yes, Your Honor. Rabbi Isaac, would you please explain to the jury whether or not it is necessary to know Hebrew in order to be bar mitzvahed?”
“It is not required to know the Hebrew language to be given a bar mitzvah, especially nowadays in a reformed synagogue. It certainly helps when one can chant the aliyah blessings in Hebrew, but in a reformed synagogue English is often used instead. I can even give such lessons to people who have never spoken Hebrew. It is the proper chanting of the blessings that is required to be sung along with the prayers which are most important, whether they are said in Hebrew or English.”
“Rabbi, you mentioned it was not necessary to know Hebrew and that Mr. Straub had quit coming to you for his lessons. You also alluded to the importance of the aliyah blessings and the proper chanting. Did you give him lessons on both those important aspects of a bar mitzvah?”
“We never got that far during my lessons.”
“No more questions. Thank you, Rabbi.”
“Rabbi Isaac, thank you for your testimony,” said Judge Garnet. “Be aware that you may be called once again to the witness stand in the future. You are now excused and may step down from the stand.”
The D.A. continued, “The people call Dr. Todd Stern.”
Dr. Stern got up on the stand, gave his name and address as asked, and was told by the clerk, “Place your left hand on the Bible, raise your right hand and answer the following: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
Todd, being Jewish, struggled a bit to maintain his composure when asked to place his hand on a non-Jewish bible, with the jury staring at him, but of course did so anyway. He listened to the questions carefully, trying to remember the exact testimony he gave during his deposition. After all, he had told the truth then, but felt a little hazy as to the exact chronological order of the facts he previously testified to during his deposition.
“Dr. Stern, would you please tell the jury how you know the Rabbi?” asked the D.A.
“What kind of doctor are you, Dr. Stern?” interrupted the judge.
“I’m a dentist, Your Honor, and to answer the district attorney’s question, I have been a good friend of the Rabbi’s for over twenty years and his golfing partner for over ten years. Every Sunday when the weather permits we play a round with two other friends. I also attend his services on most of the Sabbaths and during the Jewish high holy days.”
“It has come to our attention that you recently contacted Detective Pratt with some concerns you had about the Rabbi,” stated the D.A.
“Yes, I did.”
“Would you please tell the jury and the court what concerns you conveyed to the detective about the Rabbi during your call to him?”
“Well, there were three issues that I can remember. The first and most intriguing to me, was that for the first time since I’ve known him, I noticed the Rabbi had a rather small birthmark on the right side of the back of his neck, just above his collar.”
“Please continue to relate to the jury what your other two concerns were.”
“The second concern happened during one Sabbath service when the Rabbi articulated one of the most frequent Jewish prayers, which begins with “Barook ah-to ah-doughnoy, Eloheinu, mellek, ha-olum…”
“And why was this a concern?” she asked.
“Because he neglected to say ‘Eloheinu,’ which begins practically all Hebrew prayers.”
“Isn’t it possible that he may have just forgotten part of the prayer, Dr. Stern?”
“Not really, you see the prayer means ‘Blessed are You, oh Lord, source of peace.’ Eloheinu means ‘oh Lord.’ It would be like a priest, during his daily communion, forgetting to say, ‘This is the body of Christ.’ Yet, the Rabbi didn’t say Eloheinu.”
“I see,” she stated. “So far you have given us two issues that concerned you, Dr. Stern. What was the third one?”
“After one of the Sabbath services, trying not to give away any indication that I thought something might be amiss, I approached my friend Rabbi Bloom—whom I call Neil when outside of the synagogue—and asked him in a friendly way if he could remember how long ago he began his Rabbinical services at the synagogue? He replied sixteen years. However, the correct answer as to how long he’s been the Rabbi here was eighteen years. Even if he were thinking of the amount of time we had known one another, the right answer would have been twenty-two years.”
“How can you be so sure that you are right, and he is wrong?”
“Because I graduated dental school twenty-two years ago, so I know I am correct because that’s the year I first met Rabbi Bloom.”
“Dr. Stern, you were the Rabbi’s dentist for all the years you two have been friends, were you not?
“Yes, I was.”
“Did Detective Pratt ask you to make an impression of the four teeth in the partial left jaw of the skull found in the Rabbi’s yard and compare them with any dental records you have in your office?”
“Yes, he did. However, in my practice I never made an exemplar of his entire bite.”
“Your Honor, I would like to have this partial skull marked as people’s exhibit P-2. This is the actual skull found by the police.”
It was a little late during the proceedings, but the judge decided to explain to the jury what the exhibit numbers mean. He informed them that exhibits will be numbered as P for the prosecution, followed by a number that reflects what number exhibit of evidence it is for their side when questioning a witness. The defense may introduce their own exhibits which will be labeled as exhibit D for defense, followed by a chronological number depending on how many exhibits they introduce. He then gave permission to enter the exhibit as P-2.
“The record will show that the prosecution introduced exhibit P-2, the skull found in the Rabbi’s backyard among the ashes,” Judge Garnett stated.
Some of the jurors chose not to look at it for fear of vomiting. When the judge noticed this, he insisted that each of the jurors look at the skull the D.A. was holding up in her rubber-gloved hand as exhibit P-2.
“Dr. Stern,” the D.A. requested, “would you please tell the jury what you discovered when you examined the four teeth of exhibit P-2?”
“I took an impression of the teeth in the skull with a special dental-clay type of compound, and in lay terms had the impression solidified. However, as I mentioned, I don’t keep exemplars for all my patients, or my office shelves would be full of them. But I was able look at the x-rays I made of his mouth, which I had taken quite a few times since he became a patient. I reached my conclusion from the x-ray I had on record in my office. When inspecting it for the D.A. I almost collapsed. I was completely bewildered at this finding.”
“Objection, Your Honor,” yelled out defense attorney Jaxson. “No one asked him, nor does anyone care, if he was bewildered or almost collapsed.”
“Sustained. Dr. Stern, just answer the question and refrain from telling us about your emotions.”
Jaxson sat back down feeling somewhat empowered.
“I will rephrase the question, Your Honor,” the D.A. said. “Dr. Stern, would you please tell the jury what the results were when you compared Rabbi Bloom’s dental records to the teeth in the skull?”
“The x-rays that I interpreted showed that the teeth in the skull are an almost identical match to Rabbi Bloom’s teeth on that side of the lower jaw.”
“What do you mean almost identical?” she asked, not knowing what almost meant.
“What I meant to say is that I am ninety percent sure they were Rabbi’s Bloom’s teeth!”
“Why only ninety percent, Dr. Stern?”
“Because with the heat of the blaze and the discoloration that occurred to the teeth and remaining jawbone, I am almost certain but cannot guarantee it to be one hundred percent. Also
, as I mentioned earlier, I don’t keep the exemplars of my patients’ teeth, which would give me an exact match if there was one.”
“So, in other words, to the best of your ability and expert knowledge, you have identified the skull as belonging to Rabbi Neil Robert Bloom, correct?”
“Correct, the dental imprints taken from the skull are essentially the same as shown in Rabbi Neil Bloom’s x-rays.”
“No more questions for this witness.”
“Let’s take a brief recess before we resume,” said the judge.
Twenty-Nine
“Does the defense wish to cross examine this witness?” asked the judge once the court reconvened.
“Yes, I do. Thank you, Your Honor,” said Defense Attorney Albert Jaxson.
Approaching Todd Stern, Jaxson began his questioning. “Mr. Stern, you stated that you detected three unusual circumstances which made you question the Rabbi’s authenticity. Correct?”
“I’ll answer that question, sir, but in the future please address me as Dr. Stern. The answer to your question is yes.”
“Of course, Dr. Stern, I apologize. Now, after twenty-two years, why would your good friend Rabbi Bloom, even under the most unusual circumstances, which this was not . . .”
“Objection,” the district attorney interrupted. “The defense has used improper characterization of the testimony.”
“Overruled.”
“Thank you, Your Honor,” said Jaxson. “Let me repeat the question. Dr. Stern, after twenty-two years, why would your good friend Rabbi Bloom give you the impression that he was someone else?”
“I can’t exactly say that I mistrusted the Rabbi, but two of the three issues I testified to before made me question if he was in his right state of mind.”
“Why only two of the issues made you question his state of mind and not all three?”
“Because the third was the birthmark I had seen, and that is not part of his state of mind,” he replied somewhat sarcastically.
“You testified to the prosecution that you were able to identify the teeth attached to the skull with ninety percent accuracy as those belonging to Rabbi Bloom. If everything were burnt to ashes, can you explain to the jury how you could identify the teeth and why they weren’t burnt to ashes too?”
“Yes, I can. I said that all the skin, and most of the bones except for some extremely small bone fragments, were burned beyond recognition, that’s how high the heat got due to the accelerant of gasoline poured over the body. Bones and teeth are made of a much stronger composition that requires much higher degrees of heat to burn. Crematoriums first crush bones and teeth before a cremation because the teeth are formulated from calcium phosphate and dentin, which we see as enamel. Bones, however, are made up of extraordinarily strong collagen and calcium phosphate, and even more difficult to burn.”
“How then were you able to identify the teeth?” Jaxson asked. “What happened to the upper teeth and the rest of the lower teeth of the jaw?”
“The cranium and the teeth were severely burned and smoke damaged, but luckily were not burned enough to turn into ashes because they lay above the most intense part of the fire. Forensics gave me this part of the head, and I was able to clearly examine the forehead and the bottom left of the teeth remaining in the jaw and compared them to the x-rays I kept of the Rabbi’s teeth.”
“Then why weren’t all of the teeth preserved, both the rest of the bottom and the top?”
“The other teeth fell out when the skin along with the gum tissue that holds the teeth was also burned, and therefore the other teeth in the jaw fell out. I don’t exactly know the answer to that question as to why some teeth are missing, but it is possible that perhaps he was first knocked unconscious by the murderer and fell against a hard object landing across the mouth, and that may have caused the loss of his teeth.”
“Objection, Your Honor, the witness is providing narrative to the question asked. I did not ask the witness to guess at anything. The witness is here to provide facts not to play guessing games.”
“Sustained,” said the judge. Turning to the people sitting to his left, he cautioned, “The jury is to disregard Dr. Stern’s guessing at answers.”
Jaxson felt his adrenalin kicking in and asked, “Dr. Stern, I understand you are not married and have no children, correct?”
“Objection. Relevance?” asked the district attorney.
“Mr. Jaxson, relevance please,” demanded the judge.
“If you’ll give me a few more minutes to conduct a simple test, Your Honor, I’ll demonstrate the relevance.”
“I’ll overrule your objection for now, Madam D.A. However, Mr. Jaxson, you had better demonstrate the relevance soon or this time I will hold you in contempt and sustain the objection.”
“Thank you, Your Honor. During his deposition it was stipulated that Dr. Stern has no children, but does have three nieces and one nephew. Doctor, can you tell me which of them has a birthmark on their arm just on the back of their shoulder, and which arm, right or left?”
“Objection, the question is immaterial,” said D.A. Stanford.
“I’ll sustain the objection, but I did give the defense a few minutes to demonstrate relevance. Dr. Stern, I want to hear your answer.”
“I do not know which of my nieces or nephew has a mark on any of their arms,” replied Stern.
“So, if I brought your middle niece here into court and pointed to the birthmark just above the back of her shoulder, would you then question whether or not she is truly your niece?”
“No, I would not, even if she really does have a mark. However, I don’t believe the example you gave is befitting. You see, since my sister lives on the East Coast, I don’t get to see my nieces and nephew but twice a year, whereas I see the Rabbi once and sometimes twice a week.”
Jaxson interrupted him before he could finish. “Objection. The witness is giving us an extended narrative after he already answered the question.”
“Overruled.” He faced Stern and told him, “You may continue to explain.”
“It is quite possible that I may never have noticed my niece’s birthmark and never thought anything of it, especially if it’s located where you said, since I do not get to see her often. I always see their faces first and naturally, they are dressed. I first give them a big hug since the day they turned two-years old and they could handle a hug. Once I see them, especially at this age, they always leave my sister-in-law and me to talk, while they go occupy themselves elsewhere.”
Jaxson continued, “You say your niece is now in her teens and you say that you never noticed a birthmark on her; yet, you still swear that you saw a birthmark on Rabbi Bloom? Dr. Stern, is there any possibility the teeth found did not match the Rabbi’s teeth?”
“It’s possible,” Stern replied, “but highly unlikely. You see teeth are like fingerprints; no two people will have the exact same teeth. By that I mean the striations will be different on teeth that may even look identical as to their shape, size, and color. This is incontrovertible!” replied the dentist.
“If it’s incontrovertible, then how do you explain the fact that Rabbi Bloom is sitting in this court right now?”
“I can’t,” Stern replied, studying his hands.
Jaxson felt a flush of triumph for a moment, and then moved on.
“Dr. Stern, if I recollect correctly, you mentioned that after you noticed odd variations during the Rabbi’s services, you called Detective Pratt. Am I right?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Would you please tell the jury why you called a detective to look into a crime instead of calling a psychiatrist if you suspected the possibility that something was amiss with his mind?”
“The only reason I suspected something amiss with his mind was his leaving the Hebrew word for Lord out of his prayers. It was after seeing the mark on his neck that I began to suspect some foul play may have taken place. A birthmark is not a sign of something wrong with one’s mind, so I didn’t see an
y need for a psychiatrist.”
That last comment caused immediate laughter in the courtroom, to which Judge Garnett pounded his gavel and called the courtroom back to order.
“How can you be sure it was a birthmark and not a tattoo?”
“Because as a doctor, even as a dentist, I can tell the difference between a small skin discoloration and a mechanical blotch made in ink regardless of the color.”
“Fine. But how can you be sure that birthmark wasn’t there all along and you just never noticed it?”
“I can’t,” Stern replied sheepishly.
“No more questions for this witness, your honor,” Jaxson said with bravado.
As the day was nearing late in the afternoon, the judge recessed the trial until the following morning.
Thirty
The next morning began with the standard introductions, swearing in of witnesses and jury, and the court clerk quieting the courtroom spectators. The judge entered from his chambers and sat down at his bench. “Good morning, everyone.”
“Good morning, Your Honor,” responded both attorneys and the gallery audience.
D.A. Stanford began. “The people call Mrs. Lorraine Anderson to the stand.”
“Mrs. Anderson, you are related to Rabbi Bloom, are you not?”
“Yes, Neil is my...excuse me, I meant to say the Rabbi is my nephew.”
“Would you please tell the court what background, or family history, you know about your nephew?”
“I will, but I request that they remove the defendant first, if that’s possible.”
“That’s not possible,” replied Stanford. “The defendant has the absolute right to sit in court and hear all of the testimony that will be given either against him or on his behalf. Would you share your reasoning as to why it makes a difference to you, whether or not he’s in court?”
“Because what I’m about to tell the court and jury may come as a terrible shock to him, since this would be the first time in his life that he’s ever heard it.”
A Hole In One Page 16