“The defendant will remain in court,” ruled the judge. “Now, Mrs. Anderson, please tell us what, specifically, you are referring to?”
“The Rabbi’s father is my brother. My brother and his wife, Neil’s mother, made me swear that I would never reveal the secret about my nephew, Rabbi Neil Bloom, even if they were to die before me,” said Lorraine Anderson.
“What secret is that, Mrs. Anderson? Please understand that you must answer the question, even though the Rabbi sitting here never heard it before,” prodded the district attorney.
She faced Rabbi Bloom at the defense table. “I’m so sorry, Neil, that this will hurt you, but you were adopted right after you were born and were never told about your birth parents.”
“Was there anything else?” the D.A. prompted. “Please address your answers to me and the jury, and not to your nephew.”
“Yes, there was an identical twin brother born together with Neil. They were separated at birth, without anyone ever telling either of them that they had a twin brother. Both were given up for adoption to different families when they were just a few days old.”
“Why did your brother and sister-in-law swear you to secrecy about this?”
“They were afraid if Neil knew the truth he would seek out his birth mother and leave his adoptive parents. Neil’s adoptive mother died of lung cancer when she was only forty-eight.”
“How well do you know your nephew, Neil Robert Bloom?”
“Very well. My family not only goes to all his services, but Neil also helps out in my tea shop almost every weekend,” replied Mrs. Anderson.
“I was under the impression that he goes golfing most weekends with three other friends.”
“He does, but as soon as he’s finished playing on most Sundays, he comes right over and helps me keep up with customers, who sometimes don’t appreciate waiting too long to be served.”
“Mrs. Anderson, since his father was your brother, you were intimately involved with his adoptive parents, correct?”
“Yes, but as far as Neil knows, they were his biological parents.”
“Have you ever met the adoptive parents of his twin brother?”
“No, I have not.”
“Why not?” inquired the D.A.
“Because his brother was adopted by another family, and those records were sealed by a Court Order. I had told my dearest friend at the time about the twins. She had worked for the court and was able to obtain information she thought would be helpful to me. She had learned the boy shared the same birth date, time of birth and hospital as my nephew, which confirmed to me that he must be Neil’s twin. She had done some of her own research and found the twin had an especially tough time in his early life. When he was about seven or eight years old, his adoptive parents died in a tragic auto accident. His adoptive parents had no next of kin willing to take the little boy. After that he became a ward of the state and went to different foster homes, none of which I was ever told about. The state could not legally release their names, nor the boy’s name. This friend of mine was not willing to give me his name or the names of the foster parents out of fear that she might have been discovered revealing the sealed documents. My friend died six years ago of a stroke.”
“Mrs. Anderson, have you ever noticed a birthmark on your nephew the Rabbi?”
“No, he has no birthmarks on his body, and I would know since I changed his diapers for a year and a half and then have spent a great deal of time with him from his early childhood years until today.”
“No further questions for Mrs. Anderson.”
The judge asked, “Does the defense wish to cross examine the witness?”
“Yes, Your Honor,” said Jaxson.
“Mrs. Anderson, how do you know that the Rabbi is not already aware that he is adopted and that he has a twin brother?” asked the defendant’s attorney.
“Because I am his closest relative next to my brother, his adoptive father, who is still alive but has dementia, and he has never mentioned it to me or any other family member.”
“How do you know that he hasn’t mentioned it to the three other men in his golf foursome?”
Lorraine answered, “I don’t, but I would think...”
The defense attorney quickly interrupted. “Objection, Your Honor, irrelevant. There was no question for her to answer about what she thinks.”
“Sustained. Mrs. Anderson, please do not continue with your response.”
“No further questions,” said Jaxson.
Straub glared at District Attorney Stanford with a look that said, get the picture, bitch?
“Do the people wish to redirect?”
“No, Your Honor,” said Stanford.
“Mrs. Anderson, you are excused from any further proceedings today. However, you may be called upon by either side in the future to give further testimony. Thank you for your cooperation,” said Judge Garnett.
“Does the state have any other witnesses?” asked the judge.
“We do, Your Honor. The people call Mrs. Carol Jacobson to the stand.”
Carol walked into the court and the clerk directed her to the witness stand, swore her in, and told her “You may be seated.”
D.A. Stanford asked, “May I approach the witness, Your Honor?”
“You may.”
“Mrs. Jacobson, is it true that you and Rabbi Bloom have been having an affair?” asked the D.A.
Fear of telling the truth and what effect it would have on her marriage to Jules was not as great as her fear of perjury should they already have proof of the answer. “Yes,” she replied quietly, “we have been having an affair.”
A loud gasp went through the courtroom from the gallery filled with mostly congregants of the synagogue.
“And how long have you been having sexual relations with Neil Bloom?”
“About a year and a half.”
The D.A. asked sarcastically, but with non-prurient intent, “Have you both been completely undressed when you had these sexual relations?”
“I would say almost always,” Carol replied, deeply embarrassed.
“Therefore, you must have seen your lover completely naked, isn’t that correct?” asked Stanford.
“Yes,” she replied.
“Have you ever noticed a birthmark on him?”
Carol’s facial expression was perplexed, as if thinking, What the hell is she talking about? “No, I have not. Why is that important?”
“I’m sorry, Mrs. Jacobson, but I don’t answer questions except those asked of me by His Honor. No further questions for this witness at this time.
“Does the defense wish to examine this witness?” asked the judge.
The jury chuckled at that question of this incredibly attractive woman. One male juror was overheard whispering to the guy sitting next to him, “I’ll bet he’d like to examine her.”
Even though Garnett hadn’t heard the comment, he reprimanded the jury for their laughter and told them he would not accept that kind of conduct from them again.
Jaxson replied to the judge’s question, “Yes, Your Honor, I would. May I approach the witness?”
“You may.”
“Mrs. Jacobson, would you please point to your lover if he’s here in court?”
She pointed directly at the defendant and smiled at him.
The defendant’s counselor turned to the jury and said, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you can see, Mrs. Jacobson pointed to the defendant and identified Rabbi Bloom as her lover. No more questions, Your Honor.”
The judge asked D.A. Stanford, “Would you like to redirect the witness?”
“Yes, Your Honor. Mrs. Jacobson, during your deposition, you stated that though you swore he was the Rabbi, you described his lovemaking in recent months as different than before. How would you explain that comment made at the deposition?”
“I believe that I said his approach to me, such as foreplay, and the type of deep kisses I was used to, were no longer the same. He seemed to have a lo
t more hair on his chest than I could ever remember seeing before. He also reached his orgasm immediately, when in the past he would make sure that I was satisfied first. I didn’t understand the changes. It felt almost like a different person had made love to me.“
“Mrs. Jacobson, weren’t you concerned about this? Who else could he be?”
Not knowing how to answer, the witness fumbled with her purse.
“Is there anything else you need to tell us?” prompted Judge Garnett.
“Yes, Your Honor,” the witness said, sinking into her chair. “I didn’t tell you the whole truth before. I did see a birthmark on Neil that I had never noticed before. I didn’t ask him about it because I thought I had always overlooked it in the passion of our lovemaking, since the mark was so small.”
With this disconcerting revelation, defense attorney Jaxson asked for a recess until the next day, which was granted.
Thirty-One
The next morning, the judge opened the trial by asking, “Is the defense ready today?”
“Yes, Your Honor. The defense calls Dr. Edmund Meyers to the stand.”
Dr. Meyers was sworn in by the court clerk and asked to give his background, education, place, and length of employment, along with his current address.
Dr. Meyers was a thin, sixty-eight-year-old man with a head of yellowish-white hair, but no facial wrinkles. “I am employed by the Scottsdale Police Department as a forensic odontologist, where I have worked for forty-two years. I graduated from Tufts University School of Dental Medicine with a DMD degree and then took a Master of Science at Yale University. I live in Scottsdale.”
“Dr. Meyers,” began the defense, “what has been your background regarding testifying as an expert witness in a court of law?”
“During my lengthy career, I have testified as an expert witness at 168 murder trials for both prosecution and defense. There were also many attempted-murder trials too numerous to mention. I have also testified as to the determinant factors in various fatal accidents. I have testified before township courts and state superior courts, up to and including a state supreme court.”
Albert Jaxson handed him the pate marked Exhibit P-2 “Dr. Meyers, did you have an opportunity to examine this skull, found in the of the Rabbi’s home?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Have you also received the x-rays marked as Exhibit D-1, which we subpoenaed from Rabbi Bloom’s dentist, to make a comparison of the skull’s teeth and the x-rays you inspected?”
“Yes, I did.”
“And what were your findings?”
“I saw that this cranium and teeth had been severely burned and smoke damaged, but luckily were not burned enough to turn into ashes. I was able to see the forehead and the left teeth in the remains of the lower jaw.”
“In your analysis of the x-rays, were you able to definitely identify the teeth as those belonging to Rabbi Bloom?”
“No, I cannot say with certainty that they are the Rabbi’s. There is a strong resemblance to those in the x-ray, but four teeth are not enough of a sample. For me to say that I am one hundred percent certain whom they belonged to, I would have also needed a complete upper dental portion of the jaw, with bite impressions, to be completely satisfied that these teeth belong to Rabbi Neil Bloom.”
“Thank you, Dr. Meyers. No more questions for this witness, Your Honor.”
“Madam D.A., do you wish to cross examine?” asked Judge Garnett.
“Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Dr. Meyers, with all due respect, and you deserve very much of it, have you ever made a mistake?”
“Of course, I have,” Dr. Meyers replied. “I wouldn’t be human if I hadn’t.”
“Is there any possibility, no matter how slight, that the four teeth found in the remains of the skull could have belonged to Rabbi Bloom?”
“A possibility, yes, but not a certainty. Those four teeth could have belonged to hundreds of other people.”
“I see. But, Dr. Meyers, hundreds of other people’s DNA were not found with the partial remains of a head, and the striations on the teeth could not be like anyone else’s, according to the dentist who took the bite impressions. Dr. Meyers, would you agree that striations on these teeth must be different than on anyone else’s teeth?” challenged Stanford.
“Absolutely.”
“Then you would agree that since the striations were the same, is it not likely that at least those four teeth belonged to the Rabbi?”
“Not with one hundred percent certainty, since the striations were partially damaged by the fire too.”
“Objection,” stated the defense. “Calling for a conclusion without the witness having been given the bite impressions to compare for himself.”
“Sustained,” said the judge. “The jury will disregard the question and its response.”
“Yes, Your Honor, my apologies to the court,” said the district attorney. At least she was able to have the jury hear her question and the doctor’s response.
“Dr. Meyers, were you given an opportunity to forensically inspect the ashes from the Rabbi’ backyard?”
“Not exactly, but I was able to obtain enough milligrams of ashes falling off the gun, silencer and cranium as I pulled those pieces out of an evidence bag to enable me to verify their DNA,” said Meyers.
“What conclusions did you reach from the bits of ashes you got off the items you just mentioned?”
“At the time of my inspection of the evidence brought before me, the DNA of the ashes matched the skin of a human male, but I’m not sure if Rabbi Bloom ever had his DNA taken.”
“We got it off his toothbrush,” the D.A. noted. “Were there any paper scraps you found on the two items you researched?” asked the district attorney. She was referring to the alleged Torahs that were supposedly burned and may have contained DNA.
“No, there were not.”
“Objection. Lacking best evidence,” protested the defense.
“Overruled,” said the judge. “Madam D.A., you may continue with your questions.”
“Did you match the DNA from the toothbrush to the DNA you found in the ashes?”
“Yes, and it only appeared to match the DNA of the Rabbi’s.”
“Why do you say appeared? Aren’t you certain of the match?”
“Such burnt evidence when mixed with other substances in the ashes cannot be defined with absolute accuracy.”
Jaxson couldn’t have been more anxious to rid himself of his own expert witness. “No further questions for this witness, Your Honor. We are prepared to call our next witness.”
Judge Garnett said, “Thank you, Dr. Meyers, you may step down now and feel free to return to your practice. I don’t believe you will be called again.”
“Ladies and gentlemen,” the judge continued, “it’s almost five o’clock on Friday evening, so we will recess and reconvene at nine o’clock Tuesday morning, since Monday is Christmas day. The jury may go home for the holiday, but you are instructed not to discuss this case with anyone, including family members, nor read a newspaper, watch television news, or listen to radio news. You are also not to discuss this with anyone from the media. The bus will take you back to your home as soon as you leave the courthouse.” He struck his gavel, got up and returned to his chamber while all others left the courthouse.
Thirty-Two
The following Tuesday, court was again convened, and the judge permitted Jaxson to call his next witness.
Defense attorney Jaxson called for his client to take the stand, but only because he was unable to convince him not to take the stand, especially since the prosecution had proven that the Rabbi was at home the day of the murder. It seemed almost suicidal for him to take the stand on his own behalf. However, nothing worked to dissuade him; his client insisted that he wanted to tell his side of the story and demanded that his lawyer put him on the stand to do so.
“Ladies and gentlemen,” the judge addressed the jury, “the defendant has voluntarily chosen to take the stand. He has t
he constitutional right not to incriminate himself by taking the Fifth Amendment. However, when his own attorney calls him to the stand with his client’s permission, to answer questions for the defense, then he may not plead the fifth amendment when answering the prosecution’s questions.”
The court clerk directed the defendant, “Please state your name, address, profession, where you work and how long you have been there.”
“My name is Rabbi Neil Robert Bloom, and I am the religious and spiritual leader of the Jewish congregation known as the Sedona Reformed Synagogue here in Sedona and have been for sixteen years. I live in Flagstaff.”
“Rabbi Bloom, as my client, did I explain to you that do not have to take the stand and advised you that to do so would remove your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself?”
“Yes, you did. I chose to take the stand because there is nothing I can say that would incriminate me because I am not guilty. I want the jury and my community to know that I am not a cold-blooded murderer.”
“Let’s get right to the point of this trial, then. Rabbi, did you kill the person found in your backyard?”
“No, I did not.”
“Do you know how the body got into your backyard and burned to ashes?”
“No, I do not.”
“Were you told why you had been placed under arrest?”
“Yes, the police found a cremated body in my backyard. They said that the human skull on top of the pile belonged to that body.”
“Well, do you believe those were reasonable grounds to arrest you?”
“Objection, Your Honor,” the D.A. jumped in. “There is no conceivable reason as to whether or not his opinion makes any difference about the facts found. His opinion would be no different than any other person who was ever arrested for a crime, placed in handcuffs and jailed,” said the D.A.
“Sustained. Rabbi, do not answer your lawyer’s question. You may not tell us your opinion of the arrest. Only facts may be presented here,” said His Honor.
The Rabbi reacted emphatically. “Well, the police didn’t have any proof that I killed someone.”
“That remains to be seen at this trial, Rabbi. No further opinions will be accepted,” cautioned Garnett.
A Hole In One Page 17