A Hole In One

by Paul Weininger

  “What were you burning in your backyard?” asked Jaxson.

  “Two old and tattered Torahs.”

  “Why were you burning the Torahs? And how did the human head end up on top of the pile?”

  The defendant replied, “In Judaism, when Torahs are old, tattered and no longer useable, the only proper way to dispose of them is to burn them and bury their ashes, which I intended to do. As for the human head on top, I have no idea who may have placed it there.”

  “No more questions for this witness” said the defendant’s lawyer.

  “Do the people wish to cross?”

  “We do, Your Honor.” But as Stanford approached the witness stand, the judge interrupted her after checking a text reminder he had just received on his cell phone. To Jaxson’s great relief, the judge called for a recess for three court days and the ensuing weekend since he had another pressing case to adjudicate.

  He told everyone that the case would resume the day after New Year’s. He gave the jury the same instructions as before—stay away from any and all media and not discuss the case with anyone, not even family members.

  The resumption of the trial came too quickly for Albert Jaxson, who couldn’t shake the feeling that his client was going to hang himself.

  “Do the people have any other witnesses to call?” asked the judge. The district attorney followed a strong hunch that had developed in her thinking. “The people call Richard Straub.”

  The bailiff called for Richard Straub in the rear of the courthouse, but no one came forward. She opened the door to the hallway and repeated, “The people call Richard Straub to the stand.” Still no one appeared.

  Garnett instructed the court clerk, “Go out and look in the hallway and the men’s room to see if Richard Straub is there.”

  The clerk returned and said, “Your Honor, I checked everywhere and there is no Richard Straub anywhere in the courthouse.”

  “Madam D.A., apparently Mr. Straub is not going to appear before this court. So please call your next witness.”

  “That is not entirely correct, Your Honor, because it is our contention that Mr. Straub is already here and sitting with Defense Attorney Jaxson, trying to pretend he is Rabbi Bloom.”

  “Objection, Your Honor. No foundation for such a preposterous insinuation,” said the defendant’s lawyer.

  “Sustained. Madam D.A., you have offered no proof that the man sitting there, known as Rabbi Neil Robert Bloom, the defendant you are prosecuting, is in fact Richard Straub.”

  “Your Honor, please give me fifteen minutes and the prosecution will provide that proof.”

  “You are balancing on the edge, Madam D.A. Be careful and produce your evidence swiftly.”

  “The people call Dr. Lynn Collier.”

  The court clerk placed Collier under oath and swore her in.

  “Dr. Collier, you are a forensics detective for the Sedona Police Department. In this capacity, you analyze fingerprints and other evidence such as DNA from a crime scene that is brought to you, correct?” asked Stanford.

  “Correct!” said Collier.

  “On the day the detectives discovered a body in the Rabbi’s backyard, did you have an opportunity to take any fingerprints?”

  “None were available from the ashes. However, we were able to identify the charred remains as belonging to a human being. We did take fingerprints from every room in the Rabbi’s house. We took fingerprints from walls, doors, faucets, circuit breakers, light switches, all pots and pans in his kitchen, his furniture, in his garage and in his cars, and then some.”

  “What findings did the fingerprints provide in the way of identifying who they belonged to?”

  “Ninety-eight percent belonged to the owner of the home, Rabbi Neil Robert Bloom.” replied Dr. Collier.

  “Did you fingerprint the Rabbi when he was arrested for this situation?”

  “No, but the police did as S.O.P for all individuals arrested and placed in custody. They then sent me copies of the prints.”

  “Did you get the same results from all those fingerprints?”

  “Objection. Prosecution is leading the witness,” interjected the defense.

  “Overruled. Dr. Collier, you may answer the question.”

  Hearing this, Straub felt exonerated, believing that his fingerprints had to be the same as his brother’s since they were identical twins.

  “No, the results were different. We found that the man Detective Somerville arrested had different fingerprints than the Rabbi who owned the house. We found these other fingerprints on the front doorknob, the upstairs closet doors, and along kitchen drawer handles. Using the latest fluorescent dye and black light techniques, we confirmed that the other two percent of the fingerprints we found, while somewhat similar, belonged to someone else.”

  “Were you able to identify those other fingerprints?”

  “Yes, according to records in the FBI database, we found that they belonged to a Richard Straub.”

  Hearing this, Straub hung his head down between his legs, trying awfully hard not to vomit.

  “What else did you learn from your forensics investigation of material from the scene of the crime?”

  “They brought me a gun found amid the ashes that was very damaged from fire but not melted. It was a .45 caliber Glock with an attached silencer. I also inspected the skull and found a .45 caliber hole in its forehead and a much larger exit wound at the back of the head. Then, as we investigated items throughout the home, a .45 caliber slug was extracted from a closet door directly across from the front door.”

  “Did you establish how that bullet hit the wooden door across from the front door?”

  “Since the bullet hole on the wooden door had blood on it, which we could only see with a special blue light, I deduced that it was most likely the same bullet that exited the back of the victim’s head when he was shot in the forehead. Therefore, he was apparently shot at the front door of his home.”

  “What else did you investigate forensically?”

  “The skull had four teeth still embedded in the lower jaw. We obtained DNA from them and confirmed that they belonged to Rabbi Bloom.”

  “In your professional opinion, were you able to deduce what transpired? ”

  “Objection. Calls for conjecture and not facts,” Jaxson cried out.

  “Overruled.”

  “Yes. In my professional opinion, someone had knocked on his front door or rang his bell, and when the Rabbi opened the front door, he was immediately shot in the forehead. Due to the shooter being in such close proximity to the victim, the point of entry of the shot caused the bullet to travel completely through the skull and exit out the back of his head. Therefore, the bullet that killed the Rabbi was the one lodged and extracted from the coat closet door behind him. Blood traces found on the extracted bullet matched the Rabbi’s DNA; it was the same as the DNA found on his toothbrush.”

  “Let’s say that the Rabbi had a twin. Would they then not have the same DNA?” Stanford asked.

  “No, they would not. It is a basic belief of human biology, as taught in schools everywhere, that identical twins come from the same fertilized egg and thus share identical genetic profiles. But according to modern research, though identical twins share extremely similar genes, they are not totally identical. Their DNA may be similar, but there are always differences.” Collier paused for a moment, as if to catch her breath. “Forensics and fingerprint experts have testified for years before many courts that no two people in the world can have the same DNA, regardless of their relationship. For example, there have been many studies showing that one twin developed dementia or diabetes, while the other twin did not, and so forth.”

  “Fascinating. No further questions, Dr. Collier, thank you very much.”

  “Any questions for this witness by the defense?” asked the judge.

  “Yes, Your Honor. Dr. Collier, how were you able to identify Richard Straub’s fingerprints?

  “Easily. When he was you
nger, he had been arrested a few times for misdemeanors and one felony charge for car theft. We just compared his fingerprints taken after his arrest with his fingerprints taken back then.”

  “Isn’t it true that he was just a passenger in the stolen car arrest and served no time for it?”

  “Yes, that’s true, but his fingerprints were still taken at the time of arrest since he was an accomplice to the crime.”

  “No further questions, Your Honor,” said defense attorney Jaxson, looking exhausted by the turn of events.

  “Detective Collier, you may be excused. Do the people have any more witnesses?”

  “We do, your honor.” Stanford replied.

  “Call your next witness,” said Judge Garnett.

  The D.A. took this opportunity to drop her bombshell. “Your Honor, we request a mistrial, having just proven to the court that the man representing himself as the defendant, Rabbi Bloom, is in fact named Richard Straub. Should the Court agree to declare a mistrial of Rabbi Bloom, we will make every effort to continue the trial with Mr. Straub in the defendant’s chair. We wish to revise this trial by changing the defendant’s name to Straub. We also assert that should the court wish to start anew, the testimony of the witnesses we would call have already testified and may be recalled by either side at the new trial of Mr. Straub.”

  The Judge seemed extremely annoyed hearing this request and asked Jaxson if he had any objections.

  Attorney Jaxson turned to his client and whispered in his ear, “Are you Richard Straub or the Rabbi?”

  Straub whispered back into Jaxson’s ear. “Yeah, I am Straub. I’ll explain it all to you at the next break.”

  Jaxson gathered his shattered nerves and told the judge that he had no objection to calling a mistrial, since his client just admitted to him that he is in fact Richard Straub.

  Thirty-Three

  Judge Garnett had no choice but to declare a mistrial, since the wrong person had been named as the defendant. “The defendant, Richard Straub, will be held in custody as we break for a couple of months to permit the D.A. to build her case regarding this defendant. The jury is excused and will be returned to their homes by bus. Remember, you may not discuss this case with anyone, not even with fellow jurors or your spouses. When we are ready to continue with this strange case, we will bring you back to this court.”

  Hearing this, Straub hung his head down between his legs and moaned, trying desperately not to throw up as the bailiffs grabbed him by the arms and led him to jail.

  Within minutes, Jaxson was not only mystified but infuriated. He asked the judge for permission to see his client in his jail cell.

  When Jaxson entered Straub’s jail cell, he shouted, “What the fuck is going on here? Are you the Rabbi or this guy the state has identified as Richard Straub?”

  “I am Richard Straub, and I replaced the Rabbi after I got rid of his body.”

  “Why on earth would you do that?”

  “I went to his home to prove to him that I existed as his twin, which he was not aware of since he wouldn’t take my phone calls.”

  “Yes, so what?”

  “When I got to his front door, I found him lying dead right next to the open door. He had blood all over and was shot in the forehead. I knew he was rich and thought that maybe I could replace him at the synagogue with no one being the wiser and earn the money he had made. I took his body to the backyard and buried him under leaves, hoping that no one would identify him as the Rabbi if I lit the leaves on fire. I know I’m guilty of a few crimes, including lying in court and worse, yet, to you. I assure you with every fiber in my body that I did not murder the Rabbi. Please continue to represent me now that I’ll be on trial under my own name.”

  “I’ll represent you,” Jaxson responded, “but you can never lie to me again because if I catch you doing so, I’m willing to lose my license and tell the court that you are the real murderer.”

  Having changed the proper documents regarding the defendant, Richard Straub, D.A. Stanford was ready after a month and a half to return to court. Straub in the meantime had been denied bail, and kept in jail until the next hearing, even after the judge heard loud and angry objections by Straub’s lawyer.

  When the trial was once again called to order, defendant Straub sat at the same defense table with the same attorney but with a completely different persona. Proceedings were once again officially announced, and the judge was reintroduced to the same jurors who were sworn in again. The resumption of the trial came too quickly for Albert Jaxson, who knew his case was weak and believed that Straub might commit suicide with the bailiff’s gun if he could wrest it away.

  “When the court last recessed,” the judge began, “the prosecution was about to cross examine Richard Straub. Madam D.A., do you still wish to cross examine the defendant?”

  “We do, Your Honor,” answered D.A. Stanford. “The people recall Richard Straub.” As Straub rose from the defendant’s table and took the witness stand, Stanford looked at the judge and asked, “Your Honor, may I approach the bench?”

  “You may.”

  At this point Garnett also called defense counsel up to the bench. He switched off his mic to prevent the jury from hearing their conversation. The D.A. asked for judge’s permission to declare this man a hostile witness, but defense attorney Jaxson objected, saying that it would unfairly influence the jury to disbelieve anything his witness has to say.

  The judge informally sustained the objection at the bench and directed D.A. Stanford to repeat her request on the record. He then turned his mic back on.

  “Your Honor,” Stanford said, “the people now wish to identify this defendant as a hostile witness.”

  The judge in turn addressed the jury somberly. “What the prosecution is saying by declaring the defendant a hostile witness is that she expects some lies from the witness to occur. But if they do, that still does not necessarily prove him to be guilty.”

  “Mr. Straub,” the D.A. requested, “would you please lower the collar on your shirt and show the jury the birthmark on your neck?”

  “Objection. The prosecution is asking the defendant to incriminate himself.”

  “Let me remind you, Mr. Jaxson,” said the judge, “your client waived that right when he himself insisted on testifying. He was reminded at that time that he was forfeiting his Fifth Amendment rights in doing so, and stated that he understood. Your objection is overruled! Mr. Straub, show the jury your neck.”

  Straub did as he was told and showed the jury the birthmark on his neck, which he had tried to hide by raising his collar.

  Stanford continued, “With your permission, Your Honor, I’d like to re-introduce prosecution exhibit P-1.”

  “Let the record reflect that the prosecution has re-introduced exhibit P-1,” intoned Garnett.

  Exhibit P-1 consisted of two photographs taken by a police photographer who focused his lens on the site of where the body lay, first on the skull with a bullet hole in the center of the forehead, and then on the back of the cranium where the bullet splayed the head open. The jury looked at the photos repugnantly.

  “Mr. Straub, please look at the pictures labeled exhibit P-1,” handing them to him. “Can you explain why the objects in these pictures were found in the backyard of the home where you were arrested, and why your fingerprints were found inside the Rabbi’s house?”

  “When I got to my brother’s front door, I found him lying there dead. I then took the body to the yard and burned it for fear the police would think that I killed him.”

  “You mean to tell the jury that you did not plan to kill and replace your twin brother?” she asked.

  “That’s exactly what I am saying.”

  “But in so answering, you admit that he was your twin brother?”

  “Yes, I do.”

  “Objection, Your Honor. The D.A. is obviously harassing my client with not one shred of proof that he committed murder. The only crime that he committed, as he admits, was burning of the body h
e found to be his twin brother.”

  “Overruled,” Judge Garnett decreed, and there was a bustle in the courtroom as reporters bolted for the door to call their editors. The judge banged his gavel to restore order and called for a brief recess.

  Thirty-Four

  When the proceedings resumed, the D.A pressed on. “Well, Mr. Straub,” she said with the hint of a smile, “the state’s case has turned against you as the murderer of Rabbi Bloom. The people, with the court’s permission, would now like to introduce exhibit P-3. It is a video tape obtained from the state police, who had CCTV cameras present at the Sedona gun show in May of this year.”

  “Any objections by the defense?” the judge asked.

  “Only to the prosecution’s summation of my client’s supposed guilt, your honor.”

  “Overruled. Madam D.A., please continue.”

  “Thank you, Your Honor. Would the Court clerk please place the DVD into the player and turn it on?” she asked.

  The TV monitor was positioned facing both the jury and the judge. Jaxson and his client asked permission from the court to approach the monitor to see what the DVD was about to show. The judge granted them permission and directed a bailiff to stand next to the defendant.

  “Here,” the D.A. began, “during the first three hours of the gun show opening, you can see hundreds of people walking into the show’s complex of sellers. There was a huge variety of weapons, and some sellers even had weapons of mass destruction such as AR-15s, grenade launchers, and even live hand grenades.” She again turned to the court clerk, “Would you please forward the recording to number 356 on the player?”

  The court clerk did as he was asked by the D.A.

  “Please run the video in slow motion, from numbers 356 thru 362.” She faced the jury and stated, “You will observe here that Mr. Straub—or is it the Rabbi?—is seen walking into the gun show. As you watch the video, take note of the date on the top right.”

  “Now, please forward to frame 528.” Again, she provided an introduction as to what they were about to view. “Here we see Mr. Straub—or the Rabbi as he would have you believe—leave the gun show with a rather thick package made to look like something other than a gun, wrapped in newspaper. Then, at number 534 on the video, he exited the building.”