Santana walked out of the courtroom. Attempting to muster as much dignity as she could under the circumstances.
CHAPTER 108
Thursday, August 6, 12:30 p.m.
RIGHT AFTER FINISHING HIS session with Foster, Lotello had put in a call to Jonathan Mortimer, Hollister’s lawyer. Probably remembering all too well that Brooks was somehow in Lotello’s corner, Mortimer took the call without playing any games and agreed with Lotello’s request to meet at Mortimer’s office the next day at 12:30. Lotello didn’t say what the agenda for the meeting would be. And Mortimer didn’t ask. Lotello figured Mortimer wanted to appear the least bit concerned. Lotello did state that the meeting was just for the two of them. That Hollister was not invited.
“Good afternoon, Detective. Mr. Mortimer’s expecting you.” The receptionist escorted him back to Mortimer’s office. “We brought in sandwiches and drinks.”
“Sounds great. Thanks so much.”
Mortimer was already there. “Hey, Frank. Nice to see you again.” Mortimer greeted Lotello like they were old chums. “Grab yourself a sandwich and something to drink. How’s the Norman trial going?”
Lotello filled his plate. “Hard to know what the jury’s thinking. I would like to share with you a few developments from my point of view. I think you’ll appreciate why I didn’t want Hollister to join us.”
“I’m all ears. But I want you to know I can’t keep any secrets from Blaine. He’s my client. I must reserve the right to share with him anything you tell me.”
Precisely what I’m counting on. “I fully understand. I just thought our meeting would be more efficient if we didn’t have Hollister here. Possibly becoming upset and defensive and attempting to run interference.”
“Yeah. He does sometimes get a little defensive.”
“Here’s the bottom line. At least as I see it.” Well, how I see it, taking some liberties. “Norman may have had tremendous motive to kill Wells. And DiMarco and Johnson as well. However, I’m not sure Norman did it. I now have an eyewitness who implicates Hollister in all of this. I think Hollister is either the killer or knows who is. If Hollister isn’t the killer, then why hasn’t he come forward with whatever it is he knows? Thus, I think Hollister may actually be the killer. And is letting Norman take the fall for him.”
“That’s quite a story, Frank. At least quite an imagination. Who’s your eyewitness?”
“I can’t reveal that right now. I need to keep him, or her, alive.”
“Frank, if you’ve got this all nailed down, as you say, why are you telling me this? Why haven’t you already arrested Hollister? And got the charges against Norman dropped?”
“Hollister’s under surveillance. He’s not going anywhere. I’m waiting because I want to corral everyone who’s involved in this whole sordid mess. I’m not quite there yet.”
“But again, why tell me all this? What is it you want from me?”
“Let me ask you a question, counselor. Are you acquainted with a fellow by the name of Thomas Reston Thomas the Third?”
“Not that I know of. I don’t think I’d forget a name like that. Who is he?”
“His bio says he’s the chief intelligence and security officer for CRP.”
“The Committee to Reelect the President?”
“The very same. I’ve spoken with Thomas. He’s a government spook right out of a spy novel. A certified head case.”
“What’s Thomas got to do with all of this? More to the point, what’s Thomas got to do with Hollister?”
“I thought you might have some ideas.”
“Hardly. I don’t know Thomas. I can’t imagine that Blaine does either. The Hollister I know is just not the spook type.”
“Well, you can’t blame me for asking. I’ve still got a little more homework to do before I bring Hollister in. Meanwhile, I thought you might want to discuss this with him and see if he’s got anything to share that might make things go easier on him.”
“You can count on me to tell Blaine about our meeting. I don’t think he’ll have anything to say about any of this. But you never know.”
“Please get back to me if Hollister surprises you and has anything to tell me about Thomas. While he still has the chance. Thanks for lunch. My turn next time.”
“Sure thing. My pleasure.”
Lotello walked out. Well, Beth, I’ve taken as much license here as I can. I don’t really know exactly what the deal is between Hollister and Thomas. Or if there is one. But they each know more than they’re telling me. Way more. Hope this little visit with Mortimer will push Hollister over the edge. He’ll certainly be very concerned about who my eyewitness is. He might think it’s Thomas. And that Thomas is turning on him if they’re in this together. I know, I know, Beth, but I didn’t actually say Thomas is my eyewitness. I just talked about an eyewitness and then raised Thomas in the same conversation. If there’s nothing there, then there’s nothing there. We’ll see what we see.
* * *
AS SOON AS LOTELLO was out the door, Mortimer told his assistant to track down Hollister and set up a meeting right away. He wondered why a guy like Hollister, who had it made, would mess around with any of this. Or anyone like Thomas, for that matter.
Mortimer’s secretary was back in five minutes. “I couldn’t raise Hollister on his cell. But I texted him. He’s under subpoena in the Norman case. He’s there now, waiting to be called as a witness. He’ll come here as soon as trial is out this afternoon. He said a bit after four.”
Mortimer was more intrigued than ever. He wondered, again, why Hollister was under subpoena. And why Brooks had, in the face of all custom, surprisingly continued Mortimer’s motion to quash Hollister’s subpoena and allowed Klein to keep her purpose for the subpoena under wraps.
CHAPTER 109
Thursday, August 6, 1:30–3:00 p.m.
THE LUNCH RECESS WAS over. Brooks directed Klein to call her next witness.
“The defense calls Albert Rose.”
Klein quickly established that Rose was the resident manager of the Congressional Townhouse Gardens, had been for five years, was familiar with and in charge of security there, and that it requires both a security code to gain access to the grounds of the complex and a unique key to gain access to any particular townhouse. Rose also confirmed that Senator Wells owned a townhouse in the complex and that her body was discovered in her townhouse unit on February sixth.
“So, on the evening of February fifth, 2013, if someone waited immediately outside the senator’s unit, that person would have had to have someone’s grounds-access security code. Correct?”
“Not necessarily. That person might have had a security code or that person might have been buzzed into the grounds by any of the residents.”
“Let me see if I understand.” I get it. I need to make sure the jury does. “There are two ways the killer could have gained access to the complex grounds. One, he or she might have had someone’s grounds-access security code. That would be true if he or she owned or rented a unit in the complex or was given a unit’s access security code. For example, an owner or occupant might give that code to a housekeeper. Two, he or she might have gained access to the grounds by ringing the owner or occupant of a unit and then being buzzed in by that unit owner or occupant. Have I got that right?”
“Yes.”
“Okay, just to clarify, then, any unit owner or occupant or any third party given the access code or buzzed in by an owner or occupant could have been, without more, lying in wait for the senator on the evening of February fifth. Correct?”
“Correct.”
“Your witness, Mr. Reilly.”
“Sir, how many units are there in the Congressional Townhouse Gardens?”
“There are seventy-three units.”
“So it would be pretty easy for someone trying to gain access to the complex grounds to just keep ringing a number of units until some owner or occupant indiscriminately buzzed that person in?”
“Objection.
The witness has no way of knowing the answer to that question.”
“Overruled. The witness may answer.”
“No, I wouldn’t think that at all. We have a lot of high-profile people living in the complex. Our occupants are at all times encouraged to be very security-conscious and not to buzz anyone in unless they know who they’re dealing with.”
Klein was pleasantly surprised by that answer. Reilly was trying to show that even someone as messed up as Norman could have easily gained access to the grounds. I needed to sensitize Rose by my objection to make sure he wouldn’t be sucker-punched by the question. Either my objection worked or it wasn’t necessary to begin with. Rose’s testimony suggests that Norman might not have been able to gain access to the grounds.
“One other question, Mr. Rose. Couldn’t the killer simply have broken into the grounds?”
“I suppose anything is possible. But I don’t think so. We have spent a lot of money on state-of-the-art security doors. They are very hard to breach. If one tries, it sets off all kinds of alarms.”
“No further questions for this witness, Your Honor.”
“Redirect, Ms. Klein?”
That last question was really stupid. If Reilly had done his homework, he would have known what answer was coming. Rose’s answer increases the likelihood that the killer had a grounds-access security code. Not likely that Norman would have had such a pass. I don’t think Reilly’s helped his cause at all with his cross. “No, Your Honor.”
“You may step down, Mr. Rose. Thank you for your presence here today. Please call your next witness, Ms. Klein.”
“The defense next calls Dr. Angelica Farnsworth.”
Klein spent a good fifteen minutes walking Dr. Farnsworth through her academic and professional credentials and background as a psychologist so that she would be allowed to testify as an expert on the basis of the extensive tests she had conducted on Norman. Farnsworth’s work with Norman would help defray any possible objections by Reilly that she typically testified pro-defense. Klein was confident Brooks would admit Farnsworth. Most of this was really show for the jury, to demonstrate the doctor’s impressive credentials, including probing Farnsworth on how many hours she had spent interviewing, studying, and testing Norman.
“Doctor, I would like to get your expert opinion regarding Mr. Norman’s state of mind. More specifically, do you think that, in February 2013, Mr. Norman would have been capable of killing and molesting Senator Wells without leaving any telltale evidentiary signs of his actions?”
“No. I don’t think Mr. Norman possessed any such capability at that time.”
“Why do you say that, Doctor?”
“I consider that a two-part question. I have two basic reasons for my opinion. One is somewhat subjective. The other is more objective.
“The subjective reason is that, after extensively studying Mr. Norman, I think he would have been terribly unlikely to behave that way. Not only to have lain in wait and killed the senator. But then to have brutally assaulted her after she was dead.
“Objectively, Mr. Norman was so mentally disarranged in February 2013 that it was beyond comprehension that he could have processed all of those activities without leaving any evidence behind—fingerprints, DNA, hair follicles, semen, and the like. It would take a person in complete control of his faculties to pull that off. In contrast, my tests revealed that Mr. Norman was impulsive, angry, unable to stay focused. He showed no ability to plan or organize his thoughts.”
“I see. And you’re quite sure of this?”
“Ms. Klein, I have been conducting precisely this kind of testing for more than twenty-five years. It takes an incredibly focused person to be able to operate in such a clean and pristine manner. There is simply no way, in my opinion, that Mr. Norman could have accomplished that.”
“Let me ask you another question then, Doctor. You’ve heard Mr. Norman’s supposed repeat confessions. Given Mr. Norman’s state of mind at that time, do you have any expert opinions about those alleged confessions?”
“Yes, I have two opinions about that subject as well. First of all, the Mr. Norman with whom I have become intimately familiar, who is mostly catatonic, would not likely have known the meaning of the words he uttered at the time he uttered them. Second, it would have been virtually impossible for someone in Mr. Norman’s state of mind to have sufficiently focused or concentrated in order to understand with any precision what he was saying. And to be able to have repeated himself with such precision. Those are both finely tuned behavioral characteristics that were beyond Mr. Norman’s chaotic state of mind at the time. Put a rat on a keyboard for long enough and it will ultimately type out a word or two, but it will be entirely random. And it won’t mean the rat will know what the words it typed meant.”
“What about Mr. Norman’s sense of danger or threat to himself and his family?”
“That’s quite different, Ms. Klein. When you talk about the meaning of precise words and the ability to repeat them, those are refined skills, well beyond Mr. Norman’s mental ability and mental acuity at the time. In contrast, a sense of threat is a macroscopic concept that requires no intellectual skill whatsoever. Even the simplest of animals has an instinct for survival and the avoidance of danger. Try to slap a fly with a fly swatter and it knows to take flight. Mr. Norman was quite capable of sensing what he perceived as a threat to his family. That said, however, he may have been confused about where his family started and stopped. And he may have been confused as well about what constituted a threat.”
“I see. Let me ask you this, Doctor. At the same time that the collapse of our economy was injuring people all across our nation, certainly injuring Mr. Norman and his family, people were speaking out more and more, on the television, on the radio, and in print, about wholesale greed, corruption, and abuse of public trust among our political representatives. In your opinion, could Mr. Norman have come to believe these political representatives constituted an imminent threat to his family?”
“Not only could Mr. Norman have so concluded that, I believe he did so conclude. This is a broad-brush kind of perception, Ms. Klein, a perception that Mr. Norman was quite susceptible to in his confused state of mind. Not only was he capable of this, but on the basis of my extensive interviews and testing of Mr. Norman, I have no doubt that this is exactly how Mr. Norman came to feel. That our political representatives were a continuing imminent threat to Mr. Norman and his … family.”
“Thank you, Doctor. No further questions, Your Honor.”
“We’ll take our afternoon break. Fifteen minutes.”
CHAPTER 110
Thursday, August 6, 3:15–4:15 p.m.
REILLY HAD THOUGHT LONG and hard about calling a medical expert in the people’s case, but he decided it made no sense to get out in front of Klein before he knew exactly where she and Farnsworth were headed. Now that he knew, he would call the people’s shrink in rebuttal after Klein concluded her case.
The afternoon recess was over. Farnsworth was still on the stand. “Dr. Farnsworth. You state that, in your opinion, Mr. Norman’s makeup was such that he would not have been capable of the kind of malice that Senator Wells’s killer harbored against her, including sexually assaulting her after he had killed her. Do I have that right?”
“You mean after he or she had killed her. You said he. I’m not aware of any evidence that says the killer was necessarily male.”
“Is that so? Tell me, Doctor, do you believe a woman could have sexually penetrated Senator Wells?”
“I guess that’s a question of semantics. I’m not aware that the people have any evidence that demonstrates that the senator was penetrated by a penis. Are you aware of any evidence that the senator was penetrated with a penis as opposed to some other inorganic instrument to make it appear that the perpetrator was a male?”
Reilly was not pleased to notice the amused look on Klein’s face. “Putting gender aside, Dr. Farnsworth, my question is how you came to believe that Mr. Norman was
not capable of this kind of rage. Isn’t it the case that Mr. Norman was subjected to a great deal of distress and had exhibited considerable rage?”
“Indeed he was. However, it is my experience and professional opinion that people’s basic characteristics remain intact. This is somewhat subjective, but my considered opinion is that Mr. Norman was not capable of acting out in that extreme manner.”
“But you do admit that this opinion is subjective, Doctor, correct?”
“That’s correct.”
“And it is possible that Mr. Norman could be the exception to your subjective rule, right?”
“Wrong. It’s not my rule. Professional literature is replete with such opinion. However, you are correct that there are exceptions to virtually every rule. I have simply said that in my opinion and experience, an exception in this instance would have been highly unlikely.”
“You also express the opinion that in his then state of mind, Mr. Norman could not have managed the precision to cover up his tracks and to repeat his admissions with such consistency, correct?”
“That’s correct.”
“Tell me this, Doctor: how do you know that Mr. Norman was not exaggerating his mental condition in order to provide himself with a cover for what he was doing? And perhaps doing so with complete precision and intention?”
“Mr. Reilly, as I testified earlier, I’ve been doing this for over twenty-five years. In my experience, Mr. Norman would be less able to fake the mental state I tested and established than he would be to act with the precision necessary to cover his tracks if he was in the mental state I observed. Anything is possible, Mr. Reilly. It is a matter of probability. In my experience, what you suggest is simply not likely.”
“And yet you suggest that in his deranged mental condition he could have rationally perceived an imminent threat to his so-called family?”
“Mr. Reilly, I didn’t say anything whatsoever about rational. There was nothing rational about Mr. Norman. What I said was that in his mental state, as I observed it, which was irrational, Mr. Norman was capable of perceiving our public officials as representing an imminent threat to his family.”
The Puppet Master Page 30