Dog Eat Dog

by David Rosenfelt

  “There have been some developments regarding the truck that’s been showing up at Maine Lighthouse brewery,” Laurie says.

  I’ve just gotten back from walking the dogs, only to find that Laurie, Corey, Sam, and Marcus are all in our room, apparently waiting for me.

  “Is that the purpose of this meeting?”

  “Yes. A lot has gone on while you’ve been off having fun in court.”

  “I’m all ears.” The truth is that I haven’t been focusing on the truck or Maine Lighthouse brewery much at all. For one thing, I’ve been busy on trial preparation; for another, it just feels like there is a huge chasm between that truck and anything having to do with the murders.

  I haven’t asked for an update and I haven’t received one, though that is clearly about to change.

  Laurie turns the floor over to Corey. “As you know, the truck has a fake company name on it; there is no such business as Castle Farm Products. It originates in Canada, arrives at Maine Lighthouse brewery after hours, and drops off its cargo. It leaves empty.”

  “How do you know that?”

  “We followed it for two hours. After that, physical surveillance was no longer necessary.”

  “Why not?”

  “The driver stopped at a rest area. We used the opportunity to incorporate electronic devices. Sam?”

  “There’s a GPS device on the truck itself and a camera and microphone in the interior.”

  “You got into the truck?”

  “Yes, it only took a couple of minutes. Corey made sure that the driver did not come back prematurely.”

  Corey shrugs. “Intervention wasn’t required. The guy sat down and had a meal in the food court.”

  “And are they liable to detect the surveillance equipment?”

  Sam looks wounded. “Andy…”

  “Okay. So where does that leave us?”

  “The next time the truck comes down, we’ll know about it. We’ll also be able to watch it being loaded and unloaded.”

  “What are we expecting to learn?” I ask, though I know where they are going with this.

  “What they are bringing in,” Laurie says. “It is our considered opinion that it has nothing to do with beer. Canada is not a source of hops and barley; some if it is grown here in Maine, but most in the Western states. And other trucks have been seen making deliveries of those products during business hours.”

  “Drugs?” I ask.

  “That is our best guess,” she says.

  “They just drive it across the border?”

  She nods. “Apparently, but that is still to be determined.”

  “And why do they bring it to the brewery? Just for storage?”

  “Still to be determined, but that seems likely. Trucks go in and out of there all the time, so the ones carrying illegal contraband can go unnoticed. It makes sense for Donnelly.”

  I think they might well be right, and I will be pleased if we somehow get to reveal it and the cops can use it to put Mitchell, and maybe Donnelly, away for a long time. But my focus has to be on how that can help me in trial.

  In a best case, I’ll be able to use it to tell the jury a story. It will take some imagination, but maybe I’ll say that Peter Charkin, working for Mitchell at the brewery, found out what was going on.

  I’d go on to say that Charkin used the information to try to blackmail Mitchell, but didn’t realize that he was also blackmailing Donnelly. Donnelly didn’t take kindly to it and killed Charkin. Tina Welker had the bad luck to be with Charkin at the time, so she was killed also, in a way that made it look like a home invasion.

  In a second-best case, and that’s pretty much the most I can ever hope for, I’ll be able to point out that Charkin was involved with some bad people, people who would not be above committing murder.

  Corey, Sam, and Marcus leave, promising to update me on whatever they learn from the electronic surveillance. Once they do, Laurie says, “You’re not happy.”

  I nod. “Not terribly. I should have been consulted before all this took place. Surveillance devices in a truck?”

  “I know. It’s my fault, and I’m sorry. You were in jury selection, and they had the opportunity and needed an answer.”

  “It could have gone wrong. Mitchell would have been alerted to the fact that we are watching him. It could still go wrong.”

  “Yes.”

  “But they did amazing work,” I say, admitting the obvious.

  “Yes, they did. We’ll keep you in the loop from now on.”

  “Thank you. Now, woman, get me my blueberry muffin.”

  “We leave a mark wherever we go, whatever we do, and whatever we say.”

  Steinkamp is beginning his opening statement to the jury. He has a pleasant conversational style, as if he is talking to his neighbors and friends, and for all I know, he is.

  The gallery is packed; this is still a major story in the area. The sentiment has remained on the side of the prosecution; it will take some guts for jurors to vote to acquit.

  He continues, “It’s a fact of life: every move we make, every word we utter, has an effect on the world. Sometimes it’s minor, sometimes it’s of great significance.

  “What you are doing today is in the latter category; it is hugely significant. The decisions you make in this courtroom will change the world; certainly for this defendant, and certainly for our society. You will leave your mark on the world, as will I, as will Mr. Carpenter, as will Judge Pressley.

  “But we also leave another kind of mark, everywhere we go, and that is also what this trial is about. We leave a physical trail: we leave our DNA.

  “Science has come a long way in the area of DNA detection and analysis. But the fact is that if you touched that railing on the way to taking your seat in this jury box, then your DNA is on that railing. Forensics people, if they were so inclined, could come in and prove conclusively that you were here.”

  Steinkamp points to Matt Jantzen, sitting between Charlie Tilton and me at the defense table.

  “Matthew Jantzen left his mark the night he broke into a house and murdered Tina Welker and Peter Charkin. It did not take any new scientific advances to determine that fact. Peter Charkin made the forensic job an easy one by struggling with his attacker, by actually drawing his blood while fighting for his life.

  “Matthew Jantzen’s blood was found on Peter Charkin’s right hand. Mr. Charkin had lost his struggle; he had been beaten and then tied to a chair. His friend Tina Welker was tied to another chair. They were both shot at close range in the head. Cold-blooded murders if ever there were any.

  “But Mr. Charkin left a message for us in death: He served up the identity of his killer on a platter. He had the blood of his attacker on his hand. It is more incriminating than if he had coaxed his killer into signing a confession. Confessions can be forged; blood DNA cannot.

  “You will hear other evidence that will be consistent with Mr. Jantzen’s guilt, and it is my obligation to offer it to you. But the DNA is really all you need to know.

  “Judge Pressley will instruct you as to your obligations in this matter, and one of the things you will hear about is reasonable doubt. There is no other reasonable explanation for Matthew Jantzen’s blood being on the defendant than his having been the killer.

  “Mr. Carpenter will try to deflect and point you in a different direction, but he will not be able to change this key fact, and all I ask is that you focus on it.

  “When you do, I am confident you will vote to convict Matthew Jantzen of the brutal murders of Tina Welker and Peter Charkin.

  “Thank you for listening, and thank you for your service.”

  I think Steinkamp’s homing in on the DNA was the correct approach. The DNA is the key to his case, and to talk about it as just one piece of evidence among many is to diminish it. If you’re trying to convince someone of Tom Brady’s greatness, you don’t babble about his ability to sidestep the rush or run the quarterback sneak. You talk about how great the guy is at passin
g the damn ball.

  In this case, the DNA is the damn ball.

  I accept Judge Pressley’s offer to give our opening statement now, rather than at the beginning of the defense case. I have made this same decision in every trial I have been a part of. The jury has heard from Steinkamp, and they are about to hear his entire case. I can’t let that happen without them knowing that there is another side to the story.

  “Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Steinkamp’s case is based on science, in this case DNA science. He’s relying on it totally; he considers it incapable of error. He so strongly believes in it, that he is ready to take away a man’s freedom, for many years if not the rest of his life, based on what the science says.

  “This may surprise you, but I also believe in science, perhaps as strongly as does Mr. Steinkamp. Of course, I don’t consider it infallible; in fact scientists don’t either. They are frequently adjusting their theories based on new evidence and discoveries; doing so is entirely consistent with the scientific process.

  “But I want you to understand one thing as you hear this evidence. Science may well be correct the overwhelming percentage of the time, but people are not. Science rarely makes mistakes; people make them all the time.

  “Who collected this evidence? Who transferred it? Who stored it? Who tested it? People. And people make errors, sometimes deliberate, more often accidental. They don’t have to be intentional mistakes, and we are not alleging such misconduct. But when you are convicting someone of murder, you better be very sure that what they are telling you is right.

  “They cannot hide behind the science when everything else points in the other direction. Matt Jantzen has an impeccable record. He has never been accused of a crime, never even been a suspect, or, as they say now, a ‘person of interest.’

  “He did not know the victims, yet all of a sudden he breaks into their house and commits a vicious double murder? And then two years later acts in such a way that would have been sure to draw the police to him?

  “You’ll hear it all, and I believe you will come to the conclusion that none of it makes sense, that Matthew Jantzen is sitting here because people make mistakes.

  “You will come to understand that in bringing these charges, the State of Maine has made a beauty of a mistake.

  “The good news is that you will have the power to correct it.”

  Steinkamp’s first witness is Vivian Kramer, a vice president at origin.com.

  It is the DNA ancestry service that both Matt Jantzen and his sister, Mary Patrick, sent their DNA to, which ultimately is how the police came to arrest Matt. Steinkamp’s goal is simply to set the scene for the jury by describing how the police conducted their investigation.

  Ms. Kramer is young and eager and seems smart, exactly as I picture everyone who works for a company whose name ends in .com.

  I think it’s a mistake for Steinkamp to introduce this testimony, an unforced error. I hope it’s not the last one.

  Steinkamp has Kramer describe the service that the company provides, which she is all too happy to do.

  “We tell people all the things they can learn from their DNA, everything from predispositions to certain illnesses to various likes and dislikes they might have.”

  “Can you give an example?”

  “Sure. When I had my sample analyzed, among many other things it said that I would have a weakness for chocolate.” She smiles broadly. “Wow, were they ever right about that.”

  “What else does your service tell customers?”

  “All about their ancestors. Where they came from, by percentage … that’s probably the thing people most want to know. Some people will think they are of a certain descent, only to find out they are completely wrong. It can be amazing.”

  “Anything else?”

  She nods. “Definitely. We can also tell people about relatives whose samples are in the system. Sometimes they are people that don’t even realize they are related. Many people have found close relatives that way. Adopted children have found their biological parents in the same manner.”

  “Did there come a time when the defendant submitted a DNA sample to your company?” Steinkamp asks.

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And you provided the type of analysis you just described?”

  “Yes.”

  “Did it show any relatives that you could identify?”

  “Yes, a woman named Mary Patrick. She was shown to be a half-sibling, meaning they had one parent in common.”

  “Thank you. No further questions.”

  I stand up for my first cross-examination of the trial. “Ms. Kramer, did your company approach Mr. Jantzen and ask him to send in a DNA sample?”

  “No, certainly not. We would never do that.”

  “He did so of his own free will?”

  “Yes.”

  “Did you compensate him for doing so? Was he paid for his efforts?”

  “Of course not.”

  “Did he pay you? Is there a fee for your service?”

  “Yes, he paid the fee.”

  I introduce the agreement form between the company and their customers and ask her to read the part about making the results public. After she gets through all the legalese, I ask her to put it in layman’s terms.

  “Our customers have a choice as to whether to make their profiles public. If they choose to, then other people can see it and perhaps make a connection to them.”

  “Do most people consent to that?”

  “Well more than half, yes.”

  “So had Mr. Jantzen not voluntarily signed up, and had he not voluntarily consented to this provision, his information would not have been made public?”

  “That is correct.”

  “And in that case, would law enforcement have had access to it?”

  “They would not.”

  I introduce four newspaper articles, three from various areas in Maine and one from the Boston Globe. I ask her to scan them and verify that they are from around the time of the murders, and that they all reveal that DNA evidence was found at the scene.

  Once she’s done, I ask, “Just to reconfirm, had Mr. Jantzen not consented, law enforcement would never have seen his DNA results?”

  “That’s right.”

  “So Mr. Jantzen voluntarily read and signed a document which allowed his DNA to be viewed by law enforcement?”

  Steinkamp stands. “Objection. Asked and answered.”

  “Sustained,” Judge Pressley says.

  I smile. “I’m sorry, Your Honor, I liked the answer so much I wanted to hear it again.”

  “Be careful, Mr. Carpenter.”

  “Yes, Your Honor.” I turn back to Ms. Kramer. “By the way, you testified that Mr. Jantzen sent in his DNA voluntarily.”

  “Yes.”

  “I guess I want to understand how you know he sent it at all?”

  “I don’t understand what you mean,” she says, genuinely confused. “We received it.”

  “But how can you be sure that it was actually Mr. Jantzen that sent it?”

  “He signed the form.”

  “Oh, I didn’t realize it came with a signature and everything. You had his signature on file, so you were able to compare it?”

  “No.”

  “Is it possible that someone else sent it in using his name, and signing it for him?”

  “I suppose it’s possible. But I don’t know why he would do that.”

  “Do you know why someone who committed a crime and left his DNA on the scene would send that DNA out into the public, where the police could see it?”

  Steinkamp objects before she can answer, and Judge Pressley sustains it.

  “While we’re at it, Ms. Kramer, is it possible it wasn’t Mr. Jantzen’s DNA at all?”

  “Mr. Carpenter, we just analyze the samples that we are sent. I’m afraid we’re not in a position to question things like that.”

  I smile. “I understand. That’s the kind of thing juries are for. No further questions.”r />
  “Nice job this morning,” Charlie Tilton says.

  We’ve just sat down for a quick lunch at a coffee shop down the block from the courthouse. It is the first place I’ve been at in Maine, gas stations included, that doesn’t serve lobster rolls.

  “Steinkamp blew it,” I say. “He didn’t have to put her on the stand; what the hell is the difference how the police came to have Matt’s DNA? He could have had the homicide detective mention it when he testifies; it would have been two sentences.”

  “Yeah, he surprised me. He teed it up for you.”

  “So he’s usually better than that?”

  Tilton nods. “In my experience, yes. But this is a big case for him, big publicity, going up against a New Jersey lawyer.…”

  “New York.” They’ve all said New York so much that I might as well embrace it.

  “Whatever. He’s overthinking it. But he’ll settle down, and he’s got some good lawyers working with him. They’ll give it to him straight.”

  “That’s what I figured. And at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. They have the DNA they took from Matt since he’s been in custody. It matches the blood on Charkin’s hand, so the website DNA is of no importance.”

  “It gave them probable cause to make the arrest,” Tilton points out.

  “True.”

  “You think Matt did it?”

  It’s been a while since I’ve thought about it; I’ve been so focused on finding the killer that I haven’t taken time to reflect on whether I’m representing him.

  “No. I don’t. It’s partially the things we’re learning about Charkin, but it’s also the way the murders were committed. The cold-blooded way the gun was put to the heads of people who were probably begging for their lives. I don’t know Matt that well, but I just can’t connect him to the person that could have pulled that trigger.”

  “Maybe I’m just buying into your big-city bullshit, but I don’t think he did it either. The problem is that if I was on that jury, I’d vote to convict.”

  “I haven’t worked my magic yet.”

  Tilton smiles. “Good. That will give me something to look forward to.”