by Kenneth Eade
Hannaford placed the knife on the podium and called up the model of the virtual knife on the screen, blown up to the fingerprint smudges. “We have seen a computer model of the physical evidence in this case, accurate in every detail, which tells us that the fingerprints of Brent Marks allow us to infer that he was the one who pulled the knife out, but not the person who thrust it into Mr. Marsen. This inference is consistent with Brent’s testimony that he was forced, at gunpoint, to withdraw the knife from the body of David Marsen, and raises a reasonable doubt about the inference that he was the perpetrator of this crime. The real perpetrator of this crime knew that his one thrust through Mr. Marsen’s back, to the left of his spine and upward, would kill him,” Hannaford argued as he flipped through the layers of tissue in the virtual corpse which showed the fatal wound.
“He knew that because he knew exactly where to aim; knew exactly how to go through all these layers of cutaneous tissue and muscle, to hit his intended target without striking the bones which protect Marsen’s organs. Brent Marks, on the other hand, has no medical training and no military training. Someone in this position would have to stab Marsen multiple times before causing his death. The killer knew that one strike would do it, and he needed that speed to force Brent to pull out the knife and run away before drawing a crowd.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I think most of you will remember the famous scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s North by Northwest, where the diplomat is stabbed in the back and falls into Carey Grant’s arms. Then, Grant pulls out the knife. Numerous witnesses pointed to Grant’s character as the killer, but the fact is that he was framed for the killing. The evidence in this case clearly shows that four people conspired to hire a murderer to kill Allen Bekker. Two of these four ended up dead under mysterious circumstances, and one of them was David Marsen. The evidence shows that, shortly before Marsen’s death, he communicated with the other two surviving conspirators and told them that he had been given instructions by the killer to draw Marks out on that very day and to that very place on Olvera Street where Marsen met his maker. From this, and from Brent Marks’s testimony, we can reasonably infer that Mr. Marks was drawn to that place by Mr. Marsen because that is what the killer instructed Marsen to do. But, unbeknownst to Marsen, the killer meant to kill him and frame Brent Marks.
Hannaford put both hands on the jury box and paused.
“Ladies and gentlemen, Brent Marks could not have had that knife before Marsen was killed. He could not have thrust it into Marsen’s back because he and Marsen were struggling, face to face, and he was in front of Marsen before and after it happened. Marsen fell into his arms, bleeding all over Brent from his severed artery. Brent Marks simply could not have delivered that fatal vertical upward blow from behind. NO, ladies and gentlemen: Brent Marks did not thrust that knife. He only pulled it out, as he was instructed, at gunpoint, by the real killer. When you look at all the evidence very carefully, you will see that it is riddled with reasonable doubt, and you will realize that you have the duty to acquit Mr. Marks. The wrong man is on trial here.”
Hannaford thanked the jury and resumed his seat.
“Mr. Brednick, you may give your rebuttal argument.”
Brednick, the bread and butter prosecutor, repeated his summation of the evidence for the jury, calling Hannaford’s frame theory “preposterous.”
“Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence simply does not support the theory of the defense. Nobody saw this unknown killer before or after the murder. He simply does not exist. Whether or not Marsen was involved in a conspiracy to murder Allen Bekker is also irrelevant to this case. There can be only one conclusion from all the physical evidence and witness testimony, and that is that there is no reasonable doubt that Brent Marks killed David Marsen with this knife, which was found in his hand, covered with Marsen’s blood.”
The judge admonished the jury not to discuss the case with anyone or among themselves, and adjourned court, noting that in the morning he would instruct them on the law to apply to the case and they would begin their deliberations. He cautioned them not to make up their minds until they had been so instructed and had had a chance to deliberate in the jury room together, but most of them had already decided the fate of Brent Marks.
CHAPTER FORTY THREE
That night, the house creaked, the clock ticked, and the shadows danced against the walls in Brent’s bedroom to the rhythm of the trees outside, which rustled in the whistling wind. Brent closed his eyes a thousand times, but sleep never found him. He listened to the sound of Angela breathing as his mind raced over what had happened in the trial. What could have been done differently, but what did it matter? It was over now, and Brent simply had to wait for the outcome.
Just before sunrise, Brent slipped out of bed and sat out on the patio to watch the beginning of the day. He savored this moment of freedom. Every minute spent was a minute appreciated.
***
At nine o’clock, the Clerk opened the doors to Department 56 and Brent, Richard and Brednick took their respective places. Judge Renfrew took the bench at about 9:15 and called the jury in for their instructions.
The judge then gave a crash course in Murder 101 to the jurors, which consisted of reading them a bunch of instructions written by lawyers in plain language that the lawyer draftsmen thought the jury could understand. The legal definitions of murder, circumstantial evidence, and reasonable doubt were all neatly bundled for the jury in a booklet they could take back to the jury room and use in their deliberations. Brent watched the jurors struggle to stay alert as their morning dosages of coffee wore off.
After the instructions had been given, the judge removed the admonishment not to discuss the case amongst themselves. This was their only task now, but they were prohibited from discussing the case with anyone else. Waiting for the jury was worse than waiting for a Thanksgiving turkey to finish cooking. They would be ready when they were ready, simple as that. But Brent and Hannaford waited together in the courtroom. Hannaford had brought a book from his favorite author and, after five o’clock rolled around, he was not only sure he would be able to finish the book before the jury came back, but made a note to make sure to bring another one.
Two days had come and gone, and the jury still had not decided. Brent knew that this meant absolutely nothing. If they had come back too soon, it would have been a guilty verdict for sure. Now, in the third day of deliberation, it was anyone’s guess. It was a Friday. Judge Renfrew had already gone on to another case, but that didn’t stop Brent from coming to court to wait for the verdict, as he had done every day. He was surprised to see Hannaford show up, because the Clerk could always call him at the office if the jury had reached a verdict.
“Richard, what are you doing here?”
“Simple logic, my boy. It’s Friday, and the jury is going to do their best to finish up today so they don’t have to spend another week here.”
Brent recalled the times that he could say the same thing. Those were times when he was waiting for a jury to decide the fate of his client, not his own. At a little before noon, the buzzer rang from the jury room and the Clerk delivered the judge a note. The judge recessed his current case and announced that the jury in the case of People v. Marks had reached a verdict, which would be announced after the lunch break.
***
The hour and a half wait for the jury’s final word was the most excruciating for Brent. Angela and Jack both joined him just before the doors opened. Brent walked into the courtroom and took his seat at the table with Richard like a condemned man. He just couldn’t handle it anymore. His stomach was tied up in knots all the way to the top of his throat. The jury marched in, looking more serious than they ever had before. Hannaford, Brednick and Brent stood up until they took their seats.
The judge's pomp and protocol of delivering a verdict added precious seconds to the painful wait, and those seconds seemed to Brent to last for hours. The foreman handed the verdict form to the Clerk, who handed it to the judge, who read it
and handed it back to the Clerk. For God’s sake, just tell me already! thought Brent as this game played itself out.
The Clerk finally read the verdict: “We the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the defendant, Brent Marks, not guilty of the crime of murder of David Marsen, as charged in Count I of the information, and further find him not guilty of the lesser included charge of manslaughter."
Brent resisted the tears that wanted to come to his eyes. He looked into the gallery at Angela, who could not, herself, resist them. The judge thanked the jury for their service and released them. Brent wanted to hug each and every one of them. Instead, he thanked them and politely excused himself, allowing Richard and Brednick to discuss their thought processes. Brent held Angela tightly, as the energy drained from every muscle of his body. It was finally over, and he was free.
EPILOGUE
The drive back to Santa Barbara was as long as it ever was, but Brent didn’t curse it anymore. He stopped the car in Ventura to watch the sun bed down below the Pacific Ocean in a spectacular show of color. The air was fresh and wet and the sound of the waves cascading against the sand was both powerful and peaceful. It was a little nippy in the damp breeze, but Brent enjoyed every simple sensation.
At home, Angela turned off the phones. No more calls from reporters, and no more talking about the case that nearly cost Brent the rest of his life. Brent thought about the weekend. He thought about Monday, which had always been his least favorite day of the week. Now it was just another day to look forward to. He thought of all the things he had thought were problems before. Now they were only things he was happy to face. And when Brent’s head hit the pillow that night, he slept peacefully for the first time in months.
***
Brent walked into his office that Monday morning to the smiling face of Rebecca Bekker. He greeted her and showed her into the office.
“What can I do for you, Rebecca?”
Rebecca looked down, then up at Brent. Her eyes were not as sad as they appeared before, but he could see that something was wrong.
“I just wanted to thank you for all that you’ve done, and tell you how sorry I am for all the trouble you had to go through.”
“It wasn’t your fault.”
“If you hadn’t met my father, none of it would have happened. I also want to thank you for resolving the probate case.”
“No thanks are necessary.”
“Are you still working on finding my father’s killer? Because, if you’re not, I’d like to hire you to continue. The police are calling it unsolved, you know.”
“I know. It was Jack who was working on the case. He’s good, but I’m afraid all the leads have gone dry. The Erasure web site is closed and we haven’t been able to identify ‘The Ghost.’ We thought we had three leads, but they all turned out to be dead ends.”
“Can I hire Jack to continue the investigation?”
“Of course, I’ll arrange a meeting. But, I don’t give it much of a chance to succeed.”
“That’s what they said about your case,” said Rebecca, her eyes shining with hope.
AFTERWORD
This is a fictional story but, as with all my stories, it is based on solid research about real-life issues. If you care to read on, I have included my essay on how to deal with Internet defamation. If not, I would like to ask you to please leave a review of this book by clicking here. Reviews are the mainstay of any author and are much appreciated.
The Internet has outgrown the common law of defamation, and new regulations to protect the Internet, free speech and the freedom to speak anonymously have been abused by cyber-bullies and cyber-stalkers, who have used this new medium to dispense their bullying in a greater distribution among more people. I thought it may be interesting to examine the possibility of an Internet bully or cyber mob hiring a hit man anonymously through the Internet. I thought that this would be a unique idea, but, upon delving into the macabre world of the Dark Net, I realized that it was not. Most of the sites I found while searching for
murder-for-hire” were probably scams or were set up by law enforcement to catch would-be conspirators, but the concept is definitely not an original one.
If you scroll past last page, you will be prompted to leave a review and to share this book with your social networks in a section marked “Before you go.” Also, there are excerpts of some of my other novels in the Brent Marks series. Finally, I love to get email from my readers, even if it is an error that you noticed that perhaps my editors, beta readers, or I did not catch. I want to make sure that my books are as high-quality as possible for my readers.
Please feel free to send me one at [email protected]. I also invite you to join my mailing list for advance notice of new books, free excerpts, free books, and updates. I will never spam you. Please subscribe here: http://bit.do/mailing-list.
“Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” We all know that line, and many of us have used it in retort to a vicious verbal attack. But the truth is that words can hurt you, especially when they are broadcast online to thousands or even millions of people. We’ve also all heard the old adage “Don’t believe everything you hear,” but the fact is that many people do believe everything they hear and, whether they do or not, have a tendency to repeat it; especially if it’s scandalous.
The advent of the Internet has had a profound impact on the manner in which ideas and information are exchanged in the 21st century. It has leveled the publisher’s playing field, putting newspapers, magazines and bookstores out of business, and enabled any average person with access to a computer the potential to reach a broad audience on whatever subject that person may choose.
However, unlike a newspaper or magazine, authors of Internet “articles” are not restrained by ethical guidelines or legal principles. While the notion of free speech may be an honorable one, the first amendment’s sanction is by no means absolute. Just as the second amendment’s right to bear arms does not give a person the right to shoot somebody, the first amendment’s protection of free speech does not apply to all speech. Defamatory speech is specifically not protected.
There are many examples of the power of the Internet in today’s cyber-world that have had a profound effect on the real world. Middle Eastern governments have been toppled using the Internet as a weapon of social change. Whistleblowers can now “blow their whistle” to a larger audience, but, as we can see in the cases of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, the power of the Internet is no match for power of the United States government, whose boundaries of enforcement go beyond any geopolitical border and can even force down the airplane of a government official of another sovereign state if it suspects you are harboring a treasonous criminal.
In the days before the Internet, bullies, people jealous of your success, competitors in the workplace, or competing businesses were still out there; but their attacks were short-lived and soon forgotten. The Internet gives them the power to permanently destroy any reputation that is associated with any name that can be “googled,” and the results will outlast your lifetime. Questions like “Mom, was grandpa really a bad man?” may become commonplace in this cyber-age.
Technology has moved faster than the law with regard to the Internet. The Internet gives the defamer the power to destroy a hard-earned reputation with a few clicks of a mouse, with far-reaching effects, to an unlimited audience. The Google algorithm prioritizes the “most popular” searches on the first page of search results.
Let’s face it: people love scandals. Many a top news story has been made, especially in the United States, from a scandal. Remember Monica Lewinsky, for example? People, in general, love bad news; which is why the news is so full of it. Bad news is a “headline” and everything else is just a “feature.” What this means to the Google algorithm is that the more scandalous the gossip is, the better position that gossip will achieve in Google’s results, and the longer it will stay there.
Gossip which used to go by “word o
f mouth” would never have been published by any respectable newspaper or magazine. Now any blogger can be a “reporter” – even an investigative reporter - without any journalistic skill, responsibility or conscience. And the gossip that they spread about you can ruin your credit, cost you a job opportunity, or lose you clients.
The Internet Age has changed the rules for bullying. With the growing phenomenon of cyber-socializing on the Internet, and the fact that school-age children and teenagers have computers, iPads, and cell phones - all with Internet access - bullies can reach a broader audience with their humiliation and hate speech, do it instantaneously, and the defamation assumes a permanent place in cyberspace. This is known as cyber-bullying, and it has reached such epidemic proportions that it has been cited as the cause of many teenage suicides.
Megan Meier was the victim, in 2006, of an elaborate cyber-bullying scheme that is fairly common. As retribution for allegedly gossiping about her daughter, a neighbor’s mother and her bullying friends set up a fake My Space account purporting to be that of a 16-year-old boy. They sent messages to Megan and chatted with her, and Megan fell in love with the imaginary boy. Then came the last act: the imaginary boy sent messages “breaking up” with Megan, shared her messages to “him” all over the Internet, humiliating her, and then sent a message saying, “You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.” Megan then killed herself.