Outrage

by Robert K. Tanenbaum

  “Do you have an opinion regarding what sort of blow would have caused that particular pattern?” Karp asked.

  “Yes, based on the pattern, I would say that the bruise was caused by knuckles, as would be expected from a backhand blow,” Manning answered.

  Karp had then called Jesus Guerrero to the stand to admit that he stole a purse containing a small diamond engagement ring. “Whose purse did you take?” Karp asked.

  Guerrero shrugged. “I don’t know her, but I remember her last name was Lopez because that’s my mom’s maiden name.”

  “What did you do with the ring?” Karp asked.

  “I sold it to Felix in Mullayly Park,” Guerrero said.

  “Did you tell Felix your correct name?”

  “No. I told him my name was Al because that was the name on the inside of the ring.”

  Kadyrov didn’t even bother to look up anymore when Karp called Amy Lopez to the stand to describe how she’d been robbed. “Can you identify this ring?” he asked, handing her the plastic bag.

  Lopez looked at it for a moment before gazing back up at him with tears in her eyes and a smile on her face. “Yes, this is my engagement ring,” she said. “Can I take it home now?”

  The closing summations were more of a victory lap for Karp. Langton insisted that the defense’s case was enough to “throw a cloud of reasonable doubt” over Kadyrov’s guilt based on the confessions and subsequent indictment of Acevedo.

  However, Karp had shrugged off Acevedo’s confession as “a pack of lies, manipulated out of a young man who will, as you heard, admit to anything to avoid confrontation and to escape an uncomfortable situation.

  “Acevedo’s indictment,” he said, “was a mistake that never should have happened. Because of a failure in my office to adhere to good practices an innocent man was accused of a heinous crime and deprived of his freedom. For that, I am truly sorry.

  “However, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what matters here isn’t whether a mistake was made regarding Felix Acevedo,” Karp had said in conclusion. “The only thing that matters here is that the evidence against Ahmed Kadyrov is overwhelming. There is no cloud of reasonable doubt. There is no doubt at all. He is …”

  “… guilty of the murder of Olivia Yancy,” Judge Dermondy read to the court, “and guilty of the murder of Beth Jenkins.”

  27

  KARP HAD SEEN TO IT THAT FELIX ACEVEDO WAS REleased from the Tombs as soon as Kadyrov was arrested. Sam Hartsfield had then announced that the charges against Acevedo in the Bronx were “without merit” and dropped.

  Even so, Karp had expected Acevedo and his family to react angrily, even file a civil lawsuit, which Felix’s father, through a well-known “celebrity” attorney, had vociferously threatened. But the lawsuit never materialized.

  Instead, Karp one day received an unexpected visit from Amelia Acevedo, who thanked him for looking more closely at the accusations against her son. “I know it hasn’t been easy,” she said, referring in part to the media storm that, as expected, had followed, even though it was much less than Murrow had originally feared. There were a few editorials questioning “what’s going on over at the Manhattan DAO” and a prominent defense attorney railing on television that “never again” would the public be able to trust a confession. However, the arrest of Kadyrov and the death of Graziani—with the ensuing “cop kills brother cop” exposé by Stupenagel—had quickly distracted the pundits and press corps.

  Amelia said she was having a much harder time forgiving the police detective who’d nearly cost her son his freedom, if not his life. “I know he is dead and in God’s hands now, and as a Christian I’m supposed to forgive him,” she said. “But what he did seems even more evil because he was a policeman.”

  Karp still wondered about Graziani. There was no question of his guilt both in trying to frame Acevedo as well as in the murder of Brock. Not only had Marlene and Stupenagel recorded him at the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument, but ballistics had matched the bullets found in Brock’s head to the gun Graziani had with him at Riverside Park. But what could have pushed him that far over the line?

  According to Fulton, who’d talked with Sergeant Jon Marks at the Four-Eight Precinct in the Bronx, it was common knowledge in the detective squad room that Graziani had been unhappy with his transfer from Manhattan. Karp suspected that the detective had not started off intending to dishonor his gold shield. Graziani probably initially believed that he’d caught the killer and had fudged on the confessions, thinking he could make it stick later. Then when the case started to fall apart—beginning with Dale Yancy saying the ring didn’t match—he’d panicked and pretty soon found himself too far down the road to turn back, including killing another detective.

  Even if the Manhattan case against Kadyrov had inexplicably imploded, the Bronx DA would have had a hold on him for the murders of Dolores Atkins, Detective Brock, and Vinnie Cassino, the latter based on the same recording that Karp had used during the trial with Kadyrov boasting he’d taken the blue silk shirt from the apartment where he’d “killed them two bitches in Manhattan.”

  The Manhattan case had, of course, not imploded. By the defense attorneys’ and their clients’ faces after final summations in the guilt phase, Karp thought the metaphor of a lopsided heavyweight fight may have occurred to them. The only difference was that in a prizefight, the referee inside the ring would have probably stopped it. But Karp had kept raining blows, right down to connecting Kadyrov’s Chechen childhood to the things he said to women he attacked.

  After the guilty verdict, Judge Dermondy announced that the trial would now move into the death penalty phase, which would be run much like a regular “trial within a trial.” The prosecution would first present its case of “aggravating factors”—essentially the reasons why Kadyrov “deserved” death over life in prison. Then the defense would present its case of “mitigating factors”—the reasons why he should be spared. After that, the order would be reversed, with the defense giving its summation followed by the prosecution. The jury would then weigh the aggravating factors against the mitigating, and whichever proved more convincing would decide Kadyrov’s fate.

  There were two main aggravating factors Karp and Guma concentrated on. The first was that Kadyrov had committed the murders while in the commission of other felonies—burglary and rape—to eliminate the witnesses. The other was that the murders had been particularly heinous and inhumane.

  Guma handled presenting the evidence for the aggravating factors. The first was easy to prove. Items had been taken from the apartment and the bodies of the victims, making it a burglary. AME Manning had been re-called to the stand to describe in much more detail than she had during the guilt phase the sexual assault on Olivia Yancy.

  Under Guma’s careful questioning, Manning testified that in her examination of the crime scene, it was evident to her that “from her position on the bed, Olivia Yancy had a clear view of the assault on Beth Jenkins.”

  “Is there anything that would cause you to doubt that Ahmed Kadyrov murdered Beth Jenkins before raping and killing Olivia Yancy, as was testified to by Lydia Cassino during the guilt phase of this trial?” Guma had asked.

  “No. In fact, there are indications that Olivia Yancy struggled for quite some time before she was murdered,” Manning replied. “Such as deep bruising, and even cuts, from where she struggled against her bonds, and hemorrhaging of the blood vessels in her eyes. It would make sense that she struggled to get free as she watched her mother being murdered.”

  “Can you estimate the length of time it took Ahmed Kadyrov to kill Beth Jenkins?”

  Manning pursed her lips and thought about the question for a moment. “Again, there is evidence of a struggle, which means that she wasn’t stabbed in rapid succession or she would have collapsed on the spot. In fact, of the five stab wounds she suffered, two would have been almost debilitating; the other three might have killed her eventually, but she would have been able to fight. So it stands
to reason that she received the two worst blows near the end.”

  “All of which—the screams and curses, the vicious blows, the blood and terror—would have been easily visible to Olivia Yancy as she struggled against her bonds?” Guma asked.

  “Yes.”

  “And all of this would take how long?”

  Manning shrugged. “I’d estimate several minutes from the start of the attack to her collapsing to the floor. It would have taken another five or so minutes after that for her to bleed out, lose consciousness, and die.”

  “Dr. Manning, what would it be like to watch someone bleed out?” Guma asked.

  “Well, the body twitches and spasms,” Manning said. “Until the victim loses consciousness, they may cry out, groan, or otherwise indicate extreme pain. The victim may even go quiet for a moment and then suddenly resume more spasms and sounds. Not pleasant to watch.”

  With Manning still on the stand, Guma then turned to the attack on Olivia Yancy. Soon many of the women on the jury and some of the men were weeping as the assistant medical examiner described how she was able to determine that the young woman was raped “before and after death.”

  Although soft-spoken and unemotional in her delivery, Manning held nothing back in her description of Olivia Yancy’s death. “The killer was astride her while she lay prone on the bed, her wrists bound behind her. He then pulled her head back by the hair—we were able to determine where hair follicles had been pulled out from being yanked—and then cut her throat from her left to right.”

  “How deep?” Guma asked.

  “Enough to sever almost all of the structures of her neck—muscles, trachea, veins, arteries—and most of the way through her spinal cord.”

  “And what sensations would the victim have experienced?”

  “Well, the first is physical pain. Imagine cutting yourself with a very sharp knife,” Manning replied. “Only this goes deep through the muscles and the windpipe and into the spinal column. But even with a sharp knife, it’s not easy to cut through a human neck, and there was some sawing and tearing.”

  Manning paused and needed a moment to regroup as she reached for a cup of water on the witness stand. Sitting at the prosecution table, Karp felt for the woman. He’d known her for most of his career and was aware that behind the doctor’s scientific demeanor was a woman who felt deeply for each victim and had made it her life’s work to bring them justice.

  Guma waited for her to gather herself and then asked gently, “Please continue.”

  “Yes, well, when the trachea—what we sometimes call the windpipe—is severed, the victim suffers the sensation of being suffocated, because there is not enough air being pulled into the lungs, as well as drowning, due to the blood that is draining into the airways.”

  “And would the victim have been aware of what was happening to her?” Guma asked.

  “I’m sure she was,” Manning replied. “This was not a particularly fast death. I’m sure she experienced a great deal of terror, as well as enormous pain and suffering. She was certainly aware of the sexual assault prior to having her throat cut and may have still been alive, possibly conscious, during the sexual assault afterward.”

  Guma, who had never been afraid to show his emotions in a courtroom, turned with his eyes blazing to Kadyrov. “Are there any other atrocities committed by this defendant on Olivia Yancy that you haven’t discussed yet?”

  “Yes,” replied Manning, who dabbed at her eyes with a tissue. “The victim’s ring finger on her left hand was severed in order for the defendant to remove her wedding and engagement rings.”

  “And other than the obvious disgusting nature of that act, what stands out about it to you?” Guma asked.

  Manning took a deep breath and then let it out with a sigh. “Judging from the blood loss,” she said, “she was still alive when he cut it off.”

  During the mitigation phase of the sentencing hearing, Kadyrov’s attorneys pulled out the usual litany of mitigating factors, including that he was on drugs at the time of the murders and that he suffered from a “mental defect” that had caused him to act out.

  The “mental defect” excuse was discussed at great length by two psychologists and a psychiatrist, who pointed to X-rays and CAT scans of Kadyrov’s brain and said “abnormalities” in certain spots could have caused him to act psychotically. Therefore, executing him would be “tantamount to executing a disabled person for acts they could not stop.”

  Karp asked the psychiatrist if anything on the X-rays or CAT scan proved that the supposed abnormalities “caused him to stalk, assault, rape, and murder” the two victims.

  “It’s possible, in my opinion,” the psychiatrist said.

  “And it’s just as possible you’re wrong,” Karp said. “Essentially, you were asked to look at these pieces of so-called evidence and then guess as to their impact, if any, on the defendant in light of the charges he faced?” he asked.

  “Objection, Your Honor,” Langton said. “The defense isn’t asking for anyone to guess; we were asking for an expert opinion.”

  “Sustained. Mr. Karp, perhaps you should rephrase your question,” Dermondy said.

  “Very well, Your Honor,” Karp said, turning back to the psychiatrist. “It’s fair to say, Doctor, that there’s no scientific certainty underlying your opinion.”

  “No, there’s no certainty,” the psychiatrist said. “It’s just based on my experience.”

  “Well, isn’t it fair to say that not all people with X-rays and CAT scans showing those same so-called abnormalities go out and rape and murder innocent women?”

  “Certainly not all,” the psychiatrist responded.

  “Then it’s fair to say your analysis could be mistaken?” Karp asked.

  “I’m not infallible,” the psychiatrist admitted.

  The psychiatrist had also testified about the effects of methamphetamine on the brain and the personality of users. “First, it gives the user a sense of empowerment,” he said. “But over time it also tends to cause paranoia, as well as violent mood swings.”

  Karp shrugged it off on the cross-examination. “Was the defendant forced to use this drug?”

  “No,” the psychiatrist admitted. “At least not to my knowledge.”

  “Did this drug cause him to boast to the Cassinos about what he’d done?” Karp asked.

  “Again, it tends to make the user feel powerful—”

  “Powerful about murdering two women in cold blood? And did this drug cause him to try to hide what he’d done, including threatening people he told and allowing an innocent man to be indicted for his crimes?”

  “I would say that had more to do with him fearing retribution.”

  “So washing up immediately after the killings, changing shirts, would be indications he knew right from wrong?” Karp asked.

  “Yes.”

  “As would threatening people he told?”

  “Yes.”

  “So essentially what we know is that he took methamphetamine for his own pleasure and while possibly on the drug tortured and murdered two women?”

  When the psychologists and psychiatrist were gone, the defense called in two experts to discuss Kadyrov’s “tormented” childhood in Chechnya. The first, a Russian history professor at Columbia University, testified about the Russian military’s brutal behavior in Chechnya after the latter declared independence. He detailed the systematic genocide perpetrated on the civilian population, “which included wholesale raping of women and mass executions.”

  The second expert had testified that a child who had experienced watching his mother and sister being raped and murdered by Russian troops “could be expected to show signs of post-traumatic stress that could include acting out violently, even many years later.” During his examination of the defendant, the expert said, he’d noted that Kadyrov “went so far as to identify more with the soldiers that committed the atrocities than with his own family members.”

  Karp limited his questioning of the
experts so as not to give them greater weight than he felt they deserved. As if only mildly curious, he asked each if there were any studies that “proved” that “all, or even many, people who experienced what the defendant experienced as a child became murderously violent many years later after they were removed from the environment.”

  “I believe there is anecdotal evidence to support this view,” the second expert replied.

  “Would it be fair to say that by far most people who experience even such horrors as you’ve described in Chechnya do not end up becoming murderers themselves?” Karp asked.

  “That’s probably fair,” the expert admitted.

  After the expert left the courtroom, there was a short, quiet, but heated conversation at the defense table. Then, sounding resigned, Langton rose to call Ahmed Kadyrov to the stand, obviously against his attorneys’ wishes.

  For nearly an hour, Kadyrov wept as he described the rape and murder of his mother and sister and how that came into play in Olivia Yancy’s apartment. He claimed that he had not intended to harm either woman and had merely bound Olivia to keep her from escaping when her mother showed up.

  “She attacked me,” he cried. “I was frightened and fought back. Suddenly she was like the Russian soldiers and I was defending myself and the girl on the bed. I don’t remember stabbing her, but then she was lying on the floor with blood everywhere.”

  “What happened then?” Langton asked.

  “I turned to the other girl, and I don’t know, my mind snapped,” Kadyrov said. “Suddenly I was Russian soldier and she was my mother. I felt rage and … after that I blacked out. The next thing I know, I am standing in front of mirror trying to wash blood from my hands.”

  Kadyrov buried his face in his hands and cried in great racking sobs. But when he looked up, hoping to see some measure of pity in the jurors’ faces, he found none.

  “Mr. Kadryov, you made a great show of crying on the stand,” Karp said. “Can I ask you how many times you cried for these women you butchered?”