Michael Benson's True Crime Bundle

by Michael Benson

  Anatomic pathology, Dr. Thogmartin explained cheerfully, had to do with diagnosing solid human tissue disorders. “If you have breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, it is a solid human tissue diagnosis.” Clinical pathology dealt with the “liquid human tissue stuff,” such as leukemia, blood chemistry disorders, and things like that. “So you have solid and liquid,” he summed up with a smile.

  As part of his forensic pathology training, he had learned how to determine cause of death in cases of sudden and violent mishap, which included both criminal—gunshot wounds, stab wounds—but also trauma resulting from a car accident. Part of his training dealt not only with finding causes of death in criminal cases but how to testify clearly and distinctly about his findings before a jury in a court of law. He had the authority to investigate certain types of death, usually trauma, usually completely unexpected deaths.

  As part of his duties, he performed autopsies “to try to figure out why they’re dead.” Everything was photographed. Organs were weighed. Wounds were measured. When the procedure was through, a death certificate was prepared; then the medical examiner proclaimed the cause and manner of death.

  Dicus asked if he had experience testifying in court. The doctor said he did but couldn’t say for certain how many times. “Maybe a hundred. I don’t know, possibly more,” he said with a small shake of his head. He hadn’t just testified in the Sixth Circuit, either, but all around Florida.

  Dr. Thogmartin became serious as the subject shifted to the autopsy of Sarah Ludemann.

  “At this time,” Dicus said, “I am going to be showing photos of the autopsy, so to preserve the victim’s privacy I am going to angle them away from the spectator section of the courtroom. So if jurors need to move to be able to see, I suggest they do so.”

  “They may move if they want,” Judge Bulone added.

  Dr. Thogmartin was allowed to step down from the witness stand so he could testify directly to the jury as to what the photos showed. Sarah Ludemann, he said, had been a healthy girl. The only things wrong with the victim were the two stab wounds. There were other relatively minor scratches, but the puncture wounds were what stood out, in particular the large one on her left breast.

  Dicus showed the witness a close-up photo of stab wound number one and asked him to describe it. Dr. Thogmartin said it was a little bit less than an inch long and approximately four millimeters wide. It was a shallow wound, had done little damage, and was caused by a single-edged blade inserted with the sharp edge up.

  Sarah Ludemann’s mother began to react to the testimony. She closed her eyes and tossed her head somewhat violently from side to side. She gathered herself, kept her head still, and slowly opened her eyes.

  Dr. Thogmartin testified that the wound was too shallow to determine the angle, and that it was a poke rather than a slash.

  Dicus showed Dr. Thogmartin the bloody knife.

  “To a degree of medical certainty, could a knife of this size and shape cause that injury?” Dicus asked.

  “I could not say for certain that this is the knife that caused this injury. On the other hand, I could not rule this knife out, either. This is certainly a knife that could have caused this injury, yes,” the witness replied.

  Dicus wasn’t happy with the doubt inferred by the medical examiner’s response, so he followed up with, “Is the shape of this knife consistent with one that could have caused the wound?”

  “Sure,” Dr. Thogmartin said. “Many different knives could have caused this injury, but I can’t rule this one out.”

  Dicus flashed the witness a look that seemed to say, Why couldn’t you just stop at “sure”?

  “Were this the knife that was used to inflict this injury, to a degree of medical probability, could you determine if this knife would have caused a stabbing injury or a slashing injury?”

  The medical examiner didn’t answer the question. Instead, he described the nature of the wound again: a poke, not a slash, very shallow.

  The prosecutor dropped the point, asking, “Was wound number one the wound that killed Sarah Ludemann?”

  “Not in any way, no,” the witness replied.

  Dicus showed Dr. Thogmartin a photo of the second wound, and asked how large it was. The witness said the wound was gaping; but once the edges of the wound were pushed back together, it was similar in size to the other wound—eight by four centimeters—just much deeper. “About two and a half inches deep.” He then described the path that the wound took through Sarah’s body—through a rib, a lung, and the heart. Fatal.

  Rachel Wade began to cry. She carefully wiped under her eyes with a tissue so as to soak up the tears without smearing her eye makeup.

  “Approximately how much blood were you able to find pooled into her chest cavity from this injury?”

  Rachel Wade gave up with the tissue and allowed the tears to cascade down her cheeks.

  The ME said, “A lot. Three hundred milliliters of blood in her pericardial sac, and two liters in her chest cavity. There would have been some external bleeding as well, but the great majority of bleeding was internal.”

  Dicus asked if when looking at wound number two, could Dr. Thogmartin say what sort of weapon caused this wound?

  The medical examiner wasn’t certain how to answer. “If you are asking me to forget everything I know about the case and go by just my examination of the body alone, I would first look inside of the wound to see if the weapon left any part of itself behind. If it were caused by a piece of glass, for example, there might be glass that had broken off inside. But there was nothing in the wound. If you are asking me to guess, ignoring everything else, I would say that this is a knife wound.”

  He added that unlike with the first wound, he couldn’t tell if the second wound was caused by a single-or double-edged weapon. Wound number one had had one squared-off edge because the blade had gone directly in and out. Wound number two had two sharp edges.

  Why?

  “Due to the fact that the victim has a breast here that is relatively mobile, maybe the blade goes in at an unusual angle. There’s movement. There’s movement both from the person who’s doing the stabbing and by the person who is getting the knife put into them, and so there is either movement of the knife causing an enlargement of the wound, or there is a movement of the person relative to the knife, causing an enlargement of the wound.” There was no way to tell for certain why.

  “Is the fact that the wound goes through skin, fat, muscle, bone, and into the heart consistent with a slashing-type wound or a wound in a defensive-type posture?”

  “All I can say is that the knife went into her. This would be consistent with the knife being put into her or the person being put on the knife, one of the two. Unless it is a razor [or a] razor-sharp knife, it is going to take some effort to put it in. The more dull the knife, the more effort it takes to put it in.”

  As an analogy, Dr. Thogmartin noted that it took a lot more strength to stab someone with a spoon than with a razor-sharp knife. The amount of pressure needed to stab a young woman this deeply was not measurable, the witness said, because it depended so much on the variable of the weapon that was used.

  “In general, if we assume that the knife you showed me was the weapon, it would be like a steak knife trying to go through a steak. That’s generally what we’re talking about.”

  Bottom line: Dr. Thogmartin testified that he had certified the cause of death as a stab to the chest, and the manner as homicide.

  Rachel Wade, still crying, now had her lower lip protruding like a pouting little girl. Her forehead was puckered with tension, her cheeks shiny with tears, and her eyes red and swollen.

  The most important aspect of the second wound was that it had torn the heart, causing a one-centimeter puncture. The orientation of the knife for the second wound was a mystery. The sharp edge was up for the first wound, but he couldn’t tell with the second wound. The assumption had to be that both wounds were caused with the sharp edge of the knife up. Th
e boomboom nature of the stabbing didn’t allow Rachel Wade time to turn the knife around in her hand.

  The prosecutor asked Dr. Thogmartin for the second time how tall Sarah Ludemann was, and he said, “Five-nine.” He sounded impressed.

  Dicus’s next question began, “Theoretically, if a shorter person using this knife”—Dicus showed the witness the knife in the box—“approached Sarah Ludemann and had a face-to-face confrontation with her, and with the knife in her hand, punched her with a downward motion, would these injuries be consistent with this hypothetical?”

  Dr. Thogmartin said it would be close. In that scenario, he said, the stabbing motion would have to be close to horizontal, and not so much downward as the prosecutor had suggested. The downward motion would have only been necessary if the victim was already on her back. Plus the angle at which the knife entered the victim would have been altered by the victim’s position. If she bent forward a little bit, that would change the angle. If she twisted a little, that would change the angle.

  “People don’t stand in an anatomically perfect posture when they are having a confrontation,” he concluded. “They bend and twist.”

  Cross-examining, Hebert asked: “As a part of your postmortem investigation, were any lab tests done in this case?”

  “Yes.”

  “And you tested for different substances that were in her system, correct?”

  “Yeah, we are required to do that under Florida administrative code.”

  “But you did not test for marijuana in her system, did you, sir?”

  “No, we don’t routinely test for marijuana unless they are the driver of a motor vehicle, or the operator of a machine.”

  “That’s all I have, Judge. Thank you,” Hebert said.

  “Any redirect?” Judge Bulone asked.

  “Briefly, Your Honor,” Dicus said, rising to his feet. “Dr. Thogmartin, you didn’t test for marijuana, but you did test for alcohol, correct?”

  “Yes.”

  “Did she have any alcohol in her system?”

  “No.” The medical examiner added that when it came to intoxicants, “she had nothing. Nothing at all.”

  Dr. Thogmartin was excused.

  “What says the state?” Judge Bulone asked.

  “Your Honor, at this time the state rests,” Hanewicz said.

  Judge Bulone noted that some legal issues needed to be discussed, with the jury out of the room, so he would give the jurors an extra-long lunch break. With the jury gone, the subject turned to Joshua.

  “As far as Mr. Camacho is concerned,” Judge Bulone said, “it is my understanding that you wanted him to corroborate the fact that the defendant knew he had a gun—so, obviously, you’re not going to be able to do that before she takes the stand.”

  The gun wasn’t relevant until Rachel testified that she was in fear of Sarah Ludemann; and that because Joshua had a gun, Sarah might end up with it.

  Hebert said that he acknowledged the judge’s point, but he added that Joshua Camacho could testify to far more than just the gun, and much of what he had to say was relevant before Rachel took the stand. Hebert said, “Perhaps what I will do is call him before Miss Wade and then subject him to recall, after Miss Wade, to ask him about the gun.”

  Judge Bulone said that would be fine. Hebert then introduced to the court Rachel’s other attorney, Jonathon Wesley Douglas, who presented the judgment of acquittal argument, moving for an immediate acquittal on the grounds that the state had failed to meet its burden of proof.

  Motion denied.

  Judge Bulone pointed out that there were some decisions that were up to the lawyers, but the decision as to whether or not the defendant should testify was hers and hers alone. Obviously, he added, she should listen to her lawyer’s advice regarding the possible advantages and disadvantages of being a witness, but she should not let them make the decision for her. The judge then addressed the defendant directly and asked her if she understood everything he’d just said.

  “Yes, sir,” she said in a tiny voice.

  The judge asked if she needed more time to consider whether or not she wanted to testify. She said she did not.

  Hebert asked if Rachel decided to take the stand, would she be allowed to testify that she was the one who told the cops where the knife was?

  The judge said she would.

  Following the lunch break, Judge Joseph Bulone administered an abbreviated version of the oath to the defendant, and then he asked her a series of questions regarding her intentions to participate in her own defense.

  No, she was not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. Yes, she understood what was going on. Yes, her mind was clear. Yes, she was satisfied with the help and advice of her lawyers. No, she didn’t need more time to discuss things with them. Yes, she had reached a decision as to whether or not she wanted to testify.

  “Yes, I will testify,” she said firmly. She felt this was in her best interest. No one was forcing her to make that decision, and she was making the decision of her own free will. Judge Bulone explained that if, at any time, she changed her mind, all she had to do was say so to her lawyers. She said she understood.

  The jury was brought in and the judge gave permission for Jay Hebert to make his opening statement.

  Defense attorney Hebert stood and asked the jurors to recall being children, playing with puzzles. In order to complete the puzzle, he reminded jurors, it was necessary to look at all of the pieces. And that was the defense’s intention here, to allow the jurors to see all of the evidence, to hear from all of the witnesses, to see the entire picture. He wanted them to see the big picture so they would be able to make a fair-and-just decision. The defense’s case was not meant, in any way, to diminish everyone’s appreciation of the tragedy that had occurred to these two families—to the Ludemann family, whose pain was unfathomable, and to the Wade family, whose pain was very difficult to deal with. But that wasn’t what this case was about.

  “This case is about self-defense,” Hebert said. He explained that people have the right to stand their ground and defend themselves. “They have no duty to retreat.”

  Hebert said that in order to look at self-defense, the jurors would need to look at the whole picture, to hear all of the eyewitnesses—including those whom, for whatever reason, the state had chosen not to call.

  The first would be Javier Laboy, a friend of the defendant’s who had once dated her. He was a confidant to Rachel Wade and understood the drama that led up to the tragedy. It all revolved around Joshua Camacho. It included Sarah, Erin, and Rachel. It involved Facebook, Myspace, and phone calls.

  Throughout his opening statement, and on occasion during the defense case, Hebert would refer to the date of the stabbing as “November fourteenth.” Names and dates were unusually problematic for the lawyers on both sides. Later in his opening statement, Hebert referred to “Ashley Laboy.”

  Javier would testify that he received a phone call from Rachel Wade that night and he would describe her demeanor. Javier suggested that Rachel come over to his house. They could hang out and get something to eat and, as Hebert put it, “defuse the situation.” And all of this was important because, in order for the jurors truly to understand what occurred that tragic night, they had to fully understand his client’s state of mind.

  “What was she thinking? What was she feeling? What was going on in her world?” These were questions Hebert wanted the jurors to ask themselves.

  Javier Laboy would confront the testimony of Ashley Lovelady. He was there when Ashley drove by that night, and he saw how she was speeding and how she swerved at Rachel, terrifying his client, heightening her awareness that there was a group of kids out to get her.

  Javier would testify that things happened quickly, that he wanted to get Rachel out of there because this was a percolating situation, ready to explode.

  But he didn’t make it to his house because he was almost to his front door when his attention was drawn to Sarah’s van, which barreled a
round the corner, drifted like a street racer, and screeched to a halt in the middle of the street.

  “All hell was about to break loose,” Hebert noted.

  If the van hadn’t stopped so abruptly, Javier would say, it would have struck Rachel or Rachel’s car. The van stopped four feet away from Rachel’s car in the pitch-black darkness. To demonstrate his point, Hebert aggressively walked toward the jury box, stopping when he was about four feet away.

  And then Javier was going to say that contrary to the testimony of Jilica Smith and Janet Camacho, all three girls piled out of the van simultaneously. Javier would say that Sarah had come to Rachel, and Rachel had no choice but to defend herself. As difficult as it was to say, Sarah Ludemann was the aggressor, the one to throw the first punch, the one who grabbed Rachel Wade by the hair. When that fight was over, and Sarah went back and sat in the van, Janet Camacho attacked Rachel in an immediate continuation of the first fight.

  After Javier, the defense was going to call Joshua Camacho, whom he referred to as “the playa.” Joshua, the defense anticipated, would testify that he was not dating Sarah at the time of the stabbing. In fact, he would admit that he was planning on spending the night that night with Rachel. He would say that he wasn’t dating any of the girls—Sarah, Rachel, Erin—they were all friends with benefits. Joshua knew all about the “banter and the drama.” He would admit that Erin was the “baby mama” of his child. But Joshua would also be able to provide important details regarding what was going on at Janet’s house earlier in the evening. He would testify that there was much calling and texting going on, back and forth. He would testify that—again, contrary to the testimony of Jilica and Janet—everyone was smoking marijuana that night. And not just a small amount, either: seven blunts.

  Joshua would also expose another one of Janet Camacho’s lies, Hebert said, when he testified that there were no kids at Janet’s house that night. Janet said the kids were home. Her brother disagreed. He would say it was just them having a party.