Collared

by David Rosenfelt

  Jill is waiting for me when I get there, and I tell her that the subject on the table is Finding Home.

  “What about it?” she asks.

  “Here’s what I know. The money that Parsons used to buy half of the company was provided by Renny Kaiser. Renny Kaiser is a big-time drug dealer; they don’t come any bigger. Zachary Alford has been in frequent contact with Kaiser, and one of them sent a tough guy to warn me, or much worse.”

  “Andy—”

  “Let me finish, please. They are worried that I am close to uncovering some wrongdoing at that company. I can’t see how it is connected to the abduction; it is likely something else. But there is something very wrong there, and not only do I think you should know it, but I want you to help me find out what it is.”

  “How much of this are you sure about?” she asks.

  “One hundred percent.”

  She shakes her head sadly. “I never should have stepped back the way I did. It’s my damn company.”

  “You had your reasons. But you need to step back in, find out what’s going on, and fix it.”

  “How?”

  “I don’t know; that’s not my area. You’re the chairman. Audit the books, hold confidential interviews, issue edicts, fire people … do whatever chairmen do.”

  She seems either unconvinced, or hesitant, or both, but finally she nods. “I’ll do what I can.”

  “Alford is the only one who I know is part of it, but there could be others.”

  “Okay,” she says. “Time to jump back in.”

  ’ve been a lawyer for a long time, but this is a first for me. I have never been involved in a case in which the key witness in a trial is a dead nanny.

  But that is what is happening here. Kelly is about to call Teresa Mullins to the stand, as he did last time. She is, of course, unable to physically take the stand now, but her words will be center stage.

  Judge Moran correctly feels the need to explain to the jury what the hell is going on. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard witnesses in this trial refer to Teresa Mullins, who was present at the scene of the abduction, and who testified at length during the first trial.

  “Teresa Mullins is deceased and is therefore obviously unavailable to appear in court for this trial. However, her testimony from the first trial is permitted to be read and examined here and available to be judged by you.

  “You may be familiar with the word hearsay, and you may know that it is rarely permitted to be presented to a jury. While that is usually true, there are two specifics reasons that the law allows it in this case.

  “One is the legitimate unavailability of the witness, and I have already mentioned the circumstances that speak to that. The other is the fact that the original words were spoken under oath and are therefore given special consideration and deference by the court.

  “It will be up to each lawyer to decide which portions of Ms. Mullins’s testimony they want you to hear. Obviously, there can be no cross-examination, but the lawyers are free to present their own witnesses to support or refute what is being read.”

  With that, he turns things back over to Kelly, who has decided to let the court clerk read the parts of Mullins’s testimony that he wants this jury to hear.

  I think this is an error; it’s read in a monotone that in my view diminishes the effectiveness. I know why he’s doing it; if he had someone involved in the case do the reading, I could question that person in a way that would feel like a cross-examination.

  And the words are powerful. She very clearly identifies Keith as the abductor and speaks about the horror of that day and the loss of that precious child. I imagine that she originally spoke emotionally, and no doubt that had an effect on the previous jury. That emotion is obviously missing in our court clerk’s rendition, although at one point the reading includes a reference to a break that Mullins took at the judge’s suggestion so that she could have time to compose herself.

  I watch the jury during the reading. They’re either paying rapt attention or they’re worried about whether they remembered to turn the oven off when they left home this morning. I don’t have the slightest idea what they’re thinking … I never do.

  I don’t have any questions when the reading is done. That’s partially because there is no one for me to question, but more importantly it’s because when I attempt to take the testimony apart, I will be presenting witnesses to do it.

  I tell Judge Moran that I will be presenting and analyzing Ms. Mullins’s testimony during the defense case; I say this because I want the jury to hear it. He tells the court clerk, and by extension the dead nanny, that she can step down, subject to recall.

  And she’d better be ready, because Andy Carpenter is coming after her, and coming after her soon.

  “The prosecution rests,” says Mitch Kelly.

  here’s a major weakness in my case that has nothing to do with Keith Wachtel. There is no one else I can accuse of the abduction. The jury is going to want to punish someone for this crime or at least learn that there is someone else that some future jury will likely punish. I don’t have to prove someone else’s guilt, but I very much like to suggest a reasonable alternative to my client.

  I’ve got no one to fill that role.

  Renny Kaiser, despite my probably ill-advised threat to him, doesn’t fit the bill. If I worked hard enough and was able to expose his drug activities and his connection to Finding Home, it still wouldn’t get me where I want to go.

  But the truth is that none of what I’m learning or not learning about Finding Home would be admissible in this courtroom. Not Renny’s investment or the phone connection triangle between him, Zachary Alford, and Kyle Gillis. Not even the events with Kyle Gillis the night he followed me and ultimately met his Maker, or at least his Marcus.

  The reason it wouldn’t be admissible is that on the surface it has nothing to do with this case. We are here to determine whether Keith Wachtel abducted Dylan Hickman, not whether there is fraud or money laundering or any other nefarious thing going on at Finding Home.

  I simply cannot tie anything at Finding Home to the abduction, and I have to face the possibility, even the probability, that it may well be due to the fact that there is no connection. No matter what Renny and his pals might be doing at Finding Home, how does stealing a baby help them do it?

  If I can’t answer that question, then there is no way that Judge Moran would let me pose it to the jury. And he shouldn’t.

  I’d like to find a way to nail Renny and the others for whatever it is they’re doing, but that has nothing to do with what I’m being paid one dollar to do. So for now my focus is on Keith, and Teresa Mullins, and creating a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

  In that regard, what I have to hang our collective hat on is what I consider the perjured testimony of Teresa Mullins. I have two angles from which to attack it. First, my position is that if the jury throws it out, there is not enough evidence remaining to convict Keith. Second, and at least as important, is our view that Teresa collaborated with the real criminals.

  I’m going to construct the Teresa Mullins portion of our case along a time line similar to the way we uncovered it. Because of that, the first person I call to the stand is Sondra, Willie’s wife.

  When I had told Willie I was going to use Sondra instead of him as a witness, he seemed a little put off by it and asked why I was doing it.

  I decided to tell him the truth. “Because she’s more believable than you, people like her more, and she doesn’t say stupid stuff.”

  He thought for a moment and said, “Makes a lot of sense. She’s better looking than me too.”

  “By a lot,” I said.

  So Sondra is the first witness I call in the defense case. I have her talk about the foundation a bit, including the fact that I’m a partner in it. I don’t want Kelly bringing that out and making it sound sinister or conspiratorial.

  Then I bring her to the day Cody arrived and ask her to describe what happ
ened.

  “Willie and I just got there regular time, about eight o’clock in the morning. There was a dog tied up in front, a border collie. There was a note left with it.”

  I introduce the note into evidence. “Does this happen often?”

  “I wouldn’t say often,” she says. “But sometimes people are embarrassed to be giving up their dogs, so they do it that way.”

  “What’s the procedure when this happens?”

  “Well, unless we definitely know whose dog it is, we scan it to see if it has an embedded chip. We did that in this case.”

  “What did the scan turn up?”

  “That the dog’s name was Cody and belonged to Jill Hickman.”

  I submit the scan report into evidence and turn the witness over to Kelly, who simply gets Sondra to say that she did not see who left the dog and has no idea who it was.

  Next I call Dan Dowling, our vet, who confirms that he examined Cody and that the dog tested positive for anahlichtia, a tick-borne ailment that it very common to the state of Maine. I introduce the blood test into evidence, as well as a sworn affidavit from the company that Jill used to hire Teresa. The document lists her address as being in Nobleboro, Maine.

  Kelly has little to ask Dowling but starts with, “Dr. Dowling, you say this ailment is common to Maine. Are there any other states where it’s at all prevalent?”

  “Yes, 20 percent of the cases in the United States are in Vermont and New Hampshire. It has made its way down from Canada.”

  Kelly acts surprised. “So there are cases in Canada as well?”

  “Yes, many more than in the U.S.”

  “Does a dog have to have lived in one of those places to have gotten the disease?” Kelly asks.

  “No, it could happen in one day, passing through. As long as the dog comes in contact with the tick.”

  “Thank you.”

  If the jury has been respecting Judge Moran’s admonition and not reading or watching anything about the trial in the media, then they must have no idea why they’re hearing about tick diseases. But since the next jury that actually listens to the judge will be the first, my guess is they know exactly where I’m going with this.

  In any event, since it’s Friday, they’ll have the weekend to think about it.

  ’m in very good shape in terms of preparation. That doesn’t always happen; very often I’m working late into the night to completely familiarize myself with details of whatever case I’m working so that I can instantly respond in the courtroom.

  But this trial, at least as it relates to the defense case, is fairly straightforward, so I’ve been able to relax a little more and not be so intense about it.

  One of the great benefits of this is that I’m able to go to Ricky’s basketball game today. It’s a local Paterson league that plays at the Y and is run by terrific, dedicated people. I love that Ricky is able to participate in team sports at his age. Doing so myself provided me with many of my best childhood memories.

  Laurie and I take him and sit through two other games before it’s his turn. The kids in the two games are three and five years older than Ricky, and it’s really amazing how good they are. They can dribble, get to the basket, and shoot. Defense, of course, is not a priority.

  Ricky’s game is a bit different. Kindly put, their skills have not yet significantly developed. Nor has their game strategy. As soon as one kid gets the ball, all five players on the other team descend on him. He’s overwhelmed, so somebody takes the ball away, only to receive the same treatment from the team that originally had the ball.

  The game lasts for forty minutes, with two fifteen-minute halves and a ten-minute halftime. Ricky gets the ball six times, sending Laurie into a frenzy of wild cheering. He takes one shot, which gets to about three feet short of the rim.

  I have to admit I love watching this. I never thought I could enjoy a game this much without betting on it. Afterward, everybody goes for pizza, so we parents can spend concentrated time telling the kids how wonderful they are.

  When we get home, I take the dogs for a walk and get back to trial preparation. I’m done at about ten, and since Laurie is already in bed, I head in that direction.

  When I walk into the bedroom, I see that she is crying. My instinct is to get the hell out of here, but she’s already seen me, so I’m stuck.

  “What’s the matter?” I ask.

  “Nothing,” she says through the sniffling.

  “There must be something going on. Is it a good something or a bad something?” Laurie is able to cry from both happiness and sadness, an ability I fortunately never really developed.

  “I was thinking about today and how much joy we get from Ricky being in our lives.”

  I exhale from relief. “So that’s good. I was worried, because you were crying.”

  “I was also thinking about Dylan Hickman. I can’t stop thinking about him in that picture with Teresa Mullins. He is so small and so dependent on adults. But adults let him down. Did you see how tiny his fingers were?”

  I have no idea what to say in situations like this, so I say as little as possible. In this case, Laurie asked if I saw Dylan’s tiny fingers, so I can get away with just saying, “Yes … so tiny.”

  She continues, “Not only is it so horrible for him and Jill, but when a child is lost…”

  “We don’t know that he’s dead,” I say.

  She nods. “I know, but you and I both know it’s probable. When a child that young dies, the repercussions are not only devastating, but they are so far reaching. Just think of the lives that would have been impacted by him, the work he might have done, the people that might have loved him, the children and grandchildren that will never exist.” She pauses, dabs at her eyes, and says, “Bringing a child into the world is a wonderful and very scary thing to do.”

  The pain in Laurie’s face is tangible, and the tears are still flowing. I wish I could help her, but I can’t. We both know that.

  I also know one other thing. We won’t be having sex tonight. I’m thinking no chance.

  Sometimes thoughts just pop into my head, and sometimes they’re actually meaningful. I wish I could control the timetable on when they happen, but I can’t. So I basically just go with the flow.

  It just happened now. I don’t know whether it was the talk of bringing a child into the world, or the phrase no chance. But it’s here, it’s in my head, and it’s clear as a bell.

  “Can Nancy come babysit tomorrow?” I ask.

  “I’m sure she could. Why?”

  “Because we need to go talk to Mary Sullivan.”

  e catch a break in that Mary Sullivan is off from work today. Laurie called her, told her who we are, and said we must talk to her urgently about something relating to the Keith Wachtel trial. Mary was familiar with the trial, so Laurie said that helped overcome her wariness about being approached like this by strangers.

  Our next-door neighbor Nancy has come in to babysit, so Laurie is able to go with me. As we get there, I’m thinking that maybe my hunch isn’t so smart, maybe it’s just a waste of time. But we’ll know soon enough.

  She asked that we meet at a diner on Route 59 in Nanuet, and she’s waiting for us when we arrive. She looks to be in her early thirties, pretty without makeup.

  “Thanks for talking with us,” Laurie says after we go through the hellos and introductions.

  “To be honest, I’m not sure I’m going to. It depends what this is about.”

  “It’s about James Ware, your former fiancé,” I say.

  She is clearly surprised by this. “Jim? What does he have to do with that trial?”

  “The child that was abducted was adopted. He had been abandoned by someone, probably his natural parents, a couple of months earlier. Testing shows that the father might have been James Ware.”

  “What kind of testing?”

  “DNA,” I say. “I went to talk to him about it, and he told me that it was impossible. He even dared me to sue him, saying he could prov
e he wasn’t the father.”

  She’s nodding as we talk, which is a good sign, so I push on. “We want to know if you know why he is so confident.”

  Mary starts to say something, then seems to catch herself and says, “I don’t think it’s my place to talk about Jim.”

  “It’ll come out in court anyway,” I say, lying through my teeth and earning a Laurie stare of disapproval. “This will be easier on him.”

  Mary nods. “Okay. Jim can’t have kids. I think it’s one of the things that drove us apart. I come from a big family, and he knows how important it is to me. The fact that we’d never be able to have kids together made him feel inadequate. I told him we could adopt, but he never thought that would be enough for me.”

  There’s really nothing left to say, so we thank her and leave. My hunch was right on target, not exactly an everyday occurrence.

  Once we get in the car, it takes me about forty-five seconds to go from gloating about my correct instinct to berating myself for not realizing it sooner.

  “I know Alford is bad; we’ve connected him to both Renny Kaiser and Kyle Gillis. Emmonds works for Alford, so how could I have counted on him to give me accurate DNA test results?”

  I wasn’t really asking Laurie the question; I already know the answer, and I’m beating myself up with it.

  So I continue. “He probably just took a name off the registry; Ware was in there because he was military. Emmonds would have no way of knowing that Ware couldn’t father children.”

  “This changes everything,” Laurie says.

  I know that she’s right, but I want to hear what she has to say. “How do you mean?”

  “We’ve been thinking that there is likely something about the Finding Home business that these people were desperate to cover up. But we didn’t think it had anything to do with the abduction; we could never make that connection.”

  “Right.”

  “But this proves otherwise. Emmonds, and the people he works for, would have no reason to fake the DNA results unless they were somehow involved in the abduction. Or, at the very least, they were covering up for whoever was.”