Chapter 34
Jamison spent the rest of the day thinking about what he was going to say to the jury in the morning. It was almost 5 p.m. and he was still searching for the focus of his argument. A yellow legal pad was directly in front of him. The page was as blank as his mind. Jamison couldn’t put his thoughts down on paper until he knew himself what he believed. Finally he picked up the phone.
“Dr. Levy? This is Matt Jamison. May I come to your office? I’d like to talk.”
Aaron Levy watched as Jamison fidgeted with his file and tried to make himself comfortable in the same chair that Levy’s patients sat in.
Before Jamison said anything, Levy asked, “This Dr. St. Claire you are prosecuting. I have been following the case in the paper. You think he’s the murderer you’ve been looking for, don’t you? But you have another reason for being here. Am I correct?”
Levy sensed that his insight made Jamison both uncomfortable and wary. It was disconcerting to have someone look at you intently, and know that the person knew more about you than you had ever disclosed. Jamison’s answer was circumspect. “Yes, there are pieces of both that fit together, but then again nothing in this case fits exactly.”
He spread the photographs out on Levy’s desk of Garrett tied to the bed.
“And what does not fit, exactly?” Levy’s eyes narrowed, looking at the pictures. “Is it that you cannot believe a physician would do such a thing? Or does it trouble you that these two people have a past? That’s what I’ve read in the papers.” Levy gently delved, “Or is there something here that you personally struggle with?”
Levy didn’t probe further as Jamison went over the evidence in the trial, moving back and forth as the questions he had kept confined in his brain during the trial rolled out of his mouth. He waited for Jamison to finish before asking the question that had been clear to him from the beginning of the conversation.
“You have doubts in your mind about her? She may be telling the truth. If so, then you have your answer. But if he’s telling the truth or some form of the truth, then whether she’s telling the truth or not is a much darker question.”
Watching the younger man, Levy paused to let his words sink in. He had spent years probing the hidden recesses of the human mind, quickly learning early in his career that logic often had nothing to do with motivation and obsession.
“Psychopaths are very manipulative, Matt. And they frequently seek out compliant companions to help them act out their fantasies. They may not hurt these people and they may live what appears to be outwardly normal lives while at the same time have this entirely separate existence, a dark side that everyone else is entirely unaware of. But there is something more here that troubles you, isn’t there?” Levy’s observation didn’t sound much like a question.
“I think it’s because I want to believe her and yet there are things that cause me to question myself.”
Levy kept his voice conversational but probing. “I am inferring that you maybe have doubts about your objectivity?” Jamison didn’t respond. “I see.” Levy’s mind began to fill in the spaces in his understanding.
“I cannot answer, of course, who is telling the truth.” His countenance became more thoughtful than usual. “She may be entirely truthful and a complete victim of Dr. St. Claire. Psychopaths, as I said, can be incredibly manipulative. And if he did what you suspect, then he is clearly a complete psychopath.
“That she may not have been completely truthful could be explained as a defensive explanation, her way of trying to make sure she’s believed. She wants you to believe her. Often the truth is much more ambiguous than we would like. If you have trouble accepting her explanations, then surely a jury will have the same problems.”
Levy slid the photographs around of Elizabeth Garrett tied to the bed. “When you look at the development of a person’s character, there can be events in a woman’s life that cause her to have a fantasy of being abused. It’s a fantasy because it isn’t real. Something like people getting on a roller coaster because they really know it won’t come off the tracks. They can be safely terrified.”
Jamison’s response was questioning. “Safely terrified?”
“Games of bondage and sexual submission can be part of that. It is a fantasy in which the abuse is not reality,” Levy explained. “The reality is that Elizabeth Garrett may be a complete victim or she may be a willing victim or”—Levy stared directly at Jamison—“as hard as it is to believe, she may not be a victim at all. That is what you must ask yourself and that is what the jury must decide. First, you must decide what you believe. But the fact that at one time she willingly engaged in this type of behavior does not mean she willingly did so this time. And it does not mean she did not.”
He understood the consternation on Jamison’s face. It wasn’t a definitive answer, but then very seldom in his line of work was there a definitive answer when you were looking for why things happened. About the only thing definitive was what happened.
“Matt, you should trust your judgment. If you have questions, then you should look at the reasons, but don’t lose sight of who is the master manipulator here. It’s possible Ms. Garrett may not have been entirely truthful, but that doesn’t mean that she isn’t the victim. What we see is still the best indicator of what is likely. What we may suspect can often obscure reality.”
Levy became silent, waiting for Jamison to digest what he’d said. He knew the young man well enough that he could envision the kaleidoscope of evidence flashing though his mind as he processed the answer.
“I think she’s a victim.”
Levy nodded. “Then you’ve answered your question. What I’ve explained are simply possibilities. What is clear is that your good doctor is most likely a murderer. I will tell you if that is so, then Elizabeth Garrett is extremely lucky to be alive. I will also tell you that somewhere there are pictures that Dr. St. Claire has of his victims. These people always keep mementoes. They revel in the memory of what they’ve done. I cannot tell you where they are, I can only tell you that they exist and you will have to find them. But for now, Matt, you must clear your mind and satisfy yourself with what you believe because for your argument to the jury to be believed, you must believe it yourself. We’ll talk again. This case isn’t over.”
Before Jamison left, Levy put his hand on the young prosecutor’s shoulder. It was a fatherly gesture born of their long friendship, one that began in earnest years before when Matt’s father, a very successful but personally flawed criminal defense lawyer, abandoned the family. Roger Jamison’s sense of control came with his mastery in the courtroom but outside that forum he was master of very little, including himself. Years of his infidelities and alcoholism had imprinted their pain on Matt’s childhood. Levy, his father’s friend, had stepped into the fatherless boy’s void. He had come to love Matt, his intensity almost like a coiled spring. As a psychologist he knew it to be an effort on Jamison’s part to assert control over his life.
As Matt rose to go, what Levy left unsaid was his realization that what St. Claire was to Elizabeth Garrett, a dominant and overwhelming force in her life, was just as he had known Jamison’s father had been to Matt’s mother.
Levy understood very clearly that what was unconsciously troubling and confusing Jamison emotionally was his empathy for Elizabeth Garrett, an empathy he had gained at an early age for women who were not in control of their own lives. And on a conscious or subconscious level, Jamison wanted to believe she was a victim because he couldn’t understand it if she wasn’t.
Chapter 35
In any criminal trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proof because they brought the charges. They go first.
If the defense wishes, they don’t even have to argue. But they always do. And they always argue that the prosecution hasn’t proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Jamison knew when he walked through the swinging gate to the counsel table what his job was. He was a prosecutor.
He could feel the tension of th
e courtroom. Adrenaline pulsed through his body. His criminal law professor had said that great lawyers are born, they aren’t made. And it was in final argument that the pitched sea of emotion that is a criminal trial is crossed or not crossed successfully. Whether Jamison was born to be a great lawyer was not on his mind. What was on his mind was that this was his final chance to make his case.
Standing in front of twelve people in final argument was like standing on a dark stage and delivering a soliloquy in a pinpoint of light. Jamison rose from his seat at the counsel table, walked to the well of the courtroom, and stood alone in front of the jury rail.
The eyes that looked back at him were neither sympathetic nor antagonistic. They were simply expectant. He left his notes at the counsel table. He began to pace. He always paced. He went over the evidence and testimony in minute detail before he stopped pacing and stood quietly in front of the jury, reaching for the words he wanted to leave them with and to think about when McGuiness gave his arguments.
“Ladies and gentlemen, a criminal trial is sometimes described as a search for the truth. I would describe it more accurately as a search for certainty. But there is only one way we can provide that certainty: it is by presenting you with the evidence and the witnesses. You, the jury, alone determine the credibility of witnesses. You, the jury, alone decide what you believe or don’t believe. You, the jury, alone decide what you can be certain of. It is never easy. It is never simple.
“I am not going to talk about each piece of evidence in this case. You know and I know that the only thing that decides certainty in this case is whether you believe Elizabeth Garrett or if you believe Alex St. Claire.
“How do we decide who to believe? We look at the logic of what the witness says. We look to see if anything supports what the witness says. We look to see if something the witness says can be proven to be true or untrue. We look to our own experience as men and women, human experience, because it is human experience by which we make our judgments every day and measure the judgments of others. Every day.
“You saw Elizabeth Garrett testify. You saw her come into this courtroom and expose herself to humiliation and attack. You saw her stand up to that and you saw her dignity. Mr. McGuiness is an excellent lawyer. He is very good at what he does. Every aspect of Elizabeth’s life was dissected, moved around, peeled away, and exposed for twelve strangers. But she took it. She looked you in the eye. She looked Mr. McGuiness in the eye and yes, she looked Alex St. Claire in the eye, a man who has been a specter hanging over her entire young life.
“Elizabeth Garrett is no competition for Alex St. Claire in terms of sophistication or education. Not many people would be. She is only competition in terms of character.
“She has been stalked and she has been harassed and she has survived. I do not think many young people, male or female, could do what she has done.
“And to you, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. McGuiness will argue that you hold Alex St. Claire’s future in your hands. But I will argue that you hold Elizabeth Garrett’s character in your hands.
“I want you to think about the logic of this case. If Elizabeth wanted to meet Alex St. Claire as he maintains, then why meet him on a darkened road near her home? She could easily have gone to his home or met him at a restaurant or coffee shop ‘to talk’ as he testified. Does it make any sense that a young woman would stop near a remote and darkened cemetery to conduct a conversation?
“Alex St. Claire says that Elizabeth and he had a relationship that was unusual. Think about it. This young woman is found tied to a bed. There aren’t many explanations Alex St. Claire can give for that except that she did it willingly. But think about that. This young woman knew that her parents would be frantic. She knew people would be looking for her. This wasn’t early the next morning. It was in the afternoon of the next day. Do you get any sense from watching this young woman, from listening to her answer every single question, no matter how humiliating, that she would do that? Did she strike you as that irresponsible and insensitive to others?
“The defense evidence in this case has been a puzzle to me and I am guessing it has been a puzzle to you as well. I examined the baby clothes and the receipt for those clothes. I looked at the ticket receipt for the Queen Mary. They looked real. There were only a few explanations. Either the receipts were obtained as Alex St. Claire said they were and Elizabeth was lying, or they were obtained to provide an alibi. Well if, as I argue to you, Elizabeth is not lying, then they were obtained to provide an alibi, to provide a veneer of truthfulness and credibility for Alex St. Claire.
“You heard him deny that. You heard him insist that they did these things together. Why did he do that? He did that so that you would doubt Elizabeth. Why would anybody keep these items for as long as the defendant did? He kept these things for ten years. And what do we now know about them? We know that they are a lie. They were obtained and held on to for years, to create an alibi, an alibi not only for what he did in the past, but for what, in the dark recesses of the mind of Alex St. Claire, he planned to do in the future. This young woman was his obsession.
“You didn’t hear any admission from Alex St. Claire that he lied to you until he was caught. And when he got back on the stand and admitted he lied, he looked you in the eye just like he did when he wanted you to believe that he was telling the truth. He is a liar.
“But Alex St. Claire is more than that. It is frightening to believe what he really is. He has stalked this young woman. Think of it. Everything has been done to provide him with an explanation that makes her look like she is lying. But the only person who has lied and who has been proven to have lied is Alex St. Claire.
“There are the pictures of Elizabeth when she was a teenager that she was humiliated with on the witness stand. You all saw them. You heard her say why they were taken. God knows that we all have done things when we were young that we regret. But she admitted it. Is it any wonder that she didn’t want anybody to know? Is it any wonder she didn’t want to press charges back then if it meant that those pictures would be shown not only to her parents but to the entire world? Do any of you have any doubt about the way she felt when you looked at those pictures?
“It is frightening to think of what Elizabeth has had to endure at the hands of Alex St. Claire. He has been there all these years, waiting, watching, and planning. Look at the photograph of her in the parking lot introduced by the defense, her hair swirling as she turns her head. You heard the photographic expert testify she was moving and that it was consistent with being taken from a distance. You heard her testify she didn’t know anybody was photographing her. She wasn’t posing for a photograph as the defendant wants you to believe. She was being stalked. And now in this courtroom the defendant used that image stolen from an unaware young woman as proof that she was with him, just like he used those receipts that he had kept all those years.
“What Alex St. Claire described as love for Elizabeth Garrett is not love, ladies and gentlemen, it is obsession. The defendant is obsessed with Elizabeth Garrett and he has waited like a hawk circling its prey, waiting for the right moment to hurtle to the ground and rip its talons into an unsuspecting victim.
“Alex St. Claire may be a physician, a man trained to heal, but concealed inside him is the mind of a remorseless predator. He did what Elizabeth said he did and he will not stop unless you find him guilty.”
Standing silently for a moment, Jamison’s eyes scanned the twelve people who had listened intently. Some were looking back at him. Others were glancing furtively over at Alex St. Claire. They were thinking about what Jamison had said. He walked back to his chair and sat down. He could feel the spreading wetness under his shirt. In some ways the damp chill of perspiration was reassuring. It told him that he had argued what he believed.
McGuiness remained seated, his pen appearing to slash across his legal pad. Jamison knew it was simply for show. McGuiness already knew what he was going to say and where he would start. Finally McGuiness walked across the
courtroom and placed his hands on the jury rail, leaning in as close as he could get to the jury. He slowly recounted his client’s impressive educational background and the lack of independent evidence other than Elizabeth Garrett’s word, tearing at each vulnerability in the evidence, each inconsistency. Then he moved directly in front of the jury to make his last point.
“Mr. Jamison is impressive, isn’t he? But there is one thing he didn’t talk about and that is the one final thing we have to talk about. He said that a trial is not so much a search for the truth as it is a search for certainty. I agree with that. Sometimes we just don’t know what is or is not the truth because we can’t be certain. And in a criminal trial, if we cannot be certain of what the truth is, then the judge will instruct you that you are obligated to find an accused person not guilty.
“The burden of proof in determining whether you are certain is called proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It simply means that if you can’t be certain, morally certain, beyond any doubt that is reasonable, then you are obligated to find the accused not guilty.
“In most cases, the truth is fairly clear. We can look at logic and we can look at evidence, and depending on the case we can reach a conclusion with a very high degree of confidence. But this is not most cases. This is a case where everything, everything, ladies and gentlemen, rests on the only thing of which we can be certain—and that is that this was a tumultuous relationship from the beginning.
“No matter how you look at it, what we have seen is two people who have run the emotional gamut, the ecstasy and the degradation, of an intense and complex human relationship. And what we all know is that what human relationships present to the world and what they present in the privacy of that relationship often are completely different. What we have seen is a tragic human relationship stripped of all privacy and all dignity for both people—for both Elizabeth Garrett and Alex St. Claire.
Fractured Justice Page 30