SW05 - The Wrong Gun

by Parnell Hall

  “Is that not the case?” Steve said.

  “No, it is not the case,” Dr. Blessing snapped.

  “It isn’t? But didn’t you testify that a body cools at one and a half degrees Fahrenheit per hour? Didn’t you testify that when you took the body temperature it was two degrees below normal, or ninety-six point six? Didn’t you testify that you took the body temperature at six twenty-one?”

  “Yes, I did,” Dr. Blessing said. “And those are very good indications of when the man met his death. But no determination of the time of death could be that exact. You can’t say it had to be five o’clock any more than you can say it had to be four forty-five.”

  “Granted,” Steve said. “But don’t your findings indicate death was more likely to have been at five o’clock than four forty-five?”

  “Not necessarily,” Dr. Blessing said.

  “Really?” Steve said. “Well, maybe we should do the math again.”

  “Objection,” Vaulding said.

  “Overruled,” Judge Hendrick said. “Witness may answer.”

  “Answer what?” Vaulding said irritably. “That’s not even a question.”

  “What’s that?” Judge Hendrick said. He turned to the court reporter. “Read back that last exchange.”

  The court reporter shuffled through her notes, read back, “Answer: ‘Not necessarily.’ Question: ‘Then maybe we should do the math again.’”

  “It was not a question,” Judge Hendrick ruled. “Mr. Winslow, would you please rephrase your remark and put it in the form of a question?”

  “Certainly, Your Honor. Dr. Blessing, would you please explain to me why the math we have just done in court comes up with the median time of five o’clock, whereas your estimation of the time of death gives us the median time of four forty-five?”

  Dr. Blessing was somewhat red in the face. He took a breath. “As I’ve already stated, while body temperature is generally the most accurate method of determining the time of death, no method can be that precise. In coming up with a reasonable estimate of the time of death, it is necessary for me to consider all the factors involved.”

  “That’s very interesting,” Steve said. “What other factors were there?”

  “I beg your pardon?”

  “What other medical factors were there that you used in determining the time of death?”

  Dr. Blessing paused, frowned.

  “Rigor mortis hadn’t begun to set in, had it?” Steve asked.

  “No, it had not.”

  “No, I wouldn’t think so, that soon after death. So that wasn’t a factor. And post mortem lividity wasn’t a factor either, was it?”

  “No, it was not.”

  “The stomach contents—were they useful?”

  Dr. Blessing hesitated again. “Not particularly. The decedent had had a late brunch of bacon and eggs and sweet rolls. However, brunch was served that morning from nine till one, and no one has been able to supply me with the time they believe the decedent ate.”

  “I see. So the stomach contents do not help you pin down the time of death, do they, doctor?”

  “No, they do not.”

  “Then what other medical factors did you rely on in determining the time of death?”

  “There were no other medical factors.”

  Steve frowned. “Is that right, doctor? You mean the only medical factor you relied on was the body temperature?”

  “That is basically correct.”

  “Basically?” Steve said. “Why do you qualify your answer with the word basically? Is it correct, or is it not correct?”

  Dr. Blessing hesitated.

  Vaulding sprang to his aid. “Objection, Your Honor.”

  “Overruled,” Judge Hendrick snapped.

  “Is it correct, or is it not correct?” Steve repeated.

  “It’s correct,” Dr. Blessing said grudgingly.

  “Thank you, doctor. I thought it was. Then your use of the word basically is incorrect, is it not?”

  “Objection.”

  “Overruled.”

  “Was your use of the word basically incorrect?”

  “Not, it was not,” Dr. Blessing snapped. “I said it was basically correct, and it is basically correct.”

  “It is also basically misleading, doctor. Isn’t it true that what I said was entirely correct, and you used the word basically because you were reluctant to admit this? Because you are the prosecution’s witness and you are biased in their favor. And you used the word basically because you were reluctant to admit anything that might hurt the prosecution’s case. And your use of the word basically is an indication of your bias.”

  “Objection.”

  “Overruled. The witness may answer.”

  “Absolutely not,” Dr. Blessing sputtered. “I used the word casually, not expecting it to be picked apart in this manner. If anything, I misspoke myself.”

  Steve smiled. “Then you were wrong, doctor?”

  “I was not wrong. I regret the use of the word basically. I retract it. I withdraw it.”

  “I’m glad to hear it,” Steve said. “Then there were no other medical factors, were there, doctor?”

  “No, there were not.”

  “Then why do you compute the median time of death at four forty-five rather than five o’clock?”

  “Now there you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said I did that. You said that. All I did was put the times death could have occurred between four o’clock and five-thirty.”

  “Of which the median time is four forty-five, is it not?”

  “Yes, but that is not how I arrived at those outside limits,” Dr. Blessing said. “While there were no other medical factors involved, there were factors to consider. The median time is five o’clock. Medically speaking, it would be possible for the man to have been killed between the hours of four and six. But the man couldn’t have been killed at six, because by that time there were already police on the scene. And as I understand it, you yourself found the body at five forty-five. And while it is still possible the man met his death as early as four o’clock, it is not possible he met his death as late as six. So I have tried to give the time of death in a means that takes into account both the medical circumstances and the physical circumstances surrounding the crime as we know them. And that is why the median time, as you attempt to compute it, is meaningless. Yes, five o’clock would have been the median time from those figures—the man still could have been killed as early as four or as late as five-thirty.”

  “I see, doctor,” Steve said. “So you are now testifying that your medical opinion of the time of death is based on nonmedical factors?”

  “No, I’m not!” Dr. Blessing snapped. “You can twist my words around any way you want, but I think I’ve given a fair and accurate appraisal of the situation.” .

  “After a certain amount of prompting,” Steve said dryly.

  “Objection!” Vaulding snapped.

  “Sustained. Mr. Winslow, please refrain from such asides.”

  “I’m sorry, Your Honor. Doctor, let’s take a look at this fair and impartial appraisal. You say death could have occurred as early as four or as late as five-thirty?”

  “That is correct.”

  “But you also say according to your medical evidence, death could have occurred as late as six o’clock. You discount that on the grounds that by that time officers were on the scene.”

  “That is correct.”

  “Tell me, was one of those officers Lieutenant Sanders?”

  “Yes, he was.”

  “Now, I don’t want to mislead you, but Lieutenant Sanders who has already testified in this case, mentioned observing blood on the face of the decedent. He first testified that when he arrived on the scene he saw blood flowing from the wound, but when I cross-examined him on it he said the blood was not flowing but was either seeping from the wound or had recently stopped seeping from the wound.

  “With regard to that, I wonder if you observed the blood comi
ng from the wound of the decedent?”

  “Of course I did.”

  “And when you first examined the body, was that blood flowing?”

  “It was not.”

  “Was it seeping?”

  “If so, it was very slow. So slow as to be indistinguishable from the fact it had stopped.”

  Steve nodded. “I see, doctor. And it was then that you determined that the man was dead?”

  “Or immediately thereafter.”

  “Yes, doctor,” Steve said. “While Lieutenant Sanders presumed the man was dead, it was you as medical examiner who pronounced him dead, who made that official determination?”

  “That is correct.”

  “Well, doctor, let me ask you this: if what Lieutenant Sanders observed was indeed blood coming from the wound of the decedent, is it possible that the decedent was alive when Lieutenant Sanders and the police got there, but died before you examined him?”

  Dr. Blessing stared at him in exasperation. “How could I answer that?”

  “You could say yes, you could say no, or you could say I don’t know.”

  “Objection, Your Honor,” Vaulding said. “Badgering the witness.”

  Judge Hendrick smiled. “I believe the witness asked him the question. The objection is overruled.”

  “Is that possible?” Steve Winslow said.

  Dr. Blessing shifted his position on the stand. “What do you mean, possible?”

  “I mean physically possible. In terms of your medical findings. In other words, is there anything you discovered in your autopsy that would indicate that could not have happened?”

  Dr. Blessing hesitated a moment. “No.”

  Steve smiled. “I didn’t think so, doctor. So when you say to me the medical findings indicate the time of death could have been between four and six, but you altered that time because six was out of the question because the police were already on the scene, that is not entirely correct, is it? For all you know he could have been still alive when the police arrived, and expired before you examined him.”

  “That’s highly unlikely,” Dr. Blessing said.

  “I agree. I think it’s highly unlikely death occurred between five-thirty and six. But is it not a fact, doctor, that it is also highly unlikely death occurred between four and four-thirty? Is it not a fact that your medical findings regarding body temperature indicate that the victim probably met his death between the hours of four-thirty and five-thirty, with five o’clock as the median time? And while it is highly unlikely, there is an outside chance he met his death between four o’clock and four-thirty? And the only reason you include that half-hour in giving the probable time of death is because the police indicated to you that they would like to be able to show that the victim could have been killed around four o’clock when only Russ Timberlaine had left the auction. Is that not a fact?”

  “No, it is not,” Dr. Blessing said. “I have answered that question to the best of my ability, taking all factors into consideration.”

  “And you say the victim could have been killed between the hours of four and five-thirty?”

  “That is correct.”

  “And in lopping off the last half-hour you cite the fact that I, myself, found the body at five forty-five?”

  “It is a factor. It is not a medical factor, but it is indeed a factor.”

  “Yes, it is, doctor. But you picked a cutoff point of five-thirty. Couldn’t the victim actually have met his death at five forty-four? Couldn’t I have walked in the very minute after he died?”

  Dr. Blessing said nothing. He glowered at Steve Winslow.

  “Well, doctor?”

  “It’s possible, but highly unlikely.”

  Steve nodded. “I agree, doctor. I would say most likely he died between four-thirty and five-thirty. Wouldn’t you?”

  “Objection.”

  “Sustained.”

  “When did the decedent meet his death?”

  “Objection. Already asked and answered.”

  “Sustained.”

  Steve frowned. He shot a glance at the jurors, smiled slightly and shook his head to give the impression he was being hampered by Vaulding being overly technical. Then he turned back to the witness. “Very well, doctor. Regardless of when the decedent met his death, the fact is he was killed by a single bullet that pierced the forehead and entered the brain, is that right?”

  “Yes, it is.”

  “I believe you stated that was the sole cause of death.”

  “Yes, it was.”

  “There were no contributing or secondary causes?”

  Dr. Blessing hesitated a moment. “I would say no.”

  Steve smiled. “You would, doctor? Is that because the answer is no, or because you feel the prosecution would like that answer?”

  “Objection.”

  “Sustained.”

  “May I be heard, Your Honor?” Steve said.

  Judge Hendrick shook his head. “The objection is sustained. You may rephrase the question.”

  “Thank you, Your Honor. Dr. Blessing, when I asked if there were any contributing factors in the death of the decedent, you hesitated, then said you would say no. I wonder what you were considering when you hesitated, and why you qualified your answer in that fashion. Therefore I ask you, were there other factors that you considered, which you determined were not a direct cause of death, but which were still significant enough to have been under consideration?”

  Dr. Blessing took a breath. He clamped his lips together, puffed out his cheeks for a second before he exhaled. “Well,” he said. “There was evidence of a possible concussion.”

  “Concussion?” Steve said. “You mean a blow to the head?”

  “That’s right.”

  Steve gawked at the doctor, blinked twice. He turned, stared open-mouthed at the jury, then turned back to the doctor. “I beg your pardon, doctor, but I’m a little confused. I asked you if you found any contributing factors besides the bullet wound and you said no. Did you not?”

  “Yes, I did.”

  “You don’t consider a blow to the head a contributing factor?”

  Dr. Blessing clamped his lips together, shook his head. “I was asked for the cause of death. A blow to the head, if indeed there was one, is absolutely insignificant in terms of the cause of death. It was not severe, could not have caused death, could not have even contributed. The bullet was the sole, necessary and sufficient cause of death.”

  “I’m sure it was, doctor,” Steve said. “Let’s talk about this blow to the head. Where was it?”

  “On the back of the skull. Just above and behind the right ear.”

  “What form did it take?”

  “There was a bruise and slight swelling.”

  “Really?” Steve said. “Was there any indication when this blow was delivered?”

  “I didn’t say a blow was delivered,” Dr. Blessing snapped.

  “No, you didn’t, doctor. Are you now saying the blow to the head appeared of its own accord?”

  “Certainly not. We’ve been using the term blow to the head to refer to the concussion. Which is misleading. The concussion is as likely to have occurred from the head striking something as from something striking the head.”

  Steve frowned. “What are you saying, doctor?”

  “Simply this. If the man was shot, fell down and the back of his head hit the floor, that would be entirely consistent with what I found in my autopsy.”

  “Are you saying such is the case?”

  “No, I’m just saying it’s possible. More than possible, it’s likely. Therefore I would tend to minimize the blow to the head.”

  “I see. Tell me, doctor. Did you discuss your testimony with District Attorney Robert Vaulding?”

  “Objection.”

  “Overruled.”

  “Of course I did,” Dr. Blessing said. “He’s not going to put me on the stand without knowing what I’m going to say.”

  “Of course not, doctor. But did he tell
you what to say?”

  “Objection!”

  “Overruled.”

  “Absolutely not,” Dr. Blessing said. “And I resent the implication.”

  “I’m sorry about that, doctor, but I have to ask you this: did he tell you what not to say?”

  “I beg your pardon?”

  “Specifically, did District Attorney Robert Vaulding tell you not to mention the blow to the head unless you were specifically asked?”

  Dr. Blessing shifted his position on the witness stand. “I don’t believe he said that.”

  “You don’t believe he said that?”

  “No, I’m sure he didn’t say that.”

  “What did he say?”

  “Objection.”

  “Sustained.”

  Steve Winslow smiled. “Doctor, you just testified that because the blow to the back of the head could have been caused by the decedent falling after he was shot, you tended to minimize the importance of that concussion. Do you recall that?”

  “Yes, I do.”

  “Was that the only reason you chose to minimize the importance of the concussion? Or did District Attorney Robert Vaulding make any suggestion to you that led you to believe it would be best to minimize that concussion?”

  “He did not,” Dr. Blessing said. “He merely said I should give my testimony as clearly as possible and not let a lot of extraneous testimony cloud the issue.”

  Steve smiled. “Well, I’m sorry if I clouded the issue with this extraneous blow to the head.” Steve chuckled, shot a look at the jury. “Now, I believe you said this concussion took the form of a bruise and a slight swelling, is that right?”

  “Yes, it is.”

  “Did you photograph it?”

  “Yes, I did.”

  “Do you have those photographs in court?”

  “No, I do not.”

  “What about photographs of the entrance wound of the bullet. Surely you took some of those.”

  “Yes, I did.”

  “Are those photographs here in court?”

  “No, they’re not.”

  “You have no photographs from your autopsy here in court?”

  “No, I do not.”

  “Why not?”

  “I wasn’t asked to bring them.”

  “Were you asked not to bring them?”

  “No, I simply wasn’t asked for them.”