Blood and Justice: A Legal Thriller (Brad Madison Legal Thriller Series Book 4)

by J J Miller

  Winter spent a few questions establishing Frierson’s credentials. Then he moved on to the case at hand.

  “Detective Frierson, when did you arrive at the crime scene?”

  “We got the call right after the first squad car arrived. I was off duty and at home at the time. I wasn’t Downtown, so I ended up getting there about an hour after the first squad car.”

  “Please describe the scene for the court.”

  “There was an unmarked black van with its rear doors wide open. Both driver and passenger doors were closed, as was the side door. About ten feet in front of the van, there were three men down. Two dead and the third being treated for a gunshot wound to the upper right thigh.”

  “Did you question the defendant at the scene?”

  “Yes. Briefly. I asked him what happened, and he said he did not know. He said he couldn’t remember anything.”

  “What else did you ask him?”

  “I asked him what was in the van.”

  “What did he say?”

  “Cash and legal cannabis. That was about it.”

  “Did he ask you anything?”

  “No.”

  “Did he ask if the money and cannabis were still there?”

  “No. And I didn’t think I needed to tell him the van had been cleaned out. I think he’d figured that out.”

  “Detective, did you inspect the bodies of the dead men?”

  “Yes. Both of them were shot twice in the head.”

  “Detective, what was your early take on what had happened?”

  “It seemed all three guards had been shot by bandits who’d cleaned out the van and fled. But once we started the investigation proper, the evidence began to tell us that we were off track.”

  “I see. Did you have any suspects?”

  “Not right off the bat.”

  “Did you have any clues about who might be responsible?”

  “Yes. Over the past fourteen months, there have been many robberies targeting the cannabis industry. Most were dispensaries but other vans have been hit. But a few growers who’d opted to transport their money and cannabis themselves were robbed too.”

  “These crimes were carried out by armed men?”

  “Yes, but there were also ram raids. You know, when no one is in the store late at night. Three dispensaries were robbed in this manner.”

  “Were you investigating these crimes?”

  “Yes. I was trying to see if they were related.”

  “And were they?”

  “I can’t say right now because it’s still an active investigation.”

  “But you can say that the armed robbery of a van containing cash and cannabis was part of a broader investigation?”

  “Yes. Another security team was robbed at gunpoint a month before this case but, as I said, I’m not at liberty to discuss the nature or findings of an ongoing investigation.”

  “I understand. Was anyone killed in those cannabis crimes you mentioned?”

  “No. This was the first fatal cannabis robbery I’ve come across.”

  “Did you have a suspect?”

  “Yes. From very early in the investigation, the defendant was a person of interest.”

  “When did the defendant become a suspect?”

  “When it became clear that it was an inside job.”

  “How did you reach that conclusion?”

  “The owner of the company told us no one other than staff members and clients knew where this van was.”

  “No one?”

  “That’s right. Whoever committed this crime knew exactly what they stood to gain. It wasn’t random or opportunistic. No one would confront three armed guards and be prepared to shoot them if they were just taking a chance on the reward.”

  “Are you saying that the perpetrators of this crime were prepared to do whatever it took to get their hands on the contents of the van?”

  “Yes.”

  “But the defendant was shot. How could he be one of the perpetrators?”

  “As soon as I looked at the two dead guards, I knew they were the victims of a fragging attack, in that they were killed by someone on their own side.”

  “Could you please explain your reasoning, Detective Frierson?”

  “These guys weren’t jumped by a bunch of armed robbers. They didn’t die in a shootout. They weren’t caught in crossfire.”

  This was Winter’s cue to bring the crime scene photos up on the monitor. The first screen showed close-ups of Nate Reed and Bo Hendricks. Both staring open-eyed into the night sky, both with two dark red entry wounds—Reed in the forehead and right cheek; Hendricks in the forehead.

  “The victim on the right of the screen is Bo Hendricks,” said Frierson. “He never drew his weapon.” Winter flicked to a photo that illustrated Frierson’s point. “See there. His gun’s holstered. Reed, on the other hand, did manage to get his weapon out and he fired one shot.”

  “What do these facts tell us, Detective Frierson?”

  “These men were executed at close range by someone they knew. It was like one moment they were just standing around chewing the fat and then bam, bam, bam, bam. Down they go.”

  “What evidence do you have that the defendant was the culprit?”

  “Okay so we know the killer knew the victims. He was able to approach them without causing any alarm whatsoever. And the gun used to kill Nate Reed and Bo Hendricks belonged to the defendant.”

  “I see.

  “Why would the defendant commit such a treacherous act?”

  “The obvious motive is greed.”

  “Do you have evidence the defendant had such a motive?”

  “Yes, we do. A couple of telling facts came to light as we pursued our investigation. The first was that the defendant had recently been part of a failed business venture. He’d lost just over half a million dollars in this scheme.”

  “Does that make him willing to commit this robbery?”

  “No on its own it doesn’t, but he had spoken openly with his co-workers about his financial struggles. He told them that he wanted to get rich as fast as he could.”

  “Has the money and the legal cannabis from this robbery been retrieved?”

  “No. But in the process of our investigation we discovered the defendant received a suspicious payment of five-hundred thousand dollars. It was placed into an account that he thought was secret. And it is not possible to determine the source of that money.”

  “There’s no way to find out where that large deposit came from?”

  “No.”

  “And the defendant has provided no explanation for that money?”

  “No.”

  “How long after the robbery did this money enter his account?”

  “Five days.”

  “You say it was a secret account. How did you find out about it?”

  “The company the defendant worked for—HardShell—cooperated with the investigation. They gave us access to every file relating to the defendant. We then got a warrant to pursue some of this information ourselves and we discovered his digital currency account.”

  Winter scratched his chin. “But hang on, detective. The defendant was shot too.”

  “Forensics can explain it to you, but it’s not clear what happened.”

  “I don’t understand. Where did the bullet in the defendant’s leg come from?”

  “The bullet matches the weapon of Nate Reed.”

  “But doesn’t that mean that Nate Reed reacted to the attack, shot at the defendant and hit him in the leg?”

  “Yes, that’s one possibility.”

  “Are there others?”

  “Well, yes. It’s equally possible that the defendant took Nate Reed’s gun and shot himself in the leg to enable him to play victim.”

  “Are you saying it is possibly a self-inflicted wound?”

  The court gasped.

  “While his partners in crime made off with the money?”

  “We believe he and his fellow
perpetrators thought this would cast the defendant as a victim and hence avoid suspicion, and that the case would be almost impossible to solve.”

  “The perfect crime?”

  “The perfect crime.”

  “I have nothing further for the witness, Your Honor.”

  “Mr. Madison?” asked Judge Birch.

  “Yes, Your Honor. Of course,” I said and made my way to the lectern.

  “Detective Frierson, can you prove that that money in my client’s account was linked to the robbery?”

  “Not exactly.”

  “That’s a no then?”

  “Yes, it’s a no.”

  “So, it’s purely your theory that this money was his share of the loot, isn’t that right?”

  “He couldn’t tell us where it came from.”

  “But as you said, the source was untraceable. It’s possible that he himself doesn’t know where that money came from?”

  “That’s ludicrous.”

  “No, it’s not. You said it yourself, the source of that money is untraceable. Isn’t that right?”

  Frierson huffed. “Yes.”

  “The way you tell it, my client planned an audacious, cold-blooded crime in which he killed two of his co-workers, shot himself in the leg, and let someone else run off with the money. Are you convinced that there can be no other explanation?”

  “Yes. It was an inside job. He had help planning that robbery but only he got caught.”

  “And your theory is that he shot himself to fool the authorities?”

  “Yes. If he’d just run off, all the suspicion would have fallen on him immediately. We allege he volunteered to be a victim precisely to avoid suspicion.”

  “Detective Frierson. Is it possible that my client was framed?”

  “That’s most unlikely.”

  “I didn’t ask you if it was unlikely. I asked if it was possible.”

  “Yes. It’s a possibility.”

  I was happy to have that minor concession from Frierson, I moved on.

  “Detective Frierson, you told the court earlier that there had been a spate of robberies targeting cannabis retailers, growers, and security transport services, right?”

  “Yes, that’s right.”

  “And you were involved in investigating those crimes, were you?”

  “Yes. Still am. We have three detectives working on those cases.”

  “Detective, were any of these robberies carried out with the sort of military precision as the crime my client is accused of?”

  Frierson shrugged his shoulders and looked non-plussed. “What do you mean?”

  “I mean is it your belief that any of these other crimes your team is investigating were carried out by military veterans?”

  “I can’t possibly say, these matters are still in the process of investigation.”

  “You Honor,” I said, appealing to Judge Birch.

  Birch looked down at Frierson. “Detective Frierson, you cannot tell me that answering Mr. Madison’s question will compromise your investigation.”

  That was exactly what Frierson had wanted the court to believe. “We do think it’s possible that vets may have been involved in some of the cases we are looking at.”

  “Right,” I said. “Detective Frierson, were Nate Reed and/or Bo Hendricks persons of interest in any crime you’re investigating?”

  I heard murmuring behind me. I was not surprised that my line of questioning would be taken as me smearing the memory of two vets whose murder we were seeking justice for in this court, and whose grief-stricken families were present.

  Frierson could not hide his annoyance. He tried to head off Judge Birch. “You Honor, I don’t think that question is appropriate or relevant, and to supply Mr. Madison with an answer would compromise our ongoing investigations.”

  Birch placed his elbows on the bench and leaned a little more Frierson’s way. “Detective Frierson,” he said. “I understand that there are sensitivities to be considered here. But Mr. Madison’s questions are not for you to sanction. And I cannot see how providing Mr. Madison with an answer would spoil your chances of advancing your investigations of Nathaniel Reed and Bo Hendricks. With due respect to their families, these men are dead, Mr. Frierson. Please answer the question.”

  Frierson arched his neck and held me with a hot glare. “Yes, they were persons of interest.”

  “Are you telling the court that both Nate Reed and Bo Hendricks were persons of interest in the armed robbery of cannabis-related businesses?”

  “Yes.”

  “So at some point you suspected that these two men had committed similar crimes?”

  “That’s what persons of interest means, Mr. Madison.”

  “Thank you for clarifying. One last question, Detective Frierson. Was Chip Bowman ever a suspect in any of these crimes your team is investigating.”

  Frierson stared at me, grinding his jaw. He then shook his head. “No.”

  “I have no more questions for the witness, Your Honor.”

  Chapter 34

  Dale Winter’s next witness was forensics officer Christopher Gemmell, a thin, unassuming man who wore dark pants, a gray jacket, and yellow tie. As he took his seat, I saw he kept two pens and a small notebook in his shirt pocket. His brown hair fell down at the front to form a thick fringe, and he peered out across the courtroom with an alert expression of curiosity.

  Winter established Gemmell’s credentials as a ballistics expert who moved into crime scene investigation three years after graduating as an LAPD officer. He invited Gemmell to regale the jury with accounts of the more notable crimes that his work in the Firearms Analysis Unit had helped solve. I felt that Winter lost a little ground with the jury here because Gemmell spoke in a droning monotone that clearly stupefied some jurors and irritated others. I counted four yawns and three watch checks as he spoke.

  “Officer Gemmell,” Winter began. “Could you please tell us the key pieces of evidence found at the crime scene, and what they revealed?”

  “Certainly,” Gemmell replied. “In short, the evidence tells us it was a double murder by fragging. The two dead men were caught completely unaware by their assailant. They were shot from the front, not behind. No one snuck up on them. So they saw their killer, and they were comfortable in his presence, that is, until the lethal weapon was drawn.”

  “Officer Gemmell, does the evidence tell us who killed these men?”

  “Yes, it does. The killer was the defendant, Mr. Bowman.”

  “How did you reach that conclusion?”

  “First, the ballistics tests we conducted on the bullets and the casings were conclusive. The bullets that killed the two victims came from the defendant’s weapon. Not only that, there were no other fingerprints on his weapon besides his own.”

  “No one else took the defendant’s weapon and used it to kill the victims?”

  “No. Also, the police who attended the scene first reported that the defendant was found with his gun by his hand.”

  “Is that so?”

  “Yes, and our tests found gunshot residue on his right hand, which we have ascertained to be his shooting hand.”

  “I see. Is there any other evidence that supports your conclusion?”

  “Yes. We studied the positions of the victims and could see where they were standing in relation to each other when the shooting started. Bo Hendricks, who was standing nearest the shooter, would have died instantly. As you have heard, Nathaniel Reed drew his weapon, so we must conclude the lethal weapon was now trained on him. He did fire his own weapon but he was hit in the forehead by a bullet that, like Mr. Hendricks, would have killed him instantly.”

  “That’s three shots,” said Winter.

  “Yes, the last two were to finish the victims off. But, as I said, they would most likely have been dead by then already.”

  “Where did he shoot them?”

  “In the head.”

  “No further questions, Your Honor.”

  Gem
mell took a sip of water as I readied to put my first question to him.

  “Officer Gemmell, you’ve told the court that the ballistics evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant shot both victims, haven’t you?”

  “Ah, yes. That’s correct.”

  “And that’s the only conclusion you can draw, is that right?”

  “The evidence points to that conclusion emphatically.”

  “Okay, but your ballistics analysis cannot be taken in isolation to draw a conclusion about what happened that night, can it?”

  “No, it is one part of forensics analysis. But when the other scientific analysis was taken into account, my conclusion was all the stronger.”

  “I see,” I said. I picked up a piece of paper, held it up and addressed Judge Birch. “Permission to approach the witness, Your Honor?”

  “Granted,” said Judge Birch.

  I walked up to the stand and handed Gemmell the document.

  “Officer Gemmell, do you agree that what you are holding is the medical report conducted on Chip Bowman when he was admitted to the hospital on the night of the crime?”

  “Yes.”

  “What does it say about Chip Bowman’s injuries?”

  “It says he has a gunshot wound in his right thigh, and a subdural hematoma on the back of his head.”

  “Thank you, Officer Gemmell. Now that medical record makes note of the fact that the paramedics found Chip Bowman unconscious, doesn’t it?”

  Gemmell ran his eyes over the text and in time nodded. “Yes, it does?”

  “And it suggests the subdural hematoma is the reason why he was unconscious, doesn’t it?”

  “Yes.”

  “Does the medical record state which injury Chip Bowman suffered first, the blow to the back of the head or the gunshot wound?”

  “No, it does not.”

  “Officer Gemmell, can you conclusively determine whether Chip Bowman was shot first or passed out first?”

  “It stands to reason that he was shot, fell down, and knocked his head.”

  “With all due respect, that is pure speculation on your part.”

  “No, it’s—”

  “Isn’t it just as possible that the defendant was shot while he was lying unconscious on the ground?”

  “Yes, but it is a fanciful notion. You do know that we found gunshot residue on his hand? Did he shoot those men in his sleep?”