The Widow

Chapter 45

The more “important” witnesses testified Tuesday morning. They were all doctors with busy schedules that prevented them from having to hang around the hallway outside the courtroom and waste time, like the other witnesses. They were given firm dates on which to testify, with approximate hours.

At 9 A.M. sharp, just after Judge Shyam welcomed everyone back and quizzed the jurors about their general health and happiness, Dr. Samuel Lilly was sworn in and took the stand. Cora Cook led him through the preliminaries and established that he was well educated, suitably experienced, and had been the chief of staff at Blue Ridge Memorial Hospital for the past four years. He had also been the attending physician for Eleanor Barnett and described the injuries that brought her to the hospital.

In non-medical terms, she was banged up with cuts and bruises and two broken ribs, but her condition was not life-threatening. However, because of her age, a lengthy convalescence was expected. Referring to his notes, he told the jury that after four days she began to show signs of something else, which he and the nurses thought was pneumonia. Fever, fatigue, nausea, even more aches and pains. But she was stable and there was no sense of urgency.

Dr. Lilly met the defendant the day after Eleanor was admitted and spoke with him almost every day until she died. Dr. Lilly was present when the defendant presented a power of attorney and advance directive to the patient as she sat propped up in her bed. Others were present, including Dr. Connor Wilkes. Dr. Lilly viewed the situation as unusual, but the defendant did a thorough job of explaining the necessity of the documents and, more important, making sure Eleanor understood what she was doing. At no time did Dr. Lilly feel as though Eleanor was being unduly pressured or taken advantage of. However, given the situation, it was obvious she was being advised by her attorney, the defendant.

Earlier, in a private conversation in the hallway, the defendant had admitted to Dr. Lilly that he felt uncomfortable having control over the patient’s medical directives, but there was simply no one else to do so. No family, no friends.

As her condition deteriorated, the defendant was close by and appeared deeply concerned with what was happening. The patient was placed on a ventilator, as she could not breathe on her own. During her last twenty-four hours, Dr. Lilly, Dr. Wilkes, and two other doctors, along with the defendant, met to discuss their options. Mr. Latch was adamant that he would not make the decision to terminate care. He said it was a medical decision. Once they were unable to detect activity in the brain, Dr. Lilly decided to remove the ventilator. The defendant agreed, but once again said it was a medical decision. The patient died ninety minutes later. Dr. Lilly and his staff were of the unanimous opinion that she had died of acute viral pneumonia. At no time did they suspect the patient had been poisoned.

During a lengthy and methodical cross-examination, Raymond slowly walked the doctor through the last two days of Eleanor’s treatment, and repeatedly drove home the point that Simon Latch had been reluctant to take part in the conversations about her care. He was obviously troubled by what was happening and felt out of place.

When Dr. Lilly was excused and walked out of the courtroom, Simon and Raymond knew his testimony could not have been better.

The next expert was Dr. Dendra Brock, the longtime medical examiner for the Commonwealth. She was a highly respected pathologist with thousands of autopsies under her belt. She had taught, lectured here and there, and published dozens of articles, even a book. An impressive résumé. As Cora began the stock questions to establish her preeminence in the field, Raymond stood with a smile and said, “Your Honor, if I may interrupt. The defense is perfectly willing to stipulate that Dr. Brock is more than qualified as an expert in her field. Indeed, we feel honored to have her in Virginia and are grateful for her long record of outstanding public service.”

Ms. Cook nodded and smiled at Raymond. Judge Shyam smiled at both and said, “Very well, Dr. Brock is hereby qualified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology. You may proceed.”

In a Q&A that was obviously well rehearsed, Ms. Cook and Dr. Brock went back and forth to establish the groundwork for the autopsy of Eleanor Barnett. Her body arrived from Braxton on December 31 and was kept in the freezer until Monday, January 4, the day Dr. Brock performed the autopsy. She had been advised by Detective Roger Barr that there was a possibility of poisoning, and she explained in layman’s terms how important this was to her work. There were no external signs of a crime, though the body was badly bruised. At first glance, she knew the bruises were several days old and not related to whatever caused her death. She read Dr. Lilly’s notes and knew the deceased had been in an automobile accident.

It was standard procedure to video and photograph each autopsy. Eleanor’s lasted for two hours and ten minutes. Simon and Raymond had watched it in his office, with Simon barely keeping it together. He swore he would never watch another one.

Raymond stood again and said, “May it please the court, we are stipulating that Eleanor Barnett died not from pneumonia but from acute toxic poisoning. We have never denied this, not denying it now. It is simply not necessary to drag this jury through the details of the autopsy. We know how she died. We know the cause of death.”

Judge Shyam agreed and said, “How in-depth do you plan to go, Ms. Cook?”

“Well, Your Honor, we want the jury to get a clear picture of what caused her death.”

“But the defense is stipulating that the cause of death was acute toxic poisoning.”

“Just some background, Your Honor, if I may.”

“We will proceed slowly.”

Raymond sat down, but was on the edge of his seat, ready for more objections.

Dr. Brock had testified many times and was completely at ease. She knew her stuff and connected with the jurors by avoiding most of the medical jargon. Working with two assistants, she had begun the autopsy by draining the bladder and collecting urine samples. She drained the blood. The deceased had eaten very little but she was able to retrieve about 11 grams of ingested food. One sample was large enough to be dissected, and it was composed of bleached flour, white sugar, processed ginger root, and molasses. As Cora was preparing to flash on the screen a photo of the remains of the cookie, Raymond stood and, quite exasperated, said, “Your Honor, really? Do we need to subject the jurors to viewing this?”

“No. Sustained. We get the picture, Ms. Cook, please move along.”

The urine and blood contained moderate levels of an unusual substance, later identified as thallium. Dr. Brock compared specimens of urine and blood taken from the corpse with those taken upon admission to the hospital, to prove the thallium was ingested while the deceased was a patient. On the screen opposite the jurors, Ms. Cook projected a color photograph of the liver on a lab plate, all two pounds, thirteen ounces of it. The average weight of a human liver is 3.3 pounds, but it varies, Dr. Brock casually explained to the jury. It was generally pink in color, but around the left side there were darker blotches, clear signs, to her anyway, that the liver had been heavily damaged. Next to it, Ms. Cook projected an image of a healthy liver, no splotches. Much like an expert chatting with students, Dr. Brock explained that the liver is where the body metabolizes most drugs and toxicants; thus, they are concentrated there.

While watching the video of the autopsy two weeks earlier, Simon could almost feel a pain in his own liver, and vowed again to cut back on the bourbon.

Other bright color photos followed: microscopic images of liver tissues from both a once-healthy person and from the deceased; the right kidney, weighing in at 1.6 pounds and showing darkened areas that, at least in her opinion, proved irreversible damage due to toxins; slides of kidney tissues; then on to the gallbladder with the spleen on deck.

After an hour of gawking at Eleanor’s organs, the jurors had had enough. Raymond stood again, even more exasperated, and said, “Please, Your Honor, we’re trying to stipulate to the obvious here. Ms. Barnett died of toxic poisoning. Someone poisoned her. The problem is that the Commonwealth has the wrong defendant.”

If he sounded like a broken record, it was intentional. Say something over and over and eventually folks will start to believe it. Ms. Cook was tired of the self-serving nature of Raymond’s objections and snapped, “Oh, we have the right defendant, Your Honor.”

“Please, please,” Judge Shyam said, both hands in the air. “How much longer with this witness?”

Ms. Cook lost her cool and said, “Oh, I don’t know, Judge. I didn’t realize we had a time limit.”

“There is no time limit, Ms. Cook. It’s just that you have proven what needs to be proven with this witness, and the defense has agreed. Can we please move along?”

“Certainly.”

Dr. Brock went through the procedures of collecting biological fluids and tissue samples, labeling and storing them, then delivering them to her preferred lab in Bethesda. The day after the autopsy, a special courier drove the samples to the lab. At each step of the process, the chain of custody was certified.

Raymond said more than once, “Your Honor, we are not questioning the chain of custody. We’re not questioning anything pertaining to the cause of death.”

Dr. Henry Roster was a forensic toxicologist who Dr. Brock used whenever he was available. The pair had worked several poisoning cases together, though, thankfully, such crimes were rare. Dr. Roster’s résumé was just as thick as Dr. Brock’s, and Raymond wanted no part of it. He politely stipulated that the witness was a “preeminent” toxicologist and was willing to believe anything he said.

Dr. Roster began by cautioning the jury that the post-mortem analysis of drugs and poisons was extremely complicated and involved a large number of analytical techniques in special toxicological labs. After a lengthy description of how difficult the task was, Raymond finally interrupted. “Your Honor, I hate to be a pest, but we are willing, once again, to stipulate that the analysis by this esteemed researcher proves without a doubt that Ms. Barnett died of acute toxic poisoning.”

“Overruled. We’ll see where it goes.”

Dr. Roster was not as skilled at testifying as was Dr. Brock. He began by saying that the most commonly used drug screening tests involved techniques known as “immunoassays.” Since perhaps three people in the courtroom had ever heard that word, Ms. Cook pressed a key and it appeared on the big screen. Seeing it in print did nothing to help explain it. Dr. Roster tried. Immunoassays are tests that use antibodies to detect reactions with suspicious substances. What’s an antibody? A protein produced by the body to provide a defense against an antigen. What’s an antigen? Any foreign substance that is injected into the body and stimulates the production of antibodies.

Simon glanced at the jurors. Of the twelve, four had college degrees, two had not finished high school. Three were retired, two were unemployed, one was laid off from a job driving a forklift. As a group they were reasonably well read and intelligent and had been attentive so far. Roster had already lost them.

He was explaining the four interpretations of a drug-screening test: a true positive, a false positive, a true negative, and a false negative. He went on and on, trying hard to be interesting while knowing full well that his was an impenetrable subject. One by one, the jurors began looking around, casting about for someone to rescue them. Raymond decided not to help. He had tried repeatedly to speed things along, only to be stymied by Her Honor.

Ms. Cook tried to liven things up with more color slides, and Dr. Roster managed to inch away from the boredom. He drowned, though, when he was forced to confront a “chromatographic detection.” Sorry, but the term could not be avoided. Nor could it be suitably explained in under five minutes. It was an analytical procedure used to separate compounds and drugs.

To save them all, Judge Shyam interrupted with “Ms. Cook, it’s ten minutes after twelve and the jury is ready for lunch. How much longer with this witness?” Her tone left no doubt that this witness had said enough.

“Oh, not much, Your Honor. Less than ten minutes.”

“And Mr. Lassiter, how much time for your cross-examination?”

“My cross? Hell, Judge, I’ve been trying to agree with everything the expert said, what little of it I can understand.”

It was a smart retort and not overly humorous, but in pressurized settings like packed courtrooms the slightest effort at levity or mockery was often rewarded with roaring laughter. The crowd guffawed and bellowed and seemed to savor the moment by blowing off steam. Judge Shyam saw the humor and grinned along, until it was time to call for order. She tapped her gavel and said, “Very well. We’ll wrap up this witness and go to lunch.”

Raymond enjoyed bantering with highly educated and erudite experts in front of common-folk jurors who were not always that sophisticated. He began with “Now, Dr. Roster, I live in the town of Braxton, population thirty thousand, same as my client, Simon Latch. Let’s say I had a problem with rats in my barn and I wanted to get rid of them. Where would I go to purchase some thallium?”

“It’s not possible. Thallium is not sold in this country.”

“And why not?”

“Well, its production was outlawed years ago. For a while it was used, legally, in rat and mouse poison, but then that was stopped, too.”

“Why was it removed from rat poison?”

“Because too many domestic animals were eating it and dying.”

“It’s very dangerous, right?”

“Oh yes.”

“And why is that?”

“Well, in layman’s terms, it’s tasteless, odorless, colorless, and lethal.”

“In fact, Dr. Roster, it has a long and sordid history of being the preferred poison for murderers, correct?”

“That’s the legend, sir. I’m not sure that’s been proven scientifically. That’s a bit out of my field.”

“Fair enough. You work for one of the leading labs in the country, correct?”

“We like to think so, yes.”

“And does your lab keep an inventory of various poisons, toxins, and so on?”

“Yes, it’s crucial to our work.”

“How many?”

“I don’t know. Hundreds. We have a procurement staff that does nothing but find and inventory compounds, illicit drugs, toxins, poisons, all with approval of the Food and Drug Administration, I might add.”

“So you keep a supply of thallium?”

“Yes.”

“Where do you get it?”

Dr. Roster thought for a second then shrugged. “I wasn’t prepared to answer that question, sir. If given an hour or so, I could contact the lab and get the answer to your question.”

“Don’t bother. Where does thallium originate?”

“It’s a metal that’s found just under the crust of the earth and is collected as a by-product to the mining of other metals, such as zinc and copper.”

“Okay. Let’s say I wanted to poison someone and decided to use thallium. Where would I find it?”

“I have no experience with that, sir.”

“Well, if it’s been the favorite choice for murderers for decades, both here and abroad, then somebody somewhere has to know where to find it, right?”

Dr. Roster shrugged again, as if playing along. “I suppose.”

“So who would you contact to ask around, you know? How would you begin your search for a little box of thallium?”

“Sir, again, that is outside the scope of my knowledge and experience.”

“That’s kinda bizarre, Doctor, if you ask me. You, one of the premier forensic toxicologists in the nation, if not the world, do not have a clue where to go or who to call to purchase thallium. Is this what you’re telling the jury?”

“I guess, Mr. Lassiter. I would not know who to call.”

“Then how in the world would a small-town lawyer from Braxton, Virginia, an honest man who’s never heard of thallium, know how to get his hands on the perfect poison?”

“I suppose you’ll have to ask him.”

“You’re confused, sir. He’s not on the witness stand. You are. Can you answer my question?”

“I cannot.”

“I didn’t think so. You say you’ve worked as a forensic toxicologist for twenty-seven years. How many times have you testified in a murder case involving thallium?”

“Twice. This is the third one.”

“Where was the first one?”

Cora Cook stood and said, “Your Honor, objection. Relevancy. Are we really going to revisit these old cases that have absolutely nothing to do with this one?”

Before Judge Shyam could speak, Raymond thundered in with “Hang on, Judge. This is a cross-examination! I’m allowed to explore all manner of irrelevant material. The Commonwealth has certainly been doing so.”

Judge Shyam patiently said, “Okay, overruled for now. But there are limits, Mr. Lassiter.”

Raymond glared at Roster as if he’d caught him lying. “Where was the first one, sir?”

“Ohio, 1998.”

“That was the McGregor case, right?” Raymond asked as he looked at the jurors, as if to say, “Aren’t I clever?”

“I believe so.” Roster suddenly realized Raymond knew as much about the old case as he did, so he added, “Yes, McGregor.”

“And he was found not guilty, right?”

“That’s correct.”

“And where did Mr. McGregor get the poison, the thallium?”

“Well, it was alleged that he stole it from a lab in Cincinnati, but I don’t believe that was ever proven.”

Raymond turned for his seat and said loudly, “Not guilty. Not guilty on all counts.”