# # # # # # # #
The first charge against the defendant was for Theft from Loyola University – the theft being the use of the university's resources without paying for them.
The Prosecutor brought in the student who had given Bean her shoes and clothing and had told her where and when the basketball and volleyball teams were practicing. From the student's testimony, it was clear that Bean had indeed used university resources.
Under Yolanda's cross examination, the student admitted that Bean had asked if she had to fill out any forms or make any payments. She had not asked Bean for either. The prosecutor had argued that Benedikta should have told the student that she wasn't registered at the university. Yolanda had responded that her client could hardly have known that university registration was necessary as there were no signs posting that fact. She also argued that some universities offered free drop in sports practices for youths in their area as a way of promoting the university's programs.
The prosecution insisted that the defendant should have known that university resources were not free. She had stolen resources. The judge agreed and convicted Bean of theft.
Why such a petty charge, Stu?
I don't know. Have you given her the nibbly food yet?
I'm saving it for when we need her alert. She's barely aware of what's happening right now.
Has she been drugged?
Sleep deprived for sure, but I can't see any physical signs of being drugged.
# # # # # # # #
The prosecutor built his case slowly for the second charge – Murder of Donald Ratchet. First, he documented how fishermen had found a man's body in Lake Michigan.
Second, he established how the police had identified this man as Donald Ratchet.
Third, he established how the police traced Mr. Ratchet's movements before his death.
Fourth, he established that Mr. Ratchet had been in a bar and, fifth, had communicated with the defendant in said bar.
Sixth, he described how a witness could establish that that the defendant had been in another bar on another day and had used violence against another young man who had simply offered her a drink. That violence had included a brutal martial arts hold on the man's neck – one that produced bruises.
Seventh, the prosecutor circulated pictures of that second attack.
Eighth, he circulated pictures of the broken bone that had been found in Mr. Ratchet's neck.
Ninth, he described how the similarity of the two attacks prompted the police to search the defendant’s apartment. They found a lethal knife.
Tenth, he circulated a picture of the lethal knife.
Finally, the prosecutor brought the aforementioned witness to the stand so that she could testify to what she had seen. The witness' name was Detective Olivia Bertoia. The prosecutor led her through the script they had prepared and then it was Yolanda's turn.
"Detective Bertoia, you are giving testimony in this court as a witness, is that correct?"
"Yes."
"And yet you are also the detective who investigated my client. Is that correct?"
"Yes."
"You are the prosecutor's sole witness in this case and you are also the detective who investigated and decided to lay this charge. Isn't that highly irregular?"
"Detectives testify regularly on what they discover at a crime scene," the judge interrupted before the witness could answer. "Move on, Counsellor."
"Detective Bertoia, you stated that Mr. Ratchet was in a bar and had some communications with my client. What was the date of that incident?"
"Friday, July 5."
"When was Mr. Ratchet's body discovered in Lake Michigan?"
"The morning of September 1st."
"How many days had passed between the victim's conversation with my client in the bar and when his body was discovered?"
"I'm not sure."
"I'll wait while you calculate it."
"About 55 days?"
"Close enough. Did Mr. Ratchet die the evening of Friday July 5th after speaking with my client?"
"Perhaps."
"You don't know when he died?"
"Not exactly."
"When not exactly did he die? July 8th? July 21st? August 3rd? Would any of those death dates have been consistent with the state of the body?"
"Yes, that's possible."
"August 31st?"
"No, we know that he had been in the water for at least 30 days."
"So if he died on August 5th, one full month after my client had had a conversation with him, how many other people might he have spoken with him during that long 31 days?"
"Objection: Calls for speculation."
"Sustained," the judge ruled.
"In that 31 days, is it possible that Mr. Ratchet could have spoken with many different people in the course of his work or recreation?"
"Yes, it's possible."
"Is it possible that any one of those numerous people might have taken exception to something that Mr. Ratchet did or said?"
"Yes, it's possible."
"So, is it fair to say that any one of numerous other people might have caused his disappearance?"
"Yes."
"Did you investigate any of these other potential suspects?"
"No."
"How many suspects did you actually investigate?"
"One. The accused."
"Why only her?"
"Because of the similarity of her attack on another man in another bar."
"When was that similar attack?"
"Sunday, July 20th."
"Will you be producing the attacked man here so that I can cross examine him?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"We couldn't find him. However we have sworn statements from witnesses to the incident. The incident was captured on the bar's security tape."
"So, you have hidden this witness so that I can't..."
"Objection!"
"I'll rephrase. I'm unable to cross-examine this second young man because the entire Chicago police force could not find him even though they had his picture. Is that accurate?"
"No."
"What's inaccurate about the statement?"
"The entire police force was not looking for him."
"How many police were looking for him?"
"One. Myself."
"Was the man a regular at the bar?"
"Yes."
"And yet you have not been able to find him. Why not?"
"We had accurate details about the attack. I felt no need to question him. The defendant attacked this man with a choke hold."
"The man that my client is accused of killing – Mr. Ratchet – did he die from a choke hold?"
"He had a broken bone in his neck."
"You didn't answer the question. Would that broken bone in the throat have been fatal?"
"Perhaps."
"But you don't know so, do you?"
"No."
"Do you have any physical evidence linking my client to Mr. Ratchet's death?"
"We have a dangerous knife that I found in her apartment."
"So, you're saying that Mr. Ratchet died from a knife wound. I thought you claimed that you didn't know how he died."
"We don't know. He could have been stabbed to death."
"If so, how were you able to link the knife you found in my client's apartment to the death. Was Mr. Ratchet's blood on the knife? If so, how did you make that comparison to Mr. Rachet's bloodless body that was found in Lake Michigan?"
"No blood was on the knife."
"So, you admit that you don't have any physical evidence linking my client to the dead body in the lake. How did you find the knife in my client's apartment? Did you have a search warrant?"
"The knife was in the bathroom. I didn't have a search warrant. But it's a dangerous weapon."
"Might my client have been using the knife to shave her legs? From your picture, this knife looks similar to what barbers use to shave the b
eards of customers. That could be why it was stored in the bathroom. Do you agree that this is a possibility?"
"Yes."
"Your honour, the prosecutor has produced no physical evidence whatsoever linking my client to Mr. Ratchet's death. I have pointed out numerous other weaknesses in Ms. Bertoia's investigation of my client including the lack of a search warrant, the very tenuous link between two altercations in two different bars 31 days apart, and her focus on only my client to the exclusion of any other suspect. My client is guilty only of having had a conversation with Mr. Ratchet an unknown number of weeks before he died. This charge is ridiculous. I also repeat my concern that the sole witness produced by the prosecutor happens to be the only detective who has ever worked on the case. I ask for the charge to be dismissed."
"I'll take your request under advisement, Counsellor. Detective Bertoia, you are admonished for conducting a search without a warrant. We'll move on to the next charge after a brief recess."
# # # # # # # #
What's going on Stu? He was supposed to rule on the charge. Can he take something as obvious as this under advisement?
Yes, he can.
The case is flimsy because they never expected to have to prove it, right?
Yes, I believe that they were planning to railroad her through all these charges while she was handicapped by starvation and sleeplessness. You derailed this particular train. What's the next charge?
I have no idea.
# # # # # # # #
"Prosecution calls the defendant, Benedikta Ekelund, to the stand."
OBJECT TO THIS, YOLANDA!
"Objection, your honour."
"On what basis, Ms. Wiltz?"
Yolanda had to clear her throat and take a sip of water. She must have been thirsty because she had to take a few more sips.
"The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution states that a defendant does not have to submit to questions during a trial on a capital crime."
"This is not the United States. That government does not have a presence here." The prosecutor was quick to jump into the fray.
Sip, sip, sip.
"Your Honour, Chicago's legal system is built on the judicial system based on the U.S. constitution. If the prosecutor could cite for me the specific legal document that denies clients protection from self-incrimination as provided by the Fifth Amendment, that would help me to understand why he is calling my client to the stand when such a request would be denied in any other court."
"How does the attorney for the defense know that this final charge is a capital crime?" the prosecutor asked. "I have not laid the charge yet."
Sip, sip, sip.
"My client is already facing a charge of murder which is a capital crime. Your Honour, you yourself warned me that my client faced charges that could result in a long-term sentence or even the death penalty. That makes it a capital crime. That charge has not been dismissed yet as per my previous request and that means that my client should not be forced to testify. As to the lack of a charge in this current discussion, my client deserves to know the legal basis for these attacks on her. When will you charge her?"
"The defendant does not have to take the witness stand," the judge ruled. "I encourage the prosecutor to lay the charge."
"I will do that shortly your honour, but first some background."
# # # # # # # #
I'll summarize the prosecutor's background briefly: A search of Bean's apartment had revealed numerous bots on religion including one on radical Islamic extremists. A blood test confirmed that one of her parents came from Scandinavia and the other from an area of eastern Europe that was populated heavily by Muslims. She appeared in Chicago from nowhere – the prosecutor found no U.S. birth records or employment records. She had a criminal past and a history of violence. She had been trained in martial arts.
Based on that evidence, Prosecutor Reginald Arthur Squash charged Benedikta Ekelund with being a radical Islamic extremist intent on performing a terrorist attack in the U.S.
Yolanda had a very quiet conversation with Bean in the courtroom during which she asked her several questions about the specifics of the prosecutor's case. It was a one-sided conversation because Bean's head was on the desk and she appeared to be sleeping. Yolanda had to have this pretend conversation because she didn't want to give the prosecutor any reason to ask "How do you know so much about a client you only met this morning?" An answer like "Time Travel research" probably wouldn't have been accepted. After the pretend conversation, Yolanda picked the accusations apart one by one. She didn't need Stu's help.
"The bot my client had on radical Islamic extremism was a prescribed resource for a course within Loyola University's program of religious studies. If possession of that bot is a sign of religious extremism, every student and every professor in that program should be charged too."
"Just because my client came from an area where the majority of the population is Muslim doesn't mean that one or both of her parents are Muslim. You have no proof that she is a Muslim."
"Keeping and issuing official records in the US is spotty at best. Many people do not have birth records. Many employers do not keep records of the people they employ. Just because Ms. Bertoia didn't find any records doesn't mean that my client is here to engage in terrorist acts. We have seen how diligently Ms. Bertoia investigates her cases. The necessary records could exist but she was too lazy to find them."
"The criminal record that my client now possesses, as of today, is for using university services without paying for them. She was unaware that she had to pay for them. That crime has nothing to do with religious extremism or violence. It was a minor mistake by a young aspiring student."
"The history of violence that my client is accused of consists of one confrontation with a man who was pestering her. The extent of that violence was a bruised throat."
"If the prosecutor is claiming that training in martial arts qualifies my client as a person of violence intent on terrorism, then the same accusation can be laid against anybody possessing a gun. That would mean that the majority of the citizens within the former United States could be accused of being a terrorist."
"We have evidence of your client displaying Islamic behaviour," the prosecutor claimed.
"Specifically what behaviour?"
"Praying."
"People of all religions pray."
"She was praying like Islamic extremists do."
"How do they pray?"
"They lie down flat on the ground."
"What is your evidence?"
"A video of her praying."
"Where did this so-called praying take place?"
"In her cell."
"Did you obtain a warrant to invade my client's privacy?"
"A warrant is not needed inside a prison. Cameras are used regularly to monitor prisoner behaviour for safety and security reasons."
"Show me the video."
...
"I see my client lying on her front and sleeping. How can you say that she's praying?"
"How can you say that she's sleeping?"
"I'm not the one who has to prove that she's sleeping. You have to prove that she's praying. If you can't, withdraw the charge of terrorism."
After thirty seconds of prosecutorial silence, the judge had to rule. He decided to delay his ruling.
The trial was now ready for the prosecutor's fourth and final charge. He announced it proudly. Reginald Arthur Squash knew that the first three charges were iffy, but he hadn't expected to go up against a talented lawyer. He had expected to go up against a filing clerk. This fourth charge had always been their best chance of removing the terrorist from the city. "I accuse the defendant of performing a depraved act of sexual perversion that is against the law in Chicago."
Yolanda, you better give Bean the nibbly now. Have her keep it in her mouth and let it dissolve slowly.
# # # # # # # #
Bean listened in astonished silence while Olivia Bertoia to
ld the court how she and the accused had met in a bar. Afterwards, Benedikta had invited her back to her apartment at which point she threw herself at the detective and tried to kiss and grope her. Livy tried to escape, but the pervert had held her in some form of martial arts hold and removed all of her clothes. When she started to attack her sexually, Ms. Bertoia lost consciousness from what she believed was a chokehold. She found bruises on her throat afterwards.
Ms. Bertoia went to her employer the next morning to confess that she had had a lesbian encounter. She confessed because she was afraid that she could be charged with depravity and she'd lose her job. She only had the bruises on her throat to prove that what had happened was involuntary on her part. Her employer offered to give her amnesty for her crime while she accumulated evidence to charge the pervert. It was at this time that she found the bots on religious studies and the knife. She didn't have a search warrant, but she had been given authority to act under the STUSA Act.
Ms. Bertoia claimed that she had suffered numerous lesbian encounters with the defendant afterwards – all initiated by the defendant. However she had been unable to tape any of them because the defendant insisted that she take off all of her clothes the instant she was in her apartment. She tried repeatedly to be taken off the case because of the depravity of the attacks that she was subjected to and that was finally granted when the judge called the case to court.
"I need time to consult with my client, Judge. I had no warning that this kind of accusation would be made."
"Counsellor, I warned you that you were unprepared but you insisted on taking the case. Your request for a recess is denied."
"Judge, I have visual proof that the defendant is a lesbian," the prosecutor interrupted. "I wish to introduce it now."
"What is this proof?" Yolanda spoke before the judge could rule. "Ms. Bertoia said that she had been unable to use a camera."
"The defendant used a shower this morning before coming to the court. She engaged in lesbian behaviour in that shower and I can prove it."
"I need to pee," Bean interjected.
"So do I, Your Honour," Yolanda admitted and pinched her face into what she hoped was a sign of bladder distress.
"We will have a three minute recess while the bailiff sets up the video equipment," the judge ordered.
# # # # # # # #
The closest washroom to the court was on the building's ground floor. That three minute recess became six minutes.
"I thought Livy was a friend," Bean began. "We went out together a few times. I invited her back to my apartment several times. What she described didn't happen. It's all lies."