St Claire had spent hours copying parts of the testimony and inventing his own chronology of the trial. The method would eventually guide him to the elusive clues he was pursuing. The initial skirmishes came quickly, during the first cross by Vail. The witness was the state's psychiatric expert, Dr Harcourt D. Bascott.
VAIL: Are you familiar with Aaron Stampler's hometown: Crikside, Kentucky?
BASCOTT: It has been described to me, sir.
VAIL: You haven't been there?
BASCOTT: No, I have not.
VAIL: From what you understand, Doctor, is it possible that environmental factors in Crikside might contribute to schizophrenia?
VENABLE: Objection, Your Honour. Hearsay. And what is the relevance of this testimony?
VAIL: Your Honour, we're dealing with a homicide which we contend is the result of a specific mental disorder. I'm simply laying groundwork here.
VENABLE: Are we going to get a course in psychiatry, too?
VAIL: Is that an objection?
VENABLE: If you like.
JUDGE SHOAT. Excuse me. Would you like a recess so you can carry on this private discussion, or would you two like to address the court?
So, in the opening interrogation, the tone and pace of the game was set. Stampler, St Claire learned from several witnesses, had been a physically abused, religiously disoriented, twenty-year-old Appalachian kid with a genius IQ and illiterate parents. He had been stifled in a narrow niche of a village in the Kentucky mountains, forced into the coal mines where the future was a slow death by black lung or a quick demise by explosion or poisonous gases. The thing he had feared the most was the hole, a deep mine shaft that, in his words, 'was worse than all my nightmares. I didn't know a hole could be that deep. At the bottom, the shaft was only four feet high. We had to work on our knees. The darkness swallowed up our lights.'
Forced on his ninth birthday to begin working in the hole, he had finally escaped the confines of Crikside, Kentucky, when he was eighteen, urged by Miss Rebecca, the town's one-room-school teacher, who had nurtured his thirst for knowledge since his first day in school. In Chicago, he had been rescued by Archbishop Richard Rushman, founder of a home for runaways called Saviour House. It had been Stampler's home until he and his girlfriend decided to live together. It had turned out to be a disastrous idea. She had left and returned to her home in Ohio. Stampler had ended up in a sordid and lightless hades for the homeless called the Hollows.
VAIL: Aaron, did you blame Bishop Rushman for that, for having to live in that awful place?
STAMPLER: He never said a thing about it, one way or the other.
VAIL: Aaron, did you ever have a serious fight with Archbishop Rushman?
STAMPLER: No, sir, I never had any kind of fight with the bishop. We talked a lot, mostly about things I read in books, ideas and such.
But we were always friends.
VAIL: So the bishop did not order you out of Saviour House and you were still friends after you left?
STAMPLER: Yes, sir.
St Claire next studied the testimony relating to the murder itself. There were two versions of what happened: Aaron's, which had no details, and Medical Examiner William Danielson's, which was almost pornographic in its specifics.
VAIL: Now I want to talk about the night Bishop Rushman was murdered. There was an altar boy meeting scheduled, wasn't there?
STAMPLER: Yes, suh.
VAIL: Did any of the altar boys show up?
STAMPLER: No.
VAIL: Nobody else?
STAMPLER: No, sir.
VAIL: Was the bishop upset?
STAMPLER: No. He said he were tired anyway and we could meet another time.
VAIL: What did you do when you left?
STAMPLER:… I decided to go to the bishop's office and borrow a book to read. When I got there, I heard some noise - like people shouting - up in the bishop's bedroom, so I went up to see if everything was all right. When I got to the top of the stairs I took my shoes off and stuck them in my jacket pockets. The bishop was in the bathroom and then I realized what I heard was him singing. Then… I felt like there was somebody else there, beside the bishop, and that's when I lost time.
VAIL: You blacked out?
STAMPLER: Yes, sir.
VAIL: You didn't actually see anyone else?
STAMPLER: No, sir.
VAIL: Did you see the bishop?
STAMPLER: No, sir. But I could hear him. He was singing in the bathroom.
VAIL: You fust sensed that somebody else was in the room?
STAMPLER: Yes, sir.
VAIL: Then what happened?
STAMPLER: Next thing I knew, I was outside, at the bottom of the wooden staircase up to the kitchen, and I saw a police car and the… there was a flashlight flicking around, then I looked down… and uh, there was blood all over… my hands… and the knife… And… and then, I fust ran… don't know why, I just ran into the church and another police car was pulling up front and I ducked into the confessional.
VAIL: Aaron, did you have any reason to kill Bishop Rushman?
STAMPLER: No, sir.
VAIL: Did you plan his murder?
STAMPLER: No, sir.
VAIL: To your knowledge did you kill Bishop Rushman?
STAMPLER: No, sir.
Vail had started early in the trial introducing evidence and testimony implying that Stampler was not alone in the room at the time of the murder. He maintained that his client had blacked out and did not know who the mystery guest was, a contention that was hard to prove but even harder to disprove. William Danielson, the ME, filled in the blanks in his version of the killing, guided by Venable.
VENABLE: Dr Danielson, based on the physical evidence at the scene of the homicide, what is your assessment of this crime?
DANIELSON: That Stampler entered through the kitchen, took off his shoes, removed the nine-inch carving knife from the tray, leaving fibres from his gloves when he did it, went down the hallway to the bedroom, and attacked the bishop. Bishop Rushman fought for his life, as witness the wounds in his hands. He was stabbed, cut, punctured, and sliced seventy-seven times. He had less than a pint of blood in his body after the attack, which is one-twelfth of the normal blood supply in the body.
The first major battle came when Vail tried to keep photographs of the crime scene out of the testimony as prejudicial. He was overruled. The original photographs, unfortunately, were part of the physical evidence that had been misplaced or lost years before, and the copies of the pictures, which were attached with other documents at the end of the transcript, were of poor quality and told St Claire nothing. On the witness stand, Danielson went into detail of all the gruesome aspects of the crime, using a combination of photographs, physical evidence, fibre samples, bloodstains, fingerprints, the number of stab wounds and their locations, the results of certain kinds of wounds, the difference between a stab, a puncture, and an incision, and so on. Venable was painting a mural of horror.
VENABLE: So, Dr Danielson, did you conclude that death can be attributed to several different factors?
DANIELSON: Yes. Body trauma, aeroembolism, cadaveric spasm, several of the stab wounds, exsanguination - that's loss of blood. All could have caused death.
VENABLE: Can you identify which you think was the primary cause?
DANIELSON: I believe it was the throat wound.
VENABLE: Why?
DANIELSON: Because it caused aeroembolism, which is the sudden exit of air from the lungs. This kind of wound is always fatal; in fact, death is usually instantaneous. And this wound was profound. Exsanguination was also a factor.
VENABLE: Loss of blood?
DANIELSON: Yes.
As St Claire read the description, his mind flashed back to the coroner's description of Linda Balfour's body. '… victim was stabbed, cut, and incised 56 times… evidence of cadaver spasm, trauma, and aeroembolism… significant exsanguination from stab wounds… throat wound caused aeroembolism… evidence of mutilation… accompl
ished by a person or persons with some surgical knowledge…' St Claire's nudge was really kicking in, promoted further by Vail's clarification.
VAIL: The knife entered here, just under the right ear, slashed to just under the left ear, cut through to the spinal column, severed the jugular, all the arteries and veins in his neck, the windpipe, and all muscle and tissue.
Then Vail attacked Danielson's assertion that this throat wound was the one that killed Rushman, once again pursuing the possibility that someone else was in the room with Stampler when the bishop was killed.
VAIL: So… if two of the fatal chest wounds could have been struck by one person and the rest of the wounds by another, it is also possible that one person actually struck the death wound and someone else then stabbed and cut the bishop after he was dead, right?
DANIELSON: I suppose… yes, that's true… but unlikely.
St Claire frequently stopped to scribble notes to himself. He wrote, 'Was another person in the room? Ask Vail? Stenner?' And why was Vail making this point if Stampler was pleading guilty? Was the insanity plea a ploy of some kind? St Claire kept ploughing through the encyclopedia-sized transcripts, skipping occasional exchanges.
VAIL: Aaron, are you familiar with the term 'fugue' or 'fugue state'?
STAMPLER: Yes, sir.
VAIL: What does it mean?
STAMPLER: Means forgetting things for a while.
VAIL: Do you have a term for it?
STAMPLER: Yes, sir. Call it losing time.
VAIL: And did you ever lose time?
STAMPLEK Yes, sir.
VAIL: Often?
STAMPLER: Yes, sir.
VAIL: When?
STAMPLER: Well, I'm not perfectly sure. At first you don't know it's happening. Then after a while, you know when you lose time.
VAIL: How do you know?
STAMPLER: Well, one minute I'd be sitting here, a second later - just a snap of a finger - I'd be sitting over there, or walking outside. Once I was in the movies with a girl and just an instant later we were walking outside the movie. I don't know how the picture ended, I was just outside on the street.
VAIL: Did you tell anyone about this?
STAMPLER: No, sir.
VAIL: Why not?
STAMPLER: I didn't think they'd believe me. Thought they'd make fun of me or maybe put me away.
It was the question of Stampler's blackout and the 'fugue state' that stirred the liveliest cross-examination of the trial, ironically between Vail and Stenner, who was then city detective in charge of the investigation.
VAIL: Are you familiar with the medical term 'fugue state' or hysterical amnesia?
STENNER: Yes, I discussed it with Dr Bascott.
VAIL: As a matter of fact, you don't believe in the fugue theory, do you, Lieutenant Stenner?
STENNER: I have no firm opinion.
VAIL: It is a scientific fact, Lieutenant.
STENNER: As I said, I have no firm opinion.
VAIL: Do you believe that two plus two equals four?
STENNER: Of course.
VAIL: Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun?
STENNER: Yes.
VAIL: Are you a Christian, Lieutenant?
STENNER: Yes.
VAIL: Do you believe in the Resurrection?
STENNER: Yes, I do.
VAIL: Is the Resurrection a matter of fact or a theory?
VENABLE: Objection, Your Honour. Lieutenant Stenner's religious beliefs have nothing to do with this case.
VAIL: On the contrary, Your Honour. If I may proceed, I think I can show the relevance.
JUDGE SHOAT. Overruled. Read the last question, please, Ms Blanchard.
BLANCHARD: 'Is the Resurrection a matter of fact or theory?'
VAIL: Lieutenant?
STENNER: It is a matter of faith, sir.
VAIL: So you believe in scientific fact and you believe in religious faith, but you question the scientific reality of a psychiatric disorder which all psychologists agree exists and which is included in DSM , which is the standard by which all psychiatric disturbances are identified, isn't that a fact, sir?
STENNER: It can be faked. You can't fake two plus two, but you could sure fake a fugue state.
VAIL: I see. And how many people do you know for a certainty have faked a fugue state?
STENNER: None.
VAIL: How many people do you know who have had experiences with faked fugue states?
STENNER: None.
VAIL: Read a lot of examples of faking a fugue state?
STENNER: No.
VAIL: So you're guessing, right?
STENNER: It's logical. If there is such a thing, it could certainly be faked.
VAIL: Have you asked a psychiatrist if it's possible?
STENNER: No.
VAIL: So you're guessing, Lieutenant, yes or no?
STENNER: Yes.
VAIL: Ah, so your reason for doubting Aaron Stampler's statement is that you guessed he was faking - or lying, right?
STENNER: That is correct.
VAIL: So you assumed that Aaron was lying and that he killed Bishop Rushman, correct?
STENNER: It was a very logical assumption.
VAIL: I'm not questioning the logic of your assumption, just that it existed. You assumed Stampler was guilty, right?
STENNER: Yes.
VAIL: At what point, Lieutenant, were you positive from reviewing the evidence that Aaron Stampler acted alone?
There it is again, St Claire thought. Christ, had there been someone else in the room?
STENNER: From the very beginning.
VAIL:… Aaron Stampler tells you that he blacked out when he entered the bishop's room, correct?
STENNER: Yes.
VAIL: What did you do to disprove his allegation? In other words, sir, what evidence or witnesses can you produce that will verify your contention that he was alone in the room and that he acted alone?
STENNER: Porensics evidence, physical evidence, just plain logic…
VAIL:… I have a problem with some of these logical assumptions that have been made during this trial. Do you understand why?
STENNER: Most of the time -
VAIL: Lieutenant, my client's life is at stake here. 'Most of the time' won't do. And so much for logic and a preponderance of evidence. Dr Danielson says he cannot say for sure that Aaron was alone in the room, cannot say for sure that only one person actually stabbed the bishop, and cannot prove evidentially that Aaron even came in the back door or brought the knife to the murder scene, yet you assumed Aaron Stampler lied to you because it wasn't logical, right?
STENNER: (No response.)
VAIL: The fact is, Lieutenant, that you are willing to accept on faith that Christ was crucified and died, that he arose from the dead, and went to heaven. But you don't choose to believe the fact that a person, under extreme stress or shock, can black out and enter a scientifically described limbo called a fugue state. So you never actually tried to prove that Aaron Stampler was lying, did you?
STENNER: It's not my job to prove the defendant is innocent, it's yours.
VAIL: On the contrary, Lieutenant, it's your job to prove he's guilty.
Next St Claire got the testimony about symbols. His nudge became a reality.
VAIL: I'd like to go back to symbols for a moment. Doctor, will you explain very simply for the jury the significance of symbols. What they are, for instance?
BASCOTT. Symbolic language is the use of drawings, symbols, uh, recognizable signs, to communicate. For instance, the cross is a symbol for Christianity while the numbers 666 are a universal symbol for the devil. Or to be more current, the symbols for something that is prohibited is a red circle with a slash through it. That symbol is recognized both here and in Europe. As a sign along the road, for instance.
VAIL: Could a symbol come in the form of words? A message, for instance?
BASCOTT. Possibly. Yes.
VAIL: So symbols can come in many forms, not just drawings o
r pictures?
BASCOTT. Yes, that is true.
VAIL: Now, Doctor, you have testified that you have seen the photographs of the victim in this case, Bishop Rushman?
BASCOTT: Yes, I have.
VAIL: Studied them closely?
BASCOTT. Yes.
VAIU Were there any symbols on the body?
BASCOTT. Uhh…
VAIL: Let me put it more directly. Do you think the killer left a message in the form of a symbol on the victim's body?
BASCOTT. I can't say for sure. It appears that the killer was indicating something but we never figured that out and Stampler was no help.
VAIL. Doctor, we are talking about the letter and numbers on the back of the victim's head, correct?
BASCOTT. I assumed that is what you meant. Yes.
VAIL: Do you recall what the sequence was?
BASCOTT: I believe it said 'B32.146.'
VAIL: Actually, 'B32.156.'
BASCOTT: I'm sorry. Correction, 156.
VAIL: And do you believe that this was a symbol left by the killer?