Brent Marks Legal Thriller Series: Box Set Two

  “I examined the knife, especially with regard to the fingerprint evidence, and took photographs as well as a complete forensic digital image of the entire knife. From the digital image I was able to generate a 3D model of the knife in the computer which is accurate in every detail, including the fingerprints themselves.”

  “That is fascinating, doctor. Can you please show your 3D model to the jury?”

  “Yes,” said Lawler as an image of the knife appeared on the screen. “This is the 3D image of the knife,” he said as he rotated the image by using a remote control.

  “I am now rotating the image. You see how you can examine any angle of the object? You can also blow up any portion of it which would otherwise not be visible to the naked eye.”

  Hannaford looked at the screen, then back at the jury again to be a part of the group and to make sure that they were paying attention. They were.

  Lawler blew up a section of the weapon. “In this case, I have blown up the handle of the knife where the finger marks appear. See the smudges of each mark toward the end of the handle, there?” The jurors seemed to lean out of their seats to observe.

  “I also took Dr. Orozco’s CT and MRI scan data and loaded them into the computer in order to generate a virtual image of the body of the victim. This way, I was able to integrate the images of the weapon and the victim so that they could be compared and contrasted with one another.”

  “So, doctor, you are saying that we can actually see how the victim’s body was stabbed by the knife?”

  “Exactly,” said Lawler as he exhibited the image of the body, along with the knife, on the screen. “I correlated the data of the details of the knife with the wound and, as a result, we are able to demonstrate to you the path of trajectory of the knife, as so,” he said as the virtual knife went into the virtual corpse.

  “As you can see, the knife entered the back just under the ribs to the left of the spine, penetrating the kidney and the renal artery.”

  “Doctor Lawler, from the fingerprints on the knife, were you able to determine when they were placed on it?”

  “Yes. As I explained before, the finger marks we see here,” Lawler explained as he blew up the handle of the knife, “are smudged in the direction of the handle, indicating that pulling pressure was put on the handle of the knife to withdraw it with both hands. These finger marks are indicative of a person pulling the weapon out.”

  “Are there any finger marks to indicate that the knife was thrust in?”

  “None at all. You would expect to find smudges in a forward direction as the knife was thrust in and backward when it was pulled out; but in this case, they are only backward.”

  “How do you explain that, doctor?”

  “Either the perpetrator wore gloves when he thrust the knife in and removed the gloves before he pulled it out, or there were two: one doing the thrusting with gloves on, and the other who pulled the knife out, not wearing gloves.”

  “Thank you, doctor.”

  Lawler’s testimony was damaging to Brednick’s case and, due to the unique nature of the demonstration, he was ill-prepared to conduct a decent cross-examination. Hannaford beamed as Brednick wrestled with trying to discredit Lawler.

  “Dr. Lawler, neither you nor Dr. Orozco have published any papers on this ‘virtual corpse,’ have you?”

  “No, it’s brand new.”

  “So this type of model has never been used in any other case: is that correct?”

  “Not that I know of.”

  “Dr. Lawler, isn’t it true that latent fingerprints are very fragile?”

  “Yes, that is correct.”

  “And isn’t it also true that the quality of the latent fingerprints are affected by liquid, which can erase or smudge the prints?”

  “Yes.”

  “Wouldn’t blood have a similar effect as water on fingerprints?”

  “Are you questioning the integrity of your own fingerprint evidence?”

  “Move to strike as non-responsive, Your Honor.”

  “Granted.”

  “Blood would have a similar effect as water, but in this case, the smudges are in the blood, which indicates that the pressure was applied to the knife after it was already coated in blood.”

  “In this regard, doctor, isn’t it possible that the blood could have erased the fingerprints on the knife after it was thrust into the body, and that the only fingerprints appearing on the knife would be the withdrawing prints?”

  “It is possible that some of the fingerprints could have been obliterated; but not likely that all of them were.”

  ***

  Next, Myron Talbot was called to the stand. Talbot took the oath and sat in the witness chair, but he never said a word. Instead, his attorney, Stuart Mayfield, addressed the court. “Your Honor, Mr. Talbot wishes to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”

  The judge admonished the jury that no conclusions could be drawn from the witness claiming the privilege against self-incrimination, and the stage was set for the last defense witness – Brent Marks.

  CHAPTER THIRTY EIGHT

  Brent was trembling from a dose of his own adrenaline as he took the witness stand. This was a completely different perspective for him: he was usually on the other side; the one asking the questions. All the things he had ever told witnesses to prepare them for jury trials ran through his head, and jumbled and mixed with one other, with the result being mush between his ears. He took a deep breath and tried to calm down; tried to look at the jury without touching his face or itching his nose. So many things to keep in mind.

  Before his ordeal began, the door to the courtroom opened and Angela appeared. She took a seat in the back of the gallery. Brent’s eyes sparkled when he saw her.

  Hannaford asked Brent to explain the Internet slander, his lawsuit, and the Allen Bekker estate challenge. Brent told the jury about the discovery that Bekker had been murdered, and how the trust and will challenge case had then turned into a murder investigation. Brent kept his eyes on the jury, hoping that his nervousness didn’t make him look insincere.

  “Were you angry at the Internet posters – Talbot, Finegan, Williams and Marsen?”

  “Of course I was angry. That’s why I sued them in the first place.”

  “So, instead of taking matters in your own hands, you used the law?”

  “Yes.”

  “And, after your libel suit was dismissed, what did you decide to do?”

  “What could I do? I knew that a malicious prosecution suit would be next, and I was preparing to defend it, and I was also working on the Bekker case. When it was revealed that Allen Bekker was murdered, I considered them all to be suspects, so I began to investigate them.”

  “Objection, Your Honor: speculation,” interjected Brednick.

  “It merely demonstrates the witness’s state of mind, Your Honor,” argued Hannaford.

  “The objection is overruled.”

  “So your focus was on investigating them as suspects, not plotting revenge?”

  “Objection: argumentative and leading.”

  “Overruled. I will allow it.”

  “That is correct.”

  “Mr. Marks, what did you find as a result of your investigation?”

  Brent laid out his findings from prowling the Dark Net: about the Erasure.onion site, his contact with the strange Mr. Bean character, his meeting with Finegan (who later turned up dead), how he was followed and almost killed at the airport on the way back from Phoenix, and the mysterious way the will and trust challenge suit was suddenly dropped.

  “After the will and trust challenge was dropped, did you stop investigating?”

  “No; especially not after I thought my own life was in danger. I sent Jack Ruder out to investigate Jeremy Williams and another operative out to investigate Myron Talbot.”

  “And when you went to court on the day that Mr. Marsen was killed, did you pass through the security checkpoint with the U.S. Marshals?”
/>
  “Yes, I did.”

  “Did you successfully pass through the metal detector and put all of your belongings through the X-ray?”

  “Yes.”

  “So, suffice it to say that you did not have a knife on your person or in your briefcase, did you, Mr. Marks?”

  “Certainly not.”

  “And when was the first time you saw this knife?” asked Hannaford, holding up the murder weapon.

  “When I saw it sticking out of Marsen’s back.”

  “Mr. Marks, tell the jury what really happened that fateful day that Mr. Marsen was killed.”

  Brent related to the jury that he had spotted Marsen in the back of the courtroom after his motion had been heard, and went out to talk to him. When he saw that Marsen was running away from him, he ran after him.

  “What was the reason you ran after Mr. Marsen?”

  “I wanted to talk to him about Erasure.onion and the murder-for-hire scheme I thought he was involved in.”

  “Were you able to talk to him?”

  “No, because he ran away. And when I finally caught up with him, I had to tackle him to talk to him.”

  “What was his reaction to that?”

  “He slugged me, and I went into defense mode.”

  “Did you have this knife or any weapon at the time of the altercation?” Hannaford asked, holding up the weapon.

  “No, we were using our fists. But then he slammed against me with what seemed to be more than his weight. I felt a warm liquid on me and he coughed up blood; then fell to the ground. Next thing I knew, a masked man was holding a gun to my head, telling me to pull the knife out of Marsen’s back or he would blow me away.”

  The men on the jury were scowling. They don’t believe me, thought Brent. Hell, if I were in their place, I wouldn’t believe me. Even the women on the jury looked as if Brent were telling some kind of a far-fetched fib.

  “What did this man look like?”

  “He wore dark clothing and a ski mask over his face. I assumed it was someone from Erasure.onion.”

  “Objection! Speculation! Move to strike.”

  “Overruled. You may continue, Mr. Marks.”

  “And did you pull the knife out?”

  “Yes, I had to. I used both hands. It was stuck in there really good. Then I looked up and the man in black was gone, but a small crowd was there, watching. I dropped the knife. Next thing I knew, I was being tackled by the police.”

  “Mr. Marks, do you have any medical training?”

  “No, I do not.”

  “Have you ever served in the military?”

  “No, I have not.”

  “Mr. Marks, did you kill David Marsen?”

  “No, I did not. And I can prove it.”

  Brent told the jury how he had gone up to San Jose to confront Talbot about his involvement in the murder of Allen Bekker, and how he had got it all on tape. Brednick objected to playing the tape, which triggered a furious argument on the part of Hannaford at the side bar.

  “Your Honor, this man’s life is in jeopardy. He’s just told the jury a story they are not likely to believe unless he’s given the opportunity to corroborate it with other evidence. And this is the only other evidence that we have. Surely, Your Honor will not allow the truth to be silenced in this Court. Justice demands that the tape be played!"

  “Your Honor, Mr. Talbot has exercised his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”

  “The tape is not being played for the purpose of using it against Talbot, Your Honor,” said Hannaford. “It’s being played for the limited purpose to corroborate Mr. Marks’s testimony.”

  The judge agreed with Hannaford, and the tape rolled. Brent explained in advance that he was poking the micro recorder through his pocket, implying to Talbot that he was armed, but that he didn’t have any type of weapon. The courtroom echoed with the recording.

  “Mr. Talbot, it was you, Gerald Finegan, whom you knew by the alias, “Defrauded,” Jeremy Williams, aka “Truth Seeker,” and David Marsen, aka “Flusher,” who pooled your money together and hired Erasure.onion to kill my client, Allen Bekker: isn’t that correct?”

  “Yes, we did it.”

  “How much did you pay Erasure.onion?”

  “Forty thousand. We each chipped in ten. You’re not going to shoot me with that, are you?”

  “Just tell the truth, Mr. Talbot. Whose idea was it to have Bekker write out a new will to give his estate to his fraud victims?”

  “That was Finegan’s idea. That’s why it cost an extra ten for the contract.”

  “Did you ever see the killer?”

  “I didn’t, but Williams said he did. Just came out of nowhere in his room in the middle of the night. He thought he was gonna get bumped off right there.”

  “Did you ever speak to the killer?”

  “In the beginning, before we contacted the site, we had some private messages back and forth. He called himself The Ghost. You know, he’s gonna kill me when he finds out I talked.”

  “Is that what happened to David Marsen?”

  “You tell me.”

  “No, Mr. Talbot, you tell me. Was Marsen supposed to lure me out so the killer could take care of me?”

  “I don’t know. All I know is that Dave told me that he was contacted by The Ghost, who wanted him to make sure you saw him in the courtroom, and to have you follow him. I told him he was crazy and that I didn’t want anything more to do with him.”

  CHAPTER THIRTY NINE

  The courtroom was silent and resembled more of a church than a court of law. The judge looked at the jury as if he were a priest about to administer communion. Brednick, the by-the-book man, seemed to be wondering where to look in that book to find the ammo he needed for his cross-examination. Still, the case was far from clear. There was no way he could dismiss it. Brent was still the most likely candidate for the murderer, notwithstanding the eerie apparition that apparently called himself “The Ghost.”

  “Mr. Brednick, do you have any cross-examination?”

  “Yes, Your Honor. May I have a moment, please, to gather my notes?”

  “It’s about time for our afternoon break. The Court will be in recess for fifteen minutes.”

  ***

  Once outside the courtroom, Angela sat with Brent and held his hand. Richard approached them to give Brent a “pep talk.”

  “Brent, my boy, I think the tide has turned in our favor.”

  Richard knew better than that, and so did Brent. They had both lost cases they were sure they would win, and won cases they were positive were losers. The jury would make their decision based on the “who knows what” method; meaning that for as long as there have been lawyers and juries, the lawyers have been trying to figure out how they come to their decisions. It was impossible for twelve strangers with no legal training to apply the law, which would be read to them by the judge and would probably go in one ear and out the other, to the “evidence” they had heard in court. The only thing they could do was follow their twelve respective “guts” to come to a conclusion, the likes of which was nobody’s guess.

  “As they say, Richard, the jury isn’t even out yet, but I think we’re in a better position after the tape than when I told my story,” Brent replied.

  “I suppose I’d better prepare you for cross-examination now, right?”

  “I suppose.”

  Richard leaned in to Brent really close, put his hand on Brent’s shoulder, looked at him with confident eyes and said, “Okay, Brent, get in there and give ‘em hell!”

  “That was it?” Brent asked, tilting his head back in surprise.

  “Yeah.”

  “But I expect your final argument to be brilliant, Richard.”

  Hannaford held his finger in the air, and said, “I can assure you, mon frère, you will not be disappointed. It will be an argument the likes of which have never been seen since Lincoln debated Douglas in 1858; the most eloquent since the argument of A.J. Jennings for the de
fense of Lizzie Borden; since the summation of the great Clarence Darrow in the trial of Bill Haywood; the greatest…”

  “Okay, Richard, I get it. I think they just called us back in.”

  “Right.”

  ***

  Brent resumed his place in the witness box, and all eyes of the jury were on him. He tried to forget that this was perhaps the most important moment in his life - one that would determine where he would spend the prime of it; tried to put that fact out of his mind so he could focus on just answering the questions without the jury reading anything extra from his demeanor. Matthew Brednick looked at him with burning eyes from his seat at the counsel table and began the inquisition.