The Rapunzel Act, page 20
Dr Marcus’ lips twitched twice. ‘I was keen to get to the body, to see what I could determine. I don’t specifically remember seeing the glove, no, but I also don’t remember seeing the laptop either, or the phone in the kitchen. It’s a high-pressure time and I rely on my team to work together to cover all bases.’
‘Thank you. I don’t want you to give away any confidences, but Mr Laidlaw had agreed yesterday to search out photographs showing the glove on the living room floor. He discussed this with you?’
‘He did.’
‘Is this the only photograph you have, which shows the glove on the living room floor?’
‘No, there are a number, but this is the clearest image.’
‘Moving on then, you have told us about the murder weapon, or what you say is the murder weapon, this trophy.’
‘Yes.’
‘Were there any fingerprints on the trophy?’
‘No. The tea towel had been used to wipe it quite thoroughly.’
‘You can test for that, can you?’
‘I can tell that it had been wiped clean of fingerprints. I suppose an over-exuberant cleaning lady might have done that, but, again, I am giving an opinion on the most likely scenario, which is that it was cleaned carefully and thoroughly, with the cloth wrapped around it, after the murder. The prints were removed, but not all traces of blood. That’s far harder to make disappear.’
‘Ah. Now that is interesting. If Debbie had been wearing those gloves, would she have left fingerprints on the trophy?’
‘She wouldn’t, unless she had picked it up earlier, before putting on any gloves.’
‘So, if the murderer took steps to wipe fingerprints from the trophy, then he or she is unlikely to have been wearing gloves during the murder. The presence of the glove is a total irrelevance?’
‘You are assuming that the murderer knows about these things. Most killers try to get rid of their fingerprints and if you weren’t sure, you would probably give the murder weapon a wipe.’
‘Was there any of my client, Debbie Mallard’s, DNA of any kind whatsoever on the trophy or the tea towel?’
‘No.’
‘Then, the forensic evidence linking my client to the crime scene is what?’
‘The glove…’
‘Which we’ve already discounted. What else?’
‘Numerous fingerprints in the house, including hair on the rug close to where the body fell.’
‘Now I’m going to ask you about that all-important timing again. Any idea how long those hairs had been there?’
‘It’s not possible to date hair.’
‘You are aware that my client lived in the house for thirteen years?’
‘I’ve been told that.’
‘And that she was at the house between 1pm and 2pm that very afternoon?’
‘Yes.’
‘Do you accept that the hairs you found could have fallen from Debbie’s head at any time in the preceding thirteen years?’
‘No.’
‘No? why not?’
‘They were long and blond.’
‘They were blond?’
‘I understand that since Debbie Mallard became a woman, she has dyed her hair. Before that, her hair was brown. So, these were samples of her hair, but since it had been dyed.’
‘Any time in the last two years then?’
‘If that is when she dyed her hair.’
‘And we’ve heard, from Mrs Harris, that Debbie was a frequent visitor to the house in any event. But if, as Debbie accepts, she was at the house between 1 and 2pm that very day, chatting to Rosie in the living room as she will describe, you would have expected fingerprints and these hairs.’
‘Yes.’
‘How many fingerprints belonging to Debbie did you find?’
‘Many.’
‘Give us an idea. One, five, seven? I could go on.’
‘Eighteen separate prints in the living room, on the back of a chair, on the base of the chair, on the stairs going down to the kitchen, kitchen worktop, on a mug…’
‘A mug?’
‘There were two mugs by the kitchen sink, each containing the remains of a cup of tea. Actually, Rosie’s prints were on both mugs’
‘Rosie made Debbie a cup of tea?’
‘It seems that way.’
‘And then, what? Rosie tidied the mugs into the kitchen, left them by the sink, the kind of thing you might do after a visitor has left?’
‘I’m not a psychiatrist but, of course, it’s possible that things happened as you suggest. But many other things are possible too, including Debbie and Rosie drinking their tea in the kitchen and then progressing up to the living room, where a struggle ensued. The positioning of the mugs is really of no value to the case theory.’
‘But Debbie had taken no steps to hide her mug or to wipe away her fingerprints?’
‘I wouldn’t know what steps she took. I can only say what we found.’
‘Of course. But leaving eighteen sets of fingerprints. It doesn’t sound like the work of a murderer, keen to cover up his or her tracks, does it?’
‘Ms Burton. You know you can’t ask that question.’ Judge Nolan was already looking back at Dr Marcus.
‘I’ll rephrase the question. In how many cases have you given evidence, relating to what you found at the scene of a murder?’
‘At least fifty.’
‘That’s a lot of cases. In your experience, is it usual to find so many prints of the main suspect at the scene of the crime?’
‘It’s not usual, no.’
‘Can you explain why that is?’
‘Again, I can’t say for certain, but my experience shows, as you would expect, that most people accused of murder try to clean up after themselves. But not all.’
‘Because some people panic, they may be found out, they need to run, so they don’t take the time to hide the evidence?’
‘All of those things.’
‘Your honour, this is pure conjecture, and misleading for the jury.’ Mr Laidlaw was screwing up his face.
‘Ms Burton. The doctor cannot possibly say why some people might wipe their prints from a murder scene and others might not. Even if that were his area of expertise, it would be speculation. Move on.’ Judge Nolan scowled at Judith.
‘Accepting that Debbie Mallard was at the house between 1 and 2pm that day, there is no real evidence linking my client to the murder, is there?’ Judith continued. ‘No prints on the murder weapon, no – for example – samples of Debbie’s skin under Rosie Harper’s fingernails, even fibres from her clothing on Miss Harper’s person?’
‘None of those things.’
‘And the person who used the trophy to hit Rosie over the head, was careful to wipe the murder weapon clean?’
‘It appears so.’
‘But if the prosecution is right, then that same person, Debbie, while being meticulous in cleaning the murder weapon, was happy to leave a DNA roadmap to herself all over the house. She might as well have walked out of the property with a sign on her head saying, “I am a murderer”.’
‘Is that a question?’
‘Based on the evidence to which I have just referred; namely, a murder weapon carefully wiped clean and then wrapped up and secreted in a dustbin, contrasted with a house full of my client’s DNA, what conclusion can you draw about the identity of the murderer?’
‘You want me to say the murderer is not the same person who left their prints and DNA around the house. I’m not sure I can go that far.’
‘Really? It seems fairly obvious to me, although I am only an expert in common sense, not in forensic science.’
‘Ms Burton, watch your tone,’ Judge Nolan was glaring at Judith, her head perched atop newly manicured nails.
‘If one person hits another over the head, they must be standing fairly close together?’ Judith continued.
‘Yes.’
‘How close?’
‘Less than one metre, more likely around 50 centimetres.’
‘When a person is hit with force, in the way you describe happened to Miss Harper, would you expect blood to be sprayed out?’
‘Not on the first strike. You only get spatter when an implement hits wet blood. So, if the first blow caused bleeding, then the second blow could have led to blood spraying out.’
‘How far would that blood spatter travel?’
‘A surprisingly long way, certainly as far as someone standing one or two metres away.’
‘So it is reasonable to suggest that the person who struck Rosie Harper would have had some blood on their skin and clothing?’
‘Yes. But it may not have been large amounts or visible to the naked eye.’
‘But detectable when tested?’
‘Yes.’
‘And Debbie Mallard gave the police the clothes she had been wearing that day. A blue tracksuit. You examined those, didn’t you?’
‘Yes.’
‘And did you find anything linking them to the murder?’
‘No. But the clothes were provided the following day and we only have your client’s word that she was wearing them when she visited.’
‘The police searched Debbie Mallard’s home…’
‘If you say so.’
‘You were also instructed to examine all the clothes found in Debbie Mallard’s home, weren’t you?’
‘Yes.’
‘Did you find anything linking them to the murder?’
‘No.’
‘And was there evidence of any other people having been at the crime scene?’
‘Rosie’s children and one or two of their friends and other people, all of whom the police have eliminated from their enquiries. And the dog, like I said.’
‘Ah yes. The dog. Thank you for reminding me. Normally, when there’s been a murder, you all wear protective clothing, don’t you? Overalls, you cover your hair, even placing protective wrappers over your shoes? We’ve all seen CSI.’
‘Yes.’
‘Can you tell us why that is?’
‘So as not to contaminate the crime scene.’ Dr Marcus shrugged his irritation.
‘What kind of things might contaminate the site?’
‘You bring things in from the outside, you disturb evidence. Conversely, you carry vital clues away on your clothing, sticking to your clothes, the soles of your shoes.’
‘So, it’s crucial isn’t it, if you are going to rely on forensic evidence, like DNA evidence, which you have mentioned many times, and fingerprints and the clear absence of evidence linking anyone else to the crime, it’s crucial, then, that things have not been disturbed, that important clues haven’t been trampled over or inadvertently removed?’
‘Yes.’
‘But you have just told us that Miss Harper’s dog was running all over the scene when the police arrived.’
Dr Marcus swallowed loudly and stared at Mr Laidlaw. ‘That was unfortunate,’ he said.
‘Unfortunate?’
‘It wasn’t ideal for a crime scene.’
‘Do you accept then, that another person might have entered the property after Debbie left and that clues to the identity of that person – the defence says the real killer – could have been disturbed?’
Dr Marcus dabbed at his top lip.
‘Yes,’ he said. ‘It is possible, but not very likely.’
‘But you accept it’s possible. The dog trampling around, a collie, picking things up on its long, thick coat or feet, that bushy tail wagging from side to side, running in and out, masking a crucial clue.’
‘I said it’s possible. That’s why my evidence is based on what I believe happened, supported by what I found. I don’t just come up with a story out of my imagination.’
Judith stifled a smile. ‘Your best guess then?’
‘Guess makes it sound very imprecise and unfocused. I draw conclusions from what I find, based on the latest scientific and medical evidence and my own long experience as a doctor and forensic pathologist.’
‘Of course that’s what you do.’ Judith paused and Constance held her breath. ‘Where was the trophy found?’ Judith continued.
‘Inside the dustbin at number 26.’
‘If you exit Miss Harper’s house through the front door, do you turn right or left to reach number 26?’
‘It’s left.’
‘And how far away is number 26?’
‘Five houses….
‘Your honour. I have some evidence to admit late. It comes from my client’s mobile phone, which was only released to my solicitor by the police in the early hours of this morning. The prosecution, as you know, has had access to my client’s phone since 17th June.’
‘What is this evidence?’
‘My client’s phone is a very up-to-the-minute iPhone and that means that the phone’s movement is tracked automatically, unless that function is disabled. I noted from Dr Marcus’ résumé that mobile phones and tracking is one of his areas of expertise, so, with your permission, I should like to take this witness through this evidence.’
‘Your honour. This is outrageous. We haven’t even seen the evidence.’ Laidlaw’s mouth was wide and his eyes were bulging. Judge Nolan took a moment to reply, her eyes flirting languidly with the camera.
‘Mr Laidlaw, do you accept that the prosecution has had Debbie Mallard’s phone since 17th June and has examined it and has not found anything of interest?’
‘That is my understanding. So this evidence is another of Ms Burton’s famous red herrings, no doubt.’
Judith was silent. Judge Nolan bristled. ‘Turn off the cameras,’ she shouted suddenly, waving her arms around.
‘What?’ Laidlaw was unable to cover his confusion.
‘Off I said. All of them.’
Everyone sat in silence, while the ushers switched off the cameras and the cameraman operating the central apparatus obliged, removing his headphones, resting his hands lightly on the tripod. The judge called the two barristers out to the front, where she addressed them in a half-whisper, delivered with considerable vigour.
‘Mr Laidlaw, Ms Burton. It is not appropriate for either of you to make personal comments about each other in my court room or to whisper asides that you suspect may be picked up by the recording equipment, to point-score against each other in this childish way. This is a court of law, not some open-mike event. Do I make myself clear?’
‘Yes, your honour.’
‘If this happens again, and I sincerely hope it won’t, I will switch the cameras off for the remainder of the session. I don’t want you bringing the legal profession into disrepute with your petty squabbling.’
Laidlaw and Judith returned to their seats, suitably chastised, and Judge Nolan nodded to the usher and the cameraman to switch them back on. But in the confusion, and departure from the prepared routine, the cameraman swung his camera too far across the court room and focused, for a split second on the jury.
‘Shit!’ he muttered under his breath, his curse magnified tenfold by his microphone.
Judge Nolan did not appreciate, immediately what had happened, as she had dropped her gaze to her laptop, but her clerk did, as did most of those gathered, including some members of the jury itself. As Judge Nolan looked up again, she was met with stony silence and solemnity all round.
‘What is it?’ she asked, her face a mass of confusion.
Her clerk came around the desk, ascended the two steps, which divided her seating from the rest of the court, and whispered in her ear. As her words sank in, the judge’s face turned very pale.
‘We need to take a short break,’ she said. ‘First we will turn off the cameras, thank you, and then the jury will leave to their room and I will come and address them.’
As the jury scuttled out, the cameraman removed his headphones, covered his face with his hands and slunk down into his seat. A low chatter began to spread through the public gallery.
‘Oh blimey,’ Judith said.
‘What will she do?’ Constance asked.
‘What can she do? She’ll make sure it’s removed from any recording, but that was live. So much for promises of anonymity for the jury.’
‘Will we have to start again?’
‘Who knows? What a mess.’
It was an hour before court reconvened and this time it looked a little different. The two women who had sat at the far right of the jury were gone, replaced by two unfamiliar men. The cameraman had also morphed into a different person.
‘I’m sorry for the delay,’ Judge Nolan said, straight into the newly fired-up camera. ‘As some of you may have noticed, there was an unfortunate incident with the camera. As a result, we have substituted two of our jurors….’
‘And garrotted our cameraman,’ Judith whispered to Constance, who placed a hand over her mouth to stifle her giggles.
‘Ms Burton. I interrupted your cross-examination of Dr Marcus. Let’s continue now, shall we?’
‘Thank you, your honour. I was almost finished. Dr Marcus, I am handing you a print-out, showing where Debbie’s phone travelled on 17th June,’ Judith said. ‘I will also project it up on the screen. Can you see it?’
‘Yes.’
‘The tracker is incredibly accurate. We can see, just after 1pm, that the phone is stationary for one hour and eleven minutes in Rosie Harper’s house. You can see that?’
‘Yes.’
‘And when the phone leaves the house, can you see in what direction it travels?’
‘Along East Road and out onto Summer Avenue.’
‘Thank you. And to travel towards Summer Avenue, do you turn right or left out of Rosie Harper’s house?’
‘Right. You have to turn right.’
‘Then Debbie Mallard’s phone didn’t travel five houses to the left on leaving Rosie Harper’s house, did it?’
‘You’re right that the trackers on these phones are accurate, but I couldn’t say if a distance of, say, 50 metres would be recorded. It’s a relatively small distance.’
