of the five stab wounds she suffered, two would have been almost debilitating; the other three might have killed her eventually, but she would have been able to fight. So it stands to reason that she received the two worst blows near the end.”
“All of which-the screams and curses, the vicious blows, the blood and terror-would have been easily visible to Olivia Yancy as she struggled against her bonds?” Guma asked.
“Yes.”
“And all of this would take how long?”
Manning shrugged. “I’d estimate several minutes from the start of the attack to her collapsing to the floor. It would have taken another five or so minutes after that for her to bleed out, lose consciousness, and die.”
“Dr. Manning, what would it be like to watch someone bleed out?” Guma asked.
“Well, the body twitches and spasms,” Manning said. “Until the victim loses consciousness, they may cry out, groan, or otherwise indicate extreme pain. The victim may even go quiet for a moment and then suddenly resume more spasms and sounds. Not pleasant to watch.”
With Manning still on the stand, Guma then turned to the attack on Olivia Yancy. Soon many of the women on the jury and some of the men were weeping as the assistant medical examiner described how she was able to determine that the young woman was raped “before and after death.”
Although soft-spoken and unemotional in her delivery, Manning held nothing back in her description of Olivia Yancy’s death. “The killer was astride her while she lay prone on the bed, her wrists bound behind her. He then pulled her head back by the hair-we were able to determine where hair follicles had been pulled out from being yanked-and then cut her throat from her left to right.”
“How deep?” Guma asked.
“Enough to sever almost all of the structures of her neck-muscles, trachea, veins, arteries-and most of the way through her spinal cord.”
“And what sensations would the victim have experienced?”
“Well, the first is physical pain. Imagine cutting yourself with a very sharp knife,” Manning replied. “Only this goes deep through the muscles and the windpipe and into the spinal column. But even with a sharp knife, it’s not easy to cut through a human neck, and there was some sawing and tearing.”
Manning paused and needed a moment to regroup as she reached for a cup of water on the witness stand. Sitting at the prosecution table, Karp felt for the woman. He’d known her for most of his career and was aware that behind the doctor’s scientific demeanor was a woman who felt deeply for each victim and had made it her life’s work to bring them justice.
Guma waited for her to gather herself and then asked gently, “Please continue.”
“Yes, well, when the trachea-what we sometimes call the windpipe-is severed, the victim suffers the sensation of being suffocated, because there is not enough air being pulled into the lungs, as well as drowning, due to the blood that is draining into the airways.”
“And would the victim have been aware of what was happening to her?” Guma asked.
“I’m sure she was,” Manning replied. “This was not a particularly fast death. I’m sure she experienced a great deal of terror, as well as enormous pain and suffering. She was certainly aware of the sexual assault prior to having her throat cut and may have still been alive, possibly conscious, during the sexual assault afterward.”
Guma, who had never been afraid to show his emotions in a courtroom, turned with his eyes blazing to Kadyrov. “Are there any other atrocities committed by this defendant on Olivia Yancy that you haven’t discussed yet?”
“Yes,” replied Manning, who dabbed at her eyes with a tissue. “The victim’s ring finger on her left hand was severed in order for the defendant to remove her wedding and engagement rings.”
“And other than the obvious disgusting nature of that act, what stands out about it to you?” Guma asked.
Manning took a deep breath and then let it out with a sigh. “Judging from the blood loss,” she said, “she was still alive when he cut it off.”
During the mitigation phase of the sentencing hearing, Kadyrov’s attorneys pulled out the usual litany of mitigating factors, including that he was on drugs at the time of the murders and that he suffered from a “mental defect” that had caused him to act out.
The “mental defect” excuse was discussed at great length by two psychologists and a psychiatrist, who pointed to X-rays and CAT scans of Kadyrov’s brain and said “abnormalities” in certain spots could have caused him to act psychotically. Therefore, executing him would be “tantamount to executing a disabled person for acts they could not stop.”
Karp asked the psychiatrist if anything on the X-rays or CAT scan proved that the supposed abnormalities “caused him to stalk, assault, rape, and murder” the two victims.
“It’s possible, in my opinion,” the psychiatrist said.
“And it’s just as possible you’re wrong,” Karp said. “Essentially, you were asked to look at these pieces of so-called evidence and then guess as to their impact, if any, on the defendant in light of the charges he faced?” he asked.
“Objection, Your Honor,” Langton said. “The defense isn’t asking for anyone to guess; we were asking for an expert opinion.”
“Sustained. Mr. Karp, perhaps you should rephrase your question,” Dermondy said.
“Very well, Your Honor,” Karp said, turning back to the psychiatrist. “It’s fair to say, Doctor, that there’s no scientific certainty underlying your opinion.”
“No, there’s no certainty,” the psychiatrist said. “It’s just based on my experience.”
“Well, isn’t it fair to say that not all people with X-rays and CAT scans showing those same so-called abnormalities go out and rape and murder innocent women?”
“Certainly not all,” the psychiatrist responded.
“Then it’s fair to say your analysis could be mistaken?” Karp asked.
“I’m not infallible,” the psychiatrist admitted.
The psychiatrist had also testified about the effects of methamphetamine on the brain and the personality of users. “First, it gives the user a sense of empowerment,” he said. “But over time it also tends to cause paranoia, as well as violent mood swings.”
Karp shrugged it off on the cross-examination. “Was the defendant forced to use this drug?”
“No,” the psychiatrist admitted. “At least not to my knowledge.”
“Did this drug cause him to boast to the Cassinos about what he’d done?” Karp asked.
“Again, it tends to make the user feel powerful-”
“Powerful about murdering two women in cold blood? And did this drug cause him to try to hide what he’d done, including threatening people he told and allowing an innocent man to be indicted for his crimes?”
“I would say that had more to do with him fearing retribution.”
“So washing up immediately after the killings, changing shirts, would be indications he knew right from wrong?” Karp asked.
“Yes.”
“As would threatening people he told?”
“Yes.”
“So essentially what we know is that he took methamphetamine for his own pleasure and while possibly on the drug tortured and murdered two women?”
When the psychologists and psychiatrist were gone, the defense called in two experts to discuss Kadyrov’s “tormented” childhood in Chechnya. The first, a Russian history professor at Columbia University, testified about the Russian military’s brutal behavior in Chechnya after the latter declared independence. He detailed the systematic genocide perpetrated on the civilian population, “which included wholesale raping of women and mass executions.”
The second expert had testified that a child who had experienced watching his mother and sister being raped and murdered by Russian troops “could be expected to show signs of post-traumatic stress that could include acting out violently, even many years later.” During his examination of the defendant, the expert said, he’d noted that Kadyrov “went so far as to identify more with the soldiers that committed the atrocities than with his own family members.”
