'Could you tell the jury what they were?'
Oh, yeah, Jack thinks. I sure could.
I could also take a dive, because this is the moment to do it. This would be the place to fumble, mumble, get my shit out of order, just generally look like a dooms.
Do the old two-and-a-half triple gainer with a twist and land headfirst in a pool with no water.
Crack.
Jack says, 'It would be easier to explain using a chart and some photos I brought.'
He gets up and walks over to a tripod stand. Flips the cover over to reveal a big blowup of his INCENDIARY ORIGIN/MOTIVE/OPPORTUNITY chart.
And runs it.
No mumbling, no fumbling.
Shit totally together, Jack runs the jury through the Tripartite Proof. Runs down all the evidence — the kerosene-soaked samples, the holes in the floor, the hole in the roof above the bed, the pour pattern. He matches each item with a blown-up photograph and he talks to the jurors as if they're in the house with him when he took the pictures.
Peters lets him go. You got a Thoroughbred, you give it its head, you let it run, and Jack is running like freaking Secretariat.
His ProCon numbers shoot up into the Positive 8 range.
Jack is amped.
He starts in on motive.
Runs the column.
Tells them how he concluded that White's motives were both personal and financial. Walks the jurors through the Whites' marital problems, their public fights, her drinking and rehab, the restraining order, the separation, and the upcoming divorce.
Then he takes them through White's finances: the $600,000 balloon payment on the house, the tax debts, the flat real estate investments, the tapped-out bank account, the delinquent credit card bills, the expensive furniture collection, the threat of alimony and child support, the threat of losing half of his meager assets to his wife.
The jury is tripping on Jack. They're pulling back on their joysticks like they're triggering a cocaine drip. There are 9s and 10s lighting up on the old monitor like Jack is some sort of eighty-five-pound adolescent girl on the uneven parallel bars.
'Did all this lead you to reach any conclusions?' Peters asks.
'Yes,' Jack says. 'That he was about to lose his home, his business, and his furniture.'
'You seem to think the furniture is important, why is that?'
'It represented a very considerable investment,' Jack says. 'Also, it was one of the first things Mr. White asked me about the day of the fire.'
'The day of the fire?'
'Yes.'
'Mr. White called you about his claim the same day his wife was killed?' Peters asks, looking at the jury, an incredulous little tremor in her voice.
'Yes,' Jack says, matter-of-factly. Better to let the jury get indignant.
'So the fact that he was about to lose all these things,' Peters says, still shaking her head a little, 'did that mean anything to you?'
'Yes, it meant to me that he had sufficient motive to set the fire.'
'And murder his wife?'
Casey launches up. 'Objection!'
Jack says, 'It's hard to reach the conclusion that the fire was intentional and the death accidental. There is also forensic evidence to indicate that she was dead before the fire broke out.'
'Which is probably beyond the scope of this inquiry tonight,' Mallon quickly tells the jury. 'Suffice to say that a coroner has ruled that Mrs. White died as the result of an overdose of drugs and alcohol.'
And thank you very much, Your Honor, Jack thinks.
Mallon gives Jack a dirty glance, because Pam Vale's death was supposed to be out-of-bounds. Jack gives him an innocent look but he's thinking, Fuck you — Casey brought it up in his opening and he's not playing by the rides, so I'm not playing by the rules. In fact…
'Mr. Casey told the jury we accused his client of murder,' Jack says. 'We didn't — we're not the police — but I thought the jury should know why we denied the life insurance claim.'
'You're out of order, Mr. Smith,' Mallon says.
'Sorry.'
Jack looks over at Casey, who is working, albeit none too hard, to suppress a smile.
The jury is grooving on this little spat. Winging happy numbers back to the observation room.
Mallon says, 'Ms. Peters, if you would continue your direct…'
'Gladly,' Peters says. 'Let's talk about opportunity.'
She says this giving Jack a look like. Get back on the leash, claims dog. He does, and she leads him through his testimony on whether White had the opportunity to set the fire.
Jack takes the jurors through the points on the locked doors and windows, the burglar alarm not going off, the time it would have taken White to drive from his mother's house, set the fire, and drive back.
Then Peters asks, 'Did you talk to White's mother about his whereabouts that night?'
'Yes.'
'What did she tell you?'
'That her son was home watching a movie that night, and that she saw him at her house during the time the fire was being set,'
'Did you believe her?'
'No.'
'Why not?'
'The guard at the gate told me he saw Mr. White come back in at 4:45 a.m.,' Jack says.
To a little ahhhh from the jury.
'And the combined weight of all the other evidence argued against her alibi,' Jack says. 'She had a vested interest in protecting both her son and her own home, which Mr. White had mortgaged to raise capital to cover other debts.'
'Any other points on opportunity?'
'The dog.'
'The dog?'
She looks at him with feigned puzzlement. The jurors don't — their puzzlement is genuine.
Jack looks at them and explains the whole thing about the dog. He finishes with, 'I came to the conclusion that Mr. White let the dog out before setting the fire.'
Peters can't help herself. 'He loved his dog more than his wife?'
'Objection.'
'Sustained.'
'Did you consider whether there was anyone else who had the opportunity to set this fire?' Peters asks.
'No facts came to light to indicate that there was anyone else,' Jack answers.
'Did you reach a conclusion as to the issue of opportunity?'
'Yes.'
'What was your conclusion?'
'That Mr. White had sufficient opportunity to have either set the fire or known that the fire was going to be set.'
'Earlier, you testified about there being three elements necessary to deny a claim based on arson,' Peters says. 'Do you recall that testimony?'
He does and she knows he does. She wants the jury to recall it before she goes on.
'I do,' Jack says.
'Did you reach a conclusion whether those three elements were sufficiently proved so that you could
