“No. Not since Jacob was indicted.”
“When was the last time you and Mr. Barber spoke?”
“Before the indictment.”
A lie, but a white lie. The truth would have been misleading to the jury. It would have suggested, wrongly, that Duffy could not be trusted. Duffy was biased but honest about the big questions. He did not flinch as he delivered the statement. I did not flinch at it either. The point of a trial is to reach the right result, which requires constant recalibration along the way, like a sailboat tacking upwind.
“All right, you get to the park, you meet Detective Peterson and Mr. Barber. What happens next?”
“They explained the basic situation to me, that the victim had already been identified as Benjamin Rifkin, and they walked me through the park to the actual scene of the homicide.”
“What did you see when you got there?”
“The perimeter of the area was already taped off. The M.E. and crime-scene-services technicians had not arrived at the location yet. There was a photographer from the local police there taking pictures. The victim was still lying on the ground, the body, with nothing much around it. Basically they froze the scene when they got there, to preserve it.”
“Could you actually see the body?”
“Yes.”
“Could you describe the position of the body when you first saw it?”
“The victim was lying on a hill with the head at the lower end and the feet farther up the hill. It was twisted so the head was looking up toward the sky and the bottom half of the body and the legs were on its side.”
“What did you do next?”
“I approached the body with Detective Peterson and Mr. Barber. Detective Peterson was showing me details about the scene.”
“What was he showing you?”
“At the top of the hill, near the trail there was a good deal of blood on the ground, cast-off blood. I saw a number of droplets that were quite small, less than an inch in diameter. There were also a few larger stains that appeared to be what is called contact smears. These were on the leaves.”
“What is a contact smear?”
“It’s when a surface with wet blood contacts another surface and the blood transfers. It leaves a stain.”
“Describe the contact smears.”
“They were farther down the hill. There were several. They were several inches long at first, and as you went farther down the hill they became thicker and longer, more blood.”
“Now, I understand that you are not a criminalist, but did you form any impressions at the time, or theories, about what this blood evidence suggested?”
“Yes, I did. It looked like the homicide had taken place near the trail, where there were blood drops that had fallen, then the body fell or was pushed down the side of the hill, causing it to slide on its stomach, leaving the long contact smears of blood on the leaves.”
“All right, so having formed this theory, what did you do next?”
“I went down and inspected the body.”
“What did you see?”
“It had three wounds across the chest. It was a little difficult to see because the front of the body was soaked in blood, the victim’s shirt. There was also quite a bit of blood around the body where it had apparently been draining out of these wounds.”
“Was there anything unusual about those bloodstains, the pooled blood around the body?”
“Yes. There were some molded prints, shoe prints and other impressions, in the blood, meaning someone had stepped in the wet blood and left a print in it, like a mold.”
“What did you conclude from those molded shoe prints?”
“Obviously someone had stood or knelt beside the body soon after the murder, while the blood was still wet enough to take the impression.”
“Were you aware of the jogger, Paula Giannetto, who discovered the body?”
“Yes, I was.”
“How did that figure in your thinking about the molded prints?”
“I thought she might have left them, but I could not be sure.”
“What else did you conclude?”
“Well, there was quite a bit of blood that had been cast off during the attack. It had sprayed and also been smeared. I did not know how the attacker might have been standing, but I figured from the position of the wounds on the victim’s chest that he was probably standing right in front of him. So I figured the person we were looking for might have some blood on him. He might also have a weapon, although a knife is small and pretty easy to dispose of. But the blood was the big thing. It was a reasonably messy scene.”
“Did you make any other observations about the victim, particularly about his hands?”
“Yes, they were not cut or injured.”
“What did that suggest to you?”
“The absence of defensive wounds suggested he did not struggle or fight back against his assailant, which suggested he was either surprised or never saw the attack coming and did not have a chance to get his hands up to block the blows.”
“Suggesting he may have known his assailant?”
Jonathan levitated his butt a few inches above his chair again. “Objection. Speculation.”
“Sustained.”
“All right, what did you do next?”
“Well, the murder was still relatively fresh. The park had been sealed, and we immediately searched it to ascertain if there were any individuals in it. That search had begun before I got there.”
“And did you find anyone?”
“We found a few people who were pretty far away from the scene. No one seemed particularly suspicious. There was no indication that any of them were connected with the homicide in any way.”
“No blood on them?”
“No.”
“No knives?”
“No.”
“So it’s fair to say that in the early hours of the investigation you had no obvious suspects?”
“We had no suspects at all.”
“And over the next few days, how many suspects were you able to identify and develop?”
“None.”
“What did you do next? How did you continue the investigation?”
“Well, we interviewed everyone we could who had any information. The victim’s family and friends, anyone who might have seen anything the morning of the murder.”
“Did this include the victim’s classmates?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“There was some delay in getting into the school. The parents in the town were concerned about us interviewing the kids. There was some discussion about whether the kids needed to have a lawyer present at the interviews and whether we could go into the school without a warrant, into the lockers and things. There was also some discussion about whether it was appropriate to use the school building for the interviews and which students we would be allowed to interview.”
“What was your reaction to all this delay?”
“Objection.”
“Overruled.”
“I was angry, to be honest. The colder a case gets, the harder it is to solve.”
“And who was running the case with you for the district attorney’s office?”
“Mr. Barber.”
