Even though Garnett hadn’t heard the comment, he reprimanded the jury for their laughter and told them he would not accept that kind of conduct from them again.
Jaxson replied to the judge’s question, “Yes, Your Honor, I would. May I approach the witness?”
“You may.”
“Mrs. Jacobson, would you please point to your lover if he’s here in court?”
She pointed directly at the defendant and smiled at him.
The defendant’s counselor turned to the jury and said, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you can see, Mrs. Jacobson pointed to the defendant and identified Rabbi Bloom as her lover. No more questions, Your Honor.”
The judge asked D.A. Stanford, “Would you like to redirect the witness?”
“Yes, Your Honor. Mrs. Jacobson, during your deposition, you stated that though you swore he was the Rabbi, you described his lovemaking in recent months as different than before. How would you explain that comment made at the deposition?”
“I believe that I said his approach to me, such as foreplay, and the type of deep kisses I was used to, were no longer the same. He seemed to have a lot more hair on his chest than I could ever remember seeing before. He also reached his orgasm immediately, when in the past he would make sure that I was satisfied first. I didn’t understand the changes. It felt almost like a different person had made love to me.“
“Mrs. Jacobson, weren’t you concerned about this? Who else could he be?”
Not knowing how to answer, the witness fumbled with her purse.
“Is there anything else you need to tell us?” prompted Judge Garnett.
“Yes, Your Honor,” the witness said, sinking into her chair. “I didn’t tell you the whole truth before. I did see a birthmark on Neil that I had never noticed before. I didn’t ask him about it because I thought I had always overlooked it in the passion of our lovemaking, since the mark was so small.”
With this disconcerting revelation, defense attorney Jaxson asked for a recess until the next day, which was granted.
Thirty-One
The next morning, the judge opened the trial by asking, “Is the defense ready today?”
“Yes, Your Honor. The defense calls Dr. Edmund Meyers to the stand.”
Dr. Meyers was sworn in by the court clerk and asked to give his background, education, place, and length of employment, along with his current address.
Dr. Meyers was a thin, sixty-eight-year-old man with a head of yellowish-white hair, but no facial wrinkles. “I am employed by the Scottsdale Police Department as a forensic odontologist, where I have worked for forty-two years. I graduated from Tufts University School of Dental Medicine with a DMD degree and then took a Master of Science at Yale University. I live in Scottsdale.”
“Dr. Meyers,” began the defense, “what has been your background regarding testifying as an expert witness in a court of law?”
“During my lengthy career, I have testified as an expert witness at 168 murder trials for both prosecution and defense. There were also many attempted-murder trials too numerous to mention. I have also testified as to the determinant factors in various fatal accidents. I have testified before township courts and state superior courts, up to and including a state supreme court.”
Albert Jaxson handed him the pate marked Exhibit P-2 “Dr. Meyers, did you have an opportunity to examine this skull, found in the of the Rabbi’s home?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Have you also received the x-rays marked as Exhibit D-1, which we subpoenaed from Rabbi Bloom’s dentist, to make a comparison of the skull’s teeth and the x-rays you inspected?”
“Yes, I did.”
“And what were your findings?”
“I saw that this cranium and teeth had been severely burned and smoke damaged, but luckily were not burned enough to turn into ashes. I was able to see the forehead and the left teeth in the remains of the lower jaw.”
“In your analysis of the x-rays, were you able to definitely identify the teeth as those belonging to Rabbi Bloom?”
“No, I cannot say with certainty that they are the Rabbi’s. There is a strong resemblance to those in the x-ray, but four teeth are not enough of a sample. For me to say that I am one hundred percent certain whom they belonged to, I would have also needed a complete upper dental portion of the jaw, with bite impressions, to be completely satisfied that these teeth belong to Rabbi Neil Bloom.”
“Thank you, Dr. Meyers. No more questions for this witness, Your Honor.”
“Madam D.A., do you wish to cross examine?” asked Judge Garnett.
“Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Dr. Meyers, with all due respect, and you deserve very much of it, have you ever made a mistake?”
“Of course, I have,” Dr. Meyers replied. “I wouldn’t be human if I hadn’t.”
“Is there any possibility, no matter how slight, that the four teeth found in the remains of the skull could have belonged to Rabbi Bloom?”
“A possibility, yes, but not a certainty. Those four teeth could have belonged to hundreds of other people.”
“I see. But, Dr. Meyers, hundreds of other people’s DNA were not found with the partial remains of a head, and the striations on the teeth could not be like anyone else’s, according to the dentist who took the bite impressions. Dr. Meyers, would you agree that striations on these teeth must be different than on anyone else’s teeth?” challenged Stanford.
“Absolutely.”
“Then you would agree that since the striations were the same, is it not likely that at least those four teeth belonged to the Rabbi?”
“Not with one hundred percent certainty, since the striations were partially damaged by the fire too.”
“Objection,” stated the defense. “Calling for a conclusion without the witness having been given the bite impressions to compare for himself.”
“Sustained,” said the judge. “The jury will disregard the question and its response.”
“Yes, Your Honor, my apologies to the court,” said the district attorney. At least she was able to have the jury hear her question and the doctor’s response.
“Dr. Meyers, were you given
