Mercy

“Okay, well I guess that’s pretty much a dead end then.”

“Not exactly the best choice of words, but I’d say so.”

“Listen, there’s something else you can do for me. I need to know the exact date of Edgar Olsen’s suicide.”

“Why?”

“Well I’ve been thinking about some of the things Anita Morgan told me — as well as David’s theory about Edgar Olsen feeling guilty about Dorothy. I’m wondering if Dorothy came back and confronted him about the way he treated her.”

“You think he killed her to silence her?”

“It’s something to consider. On the other hand, in that poem David found, there’s something on the lines of ‘only when you died’ and then something else that suggests she’s writing it to her father. That suggests that he died before she vanished. So I need to check up the date of his death.”

“Why didn’t you ask Esther Olsen?”

“I should’ve, but I had too many things on my mind. And I don’t think we ought to bother her now.”

20:18

“Your Honor,” said Dawn Oxenberg, “whilst I would concede that counsel has presented some intriguing theories, it appears that evidence in support of said theories is still thin on the ground.”

She was responding to Nat’s brief presentation of the “new” evidence that supposedly called Clayton Burrow’s original murder conviction into question. This was the same District Court in which Alex had secured an ex parte TRO only to see it overturned a short while later.

“The bank statements that he has submitted are computer printouts, not on actual bank headed paper. They do not even purport to prove that she was alive at the time the physical evidence against Clayton Burrow was found: only that money was leaving her account up to four months before that.”

“But they do show that she had an account,” the judge interrupted, “and that it was in England.”

“Yes, if one accepts that they are genuine.”

“Would you not accept their provenance provisionally as a professional courtesy Ms Oxenberg?”

“I would if they were coming directly from a fellow member of the bar, Your Honor. However they were purportedly discovered by Mr. Sedaka’s son and they are now presented by Mr. Sedaka’s paralegal standing in for Mr. Sedaka, who is absent — despite the gravity of this case.”

“I’ve already explained the reason!” snapped Nat.

“I heard the reason, Your Honor,” Dawn Oxenberg replied, “and I find it quite surprising that an arraignment of a burglar takes priority over a last-minute new evidence hearing in a capital murder case. However, be that as it may, the fact is that the bank evidence is of unclear provenance and even if accepted has only limited exculpatory value. The same goes for the hearsay evidence from the medical center. It still allows a four month window of opportunity for the murder.”

“But it throws the whole prosecution theory into disarray,” said Nat, plaintively.

Sensing weakness in Nat’s tone, Dawn Oxenberg drew herself up to her full height, in a conscious attempt to intimidate her adversary.

“The case against Clayton Burrow was not based on a theory. It was based on evidence — and physical evidence at that. Not eyewitness testimony. Not a confession. But rigorous scientific evidence. And none of that evidence has been challenged, let alone disproved by the defense. They have not offered any evidence of alibi. They have not proven that there were any errors in the evidence. All they have shown — even if the Court accepts there evidence — is that the window of opportunity for the murder was only four months instead of seventeen months.”

The judge turned to Nat.

“How would you respond to that Mr. Anderson?”

“Well first of all it’s worth remembering that the prosecution evidence didn’t directly prove that Mr. Burrow had killed Dorothy Olsen. It established a probable link with her and suggested that she had been injured but not necessarily killed. But an intrinsic part of the prosecution case was that Miss Olsen had been missing for seventeen months and that this disappearance was not of her own volition. If it can be shown that for thirteen of those months, her disappearance was of her own volition, then that causes all the other elements of the case to be seen in a different light.”

“Ms. Oxenberg?” said the judge.

“The operative word there is if. Counsel has not proven that Miss Olsen’s disappearance was volitional. At most he has claimed the existence of evidence that might suggest this. But he hasn’t produced any such evidence. And the alleged evidence is at best indicative rather than conclusive.”

Nat looked at judge helplessly, trying to read his face… trying to find the right words.

20:24 PDT

Twenty minutes later, Alex was heading toward panic. He couldn’t wait here much longer. He was going to have to unload Lee Kelly’s case onto another lawyer whether he wanted to or not. It was just that, for reasons of his own, he didn’t want to.

He wondered if Juanita’s original suspicions about Nat were well-founded or just a sign of stress. She had never been one who was prone to imaginings. Then again, until today he had always trusted Nat. But with hindsight there were certain peculiarities in Nat’s behavior. Even the tenacity with which he had badgered his way into a two-bit law firm was curious in retrospect.

And even when Juanita retracted her suspicions, it was like she was holding something back. Was Nat still trying to get the information from the medical center by pretending to be the patient’s lawyer? Was Juanita now helping him? They were both determined to save Burrow if they could. They were both dedicated enough to commit such a desperate act.

“People v. Lee Kelly. Code 459, burglary. One count.”

Alex was shaken out of his musings as Lee Kelly was led out of the cage. Alex stepped forward and stood next to his client. They had literally ten seconds to communicate with each other before the judge — a fifty- something, African-American woman — addressed them.

“Is the defendant represented by counsel?”

“Yes, Your Honor. Alex Sedaka. I appear on behalf of the defendant.”

“Does the defendant wish to enter a plea at this time?”

“The defendant pleads not guilty and requests Release on Recognizance.”

The judge turned to the ADA, a woman in her early thirties.

“The defendant has eighteen priors and is a career criminal, Your Honor.”

“That’s over the course of thirty-seven years, Your Honor,” said Alex. “That’s less than one every two years.”

“You sound like you’re boasting on behalf of your client, Mr. Sedaka.” The judge turned to the prosecutor. “Is he a flight risk?”

The ADA looked down at her notes.

“He’s never jumped bail, Your Honor. But he is a career criminal and a recidivist offender. For this reason we oppose RoR. However, we’re ready to consider bail.”

“In what amount?”