'But you didn't believe you had probable cause, did you? Or surely you
would have arrested him.'
No doubt about it. Slip was good.
'Prior to Tuesday evening, we had not yet made a determination of
probable cause, against Mr. Jackson or anyone else.'
'You said you thought it was possible on Tuesday morning that Mr.
Jackson killed Clarissa Easterbrook. Who else would you say that
about?'
'Any number of people,' Johnson said. 'We had not yet identified a
suspect, so at that point anyone was a possible suspect.'
'How about the president of the United States. Was he a suspect?'
'Not a likely one,' Johnson said. He threw me a look to let me know he
thought I should have objected, but he was going to have to sit through
it. Judges are insulted by objections during a bench hearing. If the
question's absurd, they believe they should be trusted to disregard it
on their own. Slip's rhetorical question definitely fell within that
camp.
'What about the victim's husband, Townsend Easterbrook? Isn't it true
that he was still a possible suspect?'
'I wouldn't call him a suspect.'
Johnson was falling into the pattern that a lot of cops get into on the
stand. They're so suspicious of defense attorneys that they fight
every point, even those that aren't damaging.
'But it's true, isn't it, that you were looking at him as a
possibility?' Slip asked.
'We were interested in him, as we are always interested in anyone close
to a murder victim. But, in this case, we were interested in excluding
Dr. Easterbrook beyond any doubt, so we could focus the investigation
on more likely subjects. Once he took the poly '
I wasn't surprised when Slip cut him off with the objection. Johnson
knew better than that. Polygraph results are inadmissible, whether
it's at trial or in a preliminary hearing. It was an easy call, even
for Prescott. 'Sustained. Do that in front of a jury, Detective
Johnson, and it's a mistrial. Mr. Szlip-kowsky, you can be assured
that I will disregard the witness's mention of any polygraph
examination that may have taken place.'
'OK,' Slip said, getting back on track. 'So the husband was someone
you were 'interested in,' in your words. What about Terrence Caffrey?
Were you looking at him?'
'I was in the process of trying to contact Mr. Caffrey when the
evidence started to snowball against your client.'
Johnson was giving Slip a preview of what he could expect at trial if
he pushed too hard on the stand. A defense attorney's worst nightmare
is a cop who can turn any question into an opportunity to prejudice the
defendant.
'Your honor, please instruct witness to answer the questions presented
to him without editorializing.'
Prescott flipped through the large binder she keeps with her on the
bench, then told Johnson, 'Please refrain from providing nonresponsive
information.'
See, that thing about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth isn't quite right. Witnesses are only allowed to provide the
truth when it's been specifically requested.
'Isn't it true that you were trying to contact Mr. Caffrey to
determine if he was involved in Ms. Easterbrook's murder?'
'No, I wouldn't put it like that.'
'Since semantics seem so important to you this morning, Detective
Johnson, why don't you tell us why you were trying to talk to Mr.
Caffrey?'
'To determine whether he had relevant information.'
'Isn't it true that you found Mr. Caffrey s name in Ms. Easterbrook's
phone records?'
'No, that is not true.'
'Excuse me. Isn't it true that you located a telephone number in Ms.
Easterbrook's phone records that you subsequently determined to be
associated with Mr. Caffrey?'
'That's correct,' Johnson conceded. He was having a little too much
fun. I'd need to talk to him about playing lawyer on the stand.
'And isn't it true that those records showed multiple calls between Mr.
Caffrey s telephone number and Ms. Easterbrook's cellular phone?'
