“All rise, Superior Court in and for the county of Santa Felicia is now in session, Judge Hazeltine presiding.”
It was ten-fifteen.
Eva Foster recorded the time in her notebook, Mildred Noon sat poised at her stenotype machine and Dr. Woodbridge was escorted back to the witness box by the bailiff. The courtroom had the communal warmth of a barn, but the smell was different. This was the smell of people under stress.
The judge watched the bailiff as he returned to his seat, noting that his potbelly seemed to be increasing and his khaki shirt was strained to the limit. He looked like a man whose chest had started to fall down and then was caught in the nick of time by the leather belt of his trousers. A girdle might not be such a bad idea, the judge thought. He took a long, deep breath, swished it around in his lungs for a minute, then exhaled and spoke.
“Mr. Owen having completed his examination of Dr. Woodbridge, we are now ready to hear Mr. Donnelly’s cross-examination. Are you ready for the cross-examination, Mr. Donnelly?”
“Yes, Your Honor.”
Donnelly took his place at the lectern, facing the witness. His manner and voice were grave.
“Dr. Woodbridge, my name is Charles Donnelly. If, during the course of this cross-examination, any of my questions seem too personal, even hostile, I beg your forgiveness in advance. Any doubts cast will not be on your integrity but on certain conclusions you’ve reached. Although we are on opposing sides in this case, we both are interested in establishing the truth. And in any quest for truth, verbal blows are often exchanged. I regret this, but I must fight for what I believe in. Would you accept an apology in advance, Doctor?”
“Oh, certainly.” Woodbridge felt a tic in the left corner of his mouth. If he’d been alone, it would have expanded into a full smile. He’d known Donnelly for years, and this was one of Donnelly’s favorite tricks, presenting himself to the jury as a Boy Scout who must stoop to dirty tricks in the interest of justice.
“Dr. Woodbridge, you said yesterday that the cause of Mrs. Pherson’s death was asphyxia.”
“I did.”
“Can you give us a short and simple definition of ‘asphyxia’?”
“I can make it short, but I can’t make it simple since a rather complicated process is involved.”
“Short will do.”
“Asphyxia is oxygen starvation due to the obstruction of breathing passages.”
“Can this obstruction of breathing passages be caused by a number of things?”
“Yes.”
“Can you name some, please?”
“Accident first comes to mind, as when a person attempts to swallow a piece of food, usually meat, that is too large and the food gets lodged in his throat. Another cause is disease, such as a tumor or a violent allergic reaction to some food like shellfish which causes the throat to swell. Smothering, another cause, can be accidental, as when an infant gets entangled in its bedclothes, or deliberate, such as a pillow held against the face. Hanging, the use of a ligature around the neck, rope, wire, belt, is a not uncommon method of suicide. Another cause of asphyxia is the use of hands applying pressure to the windpipe and larynx, in other words, strangulation.”
The wail of a siren just outside the windows silenced the doctor, and he shook his head at the futility of trying to compete.
When the siren faded, Donnelly said, “Haven’t you omitted the most important cause of asphyxia, Dr. Woodbridge?”
“Not by intent. I was about to add drowning when I was interrupted.”
“Yesterday afternoon the district attorney emphasized the fact that very little water was found in Mrs. Pherson’s lungs. In most cases of drowning are the lungs filled with water?”
“No. Very seldom.”
“Can you give us, as briefly as possible, the actual mechanism of drowning as when, for instance, a person falls overboard from a boat?”
“The person would begin to fight for his life, probably start yelling for help and thrashing around in the water. During this struggle for survival, water enters the throat and windpipe, causing the mucous membranes to produce more mucus in self-protection. This mucus combines with the water to form a viscous substance rather like soap lather but sticky and tenacious. This may be combined with vomit as well, and the victim strangles on his own body fluids.”
“Can we conclude that the cause of death is not water in the lungs, as is commonly believed?”
“No, it is not.”
“What if the fall from the vessel is not accidental but intentional?”
“Water would still be ingested and the reaction of the mucous membranes would be the same.”
“It is a commonly held belief that a drowning person will come to the surface three times. Is this correct?”
“No. The body might not come to the surface at all and never be recovered. This is especially true in fresh water.”
“Why?”
“The human body is heavier than fresh water.”
“What about salt water?”
“Salt increases the body’s buoyancy. If there is a large amount of salt, such as in the Great Salt Lake of Utah, a person becomes so buoyant that it’s difficult to swim.”
“Does the temperature of the water have any effect on survival time? Strike that... Dr. Woodbridge, you stated yesterday that in your opinion Mrs. Pherson died of asphyxia due to strangulation.”
“I did.”
“You further stated that the strangulation resulted from the use of hands.”
“Yes.”
“You based your opinion on two grooves found on the front of the throat approximately the size of thumbs.”
“That was the main basis, yes.”
“You also stated that these grooves had been made premortem — that is, before death — did you not?”
“Yes.”
“Do you know what time Mrs. Pherson’s death occurred?”
“No.”
“Can you tell within an hour?”
“No.”
“Within two hours?”
“Not for a certainty, no.”
“Why not?”
“The fact that the body had been immersed in water about fifty-five degrees makes it difficult to determine the exact time of death.”
“Yet you contend that the grooves found on Mrs. Pherson’s throat were made prior to death. How certain are you of this?”
“One hundred percent. Or almost one hundred percent.”
“Almost.” Donnelly spoke the word slowly, letting it hang in the air like a cloud of doubt. “In the field of medicine as in other sciences, new facts are coming to light every day, are they not?”
“Yes.”
“Do you try, Dr. Woodbridge, to keep up with current advances, new theories, new facts, which are printed in various publications?”
“I try. But currently there are so many medical publications that I would have to choose between reading them all and carrying on my own work.”
“Is the special field of cold-water rescues relatively new?”
“I believe so.”
“Have you done any reading on this subject?”
“Not a great deal.”
“Not a great deal. Does that mean a small deal?”
The district attorney got to his feet. “I object, Your Honor. Dr. Woodbridge’s qualifications were well established at the beginning of his testimony. All this prying into what he has or has not read I construe as badgering.”
“I don’t,” the judge said. “Overruled. Repeat your question, Mr. Donnelly.”
“I’ll rephrase it. Have recent studies done in the field of cold-water drowning contradicted some long-held notions?”
“Long-held notions are being shot down every day in almost every scientific field. Can you refer to a specific case, please?”
“One well-publicized case happened last year near Seattle. Two boys were playing on a frozen lake when the ice broke and one of them fell in and was submerged. His companion tried to rescue him, but he, too, fell in and was submerged. The frantic barking of the boys’ dog drew attention to their plight. More than an hour elapsed before the body of the first boy was brought out of the lake. No signs of life were evident, but the paramedics went to work anyway, as they’re trained to do whether or not the task seems hopeless. In this case the boy was revived and actually started breathing on his own. A short time later he died. However, during that long submersion in that icy water he remained alive, his metabolism so slowed that he was in a state of suspended animation. Do you recall this case, Doctor?”