Mrs. Latham was beginning to enjoy her first taste of the limelight. She was a very tiny woman, accustomed to being ignored in shops, pushed to the end of the line in grocery stores and seeing only the back of the person in front of her at parades. She followed the judge out of the room, trying to straighten her hair as she walked.
“Please sit down, Mrs. Latham.”
“Yes, sir.”
“Are you prejudiced against police officers, Mrs. Latham?”
“Not until this morning when I went out to get in my car and it wasn’t there.”
“Previous to that, you never had any grudge against officers of the law?”
“No, sir. I never have. I’m a true blue American, top to bottom.”
“Do you feel any resentment over being asked to serve on this jury?”
“Oh, no. I haven’t anything else to do.”
“Did you report your stolen car to the police?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Were you satisfied with their response?”
“They were polite, but they didn’t give me much hope.”
“It’s not police business to offer hope. You’ll have to go to a church for that.”
Mrs. Latham was allowed to continue as Juror No. 8.
The long delay in the start of the afternoon session prompted Judge Hazeltine to make an apology which turned out to be a still further delay. He derived a certain satisfaction from this. He wasn’t going any place, so he didn’t care how long it took to get there. And it was quite pleasing to see the district attorney grimly crossing his arms on his chest and Donnelly white-knuckling the sides of the lectern.
“Shakespeare wrote eloquently of the events and conditions which make life difficult to bear. Among these he listed:”
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of disprized love, the law’s delay.
“What was true several hundred years ago is true today. The judicial process is long and slow. And as many judges in many courts have done before me, I proffer an apology... Mr. Donnelly, you may continue your cross-examination of Dr. Woodbridge.”
“Thank you, Your Honor,” Donnelly said, “for bringing Hamlet’s soliloquy to our attention.”
“Oh, was that Hamlet? I thought it was Lear. You see, at one time or another I memorized all the soliloquies of Shakespeare. It hardly mattered who said what. The memorization was a form of punishment back in the days when schools were schools and not diploma factories. If a student was caught chewing gum or talking out of turn, he was forced to stay after school and memorize a soliloquy. Yes, now that I think of it, I believe it was Hamlet. The slings and arrows speech, right?”
Mildred Noon leaned toward the judge and said with only the slightest movement of lips and larynx, “Do you want me to put all this in the record?”
“Why not? I’m saying it, aren’t I?”
“Yes, but you may not want to be reading it in the transcript.”
“On the contrary. This trial needs a touch of class. Why must everything be downgraded to the lowest common multiple?”
“I don’t know. But—”
“Slings and arrows, Mildred. Slings and arrows. Now back to work.”
So back to work it was, and everything was put on record. Mildred had a vague hope that the printed word might help obscure the fact that the judge had spent more of his lunch hour drinking than eating.
Donnelly said, “May I proceed now, Your Honor?”
“Certainly. I told you that before.”
The judge settled back in his chair, the district attorney unfolded his arms and Donnelly released his grip on the lectern and picked up one of the papers from the sheaf in front of him.
“Dr. Woodbridge, you have stated that Mrs. Pherson, in your opinion, died of manual strangulation. Correct?”
“Yes.”
“Your use of the word ‘opinion’ suggests that given the same set of circumstances, another person might come to an entirely different conclusion. Is this possible?”
“It’s possible that different pathologists might reach somewhat different conclusions. But I believe they would all have to agree that strangulation was involved in Mrs. Pherson’s death to some extent.”
“ ‘To some extent.’ Is that what you said?”
“Yes.”
“Your use of the phrase seems to be a backing down from your original statement that Mrs. Pherson died of manual strangulation, does it not?”
“I modified my original statement by making it clear that it was my opinion.”
“Are you by any chance suggesting that pathology is not an exact science but an interpretive one, involving opinions instead of facts?”
“It is both, I believe.”
“Comparing pathology with mathematics, for instance, when mathematicians are confronted with the numbers two and two, there is unanimous agreement that they add up to four, is there not?”
“Yes.”
“No difference of opinion is involved, no ifs, ands or buts?”
“No.”
“Would you therefore call mathematics an exact science?”
“On such a simple level I would also call pathology an exact science. When a group of pathologists is confronted with a cadaver, there is unanimous agreement that it is a dead body.”
The audience purred with amusement. The sound reminded Donnelly of the tortoiseshell cat that lay across the foot of Zan’s bed, purring in its dreams, oblivious of everything but itself.
Irritation sharpened Donnelly’s voice. “You are the first pathologist to take the stand, Dr. Woodbridge. Do you think there will be others?”
“I’m sure there are others scheduled.”
“Do you think they’ll agree with your opinion about the cause of Mrs. Pherson’s death?”
“I object,” the district attorney said. “Witness is being asked to form a conclusion without any foundation.”
“Sustained.”
“I withdraw the question,” Donnelly said, satisfied. It had already been answered.
“On what do you base your opinion that manual strangulation was involved in Mrs. Pherson’s death ‘to some extent’?”
“First, there were the grooves left on her throat by thumbs.”
“In your opinion, left by thumbs. What else?”
“Broken bones in the larynx. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. A broken bone is a broken bone.”
“These bones which define the larynx, how would you describe them?”
“I’m not sure I understand the question.”
“Are they large or small bones?”
“Small.”
“Are they strong, sturdy bones?”
“No.”
“Are they fragile?”
“Quite fragile, yes.”
“Are these bones often damaged in victims of strangulation?”
“Both their position and composition make them vulnerable.”
“Vulnerable to pressure?”
“Yes.”
“Pressure of any kind?”
“Yes. But in this case, as in others like it—”
“You have answered the question, Dr. Woodbridge.”
“Am I not allowed to qualify my answer?”
“Since you’ve qualified most of your other answers, you might as well qualify this one as well.”
“I move that remark be stricken from the record,” the district attorney said. “Once again counsel is trying to harass and intimidate the witness.”
“Strike it,” the judge said. “Kindly refrain from further lapses of this nature, Mr. Donnelly.”
“I’ll try, Your Honor.”
“In my court you get no brownie points for trying. Succeed.”
“Yes, Your Honor. Dr. Woodbridge, how many bodies of strangulation victims have you autopsied?”
“I’m not sure.”
“Can you give us an approximate figure?”
“I could give you a more specific figure if you will give me a more specific time period. Do you mean, since I have been employed in Santa Felicia County?”