“No.”
“Did you have occasion to find other similar cable ties during the course of your investigation in this case?”
“I did.”
“And where did you find these?
“I found two other cable ties. The same length, and width. In fact, after examining them we determined that these two ties appeared to be identical in all respects to the cable tie found around the neck of the victim, Kalista Jordan. We found these in the pocket of a sport coat belonging to the defendant, Dr. David Crone.”
There are a few murmurs in the audience, and the judge slaps his gavel.
Tannery treks to the evidence cart and comes back with two clear plastic bags. He has the witness identify the first one.
“Do you recognize the contents of that bag?”
“I do. It’s the cable tie that was removed from around Kalista Jordan’s neck during the autopsy, the ligature used to strangle her.”
“Are those your initials on the evidence bag?”
De Angelo takes a closer look. “They are. And the date that I placed it in the bag and sealed it, at the coroner’s office.”
“This second bag, I ask you to look at it. Are those your initials on the bag?”
“They are.”
“And what is in this bag, Lieutenant?”
“The cable ties that we found in the pocket of Dr. Crone’s sport coat.”
“And where was that coat when you found these two ties?”
“It was hanging in a closet near the front door, the entrance to the defendant’s house.”
De Angelo tells the jury about the search, that they’d turned the house upside down, found the cable ties in the pocket of what they later discovered from co-workers was Crone’s favorite coat, a herringbone tweed with large patch pockets, and leather on the elbows. Tannery produces the sport coat from the evidence cart, and the witness identifies it.
“Now when you found this sport coat, which pocket were the cable ties in? You found this yourself, I take it?”
“I did. The nylon ties were in the left side pocket.”
“Did you find anything else in the coat?”
“A set of keys. To the defendant’s car.”
“What else?”
“A cash register receipt.”
Tannery takes another trip to the evidence cart, fumbles with a few envelopes until he finds the one he wants, looks inside, then asks the judge if he can approach the witness.
Coats motions him on.
“Lieutenant, I would ask you to look at the receipt in this envelope and tell us whether you recognize it?”
De Angelo takes out a small white slip of paper, looks at it, then nods. “It’s the one I found in the defendant’s sport coat pocket.”
“Can you tell the jury what that receipt is for?”
“It’s a cash register receipt from the university dining room. U.C.” he says. “Dated April third for. .”
“Stop right there. April third. Isn’t that the day before Kalista Jordan disappeared?”
“That evening,” says de Angelo. “The receipt is time-stamped at seven fifty-six P.M. We checked, and the clock in the cash register is accurate. It is maintained.”
Tannery has closed the loop, made the connection between the earlier testimony of Carol Hodges, who saw Crone arguing with the victim in the faculty dining room the night before she vanished. He has done this in a way that causes maximum damage, with a document that puts Crone there, date- and time-stamped, sharing the same garment with the incriminating cable ties.
Several jurors are taking notes. Like a dazing blow to the chin, Tannery has scored points and he knows it. He takes his time, allowing the testimony to settle in for full effect.
“Now when you searched the defendant’s house, did you find anything else?”
“We did. We found a tensioning tool.”
Tannery retreats to the evidence cart once more, and when he returns to the witness stand, he is holding a metal tool. It looks like a large pistol with a long trigger-like grip in front of the handle. There is an evidence tag wired to it.
“Do you recognize this item, Lieutenant?”
De Angelo takes it, looks at the evidence tag. “That’s the tensioning tool we found in the defendant’s garage.”
“Do you know what it’s used for?”
“Yes. For tightening cable ties.”
“Like the ones in these evidence bags?”
“That’s right.”
“Where exactly did you find this particular tensioning tool?”
“It was underneath a workbench in the garage, covered up with a small piece of carpet.”
“Did you have an opportunity to test this particular tool to determine whether it worked properly?”
“I did.”
“And did it work?”
“It did. We tested it in the crime lab. Using cable ties similar to those in the evidence bag, we determined that it was possible to achieve tension at over two hundred pounds per square inch using the tool.”
Now Tannery has the tool, the cable ties and Crone’s sport coat marked for identification and moves that they be admitted into evidence. We don’t object.
“How many cases of homicide by strangulation have you investigated in your career?” asks Tannery.
“A good number.”
“More than twenty?”
“Oh yes.”
“More than fifty?”
“Maybe fifty.”
“So you have some experience.”
“Yes.”
“In your professional opinion, would the tension applied by that tool, the tensioning tool in evidence, be sufficient to strangle a person to death?”
“Easily,” says de Angelo.
“Would it be enough to account for a deep ligature furrow of the kind found around the neck of Kalista Jordan?”
“I would say so. Yes.”
Tannery nods to himself as he paces a little, between his counsel table and a rostrum set up in front of the bench where his notes are.
“Your witness,” says Tannery.
Here the game is to whittle away at the edges. I start with de Angelo’s credentials as an expert.
“Lieutenant, you say you’ve investigated perhaps as many as fifty homicide cases involving strangulation. Is that right?”
“Yes.”
“Not all of those were murder, though, were they?”
“What do you mean?”
“I mean a good number of them were suicides?”
“Oh.” He thinks about this for a moment. “I suppose.”
“Have you ever investigated a case of murder in which the weapon was a nylon cable tie?”
“No. Not to my recollection.”
“So, in fact, this is the first time you’ve ever seen a case exactly like this?”
“Every case is different,” he says.
“Still you never investigated a case involving strangulation with a cable tie. Isn’t that right?”
“Yeah. Right.”
“Yet you’re willing to assume that a tensioning tool was used in this case?”
“Something was used to gain leverage,” says de Angelo. “The killer didn’t tighten that cable tie with his hands alone. Too much tension,” he says.
“Yes, but does that mean he used a tensioning tool?”
“It seems like a likely possibility to me,” he says.
“But that’s all it is, a possibility.”
He doesn’t respond.
“Let me ask you, Lieutenant, do you know for a fact that a tensioning tool was used to tighten the cable tie around the neck of Kalista Jordan?”
“Like I said, it’s likely. .”
“I didn’t ask you what was likely. I asked you if you knew for a fact whether such a tool was used.”
“No.”
“So it is only surmise, an assumption on your part, the part of your investigating team, that such a tool was even used in this case?”
“Something was used to gain leverage. It seems natural that it would have been a tool designed for that purpose.”
“Isn’t it possible that the loose end of the cable tie could have been wrapped around a stick, a piece of wood, maybe a short metal rod, and that this could have been used as a handle to gain leverage?”
“It’d be awkward,” says de Angelo.
“Still, it’s possible, isn’t it?”
“It’s possible. Anything’s possible.” It is all the concession I need.