A Hole In One Paul Weininger (list of ebook readers .TXT) 📖

an opportunity to forensically inspect the ashes from the Rabbi’ backyard?”

“Not exactly, but I was able to obtain enough milligrams of ashes falling off the gun, silencer and cranium as I pulled those pieces out of an evidence bag to enable me to verify their DNA,” said Meyers.

“What conclusions did you reach from the bits of ashes you got off the items you just mentioned?”

“At the time of my inspection of the evidence brought before me, the DNA of the ashes matched the skin of a human male, but I’m not sure if Rabbi Bloom ever had his DNA taken.”

“We got it off his toothbrush,” the D.A. noted. “Were there any paper scraps you found on the two items you researched?” asked the district attorney. She was referring to the alleged Torahs that were supposedly burned and may have contained DNA.

“No, there were not.”

“Objection. Lacking best evidence,” protested the defense.

“Overruled,” said the judge. “Madam D.A., you may continue with your questions.”

“Did you match the DNA from the toothbrush to the DNA you found in the ashes?”

“Yes, and it only appeared to match the DNA of the Rabbi’s.”

“Why do you say appeared? Aren’t you certain of the match?”

“Such burnt evidence when mixed with other substances in the ashes cannot be defined with absolute accuracy.”

Jaxson couldn’t have been more anxious to rid himself of his own expert witness. “No further questions for this witness, Your Honor. We are prepared to call our next witness.”

Judge Garnett said, “Thank you, Dr. Meyers, you may step down now and feel free to return to your practice. I don’t believe you will be called again.”

“Ladies and gentlemen,” the judge continued, “it’s almost five o’clock on Friday evening, so we will recess and reconvene at nine o’clock Tuesday morning, since Monday is Christmas day. The jury may go home for the holiday, but you are instructed not to discuss this case with anyone, including family members, nor read a newspaper, watch television news, or listen to radio news. You are also not to discuss this with anyone from the media. The bus will take you back to your home as soon as you leave the courthouse.” He struck his gavel, got up and returned to his chamber while all others left the courthouse.

Thirty-Two

The following Tuesday, court was again convened, and the judge permitted Jaxson to call his next witness.

Defense attorney Jaxson called for his client to take the stand, but only because he was unable to convince him not to take the stand, especially since the prosecution had proven that the Rabbi was at home the day of the murder. It seemed almost suicidal for him to take the stand on his own behalf. However, nothing worked to dissuade him; his client insisted that he wanted to tell his side of the story and demanded that his lawyer put him on the stand to do so.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” the judge addressed the jury, “the defendant has voluntarily chosen to take the stand. He has the constitutional right not to incriminate himself by taking the Fifth Amendment. However, when his own attorney calls him to the stand with his client’s permission, to answer questions for the defense, then he may not plead the fifth amendment when answering the prosecution’s questions.”

The court clerk directed the defendant, “Please state your name, address, profession, where you work and how long you have been there.”

“My name is Rabbi Neil Robert Bloom, and I am the religious and spiritual leader of the Jewish congregation known as the Sedona Reformed Synagogue here in Sedona and have been for sixteen years. I live in Flagstaff.”

“Rabbi Bloom, as my client, did I explain to you that do not have to take the stand and advised you that to do so would remove your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself?”

“Yes, you did. I chose to take the stand because there is nothing I can say that would incriminate me because I am not guilty. I want the jury and my community to know that I am not a cold-blooded murderer.”

“Let’s get right to the point of this trial, then. Rabbi, did you kill the person found in your backyard?”

“No, I did not.”

“Do you know how the body got into your backyard and burned to ashes?”

“No, I do not.”

“Were you told why you had been placed under arrest?”

“Yes, the police found a cremated body in my backyard. They said that the human skull on top of the pile belonged to that body.”

“Well, do you believe those were reasonable grounds to arrest you?”

“Objection, Your Honor,” the D.A. jumped in. “There is no conceivable reason as to whether or not his opinion makes any difference about the facts found. His opinion would be no different than any other person who was ever arrested for a crime, placed in handcuffs and jailed,” said the D.A.

“Sustained. Rabbi, do not answer your lawyer’s question. You may not tell us your opinion of the arrest. Only facts may be presented here,” said His Honor.

The Rabbi reacted emphatically. “Well, the police didn’t have any proof that I killed someone.”

“That remains to be seen at this trial, Rabbi. No further opinions will be accepted,” cautioned Garnett.

“What were you burning in your backyard?” asked Jaxson.

“Two old and tattered Torahs.”

“Why were you burning the Torahs? And how did the human head end up on top of the pile?”

The defendant replied, “In Judaism, when Torahs are old, tattered and no longer useable, the only proper way to dispose of them is to burn them and bury their ashes, which I intended to do. As for the human head on top, I have no idea who may have placed it there.”

“No more questions for this witness” said the defendant’s lawyer.

“Do the people wish to cross?”

“We do, Your Honor.” But as Stanford approached the witness stand, the judge interrupted her after checking a text reminder he had just received on his cell phone. To Jaxson’s great relief, the judge called for a recess for three court days and the