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

is a liar. He lied to you, the police, the detectives, the D.A., and he lied to me, and then perjured himself here in court. He is guilty of illegally disposing of a dead body, cremating and desecrating it. What he did not lie about was that he did not kill the Rabbi. He confessed to everything else here in court but not to murder. Had Mr. Straub’s brother, the Rabbi, accepted his calls and learned that he had a twin, none of this might have happened. But he did not, and that was why Mr. Straub went to his home that day to prove it to him face to face.”

“After he found Bloom dead at his front door and disposed of the body, he replaced the Rabbi at his synagogue, hoping that no one would notice the difference between the two. And why did he do all of this? For money! To get rich! You heard him tell you how he came out of poverty, foster families that abused him as he grew up. Here was his one and only chance at fame and fortune. People would now believe that he was Rabbi Bloom, and he would acquire all the benefits of the Rabbi’s status.”

“Should Richard Straub pay a price for having committed these crimes? I can assure you that he will be punished severely; even if you find him not guilty of murder, he is still guilty of these other felonious crimes.”

“Now, let me explain to you why the prosecution has not proven its case that Mr. Straub committed the murder of Rabbi Bloom, beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“First of all, and most importantly, no one saw him shoot the victim. The prosecution has brought up one witness after another who was able to identify Richard Straub as the person posing as the Rabbi, but none who saw him with a gun or saw him shoot at anybody. They have also failed to prove that he was the one who shot at the other three golfers.”

“Furthermore, the expert forensic testimony presented did not prove that Mr. Straub killed the Rabbi. Dental experts could not confirm to a certainty that the teeth found in the cranium were those of Rabbi Bloom’s. Crime scene experts found no fingerprints on the gun and none on the bullets or the casings that were retrieved to tie Mr. Straub to the weapon found at the scene.”

“In other words, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution has failed to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Richard Straub killed Rabbi Bloom or fired gun shots at anyone.”

“My client, Mr. Straub, has testified that when he went to the Rabbi’s front door to reunite with him, the Rabbi was already lying next to the door in a pool of blood with a bullet hole in his head. So why did he remove the Rabbi’s body and attempt to get rid of it permanently? Because of greed-—pure unadulterated greed—that we will concede. Mr. Straub assumed that no one but him knew they were identical twins, and that if he destroyed the body, he was well prepared to take the Rabbi’s place and no one would be the wiser. He also assumed with an estate as large as the Rabbi’s three acres, he would not be seen, even though he burned the body in broad daylight. And he assumed that if the remains of an unidentifiable dead body were somehow discovered in the backyard, no one would think that the Rabbi was the perpetrator, just that someone wanted to get rid of a dead body, and for some reason chose the Rabbi’s yard to dispose of it. He was mistaken in all these assumptions, and admittedly guilty of desecrating the body, but that does not make him the murderer.”

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am asking you to do the right thing. Surely not all of you who have listened to the testimony and seen the evidence have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Richard Straub is guilty of murder, and therefore you must return from your deliberations with a verdict of not guilty.”

“Thank you for all the time you have taken out of your busy lives to attend this lengthy trial. The defense rests and requests a ten-minute recess.”

“Granted,” said the judge. He sent the jury to the deliberation room and told them they would be notified to return in approximately ten minutes.

Albert Jaxson approached the prosecution’s desk and asked to meet with District Attorney Stanford along with Judge Garnett in his chambers to discuss a plea-bargain. District Attorney Stanford was not interested in the idea, but felt obligated to listen.

The three of them retired to the judge’s chamber.

“Your Honor, I asked for this hearing to plea bargain for my client,” said Jaxson.

“You know, don’t you, that the court will convict him of perjury and desecration of a dead body regardless of the jury’s decision?” asked the judge.

“Yes, Your Honor, I don’t see any way around that.”

“What is your offer?” asked the D.A. of Jaxson.

“Straub will plead guilty to manslaughter, claiming that when the Rabbi opened the door he attacked my client in fear of his life and my client fought back, accidentally killing his brother. This plea would call for a penalty of thirty-five years, no probation, and no death penalty,” answered Jaxson.

D.A. Stanford was insulted by the offer. “You can’t be serious. No death penalty for murder one and only thirty-five years? I will discuss your offer with Detectives Pratt and Sommerville and the Rabbi’s only next of kin, his aunt Lorraine, and return with a reply. I strongly doubt that they’ll accept the plea, but I’ll present it to them.”

After a short conference about the defense’s offer with the other three people concerned, she returned to the judge’s chamber with her counteroffer, which she said was final:

“In lieu of the death penalty, we are prepared to accept a plea of guilty to first degree premeditated murder, life in prison with