A Reasonable Doubt Susan Sloan (chrysanthemum read aloud TXT) 📖

done, what did you do with the evidence you had collected?”

“Everything we collected was sealed and signed to preserve the chain of custody, and taken directly to the State Crime Lab.

. . .

“Were there any usable footprints or shoe prints belonging to the defendant at the scene of the crime?” Lily inquired of the witness.

“No,” Dawson replied.  “In fact, there were no usable footprints or shoe prints belonging to anyone at the immediate scene.”

“Was there any DNA belonging to the defendant found at the scene or on the victim?”

“No,” the investigator admitted, “we were unable to find any definitive samples of the defendant’s DNA either at the immediate scene or on the victim.”

“Was any blood associated with the defendant found at the scene?”

Again, the investigator had to concede there was not.  “The only blood we were able to recover belonged to the deceased.”

Lily frowned.  “So, you were unable to find any actual evidence that the defendant was anywhere near Dale Scott when he was killed, is that what you’re testifying to?”

“Other than the fact that he fired the gun,” the witness said, “no.”

“Did you find any other DNA at the scene,” Lily inquired.  “DNA that didn’t belong either to Detective Scott or to my client?”

Dawson shifted a bit in the witness box.  “Well, yes, as a matter of fact, we did collect some other DNA samples, from Detective Scott’s clothing,” he replied.  “But there was no saying when they were left, or under what circumstances.”

“Male DNA or female DNA?”

“Both,” the witness said.

“So, we have none of the defendant’s DNA found anywhere near or on the victim, but  there was DNA from two other people found on the victim,” Lily said thoughtfully.   “Thank you, Officer Dawson.”

. . .

            John Henry jumped up immediately.  “Officer Dawson, will you again tell the jury whose DNA was found on the gun that killed Detective Scott?” he asked on redirect.

            “There were two donors in the samples of DNA found on the gun,” Dawson replied.  “The victim’s and the defendant’s.”

. . .

“Am I having a dysfunctional brain moment here, or does this whole thing not make a lot of sense?” Lily wondered when court was in recess.

“What do you mean?” Megan asked.

“There was none of Jason’s DNA on Dale’s body, or even at the scene,” Lily explained.  “And yet he fired the gun.  Do any of you think that someone else got into a fight with Dale and then just left him there, and Jason came along and decided to take his gun and shoot him?”

“Contrary to popular opinion, you don’t always leave usable DNA behind, you know,” Joe reminded her.  “And don’t forget -- it was damp.”

“But it wasn’t too damp for DNA from two other people to stick to Dale’s clothing.”

“Which might indicate that it was left at some other time,” Megan suggested.  “When it wasn’t damp.”

“And the female DNA could well have been Lauren’s, which would make sense,” Joe said.

“Maybe,” Lily said.  “And maybe there’s an explanation we haven’t thought of yet.”

. . .

An analyst from the Washington State Patrol Crime Lab took the witness stand on Friday, and confirmed for the jury that Jason Lightfoot had indeed been the one who had fired Dale Scott’s gun on the night of the murder.

“He tested positive for gunshot residue on both his hands and his clothing,” Fletcher Thurman reported.  “In addition, there were fingerprints and skin cells matching the defendant’s DNA that were found on the murder weapon.”

“Were you able to determine how many bullets had been fired from the gun?”

“Yes,” the analyst replied.  “The Sig Sauer P250 is an automatic loader, and we believe Detective Scott was carrying a full clip, as most officers do.  The clip holds twelve bullets, and there were eleven bullets remaining, meaning that one bullet had been fired.”

“So, we aren’t talking about some wild drunken shooting spree here, are we?” the prosecutor inquired.  “We’re talking about one bullet, fired with precision, into the brain of the deceased?”

“That’s how it looked to me,” Thurman concurred.  “And that’s also how it looked to the medical examiner when I spoke with him.  In any case, my understanding was that the defendant’s blood alcohol level was zero.”

“In other words -- the defendant wasn’t drunk?”

“No, not as far as the test results I saw showed.”

“If you had to describe what took place that night, based on your analysis of the evidence, what would you say occurred?”

“It appears the victim was down on his knees at the time he was shot, and he was shot in the head at close range.”

“Do you mean execution style?” John Henry inquired.

The analyst nodded.  “It could have been.”

. . .

“Mr. Thurman, will you please tell the jury what the conditions were in the alley behind the Last Call Bar and Grill at the time of Dale Scott’s death?” Lily began her cross-examination.

“I don’t know what the conditions were firsthand,” Thurman replied.  “I relied on the weather service data, the report of the investigating officers, and the photographs.”

“You mean you weren’t there?” Lily wanted the jury to know.  “You didn’t do any actual on-site gathering or evaluating of the evidence?”

“No.”

“Is that normal?”

“Yes, it is,” Thurman said.  “Most small cities like Port Hancock have crime scene investigators, but they can’t afford to have a crime scene analyst on staff.  There’s generally not enough major crime to warrant the expense.”

“So, what do small cities like Port Hancock do?”

“Their investigators gather all the evidence they can, according to guidelines we set out, and then, on anything more important than fingerprints or routine DNA testing, they forward what they collect to us for analysis.”

“In that case, what were you told about conditions at the time of death?”

“I was told by the medical examiner that the death had occurred around midnight and I learned from weather data that conditions were clear until about five o’clock that morning,” Thurman replied.

“Were you told where the death had occurred?” Lily inquired.

“Yes.  It happened in a back alley.”

“Were there any streetlights in the alley?”

“In the alley?”  Thurman