The Fifth Witness - Michael Connelly [129]
“Yes, that is correct. But it only took one of these splinters to kill him. The first one.”
“Which brings me back to my initial question. How can you tell which impact was the first one?”
“Can I demonstrate this?”
The judge gave permission for Gutierrez to put a diagram of a skull on the video screens. It was an overhead view and it showed the three impact spots where the hammer had struck. These points were drawn in blue. Other fractures were drawn in red.
“To determine the sequence of blows in a multiple-trauma situation we go to the secondary fractures. Those are the fractures in red. I called these parallel breaks terraced fractures because, as I said earlier, they are like steps moving away from the impact point. A fracture or crack like this can extend completely across the bone and here you see that with this victim these fracture lines stretch across the parietal-temporal region. But such fractures always end when they reach an already-existing fracture. The energy is simply absorbed by the existing fracture. Therefore, by studying the victim’s skull and tracing the terraced fractures it becomes possible to determine which of these fractures came first. And then of course you trace these back to the impact point and you can easily see the order of the blows.”
On the drawing on the screen the numbers 1, 2 and 3 were in place, depicting the order of blows that rained down on Mitchell Bondurant’s head. The first blow—the fatal impact—had been to the very top of his head.
Freeman moved on from there and spent most of the morning milking the testimony, finally reaching a point where she was belaboring the obvious in many areas with too many questions that were repetitive or not germane. Twice the judge asked her to move along to other areas of testimony. And I began to believe she was trying to stall. She had to keep the witness going through the morning because her next witness was possibly not on hand and may have even flaked out on her.
But if she was nervous about some problem, Freeman didn’t show it. She kept her focus on Gutierrez and steadfastly walked him through his testimony, finishing with what was most important—tying the Craftsman hammer found in the bushes to the wounds on the victim’s head.
To do this she brought out the props. Following the Bondurant autopsy, Gutierrez had made a mold of the victim’s skull. He also took a series of photos of the scalp and had prints made that depicted the wounds in one-to-one size.
Presented with the hammer that had been entered into evidence, Gutierrez removed it from its plastic bag and began a demonstration that showed how its flat, circular face fit the wounds and skull indentations perfectly. The hammer also had a notch on the top edge of its facing that could be used to hold a nail. This notch was clearly seen in the depression left on the skull. It all fit together in a perfect prosecutorial puzzle. Freeman was beaming as she saw a key element of proof solidify in front of the jury.
“Doctor, do you have any hesitation in telling the jury that this tool could have created the fatal injury to the victim?”
“None.”
“You realize that this tool is not unique, correct?”
“Of course. I am not saying that this specific hammer caused these injuries. I am saying it was either this hammer or one that came out of the same mold. I can’t be more specific than that.”
“Thank you, Doctor. Now let’s talk about the notch on the strike surface of the hammer. What can you tell about the position of the notch in the wound pattern?”
Gutierrez held up the hammer and pointed to the notch.
“The notch is on the top edge. This area is magnetized. You put the nail in place here, the hammer holds it and then you drive the nail into the surface of the material you are working with. Because we know the notch is on the top edge we can then look at the wounds and see which direction they came from.”
“And what direction is that?”
“From the rear. The victim was struck from behind.”
“So he may have never even seen his assailant coming.”
“That