The Fifth Witness - Michael Connelly [98]
“That was one possibility at that point.”
“Did you count this as one of those admissions from Lisa Trammel?”
“I thought it was significant at that point in the conversation. I wouldn’t call it an admission.”
“But then, under further questioning, she told you she saw the victim at the coffee shop, correct?”
“Correct.”
“So didn’t that change your thinking on the coffee cup at the scene?”
“It was just additional information to consider. It was very early in the investigation. We had no independent information that the victim had been in the coffee shop. We had this one person’s statement but it was inconsistent with the statement of a witness we had already spoken to. So we had Lisa Trammel saying she saw Mitchell Bondurant at the coffee shop but that didn’t make it a fact. We still needed to confirm that. And later we did.”
“But do you see where what you considered an inconsistency early in the interview turned out to be totally consistent with the facts later?”
“In this one instance.”
Kurlen would give no quarter. He knew I was trying to back him up to the edge of a cliff. His job was to keep from going over.
“In fact, Detective, wouldn’t you say that when all was said and done, the only thing inconsistent about the interview with Lisa Trammel was that she said she wasn’t near the bank and you had a witness who claimed she was?”
“It’s always easy to look back with twenty-twenty vision. But that one inconsistency was and is pretty important. A reliable witness put her close to the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. That hasn’t changed since day one.”
“A reliable witness. Based on one short interview with Margo Schafer she was deemed a reliable witness?”
I put the proper mix of outrage and confusion in my voice. Freeman objected, saying that I was simply badgering the witness because I was not getting the answers I wanted. The judge overruled but it was a good message for her to get to the jury—the idea that I wasn’t getting what I wanted. Because, in fact, I was.
“The first interview with Margo Schafer was short,” Kurlen said. “But she was reinterviewed several times by several investigators. Her observations on that day have not changed one iota. I believe she saw what she said she saw.”
“Good for you, Detective,” I said. “Let’s go back to the coffee cup. Did there come a time that you came to a conclusion as to whose coffee was spilled and left at the crime scene?”
“Yes. We found a Joe’s Joe receipt in the victim’s pocket for a large cup of coffee purchased that morning at eight twenty-one. Once we found that, we believed that the coffee cup at the crime scene was his. This was later confirmed by fingerprint analysis. He got out of the car with it and dropped it when he was attacked from behind.”
I nodded, making sure the jury understood that I was indeed getting the answers I wanted.
“What time was it when that receipt was found in the victim’s pocket?”
Kurlen checked his notes and didn’t find an answer.
“I am not sure because the receipt was found by the coroner’s investigator who was in charge of checking the victim’s pockets and securing all property that had been on the victim’s person. This would have been done before the body was transported to the coroner’s office.”
“But it was well after you and your partner took off in pursuit of Lisa Trammel, correct?”
“We didn’t take off in pursuit of Trammel, but the discovery of the receipt would have been after we left to talk to Trammel.”
“Did the coroner’s investigator call you and tell you about the receipt?”
“No.”
“Did you find out about the receipt before or after you arrested Lisa Trammel for murder?”
“After. But there was other evidence in support of—”
“Thank you, Detective. Just answer the question I ask, if you don’t mind.”
“I don’t mind telling the truth.”
“Good. That’s what we’re here for. Now, wouldn’t you agree that you arrested Lisa Trammel on the basis of inconsistent and contradictory statements that later turned out to be, in fact, consistent and not in contradiction with the evidence and the facts of the