“All right, you get to the park, you meet Detective Peterson and Mr. Barber. What happens next?”
“They explained the basic situation to me, that the victim had already been identified as Benjamin Rifkin, and they walked me through the park to the actual scene of the homicide.”
“What did you see when you got there?”
“The perimeter of the area was already taped off. The M.E. and crime-scene-services technicians had not arrived at the location yet. There was a photographer from the local police there taking pictures. The victim was still lying on the ground, the body, with nothing much around it. Basically they froze the scene when they got there, to preserve it.”
“Could you actually see the body?”
“Yes.”
“Could you describe the position of the body when you first saw it?”
“The victim was lying on a hill with the head at the lower end and the feet farther up the hill. It was twisted so the head was looking up toward the sky and the bottom half of the body and the legs were on its side.”
“What did you do next?”
“I approached the body with Detective Peterson and Mr. Barber. Detective Peterson was showing me details about the scene.”
“What was he showing you?”
“At the top of the hill, near the trail there was a good deal of blood on the ground, cast-off blood. I saw a number of droplets that were quite small, less than an inch in diameter. There were also a few larger stains that appeared to be what is called contact smears. These were on the leaves.”
“What is a contact smear?”
“It’s when a surface with wet blood contacts another surface and the blood transfers. It leaves a stain.”
“Describe the contact smears.”
“They were farther down the hill. There were several. They were several inches long at first, and as you went farther down the hill they became thicker and longer, more blood.”
“Now, I understand that you are not a criminalist, but did you form any impressions at the time, or theories, about what this blood evidence suggested?”
“Yes, I did. It looked like the homicide had taken place near the trail, where there were blood drops that had fallen, then the body fell or was pushed down the side of the hill, causing it to slide on its stomach, leaving the long contact smears of blood on the leaves.”
“All right, so having formed this theory, what did you do next?”
“I went down and inspected the body.”
“What did you see?”
“It had three wounds across the chest. It was a little difficult to see because the front of the body was soaked in blood, the victim’s shirt. There was also quite a bit of blood around the body where it had apparently been draining out of these wounds.”
“Was there anything unusual about those bloodstains, the pooled blood around the body?”
“Yes. There were some molded prints, shoe prints and other impressions, in the blood, meaning someone had stepped in the wet blood and left a print in it, like a mold.”
“What did you conclude from those molded shoe prints?”
“Obviously someone had stood or knelt beside the body soon after the murder, while the blood was still wet enough to take the impression.”
“Were you aware of the jogger, Paula Giannetto, who discovered the body?”
“Yes, I was.”
“How did that figure in your thinking about the molded prints?”
“I thought she might have left them, but I could not be sure.”
“What else did you conclude?”
“Well, there was quite a bit of blood that had been cast off during the attack. It had sprayed and also been smeared. I did not know how the attacker might have been standing, but I figured from the position of the wounds on the victim’s chest that he was probably standing right in front of him. So I figured the person we were looking for might have some blood on him. He might also have a weapon, although a knife is small and pretty easy to dispose of. But the blood was the big thing. It was a reasonably messy scene.”
“Did you make any other observations about the victim, particularly about his hands?”
“Yes, they were not cut or injured.”
“What did that suggest to you?”
“The absence of defensive wounds suggested he did not struggle or fight back against his assailant, which suggested he was either surprised or never saw the attack coming and did not have a chance to get his hands up to block the blows.”
“Suggesting he may have known his assailant?”
Jonathan levitated his butt a few inches above his chair again. “Objection. Speculation.”
“Sustained.”
“All right, what did you do next?”
“Well, the murder was still relatively fresh. The park had been sealed, and we immediately searched it to ascertain if there were any individuals in it. That search had begun before I got there.”
“And did you find anyone?”
“We found a few people who were pretty far away from the scene. No one seemed particularly suspicious. There was no indication that any of them were connected with the homicide in any way.”
“No blood on them?”
“No.”
“No knives?”
“No.”
“So it’s fair to say that in the early hours of the investigation you had no obvious suspects?”
“We had no suspects at all.”
“And over the next few days, how many suspects were you able to identify and develop?”
“None.”
“What did you do next? How did you continue the investigation?”
“Well, we interviewed everyone we could who had any information. The victim’s family and friends, anyone who might have seen anything the morning of the murder.”
“Did this include the victim’s classmates?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“There was some delay in getting into the school. The parents in the town were concerned about us interviewing the kids. There was some discussion about whether the kids needed to have a lawyer present at the interviews and whether we could go into the school without a warrant, into the lockers and things. There was also some discussion about whether it was appropriate to use the school building for the interviews and which students we would be allowed to interview.”
“What was your reaction to all this delay?”
“Objection.”
“Overruled.”
“I was angry, to be honest. The colder a case gets, the harder it is to solve.”
“And who was running the case with you for the district attorney’s office?”
“Mr. Barber.”
“Andrew Barber, the defendant’s father?”
“Yes.”
“Did it strike you by this time that there was something inappropriate about Andy Barber working this case when his son’s school was involved?”
“Not really. I mean, I was aware of it. But it wasn’t like a Columbine thing: we didn’t necessarily have a kid-on-kid murder. We did not have any real reason to believe any of the kids at the school were involved, let alone Jacob.”
“So you never questioned Mr. Barber’s judgment in this regard, even in your own mind?”
“No, never.”
“Did you ever discuss it with him?”
“Once.”
“And would you describe that conversation?”
“I just said to Andy that, you know, just to cover your … derriere, you might want to pass this one off.”
“Because you saw a conflict of interest?”
“I saw that his kid’s school might be involved, and you never know. Why not just keep your distance?”
“And what did he say?”
“He said there was no conflict, because if his kid was ever in danger from a murderer, then that was all the more reason he would want to see the case solved. Plus, he said he felt some responsibility because he lived in the town
and there weren’t many homicides there, so he figured people would be especially upset. He wanted to do the right thing for them.”
Logiudice paused at that last phrase and glared at Duffy for just an instant.
“Did Mr. Barber, the defendant’s father, ever suggest that you pursue a theory that one of Ben Rifkin’s classmates might have murdered him?”
“No. He never suggested that or ruled it out.”
“But he did not actively pursue a theory that Ben was killed by a classmate?”
“No. But you don’t ‘actively pursue’—”
“Did he try to steer the investigation in any other direction?”
“I don’t understand, ‘steer’ it?”
“Did he have any other suspects in mind?”
“Yes. There was a man named Leonard Patz who lived near the park, and there was some circumstantial indication he might be involved. Andy wanted to pursue that suspect.”
“In fact, wasn’t Andy Barber the only one pushing Patz as a suspect?”
“Objection. Leading.”
“Sustained. This is your witness, Mr. Logiudice.”
“Withdraw the question. You did ultimately interview the children, Ben’s classmates at the McCormick School?”
“Yes.”
“And what did you learn?”
“Well, we learned at some length—because the kids were not very forthcoming—that there was an ongoing beef between Ben and the defendant, between Ben and Jacob. Ben had been bullying Jacob. That led us to begin considering Jacob as a suspect.”
“Even while his father ran the investigation?”
“Certain aspects of the investigation had to be carried out without Mr. Barber knowing.”
This came as a hammer blow to me. I had not heard it before. I had assumed something like it, but not that Duffy himself was involved. He must have seen my face fall, because a helpless look crossed his face.
“And how did this come about? Was another assistant DA appointed to investigate the case without Mr. Barber’s knowledge?”
“Yes. You.”
“And this was done on whose approval?”
“The district attorney, Lynn Canavan.”
“And what did this investigation reveal?”
“Evidence developed against the defendant to the effect that he had a knife consistent with the wounds, he had sufficient motive, and most important he had stated his intention to defend himself with the knife if the victim continued to bully him. The defendant had also come to school with a small amount of blood on his right hand that morning, blood drops. We learned these things from the defendant’s friend, Derek Yoo.”
“The defendant had blood on his right hand?”
“According to his friend Derek Yoo, yes.”
“And he had announced his intention to use the knife on Ben Rifkin?”
“That’s what Derek Yoo informed us.”
“At some point did you become aware of a story on a website called the Cutting Room?”
“Yes. Derek Yoo described that to us as well.”
“And did you investigate this website, the Cutting Room?”
“Yes. It is a site where people post fantasy stories that are mostly about sex and violence, including some very disturbing—”
“Objection.”
“Sustained.”
“Did you find a story on the Cutting Room website that related to this case?”
“Yes, we did. We found a story that described the murder essentially from the murderer’s point of view. The names were changed and some of the details were a little off, but the situation was the same. It was obviously the same case.”
“Who wrote that story?”
“The defendant did.”
“How do you know that?”
“Derek Yoo informed us the defendant had told him.”
“Were you able to confirm that in any other way?”
“No. We were able to determine the ISP of the computer the story was originally uploaded from, which is like a fingerprint identifying where the computer is located. It came back to the Peet’s coffee shop in Newton Centre.”
“Were you able to identify the actual machine that was used to upload the story?”
“No. It was someone who linked to the coffee shop’s wireless network. That was as far as we could trace it. Peet’s does not keep records of which computers jump on and off that network, and it does not require users to sign on to the network with a name or a credit card or anything. So we could not trace it any further.”
“But you had Derek Yoo’s word that the defendant had admitted writing it?”
“Correct.”
“And what was it about the story that made it so compelling, that convinced you only the murderer could have written it?”
“Every detail was there. The clincher for me was that it described the angle of the knife wounds. The story said the stabs were planned to enter the chest at an angle that would allow the knife blade to penetrate between the ribs to maximize the damage to internal organs. I didn’t think anyone would know about the knife angle. It wasn’t public information. And it would not be an easy detail to guess because it requires the attacker hold the knife at an unnatural angle, horizontally, so it slips between the ribs. Also the level of detail, the planning—it was essentially a written confession. I knew we had probable cause to arrest at that point.”
“But you did not arrest the defendant immediately?”
“No. We still wanted to find the knife and any other evidence that the defendant might have hidden in the house.”
“So what did you do?”
“We got the warrant and hit the house.”
“And what did you find?”
“Nothing.”
“Did you take the defendant’s computer?”
“Yes.”
“What sort of computer was it?”
“It was an Apple laptop, white in color.”
“And did you have the computer searched by specialists trained in uncovering material from hard drives of this kind?”
“Yes. They were not able to find anything directly incriminating.”
“Did they find anything at all that was relevant to the case?”
“They found a software program called Disk Scraper. The program erases from the hard drive traces of old or deleted documents or programs. Jacob is very good with computers. So it’s still possible the story was deleted from the computer even though we couldn’t find it.”
“Objection. Speculation.”
“Sustained. The jury is instructed to disregard the last sentence.”
Logiudice: “Were they able to find pornography?”
“Objection.”
“Overruled.”
“Were they able to find pornography?”
“Yes.”
“Any other violent stories or anything connected to the murder?”
“No.”
“Were you able to corroborate Derek Yoo’s claim that Jacob had a knife in any way? Was there any paperwork from the purchase of the knife, for example?”
“No.”
“Was the actual murder weapon ever found?”
“No.”
“But a knife was found in Cold Spring Park at some point?”
“Yes. We continued to search the park for some time after the murder. We felt that the perpetrator must have ditched the knife somewhere in the park to avoid detection. We did finally find a knife in a shallow pond. The knife was about the right size, but subsequent forensic analysis showed it was not the knife used in the murder.”
“How was that determined?”
“The blade of this knife was larger than the wounds would indicate, and it did not have a serrated blade consistent with the torn edges of the victim’s wounds.”
“So what did you conclude from the fact that the knife had been thrown in the pond there?”
“I thought it was put there to throw us off, to send us down the wrong path. Probably by someone who d
id not have access to the forensic reports describing the wounds and the likely characteristics of the weapon.”
“Any guesses about who might have planted that knife?”
“Objection. Calls for speculation.”
“Sustained.”
Logiudice considered a moment. He took a deep, satisfied breath, relieved finally to have a professional witness to work with. That Duffy knew and liked me—that he was somewhat biased in Jacob’s favor and visibly conflicted about being on the stand—only made his testimony the more damning. Finally, Logiudice evidently felt, finally.
“No further questions,” he said.
Jonathan bounced up and went to a spot at the far end of the jury box, where he leaned against the rail. If he could have climbed into the jury box itself to ask his questions, he would have.
“Or the knife might have just been dropped there for no reason at all?” he said.
“It’s possible.”
“Because things are tossed away in parks all the time?”
“True.”
“So when you say the knife may have been planted there to deceive you, that’s a guess, isn’t it?”
“An educated guess, yes.”
“A wild guess, I’d say.”
“Objection.”
“Sustained.”
“Let’s go back a little, Lieutenant. You testified that there was a lot of blood found at the scene, cast-off blood, spatters, contact smears, and of course the victim’s shirt was soaked in blood.”
“Yes.”
“There was so much blood, in fact, you testified that when you went off to search the park for suspects, you were looking for someone with blood on him. Isn’t that what you said?”
“Looking for someone who might have blood on him, yes.”
“A lot of blood on him?”
“I was not certain of that.”
“Oh, come on now. You testified that, based on the pattern of the wounds, Ben Rifkin’s attacker was probably standing right in front of him, correct?”
“Yes.”
“And you testified there was cast-off blood.”
“Yes.”
“ ‘Cast-off’ meaning it was thrown, projected, it shot out?”
“Yes, but—”
“In fact, in a case with so much blood, with wounds this grievous, you would have to think the attacker would have quite a bit of blood on him because the wounds would spurt?”