“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 did 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?”
“Not necessarily.”
“Not necessarily but very likely, isn’t it, Detective?”
“It’s likely.”
“And of course in a stabbing, the attacker has to stand quite close to the victim, within arm’s length, obviously?”
“Yes.”
“Where it would be impossible to avoid the spray?”
“I didn’t use the word spray.”
“Where it would be impossible to avoid the cast-off blood?”
“I can’t say that for sure.”
“And the description of Jacob with blood on him as he arrived at school that morning—you heard this from his friend Derek Yoo, isn’t that right?”
“Yes.”
“And what Derek Yoo described was that Jacob had some small amounts of blood on his right hand, isn’t that right?”
“Yes.”
“None on his clothes?”
“No.”
“None on his face or anywhere else on his body?”
“No.”
“On his shoes?”
“No.”
“All of which is perfectly consistent with the explanation Jacob gave his friend Derek Yoo, isn’t it, that he discovered the body after the attack and then he touched it with his right hand?”
“It is consistent, yes, but not the only possible explanation.”
“And of course Jacob did go to school that morning?”
“Yes.”
“He was in school just minutes after the murder, we know that, right?”
“Yes.”
“When does school start at the McCormick?”
“Eight thirty-five.”
“And when was the time of the murder, according to the M.E., if you know?”
“Sometime between eight and eight-thirty.”
“But Jacob was in his seat in school at eight thirty-five with no blood on him at all?”
“Yes.”
“And if I were to suggest to you, hypothetically, that the story Jacob wrote that impressed you so much—that you described as virtually a written confession—if I were to show you evidence that Jacob did not make up the facts in that story, that all the details in the story were already well known among the students at the McCormick School, would that affect your thinking about how important it was as evidence?”
“Yes.”
“Yes, of course!”
Duffy looked at him poker-faced. His job here was to say as little as possible, to pare away every extra word. Volunteering details could only help the defense.
“Now, on this question of Andy Barber’s role in the investigation, are you suggesting that your friend Andy did anything wrong or inappropriate here?”
“No.”
“Can you point to any errors or suspicious decisions he made?”
“No.”
“Anything you questioned then or now?”
“No.”
“There was some mention of this man Leonard Patz. Even knowing what we know now, does it seem inappropriate to you that Patz was once considered a legitimate suspect?”
“No.”
“No, because in the early stages of an investigation, you pursue every reasonable lead, you cast your net as wide as possible, isn’t that right?”
“Yes.”
“In fact, if I told you that Andy Barber still believes that Patz was the real killer in this case, would that surprise you, Lieutenant?”
Duffy made a little frown. “No. That’s what he always believed.”