Noah straightened in his seat as the Commonwealth’s next witness was sworn in, Detective Andrew Hickok. Thomas nicknamed him Detective Peacock, and it was clear why. His dark suit was well-tailored, and his dotted tie shone like real silk. He had dark hair layered in an expensive cut around a square-jawed face with brown eyes, a straight nose, and a salt-and-pepper mustache that was carefully trimmed. Overall, Detective Andrew Hickok had the demeanor of a complete law-enforcement professional, at home on the witness stand.
Linda smiled at the detective, her regard plain. ‘Please state your name for the record, sir.’
‘Detective Andrew J. Hickok.’
‘Detective Hickok, would you briefly tell the jury your credentials?’
‘Yes. I started as a patrolman with the Philadelphia Police Department, then joined the Homicide Unit of the Philadelphia Police Department. I moved to Montgomery County and joined the Detective Bureau as a detective.’
‘And how long have you been with the Montgomery County Detective Bureau?’
‘Sixteen years.’
‘How many homicide investigations have you participated in?’
‘Over a hundred.’
‘And did you have anything to do with the investigation of Anna Desroches’s murder?’
‘Yes. I was lead investigator.’
‘Did you go to the crime scene on the night of the murder?’
‘Yes, after I had obtained the warrants I thought I would need.’
‘And what was taking place at the crime scene?’
‘Patrol officers were establishing a perimeter, and Dr Kapoor and her team were with the body on the porch. She told me her initial finding on cause and manner. Criminalists from the Forensic Services Unit were taking photographs and collecting evidence from the scene, including the cars, house, driveway, and porch. In addition, a patrol officer had confiscated the defendant’s cell phone and gave it to me.’
‘Detective Hickok, did the cell phone provide any evidence related to this investigation?’
‘Yes, after I obtained the proper warrant.’
‘What was that evidence?’
‘We found a text that the defendant had sent to the victim earlier that night.’
‘I’m going to show you a document and ask you to please identify it for the jury.’ Linda retrieved a paper from counsel table, then placed it in front of Thomas, Judge Gardner, and then the detective, who read it and looked up.
‘This is the text that we found on the defendant’s phone. The text was sent at 6:55 P.M. on May 10, the night of the murder.’
‘Your Honor, I’d like to mark this as Commonwealth Exhibit 43.’ Linda glanced back at Thomas, who nodded.
Judge Gardner nodded. ‘So admitted.’
Linda signaled, and the text appeared on the screen.
Anna, will you meet me at my house @915 tonight? I’m sorry and I want to work this out. Please don’t tell your mother.
‘Detective Hickok, did you consider this text relevant to your investigation?’
‘Yes, it was highly suggestive of guilt. The literal terms of the text, the fact that the meeting place was at the defendant’s home, and that the defendant was present on the scene at the time the victim was murdered and was the one to call 911.’
‘And what did you do next?’
‘We proceeded with our investigation through the night.’
‘And what, if anything, did you conclude?’
‘We concluded that the defendant had committed the murder of Anna Desroches.’
‘On what did you base your conclusion?’
‘We had ample evidence. In addition to the defendant’s text to the victim, we considered the existence of a PFA Petition that had been filed by the victim against the defendant on Monday, May 8, only two days before the murder.’
‘Detective Hickok, excuse me, why was that relevant?’
‘It showed that the defendant had attempted to engage in prior sexual misconduct with the victim, supporting our theory that the defendant lured the victim to his home for another attempt at sexual misconduct, was rebuffed, and killed the victim in a fit of rage or a crime of passion, which generally occurs by strangulation.’
‘Did you consider other evidence to form your conclusion that the defendant had committed the murder?’
‘Yes, we also considered the autopsy report and the trace evidence of hair, fibers, and DNA evidence that had been collected and analyzed by the criminalists, all of which supported our theory.’
Linda cocked her head. ‘Isn’t it true that typically, in a strangulation murder, the victim will fight back, leaving so-called defensive wounds on the perpetrator?’
‘Yes.’
‘Did the defendant have any such defensive wounds?’
‘No.’
‘Did that undermine your conclusion that the defendant committed the murder?’
‘No. Defensive wounds typically occur on the arms, and the defendant was wearing an oxford shirt with long sleeves at the time he was taken into custody.’
Noah listened, his chest tight. Detective Hickok was coming off as smoothly credible, and Linda was preemptively asking questions that she anticipated Thomas would be asking on cross-examination. Unfortunately, Detective Hickok had an answer.
Linda paused, head still cocked. ‘Isn’t it also true that typically, in a strangulation murder, the defendant will get the victim’s skin cells underneath his fingernails, during the struggle?’
‘Yes.’
‘Did the defendant have Anna’s DNA under his fingernails?’
‘No.’
‘Did that undermine your conclusion that the defendant committed the murder?’
‘No. We knew that he was a doctor and had access to gloves, and his text to the victim demonstrated planning, so he could have had the gloves with him.’
‘Detective Hickok, were gloves found on the defendant’s person when he was taken into custody?’
‘No.’
‘Did that undermine your conclusion that the defendant committed the murder?’
‘No. He could have disposed of the gloves before he called 911.’
‘Did you or anyone else find any gloves on the property?’
‘No, but because we determined that the homicide was by manual strangulation, we didn’t conduct a search, as we would have for a murder weapon. In addition, the other evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that it justified the charge.’
‘Did you find any fingerprints of the defendant’s on Anna’s neck?’
‘No, our Forensic Unit doesn’t have the capability to take fingerprints from skin or fabric.’
‘Detective Hickok, what did you do next in your investigation?’
‘My partner and I met with an assistant district attorney and presented the evidence. He determined that the evidence was sufficient to charge the defendant, and we placed him under arrest and in the morning, he was arraigned.’ Detective Hickok turned to the jury. ‘That’s a fancy word for formally charged.’
‘Thank you, Detective Hickok. I have no further questions.’ Linda smiled, obviously pleased, and returned to counsel table.
‘I have cross, Your Honor,’ Thomas said, already on his way to the stand, as Linda passed him without a glance, then sat down.
Judge Gardner nodded. ‘Please proceed, Mr Owusu.’
Thomas stood at a distance from the stand. ‘Detective Hickok, when you went to the crime scene, weren’t you aware that Dr Alderman had already been brought in for questioning in connection with the murder?’
‘Yes.’
‘And weren’t you also aware that Dr Alderman had told the 911 dispatcher that he had discovered the body?’
‘Yes.’
‘And finally, weren’t you aware that Dr Alderman was the subject of the PFA Petition?’
‘Yes.’
‘Detective Hickok, you testified that you investigated through the night, didn’t you?’
‘Yes.’
‘And what time of the night did you reach your conclusion that Dr Alderman committed the murder?’
‘By about four in the morning.’
‘So you and your partner had decided, only seven hours after the crime, that Dr Alderman was guilty, isn’t that correct?’
‘Yes.’
‘You didn’t interview any other suspects that night, did you?’
‘No.’
‘You didn’t seek any other suspects, did you?’
‘No.’
‘Didn’t look for a single other suspect, did you?’
‘We had a prime suspect.’
Thomas stood taller. ‘Detective Hickok, I’ll repeat the question. You didn’t look for a single other suspect, did you?’
‘No.’ Detective Hickok tilted his chin up, in the slightest defiance.
‘Do you know the term “confirmation bias,” as applied to law enforcement?’
‘Yes.’
‘Please define the term for the jury.’