They all said, “I do.”
He directed, “All be seated please.”
As each witness was called to the stand, the clerk officially swore them in and asked for their name and address for the record maintained by the court reporter.
The judge began the trial. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, since it’s the state’s case to prove that the defendant is guilty, District Attorney Stanford, you will begin. Also, from this point on, I will refer to you as Madam D.A. You may make your opening remarks.”
“Thank you, Your Honor.” She stood from behind the prosecution’s table, approached the jury and was careful to look at each juror in the eyes as she spoke.
“Ladies and Gentlemen, the defendant, Rabbi Bloom, is charged with the murder of a John Doe. We have not been able to identify the body, but it is a male according to the coroner’s office. The defendant has been charged with the crimes of murder, desecrating a body, and unlawfully cremating it. We expect to be able to identify the body relatively soon. The state will not only prove to you that Rabbi Bloom is the murderer, but we’ll also prove to you that he is not necessarily the only person that should be sitting in the defendant’s chair.”
Observing she had concluded her opening remarks, Judge Garnett said, “Madam D.A., please call your first witness.”
“Thank you, Your Honor,” Stanford replied. “The people call Detective Johnny Pratt.” Detective Johnny H. Pratt was sworn in, took his seat on the witness stand and D.A. Stanford began her questioning. “Detective Pratt, would you please tell the jury what, where and for whom you work.”
“I work for the Sedona Police Department under the direction of Marshal Brian Whitaker. My assignments have been varied, but I always worked in Sedona since I moved here, except for this case which I shared with Flagstaff Detective Jason Sommerville.”
“Detective, what was the last assignment given to you by the marshal?”
“I was told to investigate a series of four shootings aimed at four different individuals and yet each time the shootings occurred, there were only two shots fired. A very unusual pattern for a shooter.”
“Objection, the detective was not asked to opine whether or not the pattern was unusual,” said Jaxson.
“Sustained.”
“I’ll rephrase that question. Detective, did the shootings present any pattern to you?”
“Well, yes, it’s an unusual pattern for someone to shoot at four people and each was shot at only twice, whether they were hit or not.”
“Was anyone injured by these shootings?”
“Yes, Mr. Green was shot in his lower left kidney and the Rabbi was shot in a lung.”
“Were the shots fatal to either Green or the Rabbi?”
“No, they both received emergency surgery at the hospital, and are now back to normal.”
“Was anyone else shot at like this?”
“Yes, two additional men. One was a Mr. Tony Pilaris and the other Dr. Todd Stern. Neither was struck by a bullet, but both men had two shots fired at them. That made a total of four men shot at and each with just two shots apiece.”
“Did you ever learn of a connection between the four men and the possible shooter?”
“Just partially. The men are a team of four golfing partners who play together every Sunday, but none of them have any idea who the shooter might be.”
“And did you or Detective Sommerville establish any connection to the shootings based on their playing golf together?”
“No, we did not. We still aren’t sure of any reason why the four were picked as targets.”
“Did you ever identify the weapon used in the shootings and was it the same weapon each time?”
“Yes, the weapon each time was a .45 caliber. Either bullets or their casings that came from that same gun were found at each shooting, or within the victims who were shot.”
“What else in your investigation did you discover?”
“After having been invited to attend a Jewish Sabbath service by Dr. Todd Stern, who was a regular congregant at the Rabbi’s synagogue, I heard the Rabbi begin his service and Dr. Stern pointed out immediately an error he believed the Rabbi made.”
“Objection, Your Ho…”
The judge interrupted the defense’s objection. “Sustained. Madam D.A., you know well enough that hearsay testimony is not permitted.”
“I’m sorry, Your Honor, but I did not believe this to be hearsay, since the detective was there and heard it himself as part of his official investigation,” she replied tersely.
“Incorrect, Ms. Stanford. Mr. Pratt was there, and he did hear it, but since it was interpreted for him by Dr. Stern, that was the part that is hearsay.” She felt the bite when the judge referred to her as Ms. Stanford this time.
“All right, Your Honor, my mistake. I concede to your sustaining the objection.” As if she had a choice in accepting his decision or not.
“Were you called to the Rabbi’s house?” she asked Pratt.
“Yes, the Rabbi’s next-door neighbors had seen some unusual activity in his backyard and called 911 to which both Detective Sommerville from Flagstaff and I were dispatched to his home that same day to investigate.”
“Did you detectives speak to his neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Weissman?”
“Yes, we did.”
“What exactly did the Weissmans tell you?”
“Objection, your honor, that again is hearsay. If the D.A. wants to know what they said, then have the D.A. call the Weissmans and place them on the stand.”
“Sustained,” said the judge. “Since the Weissmans are on the witness list, we’ll wait to hear directly from them.”
Stanford whispered to her assistant D.A., “Mr. Jaxson should have noticed this couple was on the witness list and should have realized they would testify the same. What he just did for us was emphasize the importance of their testimony when it comes up.”
Turning back to her witness, the D.A. continued, “Detective, would you please tell the jury what you personally discovered in the Rabbi’s backyard.”
Pratt replied, “The day Frank Weissman called 911, I entered the Rabbi’s backyard with Detective Somerville and saw a huge pile of ashes. Protruding from the top of the ashes was a human skull just as Mr. Weissman described. Only I noticed a bullet hole in the forehead and an exit hole in the back of the skull which spread the back of the skull apart.”
“At this time, Your Honor, I would like to introduce exhibit P-1,” two photographs taken by the police photographer. Exhibit P-1 shows the Rabbi’s backyard containing the ashes and the skull with a bullet hole in the center of the forehead. The second photo is of the skull’s back. She handed copies to the court clerk who distributed them to the judge, defense attorney, and jurors.
The jury looked at the photo repugnantly. The defense looked at it without a reaction; they had obviously seen it before.
“What did you do next, Detective?”
“I suggested that Detective Sommerville call for additional back-up, an ambulance, a coroner and the forensics team from his department since the body was in Flagstaff and so were Sommerville’s people.”
“Thank you, Detective, there will be no more questions for this witness, but I retain...”
The judge cut her off. “We know, Ms. Stanford; you retain the right to recall this witness should you need him for rebuttal. Mr. Jaxson, do you have any questions for this witness?”
Twenty-Five
“Yes, I do, Your Honor,” Jaxson began. “Detective Pratt, isn’t it true that at one point you handcuffed and arrested my client Rabbi Bloom?”
“No, it was Detective Sommerville who handcuffed the Rabbi because there was a dead body in his backyard in Sommerville’s own town.”
“So, Detective Pratt, “do you always arrest people when a dead body is found in their home’s proximity?”
“Not necessarily, it depends on extenuating circumstances.”
“What kind of extenuating circumstances could th
ere be?” Jaxson asked.
“For example, as in this situation,” Pratt replied, “I have one corroborating witness who saw the Rabbi leave the back door of his house that morning and watched him haul a large parcel that seemed to have something rolled up in it. He then placed it on a pile of leaves in his backyard. Then he saw him rake a huge abundance of leaves and pine needles over the bundle, pour some liquid over it and set it ablaze. Once he did this, he returned to his front door. He even waved at the witnesses who by this time included the witness’ wife, who also saw the bundle which had been set on fire.”
“Was this wife you mention able to identify both the Rabbi and what was on fire or just that she was able to confirm that she saw the Rabbi in his own backyard burning leaves?” asked Jaxson.
“Yes, and she also stated that she saw a skull sticking out of the ashes.”
“Tell me, Detective, when would you not arrest a homeowner if a dead body were to be found on their front lawn, for example?”
“If that’s all the information we had at the time, we would only question the homeowner, have the body removed and investigate further to see if the homeowner may have had anything to do with that body, or if it was just a neighbor who had a heart attack while walking along the sidewalk and fell on their front lawn, or maybe something else more sinister was done to them by another person,” said Pratt.
“No more questions for this witness, Your Honor.” said the defense attorney.
Because his lawyer didn’t crush the detective during the questioning, his client stared harshly at Jaxson. He meant the stare to be unmistakable and it was, even some members of the jury noticed it.
After a brief recess, D.A. Stanford once again stood up to face the court. “The people call Frank Weissman to the stand.” Weissman was sworn in while his wife Colleen remained on a bench outside of the courtroom. “Mr. Weissman, I am handing you a copy of prosecution exhibit P-1. Would you please describe how you came upon seeing in person what is presented in this photo?” asked the D.A.
“Well, I was taking my trash out to the curb where the trash men would pick it up the next day. As I turned back toward my house, I was about halfway up to my front door, and was able to see the Rabbi’s backyard clearly from that angle. I noticed the Rabbi drag a large bundle out of what I believe were his back doors and into his backyard. I saw him place it on the ground on top of a layer of leaves and pine needles. Then he raked many more leaves and pine needles to make the pile too high in my opinion just to get rid of, what I believed as a Jew myself, old Torahs. Once done raking, he poured a clear liquid over everything, and discarded a pair of gloves into the fire. At this point I ran to get my wife so that she could see what I had just seen. Having finished lighting the fire, he was returning to his house by way of his side yard to the front door. I called out to him to say hello. He waved back, though there was something quite different about him.”
“What do you mean there was something different about him?”
“The Rabbi turned to face me after hearing me calling out to him, ‘Good afternoon, Rabbi.’ He waved at me and my wife and we waved back.”
“Why did you say there was something different about the Rabbi?”
“First of all, he had made a large fire in his backyard, which I had never seen him do before. His posture was vastly different than it had always been. I mean as he returned from the backyard, he was still slightly crouched over as if he had been carrying a fifty-pound bag of concrete, not just some trash Torah. Plus, his wave back to us was different than it usually is. Whenever we see each other, as he waves back at us, he always raises his arm above his head and waves while smiling at us. This time, his wave was at his chest level and he never called out our names in a greeting, nor did he smile as he usually does.”
“What else seemed different about him to you?”
“About an hour after he entered his house and closed the door, I snuck into his backyard to assure myself the fire wasn’t crossing over to my yard and saw that the flames had ebbed. So, I looked closer and almost passed out. At first, I thought he had maybe burned an old Torah, a Jewish custom like what Americans do when we need to dispose of an old, tattered U.S. flag. But what I saw was a large pile of ashes and sticking slightly above them was a skull. I couldn’t tell if it was a human or animal skull that had also been burned but it obviously did not fully deteriorate. We then ran to our home and I called 911.”
“Thank you, Mr. Weissman. No further questions for this witness your honor.”
“Does the defense wish to question this witness?” asked the judge.
“We do, Your Honor,” said Albert Jaxson. “May I approach the witness, Your Honor?” He was granted permission and walked towards his target, standing approximately ten feet directly in front of the witness. “Mr. Weissman, you stated that you saw things about the Rabbi that looked different. You mentioned his posture and the way he waved and didn’t smile. At what time would you say this happened?”
“It was sometime between 11:00 a.m. and noon, because we had just finished watching the morning news and were getting dressed to go out.”
“Did you believe that having a different hand wave or being slightly slouched over meant that it was not the Rabbi but someone else?”
“Not at all. I did find it strange when I noticed the Rabbi throw gloves into the fire when he first set it, but I never suspected that it was anyone other than the Rabbi. I went into his backyard about an hour later, I was afraid that the fire might get out of hand and possibly cause a cinder to hit one of my trees and start a fire in my backyard. I just wanted to make sure that it was out. I only called because I feared the fire and saw a skull on top of the ashes.”
“No further questions, Your Honor.”
When the attorney returned to his seat, his client gave him a very belligerent stare and said a few silent words to him. The lawyer then whispered in his client’s ear and it appeared to settle him down.
“Madam D.A., I see you getting up, do you wish to retain the witness in the box?” asked the judge.
“I do, Your Honor.”
The judge told Weissman to remain seated in the witness box as the D.A. approached.
“Mr. Weissman, when you saw the Rabbi that day, did you believe he was not the Rabbi but someone imitating him?” the D.A. asked.
“Not at all. As I just replied to the other attorney, I’ve known the Rabbi for years and I had no doubts that he was the same Rabbi living in the same house as my neighbor whom I’ve known for years. I just didn’t understand the burned-up ashes and a skull near the top of them in his backyard and that’s why I was afraid to approach him about it.”
“No further questions for this witness, Your Honor,” said Stanford.
“Thank you, Mr. Weissman, you may now get off the hot seat. No pun intended,” said Judge Garnett. “Any more witnesses, Ms. Stanford?”
“Yes, Your Honor, the people call Mrs. Colleen Weissman.”
The court clerk called Colleen Weissman into the courtroom. As the spouse of the prior witness, she was sequestered outside of the courtroom so that she would not be able to hear her husband’s testimony. She was sworn in and the D.A. began her questioning.
“Mrs. Weissman, would you please tell the jury what you saw on September 4 in the Rabbi’s yard?”
“I remember my husband Frank coming back into the house after dropping off the trash at the curb. He was extremely anxious, frightened, and talked very rapidly about what he had just seen in the Rabbi’s backyard.”
“Why exactly, to the best of your recollection, did you go out into the Rabbi’s backyard?”
“Frank told me that he had just seen the Rabbi haul something large and heavy looking, rolled up in tarp into his backyard. He told me that the Rabbi placed it onto the ground, covered it with leaves and lit it on fire. He asked me to come out and see what had happened. After telling me what he saw and then having seen it for myself, he immediately called 911.”
“Objectio
n. That’s all hearsay as to what her husband told her,” said Jaxson.
“Overruled. Mr. Weissman already testified to that.”
“Let’s try and clear up the defense’s objection. Did you witness anything yourself?” asked Stanford.
“Yes, after Frank asked me to go with him to the Rabbi’s backyard, I saw that some leaves still had a few tiny embers, yet most of what lay on the ground was ashes, and I noticed some kind of skull protruding from those ashes but thought it may have belonged to an animal.”
“No more questions for this witness”
“Does the defense wish to question this witness?” asked the judge.
“No, Your Honor,” said the defendant’s attorney.
“Mrs. Weissman, you are excused,” said the judge.
◆◆◆
Jack Green arrived twenty minutes before he was scheduled to testify as a witness. As he sat in his car parked outside of the courthouse, he used his Bluetooth and called Andre, whose phone number he got from Detective Pratt.
“Hello?” Andre answered his landline.
“Andre, this is Mr. Green, I just wanted to thank you so very much for saving my life after I was shot. I’d like to send you a check for $10,000 in appreciation for what you did for me, but I need your address.”
“Well, Mr. Green, I sure could use the money but that’s not why I did what I did. I don’t want your check, sir. I just did what I was trained to do when I was in ’Nam. If I saw a fellow soldier wounded, we were all trained to attempt to stop the bleeding and save his life. ‘No man left behind,’ that was our motto. That’s all I did, and I don’t expect a reward for that. I’m simply happy it helped you.”
“Thank you again, Andre. From here on in, you and I are on a first name basis. You will call me Jack and not Mr. Green, and if there is ever anything at all that I can do for you, your wife, or your son, please don’t hesitate to ask me. You were there for me. I will be there for you.” Jack said with emphasis on I will.
“Well, there is one thing you can do for me,” Andre said.
A Hole In One Page 14
