A Hole In One

by Paul Weininger

  “Mr. Straub, please explain what you were carrying out of the gun show.”

  The defendant answered with extreme trepidation. “I did not attend a gun show! Those videos are not of me. They may look a little like me, but they are not me!”

  The D.A. asked the clerk, “Could you please focus in on the person in frames 528 to 534?” He did as was asked.

  “That’s a good close-up, thank you. I guess we’ll have to leave it to the jury to decide if that’s you or not. It sure looks like you to me.”

  “Objection, Your Honor,” Jaxson weighed in. “The D.A. is being argumentative and neglected to ask a question.”

  “Sustained,” replied the judge.

  “Mr. Straub, do you recognize this cell phone I am holding up for the jury to see? With the court’s permission, the people will mark it as exhibit P-4.”

  “So marked, as exhibit P-4,” said Judge Garnett.

  “Yes,” Straub replied, “it looks like my cell phone.”

  “Your Honor, our forensics team was able to recover fingerprints off the cell phone that are Mr. Straub’s and not the Rabbi’s, plus they were able to prove the cell phone was bought at a Verizon store by a Mr. Richard Straub. Forensics also found this phone contained videos of Rabbi Bloom during his Sabbath services, and that Mr. Straub’s calling record indicated that he had conversations with Rabbi Isaac, who previously testified that he had given Mr. Straub Hebrew lessons.”

  “Does the defense have any objections to placing people’s exhibit P-4 into evidence?” asked Garnett.

  “Yes, Your Honor, relevance, unless they recorded the phone calls, which would be illegal,” argued the defense.

  “Overruled, exhibit P-4 may be placed into evidence. It does not contain recordings of the conversations, according to the prosecution, but it obviously contains documentation of when and to whom the recordings were made. I direct that the prosecution redacts all calls that have anyone other than Rabbi Isaac as the subject.”

  “Yes, Your Honor,” the D.A. responded, “I will submit a copy of the call record made on Mr. Straub’s cell phone to the court as exhibit P-4, with all other calls that are not Rabbi Isaac’s redacted. This written record comes directly from the forensics team.”

  “I will permit exhibit P-4 into evidence, but I must warn you, Madam D.A., you are treading on very thin ice here. All it proves is one person speaking to a Rabbi.”

  “Correct, Your Honor, but it proves that Mr. Straub was the person speaking to Rabbi Isaac and not just some other person using his phone, since no one else’s fingerprints were found on it.”

  Glaring at Straub, she then asked, “Mr. Straub, would you explain why you changed your appearance from what your ex-employer Joe Rung and Rabbi Isaac described as kind of a grunge look to your imitation of Rabbi Bloom?”

  “I was hoping that once I received my Hebrew lessons and made myself more presentable, he would at least accept me, maybe even permit me to preside over a service or two.”

  “Mr. Straub, did you ever get bar mitzvahed?”

  “No.”

  At this point she faced the jury. “Mr. Straub, since you admit to burning the body of the Rabbi in his backyard, but deny killing him, can you explain how the partial skull and oh, by the way, a gun with a silencer attached was also discovered in the pile of ashes?”

  “No, I can’t. The first time I found out there was a gun in the backyard was when I was arrested.”

  “No more questions for now, Your Honor.” For the D.A., this case was looking very solid, and there was more to come. The judge recessed the trial until the following morning.

  Thirty-Five

  During the usual opening ceremonials the next morning, Defense Attorney Jaxson was feeling a vague sense of dread, but still hopeful.

  The judge adjusted his robe before he sat down and said, “The defense may now call your next witness.”

  “Thank you, Your Honor, the defense calls Mr. Joe Rung.”

  A bailiff near the door called for Joseph Rung to enter the courtroom. Richard Straub’s former Greenery Landscaping boss walked into the courtroom. He was sworn in by the clerk and told to take a seat in the witness stand.

  “How long did Richard or Dick Straub work for you at your company?”

  “Not exactly sure, but I’d say Dick worked for me close to eighteen years.”

  “Would you please point to Mr. Straub if you see him in the courtroom.”

  “I’m not sure I can. The man sitting in the chair next to where you sit looks a little like him, but the Dick Straub who worked for me was not that cleaned up. This guy just doesn’t look like Dick. Dick had plenty of long hair on his sides with a receding top. He also had a goatee and a real tough look. Like someone you didn’t want to meet in a dark street. He was courteous enough, sometimes even kind, but I believe he carried a lot of anger in him.”

  As Jaxson points to his client, he asks Joe Rung, “Are you saying that he doesn’t resemble Dick Straub?”

  “No, that’s not what I’m saying. I would say that this guy looks a lot like Rabbi Bloom, as far as I can tell from the Rabbi’s picture. Straub once asked me to compare his looks to that of the Rabbi when he saw his picture in the Sedona Times Herald sitting on my desk, and I had to agree there was a resemblance.”

  “Objection. Speculation and hearsay,” said the defendant’s counsel.

  “Are you really objecting to your own witness’ testimony?” asked Judge Garnett.

  “Only to his ending comments when he provided speculation after he answered my question in the negative.”

  “Overruled. Mr. Jaxson, you were supposed to prepare your witness before testifying and the court believes his continuation after he said “no,” is relevant to the question.”

  “No further questions for this witness,” mumbled the embarrassed defense attorney.

  “Madam D.A., do you have anything further to cross?” asked Judge Garnett. Just as he finished the question, one of the district attorney’s assistants ran into the court and whispered something urgently to her.

  “We do, Your Honor,” she said. “We have received word this next witness just arrived at the courthouse unbeknownst to us until this moment. Instead of continuing with Mr. Rung at this time, we call Mr. Jules Jacobson to the stand.”

  “Objection, Your Honor, this individual was not on the witness list.”

  “The court will hold off on its decision to overrule or sustain the objection until I hear the testimony, since the Court believes the D.A., that she just learned of his arrival in court. The court believes the district attorney would not jeopardize a contempt of court charge if it can be proven that she knew in advance about this witness.”

  “Thank you, Your Honor,” said Stanford.

  Jules Jacobson was called into the courtroom, sworn in by the clerk and directed where he was to sit in the witness chair.

  “Mr. Jacobson, why did you come to court today?” asked Stanford.

  “Well, I’ve been away on a skiing trip for a number of weeks and when I returned, my wife, Carol, told me about this case. I also read about it in the Sedona Times Herald, which often quoted some of the witnesses’ testimony. I realized that my suspicions about my wife possibly having an affair with the Rabbi were correct, and that the rumor that he wanted to kill me so that he could end up with her might be accurate, too. However, as much as I despise the Rabbi for having had the affair, I can forgive my wife, Carol, because of my deep love for her, but I can’t deny hating this so-called man of God for his behavior. I wanted to prove to the court that the Rabbi did not murder me to get my wife for himself, as all the rumors were saying.”

  “Thank you very much, Mr. Jacobson, for coming to court to clear that matter up for the jury,” said D.A. Stanford.

  The judge promptly announced, “I have decided to overrule the defense’s objection after hearing this unexpected testimony. This case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, has now taken a new twist, and you must continue to pay close
attention to further testimony to be presented by both sides.”

  The D.A. recalled Straub to the stand.

  “Alright, Mr. Straub, please take the witness chair; the prosecution has a few more questions for you,” directed Judge Garnett.

  Straub sat down realizing that he can no longer keep up the charade.

  The D.A. held up a piece of paper, saying, “I have a cancelled check here for one week’s work you performed for your boss Mr. Rung. It indicates that you were paid $11 per hour, equal to $440 for the week, netting you after taxes about $390 a week or $20,280 a year. With all due respect, this left you dirt poor. The prosecution will place the check into evidence as exhibit P-5.”

  “Let the record reflect that the people entered P-5 into evidence,” noted the judge.

  “How did you reach a decision to replace the Rabbi of the Sedona synagogue when your initial intention was to allegedly get bar mitzvahed?”

  “I had seen a picture in the Sedona Times Herald of the Rabbi, who looked exactly like me and was probably making a lot of money from his salary and donations by his hundreds of congregants. So, I figured why can’t I do the same and get off welfare and a minimum wage and stop digging for uneaten food in dumpsters? I could just as easily become a Rabbi with millions in my pockets,” said Straub.

  “Please go on.”

  “Well, I investigated this Rabbi’s background on the Internet at the library and went to one of those sites where you can find out anything about anybody. We had the same birthday, and he had been adopted just after birth, like I was. In other words I found out that he was my identical twin brother. Our biological mother was seventeen when she gave birth to us and we were separated right after.”

  “After my adoptive parents were killed in a car accident, I became a ward of the state and placed in numerous foster homes. Once I realized we were twins, I tried to call him on the phone, but he never believed me. He accused me of running a scam and always hung up on me.”

  “Objection, this was a leading and compound question. The witness has been using a narrative response, rather than directly answering the question.”

  “Overruled. He’s your client. The D.A.’s direction to ‘please go on’ is not a leading question nor is it a compound question. The D.A. is simply giving your defendant the opportunity to explain the things he neglected to say when he originally pretended to be the Rabbi. You also need to remember, Mr. Jaxson, that your defendant gave up his Fifth Amendment rights.”

  “So, when you first read about your twin brother being a successful Rabbi,” the D.A. continued, “did you try and take enough lessons from another Rabbi to become one yourself?”

  “Yes, I reached out to Rabbi Isaac in Scottsdale and asked him to teach me enough to become bar mitzvahed.”

  “Isn’t the truth, Mr. Straub, that you lied to Rabbi Isaac and really wanted to take Hebrew lessons to be able to fake your way as Rabbi Bloom and take over his Sedona synagogue?”

  “No, I wanted to learn enough so that if, and when, I was finally able to get in touch with my brother, he would believe in our relationship and maybe be willing to let me handle a few services myself so that I could learn to be a Rabbi too.”

  The D.A. pressed on. “Why were you at Rabbi Bloom’s house on the day he was killed?”

  “Because I wanted to make sure that he could see me and not hang up on me like before, saying that I was just a scam artist. All I wanted to do was to convince him that we were twins. Family, you understand. Apart from him, I didn’t have any family. I figured that once he saw me, he would believe me.

  “As you got to his home, what happened when the Rabbi opened the door?”

  “He didn’t. When I got there, the door was open, and his dead body lay next to it.”

  “How did you know he was dead?” she asked.

  “It wasn’t difficult. He had a hole in his forehead, wasn’t breathing and there was blood all over. I could tell from the hole that he had been shot and I figured he was probably robbed too,” responded Straub.

  “Did you call 911?”

  “No, I panicked. I thought if the police arrived right away, and saw the body lying on the floor, they would think that I killed the Rabbi. Even if they noticed we were twins, which they wouldn’t have, it wouldn’t have made any difference, and they’d have hauled me away. Then it dawned on me that we looked so much alike that I could probably take his place, especially since I had learned Hebrew. No one else knew that we were twins, so I figured that I would not be under suspicion. So I wrapped up his body in a tarp and took it out to the backyard. I dumped the body onto a pile of leaves and burned it so that it was unrecognizable and there would be no way I could be accused of his murder. As far as everybody else was concerned, I would just be the Rabbi who had a dead body in his backyard.”

  “Didn’t you realize that it is a crime to desecrate a body?”

  “Yes, I did, but I thought that if I got caught, at least the punishment wouldn’t be as bad as it would be for murder.”

  “What did you tell the police when they arrested you?”

  “Nothing at first, I wanted them to believe that I was Rabbi Bloom. I figured they would never believe that a Rabbi would commit a murder and would probably release me soon after my arrest.”

  “Mr. Straub, you just testified that you contacted Rabbi Isaac to instruct you in Hebrew lessons. Did you believe that would help you be convincing as the real Rabbi Bloom?”

  “Yes, I did.”

  “The people have no further questions. Your Honor.”

  “Does the defense have any other witnesses it wishes to call?” asked Judge Garnett.

  “No, Your Honor,” responded Albert Jaxson dejectedly.

  “We are finished presenting the state’s case against Mr. Straub, Your Honor,” the D.A. told the judge.

  Thirty-Six

  Standing and facing the jury, D.A. Helen Stanford began her closing arguments. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, before you go in to deliberate, I would like to review the testimony you have heard, all of which points to Mr. Straub as the killer of Rabbi Bloom.”

  “But first I would like to say a few words about the victim, who was one of Sedona’s most respected and prominent public figures. Neil Bloom was a kindhearted and deeply religious man, with eighteen years of service to his synagogue. He was so respected that he built a congregation of over twelve hundred people. He knew the first and last name of each congregant and their immediate family members, even their children. He officiated at numerous weddings, bar and bat mitzvahs, and funerals, but he was viewed as far more than just an official. He was a true spiritual leader, and not only inspired the congregation with his sermons to become better people, but always made himself available at any time of day or night to discuss their problems and concerns. He was also known to be a great philanthropist, not just to Jewish causes but to people from other denominations as well, for which he was frequently honored. He was one of the most beloved people in Sedona. Who could possibly want to murder such a man, and why?”

  “The answer to the first part of that question is Mr. Richard Straub, the defendant. The answer to the second part of that question goes to Mr. Straub’s motives. However twisted they may seem, he had ample reasons to murder the Rabbi, and went to great lengths to set it up so that he could get away with it.”

  “The key fact here is that Mr. Straub and Rabbi Bloom were twins. Having been separated at birth and raised by different adoptive parents, neither of the twins knew of the other’s existence until the defendant saw a photo of the Rabbi in the Sedona Times Herald in early February. He was struck by the remarkable resemblance between them and asked his boss if he thought he looked like the Rabbi. After his boss answered yes, Mr. Straub began to investigate who his biological mother was. In the process, he discovered that he had a twin brother, and that both were given up for adoption to separate families. Mr. Straub’s murder plot began taking shape when he realized that Rabbi Neil Bloom was not only his ide
ntical twin, but a man of wealth and respect, which Straub himself was certainly not.”

  “Mr. Straub was a dirt-poor manual laborer, as we showed you in exhibit P-5, his paycheck. In short, he was jealous of his brother’s wealth. So jealous, in fact, he concocted a scheme to get rid of his brother and replace him at the synagogue without anyone’s knowledge. To prepare for this, he invested considerable time and expense in learning Hebrew so he could give credible presentations at the synagogue. An intriguing aspect of his plan was to intentionally fire two shots at each of the members of the golf foursome that the Rabbi belonged to, making a risky, concerted effort to confuse police investigators as to who the real target might be—a very clever plan indeed. Unfortunately for him, witnesses in two of the incidents saw a green pickup truck leaving the scene just after the shootings took place, which eventually led to him.”

  “Straub had the unmitigated gall to take Bloom’s place as Rabbi of the synagogue. In doing so, he managed to fool the congregation into believing that he was the real Rabbi Bloom for weeks, until Bloom’s golf partner and old friend Dr. Stern detected a few noticeable differences during Sabbath services and reported his suspicions to the detectives, like the birthmark on his neck and the grievous error he committed in his prayers. Amazingly, he even managed to fool the Rabbi’s lover, Carol Jacobson, who acknowledged she noted differences, but wrote them off to her passion and the Rabbi’s stress.”

  “Altogether, he gave a remarkable performance as Rabbi Bloom. Had it not been for his reckless decision to burn the Rabbi’s corpse in his own backyard, and the neighbors calling 911 about this bizarre scene, he might be walking among us today.”

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Straub’s motives for killing Rabbi Bloom have now been clearly established. The prosecution would now like to go point by point through the evidence that implicates him as the perpetrator of this crime.”