I Scarce Can Die (Quill Gordon Mystery Book 5)

by Michael Wallace

  Q. Yes. Interesting, isn’t it? But if he said, “I guess I must have done it,” it stands to reason, does it not, that something said by the investigators led to the “I guess?”

  DA Williams: Objection. Calls for a conclusion.

  Q. Let me rephrase the question. What were you questioning Mr. Baxter about immediately before his remark?

  A. We were pointing out to him that the accumulation of evidence — his being on the scene, his hammer being used, not being able to account for his actions after leaving a bar in Pass City — was beginning to look pretty bad for him and that maybe he should be a bit more forthcoming.

  Q. Were your voices raised when you were making those points?

  A. They could have been. It was a brutal, awful crime, and we were taking it very seriously.

  Q. After Mr. Baxter made his statement — I refuse to call it a confession — did you type up a statement of the interview and ask him to sign it?

  A. No, we did not. We made an arrest at that point, and Mr. Baxter asked for an attorney. He specifically asked for you, in fact.

  Q. Thank you, detective. I was getting there. And when I arrived, I informed you that Mr. Baxter was done answering questions and wasn’t going to sign anything. Is that correct?

  A. Yes, sir.

  Q. And an hour later, did I not inform you that my client was withdrawing his statement?

  A. You did.

  Q. Did it not occur to you at that point that your so-called confession might be a bit wobbly as evidence?”

  A. No, sir. It did not.

  Q. Have you never heard of a suspect making a false confession under pressure?

  A. That doesn’t make sense. Why would anyone confess to a crime they didn’t commit?

  Q. There are lots of reasons, detective. Did you, upon hearing that Mr. Baxter’s statement was being withdrawn, consider looking into alternative theories of the crime?

  A. No, we did not.

  Q. Why not?

  A. Well, we didn’t have an alternative theory, and we did have a confession. That seemed pretty open and shut.

  Q. So let’s see if I understand this. In the first murder committed in this county since 1967, the totality of the investigation consisted of a four-hour interrogation of a man who was legally drunk, incoherent, unable to remember anything, and that no further theories of the crime …

  DA Williams: Your honor, is there a question in there?

  Judge: Mr. Pope, it does seem that you’re anticipating your opening argument here.

  Pope: That’s all, then, your honor. I think the point’s been made.

  That completed testimony for the first day. The following morning, Sheriff Ketch was called to the stand and briefly confirmed Stapenhorst’s testimony, including Gary Baxter’s “confession.” Perhaps in deference to the fact that the sheriff had recently run unopposed for a third term, Pope declined to cross-examine him. The medical examiner was then called to the stand, and as Gordon flipped through the transcript, it looked as if his testimony went on for a while. Gordon set the transcript on the couch and decided to call it a night.

  He looked over at Peter, sitting at the kitchen table and frowning over a document.

  “What’s up?” Gordon asked.

  “I don’t know, but I’ve got to wonder if something is.”

  “You found something in the autopsy report?”

  “No. What makes me wonder is that there doesn’t seem to be an autopsy report in here at all.”

  “What?”

  “My reaction exactly. This isn’t my area of specialty, but I understand the defense is entitled to the full autopsy report. Instead, what they got here, as far as I can see, is something called a ‘Medical Summary.’ Seven pages, typed, single-spaced, which is pretty bare-bones. Plus three color photographs marked Exhibits A, B and C, which I’m assuming were introduced at the trial. Want to see them?”

  “Not now. Maybe in the morning.”

  “I’d suggest waiting until an hour or two after breakfast.”

  “Advice taken. So what’s missing that might have been in the autopsy?”

  “That’s the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question. Who knows? But at the very least there’d be a toxicology report to show whether she had drugs or alcohol in her system; there would be a description of past injuries and other medical issues, such as pregnancies, if any. There’s no indication as to whether or not they ran a test for sexual assault, which I’d assume they did. As I say, it’s very sketchy.”

  “What do you think this means?”

  “Hard to say. It could be small town amateurism; I’m guessing they don’t do this too often. Or it could be that they’re trying to cover something up. Or maybe a combination of the two. Without seeing the full report, I’d hesitate to jump to a conclusion.”

  “Set it aside, then,” Gordon said. “The medical examiner’s testimony is up next in the transcript. I’ll read the report before I read the testimony.”

  “There’s one thing I can say for sure,” Peter said, as he put the documents and photos back into a 9-by-12 manila envelope. “If the jury saw those pictures of what was done to Connie Baxter, there’s no way in hell they’d want whoever did it to go free.”

  Tuesday October 20

  THE CHAT AND CHEW CAFÉ operated out of a converted railroad car plunked down by the side of the state highway a half-mile outside of Dutchtown. A succession of owners had reasoned that it was a short enough drive for the locals and that the highway visibility would bring in passing motorists. They were correct on both counts, but overestimated the numbers in each case. The interior featured varnished pine tabletops, hardwood chairs, a woodstove for cold winter days, and walls decorated with railroad photographs and memorabilia. Owing to the Indian summer weather, the woodstove hadn’t been fired up, and the interior was on the cool side early in the morning.

  Gordon and Peter warmed their hands on their coffee cups as they waited for their food and planned the day. Three of the 12 tables were occupied, along with two of the ten counter stools. Neither staff nor customers seemed to be starting the morning with any sense of urgency.

  “Having to meet Basil Dill at 11:30 sort of blows up the morning,” Gordon said, looking at his watch, which showed the time as 7:23. “But on the plus side, we should be able to get in an afternoon of fishing.”

  “Can we try the lower Bellota?” Peter asked.

  “Why not? Maybe we can connect with one of those Moby Trout heading upstream from the reservoir.”

  “So, morning at the house.”

  Gordon nodded. “I figure I can read the medical report and the medical examiner’s testimony, at least, before we meet the local impresario.”

  “Tell me, Gordon, do you really think you can make any headway on this thing? Counting today, we’re only here five more days.”

  “I’ll do my due diligence like I promised Elizabeth. That’s all I can do.”

  “Have you got a sense of the case so far?”

  “There are a few things that don’t fit, but it’s hard to see the jury making much of them. I’m not sure I make much of them at this point. Gary was there, he had her blood on his shirt, he sort of confessed. I don’t know.”

  “What would it take to make you think there was something to the innocence angle?”

  Gordon sipped his coffee, considering the question.

  “I’m inclined to agree with attorney Pope,” he finally said. “He had no alternative theory of the crime to offer the jury, and without one, it all comes back to Gary. That’s why I’m interested in that summer theater production.”

  “The Philadelphia Story?”

  “Right. If Gary didn’t kill Connie, there had to be something else leading up to it, probably not long before she was killed. Acting in the play was a departure for Connie and it was in the right time frame, so it screams to be looked at. I’m hoping Basil Dill can shed some light on the matter, one way or another.”

  “Speaking of shedding light, did Eli
zabeth have anything interesting to say when you talked to her last night?”

  Gordon slapped his forehead with his palm.

  “Damn! I got so caught up in the transcript last night, I forgot to talk to her.”

  “I wouldn’t worry. She’ll see that you pay for that.”

  DR. KENNETH THOMPSON worked out of Green Valley as the medical examiner for the next county, and when needed, which wasn’t often, contracted his services to Canyon County. His summary report, uncovered by Peter the night before, set forth the essentials of Connie Baxter’s murder in stark, clinical prose.

  The fatal blow, according to the report, was the first one, delivered to the back of her head by a blunt object. It either killed her instantaneously or would have within a matter of minutes. There was no sign of defensive wounds or any struggle put up by the victim. Her face was subsequently battered several times, to the point of grossly disfiguring it, most likely post-mortem. Three color photographs of her face, or what remained of it, were appended to the report, and they left no doubt as to the ferocity of the attack.

  Connie’s last meal had apparently been a dinner of chicken, mashed potatoes and corn, and no evidence of alcohol was found in her system. She was described as a generally healthy, well-nourished woman of about 30 who had never given birth. The time of death was estimated at between 10:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m., more likely in the earlier part of the time frame. Gordon recalled from the prosecutor’s opening argument that Gary probably returned home shortly after 11 p.m.

  Gordon returned to the transcript, where prosecutor Williams painstakingly led Dr. Thompson through his testimony. On numerous occasions, he seemed to ask the same question in slightly different ways for no reason, Gordon thought, other than to drive home a point to the jury.

  Under questioning, Dr. Thompson testified that the fatal blow could have been struck with the bloody hammer found on the floor near Connie’s body. He also testified that the contents of a TV dinner box found by detectives in the kitchen were most likely Connie Baxter’s last meal. That clarified a seemingly pointless earlier line of questioning when Detective Stapenhorst was on the stand, about the TV dinner box and whether there were any signs of another meal. Williams had been trying to demonstrate that she’d eaten alone and presumably been alone that night.

  For some reason, the thought of Connie’s last meal being a frozen chicken dinner brought Gordon up short. A convicted killer, about to be executed, is allowed a top-notch last meal, but a murder victim like Connie, having no idea she’d be dead in a few hours, simply had something near at hand and ordinary. It didn’t seem fair.

  Finally, Williams moved to introduce three photographs of Connie’s face into evidence. Pope immediately objected, calling them sensational and prejudicial, but Williams argued that they were necessary to convey to the jury the severity of the attack on Connie, and to show that the killing was more than impulsive. Judge Collingwood admitted the photographs, which were passed around to the jury before the trial adjourned for lunch.

  WHEN COURT RESUMED, it was Pope’s turn to cross-examine.

  Q. Dr. Thompson, according to your report, the cause of death was a single blow struck from behind, is that correct?

  A. Yes, it is.

  Q. And the blow was struck with considerable force?

  A. Yes.

  Q. And were you able to ascertain the direction from which the blow came?

  A. Well, from behind her, obviously.

  Q. Let me rephrase that. Was the blow struck using a downward motion, a level motion, or an upward motion?

  A. Without going into all the technicalities, I would say it came from slightly below or level.

  Q. I’m willing to accept that. And how strong would someone have to be to have administered that fatal blow?

  A. Probably of ordinary strength. The hammer was quite heavy.

  Q. Would you say the average woman could have struck such a blow?

  A. Probably so.

  Q. And how about, say, an adolescent, who might have gone into the house thinking it empty and unexpectedly confronted the owner?

  DA Williams: Objection! Question is speculative with no basis in evidence submitted to this point.

  Pope: Your honor, I’m trying to make the point that someone other than the defendant could have delivered the blow, which is certainly a critical argument for the defense.

  Judge: You can ask about what type of person might have swung the hammer, Mr. Pope, but no speculation on circumstances without proper evidence.

  Q. Very well, then. Doctor, could an able-bodied adolescent of 13 or 14 have swung the hammer with sufficient force to cause Mrs. Baxter’s fatal injury?

  A. It’s certainly possible.

  Q. And so, presumably, could an older teenager?

  A. Yes.

  Q. According to the medical summary, doctor, Mrs. Baxter was five feet six inches tall. Is that correct?

  A. Yes, it is.

  Q. So if she was struck from behind with a slightly upward or level motion, there’s a reasonable possibility that the assailant was the same size as she or perhaps shorter?

  A. Yes, but that’s not the only …

  Q. Thank you, doctor. I’d like to introduce as evidence, Gary Baxter’s booking sheet from the morning after the arrest. To be sure the jury gets an unbiased answer, could you please read Mr. Baxter’s height as listed in Box 9.

  A. Six feet even.

  Q. Thank you, Dr. Thompson. I’d like to move on now and discuss the nature of the wound. When someone is struck in the head with a hard blow from a blunt object such as a hammer, is it common for there to be a spattering of blood from the wound?

  A. Quite common.

  Q. And when you were at the crime scene, did you notice bloodstains on a wall of the house that would be consistent with such a spatter?

  A. Yes, I did.

  Q. Now, doctor, in what direction does the blood usually spatter after such a blow?

  A. It goes outward from the wound.

  Q. In other words, back toward the assailant if he or she were standing behind the victim when the wound was struck.

  A. Yes.

  Q. And the assailant would most likely get the victim’s blood on the shirt, blouse, whatever garment was on the upper part of the body?

  A. Most likely.

  Q. In the blood spatter on the wall, was there not an area in the middle of the blood pattern where there was little or no blood?

  A. It could be seen that way.

  Q. And would that gap in the bloodstains be consistent with the killer blocking the trajectory of blood to the wall?

  A. That could account for it, yes.

  Q. When the detective and the sheriff questioned Mr. Baxter, doctor, they testified that he had blood on his shirt cuff but said nothing about spatters on the shirt he was wearing at the time. If Mr. Baxter indeed struck the blow that killed his wife, can you explain how he avoided being struck with the copious amount of blood that flew outward from the wound at the moment of impact?

  A. Only to say that things don’t always go according to the textbook.

  Q. But you are unable to advance a specific theory as to why that might have happened in this case?

  A. There’s not enough evidence to do so.

  Q. Thank you, doctor. No further questions.

  Judge: Mr. Williams?

  Q. Just a couple of questions Your Honor. Dr. Thompson, any bloodstains flying from the wound would only have been on the killer’s shirt if he were still wearing it when the sheriff’s department arrived. Is that correct?

  A. Of course.

  Q. Thank you. And as to the question of the level or slightly upward trajectory of the hammer when it struck the fatal blow, is it necessarily the case that a larger person always swings downward when delivering a blow?

  A. I’d say more often than not, but not always.

  Q. If a person were holding a hammer at hip level and raised it to strike quickly, is it possible in your opinion that the
blow might arrive from the direction that the blow that killed Connie Baxter did?

  A. That’s certainly possible, yes.

  Q. Thank you, doctor. That’s all.

  PETER RETURNED FROM A WALK at that point, and Gordon set the transcript aside, preparatory to heading for Basil Dill’s cabin. As he did so, his cell phone rang. The caller’s number was blocked, and he started to set the phone down. Then, he remembered Nell Quinn saying he might be getting such a call, so he took it.

  “Hello.”

  “Is this Quill Gordon? Like the trout fly?”

  “Speaking.”

  “Are you somewhere that you can speak without being heard?”

  “I’m in our rental house, with just my friend here. He’s good.”

  “All right then. This is Scott Burroughs,” Gordon recognized the name as belonging to the first deputy on the crime scene, “and I’m calling because Nell asked.”

  “Go on.”

  “She said you’re looking into Gary Baxter’s case.”

  “In a manner of speaking.”

  “Before I say anything, I want to meet you in person, see if I think you can be trusted.”

  “That’s fair.”

  “What are you doing this afternoon? Say at two o’clock?”

  “This afternoon? I’m open.” Peter grimaced, and Gordon waved him down. “What did you have in mind?”

  “I’d like to meet some place not too busy, where we won’t be seen by a lot of locals. Do you know where Nugget Lake Resort is?”

  “I’ve seen the sign from the road.”

  “Can you meet me there?”

  “Are they still open this late in the season?”

  “Until the end of deer season, which is Sunday. Only a few people there now, which is why I suggest it.”

  “Sure, but,” Gordon looked at his watch, “how will I know you?”

  “Nell said to look for a tall guy who could be a basketball player, so I’ll know you. I’ll be in uniform. We’ll find each other.”

  “See you at two, then,” Gordon said. Burroughs murmured something indistinct and ended the call. Gordon turned to Peter.

  “Tell you what,” he said. “Let’s forget the lower Bellota today. How about some lake fishing instead?”