Pushing Up Rhubarb (A Millsferry Mystery Book 1)

by Diana Saco

  “Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen.”

  *****

  Aunt Dottie was in tears by the time Loyal finished. Ota noticed and called a brief recess. I was surprised and wondered if the judge had been one of her past projects. I was suggesting to her that she should go home when Mason stopped me.

  “She thinks it’s hopeless because she’s just heard one side of the story. Let her stay for my opening statement. She’ll feel better.”

  “How do you think it’s going?” I asked.

  “Just peachy, Nina. Loyal didn’t say anything I wasn’t expecting, including the dig against me. Chloe could probably use a pep talk, though.”

  I nodded and headed over to Chloe. She was still sitting at the table with her back to the gallery and her head down. I didn’t want to startle her, so I came around to her side. Her head came up suddenly when she noticed me out of the corner of her eye, and for a brief unguarded moment, I saw the worry and dismay all over her face. Then her expression went blank.

  I decided to go with a stock icebreaker I use at parties. “Say you’ve cooked the best meal you’ve ever cooked before. Who would you invite over for dinner to share it with?”

  “That depends,” she muttered. “Am I someone who poisons people or not?”

  I chuckled. Feisty was a good sign. “That was a good opening statement,” I admitted, “but Mason’s will be, too.”

  “So he says.”

  “I’ve seen them go toe-to-toe before. Mason can give as good as he gets.”

  “Doesn’t he have to be better?” she asked.

  “He will be. But even if he only matches Loyal’s presentation, we’ll still be ahead. Remember, Loyal has to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Mason only needs to poke some holes in the argument. And there are plenty of holes in his argument.”

  “Yeah, Nina, but I actually like this town and want to stay here. Reasonable doubt won’t restore my reputation.”

  I didn’t know what to say to that, but Chloe changed the subject anyway.

  “How’s Aunt Dottie?” she asked.

  “Right now she’s upset.”

  “I’m not surprised. Loyal made me sound like a horrible person.”

  “Yes, but ‘made’ is the operative word there, as in ‘made up’. It’s a complete fabrication.”

  “It wasn’t all made up,” Chloe admitted, being quiet so no one else would hear. “I was getting fed up at all of Monica’s wins.”

  “Who wouldn’t? Especially with her gloating,” I offered.

  “And the part about me being a loner—that was true, too.”

  “You may be a loner, Chloe. But you’re not alone,” I said deliberately, getting a tiny smile from her for my trouble. I smiled back.

  We heard a sudden bark of laughter and turned to see Mason pulling away from Aunt Dottie, obviously having solicited that response from her.

  Moments later, Judge Ota called the court to order for Mason’s opening statement. I returned to my seat as Mason approached the jury.

  “Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Since Mr. Bingham did the introductions, I feel like I know you already.”

  Several jurors smiled.

  “In case you missed it, however, I’m Mason Tidwell, and I represent the defendant, Chloe Owens. And yes, I host the annual bake-off. I love food. My client, Ms. Owens, is a wonderful cook. The day she was arrested she served me the most amazing streusel cake. Delicious. And look! I’m still here! Now let me dispel a few more of the rumors you’ve been told so far. First off, Chloe may live alone, but she has a lot of friends. In fact, I do believe Mr. Bingham’s own wife, Ms. Lily Bingham, is good friends with Chloe.”

  Mason looked at Lily, who was seated to my right, and gave her a small wave in greeting. She smiled and waved back.

  “I bet dinner conversations at the Bingham and Bingham residence will be interesting tonight.” That earned him a disapproving look from Judge Ota, but the titter of laughter in the room made it worthwhile.

  “One person Chloe did not consider a friend was Monica Munch. They were, it’s true, long-standing rivals. Unfortunately, it’s also true, as toxicology tests revealed later, that both Randall Kirkland and Monica Munch were poisoned with oxalic acid from contaminated rhubarb found in Chloe’s desserts.

  “Those are facts, Ladies and Gentlemen. However—and please listen carefully because this is the important part—those are the only facts we have heard so far. Beyond that, the prosecution’s case against Chloe Owens hinges on you believing a number of fantasies and accepting them as facts. And this, I suspect, is the real reason Mr. Bingham is so unhappy to be here today. He doesn’t have a case. Just fantasy and speculation.

  “It’s a fantasy that Chloe was so obsessed with winning that she would poison Monica Munch. If that were true, I’d be putting on an insanity defense. Because that’s just plain crazy!”

  Mason’s broad gestures made several of us laugh. Even Aunt Dottie, who was seated to my left, started giggling and whispered, “Crazy, crazy, crazy. Crazy like a Munch. Crazy like a loon.”

  I looked at her, curious about her “crazy like a Munch” comment, but I let the thought go when Mason continued his statement.

  “It’s a fantasy that Chloe threw out the first tray of rhubarb tarts for any reason other than the fact that she suspected someone had tampered with them in her absence. It’s a fantasy that an otherwise intelligent woman like Chloe Owens would use food prepared in her own kitchen to poison people and make herself the prime suspect in the process. And the biggest fantasy here, the one that Mr. Bingham’s entire case depends on, is the fantasy that Chloe Owens was the only person who could have contaminated that rhubarb.

  “But what if it wasn’t Chloe? What if Chloe didn’t even know there was anything wrong with the rhubarb she used the weekend of July 20? Mr. Bingham doesn’t want you to ask these questions, Ladies and Gentlemen. He doesn’t want you to ask them because they would interfere with his fantasy that this case is neat and tidy and easy to explain. In his fantasy, you don’t have to look any further than the fact that Chloe and Monica were rivals and that the poison was in Chloe’s rhubarb. That’s as far as he wants you to look. But it’s your duty to look further, to dig dipper.

  “The Commonwealth has entrusted you with the task of asking questions so that you can separate fact from fantasy. Other, more reasonable explanations exist for the events in this case. Why did Chloe Owens use contaminated rhubarb at the Millsferry Annual Bake-Off? Because she didn’t know it was contaminated. Why did Chloe Owens give her new friend Randall Kirkland poisoned jam? Because she didn’t know it was poisoned.

  “Facts and fantasies—the challenge for you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, is to ensure at all times that you know which is which. Please don’t swallow sugar-coated fantasies with make-believe motives. Because in the real world, an innocent woman’s life hangs in the balance. The defense will present facts showing that someone else had the motive and opportunity to taint the rhubarb. Chloe Owens’ dessert had contaminated rhubarb in it because she simply didn’t know someone had added a toxin to the rhubarb. Chloe Owens is most assuredly not guilty.

  “Thank you.”

  I thought about Mason’s remarks as he sat down. He laid the foundation for pointing the finger at another perpetrator, but who? Had he changed his mind about Maxi and Marvin? Or was he preparing to show that Monica could have done it, even though we still didn’t have evidence to support my theory? It seemed as though he wanted to leave his suspicions about Monica vague, perhaps until he could build a case for it. After all, Loyal’s opening statement had just made her sound like a saint. Even if she did gloat about every blue ribbon she ever won, you could overlook that in a person who donated organs to loved ones, right?

  Our problem wasn’t just that we couldn’t find enough evidence to pin everything on Monica. It was also that we couldn’t work out her motives for eating Chloe’s dessert. Why would she knowingly poison herself? Did she think her body
could handle it? Assuming her original intent was to make the contest judges think that Chloe didn’t know how to prepare rhubarb, why not just stick to the original plan of letting them eat the contaminated desserts?

  If I were writing Monica’s story, I could just make something up. Litigation was harder. Despite how inventive Mason and Loyal could get, their claims still had to have a basis in fact. Loyal acted as though he had the facts he needed. Our situation wasn’t as favorable. We knew we still didn’t have all the facts, and we were running out of time.

  3. If Only She Hadn't Given Away That Kidney

  Loyal’s first witness was Bruno, who introduced the main facts of the case in his capacity as lead investigator. He established the timeline and identified the key players. He also explained his reasoning for immediately bringing Al and me into the investigation. As a witness to Marvin Munch’s arrival at the crime scene, Bruno also provided testimony that perfectly painted Marvin as the grieving husband. This wasn’t a surprise. We expected Loyal to elicit answers that would encourage the jury to identify with the victim and her family. His line of questioning also made Marvin out to be a loving and devoted husband, which would make it harder for the defense to lay suspicions on him. Loyal clearly thought Mason was going to try pinning everything on Marvin at some point. I was no lawyer, but I considered it was probably a good thing that he was barking up the wrong tree. At least, I think he was. Mason didn’t exactly lay out his strategy for us before the trial started. Maybe that was his strategy—to keep everyone guessing.

  And he didn’t give anything away during his cross-examination of Bruno. However, he did ask Bruno to explain why he talked to Chloe at the scene.

  “As I mentioned, Mr. Munch had just accused Ms. Owens of being responsible for his wife’s death,” Bruno began. “I just wanted to see if she was all right because I know her.”

  “How well do you know the defendant, Sheriff?” Mason asked.

  “Pretty well. She dated a close friend of mine for about a year. And they’re still friends.”

  “Ah, another friend of the defendant’s,” Mason said to the jury with a smile. “So would you characterize Chloe Owens as a loner?” he asked.

  “No, not really,” Bruno said.

  “People visit her house?” Mason continued.

  “Yes,” Bruno replied.

  “They knock on her door fully expecting that she’ll invite them in and be civil? Maybe even ask them to sit a spell, have some pie, chat over cake, gossip over coffee? That kind of thing?” Mason asked.

  Bruno chuckled. “Yes, just like regular friends. Except Chloe doesn’t lock her doors, so most of her friends just knock once and let themselves in. And she doesn’t much care for gossip.”

  “Let me get this right,” Mason continued. “You’re saying that the defendant has friends, invites them over, is trusting enough to leave her doors unlocked, and doesn’t gossip behind people’s backs? She sounds almost nice!”

  Mason delivered the comment as if it were an awful character trait, which got a big laugh from the gallery. He waited for the noise to subside before asking his final question.

  “Do you consider her a friend, Sheriff Everly?”

  “Yes, Chloe Owens is a friend,” Bruno replied sincerely.

  That was all Mason needed from Bruno to start undermining Loyal’s argument. Poke, poke, poke.

  *****

  Scarlet Peebles was Loyal’s next witness. As usual, she wore green—this time, an olive-colored skirt suit. Given all the different shades of green possible, I was impressed by her ability to find matching pumps. It was a demonstration of her attention to detail, a good trait for a medical examiner to convey in court. Some of the jurors noticed, too. They also seemed utterly enchanted by her when she began speaking, and they heard the slight sibilance. She had the perfect combination of scientific knowledge, professional credentials, and humanizing traits to make her the ideal expert witness—smart but likable.

  Dr. Peebles described what she observed on the day of the incident, including Marvin’s sneezing fit. (Loyal was obviously stacking his deck against the blame-the-husband card.) She also explained what she found when she examined Monica Munch’s body. Most importantly, she established that having only one kidney was a critical factor in her death.

  “Dr. Peebles,” Loyal asked, “why didn’t you rule Ms. Munch’s death a homicide?”

  “Because the dosage of oxalic acid concentrate in the rhubarb she ingested wouldn’t have been enough to kill a person of her size if she’d had two kidneys. And I’d have no way of knowing whether whoever poisoned the rhubarb knew that she had only one kidney.”

  “So would you have ruled it a homicide if you’d known the killer was aware that Monica Munch had only one kidney?”

  “No, I still have to rule based on the medical and scientific evidence that presents itself to me. A ruling of ‘undetermined’ as to the manner of death doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a homicide. It simply means that examination of the body alone doesn’t provide enough evidence to make that determination.”

  “What about Randall Kirkland? You examined him in the hospital?” Loyal asked.

  “Yes, the sheriff asked me to look in on him because he already suspected a connection to Monica Munch’s poisoning. We explained the situation to Mr. Kirkland’s attending physician, who agreed to bring me in as a consulting physician. I reviewed his charts and examined his throat. I found signs of irritation consistent with oxalic acid poisoning.”

  “Did you review the tox reports analyzing the jam that Mr. Kirkland ingested?”

  “Yes, and the levels were higher than in the rhubarb Monica Munch ingested.”

  “So why isn’t Randall Kirkland dead?” Loyal asked.

  “A number of factors could account for that. His general good health, the combination of foods he ingested with the jam, the fact that emergency rescue units were able to get him to the hospital so quickly.”

  “But in your medical opinion, was the amount of poison used high enough to kill him?”

  “Yes, they were at published toxic levels.”

  “So would a person adding that amount of poison to Mr. Kirkland’s jam have a reasonable expectation that it was enough to kill him?”

  “Yes.”

  “Thank you, Dr. Peebles. No more questions.”

  Loyal nodded at Mason, effectively turning the witness over to him for his cross.

  “Dr. Peebles,” Mason began, “how many other cases have you worked on where someone ingested toxic levels of oxalic acid?”

  “None.”

  “How many homicide cases have you heard about or read about in your research that involved poisoning someone with oxalic acid?”

  “None directly, but some anti-freezes metabolize into oxalic acid in the body, and I’ve read about several homicides and attempted homicides using anti-freeze.”

  “That’s horrible.”

  “Yes, it is,” she said with a nod.

  “But not oxalic acid directly?”

  “None that I’m aware of.”

  “In your professional opinion, does oxalic acid make for an effective poison?” Mason asked.

  “Not really. It’s not usually a fast poison, and, in most cases, it can be treated. Also, not all dosage levels are toxic. In fact, at some levels, oxalic acid can be beneficial. It occurs naturally in certain foods and has been linked to cancer treatment and other health benefits.”

  “Is rhubarb one of those foods that naturally has oxalic acid in it?” Mason asked.

  “Yes, throughout the entire plant, but the toxic levels are in the leaves.”

  “Is it possible that the poison wasn’t added deliberately, but rather that it got into the rhubarb from the leaves?”

  “We considered that, but the levels seemed abnormally high. However, to confirm that it wasn’t the rhubarb, the investigators obtained a sample of the original crop and tested it against the contaminated sample. The levels were significantly higher in the co
ntaminated rhubarb. The only logical conclusion is that it was added.”

  “But the perpetrator would have no way of anticipating that you’d be able to get more samples of the original rhubarb,” Mason said. “So is it reasonable to assume that he or she used oxalic acid because it occurs naturally in rhubarb—that is, to hide the fact that he or she deliberately added higher concentrations of that toxin to the defendant’s rhubarb?”

  “Yes, that’s a reasonable assumption,” she said.

  I looked over at Loyal. He was frowning, probably wondering why Mason asked a question that seemingly helped the prosecution. Mason must have noticed the frown, too. He just smiled at Loyal and gave a little shrug.

  “Despite those higher levels,” Mason continued, “you mentioned that you couldn’t rule Ms. Munch’s death as a homicide because the dosage used wouldn’t have been enough to kill someone with two kidneys. I’m curious. Let’s assume a perpetrator knew Monica Munch had only one kidney—could he or she have known what amount was enough to kill Ms. Munch, specifically?”

  “I doubt if even Monica Munch herself would have known how much her system could tolerate,” Dr. Peebles said. “I really don’t see how anyone could have a reasonable expectation of killing her, if that was the intent.”

  “So Ms. Munch herself wouldn’t have known?” Mason asked.

  “It’s doubtful.”

  “Is it more likely then that this was an act of sabotage?”

  Loyal stood up. “Objection, Your Honor,” he said. “Calls for speculation.”

  “Judge, the defendant has a right to explore all possible explanations for the evidence presented,” Mason said. “I’m merely asking if food sabotage could be another reason to doubt Mr. Bingham’s assertions in this case.”

  “What’s the point anyway, Your Honor?” Loyal countered. “The Commonwealth’s indictment for Ms. Munch’s death is involuntary manslaughter, which means that we accept that there was no prior intent to kill.”