by Diana Saco
“Yes, that’s the one,” I said, authenticating the video for the court.
“Judge, I also have Mr. Lumski’s report on how this video was obtained. I’d like to enter the video and the report as Defense Exhibits C and D.”
“All right,” Ota said, studying the video with apparent interest.
“The identity of this person is even harder to ascertain. Wouldn’t you say so, Ms. Braco?”
“Yes, but we took a still and put it through a lens correction filter, just to remove the fisheye distortion. That made it a little easier to make out the features.”
“Who edited the image?”
“I did on the image for our initial inspection. But we have another version that was corrected by the computer forensics team at Mia-Tech.”
“Judge, I’d like to enter the Mia-Tech rendering into evidence as Defense Exhibit E. I also have a signed affidavit from the team attesting to the fact that lens-distortion corrections were the only changes they made to the image. Their report, Defense Exhibit F, includes the hash number for their edited file.”
“Mr. Bingham,” Ota began, “any objections on these new exhibits?”
“No, Your Honor. Unfortunately, we previously stipulated to forensic evidence from Mia-Tech.”
“Just a few more, Judge,” Mason assured. “All right, Ms. Braco, here’s the image Mia-Tech provided. Can you walk us through what we’re looking at?”
“Yes, the first noteworthy item is the large bundle of leaves, which we’ve identified as rhubarb leaves.”
“How were they identified?”
“Mr. Lumski’s computer, which he outfitted with a sophisticated artificial intelligence engine, was the first to identify the leaves as rhubarb leaves based on the shape. But my partner also showed the image to Jeff Woo, the produce vendor, and his wife Joanna Woolsy, who happens to be a PhD candidate in plant biology at Mass Aggie.”
“That’s the Stockbridge School of Agriculture at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is that correct?”
“Yes. And they both identified the leaves as rhubarb—the same MacDonald Crimson variety that they grew this year. Mr. Woo also noted that the bottom of the leaves were cut off. When he cuts the leaf from the stalk, he leaves a small portion of the base of the leaf to help preserve the rhubarb longer. So that was another factor they used in identifying the leaves.”
“Judge, we obtained two signed affidavits from Mr. Woo and Ms. Woolsy, respectively, attesting to everything Ms. Braco just explained.”
“What letter are we up to now, Mr. Tidwell?” Ota asked.
“The letter ‘G,’ Judge.”
“Defense Exhibits G and H, then, for the affidavits by Woo and Woolsy,” Ota stated playfully.
“All right, Ms. Braco,” Mason continued, “you identified the leaves as rhubarb, and then what?”
“We studied the image and compared it to the footage from the farmers’ market for the twelfth. The disguise is identical in both videos. Furthermore, the height of the individual—relative to the fridge door—the red hair that is visible at the bottom of the cap, and the portion of the jawline that is visible all match Monica Munch’s height and features. That and the obvious fact that this individual had access to the Munch’s bakery refrigerator led us to conclude that this is Monica Munch.”
Loyal took a breath and began to stand up.
“Before my esteemed colleague objects, would you say that it was a conclusive conclusion?”
“No, we’re speculating,” I admitted.
I watched Loyal sit back down, apparently satisfied for now. But I couldn’t help adding, “However, it’s speculation based on the images and reports you’ve just entered into evidence. So I’d call it a logical conclusion.”
Mason smiled, but I could see from Loyal’s expression that he considered my addendum cheeky.
“Ms. Braco, in your investigation of this case and given your expertise in food research, what would someone use rhubarb leaves for?”
“In addition to compost and wine-making, we learned that one can distill a concentrate of oxalic acid in crystal form directly from the leaves.”
“So the poison that was added to Chloe Owens’ rhubarb can be home-brewed from leaves like the ones that can be seen here in Monica Munch’s refrigerator. Is that correct?”
“Yes,” I said.
“What about the second video—the one showing the defendant putting a sugar container in the Munch fridge. What did you learn about that?”
“We asked Chloe about it. She explained that Monica Munch called her urgently asking her to check whether she left her stove on. As you may recall, the Munches and Ms. Owens were backyard neighbors. According to Chloe, this was not the first time Monica had asked her to check the stove.”
“Judge, I have affidavits here from two of Millsferry’s finest ladies attesting to the fact that they were present at respective social functions where Mrs. Munch did indeed say that she thought she’d forgotten to turn off her stove and needed to call Ms. Owens to ask her to check.”
Loyal stood up. “And who are these fine ladies?” he asked.
“Our wives,” Mason said.
“Well, I can’t object to that,” Loyal replied, retaking his seat to the sound of laughter.
“Judge, these are Defense Exhibits I and J,” Mason continued.
“Noted.”
“Ms. Braco, did you ask Ms. Owens how she got into the Munch house?”
“Yes, she said Monica kept a key under one of the flower pots.”
“Did you corroborate this?”
“Er . . . not personally, no. I’m persona non grata at the Munch house right now. But my partner checked and confirmed this.”
“All right, so what happened next?”
“Chloe told us she didn’t want to go check on Monica’s stove again. But Monica threatened to keep calling, so she relented. She checked the stove and told Monica it was off.”
“So Monica was still on the phone?” Mason asked.
“Yes, she wouldn’t hang up until Chloe checked everything—the stove, the faucet, any food on the counter that could spoil. Chloe told Monica that the only thing that was on the counter was a container of what she initially identified as flour. Monica asked her if the container had an ‘X’ on the top. When Chloe confirmed that it did, she said Monica got nervous and claimed that it was sugar that she didn’t want Marvin to get into. Monica then asked Chloe to store the sugar in her bakery refrigerator.”
“And did Chloe do this?” Mason asked.
“Yes, she did.”
“So is it your testimony that the Snakstr video that the prosecution submitted into evidence earlier actually shows Chloe Owens putting the sugar into the bakery refrigerator at Monica Munch’s request?”
“Yes, and Monica was still on the phone. If you remember the video, Chloe had a phone to one ear. That was Monica she was talking to.”
“Did you corroborate this phone call?”
“Yes, we pulled up Chloe’s phone bill for that timeframe and confirmed that a call came into her cell from Monica Munch’s cell.”
“All right, I have another still image, this time of the second video showing Chloe at the refrigerator. We again asked the Mia-Tech team to correct the image for lens distortion and have a report from them on the photo edit. And I have a printout of the phone bill Ms. Braco just mentioned. These are Defense Exhibits K, L, and M. I wanted to make sure the jury could see the Snakstr image, so I have some printouts here.”
Mason passed out the 8x10 photos of Chloe at the refrigerator, giving copies to Loyal and Judge Ota. On the big display, he showed the phone bill on the left and Chloe’s picture on the right.
“Ms. Braco, can you make out that timestamp in the lower right?”
“Yes, it’s July 13 of this year at 15:10:05 hours, which is 5 seconds after 3:10 that afternoon.”
“And over here, what does the phone record show?”
“That at the same time, Chloe was on a
call from a mobile number that my partner identified as belonging to Monica Munch.”
“So what we have here is evidence supporting the defendant’s claim that Monica Munch asked her to put away what we later determined was a container of poisoned sugar. Is that correct?”
“Yes, that’s correct,” I said.
“Surely, Mrs. Munch would have known that the Snakstr video would have captured Chloe in the act. Do you believe she was framing Chloe Owens?” Mason asked.
“We considered that, but Chloe didn’t think so.”
“Let me get this straight—the defendant was defending Mrs. Munch against the accusation that Mrs. Munch could have been setting her up?”
“Yes, I guess she was. Chloe had experience with Monica’s forgetfulness where the stove was concerned. So she didn’t think anything of it at the time.”
“But what about the sugar? If Monica wasn’t framing Chloe, why would she ask her to store it in the bakery refrigerator with the Snakstr cameras?”
“The cameras were incidental. In the end, we believe Monica just wanted to get the sugar out of sight. It was part of a scheme she wanted to keep secret. And she would have known it was poisoned if—as we suspect—she did it herself, so she would have wanted to keep it away from her husband.”
“Very good,” Mason said. “So we know from these videos that Monica, or someone remarkably like her, got rhubarb leaves off Jeff Woo on the twelfth and put them in her bakery refrigerator. We also know that on the thirteenth, Monica asked Chloe to hide some sugar in that same refrigerator, sugar that we now know was tainted. Let’s talk about the fourteenth. You testified the other day that during your investigation, you learned that on July 14, the defendant obtained oxalic acid from Randall Kirkland, is that correct?”
“Yes, for her driftwood,” I said.
“Have you seen this driftwood?”
“I have. It’s a remarkable piece.”
“And was it bleached?” Mason asked.
“Yes, but I have no way of confirming what was used to bleach it,” I admitted.
“That’s okay. I just wanted to confirm its existence since it supports the defendant’s version of events. Mr. Bingham has suggested that the oxalic acid Chloe used to poison Monica is the one she obtained from Randall Kirkland on the fourteenth. He also alleges that this is the defendant’s motive for poisoning Mr. Kirkland. What do you think about that?”
“The evidence doesn’t support those allegations. Chloe couldn’t have poisoned the sugar in the bakery refrigerator on the thirteenth if she didn’t even get oxalic acid from Mr. Kirkland until the fourteenth.”
“Okay, let’s fast forward to Thursday, July 18. You testified that during your investigation you learned the defendant bought rhubarb from Jeff Woo on that morning. She washed it and then left it on her kitchen counter while she went out of town to meet a client. Is that correct?”
“Yes,” I said.
“You also indicated that you couldn’t corroborate this because the client never showed up, but phone records and GPS do place the defendant in Provincetown that afternoon. Did you learn anything more about this client?”
“The request for the meeting came in via email. We traced back the email to a new account on a free service. That’s as far as we were able to get, but we suspect that it was a bogus account.”
“Meaning what?” Mason asked.
“Meaning that someone set up the account under a fake name to arrange to lure Chloe all the way out to the tip of the Cape, guaranteeing that she’d be gone from the house the entire afternoon. We don’t have any evidence beyond the new, free account. But whether it was a genuine client meeting or not, the upshot was that the rhubarb was at Chloe’s house unattended for a period of roughly three and half hours. In other words, there was a window of opportunity for someone to come in and poison the rhubarb without Chloe knowing it. And I believe that person was Monica.”
“Objection. Conjecture,” Loyal said.
“Sustained,” Ota ruled. “The jury will disregard the last remark.”
“Do you have any evidence showing who could have gotten into Chloe’s house to poison her rhubarb?” Mason asked.
“No direct evidence,” I said. “But we know that there were rhubarb leaves in the Munch house with no reason or explanation for Monica to have them. We also found tainted sugar there and evidence that Monica knew it was tainted given that she directed Chloe to hide the sugar in the bakery fridge. All of this points to the poison originating in the Munch house. And we know the two houses are close enough for someone to walk over to the other house, virtually undetected.”
“So what do you think happened, based on your investigation and your expertise?” Mason shot Loyal a look, then added, “And based on your unclouded judgment?”
“The low levels of oxalic acid in the rhubarb matter. I don’t think the intent was to permanently harm anyone. I think the point was to put just enough oxalic acid in the rhubarb to make it seem that Chloe botched the preparation.”
“Which leads you to conclude what about this case?” Mason asked.
“That it’s not a case of manslaughter and attempted murder. Rather, it’s a case of sabotage. I can’t prove it was Monica, but she definitely would have had the motive. She was an overzealous baker who loved winning blue ribbons—because that’s what gave her life meaning.”
“But why would she have eaten one of Chloe’s desserts?” Mason pressed. “Knowing that she had only one kidney and would be more susceptible to certain toxins, why would Monica Munch risk eating something she knew was poisoned?”
“I don’t know,” I said. “Only Monica can answer that. And for all we know, she did answer that.” I looked at Maxi. “In her journal. I think the answer is in there. I don’t think Monica meant any real harm. Initially, I did. I admit that. She seemed like the kind of person who would stop at nothing to win a silly contest.”
“What made you change your mind about her?” Mason asked.
“Over the course of this investigation, I’ve gotten to know Monica Munch, through conversations with the people who loved her. And I now understand that winning a blue ribbon wasn’t about bragging rights for her. It was about birth right. Monica Munch was born to bake in the same way that I was born to write or that you were born to advocate. That itch we get to do what we do best is fundamental to who we are. In Monica’s case, she was at her best in the kitchen, baking award-winning desserts. And I think she felt incomplete without the first-place ribbons. They validated her.
“I’m certain Monica did taint the rhubarb. But her sister is certain that Monica would never harm anyone. The only way I can reconcile our two convictions is to conclude that, at the last minute, Monica changed her mind. That she decided it was wrong to let the judges eat the poisoned desserts. So she ate one herself. It would have been a terrible miscalculation on her part. But maybe after all those weeks of planning, she just had to go through with her plan in some form. And since she couldn’t bring herself to hurt another human being, she sacrificed herself instead.”
I heard myself say that, and all of a sudden everything clicked into place. This was the one version of the story that saved Chloe without ruining Monica’s reputation. It was the missing ingredient. I blinked and looked around. A respectful stillness had settled over the courtroom—a moment of silence for a fallen homemaker and baker of tasty treats.
My eyes settled on Maxi, who was dabbing the corners of her own eyes with a handkerchief. She sensed my attention and met my gaze. I directed my final comment to her.
“This isn’t just about exonerating Chloe anymore. It’s about exonerating Monica. I can only speculate about her motives. I think the answer is in her journal.”
Judge Ota looked at Maxi. “Will you unlock the tablet for us now, Dr. Moffit?”
Maxi nodded and said, “Yes, Your Honor, I’ll open it.”
17. Defense Exhibit N
A wave of excited activity swept over the courtroom after Maxi�
�s declaration. Judge Ota rapped his gavel once half-heartedly. I could tell his interest was piqued, too.
“Mr. Tidwell, do you have any more questions for this witness?”
“No, Judge, I don’t.”
“Redirect, Mr. Bingham?”
Loyal looked at me a moment and pursed his lips.
“No, Your Honor. I believe I’m done,” he replied, sounding like a man conceding defeat.
“All right, Ms. Braco, you may step down.”
Mason whispered “good job” to me as I passed him. I smiled back.
“Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury,” Ota continued, “I’m going to have to ask you to step out while we review this next piece of evidence.”
I heard several jurors actually whine in disappointment that they wouldn’t get to find out what was on the tablet.
“Don’t worry, you’ll get to see the relevant evidence. If you need anything in the meantime, just ask the bailiff. In fact, Jimmy, why don’t you bring them some ice cream?”
“Will do, Judge.”
I took a seat next to Aunt Dottie thinking that ice cream sounded good.
“Ice cream sounds good,” Farm said into my ear, leaning forward from the seat behind mine. He truly was my spiritual twin. He squeezed my shoulder. “You did great up there.”
“Thanks,” I whispered back, patting his hand before he removed it.
“I’ll buy you a sundae later as your reward.”
I chuckled. Most heroes get titles or treasures or the girl—well, I got the girl, too. But I’d also settle for a bowl of ice cream as my reward for getting Maxine Moffit to open her sister’s tablet. As I turned my thoughts to the device, I briefly considered the possibility that it might not contain anything to exonerate Chloe. Or that, on the other hand, it might reveal all of Monica’s deceptions and plotting with nothing to redeem her. I hoped I hadn’t just set Maxi up for a greater disappointment.
After the jury left, Judge Ota turned to Mason. “Mr. Tidwell, the question of a diary came up during your cross-examination of Dr. Moffit. Would you like to recall Dr. Moffit to the stand so that we can pick up where we left off?”
