Evidence of Murder

by Samuel Roen

  “I agree. And she’s sure adding some feminine charm to the proceedings. She’s certainly very attractive. I’ve heard that people see a Marilyn Monroe resemblance, but I don’t see it.”

  “Oh, well, I don’t, either, but she’s on our side. That’s what matters.” Ted Culhan laughed.

  Jeff Ashton checked his watch. “We’d better move it. Don’t want to be late.”

  When court convened, the intensive cross-examination began. The defense pressed Angel Huggins, accusing her of masterminding a frame-up of her husband, John.

  Angel, stretching her seated position to her full height, indignantly disputed the accusation. “I never framed John in any way,” she flung back at the defense counsel.

  The defense attorney contended that Angel, blistering with rage that her sister had an affair with John Huggins, was determined to have her revenge against him.

  Defense lawyers Bob Wesley and Tyrone King also came up with a side issue, accusing Angel of seeking an escape of pending charges of drunk driving against her by testifying against Huggins.

  Angel Huggins vehemently denied that she requested or received any special treatment.

  Her testimony was concluded.

  In December 1998, in preparation for the trial, Jeff Ashton went to Sumter County to take a deposition from Jonathon Huggins, John Huggins’s eleven-year-old son.

  In his deposition young Huggins stated that John Huggins, his estranged wife, Angel, and their kids came from Melbourne to Orlando in June 1997 in Angel’s car on a visit to Gatorland. They stayed at the Days Inn on Route 192, which was across the street from the Publix market.

  Importantly, Jonathon stated in his deposition to Ashton that his father was not with them on the afternoon of June 10 when they left to return to Melbourne.

  Before the trial began, defense counsel Bob Wesley requested of Ashton that young Jonathon not be put on the witness stand and subjected to the stress of testifying.

  As a father, Jeff Ashton readily agreed, but he got approval and consent to read into the record the deposition that Jonathon gave him.

  In that deposition, the boy also described the SUV his father was driving later that day, giving details of the vehicle and describing it as a Ford Explorer.

  John Huggins sat stolidly through the reading of the deposition, showing no reaction to his son’s words.

  The state called in a steady parade of Centex Rooney employees, Walt Disney World workers, various landscapers and others who saw a white Ford Explorer on June 10 coming out of the woods, driving along the highway or traveling rapidly over the territory near the site where Carla Larson was last seen and where her body was later found.

  Among the great number of witnesses were Centex Rooney employees Cindy Garris, Gary Wilson and son Brad, and Barry O’Hearne and Milton Johnson of Dora Landscaping, all accounting what they saw. Also testifying was Disney World’s Reedy Creek serviceman in charge of roadway maintenance, Tommy Sparks.

  Culhan showed an aerial photo of the area to Barry O’Hearne, who was landscaping in the area on June 10, 1997. He also had seen the vehicle, and he stated that it was driven by a white male.

  When defense lawyer Bob Wesley cross-examined O’Hearne, he dwelled on whether the male driver wore sunglasses.

  “Yes, it looked like he was.”

  “And you also described him as being dark-skinned, is that correct?”

  “Well, that was probably just from the windows.”

  Wesley continued questioning. “Okay, but you told the police that this individual had a dark complexion, is that correct?”

  “Well, that isn’t how I meant it. Maybe kind of looked tanned. Not dark as a dark person.”

  “Okay, so this person was kind of tanned to you, had a darker complexion, wasn’t a pale person?”

  “Right.”

  Over several days other Centex Rooney employees, as well as Disney World workers, testified, recounting the search for Carla Larson and the subsequent discovery of her body.

  Questioned by Jeff Ashton, John Ricker described how he and Michael Munson went about their arduous trek through the brush, then met the Disney employee Tommy Sparks, who had seen a white vehicle parked in the brush and directed them to the area. Ricker talked about the foul odor and their using the cigarette lighter to follow the wind direction to the final discovery of Carla’s body.

  The prosecutors and defense attorneys argued over the admission into evidence of photos of Carla Larson’s body as it appeared when the witnesses found her.

  Wesley’s objection was to the use of color pictures. “I think it can be described without photographs. Or (with) alternatives, such as black-and-white photographs, which make less prejudicial impact on the jury.”

  Culhan countered, stating, “This photograph depicts the condition the body was discovered in. The body is covered up with debris and is fairly accurate, without being a gruesome photograph of what they saw when they came upon the body.”

  Judge Perry ruled, “Okay. As to this picture, objection will be overruled.”

  In his cross-examination, Wesley asked Ricker for a total review of his search of the area, without any mention of the discovery of the body.

  The courtroom spectators stirred with interest and speculation when the bailiff called the next witness. They whispered, asking, “Who is he and why is he here?”

  ASA Ted Culhan greeted him and asked, “Could you please tell us your name?”

  “Jeffrey Alan Shrader.”

  “How are you employed?”

  Shrader said that he worked in landscaping at Disney World and that he was employed there in December 1997.

  Culhan asked that Shrader identify the location where he and others worked on December 24, 1997, and to explain the cleanup work that his crew did.

  Shrader described the area where they worked that day as the grassy section leading onto Osceola Parkway. Culhan elicited from Shrader that in the course of his cleanup, he came upon a discarded purse.

  Shrader said he opened the purse and saw that it contained Carla Larson’s driver’s license and a Discover credit card. When Shrader realized what he found, he set the purse back down, called his supervisor over and showed him the purse, explaining his find.

  Culhan asked, “Other than the driver’s license and the Discover card, did you touch anything else?”

  Shrader shook his head. “Not that I am aware of.”

  With permission, the prosecutor approached the witness, showing him a photo that was marked state’s exhibit “GG.” “Do you recognize what’s contained in that photograph, sir?”

  Shrader nervously clenched his hands, recalling the incident of his find. “Yes, sir.” He named the driver’s license and Discover credit card.

  He identified another state exhibit as the purse he found. He also confirmed that these items appeared to be as he initially saw them.

  In answer to a question about any other items discovered, Shrader described finding an empty prescription bottle with a November date on it. (Subsequent investigation revealed it had no connection to the Larson case. Someone had simply thrown it away.)

  The prosecutor showed Shrader a photograph of the area where the landscapers were working and had found the purse. It was the area where many eyewitnesses had seen the Ford Explorer entering Osceola Parkway. Shrader identified the photo as accurate.

  The witness, who had never been involved in anything as serious as this case, sat uneasily and faced the prosecutor, hoping for the conclusion of his ordeal.

  Prosecutors showed Shrader an aerial photo of the specific area, and he stated that it was an accurate depiction.

  Culhan asked that these photo items be admitted into evidence.

  The prosecutor then asked Shrader to point out on the photograph exactly where he found the purse.

  Silently Shrader complied.

  Culhan followed with a request to introduce the actual purse, complete with its contents as it was discovered.

  Defense at
torney Wesley objected, stating, “The purse, if full of baby pictures, receipts, other things, might be prejudicial to Mr. Huggins because they tend to evoke sympathy from the jury.”

  Culhan responded, “I think the jury has the right to see the purse the way it was discovered on the side of the road.”

  The defense answered, pressing the point, “Some of those items are inflammatory. The things inside, the baby pictures, notes and things like that, go back to the jury room and cause the jury to make a decision based on emotion rather than facts.”

  Defense attorney King, anxious to add his weight to his partner’s protestations, voiced his objection. “Your Honor, the defense objects to all of the exhibits. There is argument as to each piece.”

  Judge Perry called the attorneys to the bench for a sidebar. They reached an agreement to have a study made of the individual items from the purse.

  In Wesley’s cross-examination of Shrader, he asked questions about the landscaping of the area leading to the finding of the purse. He went on with further questions about the contents. When asked, the witness admitted that when the purse was opened, “things came out. I think like lipsticks and stuff.”

  At the conclusion of the testimony, the court broke for lunch. Judge Perry gave the jury the usual admonishment not to discuss the case.

  Ashton and Culhan left the courthouse and headed for a nearby restaurant. As they walked briskly together, Ashton said, “It’s good to be getting even this little exercise. It feels great to be outdoors, to breathe some fresh air.”

  “Yeah, but that wind coming off the river can go right through you. I’m glad the restaurant isn’t far,” Culhan replied.

  “You must be living too soft a life.” Ashton laughed.

  “Maybe.” Culhan chuckled in agreement. “Anyhow, we’d better stoke up. We’ve got a long, detailed afternoon facing us.”

  “Don’t remind me.”

  CHAPTER 24

  Jeff Ashton addressed his next witness. “Would you please state your name and your position?”

  The tall, well-structured, dark-skinned man, best described as an authoritative person, said, “I’m Shashi B. Gore, chief medical examiner of District Nine, Orange and Osceola Counties, Florida.”

  When asked, Gore outlined his medical education. “Basic medicine and surgery in Bombay, India. I completed my baccalaureate in medicine and surgery and pursued it with pathology, microbiology, in 1963, University of Bombay. Further on, I specialized in forensic pathology and toxicology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1969. I’ve been working as a medical examiner or associate for the last eighteen years.”

  The audience shifted in their seats, impressed with the doctor.

  Ashton continued his examination. “Are you qualified as an expert to give opinions in the area of forensic pathology, in Florida?” Gore answered affirmatively.

  After a short exchange with defense counsel, Judge Perry accepted Dr. Gore to render opinions in the discussed field.

  Ashton’s questions revealed that Gore responded, when summoned, to the Disney site of the body, on June 12, 1997. The ME said that he had the body removed to the special mortuary facility for the autopsy, during which he supervised the taking of pictures of various aspects of the procedure. He had the pictures produced as slides to be presented here. After Gore confirmed that the slides showed the remains as they appeared when the ME arrived at the scene, Ashton asked the doctor to describe the findings to the jury.

  The courtroom grew still at the sight of the slides, and there were more than a few gasps. The Larson and Thomas families held each other’s hands for comfort as they steeled themselves for the dreaded ordeal ahead.

  John Huggins stared curiously at the slides, his face totally expressionless.

  Ashton asked Dr. Gore to explain what the picture slides showed. Pointing to the first one, the doctor said, “This is the basic picture, the first one we take normally as a routine practice, which tells the name of the victim as well as the time and the number.

  “This is for identification of the site only. You can see on this area the growth of some vegetation.”

  The next slide, Gore explained, “was the picture we took that shows the left leg and part of the foot.” He stated, “It does not show any peculiar pattern of injury.”

  He took the next picture after the remains were moved to the morgue. Gore noted, “It shows the front of the face. This is what we call an identification shot.” He pointed out, “Unfortunately, the body was not identifiable because of the decomposition changes.”

  The jury reacted with quiet shock as they viewed the beaten, battered, unrecognizable face of the young woman. The Larson and Thomas families averted their eyes, but not quickly enough, to avoid seeing their beloved wife and daughter’s last agonies. Tears filled their eyes, but they hung on grimly.

  Moving to the next slide, Dr. Gore explained clinically how “it shows the torso complete, the breasts, the abdomen and part of the neck and chin.” He pointed out a reddish area on the left breast region, “which is different from the area with no injuries.” He suggested, “There could have been some injury prior to death.”

  Ashton, with the curiosity of a nonmedical expert, asked about the difference in appearance before and after death.

  Gore responded in great detail, explaining antemortem (before death) and postmortem (after death) trauma.

  With a change in slides, Dr. Gore stated, “This gives a complete idea of what happened.... This is the genitalia, the thighs,” he indicated, pointing out specifically, “this area shows definite evidence of antemortem injury, antemortem trauma.” He moved his head, silently conveying the sad situation he was presenting.

  Ashton asked the doctor, “What type of antemortem injuries do you think would cause that?”

  After thoughtful consideration the doctor responded: “As common sense . . . one would expect this could be as a result of sexual intercourse or molestation or attempt at sexual intercourse.”

  The audience whispered comments; the jury seemed visibly shaken by this information.

  Gore elaborated, pointing to the slide. “This is the posterior end, the buttocks; this is the anus, the perianal region.”

  Prosecutor Ashton, trying to bring the attack Carla Larson suffered into sharper focus, interrupted to ask, “Are there any internal injuries to the sexual organ?”

  “No.”

  Jeff pressed, “So what you see is the external?”

  “Internally,” Dr. Gore answered, “there were no tears or lacerations of the vagina or the anus, the rectum.”

  Again a wave of whispers drifted through the audience. “Was she raped, or was there an attempt at rape?” they asked each other. The judge rapped his gavel for quiet.

  Dr. Gore continued, next showing a slide displaying the hyoid bone, in the front of the neck. “You can see the area of hemorrhage.” He pointed with his marker. “There is evidence of antemortem traumatization, of antemortem injuries. Injuries that the victim received prior to death.”

  The doctor went into a long explanation about another slide that showed the insect activity on the body. “The animal activity . . . immediately after the death, they come up there and start taking the pieces of flesh. But you don’t see any reaction,” Gore emphasized, “because there was no life.” Gore stressed that “reaction is very important, because reaction means life.”

  The families’ grieving reactions were clearly visible on their faces. Members of the press wondered how long the families could stand to see and hear these awful details.

  The ME showed a slide exhibiting the left hand of the victim. He pointed out that the wedding band was clearly in view on the finger, with no major lacerations or abrasions.

  One member of the press leaned over to a colleague and said sardonically, “Wonder why he didn’t rip off that ring.” The other answered cynically, “Must have been on too tight and he didn’t have a knife to cut off the finger.”

  Ashton, co
ntinuing to focus on the brutal attack on the victim, asked, “What you have shown us here in the photographs are all the areas of antemortem injury that you believe exist, is that right?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “When the body was found,” Jeff asked, “do you recall whether the earlobes for earrings were torn in any way?”

  “No.”

  “They were not?” Jeff asked in surprise.

  “No,” replied the doctor firmly.

  Continuing on the same track, Ashton asked, “Were there holes for pierced earrings?”

  “Yes, sir” was the positive answer.

  Again the reporter whispered to his colleague, “He removed the earrings, not ripped them out.” And the other one answered derisively, “Probably didn’t want to harm the diamonds.”

  “Was there anything on the body, other than the one ring that we saw in the photograph . . . the wedding ring?”

  “No.”

  The prosecutor was subtly stressing the importance of the victim’s jewelry and its relation to this case, and bringing out the fact that the killer took every bit of the victim’s clothing, as well as her jewelry.

  Ashton went on, in another direction. “Is there anything to indicate that the body was dragged to the area where it was found?”

  Dr. Gore tilted his head and stared upward before answering. “I did not see any drag marks on the body that would have indicated to me linear antemortem, that is before death, scratches, either on the buttocks or on the front of the abdomen or anywhere on the legs. I did not see those.” He paused, and after consideration, added, “The legs were clean and clear.”

  “If the body after death was dragged, can that still leave some evidence?” Ashton asked.

  The doctor settled back in the witness chair and answered calmly, “There will be some evidence indeed.”

  Ashton continued: “Did you see anything to indicate that after death the body was dragged or scratched or abraded in any way?”

  “There was no indication,” Dr. Gore affirmed.

  Still pressing to establish the facts and leave no doubts, Ashton asked, “Anything to indicate in any way that this body was moved after she died?”