Violence

by Timothy McDougall

  The manner of death, which is the way the death was caused, natural versus violent, is either classified as natural, accidental, suicide, homicide or undetermined: “In this case, after all facts and tests were considered I indicated Karen Emberlynn Anderson’s death to be a ‘homicide’.” Dr. Azzam deduced.

  Al Ward, ever present in the gallery, always found it disconcerting when the full name of someone was uttered in a public setting. This was probably because he heard it mostly at the issuing of a divorce decree or a death pronouncement. Usually you never hear someone’s name in total unless that person is being Christened, graduating from something, getting married, getting divorced, being sworn into office, placed under oath, or is deceased. And they say dying is a natural part of life, but that’s really only true if you pass away in your sleep at a ripe old age leaving a legacy of love and loved ones. And divorce, well, that’s no fun either. Ward had too much experience in both of these negative endings.

  “In the case of Tristan Leighton Anderson…” Dr. Azzam explained to the jury. “…the proximate cause of death for the pediatric decedent (‘pediatric’ because she was under 18) was determined to be blunt force craniul trauma” with the immediate cause of death certified as “due to drowning.”

  The mechanism of death for Tristan was “asphyxia” and “cerebral hypoxia coupled with internal organ failure” while “the manner of death” was listed as a “homicide.”

  Calcote immediately raised objections for both “homicide” certifications saying they were “unduly suggestive” and asked for clarifications.

  Judge Marr knew what he was after and let the jury know “a homicide death certification is not meant to imply criminality or intent” because “those conclusions are always left to the courts.”

  The defense obviously would have liked both deaths to have been considered equivocal deaths, in other words, left open to interpretation, and finally labeled as accidental, suicide or at least undetermined. Every homicide, or any death for that matter, is considered equivocal until all the facts and test results are factored into making the decision for the final death certification. Calcote didn’t like that not even the words “probable” or “possible” were used in Dr. Azzam’s “homicide” findings. Calcote would try to make up for this on cross-examination.

  As far as collecting on the life insurance money for Karen, the official manner of death was inconsequential, even if it were ruled or had been changed to a suicide, because her death occurred well after the customary 2-year contestability exclusionary waiting period which began at the inception of her policy.

  It was Peter Guishet (pronounced gu-shay), another prosecutor from the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, who stepped up for the first time and performed the direct questioning of Dr. Azzam. The reason? He was good at this. It was in his wheelhouse and being a trial veteran of 25 years he had, from the serious stare he casted over his bifocals attached to neck straps to that shuffling way he walked, the kind, respectful bearing of a longtime mortician. It was natural. His father and grandfather were real undertaker’s from central Illinois who ran a farmland funeral home for four decades. He also knew when to stop a medical examiner or coroner and have them explain things in layman’s terms, if need be, because autopsies, if they didn’t repel, had a tendency, with their overabundance of medical and Latin terms, to overburden and give juries a collective stress headache.

  Dr. Azzam, during her testimony, detailed how she commenced her responsibilities by doing “an external examination of what was a well-developed, well-nourished Caucasian female understood to be aged 37. The body weighed 132 pounds, and measured 68 inches from crown to sole…”

  When Dr. Azzam ultimately finished her summary of findings, after being stopped numerous times by Mr. Guishet to clarify conclusions, there were quite a few discoveries which stood out and undermined the defense explanation of events from that horrific May evening. This was true regarding the passing of Karen as well as for Tristan’s death.

  First, Guishet had her explain how the routine toxicology studies were ordered but indicated nothing out of the ordinary, no alcohol (again, except for what was naturally occurring) and no drugs of any kind were found in Karen’s system (or in Tristan’s for that matter).

  Second, the decedent “Karen Anderson” had “multiple injuries to upper extremities that were compatible with defensive wounds.” There were a significant amount of “fresh bruises” and “abrasions” on both “anterior forearms” with “the avulsed dermis inferiorly signifying that the direction is from distal to proximal” suggesting the decedent was protectively moving her arms in a “flailing motion.”

  Thirdly, there were similar injuries to Karen’s “right lower leg” indicating she was likely kicking at her assailant.

  Fourthly, if someone, in this case Karen, were going to commit suicide by blowing her brains out, normally they would want “to get the job done right.” There would usually be evidence of a “hard-contact wound” which occurs when someone jams the muzzle of a weapon against their skin causing the area at the entrance of the wound to be roasted and blackened by the hot combustion gases which are emitted when one discharges a weapon. That was not what occurred here. Karen showed signs of a “close-contact gunshot wound,” probably where the “muzzle was about an inch from the skin’s surface,” leaving a cleaner entry wound as well as allowing enough room for some gunpowder to be deposited on her body around where the bullet entered under her chin.

  Asked during her testimony by Mr. Guishet why this was significant, and also requested to put things in layman’s terms, Dr. Azzam elucidated. “Usually when someone is going to commit suicide with a firearm they will place the weapon against their left or right temple or insert the muzzle of the weapon into their mouths. It is unusual to position the weapon under your chin, especially at an angle that isn’t aiming right for the brain.“

  Dr. Azzam asked and was granted permission by Judge Marr to step out of the witness stand to demonstrate for the jury.

  “Usually, you have the gun right there.” Dr. Azzam continued, using her index finger to indicate the gun barrel of the .38, pressing the tip of her finger into the skin under her chin. “A person senses if they don’t do it correctly it’s going to be a lot more messy and it could not work, too. In other words, it might take some time to die. Most times, when people get to that point, they want to get the job done right.”

  Mr. Guishet, being about 6 inches taller and 70 pounds heavier than Dr. Azzam, which is about the same difference in height and weight between Derek and Karen (although Azzam is 5’3” and Guishet is 5’9”), stepped up beside the petite medical examiner to highlight their disparity in size.

  “What would normally happen if someone my size was trying to stop someone your size from shooting themselves?” Guishet queried.

  Calcote immediately raised an objection, saying that Guishet was, “asking the witness to speculate.” But Calcote was summarily overruled by Judge Marr.

  Dr. Azzam continued, explaining, “Under that body size differential, it has been my experience that if the larger individual could not actually wrest the weapon away quickly they would at least succeed in altering the path of the bullet significantly. What occurred here, with the method and the spacing, and the fact that there was some evidence of bruising on the victim’s hands and the distal radius’, which are the wrists, it suggests to me that there was a struggle. The decedent was trying to pull away from an assailant attempting to position a gun under her chin and against her will.”

  Guishet repeated back “against her will” making sure the jury absorbed this important point.

  Lastly, regarding the irregular and incriminating aspects of Karen’s autopsy results, the fifth and most damningly important finding was the evidence that a sexual assault had occurred. Everything else flowed from that. It was the key to all the allegations, especially the home invasion and felony murder charges. While all three are Class X felonies you needed the sexual assa
ult to be proven first.

  Home invasion is basically defined as an individual (who is not a peace officer) entering someone’s home without authority knowing that one or more persons are present and intentionally causing any injury to any person or persons within such dwelling place. The most serious aspect of home invasion is the unauthorized entry, and even though Derek and his cohorts say they were “invited back” the court should apply at the very least the “limited authority doctrine” which asserts that even when someone comes to a private residence and is “invited in” by the occupant, the “authorization to enter is limited and criminal actions exceed this limited authority.” That is why the rape evidence is critical. Home invasion by itself carries a minimum of 6 years to a 30 year sentence, and with aggravating factors could lead to enhanced extended term sentencing of the defendants adding 15, 20 or more years to their prison terms. In their case, since the discharge of a firearm caused great bodily harm or death to someone within the dwelling, they could even receive mandatory life sentences.

  Dr. Azzam indicated there were “no prior traumas or injuries present on the decedent,” that everything she was detailing in her report appeared to “pre-mortem” or “fresh.” She testified that there was “diffuse vaginal edema consistent with aspects of sexual assault” as well as “hemorrhagic discoloration of the clitoral hood, labia majora and anterior surface of the labia minora.”

  She also went over the serology results which indeed showed that Derek had ejaculated inside Karen and Gabriel had left “a slight amount of pre-ejaculate fluid.”

  However, she indicated that “no saliva of any of the defendants was found in the decedent’s mouth.” The inference and conclusion that could be drawn from this was that no kissing appeared to be involved before, during or after the sexual acts.

  As far as Tristan’s autopsy results were concerned, Dr. Azzam presented one glaring anomaly at odds with the defense version of events.

  Yes, it was a blunt force trauma that caused a “deep laceration of the scalp” and a “subarachnoid hemorrhage” (which is bleeding into the area surrounding the brain), but there was no skull fracture.

  Yes, a review of the evidence indicated to her that the “pediatric decedent appeared to be backing away” and an “unforeseen collision with the 3-inch cross arm on the cast iron lamp post” did appear to “produce a loss of consciousness that resulted in a fall to the cement pool deck and another laceration to the area above her right eye” along with “a right cheek and shoulder abrasion,” but the comatose state should have been brief and “a mild-traumatic brain injury, by itself, has a nearly zero mortality rate, especially in someone so young.”

  Yes, she could have awakened after several seconds or even several minutes, and dizzily tried to get up and stumbled into the pool where she subsequently drowned, but “it didn’t appear to be the case here.”

  No, “It didn’t seem tenable…” Dr. Azzam asserted. “…after reviewing numerous photographs and Dr. Schauspieler’s blood spatter interpretation, that she would have rolled the six plus feet from the light post to the edge of the pool at which point she encountered the additional raised edge of a limestone bullnose border and continued rolling on into the water.”

  What Dr. Azzam also chillingly explained was that “there was some pooling” of Tristan’s blood on the back deck from the lacerations indicating she was likely laying there for several moments unconscious. However, instead of there being the irregular, low-velocity passive blood splatter of someone eventually rising and staggering as they came to, there was “a cast-off alternating pattern that matched the head lacerations that continued in a swiping rather than a dripping style in a straight-line direction towards the water that suggested the pediatric decedent rolled or was rolled into the pool.”

  Mr. Guishet made sure the jury understood this by using diagrams. He had Dr. Azzam act out how someone coming out of an unconscious state would usually try to rise to their feet, stumble a bit, attempt to get their bearings and then indicated how the blood spatter would be deviating, not linear as it was here.

  The jury was tired but this testimony, if true, was so disturbing that it did keep them engaged until the very end of what had been a long day.

  Derek was the cat that ate the canary through all this, expressionless. He merely stared into a void only the evil know and the good cannot fathom.

  Al Ward and Anderson sat across from each other at a table outside a taqueria stand. Again, Anderson let Ward take the time to get some food in his stomach. Ward downed several flautas and two large limonadas before he gave Anderson the long recap.

  Ward told him about the “irregularities” that seemed to bolster the State’s case, though he knew on defense cross-examination even the obvious gets clouded, if not eliminated, by procedure and lawyering. It was when he told Anderson about the Tristan death evidence testimony that Ward detected movement in Anderson’s heretofore intense but impassive demeanor. It was the flick of Anderson’s gaze that stopped just short of locking on Ward’s stare. It might have given Ward a hint of how Anderson was feeling. But it was gone as fast as it flared.

  Anderson, as far as feelings go, learned from an early age to go by his initial gut reaction whenever he encountered someone or something. This was true regardless of whether he had met the person before, had experienced a similar situation prior to that moment, or if he were meeting someone or having an experience for the first time. Anderson was always struck foremost by essence or atmosphere. He either felt darkness or light. Right now, Anderson could tell instantly that gloom emitted from Ward’s every pore, more so each day the trial had progressed. Anderson wished he had a different interpretation.

  Ward finally asked if Anderson had any questions.

  Anderson didn’t.

  Ward told him what to expect for the next day and to be ready to possibly testify.

  Anderson nodded. He had already called the witness service line on the subpoena, and was prepared.

  They shook hands under the still blazing sun and trudged back to their respective cars parked curbside in a shining sea of shattered tempered safety glass. The radiating mini-cubes of glass, the result of some side window smash and grabs to previous unwitting car owners, crunched under their steps.

  Anderson noticed a used condom and a discarded syringe in the sparkling debris. He wondered how often Streets and Sanitation had a sweeper come by here. How many kids, or adults for that matter, would accidentally come in contact with this toxic waste and hazard? He didn’t think about it long. It wasn’t his problem. It was somebody else’s. He had his own problems to focus on.

  Ward drove away to wherever it was he went.

  Anderson returned to his personal hell.

  * * *

  Day 3 would prove to produce the most fireworks. It didn’t start that way. There were a lot of “good mornings” tossed about. Seems everyone’s inner clock sensed that the bump had been traversed and it was clear sailing from here. The finish line was in sight.

  The defense was ready to cross-examine Dr. Azzam. They sent Roney’s counsel, Nicholas Leesom, a 54-year-old attorney with a handlebar moustache who had spent nearly his entire career in the Cook County Public Defender’s Office to question the diminutive but forceful medical examiner.

  It was important to both sides to send out as many people as you could because it looks to the jury like you are building a broad-based consensus opinion. Also, don’t get too hung up on one personality.

  Leesom had little trial experience even though he had more than twenty years of service. He was still a Grade 4 attorney in the PD Office, commanding the highest pay scale, even though “merit” time in front of a jury was supposed to play a large part in reaching that level, along with seniority. It was just that he loved plea deals. They were easier and it helped him reconcile the fact that even though each defendant deserved a vigorous defense he privately doubted he had ever had an innocent client.

  As for the details of his personal
path, Leesom didn’t enter law school until his late-twenties as he came out of college with a history degree and not much direction. After passing the bar on his third try, he bounced around doing piecework for the in-house legal departments of various corporations. He still remembered how he had to slog endlessly through the downtown office towers dropping off a summary of his non-existent work history and having to submit to fruitless interviews until a friend with a “connection” got him the gig at the PD’s Office.

  Nowadays those immense buildings that populate every city center, especially Chicago, still soared to the sky but every lobby directory bore the multitudinous listings of government entities, law firms, and the companies that supported them such as court reporting outfits, security contractors and temporary staffing agencies. Private industry had steadily gotten hip-checked out of the picture and Leesom gleefully watched its demise as he rode the lucrative boom in public service employee compensation that politicians showered on civil servants in exchange for votes which occurred all throughout his early career and well into the new millennium. It was a symbiotic relationship that still held sway but he had his finger to the wind now, ready at a moment’s notice to put in for retirement if the deal looked like it was going to change.

  Dr. Azzam took the stand and Leesom tried to immediately put her on the defensive.

  “Dr. Azzam, you are paid by the State to come here and testify, are you not?” Leesom darkly intoned.

  Azzam was surprised by the aggressiveness of his manner. Leesom had obviously caught Calcote’s fervor but it was a specious query. All of them were remunerated by the taxpayers, from the prosecutors, medical examiners and forensic experts to the public defenders. They were all members of the same umbrella union. So the question was disingenuous and usually came from private attorneys. Maybe it was a rivalry thing, members of one local always thought the other locals had the most luxurious contract and cushy job. Or maybe it was because public defenders had to defend a lot of slimy characters and she was part of what he and others in his office had to consider the do-gooders. In any event, Azzam could take care of herself and ultimately didn’t take umbrage at his approach.