“As I said before, it could have been done as misdirection. But we also believe there is a good chance that the case sprung open when it was dropped on the concrete during the attack.”
I put my incredulous look on.
“And how did you come to that determination, sir?”
“The briefcase has a faulty locking mechanism. Any sort of jarring of the case could lead to its release. We conducted experiments with the case and found that when it was dropped to a hard surface from a height of three feet or more, it sprung open about one out of every three times.”
I nodded and acted like I was computing this information for the first time even though I already had it from one of the investigative reports received in discovery.
“So what you’re saying is that there was a one in three chance that the briefcase came open on its own when Mr. Bondurant dropped it.”
“That’s correct.”
“And you called that a good chance, correct?”
“A solid chance.”
“And of course there was a greater chance that that was not how the briefcase came open, right?”
“You can look at it that way.”
“There is a greater chance that someone opened the briefcase, correct?”
“Again, you can look at it that way. But we determined that nothing was missing from the briefcase so there was no apparent reason for it to have been opened except to create a misdirection of some kind. Our working theory was that it sprung open when it was dropped.”
“Do you notice in the crime scene photograph, Detective, that none of the contents of the case have fallen out and onto the pavement?”
“That’s correct.”
“Do you have an inventory of the briefcase in your binder there that you can read to us?”
Kurlen took his time finding it and then read it to the jury. The briefcase contained six files, five pens, an iPad, a calculator, an address book and two blank notebooks.
“When you conducted your tests in which you dropped the briefcase to the ground to see about the possibility of it popping open, did the case have the same contents?”
“It had similar contents, yes.”
“And on the times that the case popped open, how often did all the contents remain inside it?”
“Not every time but most of the time. It definitely could have happened.”
“Was that the scientific conclusion to your scientific experiment, Detective?”
“It was done in the lab. It wasn’t my experiment.”
With a pen and a noticeable wrist flourish, I made several check marks on my legal pad. I then moved on to the most important avenue of my cross-examination.
“Detective,” I said, “you told us earlier today that you received a threat-assessment file from WestLand National and that it contained information about the defendant. Did you ever check out any of the other names in the file?”
“We reviewed the file several times and did some limited follow-up. But as evidence came in against the defendant, we saw less and less of a need to.”
“You weren’t going to go chasing rainbows when you had your suspect already in hand, is that it?”
“I wouldn’t put it that way. Our investigation was thorough and exhaustive.”
“Did this thorough and exhaustive investigation include pursuing any other leads at any time that did not involve Lisa Trammel as a suspect?”
“Of course. That’s what the job involves.”
“Did you review Mr. Bondurant’s work product and look for any leads unrelated to Lisa Trammel?”
“Yes, we did.”
“You have testified about investigating threats made against the victim in this case. Did you investigate any threats he might have made against others?”
“Where the victim threatened someone else? Not that I recall.”
I asked the court’s permission to approach the witness with Defense Exhibit 2. I handed copies to all parties. Freeman objected but she was simply going through the motions. The issue regarding Bondurant’s letter of complaint to Louis Opparizio had already been decided during pretrial arguments. Perry was allowing it, if only to even the score for allowing the state to enter the hammer and the DNA. He overruled Freeman’s objection and told me I could proceed.
“Detective Kurlen, you hold a letter sent by certified mail from Mitchell Bondurant, the victim, to Louis Opparizio, president of ALOFT, a contracted vendor to WestLand National. Could you please read the letter to the jury?”
Kurlen stared at the page I gave him for a long moment before reading.
“ ‘Dear Louis, Attached you will find correspondence from an attorney named Michael Haller who is representing the home owner in one of the foreclosure cases you are handling for WestLand. Her name is Lisa Trammel and the loan number is oh-four-oh-nine-seven-one-nine. The mortgage is jointly held by Jeffrey and Lisa Trammel. In his letter Mr. Haller makes allegations that the file is replete with fraudulent actions perpetrated in the case. You will note that he gives specific instances, all of which were carried out by ALOFT. As you know and we have discussed, there have been other complaints. These new allegations against ALOFT, if true, have put WestLand in a vulnerable position, especially considering the government’s recent interest in this aspect of the mortgage business. Unless we come to some sort of arrangement and understanding in regard to this I will be recommending to the board that WestLand withdraw from its contract with your company for cause and any ongoing business be terminated. This action would also require the bank to file an SAR with appropriate authorities. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to further discuss these matters.’ ”
Kurlen held the letter out to me as if he was finished with it. I ignored the gesture.
“Thank you, Detective. Now the letter mentions the filing of an SAR. Do you know what that is?”
“A suspicious activity report. All banks are required to file them with the Federal Trade Commission if such activity comes to their attention.”
“Have you ever before seen the letter you hold, Detective?”
“Yes, I have.”
“When?”
“While reviewing the victim’s work product. I noticed it then.”
“Can you give me a date when this happened?”
“Not an exact date. I would say I became aware of this letter about two weeks into the investigation.”
“And that would have been two weeks after Lisa Trammel was already arrested for the murder. Did you investigate further upon becoming aware of this letter, maybe talk to Louis Opparizio?”
“At some point I made inquiries and learned that Mr. Opparizio had a solid alibi for the time of the killing. I left it at that.”
“What about the people working for Opparizio? Did they all have alibis?”
“I don’t know.”
“You don’t know?”
“That’s right. I did not pursue this because it appeared to be a business dispute and not a legitimate motive for murder. I do not view this letter as a threat.”
“You did not consider it unusual that in this day of instant communication the victim chose to send a certified letter instead of an e-mail or a text or a fax?”
“Not really. There were several other copies of letters sent by certified mail. It seemed to be a way of doing business and keeping a record of it.”
I nodded. Fair enough.
“Do you know if Mr. Bondurant ever filed a suspicious activity report in regard to Louis Opparizio or his company?”
“I checked with the Federal Trade Commission. He did not.”
“Did you check with any other government agency to see if Louis Opparizio or his company were the subject of an investigation?”
“As best I could. There was nothing.”
“As best you could… and so this whole thing was a dead end to you, correct?”
“That’s correct.”
“You checked with the FTC and you ran down a man’s alibi, but then dropped it. You already had a suspect and the case against her was easy and just fell right into place for you, correct?”