That caused some raised eyebrows in the courtroom. Dirkson hadn’t even mentioned the note in his opening statement. Obviously this was a case where the prosecution had more evidence against the defendant than it could ever possibly need.
Finally Oswald testified to developing and photographing latent fingerprints in the decedent’s apartment, and photos and fingerprint lifts were received into evidence.
Steve Winslow took him on cross-examination, which created a stir of interest among the jurors. Up till now they seen only Fitzpatrick. And Fitzpatrick looked like a lawyer. But what was this young man with long hair and sloppy clothes up to?
Naturally, the jurors expected Steve to cross-examine Oswald on the gun and the note.
He did neither.
“Officer Oswald,” Steve said. “You testified to taking photographs in the decedent’s apartment, did you not?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Now, in addition to taking the photographs, you were a witness to what you photographed, were you not?”
“Yes, of course.”
“You examined the apartment for evidence, did you not?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Was there a computer in the apartment?”
“Yes, there was.”
“Does it show in the photographs you took?”
Detective Oswald frowned. “I’m not sure.”
Steve picked up the stack of photographs from the court reporter’s desk and handed them to the witness. “Well, take a look and see.”
Detective Oswald thumbed through the photographs. “Yes, here it is,” he said. He held up the photograph and pointed. “You can see it here, in the upper left-hand corner.”
“Which photograph is that?”
Oswald turned it over and looked at the back. “That is People’s Exhibit Five-N.”
“I see,” Steve said. “And does the computer show in any of the other photographs?”
Oswald riffled through them. “No, it does not.”
“I see,” Steve said. He took the photographs back from the witness. “And since you weren’t sure if the computer was in the photographs at all, and since it only appears in one of them and only in the background, and since these are photographs of the objects from which you obtained latent fingerprints, am I correct in assuming you got no fingerprints from the computer?”
“That is correct.”
“Is that unusual?”
Oswald shook his head. “Not at all. A computer keyboard is like a typewriter. The keys are struck many times. There’s no hope of getting a clear latent print. Only indecipherable smudges.”
“Which is what you got in this case?”
“That is correct.”
“Then let me ask you this. Is there any chance those indecipherable smudges might contain enough whorls and arches, no matter how fragmented, to be able to attempt a comparison with the prints of any known person?”
“I would say no.”
“But that is just your opinion?”
“It is an expert opinion.”
Steve smiled. “Yes, it is. But the manner in which you just expressed it was, ‘I would say no.’ You didn’t say no. You told me that’s what you would say. Which is not exactly the same thing, and which indicates a certain degree of doubt.”
Oswald shook his head. “There is no doubt in my mind. If I misspoke myself, I apologize. What I said was a figure of speech. If you want to build on it, I can’t stop you. But the fact is, I would say no, because the answer is no, so that’s what I would say.”
That sally brought smiles to the faces of some of the jurors. Dirkson grinned approvingly.
Steve Winslow took no notice. “That may well be,” he said. “But I’d rather let the evidence speak for itself. Tell me, did you photograph the keyboard of the computer?”
“No, I did not.”
“Why not?”
“I told you. Because there were no legible prints.”
“Which you have no way of proving, since you didn’t take the photograph of the keyboard.”
“Objected to as argumentative,” Dirkson said.
“Sustained.”
“Did you photograph the keyboard?” Steve asked.
“Objected to as already asked and answered.”
“Sustained.”
Steve Winslow frowned. “No further questions.”
In the back of the courtroom, Mark Taylor nudged Tracy Garvin. “What’s he up to now?”
Tracy leaned over to whisper. “Giving the impression the prosecution’s hampering his investigation by being overly technical.”
Taylor grinned. “You’re gettin’ good at this.”
Next, Dirkson called Phillip Riker from the police crime lab, who testified to examining the fingerprints that had been received in evidence.
“Mr. Riker,” Dirkson said. “Did you compare those prints with the known prints of any person or persons?”
“Yes, I did.”
“And who would that be?”
“Well, I first compared the prints with the prints taken from the decedent, David Castleton.”
“With what results?”
“The majority of the prints were his. May I consult my records?”
“Please do.”
Riker took a notebook from his jacket pocket. “Yes, here we are. There were thirty-one prints in all. Twenty-six of them proved to be prints of the decedent, David Castleton.”
“The remaining five-did you compare those with the known prints of any person?”
“Yes, I did.”
“With what results?”
“Four of those prints matched absolutely with the known prints taken from David Castleton’s cleaning lady, Joyce Wilkens.”
“I see,” Dirkson said. “And the one remaining print-did you compare that with the known prints of any person?”
“Yes, I did.”
“With what result?”
“That print matched absolutely with the right thumb print taken from the defendant, Kelly Clay Wilder.”
There was a murmur in the courtroom. Judge Wallingsford silenced it quickly with the gavel.
“Thank you, Mr. Riker,” Dirkson said. “To which print are you now referring?”
“May I see the exhibits?”
“Certainly,” Dirkson said. He handed the fingerprint lifts to the witness.
Riker riffled through them, compared them to the list in his notebook. “Here we are,” he said. “I’m referring to the lift marked for identification as People’s Exhibit Six-J. It is the print I compared to the right thumbprint taken from the defendant, Kelly Clay Wilder.”
“And where was that print found?”
“It was taken from the doorknob of David Castleton’s apartment.”
“The front doorknob?”
“That is correct.”
“The outside doorknob?” Dirkson asked.
“No, sir. The inside doorknob.”
Dirkson let the jury see his smile of satisfaction. “Thank you, Mr. Riker,” he said. “That’s all.”
Steve Winslow rose to cross-examine. “Mr. Riker,” he said. “Were you present at the scene of the crime?”
“No, I was not.”
“You compared prints furnished to you by the Crime Scene Unit?”
“That is correct.”
“Then when you state that the thumbprint of the defendant, Kelly Clay Wilder was taken from the inside doorknob of David Castleton’s apartment, you are not testifying to what you personally observed. You are going by the information furnished you on the fingerprint lift. Is that right?”
“No, it is not.”
“It is not? How can that be if you were never at the scene of the crime?”
“I’m willing to explain if you’ll allow me.”
“Please do.”
“Certainly I rely on the information on the lift as a guideline, but I am not basing my testimony on it. In addition to comparing the defendant’s fingerprints with the fingerprint found on the lift, People’s Exhibit Six-J, I also compared it to the photograph of that fingerprint taken in place on the doorknob. I believe that photograph has also been introduced into evidence. Now I can’t swear to you that’s the doorknob of David Castleton’s apartment, since I’ve never been there-you’ll have to go by the testimony of other witnesses for that. But as to where that one particular fingerprint came from with regard to the set of fingerprints-well, I’m not taking the word of what anyone told me. It is my own personal observation that the fingerprint came specifically from the doorknob in the photograph.”