Perfect Victim (34 page)

Under questioning by Mcguire, Mr. Coppa recalled most vividly that “Kay always seemed to be working in the garden.”

“Did she work hard?” Mcguire asked.

“She did it a lot harder than I would do it,” he said, grinning.

Then he added, “I was trying to figure out how to get my wife to work that hard.”

As laughter wafted through the court, Judge Knight turned to Coppa and quipped: “I’ll send you the transcript.”

The spectators didn’t hear this above their own chuckling. It was hard to say whether the jury heard the judge’s comment, but Papendick did, and he was furious.

At the next break he came up to Mcguire fuming: “Did you hear that crack the judge made? I’m going to start keeping book on this guy!”

This was bad news. Papendick was going to try to make an issue of the judge’s conduct.

Mcguire had never come up against this before. Personally, she found Judge Knight efficient and astute and saw nothing improper in his rulings or his comportment in court. It was true he had a streak of the humorist in him, but they all made jokes back in the judge’s chambers — it was a good way to ease tension — and Papendick laughed and wisecracked with the best of them.

But if he took issue with Knight’s conduct, there was a danger the judge could be disqualified, and Mcguire had worked too long and hard on this case to have it declared a mistrial or reversed on appeal.

Mcguire had resisted calling the Hookers’ daughters, but since they were the only other people living in the mobile home at the time of Colleen’s captivity, their perceptions were too important to skip.

The bailiff called Cathy Hooker.

Putting children on the stand requires special care. If testifying in court intimidates some adults, it can terrify a small child, so questions must be asked simply and gently, with no sarcasm or hostility. Kids must be handled with “kid gloves.”

Mcguire had learned from child molestation cases that having a trusted adult accompany the child on the stand lessens the anxiety, so Cathy was brought into the courtroom by her uncle, Janice’s brother. Dressed in white tights and a pink skirt, with a long braid down her back, she looked absolutely angelic.

Cameron Hooker watched his daughter take the stand, a smile frozen on his face.

Cathy said she was nine years old and told the court who her parents were. Since her mother was testifying against her father, the defendant, she could hardly have been in a more ticklish position, but she seemed unaware of this and answered with schoolgirl ingenuousness.

Mcguire handed her a picture. “Who is that person?”

Cathy identified the blue terrycloth nightgown that “Kay” used to wear. She confirmed that Colleen had worked around the house, had one day left on the bus to go home, and had stayed away for some time. But Cathy sometimes seemed confused. When the prosecutor asked how long “Kay” had been gone, Cathy answered, “Three or four months.”

Mcguire skipped back to the period when “Kay” first babysat: “Is there a bathroom close to your bedroom?”

“Yes.”

“Could you go in and out of that bathroom?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“Because it was locked.”

“Are there a couple of sheds close to the trailer?”

“Yes.”

“Could you get in and out of both of those sheds?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“Because one was locked.”

Here, Cameron Hooker’s smile faltered. He looked away.

“Were you supposed to go into your parents’ bedroom?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“I don’t know.”

“Cathy, did you know about a box under the waterbed?”

Cathy’s cheerfulness diminished. She looked nervous and sad.

“No,” she said.

“Did you know about a hole dug underneath one of the sheds?”

Also nervously: “No.”

Having asked the hardest questions, the prosecutor shortly wrapped up her examination.

Rolland Papendick approached the witness in an equally gentle manner. “Was ‘Kay’ nice to you?” he asked.

“Yes.”

“Did you love ‘Kay’?”

“Yes.”

Papendick set about illustrating Colleen’s freedoms by eliciting testimony that “Kay” took Cathy and her sister for walks three or four times a month and for bicycle rides “most of the time.”

Diffusing some of the earlier testimony about Colleen’s feverish labor, Cathy said that her mother, her father, and even she had worked in the garden.

Cathy was shortly excused. The bailiff next called the younger daughter, Dawn Hooker, and Cameron again had his smile in place.

All dimples, bangs, and nervous smiles, Dawn was brought in by the same uncle, who sat with her on the witness stand.

When asked if she solemnly swore to tell the truth, the seven-year-old responded: “Yeah.”

Dawn remembered less about “Kay” than her older sister, but the most important part of her testimony concerned the “hole.”

Colleen had testified that while she was kept there in 1983, Dawn and her cousin, Denise, had come into the shed and looked down the opening.

“What happened when you were back there by the hole? Did someone come out and yell at you?” Mcguire asked.

“No,” Dawn replied, then quickly sucked in her breath, realizing she’d made a mistake.

“Did someone come out, do you remember?” Mcguire persisted.

“Yeah.”

“Who?”

“Mom.”

“Did she get mad at you?”

“Yeah.”

“For what?”

“Going back there.”

Dawn remembered that she’d seen a light in the hole, but she hadn’t seen Colleen, and in fact believed that “Kay” wasn’t staying with the Hooker family at that time.

During his brief crossexamination, Papendick again highlighted the girls’ affection for “Kay,” in support of his claim that Jan was jealous over this bond.

By the time Papendick had finished his short round of questions, with Dawn again making simple mistakes and then sucking in her breath at the realization, the courtroom was completely charmed by her. Even the poker-faced jurors smiled.

The daughters had blown through the court like sudden fresh air, but Mcguire’s mind was always turning: She wondered whether their innocent appeal might backfire, eliciting compassion and sympathy for their father.

Another witness called by the prosecution clearly managed to make points for the defense.

Under questioning by Mcguire, Doris Miron verified that “Kay” had come to work for her as a maid at King’s Lodge in May of 1984, and identified several cancelled paychecks “Kay” had received. She also described how “Kay” had so few clothes that Miron felt moved to give her some, “because I just felt like she needed extra clothes to wear, like the other maids.”

Papendick made the most of his crossexamination. He portrayed Colleen as a content and industrious worker, too well adjusted to have been a terrorized and brainwashed slave.

First, he established that Colleen was such a good worker that she’d been promoted to a job at the reception desk, where she waited on customers.

“Was there a phone at the desk?”

“Yes, there was.”

“There is a restaurant right next to your King’s Lodge, isn’t there?”

“Yes, there is.”

“Is that a favorite hangout for the California Highway patrol?”

“Yes.”

“See a lot of Highway Patrol vehicles in the parking lot?”

“Yes.”

“And you can see those right from the desk, can’t you?”

“Yes, you can.”

“Did you ever notice any bruises on Colleen, or ‘Kay’?”

“No.”

“Did she have any problem with her speech?”

“No.”

“Any difficulty performing the tasks you assigned her?”

“No.”

“When she referred to the trailer, she referred to it as her place?”

“Yes.”

“Did she ever say that there was a discussion about adding on a room for her?”

“Yes. One evening before she left she was saying they were going to add on another room for her because she was sleeping on the floor in the trailer.”

“Do you know if she ever went to anybody’s house after work?”

“She said once that Mr. and Mrs. Hooker were in Redding and that she didn’t want to go home right away, so she went over to one of the maid’s home.”

“Would you describe Colleen as the best worker you ever had?”

“Yes. She was very good.”

Like most of the witnesses, Miron scarcely mentioned Cameron Hooker, but rather testified about Colleen and Jan. It sometimes seemed that Colleen Stan was the one on trial here and that the case hinged less on the actions of the accused than on the veracity of the victim. If one accepted Colleen’s story, subsequent testimonies added foundation, but if her testimony was unconvincing, nothing the other witnesses said did much to dispel that skepticism. And some, like Miron, inadvertently made Colleen’s version of the truth seem almost incomprehensible.

Mcguire added to the visual impact of Hooker’s handmade bondage equipment, which was strewn about the courtroom, by offering another visual aid: a videotape of a police search of the Hookers’ property. Officer Shamblin narrated this video of the Hookers’ deceivingly mundane single-wide trailer, backyard, and sheds. Though amateurishly made, the video gave the jurors an opportunity to see scenes of the crime — including the surprisingly deep dungeon — that distance prohibited visiting firsthand.

Mcguire also asked Shamblin to testify about the seizure of sketches, slides, and various pornographic publications. While he identified these, Hooker fidgeted with a pen, shifted in his seat, and tensed his temples. It apparently unsettled him to have his private life dissected and paraded before the jury, and nothing seemed to upset him so much as people riffling through his artwork.

Papendick wasn’t going to let this sleazy collection move into evidence without a fight. With the jury excused, he disputed its relevance, maintaining there was little probative value in establishing that Hooker liked to view adult films, read bondage publications, or draw, especially since he’d already stipulated to a sexual preference for bondage.

Mcguire contended that this collection contributed to Hooker’s plan for abducting and enslaving Colleen Stan. Out of the stacks of pornographic magazines seized, Mcguire said, only those with stories showing a “how-to” for capturing and keeping a sex slave had been selected as evidence.

After hearing their arguments, Judge Knight admitted some of the evidence, excluded some, and withheld judgement on the rest until Mcguire and Papendick could present the relevant parts more specifically.

It was a draw for now, but the pornography issue wasn’t dead.

Mcguire had saved the medical doctor and the psychologist for last. Twin punches — the outside examined, the inside explained.

The state called Dr. Michael J. Vovakes, a Red Bluff physician.

After establishing the doctor’s extensive background in treating child abuse and sexual assault victims, Mcguire turned his attention to his December 4, 1984 examination of Colleen Stan.

Dr. Vovakes noted first that Colleen’s hair was thinner than one would expect for an adult female, though he didn’t speculate on what would have caused this.

While other witnesses gave subjective observations, his were scientific and measurable. He noted a very pale, flat scar on her left breast, about one-quarter inch by three-quarters inch but couldn’t offer an opinion on what had caused it.

Mcguire put up a diagram of the human body and asked that he mark where Colleen had scars.

The doctor also said Colleen had scars on the bony parts of both wrists, which were consistent with the use of handcuffs. He noted there were more scars on the right wrist, that Colleen was right-handed, and that “a right-handed person would struggle more with their dominant hand if they were restrained.”

He also described scars on both ankles that were consistent with the use of cuffs — again, with more scars on the right side.

Dr. Vovakes then described scars on both of Colleen’s inner thighs, high up and near the groin, with “rather unusual configurations.” On the right side, she had a rounded scar, approximately one-third inch by one-half inch, which appeared to be a burntype scar.

Beside it was a Y-shaped scar. “The head of this Y had two round balls or round shapes of scar,” he said. On the left side Colleen had a slightly longer scar with a similar configuration and texture, “as if it were some type of burn.”

At the prosecutor’s request, he marked these, also, on the diagram.

“Are those scars compatible with electric burns?” she asked.

“They certainly appear to me to be.”

“Why is that?”

“Because burn scars have a distinct appearance,” he explained. “Electrical burn scars round up the skin and make a smooth surface to the scar. These scars were very unusual with the little rounded areas at the top portion, as if that could have been made from wires or something touching the skin.”

Mcguire showed the doctor a wire that had been seized at the Hooker residence, and he confirmed that “something like this could make a Y-shaped appearance with the rounded areas at the top.”

Lastly, Mcguire asked about Colleen’s pierced labia, and Dr. Vovakes confirmed there was a hole through the right labia.

Again, he marked the diagram, and the prosecutor, having produced another convincing exhibit, turned the witness over to the defense.

Papendick did his best to undermine the doctor’s testimony.

Showing him the leather cuffs, he asked if Colleen’s scars would be consistent with their use.

“Not really,” Dr. Vovakes said. “These are small linear scars. This cuff could distribute pressure on a wider area, much wider than the scar.”

Papendick next produced a series of photographs and asked the doctor whether the scars depicted in the photos were similar to Colleen Stan’s.

Vovakes seemed to have a difficult time with these. His replies were along the lines of. “It’s hard to tell… that could be… There may be two small scars on this one… It’s so light, I can’t really tell.”

Meanwhile, Mcguire tapped her foot and fumed. She knew these photographs. Officer Shamblin had taken them during his first interview with Colleen, and they were abysmal — poorly focused and terribly exposed. Irritated that Papendick was using these to try to make Colleen’s scars seem less severe, Mcguire attacked the accuracy of the photographs on redirect examination.