The Reform Artists: A Legal Suspense, Spy Thriller (The Reform Artists Series Book 1) (23 page)

“What happened when the police arrived?” West asked.

“Martin took off the moment he heard me on the phone. And he stayed out all night. So, he wasn’t there when the police arrived.”

“What did the police do?”

“They searched through the house, took down information about Martin, borrowed a picture of him, and they examined the broken glass in the fireplace. The officer was very nice. He put everything down in his report. They waited with me for nearly an hour.”

“What about the second incident?” West asked.

“That happened the afternoon of Sunday, November sixteenth,” Katie said. We were raking leaves and Justin ran his bicycle through them, thinking it was funny. Then, Martin took the bicycle and threw it down on the driveway with all his might. It got all scuffed up, and Justin ran to his room crying. I couldn’t get him to come out.”

“Did you call the police on this occasion as well?” West asked.

“Yes. They came and wrote up their report again, took a picture of the bike on the driveway and everything.”

“What did they say to your husband?” West asked.

“Nothing. Martin had apologized and had gone inside to take a tranquilizer. He was sleeping upstairs when they arrived, and I asked them not to disturb him, as everything was calm once more, and I didn’t want to get him riled up.”

“And the police were OK with that?” West asked.

“Well, not at first. But I begged them. I explained how Martin had been under a lot of pressure lately, that he wasn’t normally a violent man, and finally they said, ‘OK.’”

“What was the third occasion?” West asked.

“It happened in late December, December the twenty-eighth, I believe.”

“Tell us about it.”

“Well,” Katie said, “we had gone to my mother-in-law’s home for the day—to exchange presents and have an extended Christmas for the kids. Martin and his mother don’t get along well. I mean, she rides him the entire time we visit. He calls her the ‘Ultra Nag.’”

“Objection,” Swindell said. “Irrelevant narrative. Move to strike!”

“Sustained.”

“How long did you stay there?” West asked.

“Till about four in the afternoon.”

“And why did you leave at 4:00?”

“Martin and his mother don’t get along,” Katie said, “and he had had all he could take.”

“What was the nature of the incident on this day?”

“Martin got angry and backed his car into the garage wall, messing up the fender.”

“What made him so angry?” West asked.

“When we got home, he realized he had left something at his mother’s house, and he would have to drive back to Virginia to get it.”

“What did you do after he left?

“I called the police.”

“Why?” West asked.

“I wanted them to document what had happened. I wanted them to be aware of the escalating nature of the situation.”

“Did they speak with your husband on that occasion?”

“No, but they told me they were becoming concerned.”

“Objection,” Swindell said. “Hearsay.”

“Sustained.”

“When did the final incident take place?” West asked.

“That was on January eighteenth—at night.”

“Describe what happened.”

“Martin and Justin got into a fight and then Martin squeezed my arm.”

“What was the fight about?”

“Access to the TV in the den.”

“What was the issue?”

“Justin wanted to watch Disney and Martin wanted to watch the football game.”

“What happened?”

“Martin locked himself in the den, and Justin banged on the door with a baseball bat for about an hour.”

“What did you do while that was going on?”

“I told my son that his father had said he did not want to be disturbed. He would have to watch Disney another night.”

“What did your husband do when he finally came out of the room?”

“He yelled at me for not controlling our son and grabbed me by the arm and squeezed real tight.”

“What specifically led you to call 911 on that occasion?

“About a half-hour later, I looked down and saw my arm was seriously bruised.”

“What happened when the police arrived?”

“The police officer tried to get me to go to a shelter—or to consider filing a petition for a protective order.”

“Did you take the officer’s advice?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

Katie Silkwood shook her head. “I didn’t want to believe things had gotten that bad.”

“Thank you, Mrs. Silkwood,” West said. Then looking over at Swindell, she added, “Your witness.”

Swindell rose slowly, took his pad in hand and approached the bench. “Very interestin’ story, Mrs. Silkwood,” he said. “Let me see if I understand it correctly. Your husband has been gettin’ increasin’ly violent and angry lately. On four separate occasions, you called the police because of his excessive use of force or because of his out-of-control temper. And finally, last Thursday, when you saw the pattern repeatin’ itself, you took matters into your own hands and fled with the children and your dog. Is that right?”

“Yes,” Katie said.

“Mrs. Silkwood, rememberin’ that you’re under oath, I wonder if there’s anythin’ you may have omitted regardin’ these incidents that you’d like to mention now, for the record? Or do you stand by the story as told.”

“I stand by it,” Katie said.

“So, if we’re to believe you,” Swindell said, “the police came to your house four different times in response to emergency 911 calls. On all but one of those occasions, your husband had ‘fled the scene.’ And on their second visit, he had been restin’ after takin’ a tranquilizer, and they agreed not to confront him. Is that right?”

“Yes,” Katie said.

“Don’t you think that’s odd, Mrs. Silkwood—how the police never once saw your husband on any of those occasions?”

“Objection, Your Honor,” West said. “Argument-ative.”

“Overruled,” Judge Farnsworth said.

“I can’t keep Martin at home—or anywhere else, for that matter—if he wants to leave,” Katie said. “He’s a grown man, and he is a lot bigger than I am.”

“Isn’t it true, Mrs. Silkwood, that the real reason the police never saw your husband, and the reason you—what word did you use to describe it? Ah yes,” he said, referring to his notes. “The reason you ‘begged’ them not to disturb him on the occasion when you said he had taken the tranquilizers, was because he wasn’t really home at all?”

“Of course, that’s precisely what I said,” Katie explained. “He wasn’t home!”

“Even on the day he took the tranquilizers?” Swindell asked.

“No,” she said. “He was home that time, just not the others.”

“Mrs. Silkwood,” Swindell continued. “Isn’t it true that your husband was not only ‘not at home’ the four times you called 911, but that he actually was out-of-state? Wasn’t he away on business?”

“Objection, Your Honor,” West said. “This question has been asked and answered.”

“Overruled,” Judge Farnsworth said. “The question seeks further clarification. Then, turning to the witness, he said, “Please answer the question.”

“What are you suggesting?” Katie Silkwood asked Swindell.

“Your honor,” Swindell said, addressing the bench. “Would you please instruct the witness, to answer the question before her.”

“Perhaps it would be helpful to repeat the question first,” Judge Farnsworth said. He instructed the court reporter to read the question aloud from the record.

“Isn’t it true,” the court reporter read “that your husband was not only not at home the four times you called 911, but that he actually was out-of-state? Wasn’t he away on business?”

Katie Silkwood looked at the judge, and he gestured for her to answer. She turned to Swindell. “No, that’s a lie!”

“We’ll see about that,” Swindell said.

West stood up. “Objection, judge. Argumentative and completely inappropriate!”

“Sustained.” Judge Farnsworth said. He frowned at Swindell and raised an eyebrow. “Save your arguments for the court, counselor.”

“Sorry, Your Honor.”

Then Swindell continued, “Mrs. Silkwood, once more rememberin’ that you’re under oath, is it still your contention that, on these four occasions, your husband was at home and not away on business, managin’ on-site audits at his accountin’ firm’s clients’ offices?”

“Objection!” West said, rising once more.” “Counsel’s question is argumentative. What’s more, the question already has been asked and answered several times!”

“Sustained,” Judge Farnsworth said, frowning again at Swindell.

Swindell had a sour look on his face and shook his head as he walked toward his desk and removed a set of papers from his file. He held them up in his right hand for all to see. “Your Honor, I have here four copies of police reports filed after each of the four 911 calls placed from the Silkwood home.”

“Objection,” Beverly West said, rising once more. “These alleged police reports have not yet been authenticated, Your Honor. Furthermore, Mr. Swindell did not apprise us, in advance of today’s hearing, that he had these documents in his possession. He also failed to provide us with review copies, as is required, by law.”

“That’s true, judge,” Swindell said, “but these documents only came into my possession over the weekend. I also have not yet moved to introduce them into evidence. I am merely asking to have them marked for identification purposes.”

“Ms. West,” Judge Farnsworth asked. “Do you still object?”

“No, Your Honor,” West said. “However, I’d like to be permitted to review these documents first, if you don’t mind.”

“Certainly,” Judge Farnsworth said. “Mr. Swindell, do you have copies?”

Swindell produced three sets of copies: one for the court, one for West and one for himself. He handed them around and then returned to his table, while the judge and West looked them over.

When West had completed her review, Judge Farnsworth continued. “Ms. West, do you object to these items being marked for identification?

“No, judge.”

“OK,” Judge Farnsworth said to Swindell, “you may proceed.”

“Thank you, Your Honor,” Swindell said. “If it please the court, I would like to mark these four police reports as defense exhibits A through D, for identification purposes only.

“So ordered,” Judge Farnsworth said.

“Now, Mrs. Silkwood,” Swindell continued, “regardin’ that first 911 incident from November – I believe you said it happened on Tuesday, November fourth; is that correct?”

“Yes.”

“At approximately what time that Tuesday, do you recall placin’ your call to 911?”

“I don’t remember,” Mrs. Silkwood said. “I know it was evening, but I’m not sure.”

“May I approach the witness, Your Honor?” Swindell asked.

“What for?”

“Well,” Swindell said, “unless Ms. West objects, I thought I’d let Mrs. Silkwood take a look at the correspondin’ report to see if it helps refresh her memory.”

“No objection, Your Honor,” West said.

“All right then,” Judge Farnsworth said, “you may proceed.”

Mrs. Silkwood took a moment to review the report before handing it back to Swindell. “Is your memory refreshed, Mrs. Silkwood?” Swindell asked.

“Yes.”

“Then, could you tell the court the approximate time you placed your call?”

“Yes, I placed it at 8:43 p.m.”

“Thank you,” Swindell said. “And about how much time after that did the police arrive on the scene?”

“About fifteen minutes later,” Mrs. Silkwood said.

“So, that would put them at your house at approximately 9:00 p.m. would it not?”

“Yes.”

“Now, Mrs. Silkwood, it bein’ November fourth and all, did you have a fire goin’ in the fireplace that evenin’?” 

“Yes, I believe we did,” Mrs. Silkwood said.

“And you said the police inspected some of the glass fragments that night, didn’t they?”

“Yes. They used something like a large tweezer and held each piece of broken glass up to the fire.”

“Why did they do that?” Swindell asked.

“Oh, I think they said something about looking for fingerprints.”

“Do you recall,” Swindell asked, “if they found any?”

“No,” she said. “Not on the pieces they were able to extract.”

“Did they find anythin’ at all of interest in the largest bottom piece that they pulled out?” Swindell asked.

“I don’t know what you mean,” she said.

“I mean anythin’ notable about the condition of the glass fragments they were able to retrieve.”

“No. I don’t recall,” she said.

“Mrs. Silkwood, didn’t they find a few drops of Scotch still present in a bottom piece of the glass?

“Oh, yes. That’s right. And officer Tilley, I think that was his name, said that showed Martin had left only a short time before I placed my call.”

“Objection, hearsay,” West said. “Move to strike.”

“Sustained,” Judge Farnsworth said. “Strike everything after “glass.”

“They found no fingerprints at all?” Swindell asked again.

“That’s right.”

“And they found some liquor still wet in the glass?”

“Yes.”

“Now,” Swindell continued, “turnin’ to the second incident which happened on Sunday, November sixteenth. Do you recall precisely what time you called the police?”

“No, I don’t,” Mrs. Silkwood said.

“Once again, Your Honor, may I approach the witness and let her review the second incident report?”

“Yes, you may,” the judge said.

Mrs. Silkwood took a few moments to review the report before handing it back to Swindell.

“Did that help refresh your memory?” he asked.

“Yes,” she said.

“Could you give me the approximate time, then?”

“Yes. I called them at about three-thirty in the afternoon.”

“Your Honor,” Swindell said, after returning to his desk with more papers in hand, “What I have here, are copies of Mr. Silkwood’s trip expense reports for four business trips that he took on the same dates as each alleged 911 call, and they are marked Defense Exhibits ‘E’ through ‘H.’ I would like to have them so marked for identification purposes.”

“Objection! Inadmissible.” West said, springing up from her table. “Plaintiff’s counsel has not been apprised of the existence of these exhibits in advance of this hearing.”

“Mr. Swindell?” Judge Farnsworth said. “Do you have anything to say in response?”

“Yes, Judge,” Swindell said. “This evidence is bein’ introduced for purposes of witness impeachment and, in such instances, as opposin’ counsel knows, the prior disclosure rule does not apply.”

“OK,” Judge Farnsworth said. “Overruled.”

“Your honor,” West interjected, “I also object to the introduction of these documents based on the lack of a proper foundation.”

Farnsworth turned to Swindell. “Do you care to respond, counsel?”

“I believe we only need proper foundation to introduce these documents into evidence, but not for the purpose of havin’ them marked for identification purposes.”

“Ms. West,” Judge Farnsworth asked, “do you have any further arguments you wish to make?”

“No, Your Honor.”

“Thank you both,” Judge Farnsworth said. “The objection is overruled. Mr. Swindell, you may mark defense exhibits E through H for identification purposes.

Swindell handed copies of the expense reports and their attached expense receipts around and then returned to the defense table.

“May I approach the witness?” he asked.

“Yes, you may.”

“Mrs. Silkwood,” Swindell said, handing her the expense reports, do you recognize these documents?

“I recognize the kind of document they are, but I’ve never seen these before.”

“What kind of document are they?” Swindell asked.

“Well, they appear to be copies of travel expense report forms that Martin files with his company. But I have no way of knowing if they’re real. They could be forgeries!”

“Setting aside, for a moment, the question of their authenticity. How do you know they’re expense reports from your husband’s firm?”

“Objection, Your Honor!” West said. “Mrs. Silkwood is not qualified to authenticate documents from her husband’s firm.

“Sustained.”

“That’s quite all right,” Swindell said. He walked over to his table and withdrew a document from a folder in his brief case. “Judge, I have here a notarized, sworn affidavit signed by one Mr. David Feldman, who is senior managin’ partner at Findley, Feldman and Santori CPAs, Mr. Silkwood’s employer. Mr. Feldman, in his capacity as the firm’s custodian of documents, has verified the authenticity of these four expense reports.”

Swindell then gave a copy of the affidavit to West and to the judge.

“I would now like to have the affidavit marked as Defense Exhibit “I” and then have it and the four expense reports introduced into evidence,” Swindell said.

“Any objection, counselor?” Farnsworth asked West.

“No, judge.”

“OK, then,” Farnsworth said. “Defense exhibits “E” through “I” are accepted into evidence.”

Swindell was then permitted to approach the witness once more. “Mrs. Silkwood,” he said, “I have in my hand what has been marked as Defense Exhibit E, which you have identified as one of your husband’s travel expense reports. Would you please look at this and tell the court the period of time it covers?”

“Yes, it covers November four through seven.”