The Namedropper (41 page)

Jordan expected the same monosyllabic repetition from Dr Jane Lewell when she was called to the stand, his mind more upon what he was going to do outside the court in the coming month, until Pullinger yet again broke into Beckwith's examination to put the closed court dispute before the jury and into the public record of the case.

‘Your first submission before me had to be substantially corrected, did it not?' Pullinger asked the identical question he'd put to Chapman.

‘Yes,' replied the woman. ‘Because I had been pressured to omit the presence of antichlamydia IgG in the blood of Ms Leanne Jefferies, which professionally I should not have done and now deeply regret and for which I now publicly apologize.'

The court resumed after thirty minutes, although without the jury. At Pullinger's insistence Peter Wolfson remained standing beside Dr Lewell, although in the well of the court, not directly in front of the bench for the exchange to go unheard.

To the lawyer, the judge said, ‘Have you fully advised your client of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination?'

‘I have,' assured Wolfson, dry-voiced.

‘Have you understood everything you have been told by Mr Wolfson about self-incrimination?' the judged asked the woman.

‘Yes,' replied Dr Lewell.

‘Have you fully advised your client of the penalties available to me if perjury is committed?' Pullinger asked the lawyer.

‘I have, you honour,' replied Wolfson. ‘Although I would remind your honour that the evidence my client gave under oath during the closed hearing was entirely truthful concerning the chlamydia infection contracted by Ms Leanne Jefferies.'

Pullinger looked unwaveringly at the lawyer for several moments before turning to the venerealogist. ‘Did you fully understand what you were told by Mr Wolfson about lying under oath in a court?'

‘I fully understood,' said the woman.

‘Then you will return to the witness box and although you are already sworn you will be sworn for a second time to remind you that everything you tell me must be the absolute and complete truth.'

As the jury filed back in Jordan leaned sideways towards his lawyer, but Beckwith raised a forbidding hand, as well as shaking his head. As he withdrew Jordan saw Bartle similarly refuse Appleton's approach. The commodity trader wrote hurriedly on his own legal pad, pushing it towards his lawyer, who gave no reaction to what was written on it.

‘Dr Lewell,' began the judge. ‘I want you to explain the remark you made before I adjourned the court.'

‘I apologized for not including in the original venereal report upon Leanne Jefferies the presence of antichlamydia IgG in her blood.'

‘What would the presence of antichlamydia IgG have established?'

‘That she had been treated for a chlamydia infection.'

‘That she had, in fact, suffered such a disease?'

‘Yes.'

‘Did you treat her for a chlamydia infection?'

‘No, I did not.'

‘Do you know who did?'

‘I believe it was her gynaecologist.'

‘Were you aware of the reason for examining Leanne Jefferies?'

‘Yes, I was.'

‘In the report upon Leanne Jefferies that you originally submitted, but which you did not swear to in court, you omitted to record that in Leanne Jefferies blood you found antichlamydia IgG?'

The woman frowned, uncertainly. ‘That's what I have already told you.'

‘If you had submitted and sworn that original report, what would it have conveyed to the court?'

‘That she was not suffering chlamydia, which medically she no longer was. She had been cured.'

‘If that original report had been accepted, could it not have conveyed or been inferred by a jury that Leanne Jefferies had
never
suffered from chlamydia?'

Dr Lewell hesitated. ‘Yes.'

‘So the intention was to deceive the court that neither Leanne Jefferies nor her admitted lover, Alfred Appleton, had ever suffered such a disease and that therefore Alfred Appleton's wife must have contracted it from a lover?'

‘At the time I prepared the report I did not know it was for presentation in a court. I only learned that when I received a witness summons.'

‘Why didn't you prepare a fuller, more accurate report when you did receive the witness summons?'

The woman looked to her right, where Appleton was at last in whispered conversation with his lawyer and Wolfson was learning back towards the separating rail to talk to Chapman. ‘I suggested it. But was told it wasn't necessary; that all that was necessary was to establish that Leanne Jefferies no longer had it.'

‘Told by whom?'

There was another hesitation, as she again looked to the plaintiff's side of the court. ‘Dr Chapman.'

‘That's not true!' shouted the other venerealogist, standing at the rail.

‘Sit down!' ordered Pullinger. ‘You'll get your chance when I recall you.'

To the woman he said, ‘At the closed hearing your lawyer, Mr Wolfson, admitted giving you the remit to restrict your report. Now you are telling me it was Dr Chapman.'

‘It was Dr Chapman first. Then it was reinforced by Mr Wolfson.'

‘Didn't that strike you as odd?'

‘It was the first time I had been asked to prepare this sort of report for a court. I did not know the procedure. I sought guidance from Dr Chapman, whom I knew had experience. He told me what to do.'

‘Is what you're telling me true?'

‘You ordered that I retake the oath,' said Dr Lewell.

‘Which isn't the direct answer to my question.'

‘It is the truth,' she insisted. ‘I also want to make it clear that if I had been called to testify upon the original report I would have corrected it verbally.'

‘You were called before me at the closed hearing. Why didn't you tell me then what you have told me today?'

‘I was bewildered by what happened at the closed hearing … the challenge about the report … your telling me you were going to report me to my licensing authority. The reports had been corrected and the fact established that Leanne Jefferies had been infected. I just wanted to get away.'

‘But today you weren't in so much hurry to get away?'

‘I wanted to apologize. And I have.'

Pullinger did not adjourn for the second time but from the bench lectured Mark Chapman himself on the American constitutional protection against self-incrimination and of the criminal offence of perjury, before having the venerealogist sworn. Again it was the judge who conducted the examination, putting to the man practically the same questions that he had posed to Dr Lewell. Chapman's replies were remarkably similar. The man insisted that he, too, had not believed he would be called as a witness but that the purpose of his examination of Appleton – and the way in which he had prepared the discredited report – was solely to attest that at the time of the examination Appleton did not have chlamydia, not that he had never been a sufferer.

‘Would you have corrected it in court?' demanded Pullinger.

‘It had already been challenged and corrected.'

‘Answer the question you have been asked,' demanded the judge.

‘Of course I would have corrected it.'

‘What advice did you give Dr Lewell when she asked about preparing a venerealogy report to be submitted to a divorce court?'

‘That she had to be very specific in her answers to the questions set out by the lawyer representing Leanne Jefferies.'

‘Did you tell her to omit any reference to there being any antichlamydia IgG in Leanne Jefferies blood, indicating that although no longer a sufferer she had, in fact, once had the infection?'

‘No,' denied the man.

‘What did you tell her when she asked you?'

‘That she should stick very specifically to the remit from Leanne Jefferies' lawyer.'

‘And I want you to be very specific in your answer to this question,' insisted the judge. ‘Did you ever tell Dr Jane Lewell to omit her finding of the antibodies in Leanne Jefferies blood?'

‘No, I did not,' replied Chapman.

‘How do you account for Dr Lewell telling me that you did?'

‘The only explanation that I can offer is that she misunderstood the advice I gave her and inferred I had told her to omit it when in fact I had not.'

‘Will you stand, Dr Lewell?' said Pullinger. ‘Did you misunderstand what Dr Chapman told you? Or did he specifically tell you not to include your finding.'

The woman remained silent for several moments before saying, still haltingly, ‘I could have misunderstood.'

Beside him Jordan could see that Beckwith had paraded another battalion of exclamation marks on his legal pad. Jordan looked startled at the man when Beckwith declined Pullinger's invitation to take up the examination. Reid did, though, coming up hurriedly at the judge's first gesture.

‘Would you describe yourself as one of Alfred Appelton's oldest friends?' asked Reid. There was no indication of any tightness in his breathing.

‘I believe myself to be one of them, ‘responded the medical specialist, cautiously.

‘From college days?'

‘Yes.'

‘My recollection from the closed hearing which preceded this case was that your friendship began at Harvard, through a mutual interest in sailing?'

‘Yes.'

Jordan was aware of Beckwith poised to add more exclamation marks. Alyce was tensed forward, her entire concentration upon the man in the stand, unlike Leanne Jefferies who was actually looking away from the man, as if her mind was upon something else.

‘Would you describe Alfred Appleton as a man of integrity?'

After the briefest of pauses, Chapman said, ‘Yes.'

‘An honest man?'

‘Your honour!' interrupted Bartle. ‘Is there anything of relevance in this exchange?'

‘I am as curious as you to find out,' said Pullinger. ‘Mr Reid?'

‘I sincerely hope so,' replied the lawyer. ‘Far more relevant than an uncorrected, inadequate medical report;

Beckwith stood five exclamation marks to attention.

‘I look forward to reaching it in the shortest possible time,' said the judge, although not aggressively.

‘I asked you if Alfred Appleton, one of your oldest and best friends, was an honest man.'

‘I believe him to be.'

‘As you are an honest man of integrity, giving evidence under oath, having been warned of the dangers of perjury?'

Chapman's pause was longer this time before he finally said, ‘As I believe myself to be.'

‘Were you an honest man of integrity, bound by a medical oath as you are by a legal oath in court today, when you carried out your medical examination of Alfred Appleton for presentation before this court?'

‘Yes,' insisted Chapman, unable to prevent the hint of uncertainty in his voice.

‘Had you ever medically examined Alfred Appleton before the report intended for presentation before this court?'

Chapman looked towards Bartle, who remained expressionless and unmoving.

‘Dr Chapman?' prompted Reid.

‘Not to my recollection.'

‘Before you specialized in microbiology, and more specifically in the study and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, did you practice as a general medical physician?'

Chapman's uncertainty was even more obvious when he said, ‘I served a period of hospital internship. I never practised generally.'

‘That period of internship was at the Massachusetts General Hospital, situated on Fruit Street, Boston, was it not?'

‘Yes.'

‘During that period of internship you were a fully qualified hospital physician, able to reach diagnoses and, if necessary, to authorize admissions and prescribe treatment?'

Chapman did not reply. Jordan saw that Appleton was sitting statued at his table, both hands extended upon it as if to prevent himself falling forward.

‘Dr Chapman?' again prompted Reid.

There was still no reply.

Pullinger said, ‘Dr Chapman, you will answer the question.'

Finally Chapman said, ‘Yes, I was.'

‘In November, 1991, were you attached to the accident and emergency department of the Massachusetts General Hospital on Fruit Street, Boston?'

‘I was working at the hospital in 1991.'

‘In November of that year, in the accident and emergency department?'

‘I worked in a variety of departments.'

‘Including accident and emergency?'

‘Yes.'

‘Do you recall an admission that you authorized into the emergency department of Massachusettes General Hospital on November third, 1991? And the diagnosis you reached upon that emergency admission?'

‘Your honour!' protested Bartle. ‘I again ask the relevance to this case of something that occurred so long ago. How can Dr Chapman be asked to remember such a specific event?'

‘The point you are seeking to establish, Mr Reid?' enquired the judge.

‘Points,' enlarged Reid. ‘Those of honesty, credibility and possible collusion to pervert the course of justice.'

‘You will answer the question, Dr Chapman,' insisted Pullinger.

‘No, I do not remember,' said the man.

Reid let the pause build, finally inhaling deeply for the breath he needed. ‘You do not remember admitting Alfred Jerome Appleton – your old college friend with whom you so often sailed and whose integrity you so much admire – to Massachusetts General Hospital on November third, 1991, after a traffic accident in which a car plunged into a lake, a car from which Anthea Elizabeth Bell, a girl of twenty-three, could not free herself from her seat belt and therefore drowned, resulting in the death not only of herself but of an unborn child!'

‘No, I do not remember,' repeated Chapman, the reply only just audible in the sudden noise.

Twenty-Nine