The Resurrection File (24 page)

“And you left that church under a cloud of suspicion, did you not?”

“I'm not sure what you mean,” MacCameron answered.

“Were you asked to resign as assistant pastor?”

“It was a mutual decision.”

“Did the board of elders and the head pastor tell you that they wanted you to leave, effective immediately?”

MacCameron took a few seconds to answer. Then he replied.

“Yes. They did tell me that. But may I explain?”

Sherman ignored his request to expand on his answer and launched into a volley of blows to MacCameron's credibility.

“Is it correct that the church wanted to kick you out because you had exhibited, and I quote, ‘a lack of Christlike love and a total absence of tolerance toward our Christian brothers and sisters in other religious denominations'?”

“Well,” MacCameron stammered slightly, “I really don't remember if that was the exact wording.”

Will jumped in.

“Mr. Sherman, your question implies that a statement or document of some kind exists from which you are quoting. If that's true, then in fairness I want you to show it to my client so he can look at it and possibly have his memory refreshed.”

Sherman smiled, and waved his hand to his law clerk. The clerk retrieved a document and set it on the table in front of his boss.

“Reverend MacCameron, do I need to show you these minutes from the board of elders meeting of that church to jog your memory about that unfortunate series of events?”

“I have a standing objection to any further questions about Reverend MacCameron's employment history that occurred prior to his becoming the editor-in-chief of
Digging for Truth,
” Will responded, “unless you can show me how it has any relevance to this case.”

“Oh, that will be my pleasure,” Sherman intoned. “We have alleged—and you have denied—that your client exhibited actual malice against Dr. Reichstad. I would contend, Mr. Chambers, that your client had not only actual malice under the law when he wrote his shameless and defaming article—he had, in fact, actual hatred of everything Dr. Reichstad stood for.
Reverend
MacCameron, in fact, held in contempt every religious, cultural, and intellectual group on the planet that did not agree with him.”

At that point Sherman swung in his chair back toward MacCameron and bulleted out a series of questions designed to bring the point home.

“Is it correct that the church wanted to fire you because of your public statements condemning the Catholic Church and the Pope in particular—your statements that they were the ‘most logical candidates to fulfill the role of “religious Babylon” in the end times predicted in the New Testament book of Revelation'? Is that correct?”

“Yes, I made those statements, and yes, the church did not agree with my preaching on that but—”

“And is it correct that you likewise condemned, in your preaching, many different denominations and religious groups?”

“Well, I did speak the truth about how certain denominations were not in line with biblical teachings…” MacCameron replied.

Sherman continued to batter the witness.

“You condemned certain sects of the Methodist church?”

“Yes, I suppose I did preach against some of their official positions on certain issues—”

“You condemned much of the Episcopal denomination?”

“I only attacked some of their official positions on matters which were clearly against Holy Scripture—”

“You criticized Presbyterians…”

“Yes, on occasion…”

“And certain of the so-called liberal branches of the Baptist denominations…”

“I imagine I did—”

“You criticized some of the so-called liberal factions of the Lutheran churches—is that correct?”

“In my preaching I tried to be biblical—but, yes, you are correct…”

“Can you think of a single Christian denomination, now as you sit there, that at one time or another you did
not
condemn in your preaching during your rather short-lived experience as an assistant pastor at that church in Pennsylvania?”

Will looked at his client. MacCameron looked pale and tired, and the deposition had several more hours left to go. Of course Will knew the tricks of the trade. He could have peppered the air with a number of objections. He could have demanded a time-out for his client, and then whisked him out into the hallway to regroup.

But Will had decided that it was sink or swim for MacCameron. If he could not hold up to a deposition with Sherman, surely he would not be able to handle himself in the emotional crucible of a full-blown jury trial.

“Do you want the question re-read?” Sherman asked.

“No, I don't need it re-read. The fact is that I cannot now remember which Christian groups I did, or did not, criticize.”

Sherman's next area of interrogation went right to the heart of the case. He tossed some copied papers in front of MacCameron and asked him to read out loud what Sherman had highlighted with a yellow marker. It was a portion of the article that MacCameron had written in the December issue. In it MacCameron had contended that Reichstad “must be connected to the suspicious death of Mr. Azid and the tragic murder of Dr. Hunter.” In the same article he also had written that Reichstad's conclusions about the 7QA fragment were the result of his “either deliberately lying, or he has committed scientific malpractice.”

As MacCameron read out loud his seemingly outrageous condemnation of Reichstad from his own magazine article, Sherman studied his opposing counsel. But Will was stone-faced and unperturbed.

When MacCameron was finished reading, Sherman launched the next assault.

Prior to writing the article, had MacCameron ever conducted an investigation into whether Reichstad's conclusions about 7QA were correct?

“I read every scholarly and professional article about 7QA I could get my hands on,” MacCameron replied. But when he was pressed on that point, he had to admit that not one of those articles suggested that Reichstad's conclusions were wrong—they only criticized the fact that he would not share the original 7QA fragment with other researchers so they could verify his findings. And he also admitted that not one scholar in the known world had ever written that Reichstad was deliberately
lying
about what the 7QA fragment was, and what it said.

Had MacCameron conducted any investigation, himself, into the suicide of Azid and the murder of Hunter,
prior
to writing that article? No, MacCameron agreed that he had not. Did he have anyone read the article before he published it, to ensure the factual accuracy of his statements? No, he had not. Was MacCameron in possession of any written document or any data from any law-enforcement agency that even slightly suggested that Reichstad might in some way be connected to the deaths of Azid and Hunter? MacCameron had to admit he had no such information.

As Sherman wound up that line of questioning, he had convincingly painted a picture of MaCameron as a fundamentalist preacher with a tattered employment history and a penchant for intolerance—certainly no professional match for the world-class Reichstad in either credentials or educational qualification. The portrait of MacCameron was of a man who published an outlandish libel against a beloved scholar, having made little or no prior verification of the accuracy of his conclusions.

Will's defense of “lack of actual malice” hung now by only one slender thread. The one area that Sherman had not yet entered was the only area left that could form a reasonable basis for MacCameron's published attacks on Reichstad: that MacCameron had had
personal knowledge
of the matters that he had written about. Sherman quickly breached that last stronghold.

“Did you have any personal knowledge or information that supported your attacks on Dr. Reichstad?”

“Yes,” MacCameron replied, with a smile.

Sherman then commenced to unravel, in an interrogation that went on for another hour-and-a-half, every detail of Dr. Hunter's single conversation with MacCameron at the Between the Arches Café in the old section of Jerusalem. And he probed the message left by Hunter on MacCameron's answering machine.

Will studied Sherman for some glimmer of response to this thunderbolt of information: a twitch or a blink, or something in his posture that let on
that Sherman was having some reaction to MacCameron's testimony—to his describing Hunter's fear of being pursued and Hunter's belief that Azid's death was not a suicide—or to Hunter's mysterious fragment that seemed to so closely resemble the 7QA fragment.

But Sherman revealed no emotion at the tale that MacCameron was telling. He calmly pursued his questions until the last bit of information was extracted.

Then Sherman turned to Will and said, “We are hereby demanding that you produce to our office, forthwith, that tape recording from your client's answering machine—the one with Dr. Hunter's message on it.”

Will agreed, having no objection to lodge, but said that it would be a matter of a few days before the original tape could be produced. Will did not—nor was he required to—disclose that his own audio expert was analyzing the tape recording at that very moment in hopes of proving that Hunter's fragment was actually a comment about several “fragments.”

Near the end of the deposition, Sherman leaned back and asked MacCameron the million-dollar question.

“Tell me, sir—was there anything in what Hunter told you in person—or on that taped message—that
directly proved
the truth of anything that you would later write against Dr. Reichstad in your little magazine?”

MacCameron, who was now slouched over and looking tired, glanced over at his lawyer. Will noticed that his client had a burdened expression, and there was perspiration collecting on his forehead and on his upper lip.

There were a few seconds of silence. The court reporter took her fingers off the keys of her steno machine and stretched them, but her eyes were glued on MacCameron, waiting for him to respond. MacCameron gave a little sigh, and then answered.

“No, sir. Nothing that Richard Hunter said
directly
proved the things I later decided to write against Dr. Reichstad.”

Sherman leaned back in his chair. Will could smell death in the air. There was a carcass on the floor of the conference room of Kennelworth, Sherman, Abrams & Cantwell. What Will Chambers knew through his years of trying cases, but MacCameron naively did not know, was that the carcass on the floor was what was left of Angus MacCameron's legal defense.

But even Will Chambers did not expect what would come next. Sherman was about to personally bring in the vultures to pick at the carrion.

“You testified under oath today, Reverend MacCameron—right here in this very room—that you did not leave the University of Edinburgh because of any misconduct. Do you stand by that?”

“Yes. It is the truth.”

“Oh, is it? Is it the truth? Mr. MacCameron, I would suggest that in fact you have committed perjury in this very deposition.”

“No, sir, I have not,” MacCameron retorted loudly. “My answer was truthful to the question, the way you put it.”

“Is it a fact, sir,” Sherman said, raising his voice, “that just before you left Edinburgh University, formal disciplinary charges against you were about to be prepared by the University—charging you with plagiarism in one of your research papers?”

Will couldn't believe it. In all that MacCameron had disclosed to him, this allegation had never surfaced. Sherman's question about why MacCameron had left the University of Edinburgh was one of the first questions Will had asked his client.

“Is that a fact?” Sherman pressed with a booming voice.

“Not like that,” MacCameron answered, his face flushed.

“Is it a fact that you were told the University was going to prepare such formal charges?”

“That is not why I left,” MacCameron tried to explain.

“Is that a fact—yes or no—you must answer, sir. Yes or no. Were such charges going to be brought against you?”

MacCameron took a deep breath. Then he replied very simply.

“Yes, they were.”

Sherman stood up commandingly. He pointed his finger at Will Chambers.

“On the record, Mr. Will Chambers, as legal counsel for Reverend Angus MacCameron, defendant in this lawsuit, I am now giving you notice. Take heed, sir, that no later than tomorrow by the close of business, my office will deliver to your office a petition for attorney's fees to be assessed against you under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You will have fourteen days to formally withdraw your frivolous defense of ‘lack of actual malice' in this case. If you do not, we will proceed to move the trial court to dismiss that defense for total lack of evidence of your part. It should be painfully clear to all of us that your client made no effort to verify the slanderous lies he printed against Dr. Reichstad. He therefore exhibited reckless disregard for the factual accuracy of the allegations printed in his article, and is guilty of actual malice.